HOW TO BEGiN? INTRODUCTION ——— ÖZGE ERSOY 4 INTRODUCTION How to Begin? Envisioning the Impact of Guggenheim Abu Dhabi seeks to introduce a set of responses to the yet- unbuilt Guggenheim Abu Dhabi Museum. In a setting where all strategic plans and arguments are conjectural, this book presents a collection of possible scenarios au- thored by artists, curators, writers, and critics. The proj- ect invites Regine Basha, Hassan Khan, Didem Özbek, Sohrab Mohebbi, and Sarah Rifky to imagine the pos- sible upcoming changes in contemporary art production and infrastructure in their locales or the larger area that comprises the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, also known as the Middle East. Starting from per- sonal viewpoints, the authors of these texts attempt to pose, rather than answer, the following questions: How can the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi position itself as some- thing more than a pragmatic tool to boost tourism in its city? What role can the museum play in the existing art infrastructure in the Middle East? How would artists, curators, administrators, and other cultural producers act within alternate scenarios? Post-Cold War changes in politics, economy, and the balance of power have had an impact on manifes- tations and aspirations of art. Proliferation of interna- tional biennials, artist residencies, and expansion of art museums around the world have put two concepts at the center of many artistic practices and art institutions: mobility and flexibility. “Global” has entered into art jar- gon. Contemporary art now assumes different roles and meanings: it does not only refer to a phenomenon that relates to a time not long past, but it also has symbolic 1 and ideological connotations. 1 See Hans Belting, “Contemporary Art as Global Art: A Critical Estimate,” in The Global Art World: Audiences, Markets, and Museums, eds. Hans Belting and Andrea Buddensieg (Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2009). 5 HOW TO BEGiN? The rhetoric of contemporary art is associated with art markets more than ever. Many critics consider the emergence of new art markets, abundance of biennials, and expansion of art museums into new geographies as part of larger economic projects. In addition, contem- porary art moves from aesthetic concerns to social and political issues, and from Euro-American codes of art history to politics of diversity and difference.2 In the midst of these changes, modern and contemporary art museums are under the spotlight. In March 2001, Newsweek championed the Guggenheim as the first “global museum.” “At the fore- front of forward-thinking museums is the Guggenheim,” Cathleen McGuigan and Peter Plagens argued, “It’s ex- panding with a global franchise to reach far more people and generate money from new sources. And it’s been a pioneer in using cutting-edge architecture since Frank Lloyd Wright’s spiral building opened on Fifth Avenue in 1959.”3 The authors considered the expansion of the Guggenheim as a successful venture, according to a set of criteria based on visitor numbers, internationaliza- tion of the audience, increase in the budget income, and diversification of the funding sources. In 1999, only two years before McGuigan and Plagens’s article, Thomas Krens, director of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation between 1988 and 2008, ar- gued: “[the concept of globalization] is being shaped around us. To try to resist these forces, or to some- how pretend they don’t exist, I think, is suicidal from an institutional standpoint.”4 So far, the Solomon R. 2 See Ken Lum, “Unfolding Identities,” in Belonging and Globalization, ed. Kamal Boullata (Beirut: Saqi Books, 2008). 3 Peter Plagens and Cathleen McGuigan, “State of the Art,” Newsweek (March 26, 2001). 4 Krens quoted in Michael Brenson, The Guggenheim, Corporate Populism, and the Future of the Corporate Museum (New York: The Vera List Center at the New School, 2002), 6. 6 ÖZGE ERSOY Guggenheim Museum, in collaboration with corporate and government partners, has created a constellation of museums in Venice, Bilbao, and Berlin. According to Krens, the expansion of the Guggenheim has been indis- pensable to respond the changing needs of art museums. In this view, “going global” allows the Guggenheim to gain the lead in New York, compete outside of the United States, attract diversified funds in larger amounts, reach an international audience, and enhance its image in the arts. To achieve these goals, the Guggenheim adopts economies of scale in administration, programming, and finances: the Foundation decentralizes the manage- ment of its permanent collection, finds international partners to secure more funds, delegates its administra- tive and programming responsibilities to its partners, and thereby assumes the contended role of being a pio- neer for the 21st century art museums. This strategy of expansion has come under some heavy criticism. Critic Herbert Muschamp says: “I prefer [Krens’] ostentation to the demure connoisseurial postur- ings of his colleagues at other museums, but flamboy- ance is no substitute for self-reflection, and without that quality Krens has come to resemble a modern version of Wagner’s Bavarian patron, mad Kind Ludwig, putting up palace after palace until his wits gave out.”5 Criticisms, like Muschamp’s, that are suspicious of the premise of grandiose and semi-autonomous Guggenheim satellite museums surfaced with the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Opened in 1997, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao is considered a historic novelty in the museum world. The museum has become a success story as it rejuvenated 5 Muschamp quoted in Michael Brenson, The Guggenheim, Corporate Populism, and the Future of the Corporate Museum, 26. 