COLLEC TING ARCHI TECTURE TERRI TORIES
Professor: Mark Wasiuta with Marina Otero TA Elis Mendoza
Bika Sibila Rebek Huemer
THE RHETORICS OF POWER ON NAOSHIMA ISLAND CONTENTS Introduction Brief History of Naoshima Fukutake’s Dream Of Art Rhethorics of Power Control Close up Epilogue Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
Naoshima is an island of three square miles with roughly 3200 permanent residents, located in the
Seto Inland See in southern Japan. Today, this little island is the site of three large museums of contemporary art as well as a number of galleries and outdoor art installations, all sponsored by the Japanese businessman Soichiro Fukutake.
One of the wealthiest men in the world, Fukutake is currently leading the international educational
company Benesse. He is a supporter of public interest capitalism, which postulates that a certain percentage of the revenues of a corporate firm should be channeled into the ‘public good’.1 For that purpose he established the Fukutake Foundation, through which he has been investing in Naoshima and the surrounding islands since the mid 1980s. His aim is to create, as he describes it, a ‘paradise on earth’, by combining the ‘world class beauty of the area with world class art and world class architecture’.2 In his vision a synergy is formed between young visitors, who come to the island to escape busy city habits and elderly local residents, who act as role models of a modest and frugal way of living.
The developments on Naoshima stand amongst other examples within a larger global trend towards
privately funded resort-like art museums, though, unlike other art parks, local residents live on the grounds that Fukutake acquired, effecting proximity between patron, art, population and visitors. While being heralded as a quiet fisher community, most locals actually work for a copper smelter company on the north half of the island. Modernization of the plant has effected a reduction of jobs, leading to a steadily decreasing and aging population, that is now faced with a complete transformation of their island.
1 Lars Muller and Akiko Miki, editors, Insular Insight: Where Art and Architecture Conspire with Nature (Baden, Lars Mueller Publishers and Fukutake Foundation, 2011), 28 2 Miwon Kwon and Kayo Tokuda:Naoshima: Nature, Art, Architecture (Stuttegart, Hatje Cantz, 2011), 21
Soichiro Fukutake is close friends with architect Tadao Ando, who designed all major museum proj-
ects in Naoshima. One of the most prolific architects of his generation, Ando’s work bridges eastern minimalism with western modernism. His designs provide spectacular frames for Fukutakes collection, which is largely comprised of artworks from the nineties, including works by Dan Flavin, Donald Judd and James Turell. In a broad sense of the word, Minimalism connects many works of the connection, the architecture of Tadao Ando and the ideological positions of Fukutake and Ando. In the essay “Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power” art historian Anna Chave develops an argument regarding Minimalism’s complicated relationship to symbols of power and its appropriation by corporate entities.1 To explicate her point she uses works by several artists, whose work is also represented on Naoshima. Using Chave’s text and Rosalind Krauss’s essay “The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum” the purpose of this essay is to uncover some of the workings of the Fukutake foundation on the territory of the island as well as the micro-workings of a gallery. Looking in particular at the synchronic experience facilitaed by Fukutake, mechanisms of power instilled in every detail become apparent.
The transformations on Naoshima island deserve attention, as private bodies are accorded full
agency and responsibility over land and people at a municipal scale, thereby instrumentalizing art for their purposes, and consequently favoring specific kinds of art opportune to their cause.
