The Istanbul Biennial —
A Research On Its Development And Embedment With
The City Of Istanbul And Its Citizens
Master thesis Arts and Culture — Curatorial Studies: Art History Faculty of Arts
University of Groningen
Name student: Merve Açıkgöz Student number: S3031667
E-mail: Merve.acikgoz@live.nl
Supervisor: Drs. L. Nijenhof Second Reader: Dr. P. de Ruiter Type of paper: Master Thesis
LKK-number: LKK999M20
Program: Master Arts and Culture
Specialization: Curatorial Studies: Art History
EC: 20
Date of submission: Wednesday 24 August 2016
Declaration: I hereby certify that this work has been written by me, and that this is
1
Table of contents
Introduction 2
1. The cultural and political climate of Turkey 10
2. The development of the Istanbul Biennial (1987 - 2015) 17
2.1 Conceptual framework(s) 18
2.2 The curator(s) 27
2.3 The represented arts of the fourteenth Istanbul Biennial 38
3. The Istanbul Biennial and the involvement of the city of Istanbul and
its citizens through its editions (1987-2015) 45
3.1 Organization and funding 46
3.2 The locations and venues 55
3.3 The Public 62
3.4 Educational and public programs 70
Conclusion 76
Bibliography 81
2
Introduction
In the context of globalizationin the 1980-1990s, cities such as New York, Tokyo and London became dominant centres in the fields of economy, politics and culture.1 The definition of globalization I used here comes from a sociological approach. Prof. dr. Martin Albrow and
sociologist Elizabeth King characterizes globalization within their book Globalization, knowledge
and society (1990) as the fast development of international networks, which incorporate a broad
interchange of aspects such as information, ideas, products, capital and many other elements which are part of the culture.2 According to Dutch sociologist Saskia Sassen these so called global cities
were able to extend their economic, political and cultural influence beyond their borders.3 These cities started to become the core of both the financial and commercial power.4 According to Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King, to reinforce their status as an economic and financial power, global cities grabbed to the cultural sector and started to use it as a guide to emphasize their powers.5 This was done by organizing various types of cultural events, such as festivals, fairs and biennials. In this way these happenings, as part of the cultural industry of a specific city and in the context of
globalization, became a part of the city’s political, economic and financial goals.6
Is a similar development visible in Istanbul during the same period? According to Beral Madra, art critic and curator of the first (1987) and second (1989) Istanbul Biennial, this question should be answered with yes. In her article The Hotspot of Global Art (2008) she points out this development. She accentuates that Istanbul underwent a political and economic shift in the 1980s, from a capitalist country to a neo-liberalist one under the rule of the right-winged Turkish politician Turgut Özal. Because of this change the Turkish economy opened its door to the world markets and thereby became a global city of high level services, according to Madra.7
On the contrary Serhan Ada and Ayça Ince, writers of the book Introduction to Cultural
Policy in Turkey (2009), emphasize that the liberalization in the 1980s effected the financing of the
arts and culture of the country. As a result the financing from the government for the cultural sector were reduced.8 After this commutation the private sector began to play an important and leading role in this field. In Istanbul it was the urban elite who pushed their ways to transform Istanbul into a global city, by the use and development of its cultural terrain, the Turkish sociologist Yıldız Atasoy accentuates.9 They started doing this by organizing all kinds of cultural events Atasoy emphasizes — in some cases with also the assistance of the government in the background and with aim of broadening the cities financial and economic position.10
One of the events, as part of the cultural sector of Istanbul, is the Istanbul Biennial. This biennial is founded, and from its first edition (1987) organized by the IKSV — The Istanbul Foundation of Culture and Arts, which has been set up in 1973 as a profit and
non-governmental organization.11 The IKSV has been established by seventeen businessmen, which at the time were also art enthusiasts. They came together under the leadership of Dr. Nejat F.
Eczacıbaşı — the founder of the Eczacıbaşı business in Istanbul. This was once a pharmaceutical company, but it has nowadays become one of the biggest industrial companies and families in
1 S. Sassen. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Oxford 1991: 4.
2 M. Albrow and E. King. Globalization, Knowledge and Society. New York 1990: 23.
3 Global cities is a terminology which is introduced by Saskia Sassen. She describes it as city centres that
are able of controlling the world economy.
