Master of Arts Thesis
Euroculture
University of Uppsala, Sweden ( Home) University of Strasbourg, France ( Host )
January, 2015
Rethinking Istanbul Biennial In The Process of Globalization
Submitted by Gözde Sütçü Robin
Student number home university: 820616-7945 Student number host university: 21119150 Contact details (telephone/email) +33651496731
Supervised by: Name of supervisor home university: Mathias Persson Name of supervisor host university: Alexandre Kostka
Toulouse, France
Signature
1
MA Programme Euroculture
Declaration
I, Gozde Sutcu Robin hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “Rethinking Istanbul Biennial In The Process of Globalization”, submitted as partial requirements for the MA programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, texts, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the bibliography.
I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.
Signed:
Gözde Sütçü Robin
Date: 14 January 2015
2
Preface
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friends: Turkan Kantale, Louwane Courtney, Astrid Walsh and Ayse Nil Ozden. My husband, Charles Robin, deserves special recognition for supporting me during the long and arduous process of writing my thesis. I am filled with gratitude for his patience and understanding. And finally, I would also like to thank my professors; Mr. Alexandre Kostka for helping me in choosing my subject which allowed me to further identify and refine my professional goals and Mr. Mathias Persson for his effective guidance.
Gözde Sütçü Robin
3
Preface…………………………………………………………………………..……4 Abstract …………………………………………………………………………..…..5 Introduction ………………………………………………..……………….….……..6 Literature Review ………………………………………………………………..…...9 Globalization……………………………………………………………………...... 11 Global City and the Culture Industry………………………….………….……….…13 The Cultural Policy of Turkey…………………………………………………...... 20 2010 European Capital of Culture: Istanbul ……………………………………...... 26 History of The Biennials …………………………………………………….……....29 Why A Biennial in Istanbul?...... 34 The Evolution of the Istanbul Biennial…………………………………………...... 43 Istanbul Biennials From 1987-2013…………………………………………….…....45 1st International Istanbul Biennial…………………………………………….45 2nd International Istanbul Biennial …………………………………………...47 3rd International Istanbul Biennial ……………………………………………47 4th International Istanbul Biennial ……………………………………………48 5th International Istanbul Biennial ……………………………………………50 6th International Istanbul Biennial ……………………………………………51 7th International Istanbul Biennial ……………………………………………53 8th International Istanbul Biennial ……………………………………………55 9th International Istanbul Biennial ……………………………………………57 10th International Istanbul Biennial …………………………………………..58 11th International Istanbul Biennial ………………………………………..…60 12th Istanbul Biennial …………………………………………………………62 13th Istanbul Biennial …………………………………………………………64
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….…73 Bibliography………………………………………………………………..………....77
4
Abstract During the 1980s and 1990s, the world witnessed a radical change in which globalization diminished the power of the nation-state and shifted that impetus to a certain number of “Global Cities.” London, New York and Tokyo appeared to be the first of these cities and they acted as the heart of the new commercial and financial geography. In order to further strengthen their status, these cities organized transnational cultural events such as fairs, festivals and biennials. Those events have been assumed as a driving force behind other political, economic and financial activities in the era of globalization. Since the 1980s, Istanbul has emerged as a candidate for a new global city at the eastern frontier of Europe. Thus, with the encouragement of the government, the private sector has begun to organize several large-scale cultural events in order to reshape the city as a global city and re-present the nation with a more European outlook. This is in keeping with the desire to facilitate Turkey’s EU accession process and attract global commercial activities. The Istanbul Biennial is one of the most important of these cultural initiatives. Thus, this research will scrutinize the Istanbul Biennial within this framework. The main premise will be: “The organization of the Istanbul Biennial aims to attract global financial activities, enable the political aspirations of the city and therefore transform the city into a global one.”
Key words: Culture Industry, Global city, European Union, Cultural Policy and Istanbul Biennial.
5 Introduction Art, money, and political power have always coexisted in a complex, dynamic, and interdependent relationship. Although the relationship between these components has mostly been treated separately, a significant broader interaction becomes apparent with the conditions of globalization. Since globalization began accelerating in the 1990s, certain cities have emerged as power centers whose influence ranges beyond national borders in terms of politics, culture and economy. London, New York and Tokyo appeared to be the first of these cities and they acted as the heart of the new commercial and financial geography1. In order to further strengthen their status, these cities organized transnational cultural events such as fairs, festivals and biennials. Those events, as part of the Culture
Industry, have become a driving force behind political, economical, and financial activities in the era of globalization.
Istanbul, particularly after the 1980s, has emerged as a global city candidate on the eastern frontier of Europe with its potential for being a regional command and control center, with its capacity to attract global capital flow, with its multinational and multicultural social structure.2 Therefore, several cultural initiatives and activities began to be organized, in order to increase the brand value of the city and met the requirements of globalization.
The liberalization policies from the 80s on had the effect of cutting off state spending for art and culture.3 This highlighted the role of the private sector in the culture industry. Thus, the private sector started to take a proactive role in organizing transnational cultural events with the encouragement of government, in order to attract global financial activities, which would eventually increase the political power of city governments.
Analyzing the International Istanbul Biennials, organized by Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (abbreviated hereafter as IKSV), presents an opportunity to examine the intertwined relationship of money, politics, and art—in the respective roles of private sector financing, city government, and the culture industry.
1 Saskia Sassen, “Overview” in The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1991), 4. 2 Caglar Keyder, “Capital City Resurgent: Istanbul Since the 1980s”, Lecture delivered at LSE European Institute on Monday, 8 December 2008. 3 Serhan Ada and H. Ayça Ince, eds, Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey (Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009),177.
6 Questions for further investigation: “How does the process of globalization foster the growth of the culture industry, and how does the growth of the culture industry foster globalization?” “How can the Istanbul Biennial, as a part of the culture industry, contribute to the development of the national political and economic climate?”
“What role has the Istanbul Biennial played in representing the Turkish nation in the international arena?” “What are the real motivations prompting the private sector to support such cultural events?”
“Can the Istanbul Biennial act as a catalyst to accelerate Turkey’s EU membership process?”
The research methods employed in this study are based on archival exploration including the archives of the IKSV, data structuring, and interviews with the key agents directly involved: curators, gallery personnel, artists, and policy makers. Such data were collected from printed sources, primarily newspapers, art journals, gallery publications, catalogues, and the writings of artists, curators, and policy makers.
This paper will begin by reviewing the discourse of globalization with a focus on the realm of “global city” and its interaction with culture industry, in order to shed light on the Istanbul Biennial, as a part of the culture industry which acts as a catalyst for remaking Istanbul as a global city. Subsequently, Cultural Policy of Turkey will be scrutinized within the context of the EU membership process, which has had a significant influence in boosting the culture industry in Istanbul via its frameworks such as the European Capital of Culture Program. In order to further understand the essentials and motivations that gave rise to a Biennial in Istanbul, the paper will depict the socio-political and economic situation prior to the Biennial. Accordingly, the evolution of the Biennial, starting in 1987 until the present, will be rehearsed by analyzing the artists, curators, conceptual frameworks and exhibition venues. The intention will be to illustrate the two-way interaction between the transformation of Istanbul into a global city and the organization of the Biennial. That is to say: Istanbul feeds the Biennial and the Biennial, in turn, feeds
7 Istanbul4, in terms of its aspiration to evolve into a global city in order to strengthen its position within global power relations.
4Stated by Mustafa V. Koç, Koç Holding Chairman of the Board of Directors during the press conference of 12th Istanbul Biennial, “The 12th Istanbul Biennial Opens Saturday September 17th”, accessed 22 October 2014. http://12b.iksv.org/en/12thistanbul_Biennial_ENG.doc.
8 Literature Review
Berala Madra, a curator and critic and the general director of the first two Istanbul Biennials, has published several essays about the Biennial and its relationship with the city and the modernization process in Turkey. She has mostly contextualized the Biennial in the socio-political and cultural developments of the country. Some of her essays have been collected in a book called ART: Every Two Years in which she introduced and commented on nine biennials, which were held between 1987 and 2003. She emphasized the themes and exhibition strategies of each biennial in the context of the economic and political developments of the same year. Most of her recent essays introduce Istanbul as a global city in the East of Europe, with a strong emphasis on the geopolitical location of the city in which she questions the cultural policies of the EU and their re-generational and transformative effects on Istanbul. She highlights the increased amount of cultural production, cultural exchange and new opportunities provided for Turkish artists by EU grants under the framework of the EU Culture Policy.
One of the best-known and most prestigious publishing companies in Turkey, called İletişim Yayınları recently published a series called Art-Life, which currently comprises 32 books. Entitled Urban Change and Festivalism: The Biennial in a Globalizing Istanbul, written by Sibel Yardimci, contributes to the current debate by analyzing the biennial in the context of the global developments and cultural requirements of the new world order. In another of her essays focusing on the Istanbul Biennial, Interlocking Flows: Globalisation, Urbanism, and Culture in Contemporary Istanbul (2001), she aims to present how the city and cultural production re-create each other. On the one hand, she attempts to analyze how Istanbul, as an urban space, shapes and structures cultural production within the city, while on the other, she tries to describe the role that production and consumption play in culture, complementing and supplementing other economic activities and playing a part in the urban regeneration of Istanbul.5
Another major book contributing to the global city and culture industry debate is Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe, edited by Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli. This book analyzes the social, political and urban regeneration impact of being the 2010 European Capital of Culture on the city, and the relationships between governmental
5 Sibel Yardımcı, “Interlocking Flows: Globalization, Urbanism, and Culture in Contemporary Istanbul”, (paper presented in the Critical Management Conference, The management of creativity and creative industries stream, Manchester, 2001).
9 public authorities, non-governmental organizations, artists, and the public during this time period. Its goal is to bring a new approach and solutions regarding the image of Istanbul, which is reflected as a city of culture, history, and diversity. In addition to the academic research, there are the writings of professionals who work in cultural based jobs. It consists of five chapters: Paths to Globalizations, Heritage and Regeneration Debates, The Mediatized City, Art in the City, and A European Capital? The book includes discussions about gentrification, architecture, art exhibitions, cinema, literature and many more, showing the traces of integration with Europe and the steps towards globalization on the streets of Istanbul and in the daily lives of citizens.
In addition to the above literature, Caglar Keyder’s earlier book, Istanbul: Between the Global and Local has also become prominent because of his focus on strongly correlating the culture industry with globalization. His book attempts to analyze the potential of Istanbul in becoming a global city as defined by the concepts of theorists like Sassen, and establishes whether or not it would miss opportunities unfolding in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.7
Although the issues of the culture industry, the global city and the Istanbul Biennial have attracted considerable scholarly research, what seems to be missing from the current discussion is the linkage with, and to, the critical analysis of Turkey’s process in achieving EU membership. Thus, this research seeks to fill this gap by examining the cultural policy of Turkey within the context of the EU membership process by looking at the themes of cultural funding and the relevant legislation of the European Union. It seeks to understand the importance of these interconnected forces in reshaping Turkish culture and, thereby, enhancing Turkish aspirations for EU membership.
7 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? (London and New York: Routledge, 2010),12.
10 Globalization
For the purposes of this paper it is important to begin by reviewing the discourse of globalization. The focus will be given to the increasing role of cities in the process of globalization, with emphasis on the culture industry, in order to analyze the Istanbul Biennial as a part of the industry, which fosters, and contributes, to both the political and economic climate of Turkey.
Globalization refers to the rapidly developing and ever-increasing network of interconnections and interdependencies that characterize material, social, economic and cultural life in the modern world. At its most basic, globalization is a description of these networks and of their implications: of the “flows” around them – and across international boundaries – of virtually everything that characterizes modern life, for example: flows of capital, commodities, people, knowledge, artworks, information, ideas, crime, pollution, diseases, fashions, beliefs, images, and so forth.8
As Thomas L. Friedman’s simply defined:
Globalization is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach into individuals, corporations and nation- states farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before.9
Such dense and increasing global connectivity has complex and controversial effects on people’s cultural experience. According to Antony Giddens cultural globalization involves the increasing “reflexivity” of modern life: “the systematic integration of myriad small individual actions into the workings of social institutions which appear autonomously to govern our lives.”10 Accordingly, culture, is a dimension which effects globalization whilst also being simultaneously generated and shaped by it.11
Globalization has a multidimensional feature, that is to say, it occurs simultaneously within the spheres of the economy, of politics, and of culture. With these global interactions and
8 George Ritzer, Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 352.
9 Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (Anchor Books, 2000),9.
10 George Ritzer, Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 354. 11 Ibid. 355.
11 interdependencies across time and space, cities started to assume an important role. Since the 1980s, which marked the era of Thatcher-Regan liberalization,12 we have become increasingly familiar with the term of globalization. Since the middle of the 80s, we have been introduced to the term “world city” as suggested by John Friedmann in 1986 and subsequently with the concept of a “global city” as introduced by Saskia Sassen in 1994. According to Friedman, “world cities” serve as command and control centers for banking and finance, management and ideology; they are large urbanized regions, defined by dense patterns of interactions rather than by political and administrative boundaries. Thereafter, Sassen brought out the concept of “global cities” which are “command and control centers of the world economy that are at the top of the world-wide hierarchy of place-bound human activities.” Global cities are introduced as the key platforms for advanced services, creating new knowledge within a network of information flows, and serving as transnational market places for the implementation of global economic operations.13 Additionally, Sassen contends that the digitization of the world economy and cultural activities drag cities into the global flow more than the local.14
12 Alexander Bergmann, ed., Music-city Sports-city Leisure-city A reader on different concepts of culture, creative industries and urban regeneration attempts (Bauhaus-Universität Weimer Institut für Europäische Urbanistik, 2008). 147. Accessed 12 October 2014, https://www.uni- weimar.de/architektur/raum/publikationen/culture-citybergmann.pdf . 13 Tüzin Baycan-Levent, “Globalization and Development Strategies for Istanbul: Regional Policies and Great Urban Transformation Projects” (Paper presented at the 39th International Planning Congress, ISoCaRP Congress, “Planning in a More Gloalised and Competitive World”, Cairo, Egypt, 17-22 October 2003), 3., http://isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/359.pdf. 14 Saskia Sassen, “The City: Between Topographic Representation and Spatialized Power Projects”, Art Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2 (College Art Association, 2001), 12, accessed 18 November 2014, doi: 10.2307/778059
12 Global City and the Culture Industry
As George Ritzer suggests, for a better understanding of the role of cities in the global era, it is helpful to think of the city as being in a state of constant change. Most of us experience cities as an accumulation of buildings, roads and parks that we learn to recognize and navigate through. However, it is important to perceive cities as an outcome of activities and social processes that preserve them or which may change them as well.15 In fact, cities are living social entities, thereby making them important actors within the social, political, cultural and economic evolution of a country. As it is clearly depicted by Ritzer; “Cities are not isolated from their geographic and social surroundings and they are not autonomous social entities. Cities emerge within and, are sustained by, their connections with their geographic, social and political surroundings.”16 It is in this context that the culture industry became important tool for cities in order to extend their impact reaching wider than the political borders within which they are located.
As Political Philosopher Chantal Mouffe contends, in the Fordist and Post-Fordist era, culture became an economic marketing tool because, culture and economy have merged in an inseparable way and the culture industry became the driving force of globalization.17 Culture industry embodies the potential of fostering the process of transformation of a city into a global city due to its multidimensional interaction with the economy and politics in the era of globalization.
In the Post-Fordist era, cultural production became increasingly “the business of cities” firstly, because of its direct relation with tourism, and secondly, due to the fact that the production of culture builds an image for cities in the international arena.18 In the Post- Fordist era economy marked a switch from a production based to a consumption-based one and on that ground culture became an economic marketing tool. Because, such a switch has augmented the importance of developing symbols to sell a product as a marketing
15 George Ritzer, Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 354. 16 Ibid, 256. 17Chantal Mouffe, “Democratics Politics in the Age of Post-Fordism,” in Open: The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, No:16 (Netherlands:Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009), 34. 18 Sharon Zukin, The Cultures of Cities (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1995) Transferred by: Sibel Yardımcı, “Interlocking Flows: Globalization, Urbanism, and Culture in Contemporary Istanbul”, (paper presented in the Critical Management Conference, The Management Of Creativity And Creative Industries Stream, Manchester, 2001), 3.
13 strategy.19 As Zukin points out, “culture is a system for producing symbols and every attempt to get people to buy a product becomes a culture industry.” That is to say, “culture in the Post-Fordist era is not only an industry in itself, but a tool to frame and sell other industries.”20 This is due to the fact that culture sells, attracts tourists, generates economic activity, and is an integral part of the entertainment industry.21 In this respect, art biennials represent a perfect example of a marketing strategy to brand and to represent the hosting city with carefully created images just like other products. Although the main motivations for organizing a biennial can be altered depending on the particular economic and political situation, and the future aspirations of the countries, this paper reflects on the Istanbul Biennial as a product of the culture industry, which is used to represent and recreate Istanbul as a global city. In order to fully understand the concept that a biennial as a product of the culture industry fosters the process of remaking a city as “global,” the following section will introduce the common characteristics of global cities, with a specific analysis of the status quo of Istanbul.
19Sharon Zukin, Landscapes of Power. From Detroit to Disney. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991), 12. 20 Brendan Cormier, “Public Culture:The Question of Culture and Control” in Music-city Sports-city Leisure- city A reader on different concepts of culture, creative industries and urban regeneration attempts. Edited by Alexander Bergmann (Bauhaus-Universität Weimer Institut für Europäische Urbanistik, 2008), 46, accessed September 22, 2014, https://www.uni-weimar.de/architektur/raum/publikationen/culture-citybergmann.pdf. 46. 21 Thierry de Duve, “The Glocal and the Singuniversal Reflections on Art and Culture in the Global World,” in Open 16 The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, (Netherlands:Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009), 46.
