Question of the Day

11.12.06

Is the fortress Europe and its art institutions accessible for non-Western artists?

I think that the European fortress is very difficult to access by non-westerners. The system has been set up that way. The history is deep and long and complicated. I think that non-westerners never imagine having access or imagine claiming access to Europe. If there is access, it is granted by Europeans, given out like food stamps. But again, this is spoken by a person who was born in the East post-war and escaped this location to grow up and receive education in a Western system, then came back for reasons even more complicated.

- Tuan Andrew Nguyen, artist, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

11.12.06

In how far is there space for academic thinking in the museum's exhibition practice?
 
A museum is not an empty vessel to be filled by art. Instead we need to speak about its identity, its potentiality, its ideology - all of which are present whether we choose to recognise them or not. To put these latter terms into motion and not simply accept inherited definitions, we need thinking processes. So if 'academic thinking' means reflection, questioning and articulation of the practices of a museum then we need to devote lots of space and time to it. We need to build in systems where museum workers have opportunities to learn new ways of seeing art and its relation to society. We need to create models of public presentation and production that include self-reflective mechanisms and opportunities of critical thinking. We need thus to construct the museum as a place for asking awkward questions and developing complex answers. Of course academic thinking has another meaning that implies unreflective copying of existing models and that should have no place in a contemporary art museum's practice.

- Charles Esche, director VanAbbe Museum, Eindhoven

26.11.06

Is there a correlation between the success of an art institution and  the actual constellation of media coverage in the city where it is located?

In the era of the connected, technological city, the idea of the city is more relative than before. And as much as any art institution that sets the stakes of its reputation on a local as well as regional, national and international level, the ambition projected by the European Kunsthalle is of a kind that reaches beyond the city limits. But the bigger part of an art institution’s audience, whom the art institution tries to reach through the media, still comes from the city in which they are located. It is obvious that art institutions in capital or bigger cities typically have better PR opportunities than provincial ones, because the big city’s ‘media-umbrella’ reaches further than local or regional media. At the other end of the media food-chain, creating your own micro-media structures - such as this website - is playing an increasingly bigger role, I guess.

This opens up to the bigger question of what success is. As an art institution you can succeed on your own terms without having a thousands-strong audience. At the end of the day, media success depends on what your criteria are: in the art system as in pop culture, media success is no guarantee for meaningful communication. That being said, whether your success criteria are of a quantitative-populist kind (visitor numbers as the primary criterion), or whether they are of a more reflexive kind vis-à-vis art and its location in the public sphere, the media are an important part of communicating your program. But then one will also have to discern what media are relevant in which ways for one’s communication to the audience, because different kinds of media matter in different ways. What is more important to an art institution: 90 seconds on TV, an article in a regional newspaper or a review in an art periodical that is considered to be serious and informed by art professionals? Coverage of these divergent kinds offer different interfaces to your audience that are not mutually exclusive.

- Lars Bang Larsen, Art critic and curator, Frankfurt/Copenhagen

09.11.06

How could an institution like the European Kunsthalle develop a European perspective?

A European Kunsthalle should be adventurous enough to help shape the way contemporary art is presented, functioning as a locus for developing inventive modes of creating and exhibiting art as a dynamic synthesis of research, experimentation, production and communication. It should take art itself as a point of departure and be sensitive to the artworks own logic in order to find new modes of production and presentation and other means for art to develop in. In opposition to the event-culture corporate model, attentive to cultural diversity and conflicting voices, its aim should be political in the sense of changing perceptions of reality and reality itself. This is to be achieved by digging into relevant issues of the day, however controversial they might prove at times, through multilayered yet focussed projects capable of attracting the audiences’ attention and influencing general attitudes. A European Kunsthalle should therefore actively reflect the surrounding world and function as a meeting point for a great variety of activities in the field of visual culture with its natural crossovers to other areas of interest.

The added value of a truly innovative Kunsthalle should be to make people think, to bring out and expose the contradictions between Europe’s homogenizing official narratives and the actual experiences of urban life where heterogeneity, cross-cultural influences, and hybridity already are and tend to increasingly become the living norms. A dedicated staff intent in providing short and long-term activities, an attractive bookshop, a fine cafeteria, a space that invites people to spend time should not detract from the main objective: to ask what Europe is today, to convey a rich and complex image of the current European situation, to show that European culture’s vitality has much to profit from multicultural diversity and a constant dialogue between local and global realities.  

- Cristina Ricupero, independent curator, Paris


20.10.06

Facing the replacement of traditional artistic media by participatory approaches, moveable strcutures and volatile conceptual works, do we need static museum buildings for the presentation of art in the future?

No, we do certainly not. Though, I support and see great importance in the architectual element of the institutional framework such as the one of a museum. I don't think we need yet another building stached with "dead" material on display. The European Kunsthalle could be a great example for a conversive Kunsthalle that discusses frameworks within the (re)presentation
of art. In that sense, it could work more as a thought than something concrete. An overviewing thinktank that's not connected to a certain place.

- Krist Gruijthuijsen, independent curator, Amsterdam


16.10.06

Why are designers bored by art exhbitions?

Designers and artists are often placed on one big heap by funding bodies, curators and media. The fact is; they are about the same as a farm horse and a circus pony (I will not tell you which refers to which). Where art often causes concern and confrontation, design tries to console and please. I have never seen a design that shows some real concern, either historically, socially or politically. This is also not the task of design. I think design is a very a-political profession. Designers are interested in the visual and conceptual aspects of art. Nice effects and wonderful ideas are understood and interpreted. A political or social stance is none of their concern and is often even regarded as opposed to their practice. They are merely looking for beauty in material and concept in a somewhat monomatic way. This does not mean that designers find art exhibitions boring, they have just educated themselves to interpret them in a different way.

- Chris Kabel, Designer

12.10.06

Is a private art institution more independent than a municipal one?

In past years the Austrian government (which recently resigned) championed “private-public-partnership”. This not only affected federal museums but also the universities. With the onset of the 21st century, museums and universities were – for lack of adequate funding – abruptly declared to be “autonomous”. In practice this means that a budgetary ceiling was imposed on these institutions with their scant funds, and in return they were allowed to use any income they generated. Simultaneously, however, they have to contend with the premises rented from government offices and in part with regular staff. It remains to be seen whether the rivalry deliberately provoked by government offices between the individual institutions will actually result in an enhanced profile – in terms of quality – or whether it is more likely to result in the striking of those services, which do not meet the criteria of our performance-driven society. This “autonomy combined with prescribed inadequate resources” can only be criticized and even those who always spoke out in support of this system now see themselves less as directors of an “academic institution under public law”, as it is described in legal terms but more in the role of PR and marketing strategists. And indeed, not many of the government institutions were actually run in an innovative or pioneering manner to date. That said, the pressure to make their mark induced many institutions after their first awakening to open the door wide to sponsors and private collectors. As such, it is not correct to speak of autonomy, rather the circle of those wielding influence has widened farther and we will see where this development ultimately leads us. I hope we will not end up with the situation prevailing in the United States where trustees have their say in museums, basically deposit their entire collections there and based on excellent information invest their assets in art.