4 Sassen. The Global City: 4.
5 Albrow and King. Globalization, Knowledge and Society: 23.
6 D. Göktürk, L.Soysal and I. Türeli. Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? New York 2010: 231. 7 B. Madra. ‘The Hot Spot of Global Art: Istanbul’s Contemporary Art Scene and its Sociopolitical and Cultural
Conditions and Practices.’ Third Text 22/1 (2008): 105-112..
8 S. Ada and H.A. Ince. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey. Istanbul 2009: 177.
9 Y. Atasoy. Hegemonic Transitions, the State and Crisis in Neoliberal Capitalism. Abingdon 2009: 216 10 Ibid.
3 Turkey, with investments in the different branches, such as the cultural and arts sector. 12
The IKSV today remains the main actor in organizing the International Istanbul Festival which includes different art events. Besides that the IKSV also was the main organizer of the Istanbul Biennial, from its first (1987) until its last edition (2015). 13 In 1973 the first International Istanbul Festival was organized by the IKSV, under Dr. Nejat F. Eczacıbaşı’s leadership.
Eventually this event was the main source on which the Istanbul Biennial is based on today.14 After
Dr. Nejat F. Eczacıbaşı’s death and in the course of the editions of the Istanbul Biennial, the second (Şakir Eczacıbaşı) and third (Bülent Eczacıbaşı) generation family members of the Eczacıbaşı family took over his role and became chairman of the IKSV board of directors. Under their leadership respectively the fourth (1995) until eleventh (2009) and twelfth (2011) until fourteenth (2015) Istanbul Biennial have been organized.15
According to sociologist Sibel Yardımcı’s article, A Leap Forward by the Istanbul Biennial (2006), the Istanbul Biennial has made a significant change in its strategy. First it was used as a modernization plan of the national state during the 1980s, but later in the 1990s the focus was put on the globalization of the cultural event.16 As Yardımcı accentuates, this Biennial has been used as a tool for globalization and it is still used in this way.17 This statement is very interesting to
investigate, because it remarks a very specific change. However she does not clarify how this change occurred and how it is visible in the development of the Istanbul Biennial. Therefore I will take her statement as a starting point for a case-study on the Istanbul Biennial. The Biennial cannot be simply seen as a monotonous fair, on the contrary it should be approached as an atom which consists of many smaller molecules — such as the organization, the funds and the curators — that shape the Biennial as it is. With a profound research on the Istanbul Biennial I will shed light on whether and how this change that Yardımcı describes is visible in the different components of this fair.18
From there on I will critically research to what extent this Biennial, which carries the city’s name, relate to the city itself and to its citizens. The art historian Susan Noyes Platt and Tomur Ata-gök both accentuate in their article, The Digestible Other: The Istanbul Biennial (2008), that the Istanbul Biennial does not bring many benefits to the city itself, its residents and the developments of the art scene. They rather describe the Istanbul Biennial as an event of Eurocentric parameters.19
In light of their statement I will examine to what extent the Istanbul Biennial has embedded itself in the city of Istanbul and how it incorporates its citizens nowadays. The main research questions of this thesis are: ‘How has the Istanbul Biennial evolved over the last 30 years? What are the underlying factors which have shaped the Biennial as it is now? And to what extent did it involve the city of Istanbul and its citizens in this development?’
To give answer to the research questions, sub-questions will be used in the second and third chapter of this research paper, however the first chapter will be slightly different. To get a better understanding of the Istanbul Biennial it is important to look into the broader context of cultural and political events in Turkey, before specifically focusing on the Istanbul Biennial and its components. In this way one can first of all get an understanding of the cultural developments within Turkey, with an eye on also political happenings, which could have had influential effects on the rise and evolvement of the Istanbul Biennial. In the first chapter attention will be given to the cultural and political climate in Turkey (from the 1920-1950s until now), based on the successive ´Five Year
12 E. Doğan. ‘City As Spectacle: The Festivalization Of Culture In Contemporary Istanbul.’ In: Young Mind Rethink
The Mediterranean. Istanbul Kültür University Publication. Istanbul 2011: 82.
13 Ibid., 75.
14 The Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts. 2013. 1 April 2016 <http://www.iksv.org/en/aboutus/history>. 15 Ibid.
16 S. Yardımcı. ‘A Leap Forward by the Istanbul Biennial.’ (2006): 6. 17 Ibid.
18 The exact components that will be investigated, will be mentioned in the course of this introduction. The method
which will be used to analyze the components will be explained in the section of ‘methodology’.