14 According to Ritzer, one of the main characteristics of a global city is that it is a “cosmopolitan place,” usually where various cultures from around the world are represented on the streets of the city. Such cities are often the sites of greater economic opportunity than their surrounding neighbors which turns them into a hot spot for immigration.22
Being located at the joining point of two continents, as the gateway to the hot climates and oceans, as the outer reach of the Silk Road extending to Europe,23 being the capital of the Eastern Roman, Byzantine and the Ottoman Empire 24 ensured Istanbul a highly cosmopolitan character. However, the cosmopolitan character of the city did not serve the suitable conditions to create the new and homogenous Turkish nation after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, Istanbul snatched the status of being a capital city to Ankara by the establishment of new Turkish Republic in 1923. The declaration of Ankara as the new Turkish capital represented a strong symbol of the political and cultural preferences of the republican regime. In republican eyes, Ankara was the city of the future and the symbolic heart of the new secular nation. Ankara is considered immaculate and modern, in contrast to Istanbul which was the center of the Caliphate and the sultanate and exhibited the features of its imperial and dynastic traditions and considered as decaying and dirty, belonging to the past rather than the future.25
Concequently, during the first part of the 20th century, Istanbul gradually lost its status.26 This diminished status, added to the newly imposed Turkification policies of the recently created republic, resulted in a population decline.28 Due to population exchanges with Greece, in 1923, and the exodus following the pogroms in 1955, non-Muslim
22 George Ritzer, Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 254. 23 Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture, “Geographic location and strategic importance”, accessed: 01 December 2013 http://www.ibb.gov.tr/sites/ks/en-us/0-exploring-the- city/location/Pages/geographicalandstrategicposition.aspx 24 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? (London and New York: Routledge, 2010),7. 25 Murat Gül, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul: Transformation and Modernisation of a City (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2009), 85. 26 Michael McAdams, “Global Cities as Centers of Cultural Influence: A Focus On Istanbul”, Transtext(e)s Transcultures, 153. 2007, accessed 07 September 2014. http://transtexts.revues.org/149 28 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? 15 communities dwindled. More then ever before, Istanbul became more Turkish, and Muslim. 29
As Caglar Keyder states starkly “in 1913, one out of five people in the geographical area that is now Turkey was Christian, but by the end of 1923, this percentage had declined to one in forty.”30 “During these ten, devastating years, an estimated two-thirds of the Armenian population perished in massacres, and from deprivation and disease.31 Istanbul’s population went from an all-time high, of an estimated 1,100,000 before the First World War, to around 600,000 in 1922. Bereft of its native bourgeoisie, its foreign residents, its imperial household and bureaucracy, Istanbul ‘died’”.33
During the republican period in Istanbul, the first population census took place in 1927, recording the population as 700,000.34 Radical population growth didn't begin until after 1950, however, with the migration of the Anatolian peasants - due to the city's rapid industrialization - it increased from 983,000 in 1950 to 10,923,000 in 200035. This also brought a remarkable change in the composition and diversity of the population, forcing the emigration of non-Muslims.36 The population also grew by expanding the city limits, especially in the 1980s, when city dwellers doubled in number. Istanbul was growing at a rate of 3.45%, making it the fastest growing metropolitan city of the seventy-eighth largest city in the world.37 According to the population registry system based on address, between 2008 and 2012, Istanbul attracted an annual average of 64,000 immigrants. Therefore, the size of the population increased to
(London and New York: Routledge, 2010),7. 29 Ibid. 30 Çağlar Keyder, “The Consequences of The Exchange of Populations” in Crossing the Aegean An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey, ed. Renée Hirschon, Vol:12. (2003). 41. 31 Ayşe Öncü, “The Politics of Istanbul's Ottoman Heritage in the Era of Globalism: Refractions through the Prism of a Theme Park” in Cities of the South: Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century, eds. Barbara Drieskens, Franck Mermier and Heiko Wimmen, (London, Beirut: Saqi Books 2007), 241. 33 Ibid. 34 Caglar Keyder, Istanbul, Küresel ile Yerel Arasinda (Istanbul:Metis, 2009), 18. 35 World Population Review, "Istanbul Population 2014," 19 October 2014, accessed 2 November 2014, http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/istanbul-population/. 36 Caglar Keyder, “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 29.1, March 2005, 124-134, accessed 13 October 2014, doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 2427.2005.00574.x 37 World Population Review, "Istanbul Population 2014," 19 October 2014, accessed 2 November 2014, http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/istanbul-population/.
16 13,854,740. The population has also jumped by 9% during the past five years, 30% of this rise is accounted for by immigrants.38
The Arab spring has also brought radical growth to the population of Istanbul and a considerable change in its composition. Since the revolution, and subsequent civil war in Syria (2011), the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey has exceeded 1 million people as at the beginning of 2014, more than 100,000 settling in Istanbul alone.39 On the first of January 2014, the population of Istanbul was 14,160,467, which is 18.5% of the total population of Turkey (76,667,864 as of January 2014).40 In this regard, the unique geographical location of Istanbul as a bridge between Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia creates a confluence of civilizations, cultures, policies and financial activities.
As a transcontinental city, which makes Istanbul a hotspot for migration, it eventually became the largest city in Turkey and Europe, and the fifth largest city in the world.41 Regarding the impact of the population size on global influence, it could be argued that the size of a city does not really matter, but the formulation of the population does make a difference with its creative groups, high skilled workers, intellectuals, global wealth owners and students.42 Considering that, every year, more than 200,000 unskilled and uneducated people, and refugees, migrate to Istanbul, 43 the city has had difficulties absorbing such an increase in terms of its social, political and economic status quo. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to say that Istanbul displays strength in terms of it being a “cosmopolitan place.”
38 Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), No: 13425, 28 January 2013, accessed December 2013 Http://www.Turkstat.Gov.Tr/Prehaberbultenleri.Do?Id=13425
39 Salim Fuat, “Türkiye’nin Suriyeli Göçmenler Sorunu”, Sinif Mücadelesinde Marksist Tutum (2013), accessed 11 October 2014, Http://Marksist.Net/Selim-Fuat/Turkiyenin-Suriyeli-Gocmenler-Sorunu.Htm.
40 Istanbul.com, "Turkey's Demography: The Colorful Population Of Istanbul", accessed: 18 December 2014, http://www.istanbul.com/en/explore/info/turkeys-demography-the-colorful-population-of-istanbul.
41 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? (London and New York: Routledge, 2010) 5. 42 Michael McAdams, “Global Cities as Centers of Cultural Influence : A Focus on Istanbul”, Transtext(e)s Transcultures, 3, 2007, 161. accessed 07 September 2014. http://transtexts.revues.org/149 43 Caglar Keyder, Istanbul, Küresel ile Yerel Arasinda (Istanbul:Metis, 2009), 36. 17
Another characteristic of global cities is that they have a significant influence over the regions surrounding them. Global cities have such an influence, as they are often the administrative centers for cooperations, government bureaucracies and non-profit organizations, which usually form part of an international network of organizations, and therefore they serve as a link to the global reach.44
When the potential of Istanbul is analyzed according to this characteristic, the city displays strengths due to its central location. (Being located between Europe, the Middle East and the former Soviet Republics.) Some of the organizations that are currently based in Istanbul include: The International Labour Organization (ILO), The International Finance Corporation (IFC), The Organization Of The Islamic Conference Research Centre For Islamic History, Art And Culture (IRCICA), BSEC Headquarters, the Permanent International Secretariat of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC PERMIS) and The Parliamentary Assembly Of The Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC). Even to be present at the meeting of any of these headquarters demonstrates the accelerated transformation of Istanbul into a global city, and has encouraged friendly and neighborly relations in the Black Sea region.
Another key element of a global city is its cultural offerings. Global cities, such as New York, Tokyo, Paris, and London, have a strong culture industry.45 These cities frequently offer space for large-scale international cultural activities.46 In this respect, it can be argued that Istanbul exhibits strengths in terms of being a global city due to its rich cultural industries, which sprang up from the earliest biennials and were unleashed following the liberalization of the 1980s. The EU membership process has also nurtured the cultural life of the city as well as the country. Turkey has been a partner country for EU initiatives, since 2002, promoting culture, which includes grant programs, competitions, regulations,
44 Ayşe Öncü, “The Politics of Istanbul's Ottoman Heritage in the Era of Globalism: Refractions through the Prism of a Theme Park” in Cities of the South: Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century, eds. Barbara Drieskens, Franck Mermier and Heiko Wimmen, (London, Beirut: Saqi Books 2007), 241. 45 Josefina Cabigon, “Cities in Globalization” Asia Pacific Social Science Review Vol 6, No 2 (2006). accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/journals/apssr/pdf/200612/science_3.pdf. 46 Ayşe Öncü, “The Politics of Istanbul's Ottoman Heritage in the Era of Globalism: Refractions through the Prism of a Theme Park” in Cities of the South: Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century, eds. Barbara Drieskens, Franck Mermier and Heiko Wimmen, (London, Beirut: Saqi Books 2007), 241.
18 European capitals, and the European Years. 47 The European Capital of Culture Program was another accelerating force for the culture industry of Istanbul,48 which also benefited th 49 the 11 Biennial by providing 15% of its budget.
Biennials paves the way for cities to enter into the global economy by attracting global financial wealth, as the rhythm of the biennial can be coordinated with the rhythm of contemporary international tourism.50 Thus, there is no question that the reasons for the proliferation of art biennials are mainly, if not exclusively, economic due to the fact that the contribution that culture makes to a city’s economy goes far beyond its direct economic footprint.51 That is why the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts conducted a study on economic impact. It aimed to present the economic aspect of the cultural activities organized by the IKSV in 2011, and offered basic policy recommendations with regards to the necessary public support, to reveal the economic return aspects of cultural production in Turkey.52 According to this report, the IKSV activities have generated an economic impact of 70,000,000 TL, which is almost twice as much as small and medium sized enterprises (SME) with an annual turnover of less than 40,000,000 TL in 2011. This report emphasizes that the social and economic value generated by cultural activities is quite significant, given that the culture industry unifies societies, increases the brand value of cities, nurtures creativity and design, and contributes directly to the urban economy and indirectly to the national economy, through interaction with other sectors.53
47 Republic of Turkey, Ministry for EU Affairs, “Education and Culture (Chapter 26)”, last update 22 October 2014, accessed 10 November 2014, http://www.abgs.gov.tr/?p=91&l=2. 48 Michael McAdams, “Global Cities as Centers of Cultural Influence : A Focus on Istanbul”, Transtext(e)s Transcultures, 3, 2007, 161. accessed 07 September 2014. http://transtexts.revues.org/149 49 Ilkay Balic, ed., 11th International Istanbul Biennial. What keeps mankind alive? The Texts (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2009), 24. 50 Boris Groys et al., Open: The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, No:16 (Netherlands:Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009), 64. 51 World Cities Culture Forum. Policy Briefing 1: Istanbul Summit 2013 (BOP Consulting, 2013), accessed 30 November, 2014, http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/sites/default/files/publications/WCCF%20Policy%20Briefing%20 %231%20Istanbul%20Summit.pdf. 52 IKSV Economic Impact Research, December 2012, Istanbul. 7. 53 Ibid.
19 The Cultural Policy of Turkey
In order to further understand the developments which prepared the legislative ground for the organization of a biennial in Istanbul, the next section will summarize the Cultural Policy of Turkey within the context of the EU membership process, which has had a significant influence in boosting the culture industry in Istanbul via its frameworks such as the European Capital of Culture Program.
Cultural policies have always assumed a central role in both the establishment of a modern Turkey and the foundation of a national identity since the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. 54 In the early years of the Republic, cultural policies and concrete objectives were set via the agenda of revolutions. Ataturk's main aim was to build a homogenous country under the support and supervision of the state, and in accordance with the standards of nationalism and modernization. This aim was most likely to be achieved through cultural policies.55 The 1st Five Year Development Plan (1963-1967) did not include cultural guides in detail. It mostly covered educational development and included targets for Western and Turkish art and promoted the theatre. The 2nd Five Year Development Plan (1968-1972) established a clearer strategy, as well as sharing the same principles and objectives as the previous one. The 3rd Five Year Development plan (1973- 1977) was the first to include a section for culture only.56 Most importantly, the Ministry of Culture was added to the Cabinet, which was established after the 1970 military coup.57 The first Minister of Culture was Talat Sait Halman. With his support, Nejat Eczacibasi, a businessman, founded the IKSV, in 1973, in accordance with The Ministry. The IKSV has a general objective to make Istanbul one of the world's foremost capitals of culture and arts, to create continuous interaction between the national and universal, traditional and contemporary values, via culture and arts, and to contribute actively to the development of cultural policies.58
54 Serhan Ada and H. Ayça Ince, eds, Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey (Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009), 119.
55 Ibid. 126. 56 Ibid.128. 57 Ibid. 58 The Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, “Main Objectives”, (2013), accessed 12 December 2013, http://www.iksv.org/en/aboutus/mainobjectives.
20 This action shows the clear execution of the cultural policy that fostered the establishment of the IKSV and the organization of the 1st Istanbul Festival (1973) that forms the roots of today’s Istanbul Biennial. The Festival showed that it had understood and accepted the cultural policy by organizing non-profit events.59 The 4th Five Year Development Plan (1979-1983) was not a great improvement on the previous one neither economically, socially, culturally or politically. Its main idea was to remove geographical disadvantages in the cultural field and to give a larger share of the national income to these areas, and therefore enable more production and consumption of culture.60 The military regime of September 12, 1980 reduced the Ministry of Culture to the level of secretariat under the Ministry of Tourism, which resulted in it losing its independency.61 In the 5th Five Year Development Plan (1985-1989) the main focus was on National Culture. The objective of the plan included: promoting the works of culture and including them in daily life; the restoration and conservation of privately owned historic works; translating ancient Turkish works into modern Turkish and passing them on to future generations; providing education and employment prospects for the national arts and crafts; furthering research on Turkish music; advancing and promoting literature, painting, theatre and the moving image.62 Thus, the 5th Plan included more cultural and educational projects to promote culture and the arts, which also enabled the evolution of the Istanbul Festival into the Istanbul Biennial. In this sense, the 5th Plan differs from the others.
Therefore, one can state that the first two biennials were seen as proactive steps taken in the realization of these objectives. In this period, important improvements related to synchronization with the West, in the sense of art, politics, and economy, took place. One important political event in the country is that Turkey completed its full EU membership application on April 14, 1987.63
59 Serhan Ada and H. Ayça Ince, eds, Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey (Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009), 98. 60 Ibid, 129. 61 Ibid. 129. 62 Ibid. 63 Summeries of EU legislation, “The 2004 enlargement: the challenge of a 25-member EU”, accessed 11 November 2014, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enlargement/2004_and_2007_enlargement/e50017_en.htm.
21 The 6th Five Year Development Plan (1990-1994) covered culture separately, with a fundamental policy in development, modernization and opening up to the world.64 The 7th Five Year Development Plan (1996-2000) aimed at a democratic society and more freedom for individuals.65 It can be claimed that the enhanced relations with the EU, via the Customs Union, and the aspirations of achieving candidacy status, influenced the determination of the goals and progress of the Five Year Development Plans. It should be emphasized that Turkey received its membership status around this period, in 1999.
Repeatedly, the concept of national culture formed the basis of the 8th Five Year Development Plan (2001-2005). It identified Turkish cultural values and transmits them to the next generation. The aims of it were listed as “the production and development of national culture, and the support and popularization of cultural activities.”67
The 9th Five Year Development Plan (2007-2013) referred to cultural policies as a significant part of the EU integration process. The need for co-operation between NGOs and local administrations is emphasized, as is the importance of collaboration between the public and private sector. The decline in the ministry’s budget from 7%, of the whole budget in 1992, to 4% in 2008 is featured in the plan.
As seen above, the cultural policy of Turkey is formulated in a very vague and ambiguous manner. There are no well-defined short or long-term goals. An impartial control mechanism aimed at scoping the achievements does not exist.68 In this regard, one can argue that the cultural policies are not methodical and focused. The priorities of the plans are subject to change according to the differing political and economic leanings of the elected parties and the times.69
Since the 2000s, the political agenda of Turkey increasingly started to be shaped by cultural policy, due to the EU membership process and the apparent necessity to regulate the needs of the private sector, such as “giving tax exemptions for the private sector's expenditure on cultural activities in certain fields, or undertaking initiatives, which will
64 Serhan Ada and H. Ayça Ince, eds, Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey (Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009), 129. 65 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 130. 68 Ibid.127. 69 Ibid 128.
22 ensure the operation of transnational cultural industries within certain international standards or norms, and the establishment of Turkey's cultural industries.”70 This process was triggered by the signing of the Participation Partnership in 2006, which appointed Istanbul as a European Cultural Capital in 2010.72
The cultural policy of the government can be defined as a nation state policy dating back to the foundation of the Republic and implemented up until the Justice and Development Party (abbreviated hereafter as AKP) came to power. In short, national state policy was trapped in a vicious circle, offering no opportunities to escape, and in which individuals with one single language, culture and religion tried to be brought together under a Turkish identity. Due to this, it was necessary to support branches of the arts, which encouraged the policy of creating and implementing a modern Turkish nation. Therefore, while opera, ballet, music, theatre and cinema (to some extent) were supported by the government, visual arts was not supported to the extent that it should have been. The private sector recognized this gap in the 1970s and tried to fill it.73 Right at this point, it should be kept in mind that the implementation of the 1st International Istanbul Festival, which was organized in 1973, came to fruition under the leadership of Nejat Eczacibasi. The cultural art life, which began to flourish under the leadership of the private sector in 1970s, is now almost totally endorsed by the private sector with the involvement of increasing numbers of private galleries and bank galleries.
The visual arts have been afforded importance during the AKP period, and the situation is that local administrations supporting the visual arts do so in tandem with their social policies. The cultural policy, which focuses on reviving the Ottoman culture, highlights traditional handcrafts, miniatures and calligraphy and the like. The cultural policy, as followed by the private sector, works in quite a different way to that of local government. For example, Rahmi Koç, one of Turkey’s prominent manufacturers, entered the list of Honorary Trustees by donating 10 million dollars to the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Furthermore, the cultural policy adopted by the private sector is closely related to
70 Ibid. 102. 72 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? (London and New York: Routledge, 2010),269 . 73 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014
23 where it wants to locate itself in the international arena.74 The cultural policy of non- governmental organization works in parallel with the cultural policies of the EU. The difficulty these three foundations - the private sector, government and non-governmental organizations – have is a meeting of minds on a common point, thus making it difficult for Turkey to reach the international standards set for modern art. For this reason it is difficult to catch up with the international levels in foundations such as, museums, galleries and art schools which we can call motionless substructures. It is easier for these three (private sector, government and non-governmental organizations) to meet on a common point at the implementation of large scale international activities, such as festivals, fairs and biennials, which we can call moving substructures. Even so, the exceptions should not be ignored.
The IKSV closes the gap in Turkey in the field of right to reach art and culture, despite the fact that this right actually falls under the responsibility of the government. When the status quo in the world is observed, it is clearly seen that, right to reach art and culture is regulated by government. In Europe, which is known to have welfare state policies and in America, which has free market capitalism, both places have a long established and well- balanced cultural policy that ensures the creation and distribution of art and culture. Therefore, even though the government does not make contributions by producing art and culture, it sets the infrastructure and guarantees production in this field. The rights of the artists are ensured by regulations in law and a free base is created for artistic production by protecting social rights, freedoms, and rights against censorship.75 In Turkey there is no equivalent support by the government, nor is there a clearly determined policy to regulate the production and consumption of art and culture. The budget of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism within the overall state budget is very small in Turkey, thereby demonstrating the lack of importance actually given to culture and art. The IKSV plays an active role in fulfilling some of these government shortfalls via the support of the private sector.76
The IKSV is one of the leading NGO that supports, encourages and guides the arts in Turkey. The acquired experience of the IKSV in the field of art and culture highlights it as an important player in the organization of international events in accordance with the government’s policies. That is to say, the IKSV has largely been the representative body
74 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014 75 Interview with Ozlem Ece, Coordinator in the Department of Cultural Policy, IKSV, Istanbul, 29 Mart 2013 76 Ibid.
24 for the Turkish government in art and cultural events at an international level. For instance, the IKSV applied to the European Council for the 2010 European Capital of Culture programme on behalf of the Turkish government.78
78 Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (IKSV), “History”, accessed 15 December 2013 http://iksv.org/en/aboutus/history.
25 2010 European Capital of Culture: Istanbul
The European Capital of Culture (ECoC) was initiated in 1985 and is designed to: promote the cultural richness and diversity of cultures in Europe; celebrate the cultural features Europeans share; increase European citizens' sense of belonging to a common cultural area; and foster the contribution of culture in the development of cities. In addition, the ECoC initiative introduced an excellent opportunity for: regenerating cities; raising the international profile of cities; enhancing the image of a city in the eyes of its own inhabitants; and breathing new life into a city's culture while boosting tourism.79
In 1999, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe took the decision (1419/1999/EC) to extend the initiative to involve non-member and candidate countries, which included Turkey. Istanbul was proposed as a candidate for the ECoC in 2000, and that marked the beginning of the initiative.80 Istanbul was named alongside Pécs (Hungary) and Essen (Germany).81 Every year different cities are chosen to be the European Capital of Culture, more than one city represents the ECoC due to the decentralization aspect of the program.
