MAKING THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE SOCIALLY ENGAGED, COLLABORATIVE PUBLIC ART IN THE CITY

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Arts Administration & Policy Master of Arts in Art History, Theory & Criticism by Steven ! "ridges #epartment of Arts Administration & Policy #epartment of Art History, Theory & Criticism The School of the Art $nstitute of Chicago Spring, %&&'

Thesis Committee( Adviser( )achel *eiss, Professor, Arts Administration & Policy, School of the Art $nstitute of Chicago )eader( +ora A! Taylor, Ph#, Professor and Alsdorf Chair of South and Southeast Asian Art, Art History, Theory & Criticism, School of the Art

$nstitute of Chicago

Acknowledge en!"
The thesis ,riting process is long and arduous, and $ ,ould li-e to e.press my deepest than-s and sincerest gratitude to those that have aided me along the ,ay! /irst and foremost, $ ,ould li-e to than- my family and friends for their support over the last three years! *ithout your love and support $ ,ould not be ,here $ am today! $n addition, $ ,ould li-e to than- the many people ,ho have contributed to the development and refinement of this thesis pro0ect, especially the #epartments of Arts Administration & Policy, and Art History, Theory & Criticism! Specifically, $ ,ould also li-e to than- )achel *eiss, +ora A! Taylor and Magda 1on2ale23Mora for their insights, guidance, and criticism! /inally, this thesis is dedicated to the memory of "en Schaafsma!

T#$le o% Con!en!"
4! $ntroduction555555555555555555555555555555!!6 %! Tracing the Multiple ines of $nquiry5555555555555555555!!!47 i! To,ards the #evelopment of Criteria for 8valuation555555555!46 ii! The )ole of the Curator55555555555555555555!!!9& 9! A City in Multiples and the Art of Multiplicity5555555555555555!9: i. "roo-e Alfaro( Nine, %&&%39555555555555555555!!!77 ii. ;es<s Palomino( Vendors and Squatters, %&&9555555555555=% 7! $stanbul Calling5555555555555555555555555555!!>4 i. ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf( Mind the Steps, %&&=55555555555555!6% ii. S@P8)/ 8A & ;ens Haaning( 1000 biennial poster project, %&&=555!!!6: =! Conclusion55555555555555555555555555555!!!!!:6 >! "ibliography555555555555555555555555555!!!!!!!!!!'>

L&"! o% Pl#!e"
Plate 4!43% "roo-e Alfaro! Nine, %&&%39! Plate %!43% ;es<s Palomino! Vendors and Squatters, %&&9! Plate 9!43% ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf! Mind the Steps, %&&=! Plate 7!43% S@P8)/ 8A & ;ens Haaning! 1000 biennial poster project, %&&=!

A$"!'#c!
The current climate surrounding contemporary art productionBincluding recent curatorial and e.hibition practicesBis especially mar-ed by an ongoing e.pansion of the field across disciplinary boundaries and beyond the conventional spaces of display and reception! This e.panding field of artistic production spreads in multiple directions, an e.panding universe ,ithout any definite center or edge! $n addition, there is a considerable amount of

contemporary art production today that has shifted a,ay from notions of ob0ecthood, ,herein artists ta-e the very nature of human relations itself as the source material for the underta-ing of a pro0ect or research initiative, developing ,or-s that are very much defined by their processes of coming3into3being and points of reception! Concomitantly, in recent years there have been a number of e.hibitions predicated on the idea of the city as an integral protagonist in the e.hibition process, in ,hich artists are invited to develop pro0ects in dialogue ,ith the inhabitants, spaces, cultural milieu, etc!, of the host city! /ocusing on the notions of collaboration, improvisation, representation, and community, this analysis see-s to scrutini2e and question such practices in their layering of both sociopolitical and aesthetic qualities! An analysis of t,o recent e.hibitions(

ciudadMULTIPLEcity, Panama City, PanamaC and the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, $stanbul, Tur-eyBalong ,ith select e.amples of socially engaged, collaborative public art pro0ects ,ithinB,ill e.plore the multivalent and ultimately contingent nature of such practices! "y ma-ing the invisible visible Di!e! social tensions, po,er dynamics,

marginali2ed groups of individualsE, these pro0ects create situations that embody ,hat /rench philosophers 8rnesto aclau and Chantal Mouffe have termed Fradical democracyG through

the activation of an Fagonistic public sphere!G Het, important questions remain( Ho, does one evaluate the success or failure of these ,or-sI *hat is the actual value of such practices, both immediately and in the long3 termI /or ,hom are these ,or-s valuableI And ,hat are the sta-es and claims at the core of these pro0ectsI $n order to address these questions, $ have developed a set of criteria for the evaluation of these types of pro0ects by engaging in the contemporary discourse surrounding socially engaged, collaborative public art practices! The main criteria points include( the relationship bet,een the aesthetic qualities and the sociopolitical mode of address Das $ have already mentionedEC the issue of ethicsC the relationship bet,een artistic autonomy and collaborative modes of productionC and finally the point of reception and afterlife of the various pro0ects!

In!'od(c!&on
The current climate surrounding contemporary art productionBincluding recent curatorial and e.hibition practicesBis especially mar-ed by an ongoing e.pansion of the field across disciplinary boundaries and beyond the conventional spaces of display and reception! This e.panding field of artistic production4 spreads in multiple directionsC an e.panding universe ,ithout any definite center or edge, the field of art both creates and permeates the spaces of our lives, and of our thoughts! This ultimately generative process further eludes the art historical desire to name, label and define by ,ay of its ability to adapt and transform! Much of artistic production today is not predicated on notions of ob0ecthood, but rather on investigating the relationships bet,een art and DglobalE society, ,ith particular attention to the implicit relations of everyday life! Currently, there is a great deal of contemporary art production that ta-es the very nature of human relations as the source material for the underta-ing of a pro0ect or research initiative! $n doing so, artistic processes are combined ,ith social processes of transformation through the Fma-ing visibleG of that ,hich is other,ise invisible( the very socio3politico3economic tensions and po,er relations that

The concept of an Fe.panded fieldG ,ith regard to the visual arts is here adapted from the ,riting of )osalind ?rauss and ?ate /o,le! $n her seminal essay FSculpture in the 8.panded /ield,G ?rauss asserts the need to reevaluate the notion of sculpture, or ,hat is characteri2ed as sculptural, in light of the proliferation of certain artistic trends Di!e! Minimalism, Performance and and Art, $nstallation, etc!E in the >&Js and 6&Js that sought to question and complicate the boundaries of such practices! More recently, ?ate /o,le has adapted this concept in order to frame her analysis of contemporary curatorial practices in her essay F*ho CaresI @nderstanding the )ole of the Curator Today!G $n observation of the myriad of roles that the curator of contemporary art today performs, /o,le uses the notion of an Fe.panded field of curatingG to relate the different practices that are DproblematicallyE lumped together as a seemingly singular practice! $n both instances there is an urgent need to reconsider art historical categori2ations that have become increasingly outmoded! $n order to avoid the flattening out of art historical categories, the authors focus primarily on ideas of difference and distinction, thereby revealing the ongoing diversification ,ithin the field in question rather than subscribing to predetermined modes of analysis! *ith regard to the argument here, $ have also found it e.ceedingly important to investigate the different and distinct ,ays that socially engaged, collaborative public art manifests! )osalind ?rauss, FSculpture in the 8.panded /ield,G in ctober : DSpring 4'6'E( 9&377! ?ate /o,le, F*ho CaresI @nderstanding the )ole of the Curator Today,G in !autionary Tales" !ritical !uratin#, ed! Steven )and and Heather ?ouris D+e, Hor-( ape.art, %&&6E, %>39=!

organi2e societal life, as ,ell as the FinvisibleG people ,ithin society, the marginali2ed andKor disenfranchised! *ithin current art historical and critical ,riting these practices have been garnished ,ith a variety of qualifying designations( Fsocially engaged art, community3based art, e.perimental communities, dialogic art, littoral art, participatory, interventionist, research3 based, or collaborative art!G% 8ach of these designations reveals a theoretical inclination, the ,ill of the author to present specific artists, ,or-s of art, e.hibitions, curatorial methodologies, and communities of people ,ithin a carefully circumscribed frame of meaning and signification! $nevitably, all such analytical pro0ects are incomplete, but this is not to be disparaged! Luite the contrary( 0ust as many of these pro0ects are designed as open3 ended systems of collaboration, so too should the analysis hinge on the contingencies of specific situations and interactions! $t is important to -eep in mind that the inscription of a set of practices is al,ays an act of e.clusion as ,ell! /urthermore, so as not to confuse the creative process of the ,riter ,ith that of the practitioners in question, it is of the utmost importance to identify and ma-e transparent the criteria for the evaluation of the different pro0ects alongside some sense of the historical tra0ectory of the discourse that both informs and is informed by socially engaged, collaborative public art practices! The first chapter of this te.t begins at this point, sifting through the different voices and positions prevalent in the contemporary discourse in order to identify and develop a coherent set of criteria for the evaluation of these types of pro0ects! /or this is one of the primary obstacles facing artists, curators, art historians and critics ,ho have ta-en deep interest in this highly porous field of study( the very mutability of these practices does much
2

Claire "ishop, FThe Social Turn( Collaboration and $ts #iscontents,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! > D/eb! %&&>E( 46'!

to dissuade the use of oversimplified categories and concepts, and ,ithout sufficient tools Dtheoretical or practicalE to measure and gage their multiple values and points of reception, analysis can often lead to a reduction of the ,or-s to a single dimension or more narro,ly defined critical frame! As ,ill be sho,n throughout the course of this essay, many of these pro0ects of socially engaged, collaborative art are highly comple. systems that entangle both aesthetic and socio3politico3economic issues! These -inds of practices often spea- to diverse groupings of people, ,hoB,hile deeply interconnectedBmay or may not have access to the necessary socially, culturally or politically viable opportunities for the formulation of their o,n forms of e.pression! This often introduces a desire to be ethically stringent ,hen dealing ,ith such situations, and ,hile this is surely ,ell intended, the subscription to an ethical value system as criterion for the analysis of these types of pro0ects should be scrutini2ed as ,ell and not simply ta-en at face value! At the core of these practices $ have come to identify a number of -ey concepts that are central to my analyses of the case studies that ma-e up the other chapters of this te.t! The t,o most significant of these are the concepts of collaboration and representation, both of ,hich are much overused ,ithin current art historical and critical discourses, ,hich often does more to diminish their significance as a result of their uncritical application ,ithout the necessary qualifications! My interest in collaborative processes e.tends far beyond merely the definition of t,o or more people F,or-ing together!G This is a rather mundane

interpretation and does not convey the sense of reciprocal activationBprocesses that create a sense of agency and empo,erment among the participants that they may not other,ise put into practiceBthat is fundamental to collaboration! The e.hibitions, and ,or-s of art ,ithin, develop situations for the e.pression of multiple sub0ect positions, and it is through these

10

-inds of e.changes that the possibility for change is enacted, ,ith careful attention paid to the aesthetic potential of the communicative act! Above all, these pro0ects come to function as critical sites of debate and contestation, a form of productive interaction that invariably metaboli2es the different vie,points of those involved in order to produce other vie,points to be mulled over and debated! Such processes are ultimately dialectical in nature,

productive in their sustained oppositionality and interconnectedness! The different sub0ect positions encounter one another and cataly2e DreEvision through such interactions as a result of their pro.imities, both physically and intellectually! $t is no ,onder then that many of these pro0ects have been hailed for their democratic nature, through the visuali2ation and vocali2ation of the polis, but $ ,ould ta-e this idea even further! These pro0ects are not merely embodiments of democratic ideals, but are part of a larger pro0ect identified by /rench philosophers 8rnesto democracy!G9 aclau and Chantal Mouffe as Fradical

This is not the complacent form of democratic participation that largely

defines many political systems today, but the creation of an Fagonistic public sphere!G 7 At this point, the notion of representation ,ithin the arts becomes infused ,ith a sense of political representation! #ebate and contestation are the cornerstones of a healthy political sphere, and $ hold the same for ,or-s of art that attempt to address issues that also blend into the realms of the social sciences and beyond! This e.tends their potential value far beyond the rectification of some perceived societal ailment! Socially engaged, collaborative public art pro0ects, in my opinion, should not be sub0ugated to some ameliorative function or criterion, as this ,ould greatly reduce the comple. nature of such practices and the issues
3

"arbara Steiner, F)adical #emocracy, Ac-no,ledging the Comple.ities and Contingencies,G S@P8)/ 8A, http(KK,,,!superfle.!netKte.tKarticlesKac-no,ledging!shtml! Minna Henri-sson, FThe *orld Can "e Transformed by Action,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM7!

11

that are their ra, materials! *hile many of these pro0ects most certainly contain some ideological bent D,hich is unavoidable, a facet of authorshipE, there is also a concerted effort to represent the true, multivalent nature of such issues! Art, after all, is more concerned ,ith raising questions than providing concrete ans,ers! To further e.plore these issues, ,hich are by nature contingent upon the particular nuances of their development and implementation Despecially as this relates to their physical and conceptual conte.tsE $ have selected t,o recent e.hibitions for analysis! The e.hibitions in question are( ciudadMULTIPLEcity, Panama City, Panama, %&&9C and the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, $stanbul, Tur-ey, %&&=! The thread of interest that is ,oven through these case studies concerns the notion of conte.t at multiple scales, ,ith regard to both the individual pro0ects and the overall e.hibitions! As such, it ,ill be important to investigate the different notions of conte.t formulated ,ithin each e.hibition, as ,ell as among the e.hibitions! i-e concentric circles, the conte.t of the city engulfs the conte.t of each

pro0ect! "ut ,hat, e.actly, is the relationship bet,een these micro and macro conte.tsI /rom the perspective of the individual pro0ects, each dra,s Fupon the comple. discourse of the relationship bet,een artist and place, re3imagining place as a situation, a set of circumstances, geographical location, historical narrative, group of people or social agenda!G = Nooming further out, one must then consider ho, these FsituationsG relate to ,hat "ritish author and urban theorist ;onathan )aban has termed the Fsoft cityGBFa city made from a comple. net,or- of human relationships and individual e.periences, a city built around the physical and psychological terrains mapped out by its inhabitants!G >
5

Claire #oherty, FThe +e, Situationists,G in !onte&porary $rt" 'ro& Studio to Situations D ondon( "lac#og Publishing td!, %&&7E, :! Claire #oherty, F ocation, ocation( The "iennale and the City,G $rt Monthly %:4 D+ov! %&&7E( '!

12

The analysis of each case study ,ill involve an investigation into the interactivity bet,een the e.hibition as a ,hole and the urban environment in ,hich it is situatedC an analysis of the curatorial methodology and organi2ation as a guiding force of the e.hibition Dincluding the curatorial role played in the development of artistic pro0ectsEC and the relationship bet,een the artists, their pro0ects and the various constituencies that they attempt to engage! Therefore, in the case of ciudadMULTIPLEcity, $ ,ill begin ,ith a description of Panama City as the e.hibition platform or stage for the developments of the various pro0ects, and assess the methodologies employed by co3curators 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos prior to and over the course of the e.hibition! /ocusing in ,ith greater detail, $ ,ill then investigate t,o pro0ects from the e.hibition( Nine D%&&9E, a t,o3channel video by Panamanian artist "roo-e Alfaro developed in and pro0ected upon housing pro0ects in the neighborhood of "arra2a in collaboration ,ith local rival gang membersC and a series of sculptural installations by Spanish artist ;es<s Palomino entitled Vendors and Squatters D%&&9E dispersed throughout the city! $n similar fashion, an analysis of the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial ,ill begin ,ith some characteri2ation of the city of $stanbul, Tur-ey, ,hich has hosted 4& editions of the "iennial to date! /or the 'th installation of the e.hibition, co3curators Oasif ?ortun and Charles 8sche ,ere selected to steer the ship! As a result of the curatorial decision to physically displace certain -ey elements and pro0ects outside of $stanbul proper, $ selected one pro0ect from F$stanbulG and one pro0ect from F+ot3$stanbul!G Austrian artist ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf developed a pro0ect entitled Mind the Steps D%&&=E that utili2ed the rambunctious and dis0ointed staircases of the "eyoglu district, at night inviting different members of the community to perform on specially selected and illuminated points along the path,ays! The

13

#anish artist collective S@P8)/ 8A, ,ith fello, #anish artist ;ens Haaning, displaced their biennial pro0ect to their hometo,n of Copenhagen by shipping 4&&& official biennial posters to that northern city and posting them in various sections of the city so as to resonate ,ith certain racial undertones andKor socioeconomic tensions that color the everyday lives of the inhabitants there! )ather than revealing a -ind of categorical identity or formula for socially engaged, collaborative public art practices, these case studies ,ill ma-e visible the (ariety of practices that fall under such a rubric, all the ,hile underlining the contingent nature of each pro0ectJs development, implementation and reception! As primarily ephemeral and performative

,or-s of art, these pro0ects are difficult to pin do,n and define ,ith any sense of utter confidence! Pne of the main issues that continues to plague this realm of activity is the lacof certainty as to their actual social value and lasting effects upon those they engage or ,ho are affected through indirect processes of transformation as these pro0ects permeate the neighborhoods, districts, cities and the ,orld beyond! $t is my hope that through a close reading of the discourse around this sub0ect matter and through intimate engagements ,ith a number of -ey curators, artists and ,or-s of art that some of these questions ,ill be illuminated in the follo,ing pages!

14

T'#c&ng !)e M(l!&*le L&ne" o% In+(&',

#espite the tendency for art historical categori2ations to essentiali2e artistic trends and practices over time, the history of site3specificity and socially engaged, collaborative art is both e.tensive and ,idely varied! $n the development of the present discourse on the sub0ect, many ,riters have found precedence in the ideological shadings and event3li-e pro0ects of early to mid3%&th century avant3garde groups! Movements li-e #ada, the /uturists and the Surrealists ,ere very much interested in brea-ing do,n the traditional boundaries bet,een art and life, al,ays see-ing to disrupt the complacency of modern bourgeois life through the Dat timesE shoc-ing reinterpretation of artistic and social spheres!6 Pf import here is the ,ay in ,hich these practitioners sought to disrupt and agitate the societies and publics in ,hich they circulated! This is a crucial point of focus in my o,n research, and it is something that $ ,ill return to time and time again! Ho,ever, ,hile there are correlations bet,een these past artistic agendas and more recent reincarnations, the evolution of these practices is anything but linear! Close analysis reveals ho, the continual reformulation of fundamental concepts and the terms of engagement today are quite distinct from these earlier points of reference! To,ards this end, the recently published te.t ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic

$rt and Locational Identity, by art historian and critic Mi,on ?,on, is a much3needed critical addition to this discourse! )ather than rooting through the more historically distant artistic precedents, ?,on focuses her research and analyses upon recent trends ,ithin the
7

Claire "ishop ta-es cause ,ith 1rant ?esterJs criticism of the historical avant3garde on the basis of this Fshoc-G value! ?ester is critical of the supposed authority of the avant3garde artist ,ho has the insight that others apparently do not and forces this position onto others in order to sha-e them from the normalcy of daily life! "ishop, in turn, suggests Fsuch discomfort and frustrationBalong ,ith absurdity, eccentricity, doubt, or sheer pleasureBcan, on the contrary, be crucial elements of a ,or-Js aesthetic impact and are essential to gaining ne, perspectives on our condition!G Claire "ishop, FThe Social Turn( Collaboration and $ts #iscontents,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! > D/eb! %&&>E( 4:4!

15

past =& years or so! Pf particular interest is her development of a genealogy ,ith regard to these types of practices, a process over the course of ,hich the notions of difference and subversion emerge as critical foci! ?,on begins her genealogical history in the 4'>&s, a period of artistic activity in ,hich site3specific ,or-s of art emphasi2ed Fa phenomenological or e.periential understanding of the site,G: as informed by artistic movements such as Minimalism, Happenings, $nstallation and and Art Damong othersE! This interest in

phenomenology is largely the influence of the theories of /rench philosopher Maurice Merleau3Ponty, ,hose te.ts ,ere first translated into 8nglish during this time! ' Thus, ?,on describes ho,(
site3specific art initially too- the site as an actual location, a tangible reality, its identity composed of a unique combination of physical elements( length, depth, height, te.ture, and shape of ,alls and roomsC scale and proportion of pla2as, buildings, or par-sC e.isting conditions of lighting, ventilation, traffic patternsC distinctive topographical features, and so forth!4&

The site or conte.t at play in these veins of site3specificity focused primarily on physical attributes and the relationship bet,een the vie,erJs o,n physicality and that of the site! The vie,erJs body and sensorial faculties became important considerations in the development of the ,or-, ,hich inevitably entailed a -ind of FmeasuringG of the relationships bet,een location, art,or-, and vie,er! At roughly the same time, the artistic genre of institutional critique also emerged! *hile the label of Finstitutional critiqueG ,as applied much later, and has subsequently had a
8

Mi,on ?,on, introduction to ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity D"oston( M$T Press, %&&%E, 9! )obert Hobbs, FMerleau3PontyJs Phenomenology and $nstallation Art,G in Installations" Mattress 'actory* 1++0)1+++ DPittsburgh( @niversity of Pittsburgh Press, %&&4E, 4:! Mi,on ?,on, F1enealogy of Site Specificity,G in ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity D"oston( M$T Press, %&&%E, 44!