1 Anna Chave. “Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power,” (Arts 64, no. 5 ,1990). p 44-63
A BRIEF HISTORY OF NAOSHIMA
To better understand the radical changes brought about by the Fukutake Foundation, a brief history
of the island will be traced. Naoshimas past can be read as the subsequent occupation of two different corporations. During the 19th century Naoshima was a calm island with two small settlements and a population of less than 2000 people, mainly living of fishing and agriculture.1 In 1917 the Mitsubishi Mining Company established a copper smelter on the north half of the island. The factory attracted many young Japanese from the mainland and the population started to grow. Despite advanced industrialization of several islands in the region, the Seto Inland Sea was proclaimed a national park in 1934, making it an environmentally protected zone.2 Yet these regulations did not stop the factory from emitting sulfur dioxide, leading to disastrous environmental effects. Mitsubishi was the main employer on the island while simultaneously polluting the grounds and the surrounding sea. The company built a hospital and a cultural center, leading to a population peak of almost 8000 people in the 1960s, quadrupling the number from the beginning of the century. Yet in 1967 the refinery got modernized, which led to a decrease in jobs and most young people leaving the island in search of better opportunities. By the 1980s the population had shrunk to about 3000 mostly elderly people and the future of the island looked bleak.3
The father of Soichiro, Mr. Tetsuhiko Fukutake established the family company in 1955.4 After
making a fortune he started collecting contemporary Japanese art in the 1970s, simply exhibiting it in office headquarters. When visiting Naoshima in 1985 he met the major of the island and agreed to finance the construction of a summer camp for children.5 When he died only a year later in 1986, his son Soichiro Fukutake continued his fathers initiative and commissioned the architect Tadao Ando to help design the Camp, which opened three years later.
1 2 3 4 5
Lars Muller and Akiko Miki, editors, Insular Insight: Where Art and Architecture Conspire with Nature (Baden, Lars Mueller Publishers and Fukutake Foundation, 2011), 242 Wikipedia. 2014. “Setonaikai National Park” Accessed May 5th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setonaikai_National_Park Lars Muller and Akiko Miki, editors, Insular Insight: Where Art and Architecture Conspire with Nature (Baden, Lars Mueller Publishers and Fukutake Foundation, 2011), 296 The Global Journal.2011. “Let’s Think About “Living Well”. Accessed April 23rd 2014. http://www.theglobaljournal.net/article/view/34/ Lars Muller and Akiko Miki, editors, Insular Insight: Where Art and Architecture Conspire with Nature (Baden, Lars Mueller Publishers and Fukutake Foundation, 2011), 298
Ando would become a close friend and collaborator of Fukutake throughout the years. The two
share a critical position towards a modern, westernized society, and they both favor the idea of, as architecture historian Eva Blau puts it, “intervention rather than invention, as engaging with and creating something new out of what is already there.”1
Ando would go on to design all the major museums on the island, including the first large proj-
ect, the Benesse house, which opened in 1992 under the name Naoshima Contemporary Art Museum. It is still one of the major attractions of the island showcasing a somewhat eclectic mix of international artists, including Donald Judd, Dan Flavin, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, James Turell, Bruce Naumann, Gerhard Richter, Nam June Paik, Walter de Maria and many more. From thirty artists overall, less than a quarter is Japanese, including Shinro Otake, Yukinori Yanagi and Kan Yosuda.2
In 1998, the Art House Project in Honmura was initiated, a conversion of local houses into small
galleries, each dedicated to one artist, with the Kadoya gallery, that will be described in detail later, being the first to open. The artists selected to produce work for the galleries show a significant overlap with the artists exhibited at the Benesse Art House- four artists represented there have their own gallery in the Art House Project. Most of the galleries look just like regular houses from the outside and completely blend into their surroundings. Two buildings have been transformed on the exterior by Shinro Otake and James Turell respectively, both artists who have repeatedly worked with Mr Fukutake.
Six years later the Chichu Art Museum, the largest of the Museums and again designed by Tad-
ao Ando opened its doors. Chichu means underground and the structure is in fact completely submerged, except for large geometric openings to the sky. It provides a dramatic setting for three artists: Claude Monet, Walter de Maria and James Turell. After opening the Chichu Art Museum, the foundation started to expand its activities onto the neighboring island Teshima and Inujima.
1 Lars Muller and Akiko Miki, editors, Insular Insight: Where Art and Architecture Conspire with Nature (Baden, Lars Mueller Publishers and Fukutake Foundation, 2011), 182 2 Benesse Art Site Naoshima. 2014. “Benesse House Museum” Accessed May 4th 2014 “http://www.benesse-artsite.jp/en/benessehousemuseum/ index.html
Benesse House opened: 1992 artists exhibited: 30 artworks: square feet: 30 100 square feet per artist: 770
Meanwhile, another museum designed by Tadao Ando opened on Naoshima, dedicated solely to
the Korean artist Lee Ufan. Ufan is a minimalist sculptor, painter, and philosopher, advocating ‘a methodology of de-westernization and demodernization in both theory and practice as an antidote to the Eurocentric thought of 1960s postwar Japanese society.”1 His minimalist work and line of thought fits in perfectly with the ideologies of Ando and Fukutake.
