The press conference of the 7th Berlin Biennale:
the case of presenting instead of exhibiting
An Paenhuysen
The 7th Berlin Biennale curated (or shall we say “mobilized”) by the Polish artist Artur Zmijewski used from its start a religious-sounding, redemptive vocabulary. And no, it’s not anything near Joseph Beuys’ work, which has more complexity and irony in its little finger. A new word had to be invented for this Biennale – “under-complex”, a neologism created by the Berlin artist and critic Wolfgang Müller.
His criticism is the only substantial critique that has been written in Germany since the start of the 7th Berlin Biennale’s call for artists (for those who read German: http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2012/04/44765.html and http://www.jungewelt.de/2012/03-06/015.php). As such, it was not so wrong that the attention at the Biennale’s press conference was directed towards the responsibility of the journalists.
Let me first sketch the mise-en-scène of the event. The press conference was arranged as a kind of political meeting where the roles got reversed: not the organizers/curators were under scrutiny, but the press was. We were all sitting in a circle around the prominent figures of the event. There was no stage. That way there were, so it was stated in all earnest, no hierarchies between the VIP’s and the audience.
The rest of the “meeting” was, unfortunately, more of the same superficiality and naivety. AZ was mumbling but what I did understand was the following: his aim is “to create something that can survive the Biennale”. He refutes the lack of “solidarity” in the art world. Therefore he wants to establish a “situation where people feel solidarity and express solidarity. ”We were all moved to tears for a second. Yet, the “situation” changed radically when the “Movement” (that is AZ’ “comrades”), were asked to get the ball rolling.
You see, AZ is not “exhibiting” but “presenting” artists: “They can do what they want to do”. To know how one can do politics with art, the simplest thing is to take the political movements into the art space. Logical, isn’t it? Two young men of the Movement (Los Indignados/ The Occupy Movement) took the stage, figuratively speaking of course, to organize the “situation”.
It was a pity that AZ did not come upon the idea to ask two women or at least one man/ one woman to coordinate the debate. So far for branding the no-hierarchies intent. This way it looked like a Nintendo game featuring a hold-up played by men. The tone was accusing, the questions were refreshingly new: who is happy with the functioning of their society? Who wants to change society by his/her writing? Why do we say crazy stuff like “lazy Greeks” in our articles? Which one of us not only writes art reviews but also political pieces? (That art is always political and the political is always aesthetics,was not considered) The intent was to shock the audience, to create a surprise effect, or, even better, to evoke indignation. This would lead to a vibrant debate open for all opinions. As AZ says in his Newspaper: “Some will find this exhibition interesting; some will see it as an abuse; while still others will accuse us of political ignorance.
Whatever happens, we should not lose sight of our main goal: to open access to performative and effective politics that would equip we ordinary citizens with the tools of action and change. Art is one of these tools.” AZ is known for bringing individuals into uncomfortable situations and then to await how the scene unfolds. The press conference was clearly a calculated event coordinated by him, but for what purpose? The Movement’s involvement in the set-up was questionable. They did acknowledge or at least pose the question about what it means for them to act inside an art institution. But that’s as far as they got.
They forgot to question the ones who engaged them (and the journalists did not get the chance). A few suggestions: Talking about capitalism: how much did AZ pay the Auschwitz survivor to renew his tattoo and why is this amount of money not openly part of his piece? Talking about hierarchies, what does it mean when AZ says in an interview that his political view is “masculinist”? And talking about “solidarity”: is that why the Biennial website is exempt of any critical reviews and is only publishing the supportive ones? Who is talking about transparency?
Yet, the conference room emptied quickly and the Berlin Biennale can now continue its redemption of the world, recycle racist books and plant birch trees in school yards. At least we know that the 7th Berlin Biennale might not stay in the head but possibly in the nose, susceptible to poll allergy.
wonderful piece. thanks.
Die Vortre4ge wird es als Videopodcast oder so geben.@Oliver: Kritik an dem ganzen “Identity 2.0″-Hype und spleeizl OpenID ist hierzulande offenbar unbekannt. In den USA ist das ein wenig anders, aber auch da kann man die reflektierten und kritischen Stimmen an einer Hand abze4hlen. Mal sehen: Ben Laurie, Stefan Brands, Bob Blakley, Michael Zimmer. Einer we4re noch frei an der Hand.Ich stodfe aber, seit ich dazu arbeite, immer wieder auf sehr grodfes Interesse, wenn ich mal irgendwo vorgetragen habe. Die Leute interessiert’s, gerade die Datenschutzthematik ist ja derzeit in aller Munde (Technorati-Suche nach: Vorratsdatenspeicherung, Stasi 2.0).@ Boris: Ich habe dir ja schon geantwortet. Follow-Up deinerseits?@ Mark: Bundestag, Bundesrat, Bundespre4sident, Bundesverfassungsgericht. In dieser Reihenfolge. Am Ende gewinnen wir sowieso.
good report, thanks
i want to say that to put the cool groups that are dealing with social political and economic struggles, which are cool stuff that is happening out there, inside the white cube is not only lazy but also stupid!!! it is poor using if not abusing it!!!
