Walter Niedermayr

LINE - Frame Edition

The gallery/institution as Frame

There is an irony with the way in which Brian O’Doherty traces the development of the modernist ideal, ‘the white cube’, back to the dominance of the easel painting. It is the predominance of this medium, which has produced the vast number of paintings that adorn our museum’s walls, framed, by anything from the large ostentatious gold frame of the history painting, to the thin black border of the modern photograph.  With the rise of modernism the picture frame gave way to the gallery space, which in turn took on the defining role of marking out the parameters of art. In short, the frame, which previously marked out the picture plain, created, the frame that now determines the difference between a pickled rat in a laboratory and a shark in formaldehyde.

Although O’Doherty’s essays on the gallery space have had a significant impact on the discourse of contemporary display, the ‘white cube’, that powerful ideological tool, still remains unchallenged as the preferred space for display. The 1990’s and the rise of art, as spectacle with the likes of Damian Hirst and Tracey Emin, has also led to the rise of the curator, that figure, revered as producer of cultural meaning, the mediator between artist and public.  The loyal partnership between curator and space, has led to the creation of an environment, so ideologically loaded, that even the plug socket becomes a potential masterpiece.

Such a space is driven by its obsessive negation of the hustle and bustle of the outside world. It is imperative that once through the front door, one is aware that one has entered into a space occupied by art. The series of masterpieces are the focus, and the spaces removal of anything that could possibly detract from the works on display allows for the full transformation from art object to quasi-religious icon ‘untouched by time and it’s vicissitudes’.

With such a framework in place, the institution is able to engender an authoritative voice that defines all inside worthy of attention and contemplation, an aesthetic box if you will, in which, all must be consumed by the eye, nothing missed out. The problem that emerges is that an ideological space, which, is constructed so fundamentally on aesthetics, and the authority of the institution, does not allow for anything else other than voyeuristic fixation upon the defined aesthetic object. The white cube space and the institutional authority that comes with it, thus denies the viewer interaction or the possibility of a discourse between art, institution and public.

Although the white cube - curator partnership has enjoyed a relatively uninterrupted reign over the domain of contemporary art, there are institutions that have sought to redirect the framing, defining force of the museum back upon itself, in the hope of opening up a discourse in which the authority of the institution can be challenged. Such an institution is the Galerie für zeitgenössische Kunst (Museum of Contemporary Art) in Leipzig. The museum stems out of a very specific political context in which art’s role within society was formerly dictated by the rule of two totalitarian regimes, the Nazi party and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). It should come as no surprise then that a main consideration of the institution is the re-appropriation of art and the art institution as devices with a positive social function. This is achieved through a highly innovative curatorial and architectural framework that removes the authoritative voice of the museum, instead placing itself and the works on show under scrutiny.

The curatorial and architectural framework within the GfzK function together as an anti-white cube, reflecting the institutions aims. The permanent collection predominantly consists of works by artists who were active during the GDR or artists, who were born in East Germany, but sought political asylum in the West. Contrary to the masterpiece, generating narrative that is engendered by most large public institutions, the GfzK views its collection as a dynamic, changing entity, which is both unfinished and open to growth. The collection is used to explore certain themes or concepts, which are explored in annual temporary exhibitions that create new relationships between the works within the collection. Additionally the architecture, far from excluding the outside world makes it unavoidable. Large glass windows on the exterior of the space, link the institution, collection and city, whilst creating an environment that prevents mere voyeurism. 

In the most recent annual exhibition ‘Puzzle’, over 6 months 10 participant groups were invited to contribute, which all have a direct or indirect relationship to the collection and institution. By inviting such groups, the fabric of the exhibition remained consistently dynamic and the authority of the museum was challenged through the intrusion and potentially converse interpretations that arose of the collection. The groups ranged from the intermedia class of the ‘Academy of Visual Arts’ in Leipzig, expressing the institutions support of emerging local artists, to ‘GfzK for You’ the educational department of the museum, which worked alongside a local school in Leipzig, encouraging a greater interest in contemporary art among children. The conceptual focus of the exhibition partnered with the inclusion of the public within the curation, resulted in a display that at once remained democratic, whilst raising issues that were both engaging and conceptually complex.