The three museums have much in common spatially, as they all establish a close relationship with
the surrounding landscapes, but they also display an evolution towards increasingly bigger exhibition spaces in relation to the number of artists and artworks exhibited. While certainly spatially generous, Benesse House still has the proportion of a regular museum- it houses a collection of thirty-nine works by thirty artists on a space of about 31.000ft², while Chichu only houses 9 works by three artists on a much larger area of about 18.300ft². Finally the Lee Ufan Museum only shows one artist, on an area of about 5.300ft².2 That means from the generous 770 square feet per artist at Benesse house, the area per artists jumps to an enourmous 6100 square feet at Chichu.
1 Wikipedia. 2014. “Lee Ufan” Accessed May 4th 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Ufan 2 Data comes from my own redrawing of plans and estimation of area
FUKUTAKES DREAM OF ART
Soichiro Fukutake was personally involved in every one of the projects on the island and is now
overseeing the expansion of similar activities onto surrounding islands. In his introductory statement to the book ‘Remain in Naoshima’1, published by the Fukutake Foundation he talks about his goal to make Naoshima an ‘independent state’ and to turn the ‘truly tranquil and picturesque’ landscapes of Naoshima into a ‘paradise’ by combining the ‘world class beauty of the area’ with ‘world class art’ and ‘world class architecture’.2 He believes that art has the ability to bring about positive change, through motivating people to interact and to inspire them to think deeply about their lives. His vision is based on a rejection of contemporary urban society in favor of smaller communities, happily living together in accordance with nature. True to a Japanese value system, he states that a happy community can only be realized with content elder people, who serve as role models for the younger. In his vision the young visitors to Naoshima would bring life and activity to the island, while the local, older residents would serve as role models of “having lived a long and fulfilled life”.3 In publications sponsored by the Fukutake foundation, the frequent and joyful interaction is always emphasized.
In reality, visitors who stay at Benesse house, the hotel that is connected to the Benesse museum
have a highly privileged and secluded experience of the island. The design of the extremely expensive ‘modern luxurious’ apartments at Benesse house is spartan, without internet, television or other modes of distraction. Completely secluded the guests have exclusive 24-hour access to the museum. The ‘Oval’, is a separate building, that can be reached from the hotel via a small tramway and only provides 6 apartment suites. The structure has a large oval courtyard in the middle with a shallow water pool, creating an enigmatic space, that has become one of the most photographed and publicized images of Naoshima. Guests also have exclusive access to the most beautiful beaches of the island, an outdoor spa, as well as the only high end restaurant on the island.
1 2 3
Yuji, Ehara, Kumiko, editors. Remain in Naoshima: Naoshima Contemporary Art Museum, (Naoshima: Benesse House / Naoshima Contemporary Art Museum, 2011), 7 Ibid. Ibid.
They are taken to the villages by shuttle bus to walk around and see the galleries. Most of the time, the only interaction between locals and tourists is through the slightly uncomfortable moment of the photographic encounter, when the residents became picturesque backdrops.
In fact, a local lady in her fifties who has worked for the Mitsubishi plant in the north all her life,
said in an informal interview that many people in the village, including her husband have never gone to see the art.1 Many are actually worried about the changes brought about by the tourists, as they feel that the island has become less safe. People used to not lock the doors in the village and would leave their bikes unlocked everywhere, but now as strangers come into their houses unannounced to look around or use the facilities, many start to be more protective about their property. Another example is the story of a family that wanted to paint their house a bright color, and was strongly advised by employees of the Fukutake foundation not to do it, because it would not fit with the overall quaint aesthetic of the village.2 So not only is arguable how much locals actually benefit, but the Fukutake Foundation is also enforcing their aesthetic dogmas onto personal decisions of the villagers. Soichiro Fukutake made his fortune by selling educational services- traditionally a public sector in social democratic systems. Even if he claims that his companies aim is to serve the public good, the fortune he made is based on the competitive society he pretends to be fighting.