10

16

number of reformulations over the years,44 many of the artists ,or-ing in this vein shared an interest in the conte.tuali2ation of art beyond its physical relationships, insisting Fon the social matri. of the class, race, gender, and se.uality of the vie,ing sub0ect,G and ho, such attributes relate to the Fcultural frame,or- QasR defined by the institutions of art!G4% $n ,or-s by artists li-e Michael Asher, #aniel "uren, Hans Haac-e, )obert Smithson, and Marcel "roodthaers Dto name but a fe,E, the interest in the siting of the ,or- of art too- on cultural and socio3politico3economic significance, often in the form of a critique of the host institution! At times this meant moving beyond the institutional frame,or- in order to subvert the dominant position of such by e.posing the internal po,er dynamics and problems associated ,ith institutionali2ation! $n the 4':&s and '&s these practices ,ere further developed in the ,or-s of artists li-e Andrea /raser and /red *ilson! $n e.hibitions li-e *ilsonJs Minin# the Museu&, at the Maryland Historical Society in 4''%, one can observe ho, the field of art ,as increasingly influenced and informed by interdisciplinary forms of -no,ledge, including the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, philosophy, literary criticism, and so on! Moving even closer to the present, ?,on correctly points out the ongoing dual e.pansions of site3specific art,or-s Dor conte.t3sensitive, as $ prefer to characteri2e such practicesE in terms of both their spatial, physical orientations and their intellectual dimensions! Her description of current socially engaged, conte.t3sensitive artistic practices is quite poignant(
11

There remains a great deal of debate around the sub0ect, but many theorists agree that there have been three ,aves of institutional critique over the years, beginning ,ith the first ,ave in the 4'>&s! /or a more complete account of the evolution of institutional critique, there are a number of recent te.ts and online 0ournal editions that address this topic! +ina MSntmann, ed!, $rt $nd Its Institutions" !urrent !on%licts* !ritique $nd !ollaborations D ondon( "lac- #og Publishing, %&&>E! ;ohn C! *elchman, ed!, Institutional !ritique and $%ter" Vol, - o% the So!!$S Sy&posia DNurich( ;)P, )ingier, %&&>E! Mi,on ?,on, F1enealogy of Site Specificity,G in ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity D"oston( M$T Press, %&&%E, 49!

12

17

the distinguishing characteristics of todayJs site3oriented art is the ,ay in ,hich the art ,or-Js relationship to the actuality of a location Das siteE and the social conditions of the institutional frame Das siteE are both subordinate to a discursi(ely determined site that is delineated as a field of -no,ledge, intellectual e.change, or cultural debate!49

$ am especially attracted to this description as it emphasi2es the conceptual nature of these practicesBtheir discursive propertiesBas productive in the development and refinement of -no,ledge, and in its processes of e.change and debate! "y emphasi2ing these

characteristics, ?,on asserts both the artistic and sociopolitical potency that are critical aspects of many of these pro0ects! /ar from merely F,or-ing together,G or helping to resolve some perceived societal ailment, $ believe that the most interesting and successful socially engaged, collaborative public art pro0ects today function as sites of contestation and debate! As ,ill be sho,n in the analysis of the specific case studies, many of these pro0ects create forums for the e.pression of multiple voices and multiple points of vie,, a process that is not entirely dissimilar to political debates or forums! *ith this in mind, then, it seems prudent to turn to the criteria $ have established for the analysis and evaluation of such pro0ects!

Tow#'d" !)e De-elo* en! o% C'&!e'&# %o' E-#l(#!&on

The very cru. of this essay is founded on the analysis of recent e.hibitions of socially engaged, collaborative public art specifically as ,or-s of artBand not some other type of ,or- Di!e! social ,or-, or political advocacyEBand as investigations into various sociopolitical issues! )ecently there has been a resurgence of interest ,ith regard to this topic, much of ,hich focuses on the need to further develop the discourse and, concomitantly, the criteria for the evaluation of these types of pro0ects! $n addition to the
13

Mi,on ?,on, F1enealogy of Site Specificity,G in ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity D"oston( M$T Press, %&&%E, %>!

18

,ritings of Mi,on ?,on, the ,ritings of Claire "ishop, 1rant ?ester, Claire #oherty, Patricia Phillips and Hal /oster have fueled a great deal of debate on the sub0ect! /urthermore, many of these authors are responding to reoccurring questions concerning the relationship bet,een art and societal life, such as 1uy #ebordJs contributions to the Situationist movement,47 +icolas "ourriaudJs Frelational aesthetics,G4= and ;acques )anciTreJs theories concerning the relationship of art and politics!4> *ith limited time and space, $ ,ill not attempt to account for each authorJs position in full, but rather focus on the main points around ,hich $ have developed my o,n criteria for analysis( these include the relationship bet,een aesthetic and sociopolitical qualitiesC the issue of ethics in the development of these types of ,or-s Dand the e.hibition practices associated ,ith themEC the relationship bet,een artistic autonomy and collaborative modes of productionC and the point of reception and afterlife of the pro0ects! $n the development of the criteria by ,hich to evaluate the successfulness of the various e.hibitions and pro0ects, $ have relied heavily on the ,ritings of Claire "ishop in the construction of a frame,or- for this critical analysis! $n recent years "ishop has emerged as a prominent voice ,ithin the discourse concerning socially engaged, collaborative art practices, and it is in her ,riting that $ find a great deal of correlation bet,een her ideas and my o,n research( namely, to scrutini2e, question and further complicate the assumptions upon ,hich these practices are based and valued!46 $n an essay published in $rt%oru& in
14

1uy #ebord, FTo,ards a Situationist $nternational,G in Participation, ed! Claire "ishop DCambridge( M$T Press, %&&>E, '>34&4! +icolas "ourriaud, F)elational Aesthetics,G in Participation, ed! Claire "ishop DCambridge( M$T Press, %&&>E, 4>&3464! ;acques )anciTre, The Politics o% $esthetics" The .istribution o% the Sensible, trans! 1abriel )oc-hill D+e, Hor-( Continuum $nternational Publishing 1roup, %&&>E! ;ennifer )oche, FSocially 8ngaged Art, Critics and #iscontents( An $ntervie, ,ith Claire "ishop,G

15

16

17

19

%&&>( FThe Social Turn( Collaborations and their #iscontents,G "ishop identified ,hat she believes to be the relevant criteria by ,hich to analy2e socially engaged art! "roadly spea-ing, the criteria can be divided into t,o separate yet deeply ent,ined categories( the aesthetic or artistic qualities of the pro0ect and its sociopolitical mode of address! Ho,ever, according to "ishop, a reductive dis0ointedness has prevailed in recent art historical and critical ,riting on this sub0ect, ,hereby many of these pro0ects are 0udged less according to their status as artBper seBthrough a ,eighting of the analysis to,ards their political and social efficacy! $n response to this trend "ishop ,onders aloud( F$s there ground on ,hich the t,o sides can meetIG4: Pf course, this is a rhetorical provocation, and one that $ ,ill gladly ta-e up! $n the process of determining the criteria to be employed, it has come to my attention that even the specific points of tension that are of -een interest vary ,idely from one pro0ect to the ne.t in their significance and meaningfulness! This is largely the result of the

contingent nature of the e.hibitions, and the pro0ects ,ithin! Their communicative po,er is al,ays set ,ithin a given set of parameters, some of ,hich are artistically motivated ,hile others are beyond control! As for the aesthetic and sociopolitical intert,ining at the core of the pro0ects $ have selected for analysis, $ have identified a number of -ey attributes that $ intend to further elucidate by engaging the ,ritings of the authors listed above! To begin ,ith, the aesthetic qualities that $ have selected to help guide the different analyses involve the dialogical, open3ended design of the pro0ects Din ,hich communication is valued as an artistic medium in its o,n rightE, and their performative nature that emphasi2es such
Community Arts +et,or-, http(KK,,,!communityarts!netKreadingroomKarchivefilesK%&&>K&6KsociallyUengage!php!
18

Claire "ishop, FThe Social Turn( Collaboration and $ts #iscontents,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! > D/eb! %&&>E( 4:&!

20

characteristics as ephemerality, transience and contingency! As for the sociopolitical mode of address, the areas of interest involve the dialectical nature of the pro0ectJs development around a certain issue or set of issues, its sensitivity to the conte.t in ,hich it operates Din both physical, or spatial, and intellectual termsE, and the collaborative process of production ,ith its underlying collectivity and psychology of inclusion! /urthermore, ,ith respect to each of the e.hibitions3as3case3studies that $ have selected for analysis, the criteria ,ill be e.plored across the various layers of interaction that are inherent to any e.hibition process, ,ith special attention paid to the relationships developed bet,een the curators, artists, artistic pro0ects and participants! At a primary Dand very personalE level, $ believe that art and artists have the uncanny and unparalleled ability to affect, reveal and confound by ,ay of the inherent interdisciplinarity of the field! The very reasons for ,hich $ have chosen to enter this field of practice, rather than any other, is the result of my interest in interdisciplinary modes of thought and visual e.pression! *or-s of art operate or perform on a number of different levels simultaneously, and thus are able to more aptly convey the very comple.ity of thought and life! /urthermore, such a conception of art opens the ,ay to,ards the idea that anything can be considered artistic, ,hile to reevaluate life and societal relations in this ,ay also opens the ,ay for the reinvigoration of such! Art historian Patricia Phillips has long been a leading proponent and critic of interdisciplinary thought, especially as it relates to public art practices! Pver the years she has ,ritten e.tensively on the sub0ect! Phillips ,arns against an automatic reading of

interdisciplinarity Fas inherently constructive,G and ac-no,ledges that such practices Fcan become compliant and neutrali2ed, or authoritarian and doctrinaire, rather than open and 21

inquiring!G4' This perspective spea-s to the idea of socially engaged, collaborative public art as an open3ended, dialectical process! "ut ,hat is of crucial significance here is that the questioning, inquisitiveness of the pro0ect must not become subservient to one position or another, but must retain a critical distance ,ith regard to the various constituencies that are represented ,ithin the ,or-Kprocess! Phillips further asserts( F$nterdisciplinarity is not

simply an indiscriminate amalgamation of conventions from different fields, but a faceted ,ay of loo-ing at the formation of -no,ledge and the public realm5 $nterdisciplinary aesthetic practices are a ,ay to thin- critically and act publicly!G%& *ith regard to the forthcoming analyses, $ ,ill focus on e.actly these processes of -no,ledge formation, conveyance and reception, as-ing( ,hat are the interdisciplinary forms of -no,ledge that the curators and artists employI *ho do they intend to engage through such an addressI And, aesthetically spea-ing, ho, are these elements assembled, layered and conveyed through the process of coming3into3being, of becoming visibleI The idea of communication as an artistic medium is a primary aesthetic attribute of the e.hibitions and individual pro0ects up for discussion here! $n their o,n respective ,ays, the e.hibitions and the ,or-s of art function as sites, as forums around and through ,hich various forms of e.pression are cast, collide, synthesi2e, decay and regenerate! After all, innovation and ingenuity in the public realm and in the arts do not necessarily solve problems, but more importantly create ne, ,ays of understanding and, in the process of doing so, create ne, issues to be confronted! To participate in art is to participate in an act of communication, and through conveyance ideas are transmitted, grappled ,ith and metaboli2ed! $t should be no surprise by this point that $ am a strong advocate for and
19 20

Patricia C! Phillips, FD$nterE#isciplinary Actions,G Public $rt /e(ie0 4=, +o! 4 D/allK*inter %&&9E( 4%! $bid( 4=!

22

supporter of ,or-s of art that maintain a critical attitude throughout their development, implementation and reception! An interest in this facet of socially engaged, collaborative art is something that $ share ,ith Claire "ishop! Pne of the fundamental attributes of this -ind of ,or- involves the relationship bet,een the artistDsE and collaborators! At the core of these practices is a contradiction bet,een the artist as an autonomous actor D,ho is li-ely to approach the pro0ect from a position of privilege, a fact that often stands in star- contrast to the position of the participantsE and the collective identification of the collaborative process! This tension is productive in the sense that it helps the pro0ect to maintain a critical distance, so that the different identities are not simply fused seamlessly into one another, protecting the ,orfrom devolving into mere complacency! Thus, $ find myself very much in agreement ,ith her vie, that(
The best collaborative practices of the past ten years address this contradictory pull bet,een autonomy and social intervention, and reflect on this antimony both in the structure of the ,or- and in the conditions of its reception! $t is to this artBho,ever uncomfortable, e.ploitative, or confusing it may first appearBthat ,e must turn for an alternative to the ,ell3intentioned homilies that today pass for critical discourse on social collaboration5 to confront dar-er, more painfully complicated considerations of our predicament!%4

Part of ,hat "ishop ,ishes to move a,ay from, to reconsider, is ,hat she has asserted as an ethical turn in critical ,riting as it pertains to socially engaged ,or-s of art! The discourse itself, "ishop argues, suffers from a reliance on preconceived ethical standards of ho, artists operate ,ithin and come to represent in their art,or-s certain constituencies, ideas and issues that may not other,ise directly relate to or involve them! This preoccupation ,ith an ethics of engagement inserts a rift bet,een the layers of aesthetic and sociopolitical qualities in
21

Claire "ishop, FThe Social Turn( Collaboration and $ts #iscontents,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! > D/eb! %&&>E( 4:9!

23

these ,or-s! F8mphasis is shifted a,ay from the disruptive speci%icity of a given ,or- and onto a #enerali1ed set of moral precepts!G%% *hile this trend in art criticism may be ,ell3 intentioned, to assess a ,or- of art that intends to embody the comple.ities of societal lifeB the tensions and multifaceted relationships that interconnect various constituenciesBon the basis of its fairness or the appropriateness of the interaction, is an egregious oversight and a misidentification of the ,or- through a dismissal of its aesthetic dimensions! /urthermore, the ethical standards by ,hich such evaluations are made should not be immune to scrutiny, and should certainly not act as preventative measures for a deeper understanding of comple. social interactions and their incarnations as ,or-s of art! )ecently this discourse has been further fueled by a debate that emerged in response to "ishopJs $rt%oru& article mentioned above! The art historian and critic 1rant ?ester has assumed an oppositional stance in a debate ,ith "ishop that too- place through a highly charged e.change of letters in a later issue of $rt%oru&!%9 *hile it appears that each ,riterJs opinions are diametrically opposed to the otherJs, there are perhaps more commonalities than the authors are ,illing to ac-no,ledge! To be clear, there are important differences bet,een their vie,s concerning the nature, criteria for evaluation, and productivity of socially engaged, collaborative art,or-s! "ut the polari2ation of their critical positions is an

e.aggeration in my opinion, even if it is one that the both of them ,ould li-e to uphold! The relationship bet,een aesthetics and sociopolitical discourses form the primary criterion for evaluation in ?esterJs research as ,ell! $n fact, much of his ,riting affirms that the ,ay in ,hich these qualities relate to each other, al,ays in a very specific conte.t, is at
22 23

$bid( 4:4! 1rant ?ester, FAnother Turn,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! ' DMay %&&>E( %%! )esponds,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! ' DMay %&&>E( %7! Claire "ishop, FClaire "ishop

24

the heart of the successfulness and significance of FdialogicalG%7 ,or-s of art! ?ester also ac-no,ledges a disassociation of the aesthetic and the sociopolitical in the criticism and discussions surrounding these ,or-s, and, as part of his larger interest in the field, attempts Fto challenge the disengagement of the aesthetic from political discourse not by denying the -no,ledge produced by the body and the senses, but by analy2ing the ,ays in ,hich this -no,ledge both resists and collaborates ,ith forms of social, cultural, and political po,er!G Hence, ?ester is committed to understanding and addressing Fthe political economy of the aesthetic!G%= This is a most important tas-, and integral to the investigation of politici2ed ,or-s of art! Ho,ever, there is also the potential danger of muting the true aesthetic force of these ,or-s by ma-ing the aesthetic simply a tool of the political! "ishop is critical of this undermining of the aesthetic, and 0ust as one must be vigorous in the analysis of collaborative practices ,ith regard to their sociopolitical mode of address, so too is it necessary Fto discuss, analy2e, and compare such ,or- critically as art!G%> After all, as $ have attempted to outline throughout this section, it is not simply that these ,or-s of art also involve some sociopolitical commentary, but ho, the different layers of aesthetic and sociopolitical characteristics interconnect, resonate, andKor create internal antagonisms ,ithin the ,or- that emanate out,ards to the various constituencies! This leads to another important consideration that needs to be accounted for( the idea
24

?ester refers to these -inds of practices as dialogical, in that ,hat many of these pro0ects share bet,een them Band are largely informed and shaped byBis Fthe facilitation of dialogue and e.change!G *hile $ generally agree ,ith this formulation, $ prefer to emphasi2e the notion of debate over dialogue, as $ feel that the latter term diffuses the political and social agency that such interactions cataly2e! 1rant ?ester, F#ialogical Aesthetics,G in !on(ersation Pieces" !o&&unity and !o&&unication in Modern $rt D"er-eley( @niversity of California Press, %&&7E, 4&6! 1rant ?ester, F earning from Aesthetics( Pld Masters and +e, essons,G $rt 2ournal =>, +o! 4 DSpring 4''6E( %7! Claire "ishop, FThe Social Turn( Collaboration and $ts #iscontents,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! > D/eb! %&&>E( 4:&!

25

26

25

that socially engaged, collaborative practices empo,er the participants through processes of collective inclusion and by representing a symbolic po,er struggle ,ithin ,hich the various constituencies are themselves transformed into agents of change! This is arguably the most important and most neglected aspect of these ,or-s, at least in the evaluation of the successfulness of a given pro0ect, namely, its purpose and ability to truly affect! *hile many of the theorists listed above ac-no,ledge this empo,ering function D,hich is, in fact, often the very ob0ective of the ,or- itselfE, $ have yet to uncover any attempt to e.plore ho, this actually manifests and the possibility of any real, lasting effects from such processes! Part of the problem here is that very little has been done to develop methods for the qualification and quantification of this function, a process that ,ould require a prolonged and dedicated engagement ,ith the identified sub0ects! This problem is something that plagues my o,n analyses here as ,ell, but $ hope to at least push these limitations as far as possible, even if relying on second3hand accounts from individuals involved in the different pro0ects! /or the present moment, ho,ever, $ ,ill begin by pic-ing apart the assumption of empo,erment and agency in order to better understand ho, and ,hy these ,or-s are considered valuable for such! Pne of the first assumptions made is that the communities engaged as part of the collaborative process are marginal to societal lifeC that these people have been left out, ignored, or overshado,ed! /irst of all, the labeling of people as marginal to society in some ,ay is not a prerequisite for the possibility of empo,erment! Ho,ever, collaborative

pro0ects that focus their attention on the sociopolitical rifts and tensions ,ithin societal life seem to elicit much more impassioned responses! As such, the collaborative pro0ects that $ am most interested in are those that create a -ind of stage upon ,hich different perspectives

26

are represented in a symbolic struggle for po,er! After all, underlining these pro0ects are issues concerned ,ith the po,er relations ,ithin society D,hich are administered from the top do,n, more often than notE, and through collaborative models of production this tric-le3 do,n effect is disrupted or even subverted! *hile $ am inclined to believe that many of these pro0ects provide a sense of o,nership and agency ,ithin the creative process that may other,ise be lac-ing in social and political life, $ firmly re0ect the idea that at their core these pro0ects are of a utopian nature, or have some utopian evocation! %6 "rea-ing do,n this assumption even further, there are t,o concepts that are pivotal to the empo,ering function of these ,or-s of art( the concepts of community and representation! The concept of community has become a bu22,ord employed across various disciplines in recent years, and in being used so carelessly, many theorists have begun to seriously question its usefulness and applicability! ;ust as the notion of collaboration suffers from over3generali2ation, so too does the idea of community fall prey to overuse and a lacof conte.tual specificity! The concept of community is an integral part of Mi,on ?,onJs analysis of site3specificity and the development of locational identities! #espite Fthe habitual tendencyG of artists and other cultural practitioners to lin- community ,ith a particular social group or issue, ?,on correctly problemati2es this tendency(
the Fcommunity,G coveted in contemporary political, economic, social, and cultural discourses ali-e, is not bound to any particular class, gender, ethnicity, age group, religion, location, or even type of cause! $nsofar as its invocation can serve a broad range of purposes, for the liberal left and the conservative right, and designate a ,ide array of group types, its rhetorical uses today are fraught ,ith more ambiguity and fle.ibility than are accounted for by either advocates or critics of community3based
27

$n a recent intervie, ?ester commented( F$Jve al,ays felt that the po,er of art rested in its ability to evo-e utopian possibilities!G This -ind of sentiment is in line ,ith ,hat $ feel is most detracting from ?esterJs arguments, namely, the ,ay that he inadvertently de3politici2es ,hat are other,ise highly charged, politically potent ,or-s of art! Mic- *ilson, FAutonomy, Agonism, and Activist Art( An $ntervie, ,ith 1rant ?ester,G $rt 2ournal >>, +o! 9 D/all %&&6E( 44=!