4 Development Plans´ of the Turkish Government. These plans are valuable sources, which give an insight into the economic, social and cultural developments of the country. In this chapter these plans will be discussed in a chronological order, from the 1st Five Year Development Plan (1963-1967) until the last development plan (10th Five Year Development Plan (2014-2018)), with a focus on the cultural developments. Besides these development plans, also political happenings during or in the course of these reports will be mentioned in this chapter. With this acquired knowledge the reader will be more able to contextualize the Biennial in the second and third chapter of this research paper, within the specific period it took place. In the beginning of this chapter the first phase of the Turkish cultural policy (1920-1950) will be mentioned concisely. Although this period is a relatively early period and does not directly relate to the context of the Istanbul Biennial´s (1987-2015), it is still an important period because the Developments Plans in the following years find its traces in this first phase of this cultural policy. Also the 1st (1963-1967), 2nd (1968-1972) and 3rd Five Year Development Plan (1973-1977), which cannot be directly placed in context of the Istanbul Biennial’s (1987-2015), are momentous to describe. A brief description of these plans show the focus on, changes and developments of the cultural art scene of Turkey in the course of the years and also in the context of the other development plans.
Finally it is for this chapter important to note that the choice of describing the development plans and political events in chronological way, has implications for the study of the Istanbul Biennial as a whole. Especially in the second chapter of this research paper the description of the different editions of the Istanbul Biennial will be also described chronologically to give a clear overview. This can sometimes occur in an enumerating manner. However it is hard to avoid, because the political and cultural events in context of various editions of the Istanbul Biennial cannot always be easily compared with each other. This is so due to the zeitgeist in which the different development plans, political happenings and editions of the Biennial’s have occurred. From there on the second chapter of this research paper will focus more specifically and more in depth on the Istanbul Biennial and its’ different existing components. In this chapter the focus will be on the first two research questions ‘How has the Istanbul Biennial evolved over the last 30 years?’ and ‘What are the underlying factors which have shaped the Biennial as it is now?’ In order to answer these two research questions, I will answer the sub-questions: ‘What was the approach of the Istanbul Biennial’s, in terms of their conceptual framework, curator(s) and
represented arts?’ and ‘What kind of (in)direct factors during the Biennial’s have had influence on these aspects?’ The following approach will be used to answer these questions: first the
development is mapped of the Istanbul Biennials, from 1987 until 2015, based on a closed
examination of their approaches in terms of conceptual framework, curator(s) and represented arts. In addition, I will look at the (in)direct factors, in both the organization but also external aspects, that might have had influence on this development.20 Some of these (in)direct external factors (of
cultural developments and political happenings) are described in the first chapter of the research paper, these factors will be eventually linked to the second chapter and thereby references will be made to the first chapter, in order to avoid repetition of the same information. The conceptual framework, curator(s) and represented arts will be each divided into a separate paragraph. It is hereby important to notify that the last paragraph — represented arts, will be different and in form of a small case-study. To get a better understanding of the artists and artworks which were
represented at the Istanbul Biennial, this section will zoom into the most recent (fourteenth, 2015) edition and give an overview of its arts.
20 This last part I won’t discuss separately, instead I will describe it in context of sketching each aspect. To give a clear
5 The third and thereby last section will focus on describing to what extent the city of Istanbul and its citizens are incorporated within the development of Istanbul Biennial — by both looking at the direct involvement and changes of the organization; the more indirect (external) effects. The sub-questions of this part are as follows: ‘How has the Biennial organized and by which parties was it funded?’, ‘At what kind of locations and venues were the Biennials held?’, ‘What kind of public has each Biennial attracted?’ and ‘What kind of educational and public programs were developed during the Biennials for the city dwellers?’ Each of these questions will be divided into paragraphs. By looking at which public, governmental, private or a combination of these parties are involved with the Biennial, I will clarify if and to what extent there has been a focus on the domestic
sponsors in the realization of the Biennial. The location and venues in which the Biennials are held is crucial to study. The public and private nature of the location and building can greatly affect the Biennial commitment to the residents of the city. For example, a Biennial that took place in a large public area and more general buildings is probably more involved with the inhabitants of the city, compared to a Biennial which had an expensive neighborhood as a location and which was
organized within an inaccessible venue. The public of each Biennial and the educational and public programs are also very important to analyze, to get a better understanding if the residents have been involved in the course of the Biennials.