1 When visiting Naoshima island in April 2014 I talked to the lady with the help of a translator 2 Ibid.
THE RETHORICS OF POWER ON NAOSHIMA ISLAND
The expansion of the exhibition area in the museums is symptomatic for a larger process of expansion on the territory of the island. What started as a camp for children has become a network of museums, galleries and art installations on the southern half of the island, affecting the entire population and the local biosphere on the island. Due to the activities of Benesse, currently over 600.000 people come to visit Naoshima per year1- increasing traffic and prompting the opening of several secondary businesses that are not run by Benesse, including bed and breakfasts, tourist shops, restaurants, bars and bike rentals. A new port terminal designed by Pritzker Prize winning architects Sanaa has been built in Miyanoura to receive the steady stream of visitors.
The driver of all these changes at a municipal scale are the possesions of one man. In principle, all
the artworks in Naoshima could be taken away at the whim (or financial insolvency) of the owner. Even if the institution seems relatively stable at the moment it is impossible to predict how it will involve in the next few generations and who will take responsibility to finance it. Fukutake is currently spending a fraction of his wealth in Naoshima, yet as one employee said in an interview, nobody knows what will happen once he passes away.2 If the company decides to stop sponsorship, the museums will either have to become self-sufficient, by increasing visitor flow or the public will have to carry the financial burden.
Fukutake has commissioned all buildings on the island himself and personally chosen the artworks
to be displayed. Much of it can be subsumed under a general notion of ‘minimalism’, where the term is used in the pluralistic sense of the word, referring to different movements in art, architecture and eastern thought.
1 2
Lars Muller and Akiko Miki, editors, Insular Insight: Where Art and Architecture Conspire with Nature (Baden, Lars Mueller Publishers and Fukutake Foundation, 2011), 302 Interview with Yoko Minagawa, employee of the Fukutake Foundation when visiting Naoshima Island in April 2014
Several artists represented at Naoshima would fall under the category of Minimalism in an art-historical sense as a movement originating in the 1960s, predominantly in the United States. Some of its most famous protagonists are represented at Naoshima, including Donald Judd and Dan Flavin. In “Minimalism and the Rhetoric of power”, Anna Chave cites several examples of minimalist art that is uncritically associated with violence or war, or, less extreme but much more pervasive with a corporate rhetoric.1 Chave takes a piece by Donald Judd, Untitled, form 1968 as the starting point of her argument towards the political ambivalence of minimalism. Chave reads minimalism as a display of power, and problematic when uncritically applied and received.2 She sees an implied authority in the choice of materials, the weight and imposing scale of minimalist art, as well as the geometry reminiscent of classical orders, like the repetition of columns in a greek temple.3
Walter de Maria, who is also strongly represented in Naoshima is another artist that becomes a tar-
get of Chave’s critique. She traces the increasingly violent language of his work- from an inaccessible cage in 1965 to an aluminium swastika, Museum Piece, two years later, to Bed of Spikes in 1968, where platforms with sharpened, stainless steel spikes were exhibited in a gallery without security precautions, requiring visitor to sign an unconditional release before entering the gallery.4 For piece in Naoshima, Time/Timeless/No Time, from 2004, Walter de Maria placed a single, two-ton sphere out of polished dark marble on a majestic staircase within a ballroom sized space. Compared to this radical early work, the work at Naoshima seems tame. The polemics and controversy is taken out of the work, while the language of oppression is still intact. In general, artworks relating to war or violence are conspicuously absent in Naoshima. Even if some of the pieces might have been created in an originally more ambivalent context, they are presented at Naoshima without context, as pure aesthetic objects, emptied of all agency they might have had in a political or critical sense, only leaving the language of power intact.