Istanbul was designated as the European Capital of Culture in 2010 further to a recommendation by the European Parliament on November 13, 2006 and was approved by the Council of the European Union Ministers of Culture.82
An executive body "Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Agency" was set up by law in 2007 to implement the ECoC initiative. This agency enjoyed a strong political and financial commitment by the national government, as well as a significant degree of autonomy, at least at the outset.83
According to the National Report of Cultural Policy in Turkey:
79 Creative Europe, “European Capitals of Culture”, accessed 18 October 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/tools/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm. 80 Creative Europe, “Ex-Post Evaluation Of 2010 European Capitals Of Culture”, accessed 18 October 2014, 3, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc/ecoc-2010-report_en.pdf. 81 Bulent Ozan and Can Unver, “Exploring the Impact for Istanbul of Being a European Capital of Culture”, Ernst & Young, Volume 4, Issue 4, 55, 2012, accessed 3 October 2014, http://performance.ey.com/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/Exploring-the-impact.pdf 82 Creative Europe, “Ex-Post Evaluation Of 2010 European Capitals Of Culture”, accessed 18 October 2014, 3, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc/ecoc-2010-report_en.pdf. 83 Ibid,17.
26 …nearly 2,634,900 TL monetary support has been given to a total of 570 local, national, and international organizations and charities that carry such activities (festivals, commemoration ceremonies, concerts, exhibitions, performances, conferences, seminars, panels, fairs, and such) and local municipalities during the year 2010.84
In total 2436 projects have been launched within the scope of the European Capital of Culture. 60% of the budget of the program was devoted to cultural heritage and urban projects; however, only 49% of the budget has been used because of large unfinished projects such as The Ataturk Cultural Centre.86
Throughout the project, the following activities have been achieved:
- 1598 shows/concerts - 763 exhibitions - 336 books/magazines and catalogues - 1127 stage performance - 1201 conference/seminars/symposiums - 735 workshops87
Even though there was an inconsistency in the budget, “Istanbul 2010” still received the largest budget of any ECoC to date. It was also one of the largest and most substantial ECoC to date, featuring both a diverse cultural program with many innovative elements and an extensive program of renovation and refurbishment of cultural heritage sites and venues88. The main focus of the “Istanbul 2010” was the four elements, namely; earth, air, water and fire, which were said to have a special meaning to Istanbul, although activities based on a broad range of artistic and cultural disciplines took place throughout the twelve months of the title year.89
84 National Report, Cultural Policy in Turkey, European Programme of National Cultural Policy Reviews, Ankara: Council of Europe. October 2013. 94. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid.
27 It is important to note that the European Capital of Culture initiative not only brings EU funding to the selected cities to boost the culture industry, but also provides them with a stronger link to Europe and the globe, by transcending national identity. Istanbul’s selection as one of the European Capitals of Culture demonstrates that “Europe officially acknowledges Istanbul as an integral part of its own heritage.” However, there is still ambivalence about Turkey’s “Europeanness”. 91
Istanbul, being the European Capital of Culture represented something of a first, both for the city and for Turkey, in terms of size and form. In general, during the years 2008-2011, in total nearly 10,000 discrete activities or events were attended by nearly 10,000,000 people and the number of companies operating in creative industries increased by 23% since 2009.92
Besides the Istanbul Biennial, “Istanbul 2010” represented another culture based large- scale, global city marketing project, which helped in the marketing of the city as a modern, attractive and cosmopolitan place as the Biennials do. Both of them revive the city, presenting it as a global city, and represent the nation with a more European outlook in keeping with the desire to facilitate the EU membership process.
Large-scale international cultural and artistic events are complementary parts that help sustain the global economy and policies.93
91 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 5. 92 Bulent Ozan and Can Unver, “Exploring the Impact for Istanbul of Being a European Capital of Culture”, Ernst & Young, Volume 4, Issue 4, 56, 2012, accessed 3 October 2014, http://performance.ey.com/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/Exploring-the-impact.pdf 93 Julian Stallabrass, Sanat A.S., Cagdas Sanat ve Bienaller (Istanbul: Iletisim, 2009), 16.
28 The History of the Biennials
The next chapter will briefly introduce the history of biennials in order to shed light on the motivations and expectations involved in organizing such an event. To begin with, I would like to describe the term “biennial,” within its historical context. On a basic level, a biennial is the most widespread form of large-scale exhibition in the world today. Although the term biennial indicates an event lasting two years, or occurring every two years, many large-scale exhibitions are defined as “biennial”, regardless of their time period, in honor of the Venice Biennial.94
On one hand, it has been fashionable to describe a biennial as a spectacle. On the other hand, it’s a vital platform for an inquiry into contemporary art, including its cultural and political conditions, as well as a new social form that brings artists, curators and viewers together in revitalized interrelationships.95 Different forms of exhibitions are combined in biennials that focus on the past, the present, and the future; others are set on a theme or to a particular art scene.96 Therefore, it’s not possible to describe the term “biennial” in a single format, rather it can be defined as a set of evolving typologies.97 There are also various models and types spread over the world with the cultural, geopolitical and ideological difference between them being vast. It even makes it difficult to identify specific biennial origins.98
The referral by many art historians to the biennials as an event, however, can be traced back to industrial fairs and world expositions, such as the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London, where manufactured products were highlighted. It's important to note that visual arts were not the primary concern in the world fairs at that time, especially in the West, but they clearly had an influence on large-scale art exhibitions.99 The Venice Biennial of 1895 became widely regarded as the first and founding biennial, organized as a response to the
94 Federica Martini and Vittoria Martini, Just Another Exhibition. Histories and Politics of Biennials (Milano: Postmedia Books, 2011), 99. 95 Ranjit Hoskote, “The Shapeshifting Trajectory of The Biennale. The Biennale, in Space and Time”, (New Delhi: Take on Art 8, 2012), 2. 96 Federica Martini and Vittoria Martini, Just Another Exhibition. Histories and Politics of Biennals (Milano: Postmedia Books, 2011), 102. 97 Ranjit Hoskote, “The Shapeshifting Trajectory of The Biennale. The Biennale, in Space and Time”, (New Delhi: Take on Art 8, 2012), 2. 98 Ibid, 1. 99 Marieke van Hal, “Rethinking the Biennial” (MA Thesis, Royal College of Art, 2010), 16.
29 need to reinvent the great Italian city. Venice was once a powerful maritime republic; however, over time the city lost its glory due to decline and had been reduced to a political and economic backwater. Its mayor, who was a poet and a practical man, devised the biennial as a cultural strategy of self-renewal.100 Since then, biennials have spread around the world. As of today, there have been more than 140 biennials of different sizes, with different motivations and varying needs.101 It’s difficult to establish exactly how many biennials there are as some of them have ceased to be, whilst new ones are being established around the world.
Another foundational biennial is the Documenta, established in 1955 in Kassel, marking the desire to recreate German identity after the Second World War, and regain its place in the international arena by using the domain of art.102 Even if, technically speaking, the Documenta would seem to have little reason for being in the category of a “biennial” due to it is quinquennial character, many essays, reviews, and professionals regularly seem to use the term ‘biennial’ to refer to it.
Yet another biennial typology is represented by the Gwangju Biennial, held on the site of the 1980 massacre where thousands of demonstrators were killed by South Korean police while protesting against dictatorship and martial law.103 This event is also known as the Gwangju Democratization Movement against the dictatorship of Chum Doo-Hwan. In memory of the events of 1995, Gwangju was chosen to be the venue of the first contemporary art biennial in South Korea, using it as a symbol of the country's transition, openness and progress towards the international art scene, whilst emphasizing the country's historical turning point in the process.104 Thus, places with a traumatic history, that is often very symbolic, are chosen to stage a biennial with the two fold objective of preserving
100 Ranjit Hoskote, “The Shapeshifting Trajectory of The Biennale. The Biennale, in Space and Time”, (New Delhi: Take on Art 8, 2012), 2. 101 Biennial Foundation, “Biennial Map A-Z”, (2014), accessed 16 June 2014, http://www.biennialfoundation.org/biennial-map. 102 Ranjit Hoskote, “The Shapeshifting Trajectory of The Biennale. The Biennale, in Space and Time”, (New Delhi: Take on Art 8, 2012), 2. 103 Federica Martini and Vittoria Martini, Just Another Exhibition. Histories and Politics of Biennals (Milano: Postmedia Books, 2011), 103. 104 Ibid, 104.
30 history, and opening them up to the present and the future through the organization of contemporary art exhibitions.105
Indeed many biennials are organized during transitional phases and are seen as turning points for the community of the country hosting them.106 They are mostly launched within the political and economic frameworks of the city and correspond to the desires and the demands of the local community. Therefore, biennials are considered as useful tools that can be used by cities to facilitate their economic or political goals. .
The other important biennial worth noting is the Sao Paulo Biennial, articulating the aspirations of the host city to participate in cosmopolitan international art reminiscent of the Euro-American art world.107
After discussing some of these major biennials, I would like to classify them in a way that will explain how and why the Istanbul Biennial came about, highlighting the classifications suggested by Charlotte Bydler and Chin Tao-Wu. According to Bydler there are three main categories. The biennials of Venice, Sao Paulo and Sydney, for example, fall into the category of “philanthropic-capitalistic enterprises” and were started in the early 20th century when the biennial emerges as an expression of power and progress. The second category can be described as “posttraumatic,” created to reposition the countries on the international scene, like the Documenta, Havana and Manifesta. Those biennials are seen as expressions of the post-war politics that began in 1948. The third category is related to the contemporary cultural climate of the 1990s in which “flexibility” appears as one of the most important elements.108
The Istanbul Biennial can be considered within this category, due to its flexibility in changing its location depending on the particularity of each biennial, due to its transition to a model that is not based on the Venice Biennial, and to its ability to set appropriate themes while taking into consideration rapidly changing priorities brought about by global conditions.
105 Ibid. 103. 106 Ibid. 107 Ranjit Hoskote, “The Shapeshifting Trajectory of The Biennale. The Biennale, in Space and Time”, (New Delhi: Take on art 8, 2012), 1. 108 Federica Martini and Vittoria Martini, Just Another Exhibition. Histories and Politics of Biennals (Milano: Postmedia books, 2011), 103.
31 A further categorization is referred to by Chin-Tao-Wu. Tao-Wu presents the biennials in three categories regarding their foundation. First, the ones organized by the museums and certain institutions, secondly the ones founded around printmaking and ceramic art, and the third and final category is biennials that have taken their names from the city where it is organized and have been formed as city based events. Istanbul is included in the third category because, during its biennial, the city itself was always an important source of inspiration for the formation of the conceptual framework, for designating the exhibition venues, for the artists, for the organization of side activities, and for the works of art. In this context, the 9th Istanbul Biennial which is entitled “Istanbul”, having formed its conceptual framework on Istanbul itself, represents a clear example.
As such then, we may also assume that political, cultural, social and economic grounds form the foundations of contemporary art biennials. Even if only one of these aspects is in focus, generally all four are observed as being at the root of each contemporary biennial held in the world. Some of the main objectives, accordingly, are thus:
(1) creating a cultural platform for dialogue and artistic practices that will stimulate the local and regional cultural infrastructure; (2) gaining a better image and visibility by integrating a peripheral city, or remote region, into a globalizing world and culture, and formulating a new geography for the international art; (3) fostering local and global dialogue by integrating the local artistic circuit and related groups to a new, international market; (4) boosting the international art economy, and stimulating cultural tourism which will eventually affect urban gentrification and renovation.110
I would add a fifth element. Namely, creating a public space. This is because the exhibition space of every biennial, which is administered by a curator, must try to make art accessible to the public. As such, his/her role is to safeguard and promote the public character of the biennial while making them accessible and publicizing them.111 It is also worth noting that the art works exhibited at the biennials are not produced for the sake of a sale. Most works (especially installations) do not exist after the period of the biennials. Therefore, one can argue that this situation enables artists to work with a free spirit and without the pressure of selling their work. As a result, one can often encounter different
110 Marieke van Hal, “Rethinking the Biennial” (MA Thesis, Royal College of Art, 2010), 18. 111 Boris Groys et al., Open: The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, No:16 (Netherlands:Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009), 58.
32 and radical art which contributes to shape a freedom zone and an atmosphere that allows the artist and the public to discuss orthodox and unorthodox ideas, as triggered by the conceptual framework of the biennial and/or the art works exhibited, as well as the reactive process that affects the minds of both. Due to all those aspects of the biennial, the public sphere created by it, corresponds to the definition by Habermas who defines it as “a place where ideas, expressions and experiences are generated, revealed, shared, spread and discussed.”112 In this respect one can argue that often biennials are distinguished from museum exhibitions, art fairs and the classical white cubes due to their particularity of creating a genuine public sphere.
Typically, although not always, the chosen venue of the biennial, is not the country’s most important city, but the second or third city, and is often one that has enjoyed previous glory but lost significance due to various up and downs.113 For these cities, the biennial can put them back on the map by re-creating their image, remembering their history and accordingly re-establishing a more vital present and, invariably, a brighter future. Istanbul is the perfect example because, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the formation of the Turkish Republic at the beginning of the 20th century, the city was relegated to an old and dusty place steeped in decay, as opposed to Ankara, which was new and clean. 114 Therefore, it lost its status as a major political, economic and cultural center. In the light of this, one can argue that the Istanbul Biennial has been organized in order to regain its previous status. With this in mind, I would like to depict historical developments in Istanbul in order to explore the circumstances that created the motivations for organizing the Istanbul Biennial.
112 Meral Özbek, Kamusal Alanın Sınırları, Kamusal Alan içinde (Istanbul: Hil Yayınları, 2004), 40. 113 Ranjit Hoskote, “The Shapeshifting Trajectory of The Biennale. The Biennale, in Space and Time”, (New Delhi: Take on Art 8, 2012), 2. 114 Sibel Bozdogan, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in Early Republic (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2002), 67.
33 Why A Biennial in Istanbul?
In order to understand the necessities and motivations behind the organization of a biennial in Istanbul, as well as the interest of the private sector and the Turkish government in encouraging modern art festivals and biennials in the 1980s, it is necessary to scrutinize the socio-political and economic situation of the period.
The late 1970s and early 1980s witnessed a sharp transformation in the economic and social politics of the world, and this transformation naturally effected Turkey as well. This new transformation is called neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is essentially the state decreasing its intervention in the market. In this period import-substitution statist economic policy in Turkey was replaced by the market economy within the framework of the structural adjustment of the IMF (The International Monetary Fund). Price controls and commercial restrictions were removed; state-owned corporations were privatized and foreign currency procedures ceased to be controlled. In addition to these, the IMKB (formerly The Borsa Istanbul, Istanbul Stock Exchange) was opened in 1985.115 During the neo-liberal period the circulation of goods, money and ideas increased and gained momentum. This momentum was triggered by the improvements in IT technologies and as a result the neo-liberal globalization system came about. Economies began to apply new strategies in order to take root and thrive in the global economy. In Turkey, the attempts for inclusion into the global economy showed itself by shifting the axis of the internal economy from production to finance in every field.116
Prior to this liberalization in the Turkish economy, foreign exchange (FX) reserves had witnessed a considerable decline at the end of the 1970s and as a result of the import- substitution statist economic and protective policies.117 To be able to pay the external debts and overcome problems related to the central bank reserves, it was considered compulsory to put pressure on the internal market and increase export. In order to be able to apply such
115 Sibel Yardımcı, Urban Change and Festivalism: The Biennial in a Globalizing Istanbul, (Istanbul: Iletisim, 2005), 41. 116 Ibid. 117 Izzettin Onder, “Emperyalizmin Turkiye'yi Donusturme Etkisi: 1980 Sonrasi Politikalar” (paper presented at the fourth Karaburun Science Congress, 80'den Sonra, Karaburun Gündelik Yaşam Bilim ve Kültür Derneği, Izmir, 3-6 September 2009). 41
34 pressurizing policies, it was seen as necessary to form a repressive political order and this necessity was met on September 12, 1980 and is known as the 1980 coup d’état.118
The coup d’état of September 12, 1980 is one of the most important turning points in Turkey’s recent political and public history. From that day on, civil politics was halted; the politicians and wide ranging public sectors lost their power in defining the way of life; the military regime began to impose its repressive policies on the public via its newly founded institutions. This expression of national unity forestalled the advancement of politics, science, literature and art, which all became subject to rigid pressures and controls.119 Turkish society witnessed many changes in the 80s, including: the prohibition of debating political issues publicly; the violation of human rights; problems with democratization; society’s division as Turks and Kurds; the religious division between Sunnis and Alevis; PKK terrorism; high inflation; the enforced immigration of artists and intellectuals abroad, and; increased political apathy among the younger generations.120
When the developments during the 80s in Turkey are observed, it can be seen that this period is the time when the art market evolved, new commercial galleries were established, and the practice of collecting artwork developed in the art scene. The 1980s was a determining period in which modern art, whose existence was first witnessed during the late 1960s and early 1970s, began to flourish. The 1980s, when new communication networks were launched, can be regarded as an incubation period with improvements that set the base for the huge bounce in the 1990s art scene.121
The curator of the first two biennials, Beral Madra, states that the Istanbul Biennial was born as the country’s 150 years of art production was looking for ways to emerge from the individualist, pluralist and eclectic ambiance of the 1980s.122
118 Izzettin Onder, “Emperyalizmin Turkiye'yi Donusturme Etkisi: 1980 Sonrasi Politikalar” (paper presented at the fourth Karaburun Science Congress, 80'den Sonra, Karaburun Gündelik Yaşam Bilim ve Kültür Derneği, Izmir, 3-6 September 2009). 41. 119 Beral Madra, Art: Every Two Years (Istanbul: Norgunk, 2003), 43. 120 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014 121 Fulya Erdemci, Semra Germener and Orhan Kocak, Modern ve Otesi (Istanbul: Bilgi University Press, 2007), 37. 122 Beral Madra, Iki Yilda Bir Sanat, (Istanbul: Norgunk, 2003), 43.
35 Before exploring the reasons behind the formation of the Istanbul Biennial, it is necessary to investigate the art scene prior to the Biennial. Beral Madra describes this period as:
Three museums, deprived of all opportunities by the state, unable to purchase even one or two paintings or to finance the restoration of its own building; national and international exhibitions that are unplanned, unprogrammed and random; a lack of understanding of, or support for, the few artists that achieved success on their own; an art scene, unable to communicate with any foreign artists or art critics, and even content with what it has; double standards for criticism; an enormous gap in art publications, a 30-year production of art that is forgotten and languishing in the depths of studios and in storage; and art lovers that perceive the artist as a worker who produces objects for investment, rather than for interpretation.123
As seen in the quote above, although art and culture were deprived of the support of local government and the business world, it cannot be denied that there was an accumulation and production of art developed within the sphere of the artist’s private life. The potential of self-display, embodied in this thirty year period, is one of the triggers for the formation of the Istanbul Biennial. The organization of the biennial can be considered as an intervention, as Madra clearly explained herself. The reason why this intervention happened in the 80s lies in the globalizing conditions providing the necessary ground required for change, and the realization of the marketing power of the arts by both the political authorities and the business world.
One of the most significant characteristics of globalism that has existed since the 1990s is the internationalization of the capital. In other words, capitalist industrial production had begun to restructure under the patronage of multinational companies. This restructuring, with reference to commercial and financial capital, occurs by maintaining the continuity of the dependency relationships between the center and the periphery by applying various strategies.124
At this stage, large-scale international art events unsurprisingly began to draw attention. As Hans Belting maintained, in fact all these improvements and economic globalization – together with their institutional practices - have together carried the practice of modern art
123 Ibid, 44. 124 Nilgun Erdem, Türkiye Ekonomisinde dışa Bağımlılığın Değişen Bilançosu (paper presented at the fourth Karaburun Science Congress, 80'den Sonra, Karaburun Gündelik Yaşam Bilim ve Kültür Derneği, Karaburun, Izmir, 3-6 September 2009).
36 to an international level.125 As such, the launch of festivals and biennials and their increase in prevalence, is proof of the global expansion of the Art world.
