Urban Interiors/Fall2015

Contemporary Museum and the Public Space

Melis Kurultay 113823011 Ceyda PektaĹ&#x; 115823009

Istanbul Bilgi University History, Theory and Criticism in Architecture HTC 532 Urban Interiors Asst. Prof. Can Altay

One method to initiate a discussion about any ‘space’ would be to identify the main actants of that particular space. Of course it is equally important to specify the function of the space for each main actant and the interaction between them and the space. As Bruno Latour clarifies, building cities (sites) is not merely about the human experience but about ‘what is so interesting in the field of urbanism: the practical connection between the large scale and the modification of human and non-human connections’. Therefore, if one were to define the actants of a contemporary art space, it would be necessary to not leave out the artwork or the substructure of the contemporary art gallery or the museum. This interaction between the ‘maker(s)’, the artists/artwork and the visitors/users of a museum is what composes it. As there have been many debates on what a contemporary museum is and is not, this paper will be taking into account these arguments and exploring the contemporary art space’s identity by defining its actants keeping in mind the following keywords: public space, heterotopia, ‘streetification’, expansion and resistance.

Adorno approaches the museum considering its affinity with the mausoleum. In the ‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’ he refers to the past as ‘destruction of the past’. To him, trying to modernize the remains of the past is an act of violence. Although the museum Adorno wrote about is not fully the same with the contemporary museum of today, there have been many negative connotations of the art space and one mostly repeated critique is that they are ‘temples of cultural elitism’.

One of two approaches that will help form a general understanding about the modus operandi of the museum should be Foucault’s, naming the museum a ‘heterotopia’. Beth Lord in her research named Foucault’s museum: Difference, Representation, and Genealogy sums up the sense of Foucault’s museum with these words: ‘(...) the museum might be considered an example of the worst sort of Enlightenment tendencies to totalize, categorize and control the world.’ The other and second approach need mentioned is Hito Steyerl’s, who in her video-art ‘Is Museum a Battlefield?’ (shown in Istanbul Biennale, 2013) refers to the museum as ‘an ivory tower excluded from social 2

reality, (...) a playground for five percent’. Of course she then questions how come such an elitist place can turn out to be a battlefield. Before Steyerl’s answer to these questions be told, it is important to name two actants of the museum that influence it from above. These two very crucial actants that are the state and the corporations always make sure that the necessary capital cycle is provided for the museum to be ‘profitable’ one way or another. As the state seems to be holding the museum at an arm’s length, corporations influence the automation of the art space not as indirectly as they plan to appear. They are the actants that decide if the art space needs improvement, this improvement being ‘expansion’ in many recent cases.

It is a well-known fact that branding is most important an aspect, when designing an art space. For instance, how its PR is run, who directs it, which artists it is going to host and which styles of art, is nowadays all part of the marketing strategies. The architect once asked to design a museum (or any other space) is aware that s/he is not to propose a paradigm shift to the museum with different functions or groundbreaking gallery solutions. Thus when the ‘Starchitect’ is commissioned for a museum expansion project, his or her options are maybe even less miscellaneous. If he is Gehry, he has to do ‘Gehry’, if she is Hadid, her task is to achieve yet another Hadid space. With the combination of these obligations and the general characteristics entailed of a specific art space, it is as if the architect merely designs the package of a product. Keeping these challenges in mind, still it is important to comprehend the role of the architect for the museum. Zygmunt Bauman in Legislators and Interpreters, clarified the role of the intellectual; as an interpreter of the authority. Therefore it is possible to refer to the architect as an essential interpreter to the modern state for he was imagined to be capable of creating the spatial solidification of the ideals.

Bauman wrote: ‘Les Philosophes (now referred to as the intellectuals) relied on their state for (a) proper guidance.’ This reliance was in a way a submission to the State in need of a restricted space of security and the need for a ‘restricted space’ is the authority’s resolution for many of its quests. Still the architect is somewhat an important factor for the art space especially when it comes to interpretation of the actants from above and the actants from below that will be explained further.

