 |
| TÜYAP ART FAIR, KOMET |
 |
| TÜYAP ART FAIR GOGO SMILI- ZOE MANTA Collective Installation  |
VOLATILE SPOT*, ISTANBUL
Jubilation Decade
The joy of
Istanbul being “hot spot” of contemporary art in between two continents (Europe
and Asia) during the first decade of 2000’s occurred because of the apparently
expected positive developments regarding the political and economic image of Turkey. A 2014 paper
clarifies this impression: Turkey went through a period of high growth when all the money was
flowing and we were told that those structural reforms were done. But, now, we see that those reforms
were not fully done, otherwise we would not be seeing these current
vulnerabilities. So, Turkey currently does not have a sustainable growth model.(1)
Likewise, by sending relational-aesthetics
loaded exhibition packages to satisfy the audiences particularly in EU cities
and by realizing Istanbul Capital of Culture in 2010, politicians, local
governments and the private sector have jubilantly advertised a success that
actually needed credible local justification. Actually, already during the
fabulous decade (2004-2014) it was apparent that the contemporary art
productions of Turkey could not reach either the people in 80 cities of Turkey
or to the audiences in five continents. The art audiences in Istanbul, in EU
countries with immigrant populations from Turkey and the visiting artists and
art experts had the privilege to see and appreciate the dissident contemporary
art production.
During this decade the existing
infrastructure, with its Modernist roots and underdeveloped Post-modernist
local structures evolved primarily into a Neo-capitalist culture industry programme
serving mainly the needs of private sector, of creative industry investments, evidently
of artists, culture producers and entrepreneurs. However, the resonance that
should be expected of a dissident contemporary art production could not develop
consistently, as it could not infiltrate into the awareness and deep
subconscious of the majority. The number of contemporary artists and curators
who have gained international recognition was encouraging, but without a sound
and sustainable local appreciation and support it was a misleading conviction.
Considering the geo-political turmoil in
the region and the Islamist and neo-liberalist positioning of the official
cultural policy of AKP government, we should re-question the current success of
this process and for the sake of the existing art scene find out the truth
concealed behind these manifestations of jubilation.
Through the cold winds between EU and
Turkey and during my recent participation in Soul for Europe November 2016
Forum in Berlin I had the opportunity to justify the ongoing power of
contemporary art production within the current non-democratic process as
follows:
Contemporary
artist, art experts producing artworks and art and culture actions and
activities in Turkey and the private institutions or individual initiatives are
determinedly effective in fulfilling the cultural aims and intentions such as a clear and unbiased vision towards democratic transformation, freedom
of expression and communication, respect to pluralism, human and gender rights,
responsibility on ecological problems, development of public awareness. All
these principles are currently struggling towards democratic processes and
resisting the upcoming totalitarian regime. Visual artists with their
aesthetically qualified, conceptually competent artworks are widely and
strongly enriching the visual production and women artists are on the front of
this production. But, how the artist profit from their
production or rather how they survive, is a crucial and leading question. Most
of the artists work in the universities, in graphic design companies or open
art studios for the public; with any luck a small number of artists have family
support or private income. Private galleries occasionally employ curators; the
museum or private sector art and culture quantity is not enough to meet the
employment demands, besides they prefer to run their institution with low-wage. The EU Strategy Paper had
arranged the priorities for EU financial assistance for the period 2014-20 to
support Turkey on its path to integration.
This was supposed to be
sustainable and help Turkey’s creative people and groups to meet the accession
criteria within the EU culture policy. Evidently the art and culture production
and its global dissemination could only achieve the necessary progress under
the aegis of this integration process. Under the shadow of the abrupt exit from
the EU Creative Program due to the political dispute this might not be so easy
(2). In particular, in the fields of
creative industries, contemporary arts production, the project supports
allocated by EU funds without doubt supported employment, social policies,
education, promotion of gender equality, and human resources development and
regional and territorial cooperation.