It is significant that the exhibition of the Magicians de la Terre, in Paris, took place at the same time as the transformations that happened in the economic and political spheres. At this exhibition, that was held at The Centre Pompidou, in 1989, under the curatorship of Jean-Hubert Martin and Mark Francis, art under the hegemony of the Pompidou came to an end and the art of neighboring countries began to attract attention. With its argument of being open to all other identities and cultures, works by artists from Africa were exhibited, as well as western artists, for the first time.126 In this way the Eurocentric tendency of Western art, which had been stereotyped during many centuries, was shattered. In the same period, namely 1989, the demolition of the Berlin Wall and the changes beginning right after the collapse of the Soviet Socialist Republic in 1993 caused transformations in every single field, with changes to policies that effected daily life being most evident. Along with the collapse of socialism, and global economic growth, artists suddenly had access to the free market, which aided them and their practices.127 Artists from different backgrounds and nationalities from all over the world had the chance to present their works during meetings at the biennials. That is to say that these biennials have displayed an inclusive, innovative, independent and political aptitude by involving those who were previously isolated from mainstream western art.
During the 1990s, commercial galleries increased in number and artists from Turkey, who created works of modern art, began to make their appearances in the international arena. Simultaneously, relationships with the EU improved and there was greater cooperation between parties following the decision of the European Council, which confirmed Turkey’s eligibility for membership. 128 Therefore, this period marks an increased
125 Carol Yinghua Lu, “Back to Contemporary: One Contemporary Ambition, Many Worlds” e-flux, (2009) accessed 16 October 2014, http://www.e-flux.com/journal/back-to-contemporary-one-contemporary- ambition-many-worlds/ 126 J.J. Charlesworth, "The Global Contempory and the Rise of New Arts Worlds," Art Review, issue 69 (2013), accessed 12 November 2014, http://artreview.com/reviews/book_review_the_global_contemporary_and_the_rise_of_new_art_world s/. 127 Fulya Erdemci, Semra Germener and Orhan Kocak, Modern ve Otesi (Istanbul: Bilgi University Press, 2007), 64. 128 EU-Turkey Chambers Forum Phase 2, “Information on EU-Turkey Relations”, accessed 25 November, 2014, 37 synchronization effort with the West, in terms of politics, economics, art and culture, which highlighted Istanbul as a potential global city located in the eastern frontier of the EU, and offered a fertile investment ground.
These improvements gained momentum with the increased investments in art and culture as supported by the EU framework after 2000. It is remarkable to comprehend that the crucial discussions concerning the up-to-datedness of modern art, which appeared during this time period, led to the recognition of contemporary art by the art investors, professionals and artists. 129 Therefore, one can argue that the necessary intellectual foundation that merged with the socio-political and economic dynamics of globalization fostered the organization of a biennial in Istanbul.
In the early 1990s, the central hegemony of the West in the economy, politics and art fractured, hence the relationship between the center and the periphery gained more importance. Therefore, Turkey, as the closest Islamic country to Europe, began to draw much attention.131 In this period, the interests of the government, which was centered on the developments of Ankara by virtue of the nation state policy, began to shift to developments in Istanbul. This shift occurred because Istanbul possessed a significant potential for being a global city that could attract global financial investments, and which would eventually facilitate the political aspirations of the country, which was focused on gaining EU membership.
As Caglar Keyder states;
By the mid-1970s,…İstanbul was a grimy, unkempt, and dark third- world metropolis…. It was the crisis of national development and the liberalism brought in after the 1980 coup by a World Bank veteran, that changed all this and set İstanbul out on a route to global marketing. Turgut Özal brought Bedrettin Dalan, as the mayor, who remained the unchallenged boss of the city and imprinted the urban space with a radically new conception. Dalan’s projects were as radical as Haussmann in Paris or Moses in New York. He cut through the old fabric of the city with his new boulevards, tore down the old manufacturing districts around the Golden Horn, built new parks and water-front spaces, and
http://www.etcf.org.tr/EN/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D313AAF6AA849816B2EF3143C82B0 599388A. 129 Ibid.37. 131 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014
38 created incentives for industry to move out of the city to the periphery beyond the urban area.132
That is to say, the spatial transformation of the city commenced, as required by the new global era. Simultaneously, the need to rebuild its identity as a modern, multicultural, hybrid, vibrant, open, city, with a willingness to become a gateway to the rest of the world, became apparent. Such a transformation of its identity highlighted the role of the private sector, which had recently gained power through privatization brought by the neoliberal economic system, as a leading decision maker on how the city’s new identity would be shaped. Cultural transformation started to be seen as a prerequisite for the new identity of the city. Hence, the private sector initially started to embed the culture created by liberal capitalism as a countermeasure to the culture dominated by the nation state, via the appropriation and deployment of Western cultural forms.133 In other words, in the 1990s, before interest materialized in Europe in terms of establishing closer cooperation with the periphery, Turkey had already begun to make attempts to synchronize with the West. The Istanbul Biennial is one of the most important of these attempts because in this period the importance of the culture industry, and particularly large-scale cultural events, began to be considered as an accelerating force for the economic and political developments of the city. In this respect, one can argue that the organization of the Istanbul Biennial turned from a modernization project of the national state in the 80s, into a strategy of globalization in the 90’s. 134 Thus, the Istanbul Biennial had a symbolic importance, which enabled synchronization with the outer world.
The Turkish artists of the 1990s, who were recognized by western curators in connection with the Istanbul Biennial, entered into dialogue with the West and had the opportunity to take part in large-scale exhibitions held in different parts of the world. They, in a way, promoted the potential for modern thinking in Turkey. It should be kept in mind that biennials are the platforms where a country’s potential for modern thinking is exhibited through artworks.135 This potential of modern thinking includes a conscious choice to display the artists, and artworks that reflect the integrity of the modern thinking of that
132 Caglar Keyder, “Capital City Resurgent: Istanbul since the 1980s”, Lecture delivered at LSE European Institute on Monday, 8 December 2008. 133 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014 134 Sibel Yardimci, “A Leap Forward by the Istanbul Biennial”, Springer, No. 1 (2006), accessed 12 October 2014, http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?Textid=1730&lang=en. 135 Beral Madra, Iki Yilda Bir Sanat, (Istanbul: Norgunk, 2003), 71.
39 country.136 In this respect Turkish artists, such as Ayse Erkmen, Ahmet Oktem, Ersin Cavusoglu, Fusun Onur, and Sarkis, participated in the most important biennials, namely Venice, Lyon, Sao Paulo, Sydney and Kwangju during this period.137
Developments in the field of art and culture, between the years 1970 and 1990, have been summarized above, within the context of the socio-political and economic necessity of the era. If the information above is reviewed, particularly in relation to the Istanbul Biennial, the impetus for the organization of a biennial can be summarized within four main sub- titles. The first one is the “changes in macro economy policies” which brought about a transformation from state capitalism to liberalism.
The second sub-title can be formalized as “the need to overcome the introversion” that existed in Turkey due to the 1980 military coup d’état.
Beral Madra reviews this situation as follows:
During those years when globalism occurred, it was necessary to prove that Turkey was not a fascist country. To overcome the introversion and the deep fascism, the necessity to start in Istanbul was clear. The city had to be revived and at this very point, biennials drew attention by promoting the city as a freedom zone, which could serve as a hub for international flows of money and art. Thus the forerunners of the city started to organize the Istanbul Biennial in cooperation with those who were in the government but against military fascism.138
Therefore, it can be argued that, the government and private sector became more aware of the fact that the culture industry was an effective tool, which could be utilized to facilitate the political and economic aspirations of the city/country by opening them up to global networks. At this stage, it is important to note that the Private Sector’s support of art should be regarded as an attempt to claim political power in the modern state. There are various ways of having, and using political power, having cultural prestige is one of the quick ways to gain such power. Large companies, and their general managers, gain significant power and prestige thanks to their wealth. The interest they display in cultural
136 Ibid. 137 Fulya Erdemci, Semra Germener and Orhan Kocak, Modern ve Otesi (Istanbul: Bilgi University Press, 2007), 65. 138 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014
40 activities should be seen as a part of the general strategy that aims at combining the power of their private wealth with the authority of public culture, particularly if these activities are being promoted by the government.139 The reason why companies are interested in cultural activities is linked to turning the cultural capital that they make into political power at an appropriate juncture.140
The third sub-title that forms the background of the Istanbul Biennial can be stated as “improvements in the field of artistic creation.” Starting from the 1970’s but mostly in 1980’s, Turkish artists tried hard to find a new visual language, such as installations and videos, which questioned the limitations and boundaries of modern art within the political and contemporary environment.141 As discussed above, the period of 1970-1990 when the Istanbul Festival (1973) was born and then evolved to the Istanbul Biennial (1987) is a period in which economic and political introversion started to be overcome thanks to liberalization, in conjunction with the appearance of the distinction between modern and contemporary art. The general point to be made about this period is that, the difference between the international art practices and art in Turkey started to fade and Turkey became more aligned with the West in terms of socio-political and economic developments. Such growth in the field of art, when met with the appropriate socio-political and economic conditions, created the momentum for expanding internationally, hence, this led to the organization of the Istanbul Biennial.
The fourth sub-title can be verbalized as the “argument between the center and the periphery” with reference to their different ideologies in the new postmodern era. Namely, the hierarchy between the centre and the periphery is shattered; the periphery yields to the center and its position changes to that of an inferior. At this point, it is important to recall the exhibition of the Magiciens de la Terre, which had the express intention of working together with the other cultures on a common footing, and on an equal platform that marked the break from the classical Eurocentric model of Western art.142 Following this exhibition, curators began to be interested in not only the artists living in Paris, London
139 Chin-tao Wu, Kültürün Özellestirilmesi (Istanbul: Iletisim, 2005), 37. 140 Ibid. 141 Fulya Erdemci, Semra Germener and Orhan Kocak, Modern ve Ötesi (Istanbul: Bilgi University Press, 2007), 43. 142 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014
41 and Berlin but also the ones living in third world countries and the periphery. That is to say, within this context, foreign artists, curators, museum administrators and art critics began to come to Turkey via the already established institutions such as the British Council and Goethe Institute.143 Thus, the notion that there may actually be developments in the field of modern art in Istanbul occurred in the international art world. The Istanbul Biennial in 1987 proved this notion and paved the way for other improvements, in terms of political and economic developments, by pulling into the global capital flow. This reveals the private sector’s eagerness to play a leading role in supporting the culture industry, which subsequently gave birth to the Istanbul Biennial. With this understanding in mind, the following section will introduce the evolution of the Istanbul Biennial in the socio- politic context of the country from the viewpoint of a conceptual framework, the curator, exhibition locations, art works and the biennial’s interaction with the public sphere.
143 Ibid.
42 The Evolution of the Istanbul Biennial
Most of the very important developments occurred right before, and after, 1973, which was the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish Republic. This anniversary was celebrated with the 1st International Istanbul Festival, which was the origin of today’s Istanbul Biennial, organized by the IKSV in 1973.144
The 1st Istanbul Festival was initially composed of only classical music concerts; however, it gradually evolved and started to enrich its program with film screenings, theatre productions, Mevlevi Sema ceremonies, traditional shadow puppet shows, jazz and ballet performances, and art exhibitions.145 The metamorphosis of the International Istanbul Festival into today’s Istanbul Biennial was completed in 1987 by changing its traditional style and following a European structure in terms of themes, concepts and approaches, as well as the functioning of exhibition venues and selection of participating artists, curators and jurors from Europe.146 The year of the 1st Istanbul Biennial, (1973) also marked the construction of the First Bosphorus Bridge, connecting the East and the West, which facilitated the West-East expansion of the city along the Marmara sea, making the city an easily accessible space with new industrial, commercial, residential and recreational zones.147 It is also interesting to remember that the Additional Protocol was signed in 1973, which constructed a new political and an economic bridge between Turkey and the European Community. The protocol aimed to strengthen economic relations between the parties, and prepared the ground for the establishment of the Customs Union148 which can be considered as a synchronization effort with the EU, pushing Turkey more into the transnational flow rather than the local flow. In order to maintain continuity and strengthen the efforts of synchronization with the outer world, a complementary move was made in the artistic and cultural fields. The organization of the 1st Istanbul Biennial can be
144 The Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, "History", 2013, accessed 12 December 2013, http://www.iksv.org/en/aboutus/history 145 Ibid. 146 Sibel Yardımcı, “Interlocking Flows: Globalization, Urbanism, and Culture in Contemporary Istanbul”, (paper presented in the Critical Management Conference, The Management of Creativity and Creative Industries Stream, Manchester, 2001), 11. 147 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 12. 148 EU-Turkey Chambers Forum Phase 2, “Information on EU-Turkey Relations“, accessed 25 November, 2014, http://www.etcf.org.tr/EN/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D313AAF6AA849816B2EF3143C82B0 599388A.
43 interpreted from this point of view as well. The Istanbul Biennial was also an effort to create synthesis with the West, steadily developing itself into an internationally recognized and respected cultural event, both within the local art community as well as abroad.149
149 Marieke van Hal, "Rethinking the Biennial" (MA Thesis, Royal College of Art, 2010), 21.
44 The Istanbul Biennials From 1987-2013
1st International Istanbul Biennial
In 1987 the 1st International Istanbul Biennial entitled “Contemporary Art in Traditional Spaces” took place with the participation of sixty Turkish and forty-seven foreign artists from Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Poland and Yugoslavia, and ten art galleries.150
The principles and the aims of the biennial were presented as follows:
• To exhibit a high level segment of the international artistic and cultural events in Turkey; • To introduce the Turkish viewers and artists to the artists who made contributions to the art world in their countries and the improvement of universal art; • To introduce the Turkish artists to the international art world; • To create a relationship and contact between the units forming the phenomenon of international art and those forming the phenomenon of art in Turkey; and • To document the international art exhibitions with catalogues.151 The 1st Istanbul Biennial did not adopt the style of a national pavilion, inherited from the Venice Biennial, which was the prevalent form of biennial organization at the time. Rather the focus was on the artists, art streams and global art trends.152
The historical places in different parts of the city were used as an exhibition venue in order to attract the attention of the audiences and appeal to the artist.153 For example, Hagia Eirene, the Hagia Sophia Bath, the Istanbul Museum of Painting and Sculpture and the Military Museum were among the exhibition venues. The conceptual framework and the chosen venues of the exhibitions had the effect of symbolically positioning the city, as it is
150 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds. Isimsiz - 12. Istanbul Bienali Untitled - 12th Istanbul Biennial 2011 (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012). 30 151 Press Release, 1st International Istanbul Biennial, accessed 12 September 2014 http://www.beralmadra.net/wp-content/uploads/text-images/bilgi-metni-1.jpeg
152 th Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz - 12. Istanbul Bienali Untitled - 12 Istanbul Biennial 2011 (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012). 30. 153 Beral Madra, Iki Yilda Bir Sanat. (Istanbul:Norgunk, 2003), 17. 45 strategically located between the East and the West, and had the potential to became a center of the international art scene as it is Westernized in its artistic practices.154
The year 1987 was politically significant as the general elections took place. The general characteristic of the elections was the increasing number of parties’ participating, and the removal of restrictions on the leaders of the political parties. As a result, although there were attempts in favour of democratization, the curator of the Biennial defines that year as,
…there was zero democracy and severe fascism in Turkey at that time and for many people like myself, the only recourse for retaining individual freedom and displaying some forms of resistance was by working in certain fields of art.156
First biennials had the significance of bringing new criteria to an art scene under the influence of cultural policies as ratified by the nation- state ideology that had spent the past century in introverted isolation.157
During the 1st Biennial, there was a transition from the isolation and introversion to the synergy and extroversion of globalism. Large companies started to establish centers of art and culture; they began treating artists and artistic production as a medium for prestige. It was a way to prove that the production and consumption of art and culture was indeed taking place in Turkey and Istanbul highlighted, as a candidate to become a center of the international art scene.158 Thanks to this biennial, many internationally renowned artists, art collectors and critics came to Turkey. The catalogue of the exhibition was delivered to hundreds of art centers, art professionals, and galleries and artists from Turkey began to be recognized within international mainstream art communities.159
According to statistics, provided by the IKSV, 10,000 people visited the Biennial, however, according to Beral Madra’s book Art Every Two Years, 50,000160 people visited
154 th Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz - 12. Istanbul Bienali Untitled - 12 Istanbul Biennial 2011 (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012). 31.
156 Ibid.
157 Ibid. 37 158 Ibid. 31 159 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014 160 Beral Madra, Iki Yilda Bir Sanat. (Istanbul:Norgunk, 2003), 32.
46 it. The difference between these two statistics may be explained by poor organization in terms of calculating and recording the number of visitors to the Biennial. It is interesting to note that in 1987 the population of Istanbul was 6,303,200.161
2nd International Istanbul Biennial
The 2nd Biennial took place between the 25th September and 31st October 1989, under the title of Contemporary Art in the Traditional Environment. With a similar theme and title to the previous one, the exhibitions were installed in twenty-four different galleries in addition to the Hagia Eirene Museum, the Press Museum, Süleymaniye Cultural Center, National Palaces Hareket Kiosk, the Mimar Sinan University Painting and Sculpture Museum, Mimar Sinan University Painting and Sculpture Museum Library, the Military Museum (Harbiye), Atatürk Cultural Center and the Yildiz University.162 Furthermore, it is important to note that the biennial expanded into outdoor locations such as Sultanahmet Square and Sarayburnu, which is important for reaching a more heterogeneous audience and in having a stronger influence on the city. A total of 12,000 people visited this biennial.
Twelve of the 112 artists were Turkish and the rest were from Australia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the USA, and Yugoslavia (before breakup).
3rd International Istanbul Biennial
The 3rd Biennial took place in 1992, instead of 1991, due to the Gulf War, with its conceptual framework named, Production of Cultural Difference. 1989 witnessed not only the demolition of the Berlin Wall but also the exhibition of Magiciens De La Terre. The curator, Vasif Kortun, explained the title as “a soft reaction to the almost biological understanding of culture in Magiciens de la terre.” To provide a response from Istanbul, he formed the conceptual framework around the problem of cultural diversity. Massive immigration to big cities, social, political and cultural changes, which were caused by increased international communication and transportation, the recognition of the identities of different ethnic groups, and the acceptance of cultural differences were the popular
161 Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, “Sayılarla Istanbul”, accessed 22 November 2014, http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/bilgihizmetleri/Istatistikler/Documents/demografi/t211.pdf.
162 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz - 12. Istanbul Bienali, Untitled - 12th Istanbul Biennial 2011 (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012). 25.
47 themes of the exhibitions of that time period.164
In the catalogue of the Biennial, Jale Erzen, a member of the Biennial’s advisory council, wrote:
On this day when the importance of the multi-culturalism of Istanbul, which has served as a bridge between East and West, has come to the foreground; Istanbul has the chance to become the capital of world culture with its history, culture and position.165 The Biennial has brought up cultural diversity within the context of globalization with both its local and universal dimensions. The aim was to draw attention to the work and the ideas they embodied, rather than the representation of different races, ethnic histories and sexes, or the investments made in the field of Low Culture and alternative interpretations of history.166
The 3rd Istanbul Biennial chose not to use the historical peninsula, instead it situated itself within the city remits by converting an industrial building into an exhibition space. Feshane, a 19th century textile factory, was restored by the businessman Nejat Eczacibasi for the 3rd Biennial.167 The Biennial hosted sixty artists from foreign countries, namely, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Holland, Israel, Italy, Poland, Romania, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom, USA and five artists from Turkey. 14,000 people visited the Biennial.