It is important to notify that the aim of this research is not to give an overview of the Istan-bul Biennial, but to shed light on the development and the underlying factors which have shaped the Istanbul Biennial as it is now. This case-study about one of the most important cultural events of Istanbul, will thereby also look at how the city itself and the citizens have been involved in the development of the Istanbul Biennial. This research is relevant and valuable for in particular researchers in the field of arts and art students, because of its profound analysis of how such an event as part of Istanbul’s cultural sector, functions in relation to the politics, economy, city and citizens of Istanbul. Only when we get better grip on the development of such an event, in relation to external happenings and the city and citizens itself, one can better understand the developments of the art scene in Istanbul nowadays and the force behind it.
Methodology
[..] the idea of method has progressively overturned the relation between knowing and doing: on a base of legal and rhetorical practices, changed little by little into discursive ‘actions’ executed on diversified terrains and thus into techniques for the transformation of a milieu, is imposed the fundamental schema of a discourse organizing the way of thinking as a way of operating, as a rational management of production and as a regulated operation on appropriate fields. That is ‘method’, the seed of modern science (de Certeau, 1984, p.65).21
The transition from everyday practice (doing) to the knowledge in an academic publication
(knowing) is thus as the scholar Michel de Certeau accentuates it, mediated by the research method. It is therefore necessary to describe the used methodology in a research. After the explanation of what will be examined in this research paper, the sequel of this introduction will clarify the method and subsequently the sources which will be used.
The method that will be used in this research paper is the ‘Actor Network Theory’ (ANT) — from an art sociological context. To start with, the core of the sociological approach in relation to art, focusses on the idea that art has been created within a totality of social relations and activities within society, which are inseparably linked to each other.22 This sociological approach is close to the heart of the Actor Network Theory. This theory was developed in the 1980s by the sociologist Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law. According to Michel Callon, ANT was never ment to
21 M. de Certeau. The Practice of Everyday Life. London 1984: 65.
22 M. Halbertsma and K. Zijlmans. Gezichtspunten. Een inleiding in de methoden van de kunstgeschiedenis. Nijmegen
6 be a theory, but much rather a method used for understanding the complex ‘web’ of a social
network.23 ANT captures, according to the Dutch academic Hans van Maanen, the extending social ties and offers a model for rendering the underlying actors in society and the influences on and thereby changes between different actors.24 Hereby a change of doing something in one actor network, links to and have result(s) on another actor network.25 This act of linking is according to van Maanen social in character. He explains this in his book by referring to the use of the Actor Network Theory by Bruno Latour, John Law and Michel Callon.26 First of all according to Bruno Latour actors are not only related to human beings, but also to non-human things. Latour created the term ‘actant’ to describe both people and non-human things.27 He also accentuates that these actants
are entities that make other actants do new things — which is only possible when both human and non-human elements meet and interact.28 These actants are always engaged in mapping the social context which arise between them, Latour accentuates.29 Actants are thus like ‘atoms’, from which a larger unit is built according to the Actor Network Theory.30
The present research will investigate how the large unit of the Istanbul Biennial was built by using the Actor Network Theory discussed above. The Istanbul Biennial consists of many different actants which due their large amount cannot all be discussed in this research paper. Therefore a selection of seven actants will be mapped in this research, as described in the introduction — in the second chapter: the conceptual framework, curators and arts will be discussed. Furthermore, in the third chapter: the fund system, venues and locations, visitors and the educational and public programs will be investigated. Each actant is an actant-network on its own — but also a part of the large unit of the Istanbul Biennial.31 To understand the Istanbul Biennial as a web of (actant) layers, it is important to zoom into each actant of this network individually and describe them in depth and in an uncluttered manner per paragraph. By using this method the very peculiar movement of re-association and reassembling between these actants will be mapped, as Latour accentuates it.32 This approach will eventually allow us to provide an answer to the main questions of this research: ‘How has the Istanbul Biennial evolved over the last 30 years? What are the underlying factors which have shaped the Biennial as it is now? And to what extent did it involve the city of Istanbul and its citizens in this development?’
Within this research no dogmatic advocacy will be carried out for a single research
approach. On the contrary, the Actor Network Theory depends on the information that wants to be known and explained, not vice versa. Only the combination of different types of ‘information’, obtained from qualitative and quantitative and both primary and secondary publications will offer a nuanced answer to the proposed sub-questions and the main questions in this research. The
qualitative research will be mainly in the form of a literature analysis based on documentation research from the online archive of the Istanbul Foundation of Culture and Arts, written curator texts, articles and catalogues for different editions of the Istanbul Biennial. It is thereby important to notify that these sources will be obtained from the concerned organization of the Istanbul Biennial. To make this image of publications not monotonous and to critically approach the Biennial, these
23 M. Callon. ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc
Bay.’ In: J. Law. Eds. Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? London 1986: 196-223.
