|
Enlargement of EU Cultural Policy as seen from east
of EU
by Beral Madra
“What does it mean 'east of Europe'? Why are we meeting here to
discuss this theme?” These were the first words of Mai Abu El Dahab,
a young curator from Egypt, who was invited by the AICA-Turkey to a workshop
and the round-table titled “Art Criticism and Curatorial Practices
East of EU” that was held during the opening days of the 8th Istanbul
Biennale (18th-21st September, 2003/).
She was correct! The geographic imaginary in the title did indeed sound
somewhat disturbing: The title frames the horizon by privileging EU as
the centre and positions non-EU cultural agents as the subjects of European
periphery. Nonetheless, there is an urgent need to question the positive
and negative aspects of the new cultural policies of the united Europe
and there are some tendencies that deserve to be scrutinized.
Are we, those who are to the “east of Europe,” a part of the
new networks of communication and efficacy that EU is presently maintaining
or not? Looking at the Istanbul Biennale with its ambitious organisation,
it is easy to convince ourselves that we are already a part of this network.
Nonetheless, when the local infrastructure and the art appreciation around
the Biennale are taken into account, it is easy to see this as a naïve
make-believe.
Paradox is that Istanbul, particularly with its Biennale and promising
intentions, maintains its function as a zone of junction for the cultural
existence in the Balkans, South Caucasus and Middle East where the contemporary
creativity in all disciplines emerge with resourceful private initiative
without any significant degree of awareness or support from the governments
and politicians. Maybe this predicament may explain why the contested
title/topic is chosen for the roundtable: The promise of European “public
support” for arts is too attractive to not take it into consideration.
This international workshop and roundtable was not only conceived as a
critical and theoretical contribution to the 8th Istanbul Biennial, but
it also focused on defining current practices in international networking
and co-operation, on available models and tools for co-production, on
funding opportunities and curatorial independence. The Istanbul Biennial,
as a modular part of the recently emerging international system of biennials
and the cultural infrastructure of the region to the “east of the
EU”, is mostly seen as a space for experience and training for young
professionals who are engaged with curatorial practice, art criticism,
and cultural journalism. Whether it fulfils this function or not, is yet
to be discussed.
Although the participants of the AICA Turkey forum came from very different
cultural scenes, the topics, questions, and problems raised and debated
during the sessions were surprisingly similar.
Among the common themes were the institutional background of art production
and its effects on the public sphere; the art production and its relations
to the official discourses; the geographic and contextual diversity of
the positions, visions and ethical orientations of the curators and the
art-critics in contrast to the perfectionism that characterizes the international
mainstream art with its strong links to the official institutions, the
private sector and the art market.
During and between the sessions, the participants from the EU countries
were seeking moments and spaces to communicate and to transmit their knowledge
and experience, whereas the participants from the non-EU countries were
looking for cooperation and collaboration. However, it has been concluded
that the main obstacles on the way to a multi-lateral collaboration are
the differences between the infrastructures (education systems, policies
and administrative philosophies of official and private institutions)
and the markets of the cultural products as well as the absence of theoretical
exchange.
Indeed, the fact that there were three other similar forums in some of
the neighbours of Turkey is not a matter of coincidence, but the result
of the determined collaborative efforts and networking. Similar topics
to those that are discussed in AICA-Turkey in Istanbul were also discussed
in Tibilisi, October 1-6, with participants from Azerbaijan, Armenia,
Greece, and Turkey in a forum titled 'Cavansarai' initiated by Shalva
Khakhanashvili (www.caucasus.art.ge), Nino Metreveli, N Gallery (ngalerea@access.sanet.ge)
and New Art Union (www.newart.org.ge) and supported by the ministries
of culture and foreign affairs of Georgia, by Tibilisi University and
Fine Arts Academy and Apollonia (Strasbourg).
Two other art centres that proclaim close attention of the cultural policy
of EU are in Baku and Beirut.