4th International Istanbul Biennial
The 4th International Istanbul Biennial was organized in 1995, after a three year gap due to the economic crisis. The curator was René Block, who was the first foreign curator of the International Istanbul Biennial. The conceptual framework was entitled; “ORIENT- ATION: The Vision of Art in a Paradoxical World.” The title implicitly unveiled the political character of the exhibition. The reason as to why the conceptual framework was about “orientation” was to emphasize how much of the culture that was thought to be
164 Ibid, 34. 165 Beral Madra, Iki Yilda Bir Sanat. (Istanbul:Norgunk, 2003), 71. 166 Arkitera, “Sanat Mercek Altinda, 8. Uluslararasi Istanbul Bienali”, Istanbul Biennalleri'nin Tarihçesi, accessed 18 November 2014, http://v3.arkitera.com/v1/sanat/2003/08/mercekalti/tarihce.htm.
167 Tomur Atagök and Susan Platt, “The Digestible Other”, Third Text, 103-109, (2001), accessed 12 June 2014, doi: 10.1080/09528820108576921. 48 western actually came from the Orient/East.168 In line with the conceptual framework, which tracks the roots of the western culture’s origin in the East, the curator invited 119 artists from forty-seven countries: nineteen of them came from Turkey; another fifty were from non-western countries.169 This draws attention to the fact that after the improvement of international communications and transportation, this biennial had participants from countries as far away as Brazil, Cuba, Japan, Mexico, and Thailand.
During 1995, when the Biennial was organized, the war in the Balkans continued. The political state of Europe was very unclear. This exhibition focused on the artists’ reactions to political ambiguity and aimed to send a message from Istanbul to the world.170
The 4th Biennial was positioned in the historical peninsula of the city and in the Eastern center. Block stated that the Feshane factory that was used for the 3rd Biennial could not be used for the 4th due to the changing political situation of the city. Instead they discovered an old empty customs complex in Bosporus, named Antrepo, and transformed it into an exhibition space. Additionally, The Basilica Cistern, Hagia Irene and the Atatürk Cultural Center Art Gallery were also used as exhibition venues.171
In 1995, commercial relations between the EU and Turkey were improved via the Customs Union Agreement, which came into force on December 31, 1995.172 This agreement, which was seen as the first step towards Turkey joining the EU, created positive and negative arguments about EU membership in terms of the East-West axis. The use of the old Customs complex for the Biennial drew attention, even if it was by coincidence, it could be argued that it might have been a symbolic reference to the Custom Union Agreement. During the same period, Turkey had been dealing with high inflation rates and the economic crisis as well as the ongoing conflict with PKK, which created civil war tension.
168 René Block, ed., 4th International Istanbul Biennial: ORIENT/ATION – The Vision of Art in a Paradoxical World (Istanbul:Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 1995), 20.
169 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12th Istanbul Biennial, (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 81. 170 Ibid.
171 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 81.
172 Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, “The Research Infrastructure on European Integration, Decision No 1/95 of the EC, Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995, On Implementing the Final Phase of the Customs Union (96/142/EC)”, accessed 18 November 2014. http://www.avrupa.info.tr/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/Custom_Union_des_ENG.pdf. 49 This Biennial was visited by 65,000173 people, which made it approximately four times more successful in reaching its audience than the three previous ones. Such an increase can be explained by its maturation in the past eight years and by placing itself on the map of the international world biennials. In addition, it attracted a significant number of international art collectors and an international audience, as well as resulting in the evolution of newly formed audiences in Turkey who were interested in contemporary art. Further, it can be argued that because the curator was internationally well known, the biennial attracted more attention as compared to previous biennials. The population of Istanbul had, by this time, increased to 9,017,400.174
5th International Istanbul Biennial
The 5th Biennial, held in 1997, was entitled “About Life, Beauty, Translations, Convection, and Other Difficulties” and Rosa Martinez was its curator. The title, inspired by Rainer Maria Rilke, referred to the desire to; connect art and life; to willingly embrace new forms of beauty removed from classical standards; to gain awareness that a city, like a script, can be read, interpreted, and transformed.175 As with previous biennials, the city of Istanbul had a great influence on forming the conceptual framework, however, it differed by putting individuals and the art at its core.
The locations of the exhibition venues were increased and were more diversified compared to previous biennials. With these different locations, the city was utilized dynamically and connections between the locations were crucial. The emphasis on female artists was expressed through the different ways in which their extensive array of exhibitions were employed and interconnected.176 It drew attention to the fact that 60% of the participants were women and this was the highest number ever reached at any biennial.177 Locations such as The Imperial Mint, the Hagia Eirene Museum, and Yerebatan Cistern in the historical peninsula were used again. In addition to that, public spaces like the Sirkeci
173 Zekiye Reyhan Eren, “Sanat Turizmi Kapsaminda Bienaller ve Ulke Tanitimina Olan Etkilerinin Uluslararasi Istanbul Bienali Ornegi ile Degerlendirilmesi” (MA Thesis, T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanligi Tanitma Genel Müdürlügü, 2010), 42. 174 Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, “Sayılarla Istanbul”, accessed 22 November 2014, http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/bilgihizmetleri/Istatistikler/Documents/demografi/t211.pdf. 175 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 102. 176 Ibid. 101. 177 Ibid. 96.
50 train station, the Sultanahment Square, the Haydarpaşa Train Station, Maidens Tower, The Marmara Hotel, the Women’s Library and Information Center, the Taksim Square and Ataturk airport were utilized.178 The train stations and the airport were conceptualized as a passage to new identities and a place to encounter different cultures, different countries and different stories.179
Supplementary exhibitions held in the shanty Karanfilköy, located in the quarter Akatlar, which is in the middle of the city, took center stage.180 The use of the Karanfilköy can be seen as an attempt to ensure the diversity of its audiences by connecting art to daily life. The use of these many, different, and distant locations was crucial as it enabled the participants to discover and experience the city.
During the Biennial, there were performances on the Bosporus, like Cai Guo-Qiang’s “Both Shores” which attempted to connect The European and Asian sides of the area. Seventy-nine of the eighty-seven artists were from different countries and eight were from Turkey. The main sponsors of the Biennial included Koç, DHL, The Marmara, Renault, IBM and it hosted 70,000 visitors.181
The significant political event of that year was the Post-Modern coup d’état. The nine- hour meeting of the National Security on February 28, 1997 published eighteen rules, known as the “MGK decisions” and made a “democratic wheel balance” by overthrowing Necmettin Erbakan’s Refah Yol government. This caused chaos; dividing citizens into opposing groups, such as; secular, Islamic, leftists, and PKK supporters. Some public officials were fired without a reason, many were murdered, and the war with the PKK was used as an event to bring the nation together.182 One could suggest that the existing divisions within society had an impact on forming the conceptual framework, which centered on the individual and art by emphasizing the necessity for both to be connected.
6th International Istanbul Biennial
The curator Paolo Colombo created the theme of the 6th Biennial (1999) as Passion and
178 Ibid, 106. 179 Ibid. 100. 180 Ibid.102.
181 Ibid, 114.
182 Atilla Dirim, “28 Şubat 1997: 1000 yıl süremeyen ‘postmodern’ darbe gerçekleşti”, accessed 11 October 2014, http://arsiv.marksist.org/tarihte-bugun/14137-28-subat-1997-1000-yil-suremeyen-postmodern-darbe- gerceklesti 51 Wave. This theme, which has a poetical touch, shows deep respect to Istanbul and also an interest in personal experiences as the origin of the theme comes from the life story of two people in Istanbul.183 This Biennial illustrates the religion, language, and relationships between two cultures, via art, by showcasing the life of one Turkish and one Greek artist who left Turkey as a consequence of the 1922 population exchange between the two countries.184 In this conceptual framework, by using the conflict between the Turks and the Greeks, other conflicts in different parts of the world were addressed and a global point of view was created. Artists who narrated a story, and probed issues relating to psychology and emotions were invited, rather than artists who approached their work systematically.185 The idea was to explore the depth of the artwork while keeping the exhibition small in terms of the number of participating artists. For this reason forty-eight international and eleven Turkish artists were invited.186
In this Biennial, locations were chosen to show the dynamic nature of the city and tie Istanbul to different places, both conceptually and in reality, therefore bringing different cultures together and contrasting them against each other. In this sense, the locations in the historical peninsula such as the Hagia Eirene Museum and Yerebatan Cistern were used as the centers. In addition to these, the big sultan’s kitchens in the Dolmabahçe Palace was transformed into an exhibition space and presented as Dolmabahçe Cultural Center to the city’s cultural life.187 Furthermore, some other locations outside of these main venues were included in order to spread the Biennial out into the city. For this reason, the Taksim Square was used to exhibit Ugo Rondinone’s piece “Where Do We Go From Here.” 188 The mains sponsors of this Biennial were Koc, DHL, The Marmara, Renault, Turkiye Odalar ve Borsalar Birligi and the Norton Family Foundation.189
A tragic event happened, just thirty days before the scheduled opening. A major earthquake hit the city and left a very large number of people dead, injured and homeless.
183 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul:Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 112. 184 Ibid. 113. 185 Ibid. 115. 186 Ibid. 114. 187 Ibid. 115. 188 Ibid. 189 Paolo Colombo, ed., 6th International Istanbul Biennial: Tutku ve Dalga (Istanbul:Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 1999).
52 Naturally, the Biennial became less of a priority for the biennial workers since most of them went to join the army, and earthquake rescue teams. 190 Due to national mourning and grief, some of the events planned for the Biennial were limited. For example, some of the videos, which were planned to be shown, of ferries cruising between Asia and Europe, were cancelled, as were other side projects, since they did not correspond to the mood of the country at that time.191
During this time period the important political event on Turkey’s agenda was the Helsinki Summit in December 1999, in which the EU recognized Turkey as an EU candidate country. This represented a fundamental turning point in Turkey - EU relations, because official EU discourse now underlined the principle of equal treatment towards Turkey. In addition, it stimulated greater reforms as Turkey became eligible to use the benefits from a pre-accession strategy to support reforms that helped nurture cultural life in Turkey.192 40,000 people visited the Biennial. 193 The reason why this number was lower then the previous biennials despite the population of Istanbul increasing (from 9,198,809 to 10,786,300194) can be attributed to the earthquake.
7th International Istanbul Biennial
The 7th International Istanbul Biennial (in 2001) was curated by Yuko Hasegawa, entitled Egofugal: Fugue from Ego for the Next Emergence. This Biennial brought up the issue of egoism, as prioritized and encouraged by the global capitalist system, a reform that affected modern humanity and discourse. It preached the necessity of taking action against global issues by eliminating individual egos.195 The curator emphasized that how one
190 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 117. 191 Ibid. 192Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Avrupa Birligi Bakanligi, “Türkiye-AB İlişkilerinin Tarihçesi”, (2011), accessed 12 November 2014, http://www.ab.gov.tr/index.php?P=111&l=1. 193 Zekiye Reyhan EREN, “Sanat turizmi kapsaminda bienaller ve ülke tanitimina olan etkilerinin uluslararasi Istanbul bienali örnegi ile degerlendirilmesi” (MA thesis, T.C. Kültür ve turizm bakanligi tanitma genel müdürlügü, 2010), 42.
194 Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, “The Population of Istanbul According to The Cencus Years, Yearly Population Growth Between Censuses and The Middle Year Population Estimates” accessed 22 November 2014, http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/BilgiHizmetleri/Istatistikler/Documents/demografi/t211.pdf.
195 Beral Madra, Iki Yilda Bir Sanat, (Istanbul:Norgunk, 2003), 116.
53 coexists with the other is essentially the same question as how to exist.197 In this regard, one can argue that the there is a significant transference, emerging from individualism to collectivism in the era of globalization. The title aspired towards openness, understanding, tolerance and the sharing of wisdom in order to survive in the era of globalization.198
In the background of the Biennial in 2001, there was significant social and political turmoil concerning terrorism and anti-globalism, and social tension related to immigrants. The 9/11 attacks, in America, occurred ten days before the Biennial opened, and affected the itinerary of the artists and shipping of art works.199
The Biennial took place in four main settings, using seven different satellite venues in various districts of the city. Beylerbeyi Palace, which is an historic setting on the Anatolian side, joined other historic sites like Darphane-i Amire, Hagia Eirene, Maiden Tower and Basilica Cistern. These venues included the Cemberlitas Hamam, the Bosphorus Bridge, the Platform Garanti Contemporary Art Centre, Atlikarica Kindergarden, and the area to the front of the Tuyap Exhibition Center and designated city streets.200 In addition, there were countless billboards highlighting specific artists and their expositions. James Turrel's work, for example, was displayed at the Maiden's Tower. Alberto Garutti's work, which could be seen at the Bosphorus Bridge, lit up like a clear night sky every time a baby was born, using countless metaphors stressing overpopulation. Additionally, the Street Museum project by the Cambalache Collective, the exchange of goods involving people in the street, and Rirkrit Tiravanija’s projection of four movies onto four screens in a public square were some of the participatory events of the Biennial. Regardless of the exhibition, the main purpose was to honour and reflect the city where the Biennial was being held. As stated by Yuko Hasegawa, “Any biennial must refresh the city and the thinking of its attendees.”203
197 Ibid. 131. 198 Ibid 129. 199 Ibid 128. 200 Ibid 144. 203 Ibid.
54 67,000 people visited the biennial, which included sixty-three foreign artists from twenty- two countries and nine Turkish artists. It was sponsored primarily by Koc Holdings, The Borsa Istanbul, Akbank, Axa, Oyak, Aygaz and Borusan.204
8th International Istanbul Biennial
Dan Cameron was the curator of the 8th International Istanbul Biennial (in 2003), entitled “Poetic Justice.” The title refers to a technique used in literature to analyze the concepts of injustice and poetry, initially belonging to the inner world of the individual while latterly belonging to world affairs.205 By connecting these two concepts on a global level, the Biennial encouraged debates relevant to the times, such as: “What is justice?” “Why has it turned out to be urgent now?” “Is justice possible in today’s globalized world?”. Obviously, there were no right or wrong answers because of a simple paradox, that is, if there is more than one justice system in the world, none of them can be absolute. This was important because it highlighted a dilemma that still exists today and appears to be in open conflict with the origins of modern justice, as established by Greco-Roman law, wherein justice provides for an absolute basis for deciding right and wrong, and suggests one of the most compelling aspects of the presently unsettled state of global affairs.206
The conceptual framework indicates that, the concept of individual justice acquired something of a trans-national character within the course of globalization by transcending all national borders and state boundaries. This, most definitely, affected the American curator's decision for the Biennial title, something he said was heavily influenced by the tragic event of the 2001 Twin Towers attack as well as America's occupation of Iraq in 2003.207
A total of 60,000 people visited this biennial, which was organized in four different venues. They were: Antrepo No. 4, Tophane-i Amire, Basilica Cistern and the Hagia Sophia Museum, and the Platform Garanti Modern Art Centres. Besides the projects organized there, several smaller ones were established under the collective title “public sphere projects.” In addition, directional signs (Rogellio Lopez Cuenca) and billboards
204 Ibid. 144. 205 Ntvmsnbc, “Bienal’in ardindan …”, (2003), accessed 25 November 2014, http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/244097.asp 206 Ibid. 207 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul:Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 152.
55 (Oda Project) were put up in various parts of the city.208 It is a commonly held belief that the 8th Biennial successfully intertwined with the city itself, as well as its inhabitants due to the locations of the exhibitions and additional public sphere projects.
In total, eighty-five artists from forty-two countries participated and ten of these artists were Turkish. The Biennial was sponsored by Japan Tobacco International-Turkey. 209
During 2003 to 2005, the socio-political agenda of the country was predominantly covered by EU and Turkey relationship, which also had a significant effect on the developments of Modern Art in Turkey. In May 2003, the European Council adopted a revised Accession Partnership Agreement to assist the Turkish authorities in their efforts to meet the accession criteria. Particular emphasis was placed on the EU’s political criteria, but it also covered, in detail, other priorities for accession preparations, including the implementation of the pre-accession assistance for EU funds through which numerous amounts of EU projects, in the field of art and culture, have been supported. 210 Furthermore, the government increased its support for the Modern Arts in order to facilitate the EU accession negotiations. As a consequence, the first modern art museum of Turkey, “The Istanbul Modern” was established in 2004 with the support of the president, Erdoğan. The Director of the museum, Oya Eczacıbaşı, states that the seeds of the Istanbul Modern had been spread in 1987 with the 1st Biennial; however, due to conflict with local public authorities the project couldn’t be brought to fruition until 2003. 211 During the 8th International Istanbul Biennial, this issue drew attention in the context of the EU membership negotiations, and the fate of the project changed. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president at that time, removed all obstacles which the project had faced with a single condition which required the opening of the museum before the December, 17 which marked the decision by the European Council to open membership talks with Turkey.212
208 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul:Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 164 209 Ntvmsnbc, “Bienal’in ardindan …”, (2003), accessed 25 November 2014, http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/244097.asp. 210 Devyani Jagasia, “Turkish Membership to the European Union: An Advantageous Turning Point for the EU or an Adverse Drawback,” Global Politician, July 19, 2007, accessed 21 July 2009, http://www.globalpolitician.com/23121-Turkey. 211 Ntvmsnbc, “Bienal’in ardindan …”, (2003), accessed 25 November 2014, http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/244097.asp. 212 Doğan Hizlan, “İstanbul Modern Sanatlar Müzesi'ne Kavuşuyor”, (2004), accessed 5 October 2014, http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?İd=276993.
56 Erdogan authorized the permanent utilization of the Antrepo building, where the last five biennials had been organized, to be transformed into the first Modern Art Museum of Turkey, with the backing of the Istanbul AKP deputy of that period, (later the Minister of EU Affairs), Egemen Bağış. Subsequently, the accession negotiations opened on October 3 2005.213
The opening of the Modern Art Museum, which became possible through the support of the government, can be interpreted as reshaping the identity of Istanbul in order to synchronize better with the Western world, in terms of arts and cultural developments, which would eventually have a positive impact on the socio-political and economic strategies of the country. Without a doubt, the 8th Istanbul Biennial has been a catalyst in the process of transforming the Antrepo into the Istanbul Modern Art Museum.
9th International Istanbul Biennial
The 9th Biennial (in 2005), entitled l Biennialuseum.t in the process of transforming the pport of the government, can be interpretrom Turkey. The title of the 9th Biennial was primarily designed for both the existing urban setting and for the visual power this city bears to the world.214 The 9th Biennial differed from the other biennials in terms of the selection of the venues. Contrary to the other biennials, places of the post-industrialization period, which combined the traces of an economic transition, and were based on consumption and reflected the sediments of modernity, were preferred as an exhibition venue instead of the settings in the historical peninsula of Istanbul.215 Charles Esche, explained that the reasons for choosing venues other than those in the historical peninsula was due to the fact that they wanted to represent the image of Istanbul as a modern city. For this purpose many modern buildings such as the Deniz Palas Apartment, the Garanti Building, the Tobacco Warehouse, the Bilsar Building, the Garibaldi Building and the
213 Devyani Jagasia, “Turkish Membership to the European Union: An Advantageous Turning Point for the EU or an Adverse Drawback,” Global Politician, July 19, 2007, accessed July 21, 2009, http://www.globalpolitician.com/23121-Turkey. 214 Vasıf Kortun and Charles Esche, 9.Uluslararası İstanbul Bienali, (İstanbul: İstanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfı, 2005), accessed october 15, 2014, http://9b.iksv.org/turkce.asp?Page=Curators. 215 Deniz Unsal, ed., Art, City and Politics in an Expanding World. Writings From the 9th International Istanbul Biennial (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2005), 19.