24 H. van Maanen. How to study art worlds. On the Societal Functioning of Aesthetic Values. Amsterdam 2009: 84. 25 Ibid., 139.
26 Ibid.
27 This terminology is very similar to ‘actor’. However the difference is that the term actant does not limit itself to
human individual actors. It instead refers to a non-human entity, collective or individual, which can associate or disassociate with other actants. Information comes from: B. Latour. ‘On actor-network theory. A few clarifications plus more than a few complications.’ Philosophia 24/4 (1990): 2.
28 B. Latour. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford 2005: 49. 29 Ibid., 32.
30 Ibid., 13.
7 publications will be supplemented with articles from books, art journals and newspapers by
(art)critics and a variety of academics. Whom are derived from the cultural sector of Turkey, are related to it or whose ideas can be used in context of the Istanbul Biennial. These later sources are thus not necessarily descended from the organization of the Biennial itself. Also interviews will be used as a method for qualitative research — existing interviews and interviews I will conduct myself. The latter interviews are a combination of a ‘semi-structured interviews’ and ‘informal — conversational interviews’. To have a form of guidance in the interview a ‘semi-structure’ will be used, which include specific topics and several main questions.33 However with the intention to be able to divert and move to questions that come up at the moment the ‘informal — conversational interview’ will be taken into account. In total three interviews will be conducted. With Fatoş Güder, former Turkish art historian at Guler Sanat Modern Art Gallery in Ankara — a figure who has a lot of insight in the art scene of Turkey.34 Two other interviews will be conducted, one with the
Turkish artist Alper Şen and another with the educator Ali Dur, a former Turkish high school teacher who lives in the Netherlands.35 It is important to realize that using this form of qualitative research (semi-structured and informal — conversational interviews) is subjective in approach. However additionally using interviews fill the gaps in literature analysis, this because of the profound empirical analysis of a specific subject matter.
The use of quantitative research methods in contrast, can diminish subjectivity found by using the qualitative research method. Therefore also quantitative research methods will be used in this research — mainly in form of data collecting via tables- and charts-statistics regarding public digits, monetary amounts and reports from the Turkish government. However it is important to recognize that quantitative sources cannot be interred in isolation — these sources also need to be placed in context of interpretive arguments. Therefore it is important to study quantitative research from a certain framework of qualitative data — which in this study is related to an (art)sociological approach. This pluralistic approach of research and sources, is inter alia motivated by the
complexity of the research question and especially the heterogeneity of the possible answers for them. Which in addition shows that this research opts for not an extensive, but as the Dutch sociologist Peter Gustaaf Swanborn calls it an intensive study.36
Literature Review
Due the large amount of literature which will used in the course of this thesis, not all publication can be mentioned. Instead, a brief selection of sources will be discussed in this literature review. In this section a concise description will be given of the type of literature, the content of the sources and if it is a historical, socio-political and or cultural source, which will be used to answer the research questions within this thesis.
A publication which gives a good historical overview of the Istanbul Biennial is a curator
33 See also footnote 34 and 35.
34 To Fatoş Güder main questions will be asked regarding the Istanbul Biennial — about for example its fund system
and visitors. These questions can be found in the appendix of this research. It is hereby important to notify that these questions are just a guidance for the interview, during the interview itself new questions will arise and will be answered via the informal — conversational interview method. The aim of the questions regarding the Istanbul Biennial is to supplement statements or gaps within the literature analysis.
35 To Alper Şen and Ali Dur main questions will be asked regarding the educational system in Turkey — how it is at the
moment and what the limitations are in the system. These questions can be found in the appendix of this research. The aim of these questions regarding the educational system is to clarify and give more insight into particular
developments of the educational (and public) programs in the Istanbul Biennial — which will be discussed in paragraph 3.4 of this research.