3

Thereby, in ‘Is the Museum a Battlefield?’; Steyerl also points out how the museums are designed by starchitects, their function as the middlemen and why. After opening up the relations of the starchitect to the corporations, she reminds us that those corporations sponsoring the great museums of our time are also responsible for the global arms trade. Is it possible the architects that design those museums are not aware of such a fact? It does not seem much likely. Hence it becomes possible to claim that the ‘starchitecture’ functions as a buffer zone between two positions of the museum, which would be to clear the reputation of corporations by creating patrons of the arts out of the conglomerates and as a place that can house controversial, intellectual and or political thought in the form of art.

As the architect is seemingly aware of his/her position as a lateral actant in the art trade, what do the other actants behave as? It is possible to position the curator, the artists, the state of affairs and the visitors as another group of actants that influence the museum from below.

They are the ones to keep the art space moving in various directions if not expanding. Boris Groys as he lays open the bits and pieces of the contemporary art field, points out that contemporary art can be seen as an exhibition practice, making the artist and the curator almost indistinguishable. Thus in agreement with this statement, these two will be considered as one actant.

There is also the visitors of the art space who do not in real life might not buy art, nevertheless they play an important role in defining the value of the artwork as a commodity. Then there is what may be called the ‘state of affairs’ consisting of concepts such as globalization, immigration, hybridization or cultural diversity/racism that in long term inspire the whereabouts of all actants. This actant as mentioned is in fact directly related with all the actants, however it is as powerful as any other in defining the art space therefore it is considered as one impetus towards the art space.

Having defined these tensions towards the art space, it is important to introduce the aspect of expansion once again. The museums 4

have been either declared ‘dead’ or said to be ‘heterotopias’ that are ‘not freely accessible like a public space’ (Foucault- Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias) through the time of thought.

Therefore as all other vspaces/products that are challenged, the contemporary museum is said to need mutation if it seeks permanence.

One of the latest arguments revolve around the construction based evolution of the contemporary museum. It is a debate most museum directors, architects and critiques join in on. The discussion is not only about the construction of new museums, but also about building of new ‘branches’ of most visited museums and additions to the existing museums. There have even been a thematic series of conferences called: ‘If You Build It’ exploring the confluence of architecture and art as agents of urban change in newly built gallery and museum projects across the world. The new Tate Modern addition building constructed right next to the existing museum has been the object of these discussions although there are easily over fifty museum expansion projects all across the globe. The reason Tate Modern expansion project has been so controversial is that it is already one of the most visited and apparently most profitable art spaces. Still Tate Modern’s visits have actually dropped by 20% since 2009, making the museum let go of its workers and become more dependent upon voluntary workers for the last three to four years. Art critic and historian Hal Foster is quite critical of the expansion projects claiming that the new designs are actually irrelevant to the directors’ and architects’ arguments about creating a ‘new museum’ but more about the decline of numbers as such.

These critiques are taken quite seriously by the upper and lateral actants of the art space. Just last year Chris Dercon, the former director of Tate Modern gave a speech in İstanbul Modern Museum, concerning the new addition building to Tate Modern and its uses. He made an assertion that it is now necessary to ‘re-think what a museum is’ not leaving out the very museum he was making the speech in. As Dercon discussed the future of the modern museum, he introduced some articles published in art magazines criticizing the so-called new museum answering each accusation with one main notion.

5

6

The notion is that the museum is a space to socialize in. In the critical center of this argument Dercon exclaims that according to a newly made survey amongst the museumgoers, forty percent of the visitors go there to socialize. Having mentioned the aspect of ‘socialization’, he reminds the listeners of Olafur Eliasson’s Weather Project exhibited in the Turbine Hall, leading visitors to use the space more thoroughly as a place to dwell, and stay in for much longer than your usual gallery.

Dercon essentially exclaims: ‘Museums are where we re-think what it means to be and act in public’.

Of course Dercon is no longer the director of Tate Modern, which leaves him less relevant to the discussion. However his argument remains, both as a justification for new projects and an explanation of the actants’ interventions to the existing art space. Moreover, the relationship of the museum with the public space is a considerable inquiry to make. Does the purified art space depressed from each side want to mutate to something else? Something other than a secure, defined heterotopia where visitors exist merely to ‘observe’?