57 Garanti Modern Art Centre and Antrepo No: 5 were used.218
At this biennial six artists from Turkey and forty-nine artists from abroad exhibited their artworks. 219 In total, 50,000 people visited the Biennial, which was sponsored, by Koc, Turkcell, DHL, The Marmara, Abdi Ibrahim, Aygaz, Opet, Finansbank, as well as the EU’s Culture 2000 and Education and Culture programmes.220
10th International Istanbul Biennial
The 10th Biennial in 2007, under the curatorship of Hou Hanru, stressed the following concept: Not Only Possible, But Also Necessary: Optimism in the Age of Global War. Hanru wanted to emphasize the complex nature of Istanbul by giving the Biennial a complex title, he explained as follows:
In this age, of global wars and the globalization of liberal capitalism, it is possible but also necessary to revitalize the debate on modernization and modernity and put forward proposals to improve social progress. Today, modernization should be carried out through the implementation of diverse models, relevant to local conditions and ideals. This should be done in negotiations between individual localities and the “global”. In other words, a truly democratic project of modernization and modernity that pertains to, and respects individual rights and values, is necessary to deliver Turkish society from this state of contradiction. This is also true of the global situation in transition.221 As it is emphasized above, the conceptual framework attempts to determine modernism which is not only relevant to the local conditions of Istanbul, but also in globally intellectual terms through the medium of contemporary art which has been a product of modernization and modernity. In this regard it is also worth noting that, the Istanbul Biennial exists as part of the modernization project of Turkey in her search for both internal cultural development and international status.222
218 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul:Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 180. 219 Ibid,174. 220 Charles Esche and Vasif Kortun, eds., 9th International Istanbul Biennial: Istanbul (Istanbul:Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2005). 221 Ibid.
222 Hou Hanru, “Not Only Possible But Also Necessary: Optimism in the Age of Global War”, accessed 26 September 2014, http://10b.iksv.org/english/detail.asp?cid=3&ac=conseptual.
58 As urbanization is the most visible and significant sign of modernization, the exploration of the urban and architectural conditions of Istanbul become a starting point, and a central reference throughout.223
Given that the Istanbul Biennial did not have a permanent venue, the curator decided to choose venues that would symbolize the different facets of the modernization process of the city. He chose a former opera building, the Atatürk Cultural Center (AKM), which is one of the most vital symbols of political projects and the nation state.
One of the other interesting venue used in this Biennial was the Istanbul Textile Traders' Market (İMÇ). It was designed as an ultra-modern building but due to a lack of functionality it faced the risk of being demolished. The İMÇ was chosen as a venue for the exhibition named “World Factory” with the notion that it reflects the desire to transform the society of the 1960s. Another venue chosen for this Biennial is Antrepo, which has now become an official venue for the Istanbul Biennial.224 Antrepo was formerly a harbor warehouse. It was considered to be an intermediary venue for commerce, customs and immigration that connected Istanbul with the outer world and gave the perception of being cosmopolitan.
With an attempt to locate an exhibition on the Asian side of the city, the Kadiköy Public Education Centre (KAHEM) was chosen. There was a series of projects in which different collectives from Istanbul, and other countries, could take an active part in side events of the Biennial by opening up their own spaces and running their own projects.225
The 10th Istanbul Biennial was visited by 91,000 people and accommodated more than 150 projects by ninety-six international artists and artist groups in five different venues. It provided free entrance to university students, which may explain why the number of visitors to the Biennial increased by approximately 50%. Koç Holding was the main sponsor, and has been the main sponsor of the International Istanbul Biennial since 2007 (the 10th Biennial) to date and will be the main sponsor until 2016.226 The Delegation of
223 Hou Hanru, “Not Only Possible But Also Necessary: Optimism in the Age of Global War”, accessed 26 September 2014, http://10b.iksv.org/english/detail.asp?cid=3&ac=conseptual.
224 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul:Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 192. 225 Ibid, 195. 226Hou Hanru, “Not Only Possible But Also Necessary: Optimism in the Age of Global War”, accessed 26 September 2014, http://10b.iksv.org/english/detail.asp?cid=3&ac=conseptual. 59 the European Commission to Turkey was one of the highest contributing sponsors of the Biennial.227 The official population of Istanbul was 12,573,836 at that time, which also suggests an explanation for the increased number of visitors.228
Ever closer EU-TR relations mostly dominated the political agenda of the time. In February 2007, Istanbul was declared the European Capital of Culture of 2010 by the EU commission. In addition, within the framework of Civil Society Dialogue, the EU Commission transferred 21,500,000 229 euros to support democratic developments in Turkey, encouraging citizens from Turkey and the EU to become more pro-active in political, cultural and economic development. Subsequently, Turkey received an additional 500,000,000 euros via the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).230 Thanks to the Customs Union, commerce has been reinforced between all parties and Turkey has become the seventh commercial partner of the EU. 231 One can argue that, in 2007, the relationship between the EU and Turkey gained momentum in terms of social, political and economic cooperation.
11th International Istanbul Biennial
The 11th Biennial (in 2009) was implemented with the title “What Keeps Mankind Alive?” by the curator collective What, How & for Whom (WHW) from Zagreb, Croatia. WHW, consisted of Ivet Ćurlin, Ana Dević, Nataša Ilić and Sabina Sabolović. 233 The conceptual framework of the Biennial used the Threepenny Opera as its reference point while
http://www.iksftp.com/bienalarchive/bienal10/english/detail.asp?Cid=3&ac=conseptual. 227 Ibid. 228 İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, “Sayılarla İ stanbul”, accessed 22 November 2014, http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/bilgihizmetleri/Istatistikler/Documents/demografi/t211.pdf.
229 Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, “EU - Turkey Civil Society Dialogue,” accessed 22 December 2014, http://avrupa.info.tr/de/eu-and-civil-society/civil-society-dialogue/eu-turkey-civil-society- dialogue.html.
230 Selen Sarisoy Guerin and Ioannis Stivachtis, eds., On the Road to EU Membership, The Economic Transformation of Turkey, Institute for European Studies – publication series, nr. 17 (Brussels:VUBPRESS Brussels University Press, 2011), 50. 231 Commission of the European Communities, “Commission Staff Working Document, Turkey 2007 Progress Report”, SEC(2007)1436, Brussels, 2007, 5. accessed 29 November 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/turkey_progress_reports_en.pdf. 233 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 192.
60 attempting to make a Marxist criticism of globalism.234 The questions it brought up were as follows: Is it not true that we live haunted by the fears of approaching global changes, consequences of which could have lasting disastrous effects, not unlike those that transformed the world after the economic collapse of 1929? Aren't today's questions about the role of art in instigating social changes equally pressing as they were in the 1930s, when the Left confronted fascism and Stalinism? Or do we really consider them today to be solved within an all-encompassing system of culture industry and its contemporary malformations, confined to art genres, predictable as cultural trends, and profitable for the purposes of marketing?235
As understood from the questions above the Biennial focused on the relationships between art, politics and capital. The exhibition aimed to question the structuring of the Biennial. In an effort to peel away the biennials usual glossy surface a series of graphs and statistics were exhibited in a separate space and distributed to the public.236
The 11th Istanbul Biennial faced many protests, criticisms and negative reaction. The backlash, which started during the protests against the IMF and the World Bank Summit, was organized in October 2009 in Istanbul, and continued with a letter that invited the artists to leave the Biennial and perform their art in the streets where real politics could be made.237 The main reason why the Biennial aroused such a reaction was thought to stem from the frustration over the Koc Holding’s sponsorship and the insincerity at appropriation by Brecht. 238
The exhibitions were held in Antrepo No. 3, Feriköy the Greek School and the Tobacco Warehouse.239 While Antrepo and Tophane had been used during the biennials of the previous years, the Feriköy Greek School, which was closed due to a lack of students, was turned into an exhibition hall during this biennial. All the exhibition halls were on the European side of Istanbul, where most of the cultural events took place. Locating itself on
234 11th International Istanbul Biennial, “İnsan Neyle Yaşar?”, accessed 26 October 2014, http://11b.iksv.org/icsayfa.asp?Cid=6&k1=icindekiler&k2=kavramsal. 235 Ibid. 236 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 192. 237 Ibid, 208. 238 Ibid. 239 Ibid, 216.
61 only the European side of Istanbul, this biennial was criticized for not being intertwined with the entire city, including the Asian area.240 However, it attracted the largest number of visitors up to that time, during the two month period it was open. In total 101,000 visitors attended, 6,000 of whom were foreigners. Additionally, more than 600 press members from thirty-five countries; nearly 4,000 curators, collectors, museums and gallery managers came to Istanbul to visit the Biennial. 241
The agenda of the country during the year, can be summarized as: an economic recession in conjunction with the global economic crisis; the referendum that proposed the change in Constitution law; and the preparatory projects that took place within the 2010 European Capital of Culture.242 The Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Project nurtured aims such as Participant Urban Transformation, Cultural and Artistic Substructures for a Creative Metropolis, Cooperation for Istanbul’s Development as a Public City, Multi Culturalism and International Dialogue.243 It is worth remembering that 15% of the budget of the 11th Istanbul Biennial was provided by the Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Project.244 The leading sponsor of the Biennial was the Eczacibasi Holding.245
12th Istanbul Biennial
The 12th Istanbul Biennial, which was held in 2011, was entitled “Untitled” referring to the works of the Cuban American artist Felix Gonzalez-Torres, under the curatorship of Adriano Pedrosa and Jens Hoffmann. The innovative artistic language was the source of inspiration for the conceptual framework.246 The works of Gonzalez-Torres were set to personal and political aspects of art, and also rigorously payed attention to the formal aspects of artistic production; he referred to everyday life themes under high modernist,
240 Ibid.
241 11th International Istanbul Biennial, “Istanbul Bienali sona erdi”, accessed 26 October 2014, http://11b.iksv.org/anasayfa.asp. 242 Istanbul Il Ozel Idaresi, “Il Ozel Idaresinden 2010 Avrupa Kültür Baskenti Istanbul’a Büyük Destek”, accessed 02 December 2014, http://www.ioi.gov.tr/avrupa_kultur_baskenti.php. 243 Ibid. 244 Ilkay Balic, ed., 11th International Istanbul Biennial. What Keeps Mankind Alive? The Texts, (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2009), 24. 245Ibid, 489.
246 Jens Hoffmann and Adriano Pedrosa, “İsimsiz -12. İstanbul Bienali”, (2012), accessed 28 October 2014, http://12b.iksv.org/tr/giris.asp?C=2&id=38. 62 minimalist, and a conceptualist influence.247 The sub-themes also inspired by the works of Felix Gonzalez-Torres were as follows; Untitled (Abstraction), “Untitled” (Ross), “Untitled” (Passport), “Untitled” (History), and “Untitled” (Death by Gun)). As unveiled by the sub-titles, the conceptual framework of the 12th Istanbul Biennial was meant to explore the intertwined relationship between art and politics.248 To do so, the Biennial involved artworks that are both schematically innovative and politically outspoken. The Biennial was located in a single, carefully constructed space, Antrepo 3 and 5, with the aim of juxtaposing the artworks with the privilege of them being displayed in this space.249
Thanks to the projects realized under the framework of the 2010 European Cultural Capital, the culture industry of Istanbul received a major boost and this impact was still evident in 2011. The Istanbul Biennial started to be classified as being amongst the most prestigious contemporary art events in the world. It was followed closely by both the international press and art lovers alike. The 12th Istanbul Biennial, ranked among the most important European art events of this year along with the Venice Biennale.250 The Biennial, removed the word international from its name emphasizing the supranational, global nature of it.251
The press headlined the Istanbul Biennial as the “The Capital of Contemporary Art!” a reference mirroring the European Culture Capital programme. At the press conference in Antrepo No. 3., Bülent Eczacıbaşı, the chairman of the board of IKSV, gave the opening speech of the ceremony.
He said:
The Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts organized the 1st Istanbul Biennial in 1987. Since then, Istanbul and the biennial have grown, evolved, and gained prominence in connection with one another. The biennial has contributed to the development of Istanbul as a capital of culture and the arts, and Istanbul has received the biennial with open
247 Ibid. 248 Ibid. 249 Ibid. 250 Untitled (12th Istanbul Biennial), “The 12th Istanbul Biennial Opens Saturday September 17th” , accessed 22 October 2014, Http://12b.Iksv.Org/En/12thistanbul_Biennial_ENG.Doc. 251 Ceren Ozpinar, “Istanbul Biennial in the Context of the Individual, the City and the Public Space”, Kult- Referred Cultural Studies Journal (2011), 15. 63 arms, continually renewing the energy of this event with its rich history, contemporary dynamism, and potential.252 This increase in the production and consumption of art over the last decade fills us with hope for what we can achieve in the decade ahead. In 2023, when we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic, Turkey aims to be one of the world’s top 10 economies. Our hope is that our culture industry enjoys a share of this targeted economic growth.253 As expressed clearly in the above quotes, the Istanbul Biennial is considered to be a tool to nurture the financial and political aims of the country. Turkey aspires to be among the world’s ten top economies by 2023, which marks the 100th anniversary of Turkish Republic and will be celebrated by the Istanbul Biennial. In this regard, it is important to remember that the 1st Istanbul Festival was organized to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish Republic in order to declare its modernity and place the country on the map of Western culture.
The 12th Istanbul Biennial was visited by 110,000 art lovers and accommodated five group exhibitions of over 500 works. These included in excess of fifty solo presentations by 116 foreign and ten Turkish artists. The exhibitions were free of charge for students. It was visited by about 700 press members from Turkey and fifty from other countries, and about 4000 art professionals including artists, curators, collectors, museum and gallery directors. Additionally, approximately 6000 foreign visitors saw the exhibitions during the two month period of its duration. The leading sponsor of the Biennial was Koç Holding.254
13th Istanbul Biennial
The 13th Istanbul Biennial, in 2013, was named after Lale Muldur's book Mom, Am I Barbarian? and curated by Fulya Erdemci. The focus of its conceptual framework was the notion of public space as a political forum.
The notion of public space has several historical, philosophical, conceptual and geopolitical roots and definitions. Even though these readings differ from each other, almost all stem from the question of democracy regarding equality, civil rights and
252 Untitled (12th Istanbul Biennial), “The 12th Istanbul Biennial Opens Saturday September 17th” , accessed 22 October 2014, Http://12b.Iksv.Org/En/12thistanbul_Biennial_ENG.Doc 253 Ibid. 254 Press Release, 12th Istanbul Biennial, accessed 17 October 2014, http://12b.iksv.org/tr/basin.asp?id=15&c=4
64 political debate.255 Public space covers a wide range of concepts, from the existence of a work of art to the freedom that social media gives, the identification of urban sites as public space, and establishing where communal meetings and political debates are possible.256
This Biennial emphasized the relationship between art and politics, art and poetry, art and literature, and revisited the discussion about public confidence with the help of provoking the inner force of art.257 Being well aware of the fact that it is not possible to refer to a homogenous public or of people uniting under a single will, the conceptual framework aims to observe how these different and, in fact often opposing, multiple worlds could come together and act collectively.258
Artists from non-Western countries were prioritized, due to the fact that the most recent and controversial struggles about public space have occurred in the east and in the southern hemisphere.259 Therefore, to reflect on the present geopolitical climate in the exhibitions, those countries, whose agenda has long been the question of public space and urban transformation, were in attendance. Hence, fifty of the artist collectives, out of eighty- eight, were from Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, India, Turkey, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and Tunisia. In addition, eleven artists, two art groups/civil collectives from Turkey, three different artist collaborations, both Turkish and foreign, participated in the 13th Istanbul Biennial.260 This Biennial has been one that hosted the largest number of artists from Turkey.
The curatorial imagination of the Biennial was handled under four titles. Ut Pictura Poesis: Gramer, Body-Space-Freedom: A Piece of Straw; Art and Capital: Institutional Critique Reloaded; and Here and Now: Precarity of the Present. These ideas and themes
255 Fulya Erdemci, “Anne, Ben Barbar mıyım?”, accessed 02 December 2014, http://cdn.iksv.org/media/content/files/press/ed0a8fc7743d7d228f1ad4e91cd2c6ec.docx 256 Ibid. 257 Fulya Erdemci, ed., 13th Istanbul Biennial Book (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2014), 14. 258 Ibid., 23. 259 Ibid.27 260 13th Istanbul Bienali, accessed 26 September 2014, http://13b.iksv.org/tr.
65 were concreted spatially in the five venues of the Biennial; at Antrepo No. 3, Galata Greek Primary School, Arter, Salt Beyoğlu and 5533.262
This Biennial exhibited works underlining the mutual interaction between social actions and artistic activities, and in this context it questioned the urban transformation projects within the framework of public space. In this context, the 13th Istanbul Biennial highlighted the discussion of urban transformation within the concept of “Making the City Public” and this has met an important need for the sake of public enlightenment.264 However, the Biennial’s sponsors such as the Eczacıbaşı and Koç groups, being amongst the forerunners that invested in urban transformation, have made the debate questionable.
Breaking out two months before the Biennial and being a turning point in the political history of Turkey, the Gezi Park Resistance is the projection of this biennial's conceptual framework from the viewpoint of why it happened and what it stands for.265 It is worth mentioning that the Gezi protests started as a reaction to the urban transformation project to replace Taksim Gezi Park, the only green space in the city center, with a mosque and a shopping mall.266 Afterwards it developed into being about factors relating to democracy, such as individual rights and freedoms and taking decisions for one's own life, and habitat. The questions which the Biennial posed, regarding the public domain and function of the city as the spatial component of a democratic apparatus, 267 offered a conceptual background to collective resistance, whilst at the same time it was at the center of this civil uprising.
According to Fulya Erdemci, the word “barbarian” in the title of the Biennial may refer to the language of those who are marginalized, illegal, and perhaps aspiring to debunk or change the system such as the recluse, outcasts, hermits, bandit, anarchists, revolutionary poets and artists. 268 The 13th Biennial aimed to establish a link between the social
262 Fulya Erdemci, ed., 13th Istanbul Biennial book (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2014), 27. 264 Fulya Erdemci, “Anne, Ben Barbar mıyım?”, accessed 02 December 2014, http://cdn.iksv.org/media/content/files/press/ed0a8fc7743d7d228f1ad4e91cd2c6ec.docx 265 Fulya Erdemci, ed., 13th Istanbul Biennial Book (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2014), 14. 266 Ibid. 544. 267 Ibid, 108. 268 Ibid, 24.
66 transformation, urban renovation and artistic practices of the 1960s and 1970s and similar movements in today’s Istanbul. The 1960s and 1970s also witnessed the innovative movement of new artistic practices challenging urban transformation and the gentrification process in cities such as Paris and New York, just as today’s Istanbul, witnessed the Taksim Gezi Park resistance, the most remarkable civil uprising in the political history of Turkey.269 Therefore, novel artistic practices from these two decades were exhibited side by side with present day artistic practices. By doing this, one can argue that the Biennial afforded the possibility of contextualizing the recent performance protests in Istanbul, by exhibiting Erdem Gunduz’s protest Standing Man (June 17, 2013) next to the Jiri Kowanda’s Theatre, which dates back to 1976 and suggests an historical backdrop. As did the work of Mierle Ladermen Ukeles and Amal Kenawy; Gordon Matta-Clark and La Toya-Ruby Frazier; Stephn Willats and José Antonio Vega Mocotela which were also exhibited.270
The conceptual overlap between the Biennial's framework and the Gezi Resistance inevitably influenced the structure and the course of the Biennial. For instance, the initial idea of using Taksim Square, Gezi Park, Tarlabasi and other urban spaces as exhibition venues had to be abandoned; instead the Biennial was located in the five afromentioned alternatives. 271
The second important change can be observed in the structure of the Biennial. For instance, the top floor of the Galata Greek Middle School was transformed into a meeting and sharing venue through the efforts of the artists and other participants, and debates, concerts, workshops were held there.274 In this way, the 13th Istanbul Biennial, questioned the politics of the space, in relation to freedom of expression, and aimed at unfolding the core question of the conceptual framework of the Biennial, which is the public domain. These rather informal and self-organized meetings that zoomed in on common production, draws attention in the sense that it resembles the forums of the Gezi Resistance.
