To what extent can “multiculturalism” be an everyday practice for folks? Before one could answer that question, one should define culture. In trying to define culture one is faced with a vast array of thoughts and ideas. Although definitions across multiple disciplines could cause confusion, perhaps definitions offered by some anthropologists would suffice. Edgar Schein describes culture as “a pattern of shared assumptions.” Geert Hofstede defines it as “the collective mental programming of the people in an environment.”In contestation to concrete definitions, the anthropologist James Clifford offers a new and complex explanation of culture. He writes, “If culture is not an object to be described, neither is it a unified corpus of symbols and meanings that can be definitely interpreted. Culture is contested, temporal and emergent.” In calling for a planetary thinking and multicultural existence, Edgar Morin problematizes the discourse of “culture definition.” Accordingly, he wants the world to transform into a multicultural entity. In that sense culture can be a concept that transcends singularity and becomes plural. In other words, culture can transform from specific ways of life to global life. Audiovisual arts with their universality can be the vehicle to usher in such a transformation of culture from a “way of life” to “life in global terms.” If culture is “life” and “universal”—in other words, if culture can become pluralistic (i.e., multiculturalism)—then projection-identification happens to all participants of the artistic experience. Upon acceptance of this concept, one might ask, what kind of audiovisual art can take advantage of projection-identification complex and transform its audiences?