27

art!%:

$n response to these often ignored and unresolved ambiguities, ?,on develops a very different notion of community that itself replaces the generality of the term ,ith a more concerted specificity, as Fcollective artistic pra.is!G This formulation is closely aligned ,ith my idea above concerning the generative nature of socially engaged, collaborative art! ?,on e.plains(
$t involves a provisional group, produced as a function of specific circumstances instigated by an artist andKor a cultural institution, a,are of the effects of these circumstances on the very conditions of the interaction, performing its o,n coming together and coming apart as a necessarily incomplete modeling or ,or-ing3out of a collective social process!%'

Here, conte.t3specificity and sensitivity are generative concepts in the development, implementation and reception of the ,or- of art! The conte.tBas a set of conditions that, again, ranges from the spatiotemporal to the conceptual parameters of the process and al,ays in relation to a specific group of participantsBboth forms and is formed by such processes of Fcoming together and coming apart!G $n short, conte.tual functionality is under continuous DreEnegotiation, and thus is characteri2ed by its instability rather than its security! Another -ey element of ?,onJs recipe for Fcollective artistic pra.isG is the high level of Dself3Erefle.ivity that her formulation entails! Here, art historian and critic Hal /osterJs concept of Fparallactic ,or-G9& may also be valuable! This is an e.ceedingly pressing issue,
28

Mi,on ?,on, FThe D@nESitings of Community,G in ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity D"oston( M$T Press, %&&%E, 476347:! Mi,on ?,on, FThe D@nESitings of Community,G in ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity D"oston( M$T Press, %&&%E, 4=7! To,ards the end of his essay, /oster states( F$ have advocated parallactic ,or- that attempts to frame the framer as he or she frames the other! This is one ,ay to negotiate the contradictory status of otherness as given and constructed, real and fantasmatic!G Hal /oster, FThe Artist as 8thnographer,G in The /eturn o% the

29

30

28

especially as the representational nature of art becomes more closely aligned ,ith the notion of representation in politics in many of the pro0ects to be considered! This infusion of political representation into the artistic realm ta-es its cue from notions of democracy and the role of the polis ,ithin democratic processes! #ebate and contestation are the cornerstones of a healthy political sphere, and $ hold the same for ,or-s of art that attempt to address issues that also blend into the realms of the social sciences and beyond! "y including different perspectives, pro0ects of this type do not intend to resolve the issues at hand, nor should they! $t ,ould be rather presumptuous to assume that a single artistic pro0ect or e.hibition could reconcile issues of class or race Dto name but a coupleE! "ut ,hat these pro0ects, and e.hibitions thereof, are able to do is direct peopleJs attention to these issues, unveil Di!e! ma-e visibleE the inner3,or-ings of these po,er dynamics through the creation of distinct situations, and, above all, to breed consciousness and a,areness! "ut perhaps this is not enough, and additional focus should be paid as to ,hat forms of -no,ledge are being developed, represented and e.pressed! $n order to better understand the representational nature of socially engaged, collaborative art, ,e must further consider the relationship bet,een the artistDsE and the participantsKcollaborators! *hat stands out most star-ly about this relationship is its

contradictory nature! This qualification is not intended as a slight, ho,ever, for it is e.actly the ,or-ing3through of such contradictions that lends to the truly generative and transformative e.perience of collective activity! $n her response to ?ester in $rt%oru&, "ishop provocatively states( F,e can no longer spea- of old3fashioned autonomy versus radical engagement, since a dialectical pull bet,een autonomy and heteronomy is itself
/eal" The $(ant)3arde at the End o% the !entury DCambridge( M$T Press, 4''>E, %&9!

29

constitutive of the aesthetic!G94 The artist is a creative agent ,ho is al,ays some,here in3 bet,een, oscillating bet,een their identification as artist, as progenitor, and their identification ,ith the other participants through the process of collaboration! /urthermore, it is e.actly ho, this relationship plays out over the course of the pro0ect that largely informs the aesthetic e.perience and meaning of the ,or- in question! Het, ?ester is correct to point out ho, this relationship is usually already ,rought ,ith a fundamental contradiction, and one that largely affects the sense of agency and empo,erment through the pro0ect! ?ester is critical of the liberatory agenda of many of these -inds of pro0ects, and in this ,ay is not so distant from "ishop in her focus upon the dialectical, contradictory and uncomfortable union of various constituencies and identities in such pro0ects! $n discussing the ,ay that activist art often transgresses social and cultural boundaries, and is celebrated for such, ?ester points out ho, a liberatory agenda
can also provide a convenient alibi for the fact that these FliberatoryG transgressions almost al,ays seem to move from a position of greater to lesser privilegeC the open door of identity s,ings in only one direction because it is generally the artist ,ho has the cultural and financial resources necessary to transgress such boundaries in the first place!9%

$t is for these reasons, among others that $ have outlined, that $ have chosen to focus specifically on the critical nature of socially engaged, collaborative artBboth in its internal and e.ternal relationsBand its ability to ma-e visible ,hat is other,ise invisible! $n this ,ay $ hope to more accurately account for the multiplicity of vie,s and mediating forces that quite purposefully ordain these pro0ects as sites of critical cultural and societal ,orth!
31 32

Claire "ishop, FClaire "ishop )esponds,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! ' DMay %&&>E( %7! 1rant ?ester, F"eyond the *hite Cube( Activist Art and the egacy of the 4'>&s,G Public $rt /e(ie0 47, +o! % DSpringKSummer %&&9E( 44!

30

T)e Role o% !)e C('#!o'

+o, $ ,ould li-e to briefly consider the role of the curator ,ithin the development and e.hibition of socially engaged, collaborative art, as ,ell as the larger e.hibition frame,or-s from ,hich the collaborative pro0ects gro,! *ithin the past 4= years or so, there has been an unprecedented surge in critical ,riting directed to,ards the ever3changing role of the curator ,ithin contemporary art practices! The sense of urgency that this proliferation of material underlines has everything to do ,ith the relative indefiniteness of current curatorial practicesBan informative facet of ,hat has been dubbed Fan e.panded field of curating!G99 @nfortunately, much of this material is rather anecdotal in nature, ,herein prominent curators are as-ed to reflect on their o,n ,or-ing methodologies and career tra0ectories, as opposed to delving deeper into the theoretical precepts from ,hich their ,oremanates or through dialogue and debate ,ith other curators! Pf course, there are a number of e.ceptions! /or instance, internationally reno,ned curator and serial intervie,er, Hans @lrich Pbrist, has contributed a great variety of material to the ongoing sophistication of the curatorial discourse! Most recently Pbrist has compiled and edited a group of te.ts that form the first attempt of a professional ,or-ing in the field to draft a history of curatorial practices,97 a perspective that the field is greatly lac-ing, both as a -ind of self3refle.ive -no,ledge of its o,n history and in relation to the history of art in general! *ithout meandering too far a,ay from the sub0ect at hand, $ ,ould li-e to suggest that the role of the curator ,ithin contemporary art production and e.hibition practices is fundamentally a matter of caring for the various relationships involved in the e.hibition
33

?ate /o,le, F*ho CaresI @nderstanding the )ole of the Curator Today,G in !autionary Tales" !ritical !uratin#, ed! Steven )and and Heather ?ouris D+e, Hor-( ape.art, %&&6E, 97! Hans @lrich Pbrist, ed!, $ 4rie% 5istory o% !uratin# DNurich( ;)PK)ingier, %&&'E!

34

31

process D,hatever this process may beE! Previously $ have been inclined to disregard the more conventional notion of a curator as an institutional ste,ard, as the careta-er and overseer of a specific collection of artC $ believed this definition to be severely outmoded, unable to account for the plurality of positions and roles that no, define the curatorial sub0ect, especially in the e.tension of their activities beyond institutional frame,or-s! 9= Ho,ever, $ have come to understand the contemporary curatorial identity quite differently over the course of this research, and believe that certain nuances of the no, seemingly outdated definition of the curator are still relevant and quite meaningful! +o,adays, the curatorial function is often carried out through the careful negotiation of relationships, and, especially ,hen the art,or-s in question tend to,ards the performative andKor ephemeral, often ,hat is created over the course of an e.hibition are ne, relationships or reformulations of previously established relationships Di!e! bet,een curator and artist, art,or- and audience, etc!E! /urthermore, the curator no, also functions as a significant creative agent in their o,n right, actively participating in the development of artistsJ pro0ects, and in the selection of mediating devices employed in the presentation of an e.hibitionBthe e.hibitionJs mode of address and intended publicDsE! Spea-ing more directly to the role of the curator ,ithin socially engaged, collaborative public art practices, the position of the curator appears highly porousC at times it is difficult to distinguish the curatorial activity from the artistic! More often than not, ho,ever, the role of the curator is one step removed from the direct engagement of the individual pro0ects, procuring the necessary Fra, materialsG for each of the given pro0ects
35

Most commonly, this dislodging of the curator from their institutional posts is referred to as independent curatorship! Ho,ever, $ find this terminology highly misleading! Perhaps more appropriate is Paul PJ+eillJs formulation of the Fco3dependent curator,G in ac-no,ledgement of the sustaining relationship bet,een curators and their institutional partners, even if this relationship is no, mar-ed by temporariness and greater mobility! Paul PJ+eill, FThe Co3dependent Curator,G $rt Monthly %'4 D+ov! %&&=E( 63:!

32

and helping to facilitate their development as a critical intermediary! The curator, then, also oscillates bet,een autonomy and heteronomy, adding yet another dimension to the dialectical processes of pro0ect development and -no,ledge formation! Claire #oherty, a ,riter and critic based out of "ristol, @?, has recently provided a ,ell3elucidated description of the role of the curator ,ithin Fconte.t3specific international e.hibitions!G The curatorial function, in her vie,, is manifold(
To support the artist to produce a process, pro0ect or ,or- that responds to place as a mutable concept, ,ith due consideration to the conte.t of the group dynamicC that is true to the artistJs practice, but ,hich moves beyond a replication of previous ,or-C that eventually may also operate outside the originating conte.tC QandR To support and engender encountersBrecruiting participants, engaging vie,ers, interlocutors and collaborators to e.perience the pro0ects and ,or-s as autonomous significations ,ithin the logic of an e.hibitionC provo-ing opportunities for ne, understandings and responses to conte.t and initiating potential outcomes beyond the event3e.hibition!9>

There are multiple e.pectations embedded in this formulation, all that point to the facilitative and catalytic role of the curator, as ,ell as positing the curator as a -ind of FmanagerG of the e.hibition process and in its emanations out into the ,orld! Claire "ishop observes ho, Fsocially engaged and participatory art pro0ects are so comple., spra,ling and conte.t3based that the only person ,ith a handle on the overall pro0ect is invariably the curator!G 96 Thus, rather than shifting completely from a vertical to a hori2ontal ,or-ing model, the position of po,er assumed by the curator maintains, but it is a dynamic that is more open3ended and indeterminate, itself a potential sub0ect of analysis and critique! The incredible difficulty that pro0ects of socially engaged, collaborative tas-s entailB
36

Claire #oherty, FCurating *rong Places5 or *here Have All the Penguins 1oneI,G in !uratin# Subjects, ed! Paul PJ+eill D ondon( Ppen 8ditions, %&&6E, 4&9! ;ennifer )oche, FSocially 8ngaged Art, Critics and #iscontents( An $ntervie, ,ith Claire "ishop,G Community Arts +et,or-, http(KK,,,!communityarts!netKreadingroomKarchivefilesK%&&>K&6KsociallyUengage!php!

37

33

in terms of both logistical planning and problem solving, not to mention the psychological toll that accompanies improvisational ,or-ing models and their inherent ris-sBhas often led to the formation of curatorial teams in order to more adequately respond to such challenges! Ho,ever, the organi2ation of a curatorial team, or as the art historian ;ohn Clar- prefers( Fcuratorium,G is not ,ithout political and cultural implications! The inner3,or-ings of the curatorial team and their hierarchical organi2ation guide the selection of and support for artists and their pro0ects, along ,ith the overarching themes or conceptual nature of the e.hibition!9: These collaborative models of curatorial productionBal,ays a ne, underta-ing, but colored by the memory of past pro0ectsC a Fpro0ectiveG 9' endeavorB resemble and ta-e their cue from the collective processes they are initiating! $ am

particularly -een to the idea that curators, artists, administrators, directors, etc!, today are ever3increasingly open to the influence of their co3practitioners! Many authors have ta-en note of the ongoing cross3pollination bet,een these sub0ect positions, a multi3directional e.change! Curator of contemporary art, ;ens Hoffmann e.plains his interest and investment in these processes during a virtual round table discussion bet,een 4& curators(
$Jve been increasingly fascinated by the idea of the curator as author and creator rather than as a facilitator or administrator of e.hibitions! A clear paradigm shift in curating has been ta-ing place over the last fifteen years as a result of the integration of artistic strategies into curatorial ,or- that has changed our understanding of curating!7&

$n the passages leading up to this point $ have suggested that the role of the curator today
38

;ohn Clar-, FHistories of the Asian V+e,J( "iennales and Contemporary Asian Art,G in $sian $rt 5istory in the T0enty)'irst !entury, ed! Oisha-ha +! #esai D+e, Haven( Hale @niversity Press, %&&6E, %9=! Mi,on ?,on, FThe D@nESitings of Community,G in ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity D"oston( M$T Press, %&&%E, 4=7! ;ens Hoffmann, et al, F4& CuratorsBA Conversation on the $nternet,G in Ice !rea&" !onte&porary $rt in !ulture D ondon( Phaidon Press td!, %&&6E, 4&!

39

40

34

blends creativity ,ith the facilitation and coordination of artistic pro0ects! $n my opinion, it is not a matter of one characteristic over or instead of another, and ,hile Hoffmann perhaps has his o,n particular agenda, there is no reason to devalue the great amount of planning and orchestrating that largely defines curatorial activity! +onetheless, $ am intrigued by

HoffmannJs ac-no,ledgement of curatorial authorship ,ithin the e.hibition process! This issue has long been a point of controversy, often encountering a great deal of opposition and even hostility from artists ,ho feel that they are being instrumentali2ed or framed in such a ,ay that is inconsistent ,ith their o,n intentions! 74 The issue of authorship has also been a central point of concern ,ithin the discourse surrounding socially engaged, collaborative public art! Many critics of these types of ,or-s deny the significance of authorship on ethical grounds, as based upon some liberally minded ethical position ,here the DunderprivilegedE participants should necessarily be equal authors of the pro0ect in question! Claire "ishop is not so ,illing to subscribe to such a reading of these -inds of pro0ects, and her position on the issue of authorship is congruent ,ith her questioning of the ethical impulse or guidelines that dominate the discussion of such ,or-s!
There is a common belief that reduced authorial status is more FdemocraticG and FethicalG than an artist imposing their vision or ,ill on a group of participants! $ thin- ,e can question all of these assumptions! Pverturning the very premises from ,hich social engagement operates can be both artistically and critically invigorating!7%
41

This is particularly true of many prominent artists associated ,ith the first ,ave of institutional critique in the 4'>&s! A prime e.ample is )obert SmithsonJs essay FCultural Confinement,G or #aniel "urenJs essay F8.hibitions of an e.hibition,G both of ,hich ,ere directed to,ards internationally reno,ned curator Harald S2eemann in response to his heavy3handed curatorial approach for #ocumenta O in 4'6%! "oth essays ,ere subsequently included in the catalogue of the sho,! The issue has also recently come to the forefront as part of the development of a post3colonial discourse, as ,ell as ,ith regard to the proliferation of the international biennial model over the past %& years or so! ;ennifer )oche, FSocially 8ngaged Art, Critics and #iscontents( An $ntervie, ,ith Claire "ishop,G Community Arts +et,or-, http(KK,,,!communityarts!netKreadingroomKarchivefilesK%&&>K&6KsociallyUengage!php!

42

35

/urthermore, in her response to ?esterJs letter in $rt%oru&, she re0ects ,hat she believes to be ?esterJs Frighteous aversion to authorship,G asserting instead( F$ believe in the continued value of disruption5 as a form of resistance to instrumental rationality and as a source of transformation!G The disruption that "ishop alludes to is the tension that e.ists bet,een the individual authorshipBand authorityBof the curator or artist and the collective authorship that results from multiple forms of participation! Again, it is not an issue of one or another form of authorship! $t is the suspension of these contradictions in a dialectical relationship that requires a critical reassessment of both positions! The question of authorship is still highly relevant, since the pro0ects in question Fhave a life beyond an immediate social goal!G79 After all, these are ,or-s of art, and despite their ephemerality, the documents of each pro0ect and e.hibition circulate and accrue capital Di!e! economic, cultural, political, etc!E in much the same ,ay as ForiginalG art ob0ects! /inally, it seems prudent to address the notion of conte.t more specifically, and the role of the city as a protagonist andKor proposition ,ithin the e.hibition structures that $ have selected as case studies! $n many of her recent ,ritings, Claire #oherty has e.tended ?,onJs discussion of Fthe ,rong place,G77 highlighting its aesthetic of displacement and fragmentation, ,hile focusing on the recent curatorial preoccupation ,ith FplaceG or Fconte.tG as the sub0ect of many international e.hibitions and biennial editions! This

gro,ing interest, she claims, results Ffrom the convergence of three commissioning models( the scattered3site international e.hibition5 the research3based pro0ect programme5 and the

43 44

Claire "ishop, FClaire "ishop )esponds,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! ' DMay %&&>E( %7! Mi,on ?,on, FThe *rong Place,G $rt 2ournal =', +o! 4 DSpring %&&&E( 99377!

36

residency model!G7= The t,o e.hibitions that $ have selected for analysis all blend aspects of these three models, but, as each e.hibition is rooted in its o,n particular conte.t, the recipe for each is quite distinct, bearing the influence of the host city! Thus, ,ithout further ado, $ ,ould li-e to turn to a discussion of the case studies and investigate ho, these various ideas manifest in the actual ,or-ing processes of the t,o e.hibitions and a fe, e.amples of artistic pro0ects ,ithin!

45

Claire #oherty, FCurating *rong Places5 or *here Have All the Penguins 1oneI,G in !uratin# Subjects, ed! Paul PJ+eill D ondon( Ppen 8ditions, %&&6E, 4&%!

37

A C&!, &n M(l!&*le" #nd !)e A'! o% M(l!&*l&c&!,

$n the spring of %&&9, from March %&th to the %&th of April, Panama City, Panama, ,as transformed into an e.hibition platformBa -ind of museum or gallery ,ithout ,allsB providing a dynamic and indeterminate conte.t for the reali2ation of the public art e.hibition ciudadMULTIPLEcity! 8.ploding throughout the city, emerging out of unpredictable

moments and unconventional spaces, only to recede bac- into the forest of signs from ,hich they came, the 4% pro0ects of ciudadMULTIPLEcity ,ere e.periments in radical urban art practices!7> As such, this e.hibition of socially engaged, collaborative public art ,as not concerned ,ith the ability of art to adorn or beautify spaces of the city, nor to offer any corrective measure to the inequalities ,ithin societal life that are rampant in such global financial centers li-e Panama City! The planning, design and implementation of the

e.hibition ,as thus Fdefinitely against a passive, VhappyJ e.hibition, so to spea-, and all for agitation and confrontation, in order to e.pose different underlying social, political, ethical, symbolic, economic and psychological realities at ,or- in this city!G76 The e.hibition tooon additional significance as it gained support from the local government as part of their yearlong centennial celebration! This fact further imbued the e.hibition ,ith a sense of pride for the inhabitants of the city, connecting local cultural forms and practices ,ith an international art ,orld and audience, delineating the city as a significant stopover for itinerant art ,orld practitioners as ,ell as other theorists! As previously suggested, the e.hibition design of ciudadMULTIPLEcity intert,ined

46

1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, F)iding on a *ild Pne,G 2ingmaga2ine, http(KK,,,!2ingmaga2ine!comKissue4'Kmosquera!html! Adrienne Samos, email to the author, March %>, %&&'!