Thomas Hirschhorn defines the museum of the future introducing eight conditions. The first condition is very much in sync with Dercon’s suggestion of the public space. Hischhorn does not necessarily define the public space within the art space however proposes a change of public sphere more in relation to arts precluding all commercial activities. Also in his Musée Précaire Albinet, Hirschhorn ‘borrows’ masterpieces of Fernand Léger, Marcel Duchamp, Le Corbusier, Salvador Dalí, Piet Mondrian, Andy Warhol, Kasimir Malevich and Joseph Beuys from Paris’ Centre Pompidou, and exhibits these artworks in what might be called the ‘future museum’ by his definition. Musée Précaire Albinet is placed in the suburbs and the pieces are installed with the help of the young inhabitants of Albinet, without involving Pompidou’s security staff. In Transgression in and of the City, Can Altay reads the contradictory statement of Hirschhorn’s work about the art space namely the institution with these words: ‘The limits it crosses and makes visible are of the art institution, as well as the urban condition, questioning both the publicness of the art institution, 7

as well as the latent spatial injustice in the city.’ Hirschhorn’s rhetoric in this museum as an artwork strengthens by the usage of chaotic handwritten signage, and the refusal of a the canonical architectural packaging of the ‘cool/elite’ art world. He does this without failing to forget that he is the privileged artist that made such a meeting of two separate worlds divided by an invisible border, possible.

This invisible border is very much about the ‘cool/elit’. The overflow caused by many actants of the contemporary art space triggers both an abstract and an actual gentrification around it although the dynamics of change happening around for instance Bilbao Guggenheim and İstanbul Modern are not the same per se. These decisions are controlled by similar incentives of the upper and lateral actants of the art space. So needless to mention, Turkish government, in case of İstanbul Modern, is the stronger upper actant to encourage the construction based economical power by gentrification. Of course the globalization of the capital eventuate in a want ‘to become a brand’ by every one actant of our society. Even ‘culture’ transforms as an instrument to become a brand so it is only natural that cities, districts in those cities or museums in those districts, have the ‘wish’.

However having the wish does not contradict with the resistance to the consequence of the wish. Hal Foster problematizes Guggenheim Bilbao’s architecture. He calls this ‘the museum as icon.’

To achieve this iconicity, the chosen architect is allowed, even encouraged, to model idiosyncratic shapes at urban scale, often near poor neighbourhoods that are thereby disrupted, if not displaced. (...)

The neighborhoods to be disrupted or displaced conceal a street culture, that has a massive effect on the contemporary art museums as well. The relation between the street and the contemporary art space, is a concept to dwell on. The new museum’s association with public space is seen rather necessary by most of its actants but, is it possible or even actual?

8

Diagram I: The tension carried out by all actants of the art institution including the art space itself It may be necessary to define the characteristics of the street when discussing its similarities and discrepancies with the public spaces designed in museums. According to De Certeau, people who define and possibly understand the city are the ones who experience it from the ‘ground level’. He finds the poesy lost in the modern society in the experiencing of the street with one’s body and the way to relocate the stories, he proposes to walk the city. In one part of this very well known metaphor of writing the city by walking it, he refers to the memory as sort of an anti-museum in its non- localizableness. This anchoring is more than essential in differentiating the museum and the street. The street is formed of not only its parts or actants but of its coincidental existence filled with rumor, stories or even lies. It is almost impossible to not romanticize such a ‘being’. The walker ‘in’ the street, ‘on’ the road; the pedestrian in his/her movement, ceases to take up a space and simultaneously belongs to and precludes a place. S/he is as free as the authority lets him/her be.

9

It would be naive to claim that the street is without boundaries.

The actant that has been referred to as ‘the state of affairs’ has the most intense effect on the street. Still the right to the city is the public’s possibility of transforming the city as well as inventing itself. The public space which the contemporary museum suggests to contain in itself is not where the excess society can declare some kind of manifestation.

There, it may appear in form of an artwork most probably without consent. However where it truly ‘is’ is the street.

The urban public space possesses the routines of daily life.