Whilst the GfzK is not unique, it presents an example of a new approach to the public institution, in which the collection, curatorial and architectural framework manifest the aims of the institution. The result is a museum that contrary to engendering a absolute defining power that is concerned with framing the art object, instead seeks to remove the barriers that exist between, art, institution and public, thus endowing art with a social function. The GfzK can best be understood as a ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’ in which the collection is viewed as only one element that can only function alongside the curatorial and architectural framework of the museum. The consequence is that the institution retains its ability to frame, however rather than the fixation upon the aesthetic object, the institution instead frames art and the institution’s role within society.

Biennial Essay

Identify and discuss one major issue marking art’s transition from the 20^th to the 21^st century.

“International biennials are to the art market what fusion food is to the culinary world: mainstream ingredients with a local flavour snuck into the mix, but not enough to aggravate the conventional palate. What recipe possesses the right balance to allow for necessary mass consumption?”[1]

Mai Abu ElDahab here raises the inherent disjuncture that exists between the local and the global contexts, within which the international mega exhibition functions. This quote conveys an ongoing debate that has become prominent within academic discourse. That is, whether such events are sensitive to the specific locale within which they are situated, or whether they contribute to the development of a hegemonic global culture whose logic is driven by nothing more than that of late capitalism, namely exchange value.[2] To put it more simply, whether these events foster dialogue between a specific locale and a global audience, or whether they produce spectacles that exist as part of a global megacity, in which the locational identity of the individual city loses its significance.[3] Whilst the international mega exhibition has come to define the increasingly global nature of contemporary art, it is not a phenomenon that has developed in the 21^st century. Rather it has been during the late 1990’s and the start of the 21^st century that has seen the proliferation and dissemination of these events to all corners of the earth. Indeed it has been during this period that their global relevance as institutions has fully entered into academic discourse. It is beyond the scope of this essay to expatiate on the full extent to which the international mega exhibition has altered both the production and reception and consumption of contemporary art. It will instead focus on the examples of Documenta XI (2002) and Manifesta (inaugurated in 1996), and examine how they have confronted the issues raised through their respective local and global contexts.  Furthermore, the essay will explore the disparity that exists between the ideological framework of these events and their practical realisation.  The examples will show, despite their attempts, both Manifesta and Documenta’s inability to transcend the privileged positions which they inhabit within a hegemonic global culture.

It is first necessary to elaborate on the dichotomy between the local and global contexts within which international mega exhibitions operate. These institutions have developed alongside the wider globalisation of markets, made possible through the use of the Internet and the development of communications. This has enabled the transfer of information across geographical borders at an unparalleled speed and efficiency. According to Hou Hanru this has necessitated the creation of new “localities” which are culturally related to the local tradition, but also open to international interaction and exchange. [4] Hanru argues that within our globalised world, different locales are competing for a place within the “global village”, and this is often fostered through the development of an international mega exhibition.[5] Furthermore the process of globalisation has, according to Hanru, enacted a destruction of local cultures and required the necessary formation of new cultures based on a global “virtual neighbourhood”.[6] This change in the local contexts has paved the way for the development of a kind of in-between space - a “glocal” land, if you will. [7] Culture can therefore no longer be defined by the nation state, but rather it must be explained through the relevance that a specific locale has within a global context. In such a context Hanru argues that the new localities that are generated are by definition hybrid, impure and transnational.[8]  This issue of global restructuring with reference to the international mega exhibition is problematic, as it is questionable whether such events do indeed help to create these new localities, which enter into a dialogue with the global, whilst retaining their own individual subjectivities. Or alternatively, whether these institutions foster a hegemonic global culture, through the conception of specific locales, their histories, peoples and modes of thinking, merely as “destinations” and “events”.[9]