47

38

aspects of the scattered3site international e.hibition, research3based pro0ect program, and residency model! A total of 49 artists ,ere invited to participate in the e.hibition( 4& international artists from various parts of the ,orld, and 9 artists from Panama!7: 8ach of the international artists visited Panama City at least t,ice( many months before the opening of the e.hibition the artists made their first visits, to better acquaint themselves, and to initiate dialogues ,ith the cityC and returned a second time for the e.hibition proper, to conduct further research and develop their ,or- in situ! This form of engagement ,as star-ly different from the more embedded approach that ,as characteristic of the Panamanian artists! Thus, the different residency models ,ere employed ,ith varying effects, revealing the very mutability of such processes! As a relatively open3ended and pervasive e.hibition design, there ,as no identifiable e.hibition center, no singular e.hibition structure through ,hich the artistic pro0ects ,ere channeled and conveyed! $nstead, it ,as e.actly the multiple nature of the cityBits many identities, desires, dreams, e.pectations, and failuresBthat fueled the development of each pro0ect, and provided the ra, DimEmateriality of the various artistic pro0ects! Pne of the primary, guiding principles of the e.hibition ,as the idea of the city as a complicit and integral Fliving protagonist of ,or-s of art that ,ould in turn act upon it!G7' This is a very e.citing proposition, in my opinion, in that it moves beyond the rigidity of period sho,s, or even thematic e.hibitions! $t presents the e.hibition structure as one of possibilities, particularly in its fle.ibility and open3endedness! Het, such a proposition is not
48

The list of international artists included( /rancis AlWs & )afael Prtega, 1hada Amer, 1ustavo Artigas, Art,ay of Thin-ing, Hoan Capote, Cildo Meireles, ;uan AndrXs MilanXs, ;es<s Palomino, and 1u Aiong! Panamanian artists included( "roo-e Alfaro, 1ustavo Arau0o, and Humberto OelX2! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, FArt ,ith the City,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007 DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 94!

49

39

,ithout its o,n parameters and limitations! $n fact, ,or-ing in public spacesBas ,ill be further elaborated in the follo,ing analysesBpresents an entirely different set of problems and logistical conundrums that are, in a ,ay, the very essence of such an underta-ing! To ,or- in public space is also to probe and question the very FpublicnessG of that space! $f the city is a Fliving protagonist,G a creative agent in the development of ,or-s of art, then ,hat e.actly is the ,or-ing relationship bet,een the city, artists and ,or-s of artI Ho, does this interactivity play out over the course of the e.hibitionI $n varying degrees, $ believe that this relationship is dialectical in nature! Many of the ,or-s in the sho, ,ere developed over timeB,ith interests geared more to,ards the process of creation rather than some final productB0ust as any conception of the city is al,ays a ,or- in progress, al,ays incomplete! $n their catalogue essay for the e.hibition, curators 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos suggested this dialectical relationship bet,een the art,or-s and the city, as al,ays folding bac- upon itself, a ceaseless cycle of influence and interpenetration(
the ,or-s of ciudadM@ T$P 8city ,ere directed to move in a circle( from the city to,ard the art and from art to,ard the city! Some ,or-s invited participation, others not, but both the ,or-s themselves as ,ell as the artistsJ ,or-ing methods generated multiple dialogues ,ith the metropolis, its people and imaginaries!=&

This type of ,or-ing relationship is one of constant change! *ith each turn of the circle ne, perspectives are revealed, information is metaboli2ed and ideas slam into one another li-e particles in an atomic accelerator! This dialectical process is the creative foundation of the ,or-s that attempt to e.ist ,ithin, act upon, and ma-e visible those aspects of the urban environment that remain in flu.! This dialecticism Fma-es art much more VvulnerableJ to the

50

1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, FArt ,ith the City,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007 DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 97!

40

,ays it is understood by the different audiences!G=4 $ am especially attracted to this idea of the vulnerability of art, as it conveys a sense of the porosity of the artistic process as ,ell as the instability of the artistic message( it is al,ays, and quite purposefully, open to interpretation! The strategies utili2ed by curators, artists and their collaborators in order to create such critical sites are evident in the very ,or-ing methodologies that the artists and their collaborators employed, the manifestations of ,hich are e.actly ho, or in ,hat ,ay they layer the aesthetic and the sociopolitical! Mosquera and Samos e.plain( Fa group of artists ,ere called together to ,or- not only in the city, but 0ith the city, by designing pro0ects that ,ould have a direct impact on the metropolitan area, its communities, imaginaries, problems, dreams, preoccupations5 Art capable of resonating ,ith the people in the street and ,ith the life and dynamics of the multiple, comple. capital of a tiny global country!G=% Turning more directly to the role of the curators, their utili2ation of a more Fde3 centrali2edG curatorial methodology is critical to an understanding of the e.hibitionJs development and daily operations! The curatorial team and pro0ect administration ,as relatively small ,hen one considers the amount of ,or-, logistical problem solving, and on3 the3fly, improvisational coordinating that is at the heart of an e.hibition of socially engaged, collaborative public art li-e ciudadMULTIPLEcity! $n addition to Mosquera and Samos, the team consisted of t,o assistant curators, a pro0ect manager and an administrator! $n the end, ho,ever, the curatorial team relinquished much of their control over the development and implementation of the different pro0ects through the use of a large number of volunteers from
51

1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, F)iding on a *ild Pne,G 2ingmaga2ine, http(KK,,,!2ingmaga2ine!comKissue4'Kmosquera!html! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, FArt ,ith the City,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007 DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, %9!

52

41

a variety of different but interrelated fields Di!e! art, architecture, sociology, design, etc!E!=9 The guiding structure ,as such that(
8ach of the foreign participants had a young local artist as principal liaison, ,ho, ,ith various collaborators, ,as responsible for helping in every ,ay! They acted as direct collaborators for the visitors from the time of their first stay in Panama, above all in their relations ,ith the city and in arranging the logistics for each pro0ect!=7

This organi2ational model allo,ed for deeper and more personal interaction bet,een the visiting artists and the city through direct contact ,ith the inhabitants and other cultural producers! /urthermore, the relationship bet,een each foreign artist and their Fdirect

collaboratorG ,as one of symbiosis, ,hereby the local artists and other technicians ,ere able to ,or- up close and learn from the artists to ,hich they ,ere assigned! $n fact, one of the most important and lasting benefits of the e.hibition ,as this cross3cultural dialogue, and invigoration of the local contemporary art scene through the influence of established international artists and curators!== Craig 1arrett, an art critic ,riting for the 0ournal $rt Ne8us, summari2ed the situation by stating ho, the Fde3centrali2ed curatorial method made use of the local sceneJs open3endedness( instead of being directed from above, international artists ,or-ed alongside local artists, capitali2ing on this pool of speciali2ed -no,ledge to tailor their ,or- to the cityJs unique micro3politics! $n return, many localsBengineers, architects, bus paintersBreceived a firsthand course in groundbrea-ing art!G => $n the opening discussion of this essay $ described the changing role of the curator
53 54

Adrienne Samos, email to the author, March %>, %&&'! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, FArt ,ith the City,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007 DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 973=! Adrienne Samos, email to the author, March %>, %&&'! Craig 1arrett, FMultiple City( PanamY %&&9, /undaciZn Arte PanamY,G $rt Ne8us %, +o! 7' D;uneKAugust %&&9E( '9!

55 56

42

today, suggesting that often the curator is not so much a careta-er of ob0ects, of the ,or-s of art themselves, but as an intermediary bet,een various constituencies, as caring for the relationships that interlace the e.hibition structure! The positions assumed by Mosquera and Samos could very ,ell be described in this ,ay! *hile this organi2ational model may have been more instinctual than premeditated,=6 the effects ,ere crucial to the overall success of the e.hibition! According to Mosquera and Samos, they Fplayed a more active role in the planning phase, in artistic control, and in the general guidance of the event!G=: As co3 curators, they developed a ,or-ing process and pro0ect organi2ation that efficiently displaced their authorial control by incorporating various other voices and perspectives into the overall pro0ect scope! Theirs ,as a strange t,ist of curatorial creativity by ,hich they authored an event structure that quite purposefully undermined their overarching authorial positions! $n fact, this ,as necessary in order for the visiting artists Fto delve co2ily into the cityJs rough by,ays, going ,ell beyond an outsiderJs approach,G and it ,as FQtRhe net,or- of human relations ,ith colleagues and other local people around each participating artist, QthatR made such understanding possible!G=' $n order to further ground this analysis in the actual ,or-ing processes of the artists and their collaborators, $ ,ill turn to consider t,o pro0ects ,ithin the e.hibition( "roo-e AlfaroJs large3scale video pro0ections, entitled Nine, and the sculptural street installations of ;es<s Palomino, entitled Vendors and Squatters!

B'ooke Al%#'o. Nine, /00/12

"roo-e AlfaroJs contribution to ciudadMULTIPLEcity further pursued his long3time
57 58

Adrienne Samos, email to the author, March %>, %&&'! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, FArt ,ith the City,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007 DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 9=! $bid!, 9>!

59

43

interest in ,or-ing ,ith and representing marginali2ed individuals, but ,as a significant brea- a,ay from his career as a painter for many years! /or the pro0ect Nine, %&&%39 QPlate 4!43%R, Alfaro spent roughly a year ,or-ing ,ith t,o rival gangs from the "arra2a housing pro0ect, one of the most dangerous and impoverished areas of Panama City! #espite the fact that Alfaro is a native of Panama City, there ,as still much to overcome as he attempted to bridge the social and economic divide that separates and isolates this area of the city and its inhabitants! "ut this, after all, is one of the most stri-ing and critical aspects of the ,or-( the prolonged engagement and insertion of the artist into a community in order to enact a process of creation that hinges on the collaborative input of various perspectives and voices! This relationship ,as e.tremely tenuous, ho,ever, and more than once the gangs threatened to pull out of the pro0ect! Throughout the yearlong process, AlfaroJs relationship ,ith the t,o gangsBas a -ind of mediator or arbiter bet,een the t,o factions, ,ho ,ere s,orn enemies Ba sense of antagonism prevailed! *hile the three parties DAlfaro and the t,o respective gangsE never e.isted in the same place at the same time, through the pro0ect and the artistJs identity a lin- ,as created, a -ind of agonistic public sphere in ,hich the pro0ect e.isted as its ultimate embodiment! This interaction bet,een Alfaro and the inhabitants of "arra2a culminated in the production of a t,o3channel video pro0ection depicting the t,o rival gangs lip3synching to recent hit songs by local rapper 8l )ooc-ieBa former gang member and much admired artist from the community ,ho had recently gained international fame!>& The form and content of both videos relied heavily on the popular genre of music videos and the entertainment industry, utili2ing similar editing techniques, panning camera movements and shifting

60

Cay Sophie )abino,it2, FPanama City, Panama,G $rt Papers %6, +o! 7 DAugust %&&9E( =7!

44

bet,een close3ups of the individual participants and macro 2ooms locating each group in relation to their turf! This equated the identity of each individual gang ,ith the spaces they occupied, the very spaces that ,ere constantly at the center of their struggle! The art critic and curator "ennett Simpson, ,riting for the art 0ournal Third Te8t, provides a first3hand account of the event(
Screened in side3by3side pro0ections against a building face in the impoverished "arra2a housing pro0ects, the footage of the performances sho,ed t,o groups of nearly identical teenage boys mugging and dancing for the camera as they mouthed lyrics about ghetto 0ustice and self3aggrandisement! Shy at first, uncertain ,hether they ,ere compromising their stoic, hardened pride, the youths -ept themselves in chec-! Soon, ho,ever, performativity too- overC by the end of their songs the gang members ,ere competing ,ith each other for the spotlight!>4

Pf particular interest here is SimpsonJs highlighting of the performative nature of the video installation! This performativity functions on a number of different levels, and it is an important point that $ ,ill return to! /or the moment, $ ,ill continue to focus on the more formal aspects of the piece! A ma0or part of the ,or-Js success involves the combination of artistic forms, of an internationally recogni2ed visual artist adapting the sensibilities of popular culture, a -ey strategy in engaging both the participants in the videos as ,ell as the different attendant audiences! Alfaro blended together large3scale outdoor video pro0ections ,ith music video3style montages, elevating the identity of the participants to a larger than life scale Dboth literally and figurativelyE! /or the brief 47 minutes of video pro0ection, these individualsBoften disdained ,ithin their community for their criminal identities and the fear they instillBbecame celebrities, ob0ects of idoli2ation, ,ith the cro,dJs cheers echoing in ,aves ,ith each movement, dance step or posturing! Through this blending of sensibilities, Alfaro denies the perceived differences bet,een such forms of artistic creation, and through
61

"ennett Simpson, FMultiple City( Arte Panama %&&9,G Third Te8t 46, +o! 9 DSept! %&&9E( %'&!

45

this purposeful act of obfuscation creates multiple points of entry into the ,or- ,ithout relying on any singular vantage point! The dual pro0ection of the rival gangs side3by3side upon the very housing pro0ects that delineate their ongoing turf ,ars is another critical component of the event! Much of the significance of this decision has to do ,ith the larger issue of the conte.t of the ,or-Js development and e.hibitionBthe relation of its physical and conceptual dimensionsB, a discussion that $ ,ill also hold off on momentarily! A relationship is established by

pro0ecting the t,o gangs together, albeit even if that relationship is open3ended, a matter of interpretation and shaded by personal biases! Throughout the duration of the pro0ections, by ,ay of the very pro.imity of the images and the synchroni2ation of the performances, there appears a potential for both violence and resolution! Symbolically, the ,or- questions the various tensions that e.ist bet,een these Dfor all other reasons, quite similarE groupings of youths, revealing both the arbitrariness of their hostility and the reality of imminent danger! $n fact, ,ith the agreement of both gangs to participate in AlfaroJs ,or- a change has already occurred( the pro0ections of their images are allo,ed to comingle as part of the e.hibition, and through this visual parallel one begins to see these individuals in a different ,ay Dand perhaps they come to see themselves differently as ,ellE! Ho,ever, the pro0ections come to a close as one rival member passes a soccer ball to his counterpart in the other pro0ection Dthe edited intervention of AlfaroJs artistryE, but it remains unclear as to ,hether or not this gesture is an act of conciliation or a challenge! >% $n observance of the processual nature of the ,or-, one could argue that the pro0ect can be deconstructed into t,o different yet deeply interconnected phases of production! The
62

Cay Sophie )abino,it2, FPanama City, Panama,G $rt Papers %6, +o! 7 DAugust %&&9E( =7!

46

second phase of the piece, the translation of the artistic process and lived e.perience into a video installation, $ have already detailed above! +o, $ ,ould li-e to further consider the initial phase of the pro0ect( the research performed by the artist and the development of personal relationships ,ith potential collaborators! #uring this process of embedding

himself in the community, many figures from the community ,eigh in as to the direction and nature of the pro0ect, thus creating a -ind of group of advisors that emerge directly from the neighborhood itself! /or the catalog description of AlfaroJs ,or-, critic and author Alberto 1ualde relates the precariousness of this situation(
/or almost a year the artist entered into an alien and dangerous territory, formulated the dialogue, approached the members of the deadly hostile urban tribes Das ,ell as families, friends, and religious and community leadersE, suggested the music, listened to opinions and variations, and on countless occasions faced the possibility that one or the other gang ,ould abandon the pro0ect in progress!>9

The process that 1ualde describes in this passage is the process of collaboration that $ have outlined previously, specifically as a process charged ,ith an unpredictable energy! Although this notion is often loosely employed to describe situations in ,hich more than one person is involved in the creative process, $ prefer a much more electric articulation of this concept, one that is particularly resonant ,ith the sociopolitical implications that are prevalent in a truly collaborative underta-ing! Any e.hibition and any ,or- of art can be deemed

collaborative on the basis that there is al,ays input from a variety of sources, but this conception dilutes the great potential of collaboration( that is, a process of contestation and debate that forces oneJs self out of a 2one of comfort, ,herein the very ,or-ing3through of ideas develops ne, -no,ledge and innovative means of e.pression!

63

Alberto 1ualde, F+ueveK+ine, "roo-e Alfaro,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007, ed! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 6%!

47

"roo-e AlfaroJs pro0ect engages this form of collaborative practice! $n order to be successful Alfaro must e.tend himself beyond himselfBphysically he must move in and through spaces that are foreign to himC conceptually he must open his mind to the ideas and thoughts of those he encounters, to not simply consider their input, but to metaboli2e this information in a process of complication! informative! Here the notion of improvisation becomes

$n order to really engage the community of "arra2a Ditself a diverse

conglomerateE, Alfaro must be focused in his pursuit, ,hile simultaneously maintaining openness ,ith regard to the ,hole endeavor! The pro0ect is both his and not his alone, and thus the other participants must be allo,ed to enter, to DreEengage him along ,ith each other, to introduce their o,n sta-es in the process! This is the very nature of improvising( the development of a loosely designed plan, but one in ,hich variance, fle.ibility, chance and fluidity are structurally built in! /urthermore, the act of improvisation is fundamentally social! To return to the idea of performativity, it could be argued that there are multiple layers of performance ,ithin this piece! Aside from the rather obvious performative nature of the video pro0ections, one can also add performances of class, gender, artist, gang member, intelligentsia Dsome of the audience consisted of art ,orld patrons and scholarsE, ethnicity, race, etc! This is the group, the bandC they are playingKcreating together and apart

simultaneously! There is discord and there is harmony, moments of transcendence and futility! +o one quite -no,s ,hat ,ill happen ne.t! The conte.tual siting of Nine is paramount to the successfulness of the pro0ect! "arra2a is both the frame and the content! As the conte.t for the development and e.hibition of the pro0ect, it functions as the physical location ,hile also informing the conceptual parameters of the piece! Again, the dialectical relationship bet,een the ,or- of art and its

48

siting, as a facet of the city as Fliving protagonist,G reappears and is critical to the ,or-s development, implementation and reception! The tensions bet,een the t,o spheres ,orupon each other, building, deconstructingC the vectors of influence emanate in multiple directions! *hile they, as curators, posit this notion for the overall pro0ect, $ believe it informs AlfaroJs pro0ect specifically! $ have already discussed the dialectical nature of the collaborative process, and here $ ,ould li-e to e.tend this idea further to,ards the possibility of a similar relationship ,ith the different conceptions of conte.t that are at play ,ithin the piece! As $ stated previously, there are t,o conceptions of conte.t that are of interest here( the physical andKor material conditions of the location and the conceptual Di!e! sociopoliticalE dimensions of the ,or- as it spea-s to its various audiences! $t is through this formulation of conte.t3sensitivity that Alfaro constructs a relationship bet,een the aesthetic terms of the ,or- Dspecifically as a ,or- of art, and not some other type of ,or-E, and the sociopolitical implications of engaging the inhabitants of "arra2a in this pro0ect, thereby dra,ing attention to not only -ey issues that pertain to this section of the city but also its relation to other areas of the city Dand perhaps even other cities as ,ellE! According to Alberto 1ualde(
this ,or- ,ould not have the same significance outside of "arra2a! $ts e.traordinary force lay in the conte.t of its presentation, in shaping the event ,ithin the Fris- 2oneG by the side of the protagonists! The force of Nine comes from using art to formulate a specific dynamic ,ithin a specific conte.t Dand even for allo,ing vast areas susceptible to ris- and une.pected irruptionsE!>7

Through this conte.tuali2ation of the pro0ect, Alfaro complicates such issues as high and lo, artC private and public spaceC privileged and impoverishedC po,er and po,erlessness! And
64

Alberto 1ualde, F+ueveK+ine, "roo-e Alfaro,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007, ed! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 67!

49

all the ,hile he ,al-s the tightrope of improvisation! Alfaro creates an open system, relinquishing much of his o,n artistic DauthorialE control, ,hile still asserting his o,n identity as the ne.us point of the pro0ect! $n this ,ay, the conte.ts of "arra2a ,ere informed, deformed and reformed through the process of Nine! Pver the course of this analysis $ have been alluding to the presence of various audiences for the ,or-, both in its formative stages and in its t,o3night e.hibition! $n order to properly understand the transgressive nature of the piece, the different audiences must be addressed! #espite the ris- of oversimplifying this discussion, $ ,ill delineate t,o specific audiences for this pro0ect( the inhabitants of "arra2aBthe community itselfBand the art ,orld patrons and practitioners! Here, again, tension reigned! +eedless to say, "arra2a is not a site on the cityJs artistic or cultural map! Most residents of the city themselves do not venture into the area ,ithout some pressing cause! )eferring bac- to 1ualde once again, the tension bet,een the different audiences appears to be analogous to the ambiguities and tensions present in the ,or- itself(
/or many spectators ,ho did not belong to the neighborhood, the mere fact of being there at all ,as already a violation, for being atypical, and for the danger it entailed( the closed street, the police presence, the dilapidated ,alls of the buildings as bac-ground for the pro0ection5 /or the local residents, the e.citement came from the invasion of their daily space, reconte.tuali2ed, used as a space for an artistic creation, ma-ing them feel a mi.ture of fear, anticipation, and pride!>=

There is a structural analogy bet,een the process and e.hibition of the ,or- and its reception! The same criteria by ,hich $ have been framing this analysis of AlfaroJs pro0ect reemerge, but in a slightly different formulation( as bet,een an art public and a social or community public! *hat is most important, ho,ever, is the recognition that these are not
65

$bid!

