Could you please briefly talk about what you are currently working on?
One of the subject matters I am working on these days is an issue which I noticed to be of interest for art students; it is the way painting and sculpture students are directed towards contemporary art practice. Painting and sculpture are not expected to be ‘contemporary’. There is a list of conditions for something to be considered contemporary art. I pulled them together in a list of 10. If a piece of art meets those conditions it is contemporary art, if not, it is considered to be old-fashioned, a hobby activity, etc. This is a very clear list and it works, there is a formula.
What do you think determines such differentiation?
Contemporary art is determined by conceptualism and text.
What is the role of the art critic in this distinction?
Art criticism debate got heated mainly in the last 3 to 5 years. It started with some newspaper articles in Radikal. AICA held some discussion panels on the topic. Currently we are questioning what art criticism is for. But I think our main issue is the crisis of the actors of art criticism. Art criticism is in fact a subfield of critical theory, which emerges from Plato and Aristotle followed by Fichte, Schelling and Kant in the 18th and 19th centuries. Building on the work of philosophers and ideas of Marxism and Frankfurt school thinkers, critical theory grounds itself on Marxism and post-structuralism. It is not possible to do any type of criticism - either in cinema, literature, architecture, or popular culture - without an appropriate application of critical theory. Of course art criticism exists as a discipline, but it very much relies on the employment of critical theory that developed since the 18th century. I look for these foundational grounds when I read a critical text. If they are not there, the text cannot have any grasp of the art work or the given situation.
Is it not possible to write art criticism differently?
No, it is not possible. The lineage of what we have as critical theory is very simple. It was founded during the 18th century German Romanticism, which was then followed by phenomenology in the 1930s, ideas of Marxism and Benjamin; structuralism in the post-1960 period, and post-structuralism since the 1980s, with writers such as Deleuze, Baudrillard, Ranciere, Badiou, and Foster. If you write something outside of this lineage, you must be living in a different planet. Of course there is also a history of art. But if we are to go beyond the knowledge offered by art historical documentation, we need to operate within the confines of critical theory. There is no other way. For that reason, the power of criticism relies on how competently it employs critical theory. When we look at the history of art criticism in Turkey, we see some literature people writing on art starting from the 1950s. This goes back to Tanpınar and Nurullah Berk. Then there are some philosophers such as İsmail Tunalı, representing the German school, Sezer Tansuğ writing essay style articles, and Nurullah Ataç in literature. These are all significant contributions to the field. Starting from the 1980s, some new actors enter into art criticism.
And publications start to become rather different…
After 1986, there are Argos and Gergedan magazines initiated by Enis Batur. There are also magazines like Gösteri and Milliyet Sanat, which brought together literature and art criticism. Until the early 1990s, writers of literature, poets, and painters were quite close to each other, causing both problems and advantages for criticism. Nowadays, artists are hanging out with sociologists and philosophers. In my opinion the reason why literature people and artists drifted apart is the disappearance of lyricism in art. Currently there is nothing lyrical in art. Something that is conceptual is not considered to be lyrical. Nietzsche and Kirkegaard say this, not me. For that reason, painters, poets and contemporary artists are continents apart from each other. In the 1990s, postmodernism became dominant in Turkey just as in the rest of the world. Writers such as Baudrillard, Deleuze, Derrida, and Foucault were translated into Turkish. At the same time cultural studies was on the rise; but weirdly enough, it contributed more to film criticism rather than art criticism. I wish it did make an impact on art criticism, because it offers the mechanism that can help reading contemporary art with an interdisciplinary approach. In actual fact, starting from the 1990s there is the “French kiss” affect. In the 1990s, the whole cultural and artistic world changes; new gallery structures, large capital investments, and banks enter into the art system. At this time, artistic discourse is mainly shaped by post-structuralist thought, which, in my opinion, has many handicaps as well as merits - especially due to the fact that it pushes the notion of class to the background and highlights identities, difference and otherness in ways that are compatible with neo-liberalist ideology. If we have a look at curatorial texts from the 1990s, it is possible to see that these were indeed the main concerns of contemporary art practice at the time. Both cultural industry and art criticism were shaped by a poststructuralist approach at a level that those operating outside of it had no space for existence. For instance, galleries in Nişantaşı, which mainly showed paintings, started to close down. I am only pointing at a historical change rather than trying to glorify those galleries. Some magazines such as Genç Sanat and Rh+, which were mainly covering critical texts on painting, faced with a crisis and even closed down as result. With the rise of the Internet, the formats of magazines also changed. A different type of art media emerged.
How do you see art criticism today? What is its position nowadays?
It very much relies on clientelistic relations. And I am not outside of those. Critics tend to write about artists that are part of the gallery circles they are close to. However, criticism grows out of a crisis. There can be no criticism without taking any risks. I see very few articles that take risks while criticizing - that go against a gallery or an artist, risk having a greater number of haters, etc.
What do you mostly see in criticism then?