36 P.G. Swanborn. Case studies: Wat, wanneer en hoe? Amsterdam 2013: 12-13. According to Swanborn the intensive
8 text titled İsimsiz (12. İstanbul Bienali), 2011 - İstanbul'u Hatırlamak / Untitled (12th Istan-bul
Biennial), 2011 - Remembering Istanbul. This document is written by curators Jens Hoffman and
Adrianao Pedrosa in the context of the opening of the 12th Istanbul Biennial in November 2010. In this work both curators review the history of the Biennial, from a historical approach and from the point of view of the previous curators. The publication is useful for this research in analyzing the concepts, themes and curators of each Biennial up to the 12th edition. It is not just a simple description of Istanbul Biennial’s history. The book which exists of sixteen essays, despite their differences, is overshadowed by two important themes that are important for this research: the Istanbul Biennial in the global world and the relationship between the works of art at the Biennials and its context. This source is very useful in giving answer to the sub-question of the first
paragraph: ‘What was the approach of the Istanbul Biennial, in terms of their conceptual framework, curator(s) and represented arts?’ This publication will also be used to obtain
information which is needed about the Istanbul Biennials and which will be described in the last chapter of the research — such as the fund system, the venues and location, what kind of public it attracted over time and what kind of educational and public programs each of them had.
Besides this specific publication which has been published via the IKSV, partly written curator texts for the Biennials, catalogues and other texts about the Istanbul Biennial from the online databases of IKSV - Istanbul Foundation of Culture and Arts will be used for this research. It is hereby of importance to accentuate that the use of the above mentioned publication and other additional sources which have been published by the IKSV will give a monotonous image about the Biennial. Therefore these publications will be supplemented with sources from not only the
organization itself, but also (art)critics and a variety of academics. An example of such a document is the article Event and Counter-Event: The Political Economy of the Istanbul Biennial and Its
Excesses (2011), written by art historian and Associate Professor of Art History at the American
University of Beirut, Angela Harutyunyan, Turkish sociology scholar Aras Özgün and Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Studies and Public Administration at the American
University of Beirut, Eric Goodfield. In their article they discuss from a socio-political and cultural perspective the production of the Istanbul Biennial, by in particular focusing on its curatorial strategies and sponsorship. The authors examine the Biennial in the form of so called ‘counter-events’ which bring attention to the social, political and also economic conditions of the Biennial. This publication is in particular useful for the third chapter of this research and specifically the paragraph about the funding.
Another publication which also focusses on the contextualization of the Istanbul Biennial within context of socio-political and cultural developments, comes from the art critic and curator of the first (1987) and second Istanbul Biennial (1989), Beral Madra. She has published essays about this Biennial in the light of globalization. Parts of her essays are published in the book İki Yılda Bir
Sanat (2003). Madra focuses on the Istanbul Biennials which took place between 1987 and 2003.
And looks at what kind of perspectives and themes are realized, in the context of globalization and political and economic developments of these years.
A publication which contributes not specifically to the theme of the Istanbul Biennial, but rather to the cultural policy and sector of Istanbul is Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of
Eu-rope? (2010). This book is written by Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Türeli and describes
9 Finally a source which cannot be ignored when talking about the development of the Istanbul
Biennial, is the book of professor in Arts and Cultural Management Serhan Ada and sociologist Ayçe Ince. This work titled Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey (2009) is a collection of writings from academics and experts, which are historical but at the same time socio-political in nature. It defines and analyses in a critical way how the cultural policy in Turkey functions, with an eye on the politics and economy of the country. This work is very useful to better understand how the cultural sector functions, and the Istanbul Biennial as part of it, and what kind of events, developments and factors from the perspective of policy play an important role within this cultural sector.
The above mentioned literatures will be as mentioned, supplemented with quantitative sources, from statistic reports from the Turkish government. An example of the latter is the Report
Travel & Tourism on December 2013 by the Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investment
10
1. The cultural and political climate of Turkey
In this chapter the cultural and political developments in Turkey, from the period of the 1920-1950s (with the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923) up to now will be discussed. As
previously mentioned in the introduction, this will be done by analyzing the first phase of the Turkish cultural policy (1920-1950s) and from there on the first (1963-1967) until the last (2014-2018) Five Year Development Plans of the Turkish government. In addition, this will be described by addressing political happenings that took place during the course of these development plans. Explaining this broad context of cultural and political events in the course of this chapter, will eventually make it possible for the reader of the following two chapters to get a better
understanding on how the Istanbul Biennial has developed itself, in line with the broader cultural and political developments and if and how the Biennial’s have been influenced by or reacted on these developments and happenings.