Documenta, which is held every five years in Kassel, questioned its own local and institutional context in the 11^th edition, whereby both the temporal and geographical boundaries of the event were extended. This was achieved through the creation of five platforms that consisted of the main exhibition in Kassel, along with thematic conferences held over a period of 18 months, which together explored the broad theme of globalisation. These discursive platforms were held in Lagos, Saint Lucia, New Delhi, Vienna and Berlin. Through the creation of these four platforms in addition to the fifth exhibitive platform in Kassel, Documenta XI radically changed the conceptual framework of an event that has come to be one of the most important international events within the art world calendar.  Since its conception in 1955 Documenta has always been an international affair, and yet Documenta XI was the first edition to appoint a non-western director, Okwui Enwezor, and to focus almost exclusively on the theme of globalisation.[10] For this reason it is understandable why the director sought to expand the boundaries of the exhibition outside of the small provincial German town of Kassel. Enwezor stated in his catalogue essay that this edition of Documenta would set out to explore “new relations of artistic modernity not founded on Westernism.”[11] For Enwezor the creation of the four platforms was necessary, in order to challenge the event’s local and institutional context. Whilst Kassel is a provincial German town, for the one hundred days every five years when it takes place, Documenta transforms Kassel into a primary hub of the western art world. As Ute Meta Bauer, one of Enwezor’s co-curators, has said, the most important role of the platforms was to make sure that “Documenta not only expanded its territory, but also abandoned it.”[12] Despite the fact that relatively few visitors and participants actually visited the initial four conferences, it is significant that they were integral to the formal re-structuring of the event, in decentring the focus from its privileged position within the west.[13]

A criticism raised by Elena Filipovic highlights that although the formal altering of Documenta XI and the publications attached to the event assumed a post-colonial rhetoric (that sought to deconstruct Documenta’s privileged institutional status and the wider perpetuation of western imperialism through such notions as modernity, the avant-garde, universality and democracy), there existed a disparity between the ideology of the organisers and the physical exhibitive structure of the main event in Kassel. Filipovic has noted that, “impeccable arrangements of white cubes and black boxes recurred throughout most of the show’s multiples sites.”[14] She further argued that the exhibition of works was largely confined to the typical Museum Fridricanum, and the newly inaugurated Binding Braueri and the Kulturbahnhof. Such a conservative and traditional museum-based curatorial strategy effectively undermined the other four platforms by creating a self-enclosed space, cut off from the real world, where the other discursive platforms took place. Enwezor called for a move away from “Westernism”, attempting to challenge the notion of ongoing western narrative by decentring the focus to four platforms outside of the privileged institutional context, which Documenta inhabits. This gesture was weakened however, as the exhibitive portion of the event was, to use Filipovic words, corseted within “that predetermined institutional paradigm most intimately connected with the development and historicization of occidental modernism.” [15] For an exhibition that was driven by an attempt to transcend its western identity, which included more non-western artists than any previous edition, the use of such an exhibitive structure seems wholly inappropriate.

As has been shown through the consideration of various relevant theoretical insights, Documenta XI questioned its own institutional status through the decentring of its focus from the main exhibition at Kassel. The exhibition itself also attempted to transcend its traditional function, as the institutional space responsible for the legitimisation of the art object. However the use of the white cube compromised this aim, resulting in the exhibitive structure becoming a multicultural spectacle. Though, as Anthony Downey has questioned, “What curatorial/organisational methodology can Documenta exercise that avoids providing the spectacle that is traditionally expected of the exhibition.”[16] Arguably, it is due to its institutional context, generous corporate funding, and need to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors in order to be considered a success, that the renouncement of some form of spectacular exhibition is unavoidable.[17] Whilst Documenta attempted to transcend its privileged local context, through the extension of its physical and critical boundaries, this was weakened through the spectacular exhibitive structure employed, which perpetuated the very “Westernism” that Enwezor sought to displace. What this has shown are the problems that are raised through the physical realisation of these events. The ambition to go beyond its institutional status was compromised by the spectacle that was expected from the exhibition, from both the corporate and national sponsors and the visiting public. This highlights the inherent issue of the international mega exhibition as a format of display. Whilst the critical framework often attempts to self-reflexively criticise the position of institutional dominance within the west, these shows are unequivocally associated with the realms of marketing and consumption. Paradoxically, however, it is through these spectacular displays that the institution reasserts its dominance. [18] As Carlos Basualdo has concisely summarized, ”In all cases, diplomacy, politics and commerce converge in a powerful movement whose purpose seems to be the appropriation and instrumentalization of the symbolic value of art.”[19]