A tendency to write criticism with no risks. People don’t want to take risks. All they want is to continue to get new projects and expand their clientelist networks. Art publications are in a crisis similar to that of the contemporary art system they are part of. Current art writing is a parody of criticism. If a practice is parodied, then it means that practice is in a crisis. Baudrillard’s claims for the “the conspiracy of art” are very true. Everyone is aware that art is in a crisis and it is suffering from deceitfulness, but we all pretend that everything is fine. We tend to overrate art, almost see it as a substitute for politics. That means politics is becoming gestural, while in fact it is a practical thing. The art work substitutes politics. Yes, that is also important but it is not enough. The question of what it means to be political or apolitical started to be discussed again. Anyway, in short, current art criticism is not taking any risk. If you take risks, you might lose your friends or weaken your position in your networks. It does not mean insulting others, but looking critically at the artist and the gallery. In any case, nobody has the power to destroy art and change the gallery structures anyway, just like nobody can demolish the capitalist system. But being critical can change and has changed certain things. Another thing is, in order to take risks one needs to be independent from institutional structures. Criticism can emerge from magazines, online portals. What do we have as art publications? There is Istanbul Art News, a very well designed publication with extensive content, but one that takes no risks. It is so loaded with content that it cannot be read, it is made not to be read. The design dominates the publication. Where will criticism take place then? The tool is important.
Where can we see the type of criticism that you are describing?
In the past it was happening through amateur initiatives. These were ‘boutique’ initiatives, in more fashionable terms, but they were productive. They could operate much more independently since they had no relations with large corporations. But starting from the 1990s, such bohemian atmosphere disappeared with the entry of capital and corporations into the art field. It started with high quality magazines such as Argos and Gergedan, which were printed on luxury glossy paper. These magazines automatically put the critic in a certain position. The critic became a professional within the cultural industry. They became editors, correspondents, directors… Of course these cannot be eliminated easily, but at least some space for independent work could have been created. In fact contemporary art practice has all the signs of intellectual blockage – such as the fact that it has become very much based on gestures and templates that result in many similar works. It is a crisis under the hegemony of text. People think I don’t like contemporary art, but in fact what I don’t like is contemporary art in Turkey, because it is very bad. I am against contemporary art that is hegemonic and that doesn’t give any breathing space for other practices. Also, as I said earlier, I am ideologically against the epistemological boundaries it sets up. I am against an art that recognizes identity issues, difference, otherness and hybridity, but that does not recognize class struggle. I am against its alliance with the capital. Otherwise contemporary art is the present and that is valuable.
How did contemporary art become repetitive and gestural?
Contemporary art is mainly based on irony, pastiche, cynicism, distance. These are destructive methods and have some handicaps when not fed by the tragic. Art becomes gestural when integrated into a space that cannot be engaged with a conceptual approach, and in turn ends up turning into a cliché. I am not talking about appropriating clichés. That is pastiche. When art itself becomes a cliché then it means the crisis is massive. It can collapse so easily. I am only talking about the current state of art; it is obvious that it cannot continue like this. Everyone sees that. What will come in its place? Something that is based on material, expression, something that cannot be put into words or conceptualized, but that can be sensed. Sensuality, empathy, tragedy… There is a distant cynicism in conceptual art. Bourgeoisie experiences strategies of desperation in contemporary art; frozen, cool situations that do not reflect the actual content of works. I engage with a work of art through a combination of cynical, cool, flat, irredeemable perceptions. There is also a decorative side to it. The crisis of avant-garde was also because all radical actions were appropriated and tamed by the bourgeoisie. But such appropriation is happening at greater levels for contemporary art. There is nothing to resist against it this time. What kind of phenomenological response does a contemporary art work evoke in the audience?
In modernism there was resistance and defiance against the system. Even Pop Art was involved in such defiance, as if saying “I will shoot you with your own weapons”. But with contemporary art we are constantly witnessing how desperate we are. These are issues that an art critic should be questioning. In summary, art criticism is a field of practice that functions within critical theory. Its effectiveness relies on how much it can digest and transform critical theory. So I don’t accept art criticism as a different area. Its quality is determined by its engagement with critical theory. Readability is also important. I come across very good articles but sometimes a reader wouldn’t be able to access it without a certain level of academic knowledge. It is necessary find a middle ground, while also avoiding a journalistic language. If what you are writing are internalized ideas, then you would be able to write in a plain language without recourse to so many footnotes. Following your intuition is important. After all, intuitions are shared, even when looking at mainstream politics or cinema. Nowadays, most things are experienced simultaneously.
Experiences are different of course.
Yes. Bourdieu discusses the notions of space. Space is determining. From a spatial point of view, I identify two major phases in the Turkish art scene. The first phase is the 1980s art context centered in Nişantaşı. The second phase is triggered by biennials causing a shift towards the Beyoğlu region. It is the phase we are currently in. And a third phase is approaching. In my opinion, in the third phase, more global galleries will become active in Turkey and greater numbers of international artists will be shown in these galleries. The regeneration of Galataport-Sütlüce line will provide the setting for this phase. The art fairs in Haliç area are already signaling that. We won’t even hear about the exhibitions. This phase will be extremely elitist, but let’s not forget that we are a country of resistance at the same time. The Galataport project is being forced to be canceled. If it is realized that whole area will be plundered for profit and contemporary art will be a showcase for that. That will change the dynamics. Istanbul is one of the centers of art in the world, like Berlin. Only a bohemian context can become the center of art. Global capital wants to enter into such sites. A Parisian young artist wants to have a studio in Galata. Paris is a hygienic city. Bohemian means trouble, it is difficult, but dynamic. Now people develop projects. There is a new generation of calculating, stylish artists, who work almost as office artists rather than studio artists. However, I still believe there is space for the bohemian to flourish here.