The first phase of the Turkish cultural policy was, according to Dr. Ayça Ince, sociologist and teacher at the Arts and Cultural management department of Bilgi University in Istanbul, created between the 1920-1950s. A period in which the Turkish Republic (established in 1923), centralized the establishment of state institutions such as the Turkish Historical Society and the Turkish
Language Institute, under the rule of a one party system by the presidency of Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk.37 The focus of these policies in the early years of the Republic, was led by Atatürk’s aim to frame a national state by embracing the foundation of a national identity and the establishment of a modern Turkey.38 According to Martin van Bruinessen the Dutch anthropologist, after the
establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923 the state adopted an ideology in which the national identity was fostered and a suppression of the Kurdish identity took place in the course of the years — which lead to stripping some of their rights.39 Besides this according to the Turkish curator and
art historian Beral Madra, the 1950s went together with the improvement of artistic and cultural activities, in context of embracing the national identity.40 The Turkish government thereby encouraged the arts by collecting artworks via banks and by connecting the Turkish artists via scholarship with arts education in Europe.41 In this period, according to art historian Meral Katoğlu, slowly the first private art galleries and artists associations were established.42
In the 1960s the so called 1st Five Year Development Plan (1963-1967) was created by the Turkish government, with aims of increasing the economic, social and cultural developments of Turkey.43 Analyzing this development plan however shows that it did not include a section for
cultural policy, but instead focused on the educational developments of the country. Before the foundation of the Turkish Republic the Ottoman educational system was based on mainly religion and the Arabic language.44 Atatürk introduced the ‘Law of Unification of National Education’
(1924) — which dropped the religion based education and created an educational form based on science.45 This law in addition introduced four new changes: a new alphabet based on the Latin
37 H.A. Ince. ‘Cultural Policies and Local Public Administration.’ In: S. Ada and H.A. Ince. Eds. Introduction to
Cultural Policy in Turkey. Istanbul 2009: 235-261.
38 S. Ada and H.A. Ince. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey. Istanbul 2009: 119.
39 M. van Bruinessen. ‘Diversity and Division among the Kurds.’ Warreport, bulletin of the institute for war and peace
reporting 47/1 (2000): 1.
40 B. Madra. ‘Visual art as a Field of Complication.’ In: H. Altindere and S. Evren. Eds. User’s Manual: Contemporary
Art in Turkey, 1986-2006. Frankfurt am Main 2007: 31.
41 M. Katoğlu. ‘The institutionalization of High Art as a Public Service in the Republican Era.’ In: S. Ada and H.A.
Ince. Eds. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey. Istanbul 2009: 27-85.
42 Ibid.
43 W.W. Snyder. ‘Turkish Economic Development: The First Five Year Plan, 1963-67.’ The Journal of Development
Studies 6/1 (1969): 59.
44 I. Güven. ‘Education and Islam in Turkey.’ In: A.M. Nohl, A. Akkoyunlu-Wigley and S. Wigley. Eds. Education in
Turkey. Münster 2008: 152.
45 R. Okçabol. ‘Secondary Education in Turkey.’ In: A.M. Nohl, A. Akkoyunlu-Wigley and S. Wigley eds. Education
11 script, gender equality, education for girls and the improvement of higher education.46 Within the Plan, these formulated changes by Atatürk were accentuated and also renewals in the educational system were introduced. The characteristics of this period was the foundation of defined Academic Primary and Secondary Education (known as Orta okul and Lise).47 Besides that also the
embracement of Comprehensive Secondary School (Muhtelif Gayeli Okulari) with the influence of American educational objectives, technical education and high school programs were the major focus points of this period.48 The 2nd Five Year Development Plan (1968-1972) in particular focused on the improvement of the educational system of Turkey. In the period the educational system as a total was created. Thereby three educational levels were established: Primary,
Secondary and Higher Education — which facilitated the easy transfers between these levels.49 It was the 3rd Five Year Development Plan (1973-1977), which included for the first time a section for culture, according to sociologist Ayça Ince and Professor Serhan Ada at the department of Arts and Cultural Management at Bilgi University in Istanbul.50 An inducement for this was
according to both professors the establishment of the Ministry of Culture in the Cabinet — which occurred after the 1971 Turkish military coup, in which the government changed and a small right winged party under leadership of prime minister Bülent Ecevit came to power.51 Ecevit fostered the
economic developments of the country, in which the cultural sector also seemed to play an
important role. The first Minister of Culture was the cultural historian and poet Talat Sait Halman, who himself encouraged Nejat F. Eczacıbaşı, a Turkish businessman, to found the IKSV (İstanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfı — The Istanbul Foundation of Culture and Arts) in 1973 in accordance with the Ministry of Culture. The IKSV’s main objective was to offer the finest examples of cultural and artistic production from Turkey and around the world and to introduce new initiatives and
movements to art enthusiasts in Istanbul. Other goals were to present cultural and artistic assets of Turkey to the world and to turn Istanbul into a major international centre for culture and arts.52 The first International Istanbul Festival (1973), which was organized in the year of the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish Republic, encouraged the growth of the cultural and artistic scene of Turkey. At the same time it also created a platform of international communication.53 The first International Istanbul Festival lasted for over a month and mainly focused on classical music
concerts. From the 1980s and onwards the festival developed and started to complement its program with other artistic fields, such as jazz, film, theatre productions, ballet performances, traditional shadow puppet shows, national ceremonies and art exhibitions to draw attention especially towards Turkish contemporary art.54
This first International Istanbul Festival had, based on its program and participants, a
moreover traditional and national character — by embracing and incorporating traditional art forms and shows, such as the shadow puppet show. However this festival took place during a period of slow political and economic developments on an international level. This eventually had an impact on the evolution of the Festival. In the 1970s, Turkey attempted to reinforce their connections with the Western counterpart. The construction of the First Bosphorus Bridge was one of these efforts,
46 M.T. Özelli. ‘The Evolution of the Formal Educational System and Its Relation to Economic Growth Policies in the
First Turkish Republic’. International Journal of Middle East Studies 5/1 (1974): 77-92.