When in the late 1980s I began to develop the Generali Foundation, few positive models of art institutions existed in Europe financed solely by private enterprise, and with one financial backer, who was also mentioned by name. Why should self-confident, thinking artists sell their best work to a firm, and undergo the risk that it will end up in the lobby as a poorly maintained piece of decoration? And indeed, in recent years the standing of private collections and the art activities of business corporations have seen a boom, with the latter understanding ever better how to deal with the essentials of the art business and to position themselves accordingly as regards content. With the “right” structures and controlling bodies the respective directors and curators can often make less bureaucratic decisions. The artists are able to decide for themselves with whom they wish to cooperate and with whom they can best cooperate. However, most of these institutions and collections are influenced by functional requirements, whether this be the fitting out of company buildings, creating a distinct image, geopolitical orientation to the sponsor’s product marketing strategies and many other matters besides; you could probably read many company collections as a chronicle of the sponsoring corporation. This also applies to the continuation and support of successfully launched projects, which are often started by generous, innovative figures from the management and typically disappear again rapidly if the successor does not wish to be identified with the ideas of the previous management or is even swallowed up in a fusion. We still lack positive examples proving that art institutions can sustain a high level of innovation and quality over the long term.


- Sabine Breitwieser, Artistic Director and Managing Director of the Generali Foundation


11.10.06

Can institutions funded by the public - in light of shrinking public budgets - create, finance and produce intercultural exhibition programs solely with the support of non-European partners?

It is indeed the case that the shrinking budgets publicly funded institutions in Europe have received in recent years have meant major problems for the latter. This is less so for the very large institutions, whose blockbuster exhibitions attract sponsors and a broad public, and consequently achieve a high funding level. It is more a problem for the mid-sized and smaller institutions and the independent initiatives active in the intercultural area. In such cases the less enthusiastic public response makes it harder to find sponsors. One alternative is funding via non-European cooperations – however, only when financially strong sponsoring agencies are also active. A good example of this is the Asia Europe Foundation which offers such support. However, it is not worthwhile financially to cooperate with non-European nations that do not have such strong backing. In such instances the only option is to pool the scant funds that everyone has for a cooperation that makes the most of synergy effects.  Such cooperations function equally well between partners inside and outside the European Union.

- Ursula Zeller, Head of the Art Department of the Institute for Foreign Relations


10.10.06

Why does co-operating with small and permanently low-budgeted art institutions make sense for major art book publishers?

It is true from an economic perspective that collaboration between major publishers and "permanently low-budgeted art institutions" – as you call them – only makes limited sense. However, the direct access to art that they have, the warmth with which they encounter artists and the enthusiasm with which they approach their work is such an enrichment for publishers that it cannot be measured in a monetary value.

- Uta Grosenick, art editor, DuMont Literatur und Kunst Verlag, Cologne


09.10.06

What impact has a country's political situation on the policies of purchase for major art collections?

Like state-financed purchase models with curators, large art collections attempt in their policies to focus on a specific topic rather than pursuing a kind of "supermarket" art shopping. Naturally, all collections reveal the influences and preferences of individual curators or jury members; however, in the case of non-government sponsored collections the specific politics of the nation involved are normally excluded. Corporate sponsoring strategies and corporate social responsibility are always the major motives behind private companies’ collecting policies. However, in the case of state-sponsored collections there is normally a focus on the national component while the specific political situation is more a concern of the art production than the collecting strategies.

- Walter Seidl, curator of the Art Collection of the Erste Bank Group, Vienna


1.09.2006

Does a Kunsthalle today still correspond to the idea of the Kunsthalle developed in the 1960s?

The “Kunsthalle” that is not a museum (like the Hamburg or Bremen Kunsthalle) was, as I see it, a child of the 1960s. This is when, thanks to the exhibition practices of Germany and Switzerland (Düsseldorf, Cologne, Baden-Baden, Berne, Basle), which were noted all over the world, the term became common parlance in American art circles. Incidentally, exhibitions in the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam under the direction of Willem Sandberg and in the Moderna Museet under Pontus Hulten were exemplary. Since then, the development of the Kunsthalle has taken different paths. On the one hand, exhibition institutions used for a variety of purposes made themselves heard, for example, the Royal Academy in London, the Martin Gropius Bau in Berlin, the Kunst-und Ausstellungshalle in Bonn and the various Guggenheim museums. On the other hand, the principle of the Kunsthalle promoted any number of tendencies, in terms of actions, multimedia, performances, installations and everyday culture, like those that can be found today at biennials all over the world. It must not be forgotten that tendencies such as these also contributed to the foundation of the “Museum der Gegenwart”. The “Museum of Contemporary Art” came to be only when the “Museum of Modern Art” was no longer “current”, i.e., had become historical.

- Jürgen Harten, Director of Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf 1972-1998

 
14.08.06

Should or can art take on educational tasks?

Art has perceived such tasks for a long time. This definitely contradicts the other, official educational institutions that are deliberately ruined by the state. However, art in its institutionalized form rests a little too much on this. It places too much confidence in its special social position, in its role as a blank space in the discussion. In this way, it tends to mean that education becomes an institutionalized form of superficial education, i.e., people rest on their laurels.

The conclusion in this regard would therefore be that it is actually art that is the source of increased stimuli for the foundation of real educational institutions (academies, universities etc.), instead of just aesthetically promoting them. Then it would not only involve indicating as desirable the transdisciplinary forms of discussion and learning, which are accepted all over, but rather actually honoring them in cultural practices.

- Michael Hirsch, philosopher

29.06.2006

To what degree does a university curatorial course such as the one at Goldsmiths College in London provide a good grounding for the day-to-day work in contemporary art institutions?

One could argue that a curatorial MA is a complete waste of time - for the curator, for the artist, and definitely for any institution that ultimately employs the student. We’ve seen plenty people manage without. So the question is: what do people actually learn on these courses? If a curatorial education focuses too heavily on the administrative tasks related to cultural production it becomes an arts management course. When it looks solely at critical theory it is not very different to a cultural studies degree. Curatorial studies involves elements from both such types of education. A fundamental difference can be that students do not so much look to "learn" in the traditional sense, but rather prepare themselves to work on their own terms. A curatorial MA should be driven by each student’s wider motivation and by what they want to work on in the future. A curatorial course like the one at Goldsmiths can become a tool to research, develop, and professionally progress what one day might be your ‘practice’. You find yourself at a place where you can ask the right questions without being pressured into producing results. You slowly move towards an understanding of your own interests and way of working. This may not be very ‘useful’ in terms of the day-to-day work in an art institution - certain institutional decisions seem to be made too quickly and with a lack of critical engagement. But as much as such a realisation comes as a shock when first entering an art institution, it can also give you a stronger perspective on your own ideas. Such a focus can indeed be very useful for working in an institution because it allows advancement, but is only possible, and truly advantageous for everyone, if the stage the curator is at is appropriately integrated into the structure of the institution. Otherwise we end up at the point again where none of it is useful to anyone, and that would be a shame.

- Sophie van Olfers, Assistant Curator, Witte de With, Rotterdam

 
28.06.06

How relevant is contemporary European art today from a transatlantic point of view?