Manifesta (inaugurated in 1996), in contrast to Documenta, has from its outset attempted to transcend a fixed institutional identity by avoiding a fixed locale. From its conception, Manifesta has been concerned with providing an alternative model for the international mega exhibition that explores the political and cultural contexts of a post-wall Europe.  This is achieved through adopting a different host city with each edition. Such a strategy allows Manifesta to adopt locales, which range from traditional western art world centres, with established institutional identities such as Rotterdam (1996) and Frankfurt (2002), to peripheral locales that are less institutionally equipped such as Ljubljana (2000). [20] On the Manifesta website it states that, “emerging into a Europe undergoing radical change, Manifesta aims to harness the artistic energies and to establish a network of exchange covering the whole of Europe.”[21] Such a claim highlights Manifesta’s ideology, to go beyond a mere presentation of art and confront the political and cultural landscape of a contemporary Europe. Whilst this ideology is clear, it is necessary to explore past examples of the practical realisation of these aims. As has been illustrated with Documenta XI, there exists a disparity between the ideological aspirations of Manifesta and its physical realisation.

“Whatever resistance it meets, whether in Ljubljana or in Cyprus, Manifesta itself will (like some ultra-resilient cartoon character) snap back into shape, ready to descend on new European locations in need of temporary animation.”[22] Ina Blom here challenges Manifesta’s claim that each edition engages with each specific locale, to produce any lasting visible change. Through interviews with participants in the Roterdam and Ljubljana edition’s, Thomas Boutoux has also illustrated that “The network Manifesta established during its ten year history is not one between countries or even cities, but rather between people.”[23] By this, Boutoux was expressing the lack of visible interaction between the art institutions that have hosted Manifesta in the respective host cities, which would have enabled the “network of exchange” that Manifesta anticipated. He noted that if anyone profited from Manifesta’s presence within a given locale, it was local curators, who gained an international network. Rather than producing any visible change within the local art scene, this instead just contributed to the growing number of nomadic curators who inhabit a privileged position within the contemporary art world.  Boutoux has located the cause of this failure in a change in the financial model of the event. At the first edition in Rotterdam, the funding of the event was organised through the collegial support of different Ministries of Culture or Foreign Affairs, without that support being tied to specific artists.  He has noted that in a world of “biennials-as-national showcases” this model of support was ultimately utopian and short-lived. [24] By this Boutoux emphasises the desirable and often income-generating nature of international mega exhibitions, which are used to help market peripheral localities by providing them with a place on the cultural map. As a result of this, since the first edition Manifesta has relied on the investment of interested cities. Rather than create the desired established network of art institutions across Europe, this funding model has instead resulted in the institutionalisation of Manifesta, aligning it with the traditional biennials from which it sought to distance itself.  Rather than work in partnership with existing art scenes and locales to create a European-wide exchange of ideas and practice, Manifesta has assumed a quasi brand identity, which various cities financially support in return for the “cultural capital”[25] that the institution provides.