We are aware that under the
current political and economic conditions in Turkey and in the region, it might
be difficult to continue and strengthen the socio-cultural and artistic
endeavors and productions; however the existing infrastructure which could
develop communication, collaboration and partnerships through the provision of
millions of Euro investments since 1990 and through the İstanbul 2010 Culture
Capital project is more than prepared and determined to continue its quest for
creative production, even if the political
environment may not be so supportive.
Recent
Context
In three out of 39 local municipalities of
Istanbul, namely Beyoğlu, Şişli and Beşiktaş, and in the skyscraper district
north of Istanbul there are the substantial private investments. Kadıköy, which
currently seems to be a stronghold for freedom of creativity and laicism gives
no hope for and suitable development for contemporary art infrastructure. The competitive
art fairs and auctions with their relatively local collector profile and market,
continuously displaced art galleries from one district to the other, two
private collection museums (Sabancı and Pera) in stabile activity, one private
museum (İstanbul Modern) waiting to move to its temporary space in Karaköy and
one highly anticipated private museum (Ömer Koç Museum) under construction in
Dolapdere are the highlights of the scene. In juxtaposition to these private
sector investments there are a few independent and interdisciplinary spaces founded
by artists, curators or art experts, mainly financed by themselves or with
occasional sponsors. Istanbul Biennale and the three Anatolia Biennale
(Çanakkale, Sinop, Mardin) provide the international recognition and networking
for artists and art experts. 2016 Sinopale and Çanakkale Biennale were
postponed after critical political interventions.
All the municipalities have official
culture policies according to their political parties. CHP municipalities carry
on their Semi-modernist -Post-modernist populist programs while AKP
municipalities follow AKP government culture policy towards an Islamic,
conservative art and culture production, shaping art forms in tune with its propagated
traditional arts revival programme.
The government also talks about another
matter. Galleries of Fine Arts, in 48 cities in Anatolia – a Soviet Model of
art and culture distribution - under the direction of the Ministry of Culture
and Tourism are devoid of any function to serve the requirements of
contemporary art whatsoever. There is, once again, no intention to inject
meaning into them. The government prefers to hand over that modernist cultural
leftover to individuals or private organizations intending the exploitation of
them in a way that we can call cultural McDonaldization or cultural
Islamization. This development package contains no investment for the benefit
of creative people that produce today’s art and culture despite the fact that
there are art and design faculties in the universities of many of these cities
and there is a related demand for art centres.
The pivotal privatisation of the cultural
infrastructure and the ambitious sponsorship code as well as the official
cultural policy creates an oppressive and impoverishing environment both for
the established and, in particular, the up and coming generation of artists.
The establishment of a public, modern, contemporary museum or center with
intentions to serve the artist concerning his/her needs for project funding and
exhibitions and to serve the public with motivating programming seems to be a
remote possibility.
Predicaments
of Art Production
If we take a look at the culture and art
packaging for the purposes of corporate art and the cultural publicity
presentations through contemporary art, it is easy to see a blend of high and
low culture - in other words, the residual and stereotyped “high culture”
formations and media and consumption-oriented “mass culture” moments.
Artists who seriously and consciously
dedicated to criticizing and dissident contents and forms aside, since 2000
contemporary art production is passing through a Neo-capitalist blender, and
turning out easy-to-digest fodder for the society of spectacle and its cool
artwork consumers. Art fairs and local auctions of variable attractiveness are
the main manipulators of this ongoing spectacle. Three relatively significant
art fairs in İstanbul (Contemporary İstanbul, ArtIstanbul, TÜYAP) were founded with
the prospect of attracting prestigious local and international galleries and enthusiastic
and well-informed collectors. After the unexpected 15July putsch ArtIstanbul
has cancelled its 2016 fair; the other two were realized, but are reluctant to
declare their revenues. As a token, in TÜYAP a large group of young curators
and artists initiatives have gained space for a non-profit, alternative show,
which surprised and agitated the middle-class art-alien fair visitor with
provocative works.