50

e.clusive entities, that 0ust as the ,or- of art blends various forms, 0ust as the conte.t is a mi.ture of situations and attitudes, so too does one audience meld into the other, oscillating from pole to pole ,ithout any final resolution or definition! Pf the many pro0ects created for ciudadMULTIPLEcity, "roo-e AlfaroJs pro0ect Nine stands out! This is the result of a number of important choices made by the artist!

Particularly significant ,as his e.tended engagement ,ith the community of "arra2a, and his efforts to,ards collaboration ,ith t,o rival gangs that other,ise ,ould not occupy even the same sentence! Also of great significance is the fact that Alfaro did not set out to cure, rectify or solve some perceived problem through the course of his underta-ing! $n her revie, of the ciudadMULTIPLEcity for the art 0ournal $rt Papers, Cay Sophie )abino,it2 ac-no,ledges that(
Pffering no resolution to this districtJs problems, Nine contends that many programs masquerading as social reform are self3serving and futile! The art public enters a neighborhood thought off limits and dangerous and t,o rival gangs perform together, but the shooting resumes ,hen the rehearsals end! "arra2a remains, as ever, destitute, dangerous and divided!>>

This perspective may be a bit too cynical, to seemingly suggest that nothing has changed at all, that the entire process ends in futility! "ut it does convey the difficulty of ascertaining the actual value of such endeavors! $ ,ould argue that AlfaroJs pro0ect is not simply a fleeting event ,ithout real meaning and significance for those involved! After all, it is e.actly not the point to create some specific final outcome, some identifiable product for consumption Dand ,asteE! $t is the process of creation, of reconfiguring relationships and developing a sense of o,nership and agency that may other,ise be lac-ing for many marginali2ed individuals! Het it does not end there, it is not a one3,ay street! That other
66

Cay Sophie )abino,it2, FPanama City, Panama,G $rt Papers %6, +o! 7 DAugust %&&9E( =7!

51

audience, the art ,orld, must also reassess their o,n sense of agency, purpose and position! Alfaro succeeds in his ability to immerse himself fully in the practices of collaboration and improvisation, in his ability to Faddress this contradictory pull bet,een autonomy and social intervention, and reflect on this antinomy both in the structure of the ,or- and in the conditions of its reception!G>6

3e"4" P#lo &no. Vendors and Squatters, /002

A-in to "roo-e AlfaroJs pro0ect, the street installations by Spanish artist ;es<s Palomino e.plore social boundaries ,ithin Panama City, but through an entirely different artistic process and collaborative model! PalominoJs constructions engaged issues of class, race, and marginality, along ,ith their implicit social tensions as they play out daily in various spaces throughout the city! Collectively, these installations are titled Vendors and Squatters, %&&9 QPlate %!43%R, an overt reference to the informal mar-ets and improvised living quarters of many of the cityJs inhabitants! $n fact, it is the very proliferation of these squatter communities ,ithin the larger city constructBthe e.ponential gro,th of ,hich are the result of ever3increasing urbani2ation and the history of Panama City as an important center for global e.changeBthat is largely the inspiration for the ,or- itself! @pon arrival to Panama City, Palomino attests to the fact that he ,as Fdeeply impressed by the street mar-ets and the ma-eshift informal structures built by the vendors themselves,G and thus his initial proposal for ciudadMULTIPLEcity F,as to place a fictional mar-et place on the streets of Panama City !G>: *or-ing closely ,ith co3curator 1erardo
67

Claire "ishop, FThe Social Turn( Collaboration and its #iscontents,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! > D/ebruary %&&>E( 4:9! ;es<s Palomino, email to the author, /ebruary 46, %&&'!

68

52

Mosquera, Palomino eventually decided to fabricate a number of impromptu sheltersKvendor stalls to be sited in strategically contentious or provocative locations throughout the city! The decision not to go so far as to create an entire mar-et of stalls and shanties in a single location, instead opting for the use of multiple sites De.perimenting ,ith the different spaces of the urban environmentE, undoubtedly fueled the controversy that ,as to engulf these fabricationsBa decision that further accentuated the illegality of many of these practices! /reestanding and discontinuous ,ith their surroundings, these improvisational structures ,ere not protected by a sense of security in numbers and ,ere under daily threat of being dismantled or vandali2ed! $n fact, a number of these structures ,ere removed prematurely before the full run of the e.hibition!>' $n an interesting reversal, it ,as the upper echelon of society that perpetuated such threats, perceiving these structures as un,anted incursions into their neatly manicured neighborhoods and commercial centers! The lives of many of Panama CityJs informal mar-et vendors and squatter communities are defined by their very precariousness! *ith reference to their actual living conditions, then, it seems quite provocative that the spaces of their livelihood are also crafted from precarious, improvised materials! As such, the structure of the shanty ta-es on a largely symbolic meaning, itself the visual e.pression of the lives of those ,ho reside and ,orthere, an embodiment of their uneasy position ,ithin societal life! "ennett Simpson stresses the intentional materiality of PalominoJs structures, e.tending the aesthetic dimension of the ,or- to,ards critique(
Palomino built a series of precarious, impromptu structures and sited them in par-ing lots, on the bac-s of apartment buildings and along avenues do,nto,n! /abricated from scrap materials, painted bright shades of blue or red, the structures resembled abandoned fruit stands or sun shelters! i-e many of the ,or-s in the e.hibition, the
69

Adrienne Samos, email to the author, March %>, %&&'!

53

moc-3shanties called attention to something official Panama may choose to ignore56&

*hat emerges from this focus on materiality is the idea that the city, again, plays a central role in the creation of the ,or-s! $n this case, the city quite literally lends itself to the fabrication of the installations by ,ay of its o,n accumulation of debris! $t is fundamental to the conceptual nature of the pro0ect that the very same materials and fabrication methods ,ere used to create these structures! Here, there is a convergence of social consciousness and aesthetics! $t is not merely important that Palomino used similar types of materials, but also the ,ay in ,hich he employed them ,ith careful attention to the aesthetics of informal architecture and necessity! Co3curator and #irector of /undaciZn Arte PanamY, Adrienne Samos notes(
The artist made them not only ,ith the same materials that the poorest of the poor use to build their houses Dpieces of ,ood or plastic, cardboard, cloth, rope and little moreE, but also ,ith similar eyes and hands, given his intuitive handling of the many inherent possibilitiesBtransparency and density, color and te.tureBof humble materials!64

$t is also important to note that the use of these materials and the construction of Fmoc-3 shantiesG is an important and reoccurring element in much of PalominoJs artistic production! The pro0ect Vendors and Squatters ,as an e.tension of this pre3established interest in these -inds of forms and the sociopolitical divide that delineates the spaces, materiality and function of these structures!6% This point calls into question the e.tent to ,hich Palomino
70 71

"ennett Simpson, FMultiple City( Arte Panama %&&9,G Third Te8t 46, +o! 9 DSept! %&&9E( %'9! Adrienne Samos, FOendors and Squatters, ;es<s Palomino,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007, ed! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 47>! Craig 1arrett, FMultiple City( PanamY %&&9, /undaciZn Arte PanamY,G $rt Ne8us %, +o! 7' DAugust %&&9E( '7!

72

54

dre, his inspiration for the pro0ect from his direct e.periences of the city, or ,hether perhaps he ,as selected from the outset ,ith the understanding that his ,or- ,ould pursue this pre3 established line of inquiry! Het, there ,as a mar-ed difference bet,een the street installations in Panama City and his other, previous fabrications( the pro0ect for ciudadMULTIPLEcity ,as the first instance in ,hich these structures ,ere created in situ, outside of the museum or gallery conte.t! This is important for a number of reasons! The provocation of these structures, situated in very specific public spaces, contrasted greatly ,ith the more commonly indifferent andKor contemplative responses to these ,or-s ,ithin gallery ,alls! $n turn, revealing Fthe e.tent to ,hich such VneutralJ spaces sap the critical and social implications of art!G69 The reactions and responses that Vendors and Squatters received ,ere anything but benign, and they came from multiple angles and ,ith varying ferocity! *hile Palomino himself ,as not present for the entire duration of the pro0ect, and subsequently only learned of the controversy surrounding his ,or- through second hand sources, he admitted that he had not foreseen the -ind of heated debate that emerged as a result of his ,or-, on the streets of the city and in the media! 67 So ,hy did this ,or- cause such a commotionI *hat ,ere the sta-es of the debateI *ho did it affect most directly, and ho,I The art critic Craig 1arrett, ,riting for the 0ournal $rt Ne8us, thro,s the controversy into relief(
removed from their gallery conte.t, these delicate structures of paper, plastic sheeting and other ephemeral materials hit upon one of the unique features of Panama City(
73

Adrienne Samos, FOendors and Squatters, ;es<s Palomino,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007, ed! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 474! ;es<s Palomino, email to the author, /ebruary 46, %&&'!

74

55

the sharp divide bet,een property o,nersBthe main beneficiaries of the nationJs trade3based open mar-et economyBand the disenfranchised families ,ho struggle to scrape together a living in virtually the same physical space!6=

$t is the very nature of squatting and informal economic ventures to inhabit spaces ,ithin the city that are abandoned, interstitial or that are other,ise relegated to disuse! #espite being illegal practices, the enforcement of anti3squatting and side,al- vending la,s is often sporadic and inconsistent, eventually allo,ing many of such endeavors to become semi3 permanent! More often than not, the enforcement of these regulations is carried out only ,hen these structures cross some socioeconomic line, and this has everything to do ,ith visibility and pro.imity! As long as these individuals stay out of sight and out of certain neighborhoods, they are tolerated Deven if begrudginglyE! PalominoJs pro0ect e.poses this situation, recreates and highlights it! His ,or- is an intervention of sorts, performing a critique of the social values imposed from the top3do,n ,ithin the city, but a critique in ,hich the artist is also implicated! $nterestingly enough, Palomino has been appropriating squatter practices and techniques as part of his artistic repertoire for some time, and it has become a -ind of trademar- of his artistic identity! /urthermore, Palomino e.pressed little to no interest in actually engaging the people for ,hom the issues his ,or- illuminated are most dire! Thus, the collaboration that too- place did so in the absence of the artist, ,ithout direct interaction! Admittedly, this ,as some,hat of a problem for me at first, the recognition of ,hich e.posed my o,n ethical tendencies! $ felt that it ,as rather irresponsible for him to address this set of practices and the constituency of individuals that most often utili2e them ,ithout direct confrontation! $n

75

Craig 1arrett, FMultiple City( PanamY %&&9, /undaciZn Arte PanamY,G $rt Ne8us %, +o! 7' DAugust %&&9E( '7!

56

short, $ e.pected Dor desiredE complicity! "ut ,hy is this importantI $n the end the ,or- did a great deal to cataly2e numerous discussions about the issues that ,ere at the core of its aesthetic and socio3politico3economic nature! So ,hy ,ould it matter if Palomino sat do,n and tal-ed ,ith any of the sides involvedI *hy ,ould $ only ,ant him to engage the squatters themselvesI Moving along, the locations that Palomino selected as sites for the development of the installations ,ere also of great importanceBa process that ,as apparently quite arduous and required the aid of a number of further collaborators and urban guides! 6> $n the end, three conte.ts ,ere chosen, each ,ith its o,n unique set of conditions, or contingent factors! These three locations included a vacant field that had been set aside and ,as a,aiting real3 estate development D,hich, in fact, occurred t,o ,ee-s prior to the end of the e.hibition, and ,herein PalominoJs ,or- there ,as demolished prematurely by a construction craneEC66 the par-ing lot of an apartment comple.C and an upscale shopping center, a Maison #ante,

-no,n for its sale of lu.ury goods and high3class patronage! The ma0ority of the controversy erupted over the presence of the interconnected shanty structures that occupied the same space as the lu.ury boutiques, and it ,as through this conte.t Dagain, $ use this term to suggest physical space as ,ell as psychological spaceE that the t,o e.tremes of upper and lo,er class ,ithin Panama City came into direct conflict! $n this respect, PalominoJs pro0ect operates in a similar fashion as AlfaroJs ,or-, creating a forum for the inclusion of many different voices, and a space ,ithin and through ,hich marginali2ed voices are given ne, stoc-! /urthermore, the tensions upon ,hich
76 77

;es<s Palomino, email to the author, /ebruary 4:, %&&'! Adrienne Samos, FOendors and Squatters, ;es<s Palomino,G in ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007, ed! 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos DAmsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7E, 47>!

57

society is structured ,ere e.posed and engaged! Ho,ever, PalominoJs approach ,as very different from the embedded yearlong process that Alfaro pursuedC but this is not necessarily a value 0udgment! The collaborative process is anything but formulaic, and part of my o,n reasoning for selecting PalominoJs ,or- for analysis is precisely to approach the idea of collaboration from a different perspective! The concepts of collaboration and improvisation remain critical, and critically distinct! $n recent email correspondence ,ith the artist $ proposed the notions of collaboration and improvisation as critical frames for the analysis of his ,or-! His response too- me some,hat by surprise! According to him, the collaborative ,or-ing e.perience in the research and development of the pro0ect ,as rather conventionalB more of a matter of logistical problem3solving and resource procurement, and not the highly charged process of contention and debate that $ have previously outlined! Ho,ever, in his description of ho, the collaboration could have been more successful he ac-no,ledged the importance of giving Fthe collaborators the chance of feeling themselves part of the actionG through Fa very open and non3hierarchical group spirit!G6: *hat is most interesting is ho, this sense of collaborative, group spirit arose over the course of the e.hibition( ho, different collective bodies of solidarity coalesced through the reception of the ,or- in the public domain, rather than through the process of the ,or-Js development! The concept of improvisation is also at the core of PalominoJs ,or-ing method, along ,ith the notions of bricolage, emergency and en0oyment! 6' *ith regard to Alfaro, the discussion of improvisation focused primarily on the ,or-ing methodology employed by the artist in his research and development of the pro0ect, as ,ell as to the event3li-e nature of the video pro0ections! $n PalominoJs case, ho,ever, the idea of improvisation operates more on
78 79

;es<s Palomino, email to the author, /ebruary 4:, %&&'! $bid!

58

an aesthetic or conceptual level!:& The conceptual dimensions of Vendors and Squatters hinge on the nature of these t,o related practices, and, appropriately, Palomino develops an aesthetic of adaptability and improvisation to correspond to the physicality of the constructions, their conte.tual siting, and the underlying sociopolitical issues! $n fact, there are many layers of bricolage ,ithin this pro0ect( from the procurement and use of materials to the varied audiences and divergent responses to the ,or-! /or ciudadMULTIPLEcity, Palomino and his team of ,or-ersBlocal artists, urban theorists from the @niversity, a local carpenter by the name of OictorBperformed the ,orof vendors and squatters through the assembly and construction of the three different structures! Through this performativity, PalominoJs livelihood Dthat is, his artistic career, tra0ectory and reputationE became inter,oven ,ith those of the individuals ,hose practices he ,as referencing! $n a symbolic fashion, Palomino ,as also scraping together the means necessary for his o,n survival! Het, the sta-es ,ere hardly the same( in the collaborative process, the artist retains a privileged positionBa sense of autonomyB,hile simultaneously submitting this autonomy to the vulnerability of multiple sources of input! Palomino

constructed a situation and then ,al-ed a,ay, allo,ing the ,or- to adapt and be adapted to the different arguments and sta-ed claims! $t is also important to note that Palomino ,as permitted to place these structures in their various conte.ts once an agreement had been reached ,ith the site o,ners of each, and, more importantly, because they ,ere D0ustE ,or-s of art! "ut this ,as the great sleight3of3hand performed by Palomino, after all, ,hereby art transforms reality, becomes more real than life itself by inciting action and debates that other,ise remain unarticulated!

80

$bid!

59

I"!#n$(l C#ll&ng
Since the late 4':&s and early '&s, the international biennial model has proliferated at e.ponential rates! Currently, there are some 47& different biennial e.hibitions in operation ,orld,ide!:4 $n observation of these staggering statistics, there is no question that the biennial comple. has significantly contributed to the reshaping of the contemporary art ,orld Bthe effects of ,hich have largely influenced the formats for the display of contemporary art practices as ,ell as in guiding artistic production itself, ,ith many more artists ,or-ing to develop pro0ect proposals for such e.hibitions rather than creating autonomous art ob0ects!:% The ever3gro,ing prevalence of biennial e.hibitions has been met ,ith both praise and frustration! Pn the one hand, many of the recent biennials have cropped up in areas of the ,orld that have hitherto e.isted outside of the FofficialG contemporary art ,orldBas guided by 8uro3American3centrist perspectivesBand have dra,n much3needed attention to artists and practices beyond the insularity and relative homogeneity of F/irst *orldG art institutions! Pn the other hand, many of these e.hibitions fail to represent a critical alterity to both their o,n structures and histories, as ,ell as to the global mainstream! Much criticism has been leveled at these temporary, episodic institutions on the basis of their function as closed loop circuits, ,ithin ,hich the same curators, artists, ,or-s of art, and critics circulate! 8nter the $nternational $stanbul "iennial! Commenced in 4':6, the $stanbul "iennial is approaching its 44th incarnation under the curatorial guidance of *hat, Ho,, and /or *hom, the curatorial collective based in Nagreb, Croatia! Pver the years the biennial has

81

Marie-e van Hal, FPpening )emar-sG Dpaper presented at the "iennials in #ialogue Conference, Shanghai, China, September >36, %&&:E! "il0ana Ciric, introduction to /ejected !ollection DMilan( 8di2ioni Charta, %&&:E, :!

82

60

struggled, li-e many of its counterparts, to develop a coherent identity and purpose both ,ithin and bet,een its local and global frame,or-s! $n a recent te.t published for

'ra&e0or9" The 'innish $rt /e(ie0, curator and critic Mi-a Hannula suggested that part of the problem ,ith biennials has to do ,ith their dis0unctive temporality, the constant turnover from one edition to the ne.t! Hannula asserts that FQoRne of the main problems is the one3off character of biennials! As long as every ne,ly appointed curator tries to reinvent the ,heel again and again, there is no ,ay out of this self3made misery!G :9 The problem is not so much the temporality of these types of e.hibitions, but, as successive productions, there is often little attempt to build upon or learn from their o,n historical tra0ectory, let alone from other biennials from diverse locations! *hether ac-no,ledged or not, each biennial edition develops in relation to its predecessors, and its success or failure is often related to its handling of previous fla,s! $n this schema, then, the focus should not merely be on an increase in biennial attendance, for instance, but on the quality and interactivity of the e.hibition in engaging both local and international audiences! $n fact, it should be noted that at the core of any biennial e.hibition are many of the same criteria that $ have outlined for this analysis! The primary concerns of biennials, $ ,ould argue, as e.hibitions of contemporary art that also serve to engage a local socio3cultural scene that e.tends beyond the arts, should involve a more careful tailoring and inter,eaving of aesthetic and sociopolitical qualities! /urthermore, the fear of critique and of ta-ing a self3critical stance D,hich involves sifting through the past, accepting mista-esE should not prevent a more genuine and concerted approach to such pursuits! /ar too often, the potency of a biennialJs sociopolitical address is co3opted for purposes of cultural tourism
83

Mi-a Hannula, F+e, Hope for the #ead( ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial 1ives a +ecessary "oost to an Pld Concept,G /rame,or-, http(KK,,,!frame,or-!fiK7U%&&=Kne,sKarti--elitKhannula!html!

61

and commercialism, among other things! So ho, does the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, ,hich too- place bet,een the 4>th of September and Pctober 9&th of %&&=, fit into this scenarioI *hat ,ere the strategies employed by co3curators Oasif ?ortun and Charles 8sche in order to circumnavigate the pitfalls of the biennial syndromeI )e0ecting the idea of the biennial as an e.hibition model, ?ortun posits the biennial pro0ect as Fa format lin-ed both to the diversification and enrichment of the field on the one hand and on the other the cultural empo,erment and legitimation of the city it ta-es place in!G:7 Here one can read a concerted effort to more directly connect the "iennial to the specificity of its location and its history! "y turning in,ards it also see-s to define those connecting points that provide access beyond its immediate conte.t! @nder the direction of ?ortun and 8sche, the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial addressed both the 4:3year history of the "iennial as ,ell as the modern history of $stanbul the city! $n ,ays that ,ill be divulged momentarily, many of the decisions made by ?ortun and 8sche ,ere made in response to -ey aspects of the institutionJs history, developing a contemplative approach to the present situation of $stanbul ,ithin global politics! Pverall, the "iennial ,as the result of thoughtful reflection on the purpose of the e.hibition, and the location of the city ,ithin Fa specific geo3political reality,G:= all of ,hich led to a ne, proposition! Put quite simply, but no less po,erfully, this proposition ,as embodied by the e.hibitionJs title( Istanbul! ;ust as Panama City too- center stage in the production of ciudadMULTIPLEcity, so did $stanbul function as a critical focus for the 'th edition of the $stanbul "iennial! $n order to
84

Minna Henri-sson, FThe *orld Can "e Transformed by Action,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM7! ?aterina 1regos, F8mail $ntervie, ,ith Oasif ?ortun and Charles 8sche,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM9!

