Possibilities of Discussing Istanbul As an Agonistic Space 

Övul Durmusoglu

Charles Esche, one of the two curators of 9th International Istanbul Biennial thematized as Istanbul, had mentioned the notion of agonistic space discussing the theoretical backdrop and had emphasized his aim to use Istanbul as agonistic space for this biennial in the press meeting introducing him and 9th Istanbul Biennial to public in early 2005. It is not surprising to hear this notion from Esche, combined by the well known political theorist Chantal Mouffe, working on issues and problems of democracy, also recognized by the contemporary art circles. Agonism signifies a space of multiplicities where opposite parties exist together not terminating each other but recognizing each other’s difference.  According to Mouffe, strongly opposing a consensus created through disregarding or terminating the antagonisms, one of the most important functions of the critical art is creating this agonistic space. Thus, in this context, public space stops being a homogenic design where multiple voices reach a rational consensus and turns into a project of multiple voices where multiplicities constantly discuss their contradictions creating different ‘us’s on the axis of us and them. As mentioned in the previous article about Biennial, in recent years the views over public space are focused on the idea of a territory of multiplicities where rationality does not work. As a curator attempting to create alternative discourses against the institutionalization in contemporary art, Esche reveals his side in this discussion over public space by using the notion of agonism.

Esche had also suggested that he would especially avoid using the ex-used historical spaces in the Old City and form the Biennial around the liveliest area of Beyoglu to see it on this axis of multiplicities. The curators Kortun and Esche, having experienced problems of permits from bureucratical authorities, finally decided to use Deniz Palace Apartments and Bilsar Building at Şişhane, Tobacco Warehouse at Tophane, Garanti Building between Galata-Karaköy, Antrepo No: 5 and Garibaldi Building, Platform Contemporary Art Center on İstiklal Street. The Biennial, the box of curiosity, began. Esche claimed informally this being his best project. The comments of the international circle were pretty positive. Istanbul Biennial, following after the disappointments of Venice Biennial, efficiently overcame most of them. Despite this entire positive atmosphere, some urgent questions should not be disregarded. It is illusionary to expect a radical critical position from biennials generally, sponsored by various corporates and emphasized as to play their role in the cultural introduction of that specific city in the time of globalized cities and cultures. And then again, one shouldn’t arrive at quick conclusions because of biennials’ being biennials. And one should positively take into account attempts like the published collection of well-chosen articles titled Art, City and Politics in an Expanding World instead of a hardcover catalogue. The discourse(s) posed by curators forming the biennial should be investigated through the end product. In this context, did the Biennial, being discursively clearer and more tangible than its previous example, really achieve to see the city as a territory of multiple opposites as Esche had suggested? How far the works exhibited made the audience think and question of Istanbul as an agonistic space?

In the “Introduction” of the Biennial catalogue Kortun and Esche suggest “We hope this Biennial will be understood as a way of seeing Istanbul through the eyes of others, and thereby incorporating another’s version into an intimate view of this place.” The Biennial seems to have chosen to open up discussions around comparisons through the other structures formed within this axis of multiplicities rather than directly questioning the city itself on this axis. Better to put in other words: The works of mostly unknown (in Turkey) young artists coming from the peripheries, like Balkans, Middle East and Far East don’t succeed in discussing Istanbul as an agonistic space of multiplicities, but orientate us towards the axis of multiplicities in which the city participates. Of course this statement presupposes the world as a place where this antagonistic space already occurs. Take examples of the rhizomatic investigation of Seoul done by Korean artists collective flyingCity (Tobacco Warehouse) and the visual and architectural analyses of Berlin based on sociological perspectives done by Axel John Wieder and Jesko Fezer (Garanti Building) Seeing these works tempts one to ask how it would be to look over Istanbul within these two different perspectives, though curatorially it is a wise decision to avoid using exclusive models of researches built for these two other cities. What is revealed is Istanbul’s position on the axis of these two cities in affinity with Istanbul. However, looking over and mirroring Istanbul with the eyes and perspectives of the others requires a certain awareness of the dynamics of the city on the side of audience. It is vital to question this awareness. But when there is a lack of works discussing or creating that awareness and when the awareness is looked out more than it is found, the bifurcated views supposed to create those differences within can’t function properly.

For some other examples, let us look at the work of two women artists (for there are not many). Hala Elkoussy’s and Yael Bartana’s video installations are remarkably bold. Bartana shows a group of adolescents playing the game they invented called “The Evacuation of Gilad’s Colony” in two-screened installation at the back room of Platform. The process of breaking up the group works with a subtly erotic tone in the sequences showing a physical expression on the nature of human bonding. In the second screen where subtitled screams and quarrels appear signifies the violence and cruelty of the present situation in Israeli-Palestine. Elkoussy uses a text formed of different sound sources orienting the viewer on itself. She uses insecure and uncanny scenery from the peripheries with the backdrop of this text simultaneously constructing and deconstructing the stream of consciousness. In both of these works sharp references to the collective memory of Istanbul can be read. The evacuation instances in shanty towns that we heard of more frequently in the past or the long tension between the state authorities and the community in Armutlu can be referred to on terms of the periphery sceneries and the tension between the oppressor and the oppressed. This time, the place of Istanbul on the axis between Cairo and Tel Aviv can be realized. Doesn’t reading/interpreting the references to Istanbul require seeing other works discussing the similar problems of the city and thereby making comparisons between them, realizing the points of concurrences and bifurcations?

From this point of view, there is a big deficiency in the chosen works of Biennial apart from Ahmet Ogut’s performative slides (Tobacco Warehouse). Esche confirms this observation as well. The sharp and subtle observation of Bartana cannot be seen on any work directly related to the city. Of course it is obsolete and conformist to look for the exact, and there are installation of the city textures by Eric Gongrich, a different city guide prepared by Sener Ozmen and a video installation by Hatice Guleryuz. But these don’t work through creating an idea of agonistic space that is fit for Istanbul. Though they try to form urban textures and criticize them in their own way, they somehow give a feeling of detachedness that does not really work in a critical way. It can be claimed that expecting to be read by someone else creates a discursive hierarchy for that someone else. And perhaps the problem lies here. There are hardly any works touching the sharpness, the queerness, the density and the schizophrenia of what we experience in Istanbul. And especially the works of the most anticipated next generation reveal some symptoms of superficiality, avoiding the direct contacts with the problems or quoting from the big artists. The discussions and rediscussions among the antagonisms require a definition of the antagonisms and drawing the borders between them. The Hospitality Zone seems to move from that very ambition, but apart from the well-known discourse of Hafriyat Project, there appears to be works trying to put something politically vital, though repeated many times before, but failing in terms of visual discourses.

The most exclusive moment of Biennial in this respect is seeing Lukas Duwenhögger’s painting Sunday Afternoon in one room of Deniz Palace Apartments. Living in Istanbul for sometime now, the painter portrays uncanny, tense and homoerotic moments in the city. In the light of the large window looking over Galata Bridge, Sunday Afternoon invites the viewer to peep into the moment where three workers sit together. It is such a sharp moment that reveals the contradictions and the chaos of Istanbul living in between the modern and the traditional, the centre and the periphery, the inside and the outside quite subtly.

++++++++++++++++++++++
downloaded from:
http://www.van.at/howl/cyb/next/set01/exo.htm