In my previous post I summarised Dick Pels' position on the big question how to relate critically to issues of identity, nationalism and citizenship in the Netherlands. Fellow panellist and curator Vasif Kortun did not refer to the above topics, but rather focused his talk on contextualising the practice of contemporary Turkish (more specifically Istanbuli) artists, and the role of Platform Garanti herein.
Kortun sketched out a timeline of contemporary art, taking political or cultural events as their markers. After the 1980 coup d’état where the military effectively seized power, artists broke their “contract” with the state, in the sense that they did not want to be associated with its institutions, and did not ask support from it. There was a feeling that public space was being hijacked, and that the middle classes – with all its extensions in the cultural field – were evaporating. This had to effect that a new generation of artists was spawn: these artists were independent, secular and were not affiliated with any type of governmental institution (including the public universities). Within this context the first Istanbul Biennial was held in 1987, curated by Beral Madra. However, the overall situation till the end of the ‘90s for artists remained bleak: there is no (financial) support, there are no venues, work may get foreign funding but cannot be shown in Turkey, and the biennials only offer a temporary respite of censorship law. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, and especially after EU accession talks, more European funding is directed towards Turkey, and we see a proliferation of big national shows or “Balkan shows”, wherein many Turkish artists participate. The most well-known examples are Harald Szeeman’s “Blood and Honey” (2003), “In the Gorges of the Balkans”, curated by Rene block (2003), “In Search of Balkania” (2002), curated by Peter Weibel , Roger Conover, Edi Cufer, and “Call me Istanbul”, also curated by Roger Conover and Peter Weibel (2004), Urban Realities: Focus on Istanbul curated by Christoph Tannert (2005).
Obviously branding Turkey as Balkans has its problems, as does an over-dependence on EU funds, which (in many cases) expect a particular type of artistic production.
Platform Garanti was founded in 2001, and at the time was the only professionally-run art institution. Quickly it became the obvious stop whenever artists or curators were visiting Istanbul. This led, according to Kortun, to Platform becoming disproportionally important internationally. Eventhough many new initiatives have sprung up recently (all of them private) such as for example Santral Istanbul and Rodeo Gallery Platform remains a prominent hub in Turkey and beyond.
It has to be said that the star of the panel, and the uncontested queen of one-liners was Professor of Women’s Studies at Utrecht University Rosi Braidotti. I have been a fan of her work for the past decade, and in public lectures she never disappoints because of her bubbly personality, intellectual candour, frankness and wittiness. Her first observation was as stabbing as it was simple: the whole debate about ethnicity, artistic and critical practice, national identity and citizenship was being lead by 3 resident foreigners: the director of the Van Abbemuseum, Charles Esche (GB), director of BAK in Utrecht Maria Hlavajova (CZ), and herself (IT). Quite symptomatic of the state of affairs, to say the least.
Braidotti called for a citizenship that is flexible, and in contradistinction with Dick Pels’ plea for an identity that finds strength in its positive weakness as an alternative to neo-liberal nationalism, she stated that the time of holding on to a pathetic monolithic identity (yes these were her words!) – of any kind - is long over, never to return. Identity is flexible in the sense that it is more often than not made up of components that are functional (what allows you to survive in a certain place), normative (the current government’s much beloved mantra of rules and norms), and emotional (an attachment to a place for example). Depending on context components will tread more to the foreground, or stay more in the background. It is indeed a very epistemic way of looking at the whole issue, and Braidotti was chided by Chantal Mouffe for neglecting affect in her politics, but it seems a fair way to index such complex matters.
Braidotti was mournful of the cognitive and moral dispossession expressed in public opinion about matters of Dutch identity and “Dutchness”: as if something is being lost - or worse - is being stolen. Braidotti attributes this sense of loss to a general state of disaffection and inertia, and a lack of an epistemic sense of responsibility. The latter is being substituted by fear, and a rigid clinging on to things past, especially after such national traumas as the murders on Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh. Interesting though, is the fact that identity becomes flexible and negotiable once capital is involved. For example, star football players almost seems to switch nationality at the rate that some people change socks. If globalisation is to blame here, then another effect of globalisation, namely migration, has equally disturbed the traditional axis of subjectivity (ethnicity, nationality, citizenship). Though she closed her presentation hopefully with a “They can delay us, they can never delete us”, I find more comfort in her pragmatic “If all else fails, there’s always the sales!”
Tagged as:
flexible identity, platform garanti, rosi braidotti, vasif kortun
LabforCulture è un'iniziativa di partnership della Fondazione Culturale Europea. LabforCulture desidera ringraziare i propri finanziatori per il loro supporto.