I did not expect much from the whole thing!!! when you know that who was doing it, he in his own work always was looking for and working with the sensationalistic, the effects or lets say more like tricks but strategic never making real statement or standing for something. just using the situation to gain attention. but this time it failed badly!!! i am glad the piece you wrote specify the lack of honesty and the contradictions shown in the attitude from the makers in not allowing any serious questioning and other issues!!! this 7th berlin biennalle is a fiasco and will not be remembered!!!
one more thing – major newspapers like the FAZ did also write a sharp critic on it!!!
“Yet, the “situation” changed radically when the “Movement” (that is AZ’ “comrades”), were asked to get the ball rolling.”
This article shows an incredible lack of knowledge about the implication of real activists within the space of the KW and the unfortunate 7th Biennale, with which most of the Berlin activists I personally know are trying to distance themselves. There are some people who enjoy the indoors-camp in the KW, even some other who seem to be trying to get there “art works” promoted, but the activists who organized the press conference weren’t to my knowledge either a) AZ’s comrades, nor b) organized or directed by this guy. There are still some people getting involved inside the Biennale rooms, just to use that public space for political discussion (NB: people who are not getting involved in the Biennial of arts, only joining what’s being tagged as “movement”, although this possibility is for many both difficult to comprehend – and also difficult to accept). Yep, it seems easier to write a piece of accusing and based on (unluckily false) assumptions about the working group who dared participating in the press conference.
I was there at the KW the night before at the public asamblea, in the space that the Biennale has “offered” to the “occupiers” (all these “terms and conditions” being almost constantly problematized by many of the activists, who even doesn’t feel like participating in this kind of Biennale-revolution-zoo, being ourselves used by those “artists” for their exhibition in Berlin to be successful…). Can anyone understand this? The whole situation is very problematic and often problematized and self-criticized by those people you saw at the press conference. Even if no one really wants to get to the core and just feel happy with those kind of must-be-obviously-like-I-am-assuming-this-to-be. The two guys who took the role of trying to question the fuss around activists made by the journalists attending the conference (as well as by the Biennale organization itself, with its VIP’s and other nonsense, which really are 2 different things) where just those who volunteered, and there were just no girls who wanted to get involved. Yes, someone brought the very same issue at the asamblea the prior night, but the attendees just decided by consensus that we don’t want to give a damn for parity if there were no girls volunteering for this social act.
I want to thank once more the courageous activists who wanted to turn things upside down, as I understood it, both the biennale organizers using activism and obscenely mixing it with VIPs and other disgusting things, and the misinforming journalists, who have to sell their souls to get published.
Try questioning yourself and the way you understand the world for once!
@Etrangere: In my view, which I published in several articles critizising the basic frame set by AZ for the Biennale, it is the basic frame of the biennale concept, which is producing just automatically situations of undecitability. To create “free” and open interactions and communications is not to set an open frame and declaring everything is possible, instead what is needed is the very very difficult operation of framing to make it possible creating sensibility (it is an art exhibition!) for existing mechanisms of unjust and dominant structures of perception and interaction. What An Paenhuysen in my view makes clear is that in AZ’s basic framing everybody, also An herself gets whatever one intends just part of a Biennale sensation of the fiction of selfregulating individualized “free” interactions. The result is reproduction of the same thing you find everywhere in a so-called self-regulated society. It is a pity that as you point to at the end of your argument now activists who just followed AZs tricky “open” invitation are now just part of an so called art-going-politics-thing for what others got the money, are now just ‘showing’ democracy and human engagement automatically in complicity with AZs frame. By the way that the girls just didn’t want is not just a statement, its a well-known part of everydays male dominated sexual politics.
So I suggest that you in your statement as you critized An’s article you should have critized solely AZ, not the one who named the thing but the one who is responsible for this awful biennale framing. But may be we are now also in the nonsense framing of unresponsiblity which is AZ’s special capacity to play just the litle boy from the country side, who wants to do everything good and doesn’t understand, why everything went otherwise….;-)
Pingback: InEnArt » Presenting instead of Exhibiting