barebackmuseum-blog - Tumblr blog

barebackmuseum-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Queer methodologies is a subversive practice for disrupting and changing the encounter of art within a museums. It could be considered as both a grass roots and academic method of change.

Museum / Pedestal & Frame

ISTANBUL’S ART MUSEUMS AND “ART AND CULTURE INSTITUTIONS”

Çiğdem Armağan

13.06.2012

This is an attempt to provide a brief introductory note on the museums and “art and culture institutions” in Istanbul in the light of some of the critical approaches directed towards the museum institution and its relation with economic capital.[1]

THE MUSEUM: “PEDESTAL & FRAME”

In it’s origins the word museum referred “…to the place consecrated to the Muses (locus muses sacer), a mythological setting inhabited by the nine goddesses of poetry, music, and the liberal arts.” [2] Hence traditionally, the museum is the special space where one is inspired and informed in a special way through the muses of the liberal arts.[3] Since the enlightenment, when art became an autonomous sphere in itself (detached from religion) of this-worldy contemplation and revelation,[4] the art museum specifically became the privileged place of the exceptional and singular experience of art. [5] The art museum is not only a privileged site because of this experience,[6] but also it is the institution with the authority to decide what is art and what is not and which artist’s work is ‘worthy of contemplation’ and which is not. Individual galleries, large international exhibition practices such as the biennials, art fairs, and art in the public space are also instrumental in the sphere of art and in writing art history. Nevertheless the museum with its claim to present the “cultural treasure” “objectively” to the masses, is still the major defining force within the sphere of art. It provides a “pedestal and frame” for the artistic sphere. However as Bal states the museum is not isolated from an idealogical construct. An exhibition is always a process of meaning making and a process of construction of a certain reality through a narrative, that is created by including some and excluding others and operates within a discursive frame that should be analyzed. [7]This frame is determined not only by the actors, such as the curator, the directors, founders and members of the board of the museum but also by the state and by the economic and political conditions.[8] Being aware of the underlying ideological constructs behind museum exhibitions many artists, such as Hans Haacke, Claes Oldenburg and Daniel Spoeri, challenged the museum institution and the neutrality claim of the “white cube” throughout history[9] and continue to do so.

A BRIEF HISTORY

Historically art in the “western” sense in Turkey dates back to the modernization projects of the Tanzimat Era of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. The painting exhibitions in the Ottoman Empire started in 1901 with Istanbul Saloon Exhibitions and continued with private efforts. After the founding of the Turkish Republic, nationwide art exhibitions and residency programs were initiated with state efforts.[10] In 1937 “The state museum of painting and sculpture” was established and it was turned over to the Fine Arts Academy (Mimar Sinan Fine Arts Academy now) in the year 1939. Today the state museum is closed since six years due to a “so called” renovation and unfortunately its future is outstanding. “The state museum of painting and sculpture” owns the largest collection of artworks in Turkey with 10.140 paintings and 651 sculptures and calligraphy works.[11] After the 1950’s the State became less and less active in the field of visual arts. Twenty years later, in 1970’s banks, private companies and individuals started collecting artworks.[12] In 1987 the Istanbul Biennale started under the name of 1. International Contemporary Art Exhibitions.[13] It is a cornerstone in the history of contemporary art in Turkey and Istanbul; as with the biennale Istanbul and the contemporary artists in Turkey started to attract attention internationally.

90’s and 00’s - THE BOOM

In the late 1990’s big holding corporations started to establish galleries and “culture and art institutions.” The liberal economic policies starting in 1980 and the law that enables the private ownership of museums were effective in this development[14]. The 2000’s on the other hand show a high increase in the establishment private museums and “art and culture institutions” concentrating on contemporary art.[15]

Among these institutions established in the 1990’s and 2000’s Istanbul Modern Elgiz Contemporary Art, Sakıp Sabancı Museum and Pera Museum define themselves as museums in the traditional sense. Others on the other hand define themselves as “art and culture institutions.” [16]