What I would like to stress is that,
in this privatized package for the society of spectacle, there is limited
critical approach to or manifesto for Turkey’s ongoing cultural dilemmas and
problems related mostly to nation state ideology, racism, religion, gender and
ethnic discrimination. These problems are evidently related to the position of
Turkey within the global state of affairs currently deprived of freedom and democratic
charms and spells… In her interview for Cairo review just after 15th
July coupe (3) Judith Butler comprehensively evaluates the ongoing
socio-cultural crisis in Turkey and makes a wide-ranging interpretation: I think that
the future of critical thought is really at risk. And critical thought not just
as something people do in universities, but critical thought as the term that
links, say, academic freedom and democratic freedom—a kind of crossing of the
right to dissent and the right to criticize.
Does a culture/art package lacking
political, social and cultural criticism differ significantly from a nice box
of Turkish delight? After all the Post-orientalist discourse, this is not
plausible. The target audience in the EU during the two decades of 1990-2010 could
not be attracted to a short-range, surface and submissive representation. One of
the first and significant attempts to have a sustainable introduction of
contemporary art from Turkey was Tanas, Berlin (2008-2013), but even that
fairly met optimistic expectations. Shouldn’t Turkey’s contemporary art
entrepreneurs – if they had been resolute enough to untie the purse strings in
this respect -, have invested in scholarships, residencies and sustainable
institutions for creative individuals? There is now only one effective example
of this kind, founded by a younger generation of private sector entrepreneurs,
namely SAHA (4)
We are aware of the fact that Turkish
society has uncontrollably taken giant steps towards becoming a society of the
spectacle, as Guy Debord once said: The
whole of life is an accumulation of shows and the materialistic approach has
succeeded fully to invade social life. (5) This accumulation is
additionally and dangerously invaded by religious dogma. According to Debord,
the more the audience watches, the less they live; the more they concede to
find themselves within the ruling images of consumption, the less they
understand their own existence and desires. Turkey’s political, economic,
social agenda has become such a hysterical show that the mass does not live at
all but even devours up its desire. It is precisely this society of spectacle
and religious manipulation is alarmed to see socio-political realities and disturbing
allusions to memory in the dissident representations of contemporary art works.
In other words, the underprivileged classes
of the population, obviously the true target public of the dissident and
activist artists are not only deprived of the education and information
provided by contemporary art but also restricted to appreciate it by the
political and religious dogma. Whereas the handful of indecisive and insensible
art investors, willing the realization of their own dreams - from content to form
through to management and programme - rather than leaving things in the hands
of the professionals, are thus going through cycles of self-satisfaction – to
which is certainly attributable to their long-term failure to erect autonomous
institutions, be they modern, post-modern or contemporary art museums or
centers.
The younger generation of artists finds
inspiration and themes to scrutinize in daily life, in the continuous
transformations, in the ever-present aggressions of this complex city and believe
that they are contributing to the awareness of the people or to the democratic
processes. The aesthetics of such art works conceal a certain resistance to the
existing micro and macro political and economic orders. However, the guidance
of the artist by galleries and collectors is a fact against which potential
artistic resistance would have a considerable importance. The fact that
artists, art associations, art experts may be forced to remain submissive, and
against such demanding developments, is a conflict that needs to be resolved
through new modes of co-operation and methods of collaboration.
Since the 80s, art critics and curators
have underlined the fact that the capitalist system that nourishes art simply
demands subtle images. The freedom of the artist is markedly restricted and is
in fact a deceptive one. The artists are engaged so as to convince the public
that they are “free” and “independent”. When people are even incapable of
dreaming about possible improvements in the systems leading them to
destruction, let alone desiring those improvements; when the boundaries between
what is art and what is not are blurred, these important terms should be taken
seriously. Since societies – in Turkey and many countries in the region – may
be unaware of these boundaries, they are also incapable of analyzing the
complex socio-economic relations limiting the freedom of the artist. When we
consider art making and manifestations of the culture industry within the
context of European integration processes at the local and regional level, we
can still see that there are borderline conflicts in history, tradition, as
well as memory blocks along ethno-cultural frontiers and in discrepancies in
the systems of art and culture.