1 2 3 4
Anna Chave. “Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power,” (Arts 64, no. 5 ,1990). p 44-63 Ibid. Ibid. Anna Chave. “Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power,” (Arts 64, no. 5 ,1990). p 53
Another facet of Minimalism on Naoshima is inherent in the architecture of Tadao Ando – here the term is used to denote the simplicity of geometric forms and austerity of materials. Ando is a critic of western societies speed of life and consumer oriented lifestyle and he believes that architecture has the power to “reform society” by promoting or changing the identity of a place. Architecture writer Werner Blaser puts it slightly differently: “Good buildings by Tadao Ando create memorable identity and therefore publicity, which in turn attracts the public and promotes market penetration”1
Andos architecture on Naoshima shares many features of minimalist art, in its use of simple geo-
metric forms, its choice of heavy materials -almost exclusively concrete and glass- and its sprawling scale. The critique of Chave leveled at Minimalism is especially applicable here- in its geometrical perfection Ando’s architecture is absolutist and unchangeable. In the Chi Chu museum, for example, visitors are led through a large triangular space, completely void, except for a narrow cut running through its walls, that seems to imply a slice or cut. There is narrow corridor behind the cut, allowing people to look inside the space without being seen, creating an inverted panopticon situation.
In the Lee Ufan museum, before entering the interior space visitors are led through a labyrinth of
solid straight concrete walls, to arrive at a large courtyard. The courtyard is completely empty, except for a single stone, placed there by the sculptor Lee Ufan. The walls are too high to see anything from the outside world, leaving the human figure completely surrounded by plain concrete walls.
Wealthy patrons of large private art collections are not a new phenomena, for instance when looking
at the ancestors of modern collecting in the nobility of the renaissance. The royal collections of most countries are in public ownership today, yet through an increasingly commercialized art market, the relationship between public and private ownership has become increasingly complex and interwoven. In Naoshima however, at least for now, the relationship is relatively clear- the art is in private hands and permanently installed on the island, therefore not part of a global circulation of assets.
1
“Tadap Ando” on Wikipedia, last accessed 5th of May 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadao_Ando
In her essay “The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum” Rosalind Krauss describes the transition of the cultural patrimony of the museum into capital, resulting in a crisis for the museums identity.1 Due to the pressures of the art market, which is driven by the free-market spirit of the 1980s, the museum cannot act as a bearer of cultural patrimony anymore. Culture as an asset can only be fully realized when put into circulation.2
Naoshima Island presents the complete inversion of that relationship- here capital is invested in a
stable cultural institution. The institution, created by a private body, becomes the emblem of sophistication of an elite group, rather than the protection of cultural legacy.
Krauss goes on further to quote the director of the Guggenheim at the time, Tom Krens, who
proclaimed the transition from the encyclopedic to the synchronic museum. The encyclopedic model is attempting to show a particular view of history in a chronological fashion, while the synchronic model would “forego history in the name of a kind of intensity of experience, an aesthetic charge that is not so much temporal (historical) as it is now radically spatial, the model for which, in Krens’s own account, was, in fact, Minimalism.”3 According to Krems, Minimalism has reshaped the reception of art, from a contemplative mode to an intensity of experience that requires increasingly larger spaces.4 Not showing a comprehensive historical view, but rather commissioning select artist to produce large sale, often spatially engaging artworks and installations, Naoshima is clearly a synchronic model, and as described above, minimalism is an important part of its collections and architecture.
In creating a monumental, synchronic experience Fukutake is occupying the island on many differ-
ent levels- in a physical sense of occupying space, in a symbolic sense, using a language of power and in an experiential sense, taking away all critical agency from the viewer.
Ultimately the projects on Naoshima are ossified capital of the Benesse corporation- while being
advertized as a project to find back to the simplicity of life it is using the mechanisms of minimalism in art and architecture to generate corporate branding for one of the richest people in the world.
1 2 3 4
Rosalind Krauss, “Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum,” in October 54 (Autumn 1990) 3--17. Ibid. Rosalind Krauss, “Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum,” in October 54 (Autumn 1990) 9 Ibid.
CONTROL CLOSE UP
The rethorics of power in Naoshima extend over different scales, from the territory of the island to
the detailed workings of the museums. Following, the description of a typical visit to the Kadoya gallery in Honmura will act as an example to illustrate these mechanisms. The gallery is set within a 200 year old Japanese house, that has been renovated by the Fukutake Foundation. From outside, it completely blends into its surroundings, only a small flag at the door indicates the entrance. This outer un-pretentiousness makes entering the interior courtyard an intimate experience, almost like transgressing into a private backyard. Visitors are received by a friendly, usually female, attendee, who will be dressed in an almost nurse-like uniform in shades of grey. She will ask not to take pictures and lead guests inside a darkened space. As very common in Japanese culture, anyone entering will be asked to take off their shoes. The inside is almost completely dark, only interrupted by the lights of the blinking LEDs. Around the installation there are simple wooden benches and visitor usually sit there for a few minutes in hushed silence before moving on.