The analysis of these two examples has illustrated the inconsistency that exists between the ideological foundation of the international mega exhibitions and their physical realisation. This is due to their relationship with the art market and the expectations of both corporate or national sponsorship and the privelged global audience who attend these events. The structural organisation of these events, therefore often results in a spectacle, fuelled by marketing and consumption.  Furthermore, despite a refiguring of their local and institutional contexts, this essay has illustrated Documenta and Manifesta’s inability to transcend their privileged position within a global hegemonic culture. As Ina Blom has noted, international mega exhibitions “resemble multinational corporations in that their sphere of action, power and control transcends national boundaries while they are selectively benefiting from national frameworks of support and validation.“[26] Whilst these institutions often adopt a rhetoric that questions and challenges their own very existence, this is not reflected within the spectacular exhibitions which result, often totally disconnected to the locale, within which they are situated.  Instead these exhibitions inhabit a global network of art spectacles, which is governed by the logic of late capitalism, and contributes to the production and cultivation of a global hegemonic culture, with its roots in the west. To refer back to the analogy used by Mai Abu ElDahab in the introduction, perhaps rather than attempt to reconcile the local within a global context, it would be more beneficial to assume a critical distance, given the complexities involved with attempting to confront the myriad subjectivities of any given locale within the confines and demarcations of an exhibition. At any rate, what is clear is that the international mega exhibition must be constantly challenged and evaluated, “because fusion food has yet to fulfil its promise, and we are always still hungry after leaving the table.” [27]

 Bibliography

Books

Bourdieu, P. (2000). The forms of capital.

Boutoux, T (2005). A Tale of Two Cities: Manifesta in Rotterdam and Ljubljana in Vanderlinden, B., & Filipovic, E. (2005). The Manifesta decade: debates on contemporary art exhibitions and biennials in post-wall Europe. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Blom, I (2010). On Biennial Practice: The Global Megacity and Biennial Memory in Filipovic, E., Hal, M. V., & Øvstebo, S The biennial reader [an anthology on large-scale perennial exhibitions of contemporary art]. Bergen, Bergen Kunsthall.

Enwezor, O (2002). The Black Box in Documenta 11p̲latform 5: exhibition : catalogue = ausstellung : katalog appendix. Ostfildern-Ruit, Hatje Cantz.

Filipovic, E (2005). The Global White Cube in The Manifesta decade: debates on contemporary art exhibitions and biennials in post-wall Europe. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Hanru, Hou (2005). Towards a New Locality: Biennials and “Global Art” in Vanderlinden, B., & Filipovic, E. (2005). The Manifesta decade: debates on contemporary art exhibitions and biennials in post-wall Europe. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Harris, J. (2011). Globalization and Contemporary Art. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.

Harris, J. P. (2004). Art, money, parties. Liverpool, Liverpool University Press.

Kwon, M. (2002). One place after another: site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.

Ratnam, Niru (2004) Art and Globalisation  in Perry, G., & Wood, P. Themes in contemporary art. New Haven, Yale University Press in association with the Open University.

Articles

Basualdo C. (2003). The Unstable Institution. http://globalartmuseum.de/site/guest_author/100

Downey, A. (2003). The spectacular difference of Documenta XI. Third Text: Critical Perspectives on Contemporary Art and Culture. 17, 85-92.

Websites

http://www.manifesta.org/manifesta2/e/manifest.html

http://www.documenta11.de/archiv/d11/data/english/index.html

---

[1] Abu ElDahab, Mai in Hanru, Hou p.60

[2] Basualdo, Carlos http://globalartmuseum.de/site/guest_author/100

[3] Blom, Ina p.25

[4] Hanru, Hou p.57

[5] Ibid p.58

[6] Appaudurai, Arjun in Hanru, Hou p. 59

[7] Hanru, Hou p.59

[8] Ibid

[9] Blom, Ina p.24

[10] Ratnam, Niru in Perry, G & Wood, P (ed) p.278

[11] Enwezor, O in Ander and Rottner p.44

[12] Bauer, U M in Ander and Rottner p.105

[13] Filipovic, E p. 75

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid p.76

[16] Downey, Anthony p.88

[17] Ibid

[18] Basualdo, Carlos http://globalartmuseum.de/site/guest_author/100

[19] Ibid

[20] Boutoux, Thomas p.206

[21] http://www.manifesta.org/manifesta2/e/manifest.html

[22] Blom, Ina in Filiopovic, Hal, Ovstebo (ed) p. 24

[23] Boutoux, Thomas p.207

[24] Ibid

[25]  See Bourdieu

[26] Blom, Ina p.23

[27] Abu ElDahab, Mai in Hanru, Hou p.60