These institutions except for Pera Museum, Sakıp Sabancı museum and İs Sanat focus exclusively on contemporary art. The İş Bankası Collection exhibited at the Kibele Gallery of İş Sanat on the other hand includes paintings from Turkish artist from 1940 until now. Istanbul Modern is the only institution with a permanent collection that belongs to the museum itself among the private institutions focusing on contemporary art. However, the permanent collection Istanbul Modern exhibits also includes artworks from Dr. Nejat Eczacıbaşı Foundation, Oya-Bülent Eczacıbaşı Collection, Türkiye İş Bank Collection and Istanbul Painting and Sculpture Museum Collection. The Elgiz Contemporary Art Museum, Borusan Istiklal Music House, Borusan Contemporary, Art Center Istanbul and Istanbul Modern exhibit collections that belong to the individuals or corporations of their founders beside various exhibitions from contemporary artists living in Turkey and abroad. [17]

The founders of these institutions are mainly large holding companies in Turkey. [18] Large corporations’ interest in contemporary art is not limited to Turkey, it is a global phenomena. Wu explains this interest as:

“Avant-guard art is associated with novelty. This enables the businesses to represent themselves as liberal and progressivist powers that support art. The business world, by appropriating the concept of novelty to themselves, presents it’s intervention in art as an important and legitimate case. Art, due to its nature, is believed to be operating in a special realm, outside of the daily priorities of politics and economics and the venues of art serve to political and economic interests in disguise.” [19]

Grunenberg also criticizes the mode of disguise Wu mentions, where the appearance of neutrality is used as a veil[20]. As I already mentioned in the introduction, an art exhibition is not just a way of presentation; it always entails a choice of what is represented and what is excluded and it is always a mechanism of creating meaning and writing art history. Moreover, as Bal explains each exhibition functions within a discursive frame that is based on the particular ideological construct of the museum (art exhibiting institution). [21] The curator, since Harald Szeemann, is regarded as the most effective actor within the discursive frame of the museum exhibition. However as Grunenberg states when scrutinizing on MOMA, the ones who make the choices of what is to be represented and how are not only the curators but also the directors and the board members[22]. Grunenberg’s analysis is relevant for the museum institutions in Istanbul as well. The founders of the art institutions in Istanbul are also in the managerial and advisory boards of these institutions and influence the decisions regarding the collections and exhibitions. Some institutions also have government and city officials in their board.[23] Indeed Artun criticizes the relationship between art exhibiting institutions and capital. He explains that since 1990’s art in Turkey is operating under the hegemony of private capital. According to him, art collectors have become art investors and the exhibitions of the private art institutions and museums function as mediums of speculation of both monetary and symbolic value of art works in collections of the founders of these institutions. Artun states that within this frame, the artwork becomes commodified and the autonomy of the artist and of art itself is suspended. He scrutinizes that in this environment, the artist is forced to act like a business man and to become a “brand” that has to advertise him/herself. [24]

Artun’s critique on the loss of the autonomy of the artist is grounded in the very fundamental epistemology that constituted the “Idea of art” that operates in a special realm. Since the late 18th century, with the conceptualization of the aesthetics and the Kantian separation of the aesthetic judgment from other “faculties of the mind” and also with the following romantic tradition, the visual experience in an aesthetic sense itself became principal: This is how art became the autonomous medium of the exceptional human experience, beyond the mundane, the everyday life, that promises and constitutes transcendence through the contemplation of the artwork without a need to referral to a religious morality.[25] Thus, the artist became the mediator with the knowledge of this exceptional experience and and the mediator that transfers this exceptional experience.[26] This is where the autonomy of the artist resides. This specific model of art based on both enlightenment and also on romantico-theological tradition was the model that, when radicalized in its promises and premises paved the way to a critical, life-transformative and political moment of the Avant-Guard in the 20th century. I think that Artun contrasts this very idea of art and artist with today’s conditions when scrutinizing the relationship between art and capital. However, what Artun does not mention is that the autonomous moment he refers to never became hegemonic. The artist always had to produce within the conflictual sphere constituted by the galleries, the collectors, the museum and the critique. The artist always had to exert his/her autonomy within this conflictual-heteronomous field. Yet one must still acknowledge that today, in the era of neo-liberalism and late capitalism the relationship between art and capital is much more intensified than ever. Nevertheless, Artun’s critique of today’s condition of art is based on such a political-economic approach which could lead to the conclusion that the sphere of art is entirely confined to market, that the museums do not have any other function then being institutions that act merely as corporate entities, that all works of art are commodified, and that the reality that encloses the relationship of art with other spheres of life is based on pure spectacle.