“Homeworks II” was the title of the forum and exhibition series
in Beirut initiated and organised by Christine Tohme, the founder and
the president of Ashkal Alwan (ashkalalwan@terra.net.lb ), an association
for contemporary art. The lectures were staged at the famous Medina Theater,
in which the Syrian poet Adonis, the Palestinians Anton Shammas and Prof.Selim
Tamari and the poet from Bagdat Mohammed Mazloum have investigated and
revealed the current state of affairs in the region. Fouad El Khoury,
Jalal Toufic, Gassan Salhab, Hadjithomas& Joreige, Tony Chakar and
Elias Suleiman have presented films and videos with political and sociological
content.
Leyla Akhundzadeh's show and forum “Aliminium” (art and new
technologies) with artists from the region which was realised 3rd-6th
November 2003 is the second version that takes place in Baku since 2000.
Azerbaijan State Museum Centre and “Qiz Qalasi” Gallery were
the main venues of exhibitions and video-shows. “Watching Movement”-
video art exhibition
It is quite paradoxal that we are re-establishing our relationship in
the Balkan's, in South Caucasus and in the Middle East. The winds of globalisation
- in the form of EU culture policy - is forcing us to do so. When we think
back, just 80 years ago the winds blowing from the West again, had separated
and isolated us from each other, leaving deep scars, incurable traumas
and un-repairable ruptures. It is bizarre in the sense that the history
repeats itself and that the winds are always blowing from the West onwards
and sweeping away something from us. At the beginning of the 20th century
the modern avant-garde of Western Europe were inspired by our culture
and arts; for decades we could not verify that what modernism has articulated
was our tradition. Now, the same winds are changing the culture climate
in our territories for good and for bad, for acceptable and unacceptable.
The question is now, is it happening again in a disguised form? Because
there are two facts which we cannot leave unnoticed: Since two decades
the art production and art theory deals, questions, de-constructs and
re-cycles the issues of "the other", "the differences",
"Diaspora" and "emigration". These have been the themes
and concepts of most exhibitions and forums since the beginning of the
90's. At first the curators, institution directors and art critics of
EU countries preferred to come to Istanbul, because of the Istanbul Biennale
which started in 1987 with direct contacts to the mainstream artists,
art experts and galleries. In the 90's, during the Balkan crisis, the
quest for expansion had to stop but after the war it regained its impetus
and even expanded to remote countries of the former Soviet Union. Particularly
in France and Germany and in the North European countries, where large
minorities from the above mentioned regions and North Africa are going
through a third generation process of integration, series of exhibitions
indicating regional boundaries and country names were realised one after
the other. Usually, the curator of the exhibition visited the region or
the country a couple of days, contacted and interviewed the artists and
art experts and had an overall impression. Without stirring up the hornet's
nest, but still pulling the strings, the curator found the common derivative
of the art production and displayed it to the esteem of the Western viewer.
Three curators from the EU countries (Block from Germany, Martinez from
Spain, Colombo from Italy/Switzerland had the privilege to make the Istanbul
Biennale. Their overall performance and behaviour has been questioned
by the local art critics in terms of disguised or not-yet-excluded orientalism
and colonialism. The opinion of the local art scene was by no means covered
by the agents of the international art press. The locals are compelled
to acknowledge that curators of EU institutions have done their best within
their limits; but contemporary art in these centres still remains a delicate
and intricate issue to master. One must consider that one cannot implement
the market bound ethics and rules of networking in EU everywhere; not
even in the Balkan, even if it is an organic part of Europe. The historical
background, the memory, the peculiar process of modernism and post-modernism
and the current economic turbulence in these regions has a deep impact
on the cultural life and artistic production, which cannot be imagined
by an outsider.
Nowadays, the discovery and expansion of the 90's has reached a culmination
point, where both sides change their attitude. The curators from the West
have realised that they have to get the inside track and their counterparts
learned to get the upper-hand in dealing with projects to promote their
art scenes.
To our delight and benefit there are two positive aspects of this formation.