A difficult question, with no simple answer. It is clear that transatlantic supra-management is a reality today, and yet above all is market-bound. Very young talent makes it into galleries in Chelsea in a very short space of time and American collectors appear very early on at European diploma exhibitions. In contrast, Thomas Bayrle had to wait till the spring of this year for his first solo exhibition in the USA as an “old master”. From a discursive point of view, everything is a little slower. Communicating “deceleration” to a city like New York as a current trend requires patience.

- Gianni Jetzer, Director of the Swiss Institute - Contemporary Art, New York

 

26.06.06

Can a Kunsthalle establish a critical counter-discussion questioning the art business?

It is definitely within the power of a Kunsthalle to provide room for critical discussion. Critical discourse needs a venue. It is not for nothing that the Greek term criterion not only refers to the standard gauge of a judgement, but also to where the actual trial takes place (where the court is). Thus the place Kunsthalle can be a criterion. Yet the question remains whether the institution is able to establish a discourse, or whether an institution should not, when it offers itself as the venue of the discussion, curb its power in order to play the ideal host. Really, criticism can only come from guests, i.e., from the outside. But you cannot “establish” guests, only invite them. Whether they then come or not is up to them. Thus the Kunsthalle is dependent on a discourse where they can never guarantee that it will take place, even if they are able to provide a venue for it. That such a discussion can achieve anything against the narrow-mindedness of the art business and not get lost in the general frenzy of activity itself is just as hard to predict. Perhaps it is exactly in this way that discourse can avoid becoming business, by continually opposing the establishment of institutional routines by inviting unusual guests.

- Jan Verwoert, critic, Berlin

07.06.06

What importance does the personalization of artists and curators have in contemporary art criticism?

Art critique has of course, with Vasari and Julius Meier-Graefe, to name two extreme examples, always been personal. And with the ever more important professions of gallery owner and of curator, the present art business offers two further chances for plenty of personalized reviews. Yet, when these art texts tell the reader not only about the person, but also about their artwork, the possibilities of art as a means of referring to the present and the subtle interwoven fabric of the art world, then they can be particularly interesting journalistic texts. It is important, however, that we do not forget about classic art criticism, i.e., criticism of art without considering the artist, for, along with all the interesting interviews and studio visits, we would actually also like to know whether this or that celebrated young star has produced some convincing, quality art – or not.

- Florian Illies, author and editor-in-chief of Monopol. Magazin für Kunst und Leben, Berlin

02.06.06

How much Pop culture can a contemporary institution tolerate?

The question itself is nostalgic. Pop culture has taken over all cultural institutions. Those who want to systematically make “a lot of Pop culture” “tolerable” in an institution reach an anti-Pop cultural condition of the Pop cultural. This would be counter productive. Pop culture is the basis and horizon of aesthetic considerations: It only becomes the normative culture where it combines intolerability with naively nostalgic projects. Pop culture is “now”. In this sense the institutions cannot get enough of it. Especially in Germany.

- Ulf Poschardt, author and journalist, Berlin

 
04.05.06

Are there parallel developments in contemporary German literature and visual art?

Yes, both are marketed today with the Leipzig seal of quality. Admittedly, Leipzig did not become the new economic center that people had hoped after the Wende (my uncle went bankrupt there with a parking garage and a supermarket), but it did become an economically successful center of culture. The real middle-class plight is here, in the renovated Gründerzeit villas and factories, far enough away to play with the longings of the middle class. And the real citizens, who have to torment themselves like everyone else with PowerPoint presentations and shopping passages, like it. What they hate is Cologne. Cologne is working-class, Cologne is a TV town. Cologne was Nazi jokes and Martin Kippenberger, today it is The Swarm by Frank Schätzing and Big Brother. Das Loch (The Hole) would be a place for mercilessly populist art. The art of lottery players, which they indeed also subsidize. Art that Germans, Turks and Dutch like. EUROt-r-a-s-h.

- Ingo Niermann, writer and journalist

 
20.04.06

Are publicly financed institutions, designed to familiarize the general public with contemporary art, now only governors of the private art market?

No, absolutely not and this must never be allowed to happen. Of course, there is great danger that the institutions will become financially dependent on commercial galleries and private collectors, due to the permanent reduction of public funding. Art productions and exhibitions are becoming more and more expensive, prices of even very new art are rising disproportionately and at the same time, museums and public institutions are increasingly at the mercy of state and municipal consolidation measures. Thus there is an urgent need to develop new paths of productive cooperation between public institutions and the private art market. Many galleries, for example, are aware that they profit from museum exhibitions and are therefore also interested in getting financially involved in the production of artwork and publications. And an increasing number of private collectors want to display their works in public institutions, which can lead to thoroughly fruitful partnerships – whereby this only really makes sense if the collector is prepared to offer his works in the form of a binding, long-term loan. Yet it is precisely with overlaps such as these that a museum’s most important task is to remain autonomous and incorruptible in terms of their program and system, and to follow its collection-specific concepts without being influenced by economic factors. And another urgent requirement is that the state and the communes finally acknowledge the need for an independent public space for the production and display of art and guarantee its survival by providing the necessary funding.

- Susanne Gaensheimer, Curator for Contemporary Art, Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich

 

12.04.06

In what way is a future Kunsthalle relevant to a possible information society?

In the debate on our future social development, the term “knowledge society” assumes a particular importance and is currently enjoying, similarly to the debate on “globalization” and the “information society”, a greater upturn. People like to overlook the fact that this debate stretches back at least to the 1960s, that it reached a first peak with the idea of the knowledge worker and studies by Daniel Bell on the postindustrial society and that it can be found already in Marx and Weber, in terms of a society’s “knowledge base”. The discussion on the “defeat of PISA” as well as debates on the future of schools and education are surely responsible for the fact that the “knowledge society” is currently making itself again more strongly felt at the center of social interest.

It seems almost logical that within this reorientation the eye would again be more strongly directed towards the strategic locations of knowledge production. Indeed, it is not only recently that museums, Kunsthalles and all kinds of cultural institutions have been established as a safe haven for key cultural resources, and the fact that cultural education and cultural competence are decisive factors for participation in social life is one of the general clichés that, however, cannot be repeated often enough.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the prevailing structure of access to these resources is the decisive factor. It is not only the quality of educational standards and innovative imparting of knowledge that plays a role here, but also the – as it is called in the Magna Carta of the knowledge society – “mistake-friendly dialog with non knowledge”, e.g., in communicating art and culture to immigrants, children and young people, and also communicating current and experimental ideas of contemporary art to senior citizens. Thus in this context, cultural institutions need to be open and flexible. Open also in the sense of supporting alternative and new ways to communicate art and culture, for example, by independent, autonomous clubs, salons and groups networked with all kinds of cultural institutes, be they temporary or permanent.

- Ulrike Groos, Director of Kunsthalle Düsseldorf

 

31.03.06

What influence does the urban location of a Kunsthalle have on its program?