Besides the commodification of the sphere of art, the political-economic critique also investigates the relationship of the museums, the capital owners and the neo-liberal politics of the state. As both Barker and Özkan explain, the competition between the cities are intensified with the effect of globalization and service-based production relations of late capitalism. The cities are tuned into marketed brands in order to attract tourism and local and global capital investments. Urban renewal and urban transformation projects are implemented to achieve this. [27] Barker states that “cultural projects” and art museums are the most prestigious projects that enable the cities to become centers of attraction.[28] Özkan on the other hand states that “[the neo-liberal politics] …that promote art do not value art as a sphere of knowledge but merely consider it with regard to its contributions to economy, to urban renewal projects and to its power of social attraction.”[29] Furthermore, such projects lead to the gentrification of the neighborhood where the museum is situated, resulting in the displacement of its inhabitants. Özkan explains that Istanbul has been undergoing such a process for the last ten years. She elaborates that the increase of the number of institutions referred to as “culture and art infrastructures,” shopping malls and large real estate projects are correlated to IMM’s attempts to turn Istanbul into a center of attraction for tourism and financial capital. [30] Beyoğlu and Tophane are among the neighborhoods where the art and culture institutions have flourished since the last ten years. Indeed most of the art and culture institutions are located in Beyoğlu and Istanbul Modern is located in Tophane where gentrification takes place with utmost speed. With the implementation of the Galataport Project in Tophane the processes I mentioned above will take a peak.

While the arguments based on the political-economic approach are very much important to reveal the workings of the neo-liberal politics and late capitalism; the all encompassing claim in its consequences may lead to a limited ground to investigate the role of other instances apart from capital, market, commodity and the state.The traditional function of the museum as a sphere of knowledge creation and education and dissemination of this knowledge to the masses is such an instant.[31] Institutions such as Salt and Depo are crucial in this regard. Salt[32] is an institution that focuses directly on the field of critical knowledge production. I think that Salt attempts to critically rethink and reorder what is visible, sayable and intelligible both through its research and education programs, talks, conferences and through its exhibitions[33]. Depo is similarly focused on critical knowledge production and dissemination not only in the sphere of art but also in the sphere of culture and politics. All of its exhibitions provide critique and rereading of history. Besides, the “open table” platforms it effectively organizes, enable artists and individuals to come together to critique and collaborate. Istanbul Modern also attempts to present exhibitions that challenge the art historical canon by integrating information on historical and political conditions into art exhibitions.[34] However all of these exhibitions must still be viewed with a critical eye. Such examples show that with each new exhibition (that takes the institutional critique seriously and questions the dominant discourses) art history and history in general is rewritten and art historical knowledge is expanded with a new ordering and with new ways of understanding the past, present and the future. Furthermore, the museum deals with, exhibits and expands a sphere, that traditionally remains outside of the direct and dominant forms of production and consumption of the “sensible field” as conceptualized by Ranciere: It attempts not only to expand the realm of critical knowledge production and its dissemination but also (maybe more importantly) it expands the realm of the autonomous aesthetic sphere itself, which reframes and transforms the dominant modes of the sensible realm, that is enclosed dominantly by the market, culture and entertainment.

Furthermore, even though the literature I referred to above is legitimate and valid, it nevertheless leaves out the artistic practice and the transformatory potential of the encounter with the artwork from the web discoursive constructions that constitute the sphere of art.

THE ARTISTIC ACTIVITY AND THE ARTWORK?!

I as mentioned above, most of the literature I have reached that deals with the art institutional critique seems either to reduce or fail to mention the role of the artist’s presence within the sphere of art.[35] Therefore I think that we need more studies on artistic processes themselves, on how individual artists effect the existing frame by being present, incorporated into the institutional critique of the museum. Furthermore a study on the institutional frame should be attentive to the transformatory and emancipatory potential of the encounter with an artwork that is exhibited, since the encounter is the moment when an artwork achieves its purpose by creating a specific experience and mode of sensibility and cognition that has a capacity to transform the social field.

Click here for appendix

[1] The art and culture institutions converge to the museums on several points. The most important of them are that they are always open to public, that they are institutions with public responsibly and claim not to be profit seeking.