85

62

aid in this analysis of the e.hibition, some characteri2ation of the city is necessary! Having never traveled to $stanbul myself, $ am obliged to rely on the notions of the city offered by the curators, critics and artists ,ho ,or- most closely ,ith and in this conte.t! The

positioning of $stanbul as a protagonist is even more provocative ,hen one considers ho0 the city is characteri2edB,hat attributes are selected and highlightedBas such emphasis surely reveals some of the core values that ,ere being mulled over throughout the development and reali2ation of the "iennial! Charles 8sche has described $stanbul as a Fpredictive city to challenge the idea that it is someho, follo,ing an already trod path to,ards @S style global modern capitalism!G The development of $stanbul is especially mar-ed by a sense of

improvisation, ,herein one can find

a form of agonistic living together in ,hich people survive, continue, and prosper ,ithout a fundamental agreement on the pattern of society! $t serves as a concrete form of ,hat Chantal Mouffe has called an Vagonistic public sphere,J though the publicness of that sphere is constantly under threat from rich families and from privati2ation5 *or-ing in the city is inspiring because of the possibility it creates!:>

The idea of $stanbul as a Fpredictive cityG is predicated on its rapid moderni2ation, and its e.istence outside ofBbut still very much connected toBthe direct influence of *estern3style capitalism! )ather than follo,ing in the footsteps of 8uropean or American industriali2ation and moderni2ation, many theorists contend that cities li-e $stanbul are developing in decisively different ,ays, embodying Drather chaoticE models of spatial constructionB,hich seeps into the resultant social structureBthat challenge the rigidity of the highly rationali2ed organi2ational models that have descended from the 8uropean 8nlightenment and their American counterparts!

86

;elena Oesic, FAbout 8.hibitions, Modest Proposals and Possibilities( $ntervie, ,ith Charles 8sche,G Prelom ?ole-tiv, http(KK,,,!prelom-ole-tiv!orgKpdfKescheUe!pdf!

63

1enerally spea-ing, there is no singular urban plan for $stanbulJs developmentBno figures li-e 1eorges38ugTne Haussmann DParisE or #aniel "urnham DChicagoEBno Ffundamental agreement on the pattern of society!G "ut this e.tends beyond mere physical layout, as $stanbul is also an FagonisticG conglomerate of various histories D)oman, "y2antine, Pttoman, etc!E, shifting migratory populations, and cultural forms! The city itself is a bridge bet,een F8astG and F*est!G As Patricia Phillips points out, F$stanbul is

continentally bifurcated! Southeast of the "osporus, the city is Asian! To the north,est, it is in 8urope! $t is $slamic and Christian, traditionally authoritarian ,ith an emerging secular democracy!G:6 These simplified binaries convey a sense of the dynamic tensions that ma-e $stanbul such a remar-able place, and it is from such agonistic societal relations that much of the ,or- for the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial dre, its inspiration, engaging the city and its various sub0ects in order to draft a s-etch of its multiple forms! "eyond its national borders, this situating of Tur-ey as a point of multiple positions has ta-en center stage in 8uropean politics as Tur-ey is currently under consideration for acceptance into the 8@! And as Phillips suggests, FQtRhe characteristics that distinguish $stanbul and Tur-ey are e.actly the ones that ma-e some 8!@! members s-eptical of, if not alarmed by, the prospect of its role in 8uropean politics!G:: This current political tension ,as also responded to through certain aspects of the curatorial frame,or- that sought to create tenuous relationships bet,een $stanbul and other ma0or cities on both sides of the 8uropean border, thereby giving form to the multiple DinEcongruencies bet,een the different locations! $t is not surprising, then, that ?ortun and 8sche chose the city itself as the primary theme or concept for the "iennial! $stanbul ,as the starting point, and from there the cityB
87 88

Patricia Phillips, F'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial,G Sculpture %=, +o! 9 DApril %&&>E( 6:! $bid!

64

the ideaBspiraled out,ards throughout the region!:' $n an intervie, preceding the opening of the e.hibition, ?ortun and 8sche discussed their interest in the conte.t of $stanbul ,ith ?atrina 1regos! $n response to her labeling of their ,or- as socio3politically engaged, the co3curators responded by opening the reading of the ,or-s and overall e.hibition even further( Fthe conte.t of the sho, is the cityBnot only its Vsocio3politicalJ aspect, but its people, their intimacy and emotion, the street life, the smell, the coloursBamongst much else that the artists ,ill reveal to us!G'& *hile not stated so overtly, $ read in this statement an ac-no,ledgement of the importance of the aesthetic qualities of the city, and some suggestion of ,ays that the artists and ,or-s of art may translate certain aesthetic qualities of the city itself into visible forms! This articulation offers an interesting point to consider ,ith regard to the interactivity of the aesthetic and sociopolitical qualities of the city and the ,or-s! Previously $ have argued for a duality that, ,hile layered, is still composed of t,o separate, seemingly autonomous forms of e.pression! Here, $ am interested in proposing a slightly different relationship, ,hereby the aesthetic and the sociopolitical occupy the same continuum, that they do not merely reinforce or accentuate one another, but perhaps are one and the same! $n other ,ords, the aesthetic qualities of the cityBFintimacy and emotion, the street life, the smell, the colours,G for e.ampleBare also sociopolitical forms of address! 8sche and ?ortun re0ect the idea of one or another interpretation, asserting the indivisibility of these qualities! Another critical aspect of the curatorial methodology is the selection of the different sites for the e.hibition, as ,ell as ,hat is not selected Dor relied uponE! Seven different
89 90

;an Oer,oert, FCity )eport( $stanbul,G %rie1e '= D+ov!3#ec! %&&=E( 4%6! ?aterina 1regos, F8mail $ntervie, ,ith Oasif ?ortun and Charles 8sche,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM9!

65

buildings ,ere utili2ed for the display of the art,or-s, only one of ,hich ,as an art center,'4 ,ith the further addition of a section of the e.hibition entitled F8n )oute,G ,hich consisted of ,or-s displayed in the public avenues that crisscrossed bet,een locations! Again, having been unable to e.perience the e.hibition for myself, $ must rely on the accounts of others, and in this regard $ find Patricia PhillipsJ description quite poignant!
All ,ithin ,al-ing distance of each other, the different venues encouraged visitors to ma-e and enact their o,n maps of the city! The s-ein of random routes that emerged as people ,ent from place to place ,as a vivid part of the e.periential and conceptual core of this biennial pro0ect! The venues, unpredictably connected and interrupted by this spatial navigation, created an engaging disequilibrium and disquieting arrhythmia of often segregated e.periences of art ,ith the erratic pulse of quotidian activities and dramatic urban change!'%

The selection of these sites ,as quite purposeful in the sense that ?ortun and 8sche deliberately avoided the historical, touristic sites that ,ere the epicenters of past biennials, instead opting to conte.tuali2e the e.hibition ,ithin the ,or-ing3class, industrial districts of "eyoglu and 1alata! Spea-ing ,ith Minna Henri-sson, Charles 8sche e.plains( F,e decided to avoid the pitfalls of Pttoman nostalgia -itschBor at best the notion of the historic city providing spurious legitimacy to contemporary ,or-, a thing that has disfigured a number of previous biennials! So, ,e ,ill use only relatively recent buildings and sites that are either domestic or associated ,ith contemporary trade and production5 The idea is to lay out a ,al-ing route in the city, ,ith larger and smaller stations along the ,ay!G As such, ?ortun suggests that the idea is Fto sin- the biennial into the city and ma-e it continuous ,ith it!G '9
91

The sites of the e.hibition included the #eni2 Palas Apartments, the 1aranti "uilding, Antrepo +o! =, a Tobacco *arehouse, the "ilsar "uilding, Platform 1aranti Contemporary Art Center, and the 1aribaldi "uilding! Patricia Phillips, F'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial,G Sculpture %=, +o! 9 DApril %&&>E( 6:! Minna Henri-sson, FThe *orld Can "e Transformed by Action,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM7!

92 93

66

Ho,ever, despite their ob0ective to develop a continuous biennial e.perience, ,ith the city operating as a -ind of ,or- of art in its o,n right, significant criticism ,as leveled at the "iennial for its limited presence ,ithin the public domain! Pnly four of the ,or-s in the e.hibition ,ere actually located outside of some mediating structure, and there appears to have been a favoring of ob0ects and the quarantined displays of video ,or-s and installations! This point is further complicated by the fact that, ,hile the curators clearly attempted to position many of the ,or-s outside of neutral, ,hite cube gallery spaces, access to the informal displays prevalent in the ,arehouse3li-e structures or abandoned, transitional apartment comple.es still required the payment of an admission price!'7 The art critic T!;! #emos, ,riting for $rt%oru&, provides some insightful critique(
*here the curatorial strategy ran into trouble ,as in its dependence on the legibility of the dis0unctions set up bet,een e.hibition venues and the spaces of everyday life! 8.iting the venues, one encountered a culture shoc-B,hich ,as not unintended, as one of the curators informed me! "ut ,hile ma-ing the visitor e.perience the sometimes3gaping cultural divisions bet,een genteel art3vie,ing and the drudgery of manual labor in a developing city, ,hich hopefully prompts introspection and self3 estrangement, the curious lac- of mediation bet,een the t,o irreconcilable 2ones highlighted the rather conventional ob0ect3based appearance of the ma0ority of art,or-s, nearly all of ,hich ,ere safely contained behind ,alls!'=

*hile the selection of the different sites ,as meaningful in disrupting certain biennial conventionalities, apparently there remained a lac- of adventurousness ,ith regard to the opening up and e.ploration of the public realm! $t is evident ho, ?ortun and 8sche created Dat times, agonisticE relationships bet,een the different spaces, bet,een the abandoned or transitional building structures and the chaos of urban street environments, but this seems to have fallen short of its desired interactivity due to the sheltering of most of the ,or-s on
94

8leanor Heartney, F)eport from $stanbul( Artists in the City,G $rt in $&erica '9, +o! 44 D#ecember %&&=E( ==! T!;! #emos, F'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! 9 D+ovember %&&=E( %7>!

95

67

display!

The 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial undoubtedly offered a much needed

revamping of biennial e.hibitions, both ,ithin and outside of Tur-ey, but it also reveals some of the nagging limitations that continue to plague these types of e.hibitions, the problems that continue to face Fanti3biennial biennials!G '> Presently, $ ,ould li-e to delve more deeply into the curatorial frame,or- and methodology! To begin ,ith, the curatorial team consisted of the t,o aforementioned co3 curators, Oasif ?ortun and Charles 8sche, ,ith the accompaniment of t,o assistant curators, +ovember Paynter and 8sra Sarigedi-! $t is important to add that each of the team members, aside from 8sche D,ho is the current director of the van Abbemuseum in 8indhoven, + E, live and ,or- in $stanbulC circumstances that surely helped to situate the "iennial ,ithin the fabric of the cityBits physical sitings and conceptual parameters! The ,or-ing methodology ,as described in an email intervie, ,ith art 0ournal Metropolis M as Forganic,G ,herein Fthe hierarchies dissolved along the ,ay!G Pf particular interest is the assertion that the different practitioners ,ould Ftest each otherJs decisions, choices and preferences at all stages and see- to strengthen them through discussion!G'6 $ am dra,n to this description for reasons that should be obvious by no,, specifically as it highlights a -ind of ,or-ing through of oppositions that ultimately leads to a greater productivity and accountability for the choices made! Het, it remains unclear 0ust ho, this -ind of collaborative practice played out in actuality! $ cannot but ,onder as to ho, the po,er dynamics shape and influence the ,or-ing process, ho, the notion of a quasi3governing curatoriumBa bureaucracy of sortsB influences the shape and direction of the pro0ect!
96

8leanor Heartney, F)eport from $stanbul( Artists in the City,G $rt in $&erica '9, +o! 44 D#ecember %&&=E( ==! Metropolis M, F8mail $ntervie, ,ith Charles 8sche and Oasif ?ortun,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM4!

97

68

Having already touched upon the selection of sites for the display of art,or-s, there are a number of other important strategies adopted by the curators to e.plore the myriad of facets that are subsumed under the title F$stanbul!G Again, adapting a mi.ture of scattered sites, artistsJ residencies and the commissioning of ne, ,or-s, Charles 8sche e.plains the curatorial frame,or-(
,e decided to reduce the overall number of artists to about =&, to sho, more ,or- by each individual, and as- around half of the selected artists to come for an e.tended residency in $stanbul D%3> monthsE to produce ne, ,or- or choose e.isting ,or- that ,ould address the sensibility of the city itself! As a countervailing force, and to avoid the dangers of a -ind of $stanbul essentialism, the other half ,ill be sho,ing ,or- that contrasts ,ith the environment and the condition of $stanbul, telling other stories or e.periences from other parts of the international imagination!':

8lse,here, this distinction bet,een the t,o poles of the e.hibition is described as ,or-s that engage $stanbul and ,or-s about F+ot3$stanbul!G'' $stanbul is thus the central a.is for interpretation in both cases, and yet another dialectical pairing emerges! Through this

duality, there are multiple investigations of $stanbul( its internal dynamics and heterogeneous forms as ,ell as ,ith regard to its e.ternal relationships ,ith the regions that it straddles! Thus, $stanbul is e.plored as here and there, as ,ell as else,here! Combating the pitfalls of previous editions and other biennials across the globe, T!;! #emos commends this aspect of the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial(
overall the biennial managed to avoid the potential dangers of geographical essentialism or limited parochialism by diversifying its conception of siteBand this ,as a sign of the e.hibitionJs comple. ambitions( The organi2ers posited $stanbul as a relay bet,een locality and globality, ,here globali2ation ,as encountered as a lived process mediating bet,een a real place and the forces that move through it, bet,een
98

Minna Henri-sson, FThe *orld Can "e Transformed by Action,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM7! Metropolis M, F8mail $ntervie, ,ith Charles 8sche and Oasif ?ortun,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM4!

99

69

oneJs actual location and the discourses that determine or are inflected by it!4&&

The relationship bet,een the global and the local has attracted a great deal of attention in recent ,riting in art circles, almost to the point of e.haustion! Ho,ever, it seems to have been received favorably here, and thus it ,ill be interesting to assess 0ust ho, this divide ,as handled, or bridged! The t,o pro0ects that $ have selected for analysis spea- to the different sides of this debate, and $ hope that bet,een the t,o of them some sense of the FglocalG can be established in a productive and informative ,ay! $n part, the successfulness of the "iennial in addressing this issue is founded on the fact that it never lost sight of the local conte.t, and instead attempted to access global perspectives through a close reading of local ties, processes and negotiations of po,er! /inally, before moving on to a discussion of ,or-s ,ithin the sho,, $ am compelled to address an important methodological problem $ have encountered ,ith regard to this case study! @nli-e the case of ciudadMULTIPLEcity, ,here $ ,as able to establish contact ,ith the artists and curators, this first3hand -no,ledge is largely absent in the case of the ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial! There is no doubt in my mind that the follo,ing section, regarding the analysis of the ,or-s of art and their points of receptions Dtheir ability to activate and empo,erE, ,ould profit greatly from such input! Pverall, $ personally recogni2e my lac- of intimacy ,ith these ,or-s and their ,or-ing methodologies! This is perhaps some,hat contradictory to my o,n argument( one that largely serves to promote active participation as a means for revelatory e.perience! /urthermore, $ largely agree ,ith Charles 8sche ,hen he states that Fart is al,ays an intimate e.perience that tal-s to the individual

100

T!;! #emos, F'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! 9 D+ovember %&&=E( %7=3>!

70

and about individual e.perience!G4&4 Ho,ever, despite the discomfort $ have in engaging these ,or-s in such a tenuous fashion, $ still believe it to be a ,orth,hile pursuit, and ,ill try to overcome these methodological hindrances as best $ can!

K#'l1He&n5 Klo*%. Mind the Steps, /006

#espite the imbalance of truly public ,or-s of art in the "iennial, there are t,o pro0ects from the F8n )outeG section that involve such practices and it is on them that $ ,ill focus! The first pro0ect to be discussed is Mind the Steps, %&&= QPlate 9!43%R, by Austrian artist ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf! ?lopf has been investigating issues of urbanism and architecture for quite some time, follo,ing the different paths of analysis as part of an artistic practice focused primarily on the informal structures and net,or-s that currently shape the FpredictiveG cities of today! An important part of this practice deals ,ith the relationship bet,een urbanism Dits everyday practiceE and economic forces, a relationship ripe ,ith inconsistencies that result from the e.ertion of multiple desires, all of ,hich is quite particular to the city of $stanbul! His participation in the 'th edition of the $stanbul "iennial resulted from his prolonged interest in and travels to $stanbul, and the research related to it that he has been conducting for years! Co3curators Oasif ?ortun and Charles 8sche e.plain part of their criteria for the selection of artists, describing ho, FQaR number of artists ,ere invited follo,ing their o,n longstanding connections ,ith the city through residency e.periences, deep personal interest and research!G ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf ,as a prime candidate in this regard, as he Fhas been visiting $stanbul on and off for years and his e.tremely site3 specific proposal reflects this e.tended period of observation!G4&% Than-fully, ?lopf has
101

;elena Oesic, FAbout 8.hibitions, Modest Proposals and Possibilities( $ntervie, ,ith Charles 8sche,G Prelom ?ole-tiv, http(KK,,,!prelom-ole-tiv!orgKpdfKescheUe!pdf! Metropolis M, F8mail $ntervie, ,ith Charles 8sche and Oasif ?ortun,G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial,

102

71

published his proposal on his ,ebsite, and it reveals much of his interest and ,or-ing process for this pro0ect! Mind the Steps is a subtle and muted intervention ,ithin the hillside ,al-,ays and staircases that pepper the steep streets of the "eyoglu neighborhood, leading to and from the area -no,n as the 1olden Horn on the "osporus! The ,or- consisted of the selection of si. different sites along these tumultuous corridors, for ,hich ?lopf installed theatrical pro0ector spots to illuminate these locations at night! /inally, over the course of the first ,ee- of the "iennial, ?lopf invited local artists, musicians, informal day laborers, and other people from the neighborhood to FperformG their services or craft at one of the selected locations! /or this ,or-, the artist dre, inspiration from a number of different sources, and in his proposal he cites a te.t by Austrian3born American social historian, educator, architect and ,riter "ernard )udofs-y entitled Streets %or People, ,hich, according to ?lopf, stated that Fclimbing stairs had become an atavistic activity for modern industriali2ed man!G 4&9 *hile )udofs-y ,as ,riting in reference to the city of )ome, ?lopf understood this daily activity to be a pertinent sub0ect for inquiry in the hillside neighborhoods of $stanbul, a city that is also constructed on a number of steep shelves! $n these rather simple but provocative constructions, ?lopf caught a glimpse of F$stanbulGBthe physicality of its location, the idea(
As a result of the intersection of steep streets and the hori2ontal of buildings, e.treme differences of heights are created in the pavement area, ,hich pedestrians have to surmount5 $t can easily be seen that these steps have mostly been built ,ithout planning! The materials, colors and constellations are very different! *hatever ,as at hand ,as used! 8rgonomic necessities ,ere mostly only roughly considered! Sometimes there are entire ensembles of differently high and long steps, ,hich ,ere constructed in a playful and improvised ,ay! These patch,or-3li-e details can be considered as miniaturi2ed metaphors of the constructed $stanbul!4&7
http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM4!
103

?arl3Hein2 ?lopf, FMind the Steps,G e.pand, http(KK,,,!e.pand!atK-lopfK!