I think that the urban location of a Kunsthalle has an enormous influence on its orientation in terms of its program. In smaller cities, where the cultural offering is not so well developed, there is a greater range of exhibition options stretching from classical Modernity to the newest trends. There are many exhibition institutions that have been able to succeed in non-art cities. Personally I look to the Kunsthalles in Bern and in Basle, the Stedelijk Museum in Eindhoven and the museums in Krefeld and Mönchengladbach, where artists who became important at a young age could be seen with their first institutional exhibitions. In the last few years I have succeeded in integrating the Kunstverein Braunschweig into the international exhibition scene by means of an international exhibition program. Now my aim is to latch onto the great exhibition tradition of the Staatliche Kunsthalle Baden-Baden and make it a hub of the international art scene once again.

- Karola Grässlin, MD of Kunstverein Braunschweig

 

20.02.2006

How far are visitor numbers important for the success of a Kunsthalle?

The number of visitors does not symbolize the success of a Kunsthalle, but it is very important for its success. This is because a high volume of visitors creates long-term room for maneuver with respect to clients acting to political ends and their public, it signalizes acceptance and thus prevents the questioning of more complex ideas in terms of the program. With high numbers of visitors you can follow the program that you want on a long-term basis. With lower visitor numbers it has the exact opposite effect in the long run. In this context therefore, the achievement exists in attaining high visitor numbers with a complex program – this is one, if not the moment of success for a Kunsthalle.

- Max Hollein, Director of Schirn Kunsthalle, Liebighaus and Städelmuseum, Frankfurt/Main

 

13.02.2006

How far do institutions which still need to be founded need to deal with new social realities?

Institutions should occupy themselves with the issues of society and reality as closely as possible. New institutions are the direct, almost reflexive emanation of social change. Otherwise we would not see the necessity of a new answer to a new situation; the instruments and institutions of tradition would be sufficient. It is essential to ask oneself whether conditions are determining or whether they can be changed or subsidized and whether an institution is the right answer.

- Dirk Snauwaert, Director of WIELS, Brussels

 

08.02.2006

How big is the danger for institutions of contemporary art that they will become dependent on their sponsors?

There is of course a great danger when contemporary art makes an ever greater impact as a hip catwalk and public funds are increasingly scarce. In my view however, the danger is much greater of becoming dependent on only the “newest” ideas, the ever faster programs and trendier names than on sponsors (who are mostly nonexistent and then only docile). Attractiveness can hardly be attained anymore in the economically established sector, which is hence more time and money intensive, due to a lack of means. Rather it is frequently called for on its own (also financially) by implementing the newest trends. Independence can, this much is certain, only be achieved with continuous and sufficient financial basic funds.

- Gregor Jansen, Museum für Neue Kunst, Karlsruhe

07.02.2006

Have the demands on the mediation of contemporary art changed over the past years?
 
The demands on the mediation of contemporary art and its context have changed in proportion to how these themselves have changed in the course of the last ten years of speculative capitalism. The glamorization and economization of all areas of the subsystem contemporary visual arts have brought with them a paradigmatic transformation of connotations and expectations. The belief in the market also means a re-romanticization, and he who first says critical potential and cognitive gain, loses. At the same time, the social relevance of artistic and institutional work, especially in terms of mediation, has to be re-invented once again.

- Markus Müller, Head of Communications, KW Institute for Contemporary Art, Berlin

 

01.02.2006

Exhibition space today is often part of the artistic fabric. Should a new institution of contemporary art pay attention to this fact or is the architecture relatively irrelevant?

Every exhibition space unavoidably becomes part of the artistic work realized in it. Therefore the architecture of the surrounding space is never irrelevant.

- Michaela Melián, artist
 

27.01.2006

Is the debate about center and periphery still important today?

In fact it is. Because otherwise we would not hear this pair of terms as often as we do.
Yet, happily, no longer with the sympathetic, arrogant tone that earlier mostly meant metropolis and diaspora. On the one hand, this is linked to the fact that a knowledge of transience has presented itself. Centers became peripheries, some nondescript place suddenly acquired meaning, nothing remains for eternity. On the other hand, the so-called periphery has become quite an attractive place of residence and of production, whose quality can be said to be in cheap rents, greater freedom and personal space and whose output sooner or later penetrates the so-called centers and perhaps questions their validity.

Modern ideas of the center – from Paris to New York and Cologne to Berlin – were heavily opposed by peripheral areas, for example, in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, as early as the 1960s and 1970s. The fact that people stuck with the concept of the city can also be explained by their mythical quality. Los Angeles was only discovered, finally, in the 1990s, then Glasgow and Warsaw, for example, were added to the map, as were artists’ living and working areas in Brussels and Rotterdam, curatorial projects and new exhibition addresses in Ljubljana, Gdańsk, Lüneburg and Luxembourg, which all led to increased travel and permanent attention to new, mostly unknown and foreign places.

It would certainly be wrong to declare one periphery after the other a new center. The Belgian Ardennes will perhaps remain a region of Ardennes ham, the polders in the northern Netherlands a source of inspiration for Jenever schnapps. The deciding factor lies in the extended perception of culture, which should prove to be a consistently recalcitrant and surprising element given the fact that centristic marketing and market ideologies run in the opposite direction. Therefore we need to watch out in the European Kunsthalle and avoid being centralistic in our consideration of cultural developments in Europe and elsewhere.

- Susanne Titz, Director of Museum Abteiberg, Mönchengladbach

 

22.01.2006

How important is the spatial aspect for a Kunsthalle?

My question: the “spatial aspect” of what? The Kunsthalle itself or the art presented in it? If it is the former, i.e., the importance of the concrete exhibition space for a Kunsthalle’s business, then the answer should probably relate to aspects of its architectural design; and then both in terms of its representativeness on the outside and its functionality on the inside. That these are important questions for a Kunsthalle is obvious. In order to get that done however, it would be better to ask others. On the other hand, if the latter is what is meant, i.e., the spatial dimension of the art itself, this question only becomes an important one for a Kunsthalle if you take into consideration that advanced art today always has something of an installation in it. For this now also applies to traditional forms such as painting and sculpture; here too the exposition in the space influences the meaning of the exhibits themselves. This means, however, among other things, that the dialog with the concrete exhibition space falls increasingly explicitly to the ability of the artists themselves. It is no longer a neutral background, but rather has long since become part of the artistic material. A Kunsthalle has to take account of this development in its daily practices today. This applies to the necessary openness in terms of formal and programmatic interventions in the space of the respective institution as well as the dialog with the new zones of friction between artistic and curatorial practices and the role of mediation, which in this context falls to the exhibition architecture. Perhaps interesting aspects such as these on the practice and theory of art that relate to the spatially reflexive daily life of a Kunsthalle could be discussed in other, somewhat more concrete “Questions of the Day”.

- Juliane Rebentisch, art critic and philosopher

 

21.01.2006

What opportunities does being linked to a university offer an institution of contemporary art?

Particularly in the area of contemporary art, the importance of context is emphasized time and again. An increasing number of contemporary art exhibitions are being devoted to social, political, generally speaking scientific themes. The problem is frequently that curators cannot often examine and mediate the topics in depth and in an up-to-date manner. So what better place for contemporary art than a university? Here there are multiple possibilities for a symbiosis of science and art. Within a university you can freely ask any number of institutions about particular themes without entering into partnership negotiations or harboring false expectations. Projects can be discussed, developed and also dropped in good time. Art can become an integral part of university life.

