Identify
and discuss one major issue marking art’s transition from the 20th
to the 21st 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 21st century. Rather it has been during the late 1990’s and the
start of the 21st 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 11th
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]
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
No comments:
Post a Comment