It is significant that there is no text or description of the project anywhere in the gallery itself, privi-
leging a physical, sensorial experience of the work, rather than a conceptual, analytical way. Taking picture is allowed outside, but not anywhere inside, again leaving the person alone with the sensorial impact of the work, not allowing any instruments to help interpretation.
The guards are without exception young, dressed in crisp ironed outfits, constantly reinforcing
discipline through their physical presence. Visitors are seldom alone in any room, as there is enough staff to watch each space. The presence of guards is somewhat disruptive in an utopian society, yet these employees are not menacing or authoritative figures, but rather form a reassuring presence of giving friendly direction.
Any museum has rules for visitors to follow, yet the experience in Naoshima is especially directed,
even if in a very subtle way. In an encyclopedic museum like, for instance, the Metropolitan Museum in New York, a visitor can decide to see a particular piece, or the work of a certain epoche and not look at the rest of the museum, while, for example at the Chichu Museum, the entire exhibition can only be seen in a sequential manner, following a predetermined path. A museum like the Met has an educational mission, providing visitors with information about the work with wall plates, leaflets, guided tours and audio guides. In Naoshima, barely any information is available about the exhibited works, supporting the atmosphere of a synchronic museum. The only author we learn more about on Naoshima is Soichiro Fukutake’s friend Tadao Ando- curiously an entire gallery in Honmura is dedicated to the documentation of his work.
EPILOGUE
To summarize, Naoshima is an island subsequently occupied by two different corporations. The
south half of the island is dominated by the activities of Soichiro Fukutake, whose company is investing into an encompassing, utopic environment, catering to a priviledged elite of global travelers. While Fukutake claims to provide a mutually beneficial situation for locals and visitors, this position is being challenged by the contradictory reports of local residents.
A rethoric of minimalism is used in different capacities in architecture and art, to project power and
produce a highly curated experience. Beautiful in its effects, a synchronic art experience at the scale of an island acts as an ingeniour branding mechanism for a powerful corporation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Duncan, Carol. “Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship” in Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge, 1995 Foster, Hal. The Artist as Ethnographer. in The Return of the Real. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1996 Jodidio, Philip. Tadao Ando at Naoshima: Art Architecture Nature. New York: Universe, 2009. Krauss, Rosalind. The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum. Cambridge: The MIT Press, October 54. 1990. Muller, Lars and Miki, Akiko editors. Insular Insight: Where Art and Architecture Conspire with Nature. Baden, Lars Mueller Publishers and Fukutake Foundation, 2011. Miwon Kwon and Kayo Tokuda. Naoshima: Nature, Art, Architecture (Stuttgart, Hatje Cantz, 2011), 21 Sans, Jerome and Miki, Akiko and Obrist, Hans Ulrich. Naoshima Meeting V “Art, Region, Locality: Between Macro and Micro Perspectives” Naoshima: Naoshima Contemporary Art Museum, 2001 Yuji, Ehara, Kumiko, editors. Remain in Naoshima: Naoshima Contemporary Art Museum, Naoshima: Benesse House / Naoshima Contemporary Art Museum, 2011. Chave, Anna. “Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power,” Arts 64, no. 5 ,1990. p 44-63
IMAGE SOURCES Illustration 1: The Naoshima Refinery, 1955 The Mainichi Newspaper. Muller, Lars and Miki, Akiko editors. Insular Insight: Where Art and Architecture Conspire with Nature.( Baden, Lars Mueller Publishers and Fukutake Foundation, 2011) p. 243 Illustration 2: Chichu Art Museum, from Architizer “An Architect’s Paradise: The Hidden Treasures Of Tadao Ando’s Art Island” http://architizer.com/blog/japan-art-island/