Alongside this scientific aspect, a university is also a microcosm, a representation of society in all its variety. This is interesting both for potential artistic projects and in terms of the social structure of students. In my view, there is no danger of isolation from those members of the public that have not been to university or even the formation of an elitist clique. On the contrary, if the institution is accessible to a larger public by way of its position in the city and the university, its can represent an opening up of the university to the outside.

This is also why the Lewis Glucksman Gallery at University College Cork has been reopened, at a time when universities are rather trying to get rid of their exhibition houses again. The University Gallery model is known all over the world, yet hardly known at all in Germany. The idea actually originates in the recognition of art as an educational asset that benefits every part of the university. Huge museums with large collections have frequently developed from it, which are now proving to be a financial burden on universities and are pushing the opportunities into the background.

- René Zechlin, Curator at the Lewis Glucksman Gallery, Cork 

 

19.01.2006

Why are exhibition spaces that focus on discourse apparently less popular? (Or are they?)

Counter questions:
Are they really less popular?
What does popularity actually mean?
Why should spaces that focus on discourse be popular at all?
Popularity is identified with majorities, publicity and audience ratings. This comes from the fact that today, the audience is measured according to market criteria. The modes of access and articulation are being replaced by the modes of the exchange of goods and consumption. Simon Sheikh recently suggested that the Enlightenment developed the ideas of the rational-critical subject and disciplinary social order, while these ideas have since been replaced by the notion of entertainment. Spaces focusing on discourse cannot and are not meant to achieve this. Their task is far more to avoid the principles of the art market and the event culture. Good ideas mostly need longer to develop and above all to establish themselves in general thought. In contrast, popularity is generated by quickness, which cannot be the aim of a critical practice that breaks with common sense and doxa. Therefore, popularity is also frequently linked to brevity.

It is very difficult to measure popularity, because it mostly assumes a non-specific public. The territory of the “public” and thus also “popular” sphere however is imaginary. The idea of the universal civic public is an historical construct, and the question arises, whether this has actually ever existed as something other than a projection. In the end, it can only involve manufacturing particular audiences among the public. I think that the unpopular, and therefore that which breaks with the commonplace and with doxa, is an important starting point for a discussion with long-term effects.

Incidentally, it is NOT obvious that discourse-oriented spaces are less popular, for according to statistics, spaces like, e.g., the Generali Foundation, Vienna or Kunst-Werke, Berlin, or events like the last documenta shows generate huge interest when compared to average visitor numbers and media presence. And here again we can ask ourselves: From which point can something’s popularity be measured? Criteria please!

- Bettina Steinbrügge, Artistic Management, Halle für Kunst, Lüneburg

 

18.01.2006

What does a decentralized institution expect from the general public in terms of their ability to receive artworks?

In principle, only that which is necessary for them to learn about the production of visual art. Cultural institutes are perceived as part of a network of institutions, called for and consumed. That fraction of the public which, in a way following the traditional principle of subscription, only concentrates on one opera house, one art association, one book club and in this way limits their cultural activities, is falling. Exhibitions or orchestrated events are linked with other exhibitions and orchestrated events. The art system forms the context for how we receive art, and this system is – like the market that supports it – organized in a transnational and decentralized way (if we overlook certain cities and leading institutions designed as “centers”). Moreover, visits to cultural institutions are part and parcel of being a tourist, be it in your own city or elsewhere. One of the ambitions of prospective or experienced culturati is to know one’s subject, which always also means to travel. Thus the decentralized aspect of an institution like the European Kunsthalle, in terms of both space and administration, corresponds to a certain decentralized nature of the subjects of the culture market. Perhaps these decentralized subjects of an institution, which designs itself to be decentralized, are even constituted, in a particular way, in their subjectivity.

- Tom Holert, art critic and cultural expert, Berlin 

 

15.12.2005

In what way is institutional critique as articulated in the field of art relevant to the founding of new institutions?

Classic artist participation in institutional processes is goal-oriented. As expected, the result of an artist’s work is put on display. Thus artistic production is understood as something for the general public. However, this only reflects one aspect of artists’ actual role as active co-producers in the various areas of the field of art. Institutional critique was or is also partly an expression of discontent with using prefabricated structures without commenting on them, even if they are seen as problematic. In addition, institutional critique is not only practiced by artists, but is also a fixed feature on teaching plans for curatorial courses and at universities. In the meantime, curators who in the 1990s studied, for example, at the Whitney Program, are now active in museums and Kunsthalles. I am interested in working closely with artists as regards the structural work of institutions, too, i.e., involving artists in the planning stages and decision-making processes. This also aims to prevent the institution from occupying itself only with the expectations of sponsors, politicians and other groups, but first fulfils the requirements for artistic work as best it can. This collaboration can occur both at the level of exhibition planning and in institution-forming processes. There is an opportunity here for new institutions whose profile is not yet determined.

 - Nina Möntmann, Curator at NIFCA, Nordic Institute for Contemporary Art, Helsinki, critic and author

 

06.12.2005

Is a decentralized Kunsthalle a sensible answer to European demands on new art institutions?

On the one hand, the concept of ‘European’ denotes a concrete reference to a political community. In this regard, the European demand, similar to national prefixes used to identify national institutions, for the Deutsches Historisches Museum, for example, could be understood as a prestigious contract for an institution. In this sense, the European Union would be the corresponding reference point, which could be given cultural meaning by way of a Kunsthalle even in Cologne, for whatever reason, maybe its geographical location, or in another place. So the answer to the question whether it would not be better if this institution were to be decentrally organized would then depend on the prevailing view of Europe at the time, which, in fact, also involves the question of the representation of Europe, or in other words, the concept of a European institution also always says something about how we see Europe as a political entity.

On the other hand, the reference to Europe can also be interpreted in the sense of a scale. The opposite would presumably be a regional Kunsthalle. As an institution of full-scale European significance, a European Kunsthalle would address a larger audience and not least prove a relevant advantage in terms of location. Decentrally organizing it would not necessarily cut across this mechanism, but would possibly even strengthen it, as the flexibility of the Manifesta thus far has similarly not hindered its festival character, but rather made it much more effective. In contrast, a stable location could offer the chance to establish a more long-term dialog between local and European discourses. I think that a Europe-oriented institution has to place itself between these two force fields, less in the sense of a definite location, but much more in order to provide an exemplary and concrete place to do business, also in terms of its organizational form. In the ideal case, both options and all possibilities in-between would be available, as is actually already the case with contemporary forms of institutions, for example, by means of partnerships.

- Axel John Wieder, art historian, Pro qm, Berlin

 

05.12.2005

How much do other (art) institutions influence one’s own program?

A museum works within the historical context of a collection which has been built up over decades. Experimental work is not the first and foremost task here. In contrast to this rather more long-term attitude, Kunsthalles and art associations represent a platform for that which is still largely undefined. Having the courage to take risks and accepting that they will sometimes make wrong decisions is immanent in their work. Both ways of approaching contemporary art build on each other, because temporary exhibitions form a decisive basis for a museum to recognize early on what is artistically significant and worth preserving. Thus art exhibiting institutions not only influence a museum, rather it is much more the case that their portrayal of events in contemporary art directly precedes the museum’s decision. Yet the question remains about the independence of these decisions. Even museum curators are individuals who deal on a personal level. Which program they follow down to the last detail depends on their experience and their sense of responsibility. In light of this, the actual influence of purely exhibition institutions on museums is dependent on the artistic power of persuasion of the exhibits. The rule of thumb is that if a Kunsthalle’s or art association’s work is of a high quality, it has a correspondingly large influence on museums. Incidentally, this also applies to relationships between different museums. Quality work also meets with response from museum employees.