The Gezi Resistance, where rights and demands were collectively upheld and voiced, prompted the revision of the graphic design of the Biennial. While the preplanned concept
269 Ibid. 270 Ibid.25. 271 Ibid, 112. 274 Ibid. 16.
67 was based on the fragmentation of public spaces and polarization, it was altered to be a collective action and alchemical movement of people.275
Additionally, the public program of the Biennial was radically revised by changing the focus from theoretical activities to practical activities. For example, the Sulukule Platform, the Newspaper Reading Club, the Networks of Dispossession and activities organized by the artists and collectives, such as Serkan Taycan, were implemented.276
Another change was reflected in the content and the method of the exhibitions. For example, some projects and performances that were planned for urban public spaces were readapted to be exhibited in the interior exhibition spaces, or new projects were created.277 Another project that was influenced and inspired by the Gezi Resistance was group KOROPORTE’s “June the Rakish (Haziran Pervasiz)” whose main objective was to engage children with music. During the performance, the children narrated the story of the Gezi Resistance and it was accompanied by songs, tales, a musical, visuals and a theatrical summary of the world’s history of resistance. The group KOROPORTE became one of the genuine voices of the Gezi Resistance by changing their name to KOROcapulPORTE. The annex “capul”* is a reference to the word “capulcular”278 which the protestors came up with to define themselves following the President’s speech during the Gezi Resistance.279
Yet another example is a project called the “Networks of Dispossession 2013” which started as an extension of the artist Burak Arikan’s practice and then developed collectively during the Gezi Resistance. This project was triggered by concerns about the unjust transfer of land through urban transformation in Istanbul. It implemented activities such as data storage, mapping and published projects on the capital-power ratios of urban transformation. Data about the mains players involved in urban transformation, namely,
275 Ibid. 113. 276 Ibid. 112. 277 Ibid. 278 * Capulcu; When Prime Minister Erdoğan referred to people participating in the protests which began in Istanbul’s Gezi Park as çapulcu (‘looters’) in early June, the protesters reappropriated the negative word as a positive self-designation, and even formed it into an English word: chapulling. The word turned up on T- shirts, in graffiti, and on placards, as well as being mentioned enough amongst English speakers to register on our corpus. Additional protests have taken place in Turkey since June, but chapulling’s usage (in English texts, at least) seems to have faded away. (Online Oxford Dictionaries, accessed: 11 November 2014 http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/11/blips-on-our-radar/) 279 Fulya Erdemci, ed., 13th Istanbul Biennial Book (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2014),114.
68 Construction Companies, the Government and the media, was gathered to create maps in order to reveal the relationships between them.280 Three maps were exhibited, one on Turkey’s mega projects, for example the third bridge over the Bosphorus, and the airport. The second map featured the key players and the processes, which deprived minorities of their property. The third map illustrated the urban transformation plans in relation to the sponsors of Istanbul Biennial.281
Projects revealing the relationship between art and finance were present as well at the 13th Biennial. For example, in Goldin Senneby’s project “Shortening the Long Position” they created an inconsistent and risky system in which the commercial action strategy determined the duration of the contract and also how long the performance would last. At this performance the artists mentioned the weak nature of artwork and the inconsistent and insecure structure of the high profile finance world.282
In addition to all these, whilst Hiko Steyerl’s presentation-performance and video work called “Is the museum a battlefield?” revealed historical alignments to art spaces and museums with power; she alluded to the nature of art institutions as war zones. The artist scrutinized the relationship between the empty bullet she found on a mass grave in Van, where her friend, a PKK member - Andrea Wolf, was killed and probably buried.284 At the end of the lecture-performance, she questioned the potential connection existing between the founders of the Istanbul Biennial and the military, and further articulated the debate by focusing on the Biennials main sponsor.
The Biennial also exhibited the artworks that highlighted the growing relationships between capitalism and the art world. For example, Mierle Laderman Ukeles questioned the reason behind arts’ existence conceptually by drawing attention to the insecure and invisible works performed by domestic and maintenance workers, in New York City, with a performance called “Maintenance art one hour every day” (1976).285 The artist’s performance entitled “Touch the Hygiene” which was implemented in conjunction with The New York Cleansing Department also questioned the topic of art and labor. In
280 Ibid 50. 281 Ibid. 282 Ibid. 48 284 Ibid. 52. 285 Ibid. 54.
69 addition to Ukele’s performance, works that dealt with this subject in a more up-to-date way were also given a place at the 13th Biennial.286
As seen in the examples above, art often criticizes unjust and unfair systems and politics. Because, art has the power to freely criticize, one can argue that a tacit agreement with the right to basic freedoms is conveyed to the world by the country where the art is exhibited.
Biennials are spaces where the paradoxical relationship between art, politics and capitalism can be clearly seen. They are also spaces where art is afforded the capacity to analyze the mechanisms of its own system, and the systems involved, challenging these from the inside; therefore, many projects, which focused on the relationship between art and capital, and labor and production, were given a place at the 13th Istanbul Biennial.287
As mentioned earlier, the 13th Istanbul Biennial received various criticisms both negative and positive. On the one hand it was criticized for withdrawing the exhibitions from urban public areas and sheltering in private buildings, due to its sponsors (Koc Group and Eczacibasi) being one of the leading investors in Istanbul’s urban transformation projects. Conversely on the other hand it was commended for giving conceptual ground to the Gezi Resistance, adding depth to debate and answering questions brought up by the resistance, without attributing to the Gezi Resistance itself.289 As a result, the Biennial became the target of vicious protests. During the period when the protests took place, Sureyya Evren and Burak Delier brought up the question: Does the message of a piece of artwork that contains a political message perish after it reaches the audience via capitalism?295 Such a question, which cannot be answered easily, can be applied to almost all the biennials of the present-time. Due to the fact that the biennial embodies the power of reference to, and questioning of, the socio political status-quo of the time and place where they are organized, the conceptual frameworks and the artworks presented, triggers the radical and critical debates of a time and unveils the implicit relationship of the parties.
Prior to the 13th Biennial, admission to a biennial was via the ticket sales desk at the
286 Ibid. 287 Ibid. 56 289 Fulya Erdemci, ed., 13th Istanbul Biennial Book (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2014). 295 Firat Arapoglu, “Uluslararası İstanbul Bienali’ne Doğru/ Gezi Direnişi ve Sonrası Üzerine ”, (2013), accessed 12 November 2014, 2. Https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja1i5914cypw8gbjiajrt5xo0w5nms0vpjwmuru-xao/edit.
70 entrance and in a way this limited its audience. This changed with the advent of the 13th Biennial, which for the first time took place without an entrance fee.296 The 13th Istanbul Biennial drew much attention from the international arena. According to information provided by IKSV authorities, 300 foreign press members and 1250 professionals were accredited for the Biennial.297
In the body of work above, the 13 Istanbul biennials, which took place between 1987 and 2013, have been examined in terms of their conceptual frameworks, the artists, and exhibition venues and by mentioning political and economic developments in the years in which they happened. The Istanbul Biennial is a profoundly representative art presentation in the way that it carries the burden of the usual complexity of dynamics among the local, the national and the international levels, with every pose it strikes and every title it carries.298
Istanbul itself has always been an inspiration to the biennial, shaping its conceptual framework, and on occasion has even been the title and the focus of the biennial. The biennial uses new venues every year, as it does not have a permanent venue. It discovers and renovates long forgotten, unclaimed, non-functional sites, and presents them to the inhabitants of the city as public spaces by transforming them into exhibition venues. Examples include the restoration of the Fez factory (from the Ottoman era), a dilapidated building in Antrepo, a non-functioning Greek School (Ferikoy), a tobacco depot, and the transformation of the big sultan kitchens in the Dolmabahce Palace into a Cultural Centre. The use of these buildings is a tribute to modernization, upgrading Istanbul's image to a “modern city” at the global level. Therefore, one could argue that not only the city shapes the biennial, but at the same time the biennial shapes the city. When, for the 1st and 2nd Biennials, the choice of venues was implemented with an existentialist approach, in order to give an identity to the biennial, in other biennials, the concern to reach larger masses, and harmonize with the conceptual framework played a decisive role due to the grand scale of the city and its population.299
296 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul:Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 248 297 13th Istanbul Bienali, accessed 26 September 2014, http://13b.iksv.org/tr. 298 11th International Istanbul Biennial, “İnsan Neyle Yaşar?”, accessed 26 October 2014, http://11b.iksv.org/icsayfa.asp?Cid=6&k1=icindekiler&k2=kavramsal. 299 Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 30. 71 One other common characteristic of the Istanbul Biennials is that they have strong political messages. The Istanbul Biennials bring radical videos of artists, critical performances, politically effective and genuine works together and create a free zone in the city. The Coup d’état, suppressions, and intimidation within Turkey caused a weak political reflection on the visual arts. In opposition to the idea that contemporary art is distant to politics, the booklet accompanying the 11th Biennial emphasized, “Turkey is the country where contemporary art has the biggest political influence.” 300
An additional common denominator of almost all the 13 biennials is that they based or linked their conceptual framework on the course of globalization. This is particularly true of the biennials held between 2001 and 2013, especially the 3rd (1992), 4th (1995), and 7th (2001). The 1st and 2nd Biennials were primarily about art since they took steps to join the international modern art market. Even these biennials, however, were related to globalization because Turkish artists were attempting, in spirit, to prove they were worthy of membership in the international art community.301 The 5th Biennial (1997) placed the individual and art at its core and referred to globalization in its spatial dimension; using global transit points like airports and railroads as exhibition areas. On the other hand, the 6th Biennial (1999) used personal and cultural conflicts to reinforce the city's global aspirations. More recent biennials, (the 7th, 11th and 13th), were focused on art pieces that had a global political messages, where politics were discussed in relation to the language of art.
Biennials were influenced directly by globalism, political conflicts, financial changes, and natural disasters. For example, the 9/11 terrorist attacks affected the 2001 Istanbul Biennial as well as the 2003 Biennial. The same could be said for The Gulf War, The Balkan War, the fall of The Berlin Wall, the collapse of socialism and the global financial crisis.
300 Ilkay Balic, ed., 11th International Istanbul Biennial. What Keeps Mankind Alive? The Texts (Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2009), 360. 301Jens Hoffmann, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds., Isimsiz 12. Istanbul Bienali-Untitled 12thIstanbul Biennial, (Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012), 30.
72 Conclusion
The research addresses the recent biennials as a significant part of culture industry, which has a multidimensional interaction with the economy and politics in the globalized era. The main assumption formed as “Istanbul Biennial had been organized with the desire to attract global financial activities which would facilitate the political aspirations of the country, thereby transforming Istanbul into a ‘global city.’”
This main assumption is investigated by the five questions posed in the introduction part of the thesis and largely commented on throughout the body of the thesis. In this section, the intention will be summarized in the findings of each question.
1) How does the process of globalization foster the growth of the culture industry, and how does the growth of the culture industry foster globalization?
Globalization, through networking, provides money and future business partners to nourish and present a platform for artists, artworks and art collectors alike. These global networks will also create new business partnerships between the cultures, whether intellectual, financial or political. Culture industry, therefore, is a driving force for its own globalization, allowing them to compliment each other. In this respect the Biennials displayed a fertile ground to study such a relationship due to their main features of mobility and proliferation, which are also the main features of globalization.302
2) How can the Istanbul Biennial, as a part of the culture industry, contribute to the development of the national political and economic climate?
The Istanbul Biennial opens the country up to new ways of thinking, intellectually as well as politically; illustrating/depicting a more modern and a western image; it nourishes creativity and mobility by dragging the city into the global flows which increases the brand value of the city and makes it attractive for global financial activities. Therefore, the city opens itself up to different avenues of marketing and investments, which will contribute directly to the urban economy and indirectly to the national economy, and eventually would foster the political developments of the country.
302 Irit Rogof, “Geo-Cultures, Circuits of Arts and Globalizations”, in Open 16 The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon (Netherlands:Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009), 108.
73 3) What role has the Istanbul Biennial played in representing the Turkish nation in the international arena?
Before the existence of the Biennial, Turkish artists, art professionals, collectors and the art created in Turkey were relatively unknown in the international arena. In a search for a synthesis with the western art scene, they are introduced to the global society with a European outlook, as being capable of consonance with Western and European art trends. The Biennial aimed to prove that the production and consumption of contemporary art was indeed taking place in Turkey, besides introducing the free, modern and innovative thinking of the Turkish society and its capacity of being a part of the Western world.
4) What are the real motivations prompting the private sector to support such cultural events?
Since culture has become an economic marketing tool, private sector started to use it to facilitate the development and expansion of their businesses on a global scale. As previously explained, there are mechanisms for converting cultural capital into economic capital or political gain 304 because the culture industry has a multidimensional interaction with the economy and politics in the globalized era.
5) Can the Istanbul Biennial act as a catalyst to accelerate Turkey’s EU membership process?
Istanbul Biennial represents one of the most European faces of the country with its attempt to synthesis with the Western/European art scene. Considering the foreign artist of the biennial and foreign curators who are participating, it can be clearly observed that artists and curators from European nations are favored in number. Thus, one can claim that the biennial sets a platform to encounter with Europeans that could nourish relationships and further cooperation in other fields. It is worth noting that, the consulates of the EU member states or European Council are usually among the highest contributing sponsors of the biennial. Without a doubt, Istanbul Biennial creates cooperation in the field of art and culture, which could eventually strengthen cooperation in other fields, such as economy and politics.
304 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, tr. Richard Nice (London: Routledge, 1984), 3.
74 It can be argued that, Istanbul Biennial has been organized as a marketing strategy for Turkey, in order to highlight the city as a candidate for a global city by making it attractive for commercial and financial activities, which might eventually bring desired global wealth and hence facilitate the achievement of Turkey’s political aims, which have been officially concentrated on the EU membership process. Even if recent political developments have created significant doubts for Turkey’s desire for EU membership, the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs still states that “Relations with the EU are a fundamental aspect of Turkish foreign policy. In this context, our goal to become an EU member is a strategic choice.”305
Since its launch in 1987, there has been a twenty-four year accumulation of contemporary art, which has been sustained by the Istanbul 2010 European Culture Capital Programme. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, Istanbul started to appear more and more like an international cultural center and a global city. The city of Istanbul and the biennial can be expressed as two forces that mutually complete and feed off one another. Istanbul feeds 306 the biennial and the biennial, in turn, feeds Istanbul, by appointing it as a global city.
As has been demonstrated in the previous chapters, Istanbul shares many characteristics of a global city. As Caglar Keyder depicts clearly;
Istanbul is a business platform for the transnational corporate elite as well as a playing field for the cosmopolitan consumers of global lifestyles. There are blocks of newly erected high-rise office buildings, luxury residential compounds and towers, dozens of shopping centres offering an exclusive shopping ‘experience’.(…)The gentrification of Beyoğlu and the historic peninsula, and the re-building of the waterfront around the Golden Horn have created new spaces of leisure and culture. Luxury hotels and world-class restaurants open every week, occupancy rates are high as international meetings and congresses proliferate, the nightlife and culinary delights are legendary.307 In order to attract global capital to the country and increase Istanbul’s competitiveness in the hierarchy of the so-called global cities, AKP running the policies to boom real estate markets in Istanbul. There are many prestigious projects to attract global capital such as; Galataport, Haydarpaşa Project, Sea World at Halkalı, Sütlüce Congress Center, Ken
305 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Turkey-EU Relations” accessed 12 June 2013, http://www.mfa.gov.tr/relations-between-turkey-and-the-european-union.en.mfa 306 Untitled (12th Istanbul Biennial), “The 12th Istanbul Biennial Opens Saturday September 17th”, accessed 22 October 2014, http://12b.iksv.org/en/12thistanbul_Biennial_ENG.doc. 307 Caglar Keyder, “Capital City Resurgent: Istanbul since the 1980s”, Lecture delivered at LSE European Institute on Monday, 8 December 2008. 75 Yeang / Zaha Hadid designs, Istanbul 2010 Cultural Capital of Europe, Technocity at Gaziosmanpaşa, Dubai Towers, The New Istanbul Project in the North.308 There is a shift from an industrial to a service city, and primarily to a global tourism destination such as the new airport on the Asian side of Istanbul, the Formula 1 circuit, new highways and bridges to connect the newly developed areas, 3rd Bridge planned, Increase in the numbers of luxurious condominiums, gated residences.309
The art calendar of the city is getting busier every year, with ever more music and film festivals, exhibitions and activities in the newly opened museums, as well as the Istanbul Biennial. However, it is very difficult to predict how much, and in what direction, the Istanbul Biennial, as a part of the culture industry and as a political tool, will have an impact on the future economic and political aspirations of classifiying Istanbul on par with New York, London and Tokyo.
Recently, the ESPON 2013 Program has conducted a study called the “Territorial Impact of Globalization for Europe and its Regions (TIGER)”, which has examined the European cities in the world city network comparatively for the years 2000, 2004 and 2012. This study has shown interesting results in terms of Istanbul’s changing role within the European and the World City Network. According to the Standardized Connectivity Indices Per Year (ACC), Istanbul was ranked the 25th city in 2008, whereas it was ranked 50th in 2000 and 51st in 2004.
Thus, such a sharp jump in its ranking, from 50th to 25th in four years, can be interpreted as a result of the genuine aspiration and real efforts of the city to get involved in the global dynamic.311 Despite Istanbul’s increasing endeavours towards strengthening its position as being a global city, its rank in the World City Network does not yet reflect its potential. By the standards of neo-liberal globalisation, Istanbul as a global city can be considered a success story. However the city still needs to extend its global influence, which in turn would eventually strengthen its competitive position within the global order.
308 Cihan Uzuncarsilioglu Baysal, “Urban Transforming Istanbul into a Global City”, pptx, (2011) accessed 12 December 2014. https://www.academia.edu/1694821/Urban_Transforming_Istanbul_into_a_Global_City 309 Ibid. 311 Pain. K, Vinciguerra. S, Hoyler. M, Taylor. P, The ESPON 2013 Programme, Territorial Impact of Globalization for Europe and its Regions (TIGER), European cities in the world city network. Version 29/02/2012. 34_35_54_55
76 Bibliography:
11th International Istanbul Biennal. “İnsan Neyle Yaşar?” Accessed 26 October 2014. http://11b.iksv.org/icsayfa.asp?Cid=6&k1=icindekiler&k2=kavramsal.
11th International Istanbul Biennial. “Istanbul Bienali Sona Erdi.” Accessed 26 October 2014. http://11b.iksv.org/anasayfa.asp.
Ada, Serhan, Eray Aytimur, Ceyda Bakbasa, Esra K. Erdogan, Eylem Ertürk, Stella Kladou, Burcu Y. Seyben. Istanbul'un Festivalleri. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Yayinlari, 2011.
Ada, Serhan and H. Ayça Ince, eds. Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey. Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009.
Adorno, Theodor W., Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht, Georg Lukacs. Aesthetics And Politics. New York: Verso, 2007.
Aksoy, Asu and Kevin Robins. “Peripheral Vision: Cultural Industries And Cultural Identities In Turkey.” Volume 20, Issue 1, Page 75-99, Available Online March 1997.
Arkitera. “Sanat Mercek Altinda, 8. Uluslararasi Istanbul Bienali.” Istanbul Biennalleri'nin Tarihçesi. Accessed 18 November 2014. http://v3.arkitera.com/v1/sanat/2003/08/mercekalti/tarihce.htm.
Artun, Ali, ed. Sanat Siyaset, Kültür Çaginda Sanat Ve Kültürel Politika. Istanbul: Iletisim, 2008.
Artun, Ali. Cagdas Sanatin Orgütlenmesi, Estetik Modernizmin Tasfiyesi. Istanbul: Iletisim, 2011.
Atagök, Tomur, and Susan Platt. “The Digestible Other.” Third Text, 2001. Accessed 12 June 2014. doi: 10.1080/09528820108576921.