[2] Paola Findlen, “The Museum. Its Classical Etymology and Renaissance Genealogy,” In Museum Studies. An Anthology of Contexts, ed. Bettina Messias Carbonell, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), 25.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Max Weber, “The Esthetic Sphere,” in From Max Weber. Essays in Sociology, ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wrigth Mills, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1946), 340-343.

[5] Carol Duncan, “The Art Museum as Ritual,” in Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums, by Carol Duncan, (Oxford: Routledge, 1995), 7-20.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Mieke Bal, “The Discourse of the Museum,” In Thinking About Exhibitions, eds. Bruce W. Ferguson, Greenberg R., Nairne S., (London: Routledge, 1996), 201-228.

[8] Christoph Grunenberg, “Modern Sanat Müzesi,” in Müze ve Eleştirel Düşünce Tarih Sahneleri, Sanat Müzeleri - II, ed. Ali Artun. (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2006), 87-114.

Emma Barker, “Müzenin Toplumdaki Yeri: Yeni Tate Galerileri,” in Müze ve Eleştirel Düşünce Tarih Sahneleri, Sanat Müzeleri - II, ed. Ali Artun. (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2006), 149-181.

[9] Christoph Grunenberg, “Modern Sanat Müzesi.”

[10]Jülide Karahan, “Türkiye’de Medya ve Sanat ilişkisi - Plastik Sanatlar Üzerine Bir İnceleme,” Unpublished Thesis, 2008.

[11] See appendix

[12] Jülide Karahan, “Türkiye’de Medya ve Sanat ilişkisi - Plastik Sanatlar Üzerine Bir İnceleme.”

[13] See appendix

[14]Jülide Karahan, “Türkiye’de Medya ve Sanat ilişkisi - Plastik Sanatlar Üzerine Bir İnceleme.”

[15] See appendix

[16] See appendix

[17] See appendix

[18] See appendix

[19] Chin-tao Wu, Kültürün Özelleştirilmesi - 1980'ler Sonrasında Şirketlerin Sanata Müdahalesi (İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, 2005)

[20] Christoph Grunenberg, “Modern Sanat Müzesi.”

[21] Mieke Bal, “The Discourse of the Museum.”

[22] Christoph Grunenberg, “Modern Sanat Müzesi.”

[23] See appendix

[24] Ali Artun, Çağdaş Sanatın Örgütlenmesi. Estetik Modernizmin Tasviyesi, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları 2011), 103-191.

[25] Carol Duncan, “The Art Museum as Ritual.” and Max Weber, “The Esthetic Sphere.”

[26] Schaeffer, Jean-Marie. Art Of The Modern Age. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000.

[27] Emma Barker, “Müzenin Toplumdaki Yeri: Yeni Tate Galerileri.” and

Miray Özkan, “İstanbul’da Kültür ve Sanat İçerikli Kent Politikaları,” E-skop.com, http://www.e-skop.com/skopdergi/istanbulda-kultur-ve-sanat-icerikli-kent-politikalari/402 (accessed March 21,2012).

[28] Emma Barker, “Müzenin Toplumdaki Yeri: Yeni Tate Galerileri.”

[29] Miray Özkan, “İstanbul’da Kültür ve Sanat İçerikli Kent Politikaları.”

[30] Ibid

[31] Yet one must also keep Bourdieu’s critique in mind. He states that, the museum can never achieve its democratizing function since what he calls the “love of art” is very much related to “cultural capital.” Pierre Bourdieu, Darbe A., Schnapper D., The Love of Art: European Art Museums and Their Public, ed. Dominique Schnapper, (UK: Polity Press, 1997). Attaining “the cultural capital” is very much related to “economic capital.” Pierre Bourdieu, Distinctions. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, (Boston, MA: Harward University Press, 1984).

[32] As a side note; Salt does not exhibit the collection of its founding corporation the Garanti Bank that belongs to Doğuş Group. This does not mean that I immediately assume that the founding corporation does not effect the decision process.

[33] Other institutions also organize conferences, talks etc. However Salt and Depo are the only institutions that focus on critical knowledge production.

[34] See appendix

[35] Literature on artists’ direct and explicit interventions and challenges and protests of the art institutions do certainly exist.

2 notes · View notes