Turning Left: Counter-Hegemonic Exhibition-Making in the Post-Socialist Era (1989 – 2014) Volume I Lynn Marie Wray A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Liverpool John Moores University for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. This research programme was carried out in collaboration with Tate Liverpool January 2016 Contents Abstract 1 Acknowledgements 3 Introduction 5 1. Transformations in Curatorial Practice under Neoliberalism and their Impact on Exhibition Form 15 1.1 The intersection of radical leftist politics and curatorial practice 18 1.2 The leftist curator versus the art institution 24 1.3 Exodus: Desert and Do it Yourself 27 1.4 Counter-hegemonic curating from within 32 1.5 The de-ideologisation of politics in exhibitions since 1989 50 1.6 Conclusion 60 2. Problematising ‘Counter-Hegemonic Curating from Within’ and the Concept of the Exhibition as Agonistic Public Space 63 2.1 Counter-hegemonic objectives and strategies 66 2.2 Identification, disarticulation and the crucial moment of rearticulation 81 2.3 The dimension of antagonism 94 2.4 A ‘truly public’ space 108 2.5 The chain of equivalence 119 2.6 Conclusion 125 3. Defining a Counter-Hegemonic Approach: Rearticulating the Retrospective Survey Exhibition as Post-Political Critique 129 3.1 Defining the exhibition concept: What’s Left? 132 3.2 Defining an organising principle and exhibition structure: ‘Epic Agonism’ 137 3.3 Defining a counter-hegemonic installation and interpretation strategy 155 4. Critically Evaluating ‘Counter-Hegemonic Curating from Within’: From ‘What’s Left?’ to ‘Art Turning Left’ 205 4.1 Did the exhibition operate effectively as a form of post-political critique? 208 4.2 Did the interpretation strategy work to empower the viewer? 225 4.3 Did the exhibition position art as a production process? 242 4.4 Conclusion 267 Conclusion 271 Bibliography 281 Turning Left: Counter-Hegemonic Exhibition-Making in the Post-Socialist Era (1989 – 2014) This research examines how the practice of curating has been used to further counter- hegemonic agendas in public art institutions since 1989. The central aim is to provide a fuller, contextualised, and medium specific understanding of how the institutional exhibition might be used to challenge the hegemony of neoliberalism and the post- political consensus politics that sustains its dominance. It provides insights, through both historic case studies and reflective practice, that problematise the idea that the institutional art exhibition is a viable medium for counter-hegemonic critique, or represents the ideal space for the development of an agonistic public discourse. This thesis presents collaborative research undertaken with Tate Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University. The research presented both extrapolated from, and contributed to, the development of an exhibition, co-curated with Tate Liverpool, entitled Art Turning Left (8 November 2013 – 2 February 2014) and a supplementary publication of the same name. The first section investigates how the idea that curators can counter neoliberal dominance, through institutional exhibition-making, developed. It draws from analyses of previous exhibitions, and the theory of Chantal Mouffe, in order to critically evaluate the curatorial application of counter-hegemonic critique and agonistic practice. It also provides a review of how exhibitions (held in major art institutions since 1989) have articulated politics, in order to determine their relationship to neoliberal dominance, and to identify significant gaps in the dialogue facilitated by these institutions. These analyses provide the theoretical and contextual grounding for the final two chapters, which provide a rationale and critical evaluation of my own attempt to develop an alternative counter-hegemonic curatorial strategy for the exhibition at Tate Liverpool. They document, and analyse, the areas of dissensus, and the ideological and pragmatic limitations that emerged, in trying to realise these theoretical propositions (in practice) in a public art museum. The thesis therefore provides a critical framework for the development of an alternative practice that positions the exhibition as a form of post-political critique and specifically targets the hegemonic role that institutional exhibitions play in reinforcing class distinctions and devaluing nonprofessional creativity. 