There is an intense clash between the decorated
presentation of art-like productions and simulations exhibited in art fairs and
currently marketed online. The Neo-capitalist system and the culture of
consumption generate different methods for mistreating the notion of art and
the artist, according to its interests, and, in particular, when society should
be distracted. One of the banal purposes is to gain income, profit, reputation,
promotion via the work of art; and it means presenting the work of art as a
smart and eye-catching product for the high-income segment that are distant
from it through ignorance and conservatism even if they are aware of its good
lucrative benefits. It is presented in a way to convince them that the artwork
is a possession among other products for consumption. There is no doubt that
for this purpose the artwork should stay at a minimum level of intellectual
reflection, and in such a way as not to disturb that affluent minority, keeping
them away from serious matters. This is a well-done and creditable job for the
cultural entrepreneurs that are incapable of building the above-mentioned
institutions.
If Volatile?
Contemporary art scenes are mostly identified with their cities rather than their countries. Even if the global economy and politics are omnipresent, cities with their heterogeneous populations create so-called hot spots for contemporary art. Istanbul was, no doubt, one of the most significant cities within this context, but after traumatic events and economic recession gradually loosing its glory. The establishment of a modern or contemporary art museum or centre – more in line with a Kunsthalle model - has seemed, for a long time, the key to all the problems in İstanbul’s (as well as Turkey’s) art and culture dreams. This deficit is clearly reflected in the de-territorialized position of the İstanbul Biennial, with each version seeking venues to reach wider audiences. For many years it has been discussed how an institutional infrastructure should be established, yet irrespective of how it is formed. After part of this dream was fulfilled by private sector collection museums with their diverse contents, concepts and intentions, it is yet to be answered how right it is to establish such institutions in Turkey replicating European or American models, though in a hybrid style. We should be aware that these institutions, dependent on public money or mixed-budgets, would always have difficult management and financing problems. If, for the purposes of establishing a modern/post-modern/contemporary museum or centre in Turkey, we neglect to assess local facts, figures and requirements – that is to say, if we do not conduct creative research and establish a new model of how to built a visual memory system for a country lacking a modern and post-modern museum or a contemporary art centre - we should be aware that we would just be trying to import a factory which is out of fashion...
After the hot years, in tune with global
economics and the local economic cul-de-sac, with the hegemony of art
fair-auction market manipulations and the gap between the mass of the public
and dissident art production, now, and evidently after the Gezi uprising and
the Syria-Iraq-ISIS war and the uncontrollable refugee crisis in the region,
the current state of art was at first “frosty”,
but now “volatile”. Time has come to
face the missteps and find realistic solutions.
The art scene is in between two sayings “as you sow, so you shall reap” and “better
lose the saddle than the horse”!
Above all, in the local and regional
cultural industry system and political developments the opinions and ideas of
bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen should not have the power to determine
the concepts, contents and programs of contemporary art institutions or
organizations, their essentials and function. How to confront this mutilation? The
alleged theoretical and intellectual consequences, deficits and benefits of this
volatile moment should be discussed among artists and art experts in
communication with international partners and supporters. This dialogue is even
more important if it is based in the program and activities of the existing
independent NGO’s and not to be handed over to a branded consortium of public
and private funding which would not be very reliable in accepting the absolute
freedom and independence of the artist and art experts. The problem here is the fact that even if the
artists are able to unite for artistic projects, they are hesitant to create a
determined collective concept that would interfere in the decisions of private
investments. They should get rid of this fear and unite! They should be aware
of the fact that - if they want to empower their investment - the private
sector should adopt the up-dated the global contemporary art system,
restructured from the 80s on requesting dedication to ideas, concepts and
creative visions of artists and art experts rather than events and shows for
the desires of the society of spectacle, over and above with a “mutilated gaze” (6).
Beral Madra / January 2017
After 2014 article:
* “volatile” = liable to change rapidly and
unpredictably, especially for the worse
1.http://www.rethinkinstitute.org/turkeys-economic-transformation-in-the-2000s-and-going-forward/
2.Cairo
Review Managing Editor Scott MacLeod inter‐ viewed
Butler in her office at Berkeley on July 21, 2016.
6. Daryush Shayegan, Le Regard Mutile,
1996, p. 143.
No comments:
Post a Comment