- Dr. Bernhart Schwenk, Curator of Ccontemporary Art, Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich

03.12.2005

Do static institutions actually have a future?

Well, that is almost a rhetorical question. With static we think of stationary. So of course the answer is no. But why is it so often precisely explicit non-institutions, which have the opportunity to be fully flexible, that are the most static? Often, the freedom of the unofficial art scene and off-culture is anything but promoting forward movement. Whether institution or non-institution: Static thinking is artistically and curatorially boring. Not even the most streamlined and flexible structure can protect against this. The problem is that many institutions are enclosed in fixed thought patterns, aesthetics and social images by their architecture. (And here theaters are worse off than museums.) Then there are tough payroll structures and the set expectations of politicians, journalists and audiences. And laziness. Something stationary can of course also cause friction. Give things firm foundations. Make borders and control mechanisms visible. An institution that is always stretched beyond recognition by flexibility also quickly becomes unproductive and predictable. Static institutions have no future. But neither do static models for non-static institutions.

- Florian Malzacher, Head Darma Director/Curator of Steirischer Herbst, Graz

 

02.12.2005

How could a future institution of contemporary art be of political relevance?

Cultural institutions are bearers of meaning which help us respond to social changes. Ideally, the development of such institutions should keep pace with the development of society. Arranging artistic positions within the entire social context underlines the attempt to bring together different disciplinary, theoretical and methodical perspectives, in order to be able to address complex questions. If there is no meaning, there can be no reception. If the meaning does not speak out in practice, it has no effect. The breakneck changes in the world we live in due to job cuts, reductions in social services and racism force the need for a critical check up. The more our world loses political vividness and a condensed social form, the more important places of cultural production such as these become, where information is meant to be communicated, social integration nurtured, self organization encouraged and forms of political articulation promoted.

- Florian Waldvogel, Curator of Manifesta 6

 

01.12.2005

What could be future issues regarding the networking process of European institutions of contemporary art?

It is pretty difficult to answer a question about issues that could be relevant in the future; a proper answer assumes that one has got a firm grasp of present reality. In any case, to put it simply, networking mechanisms today seem to me to go in two directions. On the one hand it involves optimizing the marketing of an exhibition, institution or art trend, i.e., bringing in money and power and using it to insert oneself in the general capitalist system. On the other it involves strengthening possible values of solidarity and sympathy, which, however, almost seems like unworldliness and is swiftly reproached as romantic.

We do not know what the future holds; it only depends on the decisions we make today. Each person needs to make their own decisions and, in light of this, be aware of which world view they favor.

- Enrico Lunghi, Casino Luxembourg - Forum d'art contemporain
 

30.11.2005

Is a Kunsthalle able to develop a European dimension?

Yes of course, is the first thing that comes to mind. And then is becomes difficult.
A Kunsthalle, in the sense that this type of European art institution has been understood thus far, has mostly put international art up for discussion at a specific place and in the specific context of a city, an art scene. If you extend the location and therefore also the reference to a place, to an urban situation, to the local context of Cologne, Bonn or Berlin etc. to include the whole of Europe as a location, then you will no doubt have a different understanding of the concept of location or the significance of the local context – and place the interplay between the institution and its context in a wider cultural and political framework. Thus a question, one that changes, would perhaps be: What does internationality (of art) mean with reference to Cologne? And: What does internationality (of art) mean with reference to Europe? But perhaps the most difficult question of all is still: How European is Cologne?

- Beatrix Ruf, Kunsthalle Zürich

 

18.11.2005

Which overall conditions are essential for the presentation and communication of contemporary art?

Even if people like to say presentation and communication in one breath, they mean different things. Let’s take the term ‘presentation’. In my opinion, it is fundamental to understand it not only in terms of that which already exists, or the institution as secondary to what is being presented, but the crux of the matter is how far it wants to forge new paths of production and (discourse) culture, in close collaboration with artists and cultural producers, and in this sense, create space for thought, action and design. With regard to communication, even if grasping this is almost a commonplace, it is decisive: where we would like to locate ourselves within the artistic field, which audience we would like to address with which offer. However, it is especially important here to allow the questioning of openness and attention, the idea of the “audience” which is always implicitly evident by way of the actual audience and to take up this in one’s own forms of communication. We hardly need to mention that independence in terms of content, reliable financial support and continuity are essential for the development and realization of considerations and activities such as these.

- Astrid Wege, curator and publicist, Innsbruck / Cologne

 

17.11.2005

How relevant are changes in terms of media in the visual arts for the structure of a Kunsthalle?

This very fundamental question, which is thus difficult to answer (especially in brief) suddenly reminded me of Martin Kippenberger’s work “Heute denken – morgen fertig” (Think today – finish tomorrow). A project like “Question of the day” seems even to me to be a symptom or a reflex of the “changes in the media” mentioned in it, which today do not just refer to the production/distribution/reception of art. The ubiquitous pressure to constantly create something newsworthy, to hold attention at a constant level, is certainly one of the numerous aspects and challenges of this situation. Naturally, structural changes in the visual arts and art institutions fundamentally determine each other. The European Kunsthalle is an interesting special case in the long history of these mutable relationships, because its structures appear to be less fixed than those of other institutions, and it is precisely this that gives it the chance to continue writing this history in an innovative and trail-blazing way.

- Barbara Hess, critic

 

16.11.2005

Is the art market one step ahead of the institutionalized art business in terms of international networking?

No, not if you count all the biennials, triennials and quadrennials as well as the documenta, the Pittsburgh International etc. as part of the institutionalized art business.

- Gisela Capitain, Galerie Gisela Capitain  


The question is broad and should be precised. What exactely means here international networking and for who (public, artists, curators, collectors?) Shall we understand the word network as an up to date knowledge, information on the state of the art? If so, can the artmaket or the institutionalised art system be summarized in two global separated entities? Certainly not. Traditionnaly the art market located within the galeries systems networks has always played hand to hand with the institution a role of discovery and exposition when the aim of the institution was more to validate within an scientific expertise. Its a back and forth movement where the art validated within the institution goes back to the market with an added value and so one. Here again institutions, if it means public funded spaces are quite different if we talk about small experimental spaces or big museums national machines. Their knowledge, their speeds are different so are their actions. For the firsts, being radical or avant-garde is a way to exist and for the second who became recently more and more victims of their succes in terms of popularity (but also of the bureaucracy), it is now difficult to fight against the populism of politicians who pay less and less and think they know what is good for the public.