Because of the requisites of the globalisation the people are somehow
connected to each other with different means and techniques, and because
of the prevailing ethics of post-colonialism there is a kind of cultural
correctness, at least on the level of intellectuals and creative people.
The new infrastructures in the form of NGO’s are one of these tools
which serve as a membrane as well as a transmitter between the political/economical
powers and the society. Some civil initiations have made a difference
in the art-world since the beginning of the 90’s, providing international
network and funding facilities for the individuals working in different
fields and systems. In order to resist a neo-colonisation of any sorts
– even now, the pro-western policies with weak economies are entitled
to be re-colonised - the individuals learned to utilise this tool.
Since EU is expanding its cultural policy and system, the art centres
in east of EU not only strive to inform their public but also to reform
the conservative local culture policies. As a matter of fact, what we
are trying to do with all these forums and workshop-like exhibitions is
to find ways to close the gap between a neglected introvert system (the
conservative modernist official policies and markets in east of EU) and
a determined and fully extrovert system (EU cultural policy).
Turkey’s modernism was distinctly introvert for decades before and
after the 2nd World war, and this conservatism is still prevalent under
the post-modern currents. Yet, under the current political circumstances
it stands out as a model among its North, East and South neighbours.
Since 80 years Turkey is expecting to be a part of Europe by accomplishing
its pursuit to a Western model of democracy through intricate processes.
The first process was the so called 'westernisation' introduced in mid
18th century by the Ottoman palace itself, superseded by the revolutionary
intervention of Mustafa Kemal which created a 'modern nation state' officially
called Republic of Turkey with the government type 'republican parliamentary
democracy'. Moreover, Turkey derives its legal system from various European
continental legal systems. Today, under the guidance of EU integration
laws Turkey has submitted itself to a radical transformation in economic,
social and cultural changes. With its 99% mostly Sunni Muslim population
of 69 million, its growth rate of 1.16%, its age structure of 27% young
males and females, its two large ethnic groups of Turks (%80) and Kurds
(%20), Turkey feels itself qualified to enter into the EU community, despite
the fact that the EU considers these statistics as ‘unsafe’
for its future.
However, the question whether it is qualified through the pressure coming
from the political and economic powers of the land, or with a civil self-determination,
is still open. Transformation of the society through modernism was not
an easy endeavour and therefore this pursuit for more democracy, being
the present stage of the ongoing modernist process has its ascending and
descending moments. While technology and consumption is always elevated
and promoted, the quality of everyday life, the educational and cultural
needs of the society debilitates; while conservative modernism prevails
in state instruments, private enterprise cunningly expands its limits.
On the other hand, modernism as a strong current coming from the West
has not only transformed the Muslims, but also fragmented and moulded
them into this project, mainly consisting of technology and secularism.
The ‘head scarf’ has become a visual symbol for resistance
to this transformation; yet, the heads of the women may be veiled, but
they don’t hesitate to wear heavy make-up and the latest fashion
garments, even though the religion dictates modesty and spirituality rather
than self-importance and materialism…
The appearance of contemporary art production in Turkey is very diverse
and rebellious, the content is subjective and political. The artist takes
his/her inspirations and material directly from the every-day, from the
margins, from the phantoms of personal conscious and unconscious. Typology
and classification is difficult, since there are numerous artistic methodologies
and strategies; sometimes customary, sometimes complex. There are no boundaries
between the techniques, between high and low, between traditional and
the popular, between exotic and composed. The artists are presenting the
public a multiplicity of perspectives to see the world by guiding them
through the familiar grounds. The psycho-social connections between the
artist and the public became the topic of art criticism. Since two decades
the artists were invited to EU art institutions and transported through
their works the every-day life of Turkey to be viewed by EU publics. From
an idealist perspective contemporary art which deals with the realities
of everyday-life, which integrates the insights of all others and which
cultivates the gaze of the people in Turkey may activate changes in the
perception and appreciation of the EU public towards the non-EU societies.
EU cultural policy with its funds and strategies for enlargement provides
a constructive tool for the one’s who know how to utilize it.
|