7 HOW TO BEGiN? the city’s image, and acted as the engine of an economic transformation. The museum has helped Bilbao to shift from an industrial to a services city; to generate addi- tional income for the Basque treasuries and employment for local residents; to promote the cultural assets of the city; to hone its role as the capital of the Basque Country; to attract external flows, including intellectual capital, cultural tourists, investment, as well as private compa- nies. It has therefore assisted the city to remain competi- tive in terms of culture, business, and infrastructure.6 However, the nexus of art, culture, and econ- omy has been under close scrutiny as well. “The ‘Krensification’ of the museum is one such historical structure that prompts questions as to what is its most proper public, what are its strategies of collecting, what discourse or spectacle has become hegemonic, and what is really being displayed in Bilbao,” academics Ana Maria Guasch and Joseba Zulaika argue.7 The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao has been severe- ly criticized for the following contested reasons, among many others: it has been dependent on the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York for decisions regard- ing the administration as well as programming; it has absorbed a large percentage of local financial resources allocated for arts and culture; it has failed to interact with local artistic communities; it has adopted the logic of gentrification, as the decision of this investment origi- nated from Bilbao’s decay and ruination; and last but not least, it has been promoted through its architecture and media-driven images rather than the art collection and 6 See Jon Azua, “Guggenheim Bilbao: ‘Coopetitive’ Strategies for the New Culture-Economy Spaces,” in Learning from the Bilbao Guggenheim, eds. Anna Maria Guasch and Joseba Zulaika (Reno, NV: Center for Basque Studies at the University of Nevada, 2005). 7 Anna Maria Guasch and Joseba Zulaika, “Introduction: Learning from the Bilbao Guggenheim: The Museum as a Cultural Tool,” in Learning from the Bilbao Guggenheim, 8. 8 INTRODUCTION museum programming.8 In 2010, thirteen years after the Guggenheim Bilbao Museum opened its doors, controversies and criticisms against the Guggenheim Foundation regain momentum, as it is now embarking on a new satellite museum project in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. In the fall of 2007, officials representing Abu Dhabi and the Guggenheim Foundation announced their agreement to build a new 450,000-square-foot museum. Scheduled to open in 2014, the largest Guggenheim to date is to be built on Saadiyat Island, a planned district off the coast of Abu Dhabi, which will host residential communities, leisure and tourism facilities, the New York University Abu Dhabi Campus, as well as the Louvre Museum Abu Dhabi, the Zayed National Museum, and the Performing Arts Center—all with the aim of estab- lishing an unprecedented concentration of contemporary cultural resources. The Guggenheim Abu Dhabi Museum will host its own modern and contemporary art collec- tion, display works from the Foundation’s collection, and organize exhibitions and education programs “with a particular focus on Middle Eastern contemporary art.”9 Criticisms do not only target the museum but also the major funder of the project—the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. In February 2009, Sharon Waxman wrote in ARTNews: “Is it possible, some academics and art experts ask, to create an ‘oasis of culture’ in a place that has no history of museums, no community of artists to speak of, no collectors, no donors, and where the local pas- sions run to falcons and racehorses rather than to Pablo 8 See Joseba Zulaika, “Desiring Bilbao: The Krensification of the Museum and its Discontents,” in Learning from the Bilbao Guggenheim. 9 More information can be found at: http://www.guggenheim.org/abu-dhabi. 9 HOW TO BEGiN? Picasso and Jeff Koons?”10 Sweeping generalizations like this reveal a condescension toward artistic cultures in the loosely-defined region, also called the Middle East. They do not reflect the complex node of arts and cul- ture, tourism, and urban development in the UAE in the post-9/11 era, or the strategies of the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi that determine a “regional coverage area” for its programming and collection.