It possesses the coincidence. It is not lawless however carries the possibility of shadiness. The public space that is said to exist in some of the contemporary museums now and is promised to be increased for the sake of new ‘socialization possibilities’, lack some simple contingencies, one of which is ‘dread’. Even though it can be a space to ‘show’ dreadjust as Hito Steyerl very well does. Being a walker in the street is possible, however once you are walking inside the registered ‘public space’ of the museum you turn into a visitor, a tourist. It is possible to for instance ‘reclaim the night’ on the street. Not because the street is yours, but because the night once was. The same cannot be said for the public space in the museum since it never actually belonged to the citizen thus not ever was a part of the street.

Yet, all that is said to praise the street, including its ‘coincidentality’ is challenged by Lefebvre. He rejects the presence of urban space integrally with the argument that it is a social construction, a fantasy at best. Instead he identifies three forms of space as Phil Hubbard explains: ‘(...) spatial practices (the routines that constitute the everyday), representations of space (the knowledges, images and discourses that order space) and spaces of representation (which are created bodily).’

As Lefebvre defines a trialectic between these forms of space, he does find the revolutionary potential of everyday life in poetry, love and games. Pledging a spatial existence to these.

10

The art space can not be alienated from such refractions that are related mainly to the street. They exist in there by representation and sometimes even by practice hence the rush of excitement felt by the visitors from time to time. However the suggested new museum, while celebrating these forms of space, makes them un-coincidental by claiming these manifestations can be controlled by design.

What the contemporary art space lacks is not those festive manifestations but as mentioned above it does lack the negative connotations the street can not alienate itself from, such as dread, fear, outbreak, and least but not least what Bataille calls the economies of excess. Not merely because they are not accepted there by the actants from above but because they are ‘wanted’ and ‘represented’ in the art space by the lateral actants, as well as the actants from below.

Elizabeth Grozs’ objects to authority. Yet, she does not define authority on spatio- temporal activity but on professional practices and modern thought. She sees monumental architecture and/or any definition of the ‘ideal’ made by paradigms of modern architecture as a straitjacket. The expansion of the contemporary museum objectified

11

by the Starchitect fits this definition and that is also why Thomas Hirschhorn determines his eighth condition for the museum of future as; (...)

8. This museum must be a home, a shelter: no more fancy, narcissistic and useless museum architecture.

It should be appropriate to approach an end to the discussion about contemporary art space with the artist’s point of view, on the grounds that what actually keeps the art space still alive may be the aura around the artist who is ideally an actant from below. What creates this aura is critical thought shown subtly or aggressively. Also, just like the ‘starchitect’ functions between the two positions of the contemporary art space; the artwork placed in the art space could be functioning as a buffer zone between the street and upper actants. Therefore, it is possible to call the art space a pharmakon in the Derridean sense that Boris Groys calls curation. It is the cure and the illness to the field of art.

12

References:

Altay, Can. (2013) “Transgression in and of the city” AD (Architectural Design) No.226 The Architecture of Transgression. London: Wiley, 2013.

Bauman, Zygmunt. “Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, PostModernity and Intellectuals”. New Ed edition. Cambridge, UK; Oxford: Polity Press, 1989.

Certeau, Michel De. “The Practice of Everyday Life”. 3rd Revised edition edition. University of California Press, 2011.

Foster, Hal. “After the White Cube.” London Review of Books 19 Mar. 2015: 25–26.

Foucault, Michel. (1967). Of other spaces (Jay Miskowiec, Trans). Retrieved from http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html Grosz, Elizabeth “Architecture From the Outside”, MIT Press (Cambridge, MA), 2001 Groys, Boris. “Politics of Installation | E-Flux.” N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.

Hirschhorn, Thomas. Musée Précaire Albinet. Paris: Pop-up, 2004.

Hubbard, Phil. “City”. New Ed edition. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006.

Latour, Bruno. (2009, April 15). The Space of Controversies. New Geographies, 122-134.

Lord, Beth. (2006). “Foucault’s Museum: Difference, Representation, and Genealogy”. Museum and Society, 4(1), 1-14.

Steyerl, Hito. Is The Museum A Battlefield. İstanbul: İstanbul Modern, 2013

13

14

15

Fall 2015 16