1 | Page 2 | Page Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council and Liverpool John Moores University without which this research project would not have been possible. I am profoundly grateful for the support and consistently erudite guidance of my supervisor Professor Julie Sheldon. I am acutely aware of how lucky I have been to have such a dedicated supervisor and to receive such regular feedback on my many, many drafts. I would also like to thank Professor Juan Cruz for giving me the opportunity to work on such a unique project in the first place and for allowing me to talk through my ideas without reserve. Thank you also to Dr. Alison Rowley for her invaluable guidance and enthusiasm through the first two years of the research. Special thanks to my examiners Dr. Gillian Whiteley and Professor Joe Moran for taking time out of their busy lives to read this thesis and for their perceptive recommendations, advice and encouragement. It has also been my great privilege to work with Francesco Manacorda at Tate Liverpool on ‘Art Turning Left’. As well as co-curating the exhibition he helped me to develop my thinking greatly, with both astute theoretical insights and his significant curatorial experience. Eleanor Clayton also worked tirelessly to ensure the project came to fruition – without her dedicated work and ideas the exhibition would have surely faltered. I would also sincerely like to thank Peter Gorschlüter, Christoph Grunenberg and Andrea Nixon for putting their faith in me to develop the original proposals for what would eventually become ‘Art Turning Left’. Many thanks to all of the staff of Tate Liverpool, past and present, for their invaluable collaboration. I am also obliged to Tate’s Library and Archive staff at the Hyman Kreitman Research Centre, John Byrne and Alistair Hudson who were central to the development of the ‘Office of Useful Art’ and to Dr. Antony Hudek, who provided encouragement and good humour in tackling some of the complexities and challenges of the project. I thank all my friends that have supported me in my studies, particularly Dr. Anjalie Dalal- Clayton, Samantha Jones, Julie Carol, Antoinette McKane and Dr. Stephanie Straine who have been particularly patient listeners. I extend genuine gratitude to my Mum, Sonia who encouraged me throughout, showed genuine interest in my work and even read my drafts. Finally, I am eternally grateful to the enduring patience, love and understanding of my partner Kevin, who supported me throughout this long endeavour, engaged in my research and always helped me to think things through. And to my son Morris whose early arrival made me acutely aware of what’s most important in this world. 3 | Page 4 | Page Introduction One of the central concerns of curators since 1989 has been how they can empower publics to participate in civic discourse, engage with political debate and take an active role in the decisions that affect their lives. Since neoliberalism has become the dominant economic model, citizens have become increasingly removed from any meaningful participation in political life. The perception that there is little difference between what the major parties offer, has further alienated people from the democratic process.1 This has been compounded by neoliberal ideologues who claim that there is ‘no alternative’ to liberalism. Proponents of post-political critique argue that the kind of consensus politics operated by neoliberal states further disenfranchises people from civic life, as it positions politics as a rational, technocratic procedure administered by experts.2 They argue that alternative public spaces need to be reclaimed for the enactment of more dissensual political discourse and critique. Because exhibitions articulate a discourse, which people can react to, or critique in the moment of encounter, they have been offered as a means to engage diverse publics in political thinking and debate. Buoyed by the affirmation and support of radical leftist philosophers, individual curators have, therefore, increasingly explored how their exhibition making practice can play a role in breaking up the hegemony of neoliberal consensus politics and open up different ways of doing politics. Progressive, leftist curators, however, have faced a significant dilemma. Informed by the institutional critique of artists, sociologists and museologists, which elucidated 1 As David Harvey describes, during this period, neoliberalism has also become a ‘hegemonic mode of discourse…(and) has pervasive effects on ways of thought to the point where it has become incorporated into the common-sense way many of us interpret, live in, and understand the world’ David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p.3. 2 Post-political critique refers to a discourse of the political left, which focuses its criticism on the new types of political processes and practices that have emerged after 1989, associated with neoliberal thinking. The new form of global politics that has emerged is described by proponents of post-political critique as a ‘post-ideological consensus’.