The rich and fast new millenium art market seems not so dependant of those parameters and more liberate of constraints. It has been said in recent years that art fairs are becoming more interesting than biennals for exemple, that they are places where you see "trendy" works that you don't see in institutions. But can we compare an event doted of millions (exemple art basel) which attracts in a week thousands of people from all over the world and and old institution such as the Sao Paulo biennial in a specific context? I dont think so. The goals of the art market are different than the ones of institutions and if it is right that sometimes institutions are late in networking, its also because they play the role of intellectual observers that need more time to digest and analyse the information. It is not the case with the market focusing on the now without quality specifications.

I think in fact that the art market is becoming more and more independant from the institutionalised art system because what it validates as a merchandasing operator has to please new customers such as luxury brands or hedge funds. If for a long time those customers were lets say art lovers, it is clear that today it has changed because of the booming of the state of the contemporary art as a high profit investment value. Now those new clients are in search of speculativ luxury objects in a very short time and being just a so called contemporary art object seems sufficient. So yes, the art market might be more efficient in networking as an octopus but it concerns more and more only a small amount of information which tends to be the same at the end.

In the recent years the spectacularisation of the market ended up in auctions which became the top rated market places. But what do they propose? Not much. When you see the lists of works spread during highlights evenings, for sure most of them will fall into the oblivions of the networks. Institutions won't be able to follow the predications of the maket because they have not the money for that, so for sure they will have to find a new way of networking which will be different than the one of the market. Artists themselves are becoming tired of working for fairs cause its not what they have been prepared for (thus it might change). So maybe, what is arriving and its a premiere, its the differenciation of two networks. The one of the market and the one of the institutions. The case of the Bilbao effect which was an important lesson (on how a marketing strategy linked to an institution became an empty shell) pushes the world to refuse that institutions end in shopping malls cause what is spread there is an information, a network that doesnt concern art so much any more. Cause money doesnt mean content.

- Nicolas Trembley, curator and gallery owner, bureau des vidéos, Paris

 

15.11.2005

How important are international networks for institutions of contemporary art?

There is hardly a cultural landscape in Europe that is so intensively internationally networked as Germany, with its extremely diverse institutions of contemporary art. In the major art associations, and partly in the Kunsthalles and museums and at biennials, too, there is an endless coming and going of internationally renowned artistic directors. Guest curators from every corner of the globe complete the picture that finds expression in the rich multinational choice of artists. Blind spots within curatorial concepts can only be avoided through networking. And above all, it is international contact that leads to the extension of local structures of production and reception and thus the increase in the quality of artistic and social discourse. For in the end, a lasting interest in art is defined by the relevance of its social questions.
In this regard, it is indeed a “matter of survival” to answer the question regarding “very important”. The answer seems so obvious that it is worth taking a look at the other side of international networking: If internationality becomes a fetish of curators, then we see the emergence of products that I like to call “drop exhibitions”, similarly to in the discussion on sculpture in public spaces: Programs that can be put on in any old place. A logical exhibition program should not, however, consist of the furnishing of empty exhibition spaces, but rather make reference to a place. For example, it can constitute a critical dialog with the history of the institution and its exhibition tradition or a consideration of local structures. In this way, a new curator can orient an institution in completely the opposite direction to his predecessor, because the contrast forms a starting point. In other words, a program must be able to be communicated.

Those who do not feel a sense of duty towards the local audience will find themselves on thin ice, because then absolute audience success becomes the yardstick. The result can currently be heard in politicians’ back rooms and in all the discussions of the boards and ‘friends of’ associations of institutions of contemporary art: It is supposed to be something like “The MOMA in Berlin”! You have to be well-networked even for an exhibition such as this. Yet this is where internationality turns into pure globalization. Instead of new network nodes, network clones are produced. International networking is important, as long as it does not mutate into a removed system of careerist value added.

30.10.2005

Is a Kunsthalle still a contemporary model?

No, a Kunsthalle is not a contemporary model. There is, however, the possibility of continuing to use the word in relation to a revised structure, if only to avoid losing the potential of a notional public art space - a free-floating signifier that retains specific meaning within a historical context. What is to be avoided, however, is the mere maintenance of a word in relation to a structure where it can only be understood as parodic or paradoxical in terms of the name/structure relationship. A Kunsthalle that avoids a powerful role in terms of the culture should actually carry another name. If you want to occupy a specific historically determined meaning/space in the culture then continue to call it a Kunsthalle. If you want to start again, assume the social/historical/political space of the Kunsthalle without actually calling it a Kunsthalle. But at the same time, ensure that there can be no other institution within the city that can be called a Kunsthalle, by legal or other means. If you want to replace something, you cannot allow others to assume the intellectual space that you are transcending.

- Liam Gillick, artist

Are forms of institutionalisation limiting to independent projects?

Haben Formen der Institutionalisierung einen limitierenden Effekt auf unabhängige Projekte?

Actually the question is difficult and long to answer.

I understand an “independent project” as an activity where financial or working forces are defined internally by the group of people without a strong help of the state, municipal or corporate body “outside”. Such an activity is a result of citizens’ enthusiasm and activism. I would agree with Hakim Bey, T.A.Z., that once such an initiative is officially recognized and adopted it looses its own autonomy and acts in relation within the official or so-called general interest. That’s Bey propose to each autonomous zone to be temporary only. But I think certain “independent initiatives” are already born with a hope to be officialised or institutionalised.

I think what is the most interesting in this model is to thematise the relation inbetween so called “independent initiative” and the official/institutional structures, since this is the basis of it – the basis of an independent project is its relation with institutionalisation, and to be aware of this relation with official, the awareness of institutions as a kind of negative self-definition is a main operation that motivates independency today

Very good examples could be found in art itself – in case of conceptual or land art for the moment – in certain cases the artists thought that their program and the meaning they bring could change the institutions. But only these are interesting who adopted their strategy and thematised institutions themselves as one of the matters they were dealing with.

- Vít Havránek, Projektleiter tranzit.cz

Do the so called "New Media" have a different audience than classical media?

Haben die so genannten "Neuen Medien" ein anderes Publikum als die klassischen Medien?

If by New Media is meant "computer proceedings", chatroom (The Thing) and so on, I am not sure that it is still possible to speak about any kind of audience. Nobody is "public" anymore in that kind of virtual space, but everybody is a participant. Nobody to look at or to listen to; the idea is to be included, to be part of. The ideal aim here is democracy. The process itself has changed a lot of our habits to communicate and to be a public.

If it is intended to mean video and digital media I am not sure wheather it had changed our practice as an audience a lot, except maybe if we consider that to look at a picture in time makes you more inside yourself (you don't share it with anybody during the time you are looking). On the one hand you are alone in whatever place it is but in touch with a lot; in the other your are in a middle of a little crowd but alone.

But what would perhaps be more interesting to ask is: What is new in relation to media and medium? Or what media is supposed to help us to reinvent our relation to medium? What kind of mediation is really new, not necesseraly because it is technically new but because what is rediscovered through it carry with it the kind of needs which is now, in our present time, necesserary to us ...

Is it possible today to ask the classical question of the historicity of a specific medium or is it only possible to acknowledge the all legitimate possibilities of all mediums?

- Jean Christophe Royoux, Kurator, Paris

As a successful artist you show in various types of art institutions - which criteria for exhibiting are relevant for you?