72

The notion that these constructions metaphorically represent the urban environment of $stanbul, ,ith its many psychological underpinnings, is not only very poetic, in my opinion, but also quite profound! These often overloo-ed staircases, used each and every day by residents, ,or-ers, and tourists ali-e, are physical incarnations of the Fagonistic public sphereG that 8sche referred toBsites around and through ,hich various interpretations of ho, $stanbul should be constructed Din service to certain notions of F,hoG $stanbul isE literally confront one another, creating a visual analogy of the society that treads its labyrinthine passage,ays on a daily basis! ?lopfJs interest in the aesthetic qualities of these constructions should not be overloo-ed here, as they are absolutely pertinent to the overall nature of the ,or- and further corroborate the sociopolitical address of Mind the Steps! The uses of different materials, the different colors and variations in heights, lengths and ,idths of the ill3fitted steps can be understood as descriptions of a society that itself is a blending of racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural identities! The differentiation of steps is analogical to the differentiation of sub0ect positions that they themselves are referents of! 8ach intervention is a statement of intent, an e.pression of a belief! $n this ,ay, Mind the Steps functions as a -ind of forum for debate! Ho,ever, it is a debate that is long in the ma-ing and never quite finished, and the reach of this debate e.tends far beyond the immediate ,or- of art, perhaps even e.isting outside of it! The steps, then, are a -ind of readymade, a,aiting reconte.tuali2ationBa #uchampian t,ist of fate! After all, as Oasif ?ortun points out in his description of the ,or-, F?arl3Hein2 ?lopf has made nothing for the "iennial!G4&= Thus, the ,or- of art is not the catalyst for this
104 105

$bid! Oasif ?ortun, F?arl3Hein2 ?lopf,G 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial,

73

-ind of interactivity and e.change, but an identification and contribution to this dialogue! All of these characteristics are emphasi2ed even more provocatively by the literal and figural FilluminatingG of the si. sites selected by the artist, through the use of theatrical pro0ector spotlights, thereby creating a -ind of stage set in each location! These sites ,ere in fact quite ironic in the sense that they ,ere rather mundane, ,hile also dra,ing oneJs attention in an ultimately ambiguous direction! ?ortun e.plains ho, FQtRhese subtle

indicators are conte.ts for things ,aiting to happen! $nvisible to oblivious passers3by during the day, these carefully selected moments become visible, li-e the stars, only at night!G4&> At this point, one may ,onder ho, or in ,hat ,ay these ,or-s ,ere collaborative in nature, ,herein various constituencies negotiate the territory of their identities! $n part, $ believe that the issue of collaboration ,as raised through ?lopfJs interaction ,ith the city itselfBhere the idea that the city is an integral protagonist, a living entity to be engaged, returns! $n Mind the Steps, ?lopf operates as -ind of semiotician, e.ploring and dra,ing attention to the signs that the city holds, and uses curatorial techniquesBfor instance, lighting and the intert,ining of relationships in order to create a compositionBto develop a ,or- of art ripe for multifarious interpretations! ?lopf does not merely ta-e the information provided by the city as given, but augments and accentuates it in ,ays that challenge the very everydayness of such information! "ut it does not end there! There is yet another crucial aspect of the pro0ect in ,hich the issue of collaboration comes to the forefront, and resonates ,ith the idea of a ,or- of art functioning as a site reminiscent of a political forum, albeit in a very theatrical and dis0ointed
http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMArtists&SubMA2&ContentM?arlHein2U?lopf!
106

Oasif ?ortun, F?arl3Hein2 ?lopf,G 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMArtists&SubMA2&ContentM?arlHein2U?lopf!

74

fashion!

As $ mentioned previously, the Fstage setsG created by the use of the pro0ector

spotlights on the steps became sites for a variety of different performances and events that too- place over the course of the opening ,ee- of the "iennial! 8ach night, at a different location along the route mapped out by ?lopf along the corridors of "eyoglu, performers from the local community ,ould ta-e the stage, inviting passers3by to become involved in their respective performances! *riting for the art 0ournal Sprin#erin, art critic Pelin Tan describes these performances, e.plaining ho,
?lopf transformed the daily habits of ,al-ing in the streets into a playful performance! #uring the "iennial, he not only used spotlights to highlight these chaotic steps li-e stages, but also organi2ed sho,s by several local musicians and performers on every evening during the first ,ee- of the sho,! At the first event, ,hich ,as on a set of steps in front of a cash dispenser in Haci Ali Street, t,o Tur-ish artists performed by creating rhythms using their hands and bodies! Another day, the steps in Heni [arsi Street hosted local brea- and rap dancers! 1ypsy musicians and dancers ,ere invited to the steps in T\r-g\c\ Street and a local electronic music group ,as invited to Horo2 Street on another evening!4&6

Pn an aesthetic level, these performances contributed to the urban fabric of the city, an e.perience than ,as heightened by the fact that such events ,ere generally daytime rituals! They ,ere contradictory in nature( both out of place and yet not entirely foreign, ,hile also representative of the diverse identities that inhabit the neighborhood! The choice of

performers operated on both an aesthetic plane as ,ell as contributing significantly to the sociopolitical issues that ,ere imbued ,ithin the pro0ect! The musical forms ,ere

representative of different classes of citi2ens, many of ,hich also had different cultural bac-grounds! The publicness of these spaces ,as thus e.plored, perhaps even opened up slightly! They became spaces to engage different identities and performances of identity, ultimately questioning the publicness of such displays and their communicability or lac107

Pelin Tan, F8ncountering the ocal,G Springerin, http(KK,,,!springerin!atKdynKheft!phpI idM7=&posM&&te.tidM&&langMen!

75

thereof! /or misunderstanding is al,ays an intrinsic aspect of the communicative act! Pelin Tan goes on to ma-e a very interesting point ,ith regard to this idea, observing that FQtRhe collaboration ,ith local musicians and performers from different cultural communities not only created interactive street interventions in the public space that involved both the audience and local people, but also produced a -ind of trans3local e.perience and -no,ledge among the inhabitants!G4&: *hile not directly engaging one another, these

performances created a sense of a,areness ,ithin the neighborhood that revealed a multiplicity of voices! To return to the idea of an aesthetics of communication as one of the primary and critical attributes of socially engaged, collaborative art practices, ?lopfJs critical attention paid to the dra,ing together of highly charged cultural vocali2ations created a -ind of call and response among the local residents and e.tended this beyond the neighborhood through its inclusion as part of the "iennial structure! Mind the Steps, then, involved the dual processes of visuali2ation and vocali2ation, enacting the very struggle to be both seen and heard!

SUPER7LE8 9 3en" H##n&ng. 1000 biennial posters project, /006

The second pro0ect $ ,ill discuss did not ta-e place in $stanbul at all! Still designated as one of the ,or-s of art in the F8n )outeG section, the pro0ect by #anish art collective S@P8)/ 8A, in collaboration ,ith fello, #anish artist ;ens Haaning, is an e.ample of a F+ot3$stanbulG pro0ect! This is the result of the artistsJ displacement of their pro0ect to Copenhagen, #enmar-, the city in ,hich they all live and ,or-! As the title suggests, 1000 biennial posters project, %&&= QPlate 7!43%R, entailed the shipping of 4&&& "iennial posters to
108

Pelin Tan, F8ncountering the ocal,G Springerin, http(KK,,,!springerin!atKdynKheft!phpI idM7=&posM&&te.tidM&&langMen!

76

Copenhagen, ,here they ,ere then posted throughout the city alongside the thousands of other advertisements and promotional posters that together create a -ind of urban ,allpaper in the interstitial spaces of the city! According to Charles 8sche in his description of the pro0ect, this activity ,as a declaration of $stanbul in Copenhagen!4&' As such, there is a -ind of dis0unctive union, one city fitting not so snugly into the other, suggesting a continuity bet,een the t,o cities ,hile also e.posing the tenuous relationship bet,een them! Prior to an investigation of this pro0ect, and its permeation of multiple conte.ts, $ ,ould first li-e to provide some sense of the artistic practices of both the artist collective S@P8)/ 8A and ;ens Haaning, and their ,or-ing methodology for the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial! As $ stated previously, S@P8)/ 8A is an artist collective from The group consists of three members( )asmus +ielsen, ;a-ob

Copenhagen, #enmar-!

/enger and "0]rnst0erne Christiansen, ,ho met ,hile attending the #enmar- )oyal Academy of /ine Art, and ,ho have been ,or-ing together since 4''9! 44& Their collective pursuits are rather difficult to characteri2e, as once again art historical categori2ations fail to address the great diversity of practices and pro0ects that their 0oint ventures entail! *or-ing together, they are both artists and entrepreneursC they are social activists and corporate managersBan uncomfortable mi. for many on both sides of the fence! This is the result of the fact that S@P8)/ 8A is both a collective and a company! $n an intervie, ,ith ^sa +ac-ing for the art 0ournal $%terall, S@P8)/ 8A e.plains their decision to incorporate their activities( F@nli-e artists ,ho see themselves in opposition
109

Charles 8sche, FS@P8)/ 8A & ;ens Haaning,G 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMArtists&SubMA2&ContentMS@P8)/ 8A! ;ay "abcoc-, FA #rin- ,ith a T,ist,G arthur, http(KK,,,!arthurmag!comK%&&:K&>K&6Ksuperfle.3intervie,3 from3arthur3no347K!

110

77

to society or ,ho ,ant to be alternative, ,e are ,or-ing ,ithin the social structure! "y using this method ,e improve our chances of being socially and economically relevant!G 444 $t is through this rather unconventional blending of art and alternative business models that they are able to converge a variety of practices, to ,al- multiple thin lines, and to engage even the most seemingly divergent points of vie,! This idea is critical to their practice, as each pro0ect underta-ing is also the development of a communication system( F#iscussion is an important partBthe fact that ,e have an opportunity to enter into a dialogue ,ith people from a variety of divergent positions! $n this situation negative feedbac- can become an important part of the ,ay the pro0ect develops! $n that sense, the pro0ect may already be termed a success, since it is no, part of the public debate!G 44% $n this statement there are clear similarities bet,een my interests in ,or-s of socially engaged, collaborative practices, but still $ am hesitant to assert that success be measured by the initiation of public debate alone! After all, public debate is surely not the end goal of the pro0ects contained ,ithin this larger analysis, but another beginningBan initiation of further processes of coming3into3being that e.tend beyond the more immediate pro0ect parameters! Turning to the ,or- of ;ens Haaning no,, there is a great deal of overlap bet,een his practicesKinterests and those of S@P8)/ 8A! "oth describe their practices as FtoolsG to be utili2ed ,ithin different societal machinations, tools that are adaptable by the various participants that are the cru. of each underta-ing, and that are operable on any of the multiple sides of a given issue! Most recently, HaaningJs ,or- has addressed issues of immigrationBparticularly as it relates to the flo, of non3*estern people to the economic
111

^sa +ac-ing, FAn 8.change bet,een ^sa +ac-ing and S@P8)/ 8A,G S@P8)/ 8A, http(KK,,,!superfle.!netKte.tKarticlesKanUe.changeUbet,een!shtml! $bid!

112

78

centers of the *estBand notions of FforeignnessG in relation to hegemonic forces Dculturally and politically spea-ingE and the po,er dynamics inherent to global processes of e.change and value determinations! Spea-ing ,ith internationally reno,ned curator Hou Hanru,

Haaning identifies three main interests that have largely shaped the tra0ectory of his artistic practice( namely, interests in e.istential questions, cultural, political and social issues, and the pleasure of creating and ma-ing things! As for his designation as an artist, he e.plains that FQtRhe art field ,as the first area ,here $ ,as able to combine and ,or- ,ith my three interests at the same time!G 449 Here again ,e encounter the idea of the field of art as a field of converging ideas and practices, the e.panding field that $ referred to in the $ntroduction to this te.t and that Mi,on ?,on cited as a -ey ingredient to contemporary collective art pra.is! +ot surprisingly, much of HaaningJs ,or- involves the notion of community, but this is not the liberal, positivistic notion of community that desires to create DblindE solidarities! )ather, FQbRy creating communitiesBat once inclusive and e.clusiveB, Haaning underscores ,hat most art historians, theorists and critics have chosen to ignore( aesthetics is about people, not ob0ects,G and thus he Fpresents community as a pu22le ,ith no hope for a solution!G447 $n dealing ,ith immigrant communities in 8urope, and +orthern 8urope more specifically, Haaning often sets up situations that do not lead to some -ind of ameliorative resolution for the FcommunitiesG involved! More often than not, the sense of community is based on some similar ethnic or economic identification, or both in that it is common for immigrant populations to stand on the lo,er rungs of the economic ladder as they struggle to
113

Hou Hanru, F$ntervie, ,ith ;ens Haaning,G in 5ello* My Na&e is 2ens 5aanin#, ed! Oincent PXcoil and ;ens Haaning D#i0on( es Presses du )XelKAavier #ourou. and /ranc- 1autherot, %&&9E, 4>%! ;ennifer Allen, FThe Art of "elonging,G in 5ello* My Na&e is 2ens 5aanin#, ed! Oincent PXcoil and ;ens Haaning D#i0on( es Presses du )XelKAavier #ourou. and /ranc- 1autherot, %&&9E, 4&>!

114

79

gain a secure footing! His ,or- is decidedly ambiguousC Haaning ,ill often integrate other,ise confrontational information and messages in a ,ay that both spea-s to and dissents from the dominant ideological positions of the various constituencies he demarcates for his pro0ects! +icolas "ourriaud ,rites about the representation of immigrant communities as foreign bodies( FPff3screen in relation to the social imagination, it is a VmarginJ ,ithout images ,hich ,e generally only perceive through politically coded representations,G and continues on to assert that much of HaaningJs ,or- Fhas attempted to materiali2e these semi3invisible communities!G44= So ho, do these t,o practicesBthose of S@P8)/ 8A and ;ens Haaning Bcombine in the 1000 biennial posters projectI *hat are the issues, the sta-es and claimsI As ,ith the ,or- of ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf, issues of great comple.ity are accessed through acts of relative simplicity! Pne could easily ,rite off the posting of 4&&& official "iennial posters as a rather banal act, as some -ind of cross3promotional strategy that could easily melt a,ay into the overabundance of signs and information that camouflage the true critical nature of this pro0ect! /or these posters are e.actly that( signs! "ut the information they contain does not only relate to the "iennial e.hibition! These posters also signify Tur-ish identity, e.tending the reach of Tur-ish influence beyond its o,n immediate region and intruding upon the insularity of a +orthern 8uropean nation D#enmar-E that Fis usually concerned mainly ,ith itself!G 44> This is an open3ended act of recognition! And one that flirts ,ith the boundaries of inclusion and e.clusion that breach both local and global
115

+icolas "ourriaud, F;ens Haaning( $llegal *or-er,G in 5ello* My Na&e is 2ens 5aanin#, ed! Oincent PXcoil and ;ens Haaning D#i0on( es Presses du )XelKAavier #ourou. and /ranc- 1autherot, %&&9E, 4&934&7! Charles 8sche, FS@P8)/ 8A & ;ens Haaning,G 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKIPageMArtists&SubMA2&ContentMS@P8)/ 8A!

116

80

constructs! T!;! #emos, despite the Fmostly patheticG ,or-s of public art in the "iennial, found redemption in the ,or- of S@P8)/ 8A and ;ens Haaning, and provides a very apt description of the pro0ectJs aims(
to elevate the value of Tur-eyJs image in the eyes of its emigrants ,ho have ta-en up residence in #enmar- and to counter #anish .enophobia and racism by proclaiming Tur-eyJs admirable participation in the ,orld of international art! Challenging those ,ho conceive of national identity as rooted to a particular geography, this ,or-, in an intriguing metonymic act, pro0ected $stanbul beyond Tur-eyJs borders! "y appropriating the biennialJs advertising campaign, the artists critically ac-no,ledged the sho, as a commercial venture and diverted its promotion to cataly2e a sense of belonging ,ithin an e.ile community through the public recognition of Tur-ish culture! The ,or- incisively positioned globali2ation as an ongoing struggle bet,een the forces of commercial e.change and cultural differentiation, ma-ing one all too a,are of the simultaneous potential benefits and ris-s!446

*ithin this description ,e can identify many of the most critically significant ingredients that one ,ould e.pect from a collaborative recipe for S@P8)/ 8A and ;ens Haaning stu(et o9se9:d Da traditional #anish ste,E! The pro0ect has multiple tal-ing points( the

socioeconomic forces of globali2ationC issues relating to national and cultural identityC diaspora communities and the global e.change of commoditiesKbodiesC to name a fe, significant mar-ers! *ithout reducing the pro0ect to singular tropes, one can easily perceive ho, the different interests that inform both the ,or- of S@P8)/ 8A and ;ens Haaning become intert,ined here, a blending of commentaries that are intended to invite the curious and s-eptical eyes of passers3by! $n the 1000 biennial poster project, mar-eting strategies and the commercialism that has no, DnegativelyE come to be associated ,ith the biennial model ,orld,ide is coupled ,ith the probing of racist tendencies that result in the crossing of borders! Hand in hand, then, the racial coloring of socioeconomic forces is revealed, but the effects are not so
117

T!;! #emos, F'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial,G $rt%oru& 77, +o! 9 D+ovember %&&=E( %7>!

81

ideologically driven! The ,or- is very much open to interpretation, as #emos suggests, an ambiguous message that could provide both a sense of belonging for the displaced communities andKor a visual analogy of their o,n alienation from the society in ,hich they no, live! HaaningJs ,or- often sets up these -inds of ambiguous situations! $n the mid3'&Js he created t,o public ,or-s that involved the telling of 0o-es in foreign languages that created a similar type of situation ,hereby access to a marginali2ed identity Dthrough languageE could have been read as an act of solidarity ,ith such marginal communities, or interpreted as further e.ploiting the lac- of understanding and tolerance bet,een the dominant social groups and displaced, sub0ugated individuals! #uring the intervie, ,ith Hou Hanru, Haaning offers a very intriguing insight as to his o,n approach and intentions to these highly contentious issues, and it is one that $ thin- is also at play in the 1000 biennial posters project!
$ ,ould li-e to compare the public ,or-s, ,here $ have used Tur-ish or Arabic languages, ,ith the abstract dra,ings Sigmund /reud ,as using in his therapy! The abstract communication ,ith the vie,er ,ho does not understand the used language, spea-s to the material ,hich is already stored in the receiver! Some reactions have been that racist people ,ere sure that it ,as a racist ,or-BFhe is ma-ing fun of the foreignersG! And some anti3racist people have been sure that the intention ,as anti3 racistBFcan you please come to our university and put up your ,or- as a campaign against the +a2i s-inheadsG! Pf course $ am a,are of the danger of misunderstanding these ,or-s, but due to the intentions behind the ,or-s, $ ,ill ta-e the same position as /reud( F$t is o- that you see a hairy monster eating a little girl since this is not a conclusion or an end point, but a part of the process ,here ,e progress as human beings by loo-ing at ,hat ,e contain!G44:

After all, is this not the true e.periential nature of artI Perception and e.perience are al,ays emanating from very specific individual sub0ect positions, the filters by ,hich each and every one of us come to ma-e sense of our lives! *hat the ,or- of art represents are the various
118

Hou Hanru, F$ntervie, ,ith ;ens Haaning,G in 5ello* My Na&e is 2ens 5aanin#, ed! Oincent PXcoil and ;ens Haaning D#i0on( es Presses du )XelKAavier #ourou. and /ranc- 1autherot, %&&9E, 4>734>=!

82

sub0ect positions that are embedded ,ithin a certain society, a certain social space, public space and participants D,illing or notE! $n this ,ay $ believe it is quite accurate to spea- of the ,or- as a tool, as functioning ,ithin a carefully selected social situation and space in order to dra, out and upon the myriad of sub0ect positions that are at the sociopolitical and aesthetic core of contemporary life! *riting almost 4& years ago, critic "arbara Steiner characteri2ed S@P8)/ 8AJs ,or- in a similar ,ay, relying on the concept of Fradical democracyG as outlined by 8rnesto aclau and Chantal Mouffe! As cited by Steiner in her essay for NU" The Nordic $rt /e(ie0,
F)adical democracyG demands Fthe creation of ne, sub0ect3positions that ,ould allo, the common articulation, for e.ample, of anti3racism, anti3se.ism, and anti3 capitalism! These struggles do not simultaneously converge! $n order to establish democratic equivalences, a ne, Vcommon senseJ is necessary5 /or it is not a matter of establishing a mere alliance bet,een given interests, but of actually modifying the very identity of these forces!G44'

$n this light, the ,or- of S@P8)/ 8A and ;ens Haaning can be seen as part of a larger pro0ect, of radical democracy, or at least as a facet of this theoretical position! The 1000 biennial poster project creates a situation ,ithin a very specific conte.tBor perhaps bet,een conte.ts( bet,een $stanbul and +ot3$stanbul, Copenhagen and +ot3Copenhagen, $stanbul and Copenhagen, +ot3$stanbul and +ot3Copenhagen, etc!B,here different sub0ect positions become entangled, and through this entanglement the possibility for confrontation, a -ind of ,or-ing through these positions so as to unravel the -not, is provo-ed! This does not smooth out all the ,rin-les, but it does DidealisticallyE oblige the various sides to recogni2e one another, and through this very act of recognition change is enacted( they come to see each other through actual interaction, rather than through abstract notions or mediated
119

"arbara Steiner, F)adical #emocracy, Ac-no,ledging the Comple.ities and Contingencies,G S@P8)/ 8A, http(KK,,,!superfle.!netKte.tKarticlesKac-no,ledging!shtml!