Atkearney. “Global Cities, Present and Future.” April 2014. Accessed 20 November 2014. http://www.atkearney.com/gbpc/global-cities-index/full-report/- /asset_publisher/yAl1OgZpc1DO/content/2012-global-cities-index/10192.
77 Balic, Ilkay, ed. 11th International Istanbul Biennal. What Keeps Mankind Alive? The Texts. Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2009.
Baycan-Levent, Tüzin. “Globalization and Development Strategies for Istanbul: Regional Policies and Great Urban Transformation Projects.” Paper presented at the 39th International Planning Congress, ISoCaRP Congress, “Planning in a More Gloalised and Competitive World”, Cairo, Egypt, 17-22 October 2003. http://isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/359.pdf.
Bergmann Alexander, ed. Music-city Sports-city Leisure-city A reader on different concepts of culture, creative industries and urban regeneration attempts. Bauhaus- Universität Weimer Institut für Europäische Urbanistik, 2008. Accessed 12 October 2014. https://www.uni-weimar.de/architektur/raum/publikationen/culture-citybergmann.pdf.
Biennial Foundation. "Biennial Map A-Z." 2014. Accessed 16 June 2014. http://www.biennialfoundation.org/biennial-map.
Block, René, ed. 4th International Istanbul Biennial: ORIENT/ATION – The Vision of Art in a Paradoxical World. Istanbul:Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 1995.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. London: Routledge, 1984.
Bozdogan, Sibel. Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in Early Republic. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2002.
Cabigon, Josefina. “Cities in Globalization.” Asia Pacific Social Science Review Vol 6, No 2 (2006). Accessed 16 May 2014. http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/journals/apssr/pdf/200612/science_3.pdf
Cengiz, Firat, and Lars Hoffmann. “The 2011 Turkish elections and the prospects for Turkey-EU relations.” OpenDemocracy, 29 june 2011. Accessed 30 November 2014. https://www.opendemocracy.net/firat-cengiz-lars-hoffmann/2011-turkish-elections-and-prospects-for- turkey-eu-relations.
78 Charlesworth, J.J.. "The Global Contempory and the Rise of New Arts Worlds." Art Review, issue 69 (2013). Accessed 12 November 2014. http://artreview.com/reviews/book_review_the_global_contemporary_and_the_rise_ of_new_art_worlds/.
Cihan Uzuncarsilioglu Baysal. “Urban Transforming Istanbul into a Global City.” Pptx, 2011. Accessed 12 December 2014. https://www.academia.edu/1694821/Urban_Transforming_Istanbul_into_a_Global_City.
Colombo, Paolo, ed. 6th International Istanbul Biennial: Tutku ve Dalga. Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 1999.
Commission of the European Communities. “Commission Staff Working Document, Turkey 2007 Progress Report.” SEC(2007)1436, Brussels, 2007, 5. Accessed 29 November 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/turkey_progress_reports_en. pdf.
Cormier, Brendan. “Public Culture. The Question of Culture and Control” in Music-city Sports-city Leisure-city A reader on different concepts of culture, creative industries and urban regeneration attempts. Edited by Alexander Bergmann. Bauhaus-Universität Weimer Institut für Europäische Urbanistik, 2008. Accessed 22 September 2014. https://www.uni-weimar.de/architektur/raum/publikationen/culture-citybergmann.pdf
Council of Europe. “Presentation of the Cultural Policy Review of Turke.” Steering Committee for culture, Heritage and Landscape (CDCPP), CDCPP-Bu(2013)2, 4th meeting of the Bureau, Strasbourg, 9 October 2013. Accessed 1 June 2014. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/CDCPP/default_en.asp.
Creative Europe. “European Capitals of Culture.” Accessed 18 October 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/culture/tools/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm.
79 Creative Europe. “Ex-Post Evaluation Of 2010 European Capitals Of Culture.” Accessed 18 October 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative- europe/actions/documents/ecoc/ecoc-2010-report_en.pdf.
De Duve, Thierry. “The Glocal and the Singuniversal Reflections on Art and Culture in the Global World.” In Open 16: The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, 44-53. Netherlands: Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009.
Delanty, Gerard. Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1995.
Delegation of the European Union to Turkey. “EU - Turkey Civil Society Dialogue.” Accessed 22 December 2014. http://avrupa.info.tr/de/eu-and-civil-society/civil-society- dialogue/eu-turkey-civil-society-dialogue.html.
Delegation of the European Union to Turkey. “The Research Infrastructure on European Integration, Decision No 1/95 of the EC, Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995, On Implementing the Final Phase of the Customs Union (96/142/EC).” Accessed 18 November 2014. http://www.avrupa.info.tr/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/Custom_Union_des_ENG.p df.
Dirim, Atilla. “28 Şubat 1997: 1000 yıl süremeyen ‘postmodern’ darbe gerçekleşti.” Accessed 11 October 2014. http://arsiv.marksist.org/tarihte-bugun/14137-28-subat-1997- 1000-yil-suremeyen-postmodern-darbe-gerceklesti.
Duve, Thierry de, Boris Groys, Michael Hardt, Chantal Mouffe, Irit Rogoff, Simon Sheikh. The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, Netherlands: Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009.
Ece, Ozlem, ed. Istanbul'da Kamusal Alanda Sanat Uygulamalari Için öneriler Temmuz 2011. Istanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfi, 2011.
Ece, Ozlem and Dr. S. Zeynep Eksioglu, eds. Istanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfi Ekonomik Etki Arastirmasi Aralik 2012. Istanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfi, 2012. 80
ESPON. “TIGER Territorial Impact of Globalization for Europe and its Regions, European cities in the world city network.” Version 29 February 2012. Accessed 11 June 2014. http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/appliedresearch/TIGER/DFR /TIGER_DFR_WP03_citynetwork.pdf.
Erdem, Nilgun. "Türkiye Ekonomisinde Dışa Bağımlılığın Değişen Bilançosu." Paper presented at the fourth Karaburun Science Congress, 80'den Sonra, Karaburun Gündelik Yaşam Bilim ve Kültür Derneği, Izmir, 3-6 September 2009.
Erdemci, Fulya, ed. 13th Istanbul Biennal book. Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2014.
Erdemci, Fulya. “Semra Germener and Orhan Kocak.” Modern ve Otesi. Istanbul: Bilgi University Press, 2007.
Eren, Zekiye Reyhan. “Sanat Turizmi Kapsaminda Bienaller ve Ulke Tanitimina Olan Etkilerinin Uluslararasi Istanbul Bienali Ornegi ile Degerlendirilmesi.” MA Thesis, T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanligi Tanitma Genel Müdürlügü, 2010.
EU-Turkey Chambers Forum Phase 2. “Information on EU-Turkey Relations.” Accessed 25 November 2014. http://www.etcf.org.tr/EN/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D313AAF6AA849816 B2EF3143C82B0599388A.
Friedman, Thomas. The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. Anchor Books, 2000.
Fuat, Salim. “Türkiye’nin Suriyeli Göçmenler Sorunu.” Sinif Mücadelesinde Marksist Tutum, 2013. Accessed 11 October 2014. Http://Marksist.Net/Selim-Fuat/Turkiyenin- Suriyeli-Gocmenler-Sorunu.Htm.
Göktürk, Deniz, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds. Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
Groys, Boris. "From the Medium to Message: The Art Exhibition as Model of a New World Order." In Open 16: The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, 56-65. Netherlands: Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009.
81
Guerin, Selen Sarisoy, and Ioannis Stivachtis, eds. On the Road to EU Membership, The Economic Transformation of Turkey. Institute for European Studies – publication series, nr. 17. Brussels: VUBPRESS Brussels University Press, 2011.
Gül, Murat. The Emergence of Modern Istanbul: Transformation and Modernisation of a City. London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2009.
Güler, Kevser, Erkmen Kayiket and Yard. Doç. Dr. Burcu Yasemin Seyben, Eds. Uluslararasi Güncel Sanat Bienallerinin Finansmani Subat 2013. Istanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfi, 2013.
Habermas, Jurgen. The Structural Transformation of Public Sphere. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991.
Hal, Marieke van. “Rethinking the Biennial.” MA Thesis, Royal College of Art, 2010.
Halman, Talat. A Millennium of Turkish Literature: A Concise History. Syracuse University Press, 2011.
Hanru, Hou. “Not Only Possible But Also Necessary: Optimism in the Age of Global War.” Accessed 26 September 2014. http://10b.iksv.org/english/detail.asp?cid=3&ac=conseptual.
Hizlan, Doğan. “İstanbul Modern Sanatlar Müzesi'ne Kavuşuyor.” 2004. Accessed 5 October 2014. http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?İd=276993.
Hoffmann, Jens, Adriano Pedrosa and Pelin Derviş, eds. Isimsiz - 12. Istanbul Bienali Untitled - 12th Istanbul Biennial 2011. Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfi, 2012.
Hoskote, Ranjit. “The Shapeshifting Trajectory of The Biennale. The Biennale, in Space and Time.” New Delhi, Take on art 8, publishing Pvt. Ltd, 2012.
IKSV Economic Impact Research. December 2012, Istanbul.
Interview with Beral Madra. Art Critic and Curator. Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014.
82 Interview with Ozlem Ece. Coordinator in the Department of Cultural Policy, IKSV. Istanbul, 29 Mart 2013.
Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture. “Geographic location and strategic importance.” Accessed 26 October 2014. http://www.ibb.gov.tr/sites/ks/en-us/0-exploring- the-city/location/Pages/GeographicalandStrategicPosition.aspx
Istanbul.com. "Turkey's demography: the colorful population of Istanbul." Accessed 18 december 2014. http://www.istanbul.com/en/explore/info/turkeys-demography-the- colorful-population-of-istanbul.
İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi. hy: the colorful population of Istanbul." Accessed 18 december 2014. http://www.istanbul.com/en/explore/info/turkeys-demography-the- colorful-population-of-istanbul. Tanitmhttp://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr- TR/BilgiHizmetleri/Istatistikler/Documents/demografi/t211.pdf.
Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (IKSV). “History.” Accessed 15 December 2013. http://iksv.org/en/aboutus/history.
Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (IKSV). “Main Objectives.” Accessed 12 December 2013. http://www.iksv.org/en/aboutus/mainobjectives.
Istanbul Il Ozel Idaresi. “Il Ozel Idaresinden 2010 Avrupa Kültür Baskenti Istanbul’a Büyük Destek.” Accessed 02 December 2014. http://www.ioi.gov.tr/avrupa_kultur_baskenti.php.
Jagasia, Devyani. “Turkish Membership to the European Union: An Advantageous Turning Point for the EU or an Adverse Drawback.” Global Politician, July 19, 2007. Accessed 21 July 2009. http://www.globalpolitician.com/23121-Turkey.
Keyder, Caglar. Istanbul and the Concept of World Cities. Friedrich Ebert Vakfı, 1993.
Keyder, Caglar. Istanbul, Küresel ile Yerel Arasinda. Istanbul: Metis, 2009.
Keyder, Caglar. “Capital City Resurgent: Istanbul since the 1980s.” Lecture delivred at LSE European Institute on Monday, 8 December 2008, Texts of Publics Lectures. Accessed 23 September 2014. http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/research/ContemporaryTurkishStudies/Keyder.pdf
83
Keyder, Caglar. “Istanbul into the twenty-first century.” In Orienting Istanbul, Cultural Capital of Europe?. Edited by Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Türeli, 25-34. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
Keyder, Caglar. “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Volume 29.1, March 2005, 124-134. Accessed 13 October 2014. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00574.x.
Keyder, Çağlar. “The Consequences of The Exchange of Populations.” In Crossing the Aegean An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey, edited by. Renée Hirschon, Vol:12. 2003.
Kortun, Vasıf, and Charles Esche. 9.Uluslararası İstanbul Bienali. İstanbul: İstanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfı, 2005. Accessed 15 October 2014. http://9b.iksv.org/turkce.asp?Page=Curators.
Madra, Beral. "80's and Art Production in Turkey." April 2005. Accessed 5 September 2014. http://www.beralmadra.net/exhibitions/a-balance-retrospective-of-the-80s-in-turkey.
Madra, Beral. Iki Yilda Bir Sanat. Istanbul: Norgunk, 2003.
Madra, Beral. “The Hot Spot of Global Art Istanbul Contemporary Art Scene and its SocioPolitical and Cultural Conditions and Practices.” Third Text volume 22, Issue 1, (2008),Special Issue: Turkey: The Space of the min(d)field, 105-112. Accessed 28 September 2014. doi: 10.1080/09528820701855517.
Mansel, Philip. Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire 1453-1924. London, Penguin, 1997.
Martini, Federica, and Vittoria Martini. Just Another Exhibition. Histories and Politics of Biennals. Milano: Postmedia books, 2011.
McAdams, Michael. “Global Cities as Centers of Cultural Influence: A focus on Istanbul.” Transtext(e)s Transcultures, 2007. Accessed 07 September 2014. http://transtexts.revues.org/149.
84 Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Turkey-EU Relations.” Accessed 12 June 2013. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/relations-between-turkey-and-the-european-union.en.mfa.
Mouffe, Chantal. “Democratics Politics in the Age of Post-Fordism.” In Open 16: The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, 32-40. Netherlands: Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009.
Narbonne, Luigi, and Nathalie Tocci. “Running Around In Circles? The Cyclical Relationship Between Turkey And The European Union.” CentroStuditiPoliticaInternazionale. Roma, September 2005. Accessed 6 October 2014. http://www.cespi.it/Sem-Turchia/Tocci-Turchia.pdf.
National Report. Cultural Policy in Turkey, European Programme of National Cultural Policy Reviews. Ankara: Council of Europe. October 2013.
Ntvmsnbc. “Bienal’in ardindan ….” 2003. Accessed 25 November 2014. http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/244097.asp.
Obuljen, Nina. Why We Need European Cultural Policies: Impact Of EU Enlargement On Countries In Transition Countries. CPRA Edition. European Cultural Foundation, 2004.
Öncü, Ayşe. “The Politics of Istanbul's Ottoman Heritage in the Era of Globalism: Refractions through the Prism of a Theme Park.” In Cities of the South: Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century edited by Barbara Drieskens, Franck Mermier and Heiko Wimmen, 233-264. London, Beirut: Saqi Books, 2007.
Onder, Izzettin. "Emperyalizmin Turkiye'yi Donusturme Etkisi: 1980 Sonrasi Politikalar." Paper presented at the fourth Karaburun Science Congress. 80'den Sonra, Karaburun Gündelik Yaşam Bilim ve Kültür Derneği, Izmir, 3-6 September, 2009.
Ozan, Bulent, and Can Unver. “Exploring the impact for Istanbul of being a European Capital of Culture.” Ernst & Young, Volume4 issue4, 52-59, 2012. Accessed 3 October 2014. http://performance.ey.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/Exploring-the- impact.pdf.
85
Özbek, Meral. Kamusal Alanın Sınırları, Kamusal Alan içinde. Istanbul: Hil Yayınları, 2004.
Ozpinar, Ceren. "Istanbul Biennial in the Context of the Individual, the City and the Public Sphere." Kult-Referred Cultural Studies Journal, 2011.
Press Release. 1st International Istanbul Biennial. Accessed 12 September 2014. http://www.beralmadra.net/wp-content/uploads/text-images/bilgi-metni-1.jpeg.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. “It's a smaller world, with an urban rhythm.” Accessed 11 November 2014. http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of-opportunity/urban- demographics/key-findings.jhtml.
Republic of Turkey, Ministry for EU Affairs. “(chapter 26) Education and Culture.” Last update 22 October 2014. Accessed 10 November 2014. http://www.abgs.gov.tr/?p=91&l=2.
Ritzer, George. Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Sassen, Saskia. “The City: Between Topographic Representation and Spatialized Power Projects.” Art Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2, 12-20. College Art Association, 2001. Accessed 18 November 2014. doi: 10.2307/778059.
Sassen, Saskia. “Overview.” In The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, 3-15. Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Sefika Zeynep, Eksioglu. “Kültür ile ilgili Faaliyetlerin Ekonomik Etkisi.” Ekonomik Yaklasim Association, No 7, EY International Congress on Economics, Ankara, Turkey, October 24-25, 2013. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eydcp2013/7.htm.
Stallabrass, Julian. Contemporary art: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
86 Stallabrass, Julian. Art Incorporated: The Story Of Contemporary Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Stallabrass, Julian. Sanat A.S., Cagdas Sanat Ve Bienaller. Istanbul: Iletisim, 2009.
Stated by Mustafa V. Koç, Koç Holding Chairman of the Board of Directors during the press conference of 12th Istanbul Biennial, “The 12th Istanbul Biennial Opens Saturday September 17th”. Accessed 22 October 2014. http://12b.iksv.org/en/12thistanbul_Biennial_ENG.doc.
Summeries of EU legislation. “The 2004 Enlargement: The Challenge Of A 25-Member EU.” Accessed 11 November 2014. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enlargement/2004_and_2007_enlargement/e50017 _en.htm.
TÜİK Turkish Statistical Institute. “The Results Of Address Based Population Registration System, 2012.” No: 13425, 28 January 2013. Accessed 11 December 2013. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=13425.
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Avrupa Birligi Bakanligi. “Türkiye-AB İlişkilerinin Tarihçesi.” 2011 Accessed 12 November 2014. http://www.ab.gov.tr/index.php?P=111&l=1.
Unsal, Deniz, ed. Art, city and politics in an expanding world. Writings From The 9th International Istanbul Biennal. Istanbul Foundation For Culture And Arts, 2005.
World Cities Culture Forum. Policy Briefing 1: Istanbul Summit 2013, BOP Consulting, 2013. Accessed 30 November, 2014. http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/sites/default/files/publications/WCCF%20Policy %20Briefing%20%231%20Istanbul%20Summit.pdf.
World Population Review. "Istanbul Population 2014." 19 October 2014. Accessed 2 November 2014. http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/istanbul-population/.
Wu, Chin-Tao. Kültürün Özellestirilmesi. Istanbul: Iletisim, 2005.
Wu, Chin-tao. Embracing the Enterprise Culture: Art Institutions Since the 1980s. New Left Review, 69 May/June 2011 28-57. Accessed 25 July 2014.
87 http://newleftreview.org/I/230/chin-tao-wu-embracing-the-enterprise-culture-art- insitutions-since-the-1980s.
Yardimci, Sibel. "A Leap Forward by the Istanbul Biennial." Springer, no. 1, 2006. Accessed: 12 October 2014. http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1730&lang=en.
Yardımcı, Sibel. “Interlocking Flows: Globalization, Urbanism, and Culture in Contemporary Istanbul.” Paper presented in the Critical Management Conference, The management of creativity and creative industries stream, Manchester, 2001.
Yardımcı, Sibel. Urban Change and Festivalism: The Biennial in a Globalizing Istanbul. Istanbul: Iletisim, 2005.
Yardımcı, Sibel. Küresellesen Istanbul'da Biennal. Istanbul: Iletisim, 2005.
Yılmaz, Hakan, ed. Placing Turkey in the Map of Europe. Boğaziçi University Press. 2005. http://hakanyilmaz.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/HakanYilmaz-2005- PlacingTurkeyOnTheMapOfEurope-Ingilizce-TumMakalelerim.28454752.pdf
Yilmaz Saygin, Nicel. “‘Commodification’ of Cities: Promoting Izmir (Turkiye) as a World City.” 42nd ISoCARP Congress 2006. Accessed 2 November 2014. http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/874.pdf.
Yinghua Lu, Carol. “Back to Contemporary: One Contemporary Ambition, Many Worlds.” E-flux, 2009. Accessed 16 October 2014. http://www.e-flux.com/journal/back-to- contemporary-one-contemporary-ambition-many-worlds.
Zukin, Sharon. Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1991.
Zukin, Sharon. The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1995.
88
89