Als erfolgreiche Künstlerin stellst Du in verschiedenartigen Institutionen aus - welche Kriterien für das Ausstellen sind für Dich maßgeblich?

The most important issues for me are the context and programming that is constructed over a duration of time at any institution, and of course, not least the dynamic and relationship with the curator as you are conceptualizing how to form an exhibition.

- Sarah Morris, Künstlerin

Wofür steht der Begriff "European Kunsthalle" aus außereuropäischer Perspektive?

What does the term European Kunsthalle mean from a non-European point of view?

As a German working and living in Asia, my response could be somewhat biased. When I lived in Europe, Manifesta sounded like a great international, far-reaching and inclusive project. Later on, after having lived in New Zealand, and now in Hong Kong, the European Biennial slowly appears to be like an exclusive castle that is impossible to conquer.

When I typed "define: Kunsthalle", into Google, the omniscient search engine replied, "No definitions of kunsthalle were found in English."

This little test says it all. Most of the non-German world doesn't understand what a Kunsthalle is. The word seems to stand for a concept Germans are so familiar with that we believe we can introduce it into English like Kindergarten or Heimat, a missionary idea to introduce the idea of the Kunsthalle into the rest of the world. Sometimes being situated in the center gives one an exceptionally persuasive and privileged position to reach out to different communities, especially when it concerns inter-cultural relationships. For a European Kunsthalle who wants to make impact outside the western art world, it is important to actively take the initiatives and seriously build connections with artists and independent institutions out of the beaten track. Otherwise, it will simply administer a shift of focus from NATO-art to EU-art.
 
Located in the European continent with a pseudo .eu in the domain name, the European Kunsthalle appears to be a giant, bureaucratic institution of the European Community (www.europa.eu.int) very distant to the non-European art world. However, with a closer look, it seems, in fact, an active, critical project that might encourage the art scene with ideas and initiatives to re-think its static positions. If it succeeds to establish a new artistic atmosphere in a city like Cologne, it will be an influential model for similar contemporary art spaces, especially outside of Europe, who work since years in very similar circumstances.

- Tobias Berger, Direktor Para/Site Art Space, Hong Kong

Wie wichtig ist es für eine Stadt, über eine Vielzahl von Kunstinstitutionen zu verfügen?

How important is it to have variety of art institutions in a city?

The variety of art institutions reflects the various ways and forms of the functioning of contemporary art. Besides the classic division between public institutions, museums, and commercial galleries, there have emerged new models of institutions trying to engage the interdisciplinary and hybrid forms of art. Only such a variety of art institutions can ensure access to all existing forms of creative activity. The variety of art institutions is also a reflection of the profound changes occurring in contemporary art, and one of the ways of defining new forms of artistic production.

- Joanna Mytkowska, Foksal Gallery Foundation, Warschau

Kann zeitgenössische Kunst eine Form des Wissens bieten, das sich in besonderer Weise auf die heutige Gesellschaft bezieht?

Can contemporary art provide a form of knowledge particularly adapted to today's society?

I think that art always contributes with classic virtues such as immaterialism, critique and complexity.
Ultimately art is one of the last utopian possibilities, and I am convinced that thinking about utopia is a knowledge that this world needs.

- Henrik Plenge Jakobsen, Künstler

Should there be more residency programs for artists hosted by art institutions?

Sollte es mehr an Institutionen gebundene Stipendienprogramme für Künstler geben?

I don't feel there should or shouldn't be more residencies offered by institutions - however the possibility that institutions could function flexibly enough to get the most out of the artists they work with is what I would wish for - certainly a residency is one of the ways this can be done but there are also many other ways.

- Jason Dodge, Künstler

Wie wichtig ist funktionale Architektur für das Kuratieren?

How important is functional architecure for curating exhibitions?

Undoubtedly, functional architecture plays a significant role in curating exhibitions. It does it mostly in practical terms - organization of space, technical elaboration of exhibits, partly, as a guiding line for the exhibition narrative, etc. I am however interested in situations where the architectural function challenges exhibition staging and curatorial vision. I have been working for more than two years now in a (biomorphic) exhibition space which comes up with an architectural offer based rather upon a dysfunction or a certain grotesque of such a traditionally understood function. Here, I consider this "ailment" as both challenge (for everybody involved: an artist with an art work, a curator with a concept and an audience with perceptive qualities) and an inspiration (for site-specific work, and for the programming directive influenced by a space on disposal). Such dysfunctional architecture keeps you always alerted by constantly redefining an art work, by making you more sensitive towards spatial conditions, by entering into an exciting partnership with whoever/whatever encounter it, thus refreshing your perceptive habits and collaborating with you on staging one common distinctive identity. Such a dysfunction also works as a disagreement which finally becomes productive and enriching. It makes your life hard as it is always a case of a dominant partner, that's true, but at the end it brings a lot of joy and (creative) satisfaction.

- Adam Budak, Kurator Kunsthaus Graz

 

Wie wichtig ist ein tatsächlicher Ort in einer Stadt für eine Kunstinstitution?

How important is an actual place within the city for an art institution?

Site is a catalyst. The location is crucial for an institution's profile and message. Of course if one really wants to have a space. Having a space can easily become a burden, both in artistic and economic sense. But if we assume that the building is attached to the notion of institution then, yes, the location is important.

Spatial relations and the contextualization within an urban tissue seem to be the most defining factors for an art organization. Choosing the place (IF you have a choice) is then not only the search for an attractive location in the city, but also influences what you will be actually doing. There is no such thing like a neutral location.

But you can also see the institution as freed from being placed and tailored to be a floating project. Easily movable, quick to be re-arranged, harder to pin down. It is cheaper, more surprising, probably sexier. If you know how to do it, how to not operate in fixed and defined spatial relations. This changes the message of institution entirely. The lack of a spatial definition is a definition, too.

- Aneta Szylak, Director, Wyspa Institute of Art, Gdansk

Wie definiert sich eine Kunstinstitution in Bezug auf ihr Publikum?

How can an institution for contemporary art be defined in relation to its audience?

There is not just a "public". The idea of "public" does not exist anymore, it is by the way a 19th century invention ... just as the idea of "public" appears in paintings for the very first time and broadly speaking in the 19th century ... Today we are confronted with many different sorts of "public" ... with for instance many different expectations. I once said in a national dutch newspaper "do not trust the public", an expression which I had to pay dearly until years after. What I meant was that the public is basically not confident anymore in itself, let be: can it project its confidence on us or vice versa. That means we have to ask ourself constantly: which public feels itself represented by what we do when and the way we do things? Indeed, we have to rebuild each time our constituencies. The public is therefore not a given ... it has to be taken. And to make things even worse, there seems to be a general confusion of what is "public" and what is "private", or what the difference is between "public" and "private" cultural concerns and considerations. Commercialism, in the field of culture, for instance is transforming itself rapidly into a kind  of "public sphere". The public realm is therefore completely blurred. And sadly enough, our only defense-weapon - induced by our commissioners and subsidizing bodies - seems therefore to publicize huge ... visitors numbers. But public numbers are highly different from public arguments! Is it not?

- Chris Dercon, Direktor Haus der Kunst, München

Sind Kunsthallen heute noch zeitgemäß?

Is a Kunsthalle still a contemporary model?