83

representations of otherness! This leads Steiner to say of S@P8)/ 8A Dand Haaning, $ ,ould contendE that their ,or- Finvestigates communicative processes in ,hich po,er, hegemony, assertion and oppression, and the gain and loss of terrain become evident! Oarious partiesBindividuals or groupsBenter the scene ,ith specific interests and fight to assert them! The point is not merely to define a cultural e.pression, but to secure and specify its relation to reality Din the sense of representationE in order to legitimi2e oneJs o,n concerns!G4%& "ut still the questions remain( ho, effective ,as this pro0ect in truly cataly2ing these processes of display and recognitionI Ho, does one begin to measure or evaluate the successfulness of such a ,or-I

120

"arbara Steiner, F)adical #emocracy, Ac-no,ledging the Comple.ities and Contingencies,G S@P8)/ 8A, http(KK,,,!superfle.!netKte.tKarticlesKac-no,ledging!shtml!

84

Concl("&on
Throughout the course of this essay there have been a number of questions that have more or less gone unans,ered! $n both case studies and each pro0ect analysis, the question as to the e.act value, the true social relevance and ongoing significance of the ,or- under scrutiny has eluded any definite articulation! $ must admit that this is something that $ have struggled ,ithC yet, upon further consideration, ,hat has been revealed to me is actually my o,n Dperhaps misplacedE desire for some quantifiable or lasting qualitative dimension of the ,or-s to be able to point to and say( FThis is ,hy these ,or-s are importantC here is the observable evidence of actual social change and transformation!G $t is clear to me no, that it ,ould actually be quite disturbing to be able to do so, and such a concreti2ation of these largely ephemeral processes and interactions contradicts both the aesthetic and sociopolitical valuations that $ have outlined as criteria for the evaluation of these pro0ects! As $ stated previously, it is important to understand these pro0ects as instances ,ithin a much larger frame,or-, an ongoing pro0ect that relates something of aclau and MouffeJs theory of

Fradical democracy!G $n this respect $ ,holeheartedly agree ,ith a statement made by internationally reno,ned curator of contemporary art /ulya 8rdemci, ,hoBin an intervie, ,ith $ngrid CommandeurBsaid( F/or me, the raison d;<tre of any art pro0ect in public space is to create a contrast, unfold a conflict and even add more conflict to ma-e it visible!G 4%4 8ach of the socially engaged, collaborative public art pro0ects considered in this te.t metaboli2es the information provided by the different participants in order to create ne, forms of -no,ledge that, in turn, become sub0ect positions to be e.posed and further
121

$ngrid Commandeur, F$ntervie, ,ith /ulya 8rdemci,G Metropolis M, http(KK,,,!metropolism!orgKfeaturesKfulya3erdemci3ne,3director3of3s-K!

85

metaboli2ed through the course of other activities! $t is an unending process, a -ind of evolutionary life cycle to,ards ever more refined and sophisticated forms of -no,ledge! As such, the notions of adaptability and improvisation become fundamental to the success or failure of the pro0ect, determining its relative futility or positioning it ,ithin contemporary discourse as a Fgreat leap for,ard!G Pf course, such hyperbolic polari2ations are intended only to circumscribe the possibilities inherent to such pro0ects, as the ma0ority of them oscillate bet,een such e.tremes, rather than e.isting as fi.ed points along a continuum! Perhaps a more important thing to consider is the after life of these pro0ects( the ,ay in ,hich they enter social consciousness, both ,ithin the ,orld of art and the ,orld at large! "eyond their immediate ramifications, these pro0ects enter into the encyclopedia of ideas and practices and continue to operate as critical foci around and through ,hich future practices engage andKor ta-e their lead! $n short, such practices contribute to the ever3e.panding field of artistic production and social consciousnessC they themselves become tools to be used by various cultural agents in their further tin-ering! The t,o case studies ,ithin this analysis convey a sense of the multiple layers and different sets of practices that fall under the rubric of socially engaged, collaborative public art! #espite the grouping together of these pro0ects under such a heading, important

differences emerge that do more to reveal the comple.ity and contingent nature of these pro0ects than to unify them as a singular &odus operandi! Specifically spea-ing to the central concepts $ have outlined throughout the course of these analyses, it becomes even more evident that the notions of collaboration, representation, and community require not only careful attention but conte.tuali2ation as ,ell! $n constructing situations by ,ay of ,or-s of art, the artists and curators under discussion here have enacted vastly different

86

processes that derive a great deal of their meaning from the conditions of their implementation, display, and reception! As $ have stated else,here, collaboration is not merely individuals ,or-ing together in some harmonious interactionC in fact, the interaction bet,een the various constituencies may be indirect, and may not even occupy the same spatiotemporal frame! The processes of identification that result from the engagement of sociopolitical issues, ,hich are at the core of each pro0ect, shape the different constituencies or loose communities of people, but these are never definite or complete formations! )epresentation is al,ays coming3into3being and simultaneously slipping a,ay, emerging and receding, oscillating bet,een visibility and invisibility! /urthermore, from an aesthetic standpoint, perhaps one ,ay to thin- of the successfulness of such pro0ects is the formulating of the pro0ectJs mode of address, of its communicability! *hat attracts me most to ciudadMULTIPLEcity and the 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial, and specifically to the ,or- of "roo-e Alfaro, ;es<s Palomino, ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf, S@P8)/ 8A and ;ens Haaning, is the uncanny ability of the curators and artists to develop systems of communication, of dialogue and debate bet,een various groups of people that perhaps may not other,ise readily engage one another despite the fact that they occupy the same spaces! More often than not, it seems to me, these groups are unrecogni2ed compatriots in the daily social lives and urban fabric of the cities in ,hich they live! The very po,er of these pro0ects, then, rests in their ability to bring into focus such processes of recognition! At a very personal level, $ -no, that change and consciousness come about as a result of some challenge to my o,n sense of comfort or security Dideological or other,iseE! A feeling of gro,th and accomplishment is often the result of such moving beyond oneJs self, 87

of the brea-ing do,n of boundaries! ;ust as the artistic pro0ects ,ithin this essay become vulnerable to the input of multiple voices and perspectives Dsomething $ also contribute to here, through the process of ,ritingE, so too do the participants become vulnerable, e.posing themselves through the assertion of their o,n sub0ect positions! Such processes develop both self3-no,ledge as ,ell as -no,ledge of the Fother!G As this functions at the individual level, it seems safe to say that the same could be applied to collective bodies and even to society itself! $t is ,ell recogni2ed that crises precipitate change, and these ,or-s of art create situations ,herein moments of crisis linger and provo-e! "ut ,hat constitutes a crisis does not necessarily have to entail some global disaster, or ma0or travesty! A crisis is a very sub0ectively determined causal root, the e.perience of ,hich is not foreign to our daily lives! $n fact, it is something most of us negotiate on a daily basis! Thus, it is e.actly the ,ay in ,hich the aforementioned artists create situations forms of potential crises that $ am most interested in, and that $ believe can truly activate individuals and collective bodies to move beyond the comfort of their o,n identifications, to be able to step outside and loo- ,ithin! This process inflects both the -no,ledge of the self and the other, and being able to see in this ne, light already constitutes a significant change! The potential for gro,th is also the potential to gro, together, as ,ell as to gro, apart, and the directionality of such processes are largely influenced by the quality and character of the interactive e.perience created by artists and curators in collaboration ,ith specific constituencies or publics! Through the course of ,riting $ have come to value these pro0ects by the possibilities that they create, rather than by some final authored product! Specifically, the possibility that is inherent to each of these pro0ects is largely determined by the ,eaving together of aesthetic 88

considerations and a multivalent form of sociopolitical address! There is most certainly an art to the creation of possibilities, and it is the ongoing elaboration of such possibilities that ensure both the critical nature of art as a socially engaged, collaborative practice and its social relevancy! $n his intervie, ,ith ;elena Oesic, Charles 8sche confesses that

FQpRossibility is a -ey ,ord for me! "y possibility $ simply mean the space to thin- the ,orld other,ise than it is,G and that FQiRtJs also important to understand possibility not as a fi.ed condition but a slippery and changeable state made up of spatial, temporal and relational elements!G4%% Possibility, as understood here, is also a mutable concept, a concept to be grappled ,ith, not a delectable morsel to be easily consumed! /inally, the very possibility of ma-ing the invisible visible, of e.cavating the social tensions and po,er dynamics of local and global societyBin situB,ill only ever further e.pand our -no,ledge of ourselves, of ho, ,e live and ,hy things e.ist as they do! 8quipped ,ith such -no,ledge, ,e can begin to consider other alternatives, other ,ays of e.isting that thro,s off the shell of complacency and see-s a more informed ,ay of life!

122

;elena Oesic, FAbout 8.hibitions, Modest Proposals and Possibilities( $ntervie, ,ith Charles 8sche,G Prelom ?ole-tiv, http(KK,,,!prelom-ole-tiv!orgKpdfKescheUe!pdf!

89

Plate 4!4 "roo-e Alfaro! Nine DdetailE, %&&%39!

Plate 4!% "roo-e Alfaro! Nine DdetailE, %&&%39!

90

Plate %!4 ;es<s Palomino! Vendors and Squatters DdetailE, %&&9!

Plate %!% ;es<s Palomino! Vendors and Squatters DdetailE, %&&9!

91

Plate 9!4 ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf! Mind the Steps DdetailE, %&&=!

Plate 9!% ?arl3Hein2 ?lopf! Mind the Steps DdetailE, %&&=!

92

Plate 7!4 S@P8)/ 8A & ;ens Haaning! 1000 Istanbul 4iennial Posters DdetailE, %&&=!

Plate 7!% S@P8)/ 8A & ;ens Haaning! 1000 Istanbul 4iennial Posters DdetailE, %&&=!

93

B&$l&og'#*),
1. Allen, ;ennifer! FThe Art of "elonging!G $n 5ello* My Na&e is 2ens 5aanin#! 8dited by Oincent PXcoil and ;ens Haaning, 4&>3444! #i0on( es Presses du )XelKAavier #ourou. and /ranc- 1autherot, %&&9! 2. "abcoc-, ;ay! FA #rin- ,ith a T,ist!G arthur! http(KK,,,!arthurmag!comK%&&:K&>K&6Ksuperfle.3intervie,3from3arthur3no3 47K Daccessed April 9, %&&'E! 3. "ishop, Claire! FClaire "ishop )esponds!G $rt%oru& 77, +o! ' D/eb! %&&>E( %7! 4. UUUUU! FThe Social Turn( Collaboration and $ts #iscontents!G $rt%oru& 77, +o! > D/eb! %&&>E( 46:34:9! 5. "ourriaud, +icolas! F;ens Haaning( $llegal *or-er!G $n 5ello* My Na&e is 2ens 5aanin#! 8dited by Oincent PXcoil and ;ens Haaning, 4&%34&=! #i0on( es Presses du )XelKAavier #ourou. and /ranc- 1autherot, %&&9! 6. UUUUU! F)elational Aesthetics!G $n Participation! 8dited by Claire "ishop, 4>&3464! Cambridge( M$T Press, %&&>! 7. Ciric, "il0ana! $ntroduction to /ejected !ollection , >3:! Milan( 8di2ioni Charta, %&&:! 8. Clar-, ;ohn! FHistories of the Asian V+e,J( "iennales and Contemporary Asian

94

Art!G $n $sian $rt 5istory in the T0enty)'irst !entury! 8dited by Oisha-ha +! #esai, %%'3%7'! +e, Haven( Hale @niversity Press, %&&6! 9. Commandeur, $ngrid! F$ntervie, ,ith /ulya 8rdemci!G Metropolis M! http(KK,,,!metropolism!orgKfeaturesKfulya3erdemci3ne,3director3of3s-K Daccessed April 49, %&&'E! 10. #ebord, 1uy! FTo,ards a Situationist $nternational!G $n Participation!

8dited by Claire "ishop, '>34&4! Cambridge( M$T Press, %&&>! 11. #emos, T!;! F'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial!G $rt%oru& 77, +o! 9

D+ovember %&&=E( %7=3%7>! 12. #oherty, Claire! FCurating *rong Places5 or *here Have All the Penguins

1oneIG $n !uratin# Subjects! 8dited by Paul PJ+eill, 4&&34&:! 8ditions, %&&6! 13. D+ov! %&&7E( 634&! 14. UUUUU! FThe +e, Situationists!G $n !onte&porary $rt" 'ro& Studio to UUUUU! F ocation, ocation( The "iennale and the City!G $rt Monthly %:4 ondon( Ppen

95

Situations, 63 47! 15. ondon( "lac- #og Publishing td!, %&&7!

8sche, Charles! FS@P8)/ 8A & ;ens Haaning!G 'th $nternational $stanbul

"iennial! http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKI PageMArtists&SubMA2&ContentMS@P8)/ 8A Daccessed April 9, %&&'E! 16. $(ant) 3arde at the End o% the !entury, 4643%&7! Cambridge( M$T Press, 4''>! 46! /o,le, ?ate! F*ho CaresI @nderstanding the )ole of the Curator Today!G $n !autionary Tales" !ritical !uratin#! 8dited by Steven )and and Heather ?ouris, %>39=! +e, Hor-( ape.art, %&&6! 18. 1arrett, Craig! FMultiple City( PanamY %&&9, /undaciZn Arte PanamY!G $rt /oster, Hal! FThe Artist as 8thnographer!G $n The /eturn o% the /eal" The

Ne8us %, +o! 7' D;uneKAugust %&&9E( '%3'7! 19. 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial! http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKI PageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM9 Daccessed March 9&, %&&'E! 1regos, ?aterina! F8mail $ntervie, ,ith Oasif ?ortun and Charles 8sche!G

96

20. $rte

1ualde, Alberto! F+ueveK+ine, "roo-e Alfaro!G $n ciudadMULTIPLEcity"

Pana&6 -007! 8dited by 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, >:36=! Amsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7! 21. Hannula, Mi-a! F+e, Hope for the #ead( 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial

1ives a +ecessary "oost to an Pld Concept!G /rame,or-! http(KK,,,!frame,or-!fiK 7U%&&=Kne,sKarti--elitKhannula!html Daccessed March 9&, %&&'E! 22. '9, +o! 44 D#ecember %&&=E( =73=6! 23. Henri-sson, Minna! FThe *orld Can "e Transformed by Action!G 'th Heartney, 8leanor! F)eport from $stanbul( Artists in the City!G $rt in $&erica

$nternational $stanbul "iennial! http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKI PageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM7 Daccessed March 9&, %&&'E! 24. Hobbs, )obert! FMerleau3PontyJs Phenomenology and $nstallation Art!G $n Installations" Mattress 'actory* 1++0)1+++, 4:3%9! Pittsburgh( @niversity of Pittsburgh Press, %&&4! 25. Hoffmann, ;ens, et al! F4& CuratorsBA Conversation on the $nternet!G $n Ice

97

!rea&" !onte&porary $rt in !ulture, :346! %&&6! 26.

ondon( Phaidon Press td!,

Hou, Hanru! F$ntervie, ,ith ;ens Haaning!G $n 5ello* My Na&e is 2ens

5aanin#! 8dited by Oincent PXcoil and ;ens Haaning, 474347'! #i0on( es Presses du )XelKAavier #ourou. and /ranc- 1autherot, %&&9! 27. 28. Public $rt /e(ie0 47, +o! % DSpringKSummer %&&9E( =344! 29. UUUUU! F#ialogical Aesthetics!G $n !on(ersation Pieces" !o&&unity and !o&&unication in Modern $rt, :%34%9! "er-eley( @niversity of California Press, %&&7! 30. UUUUU! F earning from Aesthetics( Pld Masters and +e, essons!G $rt ?ester, 1rant! FAnother Turn!G $rt%oru& 77, +o! ' D/eb! %&&>E( %%! UUUUU! F"eyond the *hite Cube( Activist Art and the egacy of the 4'>&s!G

2ournal =>, +o! 4 DSpring 4''6E( %&3%=! 31. ?lopf, ?arl3Hein2! FMind the Steps!G e.pand! http(KK,,,!e.pand!atK-lopfK Daccessed April 9, %&&'E! 32. ?ortun, Oasif! F?arl3Hein2 ?lopf!G 'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial!

98

http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKI PageMArtists&SubMA2&ContentM?arlHein2U?lopf Daccessed April 9, %&&'E! 33. ?rauss, )osalind! FSculpture in the 8.panded /ield!G ctober : DSpring

4'6'E( 9&3 77! 34. Site) Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity , 44394! "oston( M$T Press, %&&%! 35. UUUUU! $ntroduction to ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)Speci%ic $rt and ?,on, Mi,on! F1enealogy of Site Specificity!G $n ne Place $%ter $nother"

Locational Identity, 43'! "oston( M$T Press, %&&%! 36. UUUUU! FThe D@nESitings of Community!G $n ne Place $%ter $nother" Site)

Speci%ic $rt and Locational Identity, 49:34==! "oston( M$T Press, %&&%! 37. 38. UUUUU! FThe *rong Place!G $rt 2ournal =', +o! 4 DSpring %&&&E( 99377! Metropolis M! F8mail $ntervie, ,ith Charles 8sche and Oasif ?ortun!G ' th $nternational $stanbul "iennial! http(KK,,,!i-sv!orgKbienalKbienal'KenglishKI PageMCurators&SubM$ntervie,&ContentM4 Daccessed March 9&, %&&'E! 39. MSntmann, +ina, ed! $rt $nd Its Institutions" !urrent !on%licts* !ritique $nd

99

!ollaborations!

ondon( "lac- #og Publishing, %&&>!

7&! Mosquera, 1erardo, and Adrienne Samos! FArt ,ith the City!G $n ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007, %9379! Amsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7! 41. UUUUU! F)iding on a *ild Pne!G 2ingmaga2ine! http(KK,,,!2ingmaga2ine!comKissue4'Kmosquera!html Daccessed /ebruary 4>, %&&'E! 42. +ac-ing, ^sa! FAn 8.change bet,een ^sa +ac-ing and S@P8)/ 8A!G S@P8)/ 8A! http(KK,,,!superfle.!netKte.tKarticlesKanUe.changeUbet,een!shtml Daccessed April 9, %&&'E! 43. %&&'! 44. 4&! 45. DApril %&&>E( 6:36'! 46. UUUUU! FD$nterE#isciplinary Actions!G Public $rt /e(ie0 4=, +o! 4 Phillips, Patricia! F'th $nternational $stanbul "iennial!G Sculpture %=, +o! 9 PJ+eill, Paul! FThe Co3dependent Curator!G $rt Monthly %'4 D+ov! %&&=E( 63 Pbrist, Hans @lrich, ed! $ 4rie% 5istory o% !uratin#! Nurich( ;)PK)ingier,

100

D/allK*inter %&&9E( 4434=! 47. )abino,it2, Cay Sophie! FPanama City, Panama!G $rt Papers %6, +o! 7

DAugust %&&9E( =93=7! 48. )anciTre, ;acques! The Politics o% $esthetics" The .istribution o% the

Sensible! Translated by 1abriel )oc-hill! +e, Hor-( Continuum $nternational Publishing 1roup, %&&>! 49. )oche, ;ennifer! FSocially 8ngaged Art, Critics and #iscontents( An

$ntervie, ,ith Claire "ishop!G Community Arts +et,or-! http(KK,,,!communityarts!netKreadingroomKarchivefilesK%&&>K&6KsociallyUeng age!php Daccessed /ebruary %9, %&&'E! =&! Samos, Adrienne! FOendors and Squatters, ;es<s Palomino!G $n ciudadMULTIPLEcity" $rte Pana&6 -007! 8dited by 1erardo Mosquera and Adrienne Samos, 47&3476! Amsterdam( ?$T Publishers, %&&7! 51. DSept! Simpson, "ennett! FMultiple City( Arte Panama %&&9!G Third Te8t 46, +o! 9

101

%&&9E( %::3%'7! 52. Steiner, "arbara! F)adical #emocracy, Ac-no,ledging the Comple.ities and Contingencies!G S@P8)/ 8A! http(KK,,,!superfle.!netKte.tKarticlesKac-no,ledging!shtml Daccessed April 9, %&&'E! 53. Tan, Pelin! F8ncountering the ocal!G Springerin! http(KK,,,!springerin!atKdynKheft!phpIidM7=&posM&&te.tidM&&langMen Daccessed April 9, %&&'E! 54. van Hal, Marie-e! FPpening )emar-s!G Paper presented at the "iennials in

#ialogue Conference, Shanghai, China, September >36, %&&:! 55. 56. Oer,oert, ;an! FCity )eport( $stanbul!G %rie1e '= D+ov!3#ec! %&&=E( 4%6! Oesic, ;elena! FAbout 8.hibitions, Modest Proposals and Possibilities(

$ntervie, ,ith Charles 8sche!G Prelom ?ole-tiv! http(KK,,,!prelom-ole-tiv!orgKpdfKescheUe!pdf Daccessed March 9&, %&&'E! 57. *elchman, ;ohn, ed! Institutional !ritique and $%ter" Vol, - o% the So!!$S Sy&posia! Nurich( ;)P, )ingier, %&&>! 58. *ilson, Mic-! FAutonomy, Agonism, and Activist Art( An $ntervie, ,ith

102

1rant ?ester!G $rt 2ournal >>, +o! 9 D/all %&&6E( 4&>344:!

103