47 Ibid., 90. 48 Ibid.
49 Education since the Republic: Ministry Of National Education, Republic of Turkey. 2002. 21 July 2016
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060720184811/http://www.meb.gov.tr:80/Stats/apk2001ing/Section_3/1Transformation Motivated.htm>.
50 Ada and Ince. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey: 128. 51 Ibid.
52 The Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts: Main Objectives. 21 July 2013. 21 July 2016
<http://www.iksv.org/en/aboutus/mainobjectives>.
12 this way the Eastern part of Turkey could be connected to the Western part and thereby to Europe.55 The political and economic relationship between Europe and Turkey was also enhanced during this time via politics, which was at the time led by Ecevit. He pushed Turkey gradually in a more international direction, instead of a national one.56 This eventually led to the establishment of the first International Istanbul Biennial, which occurred fourteen years later, in 1987. The establishment of the Ministry of Culture and the first minister of culture shows how they seem to have fostered the cultural policy and the establishment of the IKSV — that in addition has led to the organization of the first Istanbul Festival (1973) and formed the roots of today’s Istanbul Biennial.
The 4th Five year Development Plan (1979-1983) according to Ada and Ince, had in particular its focus in the section of cultural policy, on the removal of geographical disadvantages within the cultural and art sector and in addition to make the further going production and
consumption of culture possible.57 An important occurrence during this period was that the military regime in the 1980s reduced the Ministry of Culture to a lower level, which eventually caused this ministry to merge with the Ministry of Tourism.58 This meant the deprivation of the independence of the Ministry of Culture.59
The 5th Five Year Development Plan (1985-1989) embraced the national culture — a subject which also was accentuated with the first phase of the cultural policies, right after the establishment of the Turkish Republic until the end of the 1950s. The main objectives of this plan consisted of five goals according to Ada and Inci: 1) the embracement of works of art related to culture and including them in the daily life op people, 2) the restoration and conservation of (privately owned) historical artworks, 3) translating ancient Turkish works of art into modern and contemporary Turkish art with the aim of passing them over to the next generations, 4) providing education for the national arts and crafts, 5) fostering the research on Turkish music, literature, painting, theatre and moving image.60 This plan seem to have encouraged cultural and educational projects in the aim of both promoting the cultural and artistic scene; intertwining them.
The following development plan, 6th Five Year Development Plan (1990-1994), covered the main theme of national culture.61 At that time the right winged Turgut Özal and ruler of the MP (Motherland Party) had power in Turkey. He was according to Martin van Bruinessen the first person who spoke in public about the demographic importance of the Kurdish people in Turkey.62 He seemed to change the discourse of Atatürk around national identity — in which the rights of the Kurds were suppressed. However a political happening in 1990, showed the contrary.
During the 6th Five year Development Plan for example the Gulf War took place (1990-1991). Turkey decided during this War to let its territory be used by the United States as a second front in the air war against Iraq. This was striking, because while improving the rights of the Kurds, Turkey showed by participating in the Gulf War in 1991 that it didn't support Iraq, where many Iraqi Kurds were established. This happening became even more peculiar when the Kurdish citizens in Iraq fled to Turkey for protection. The increase of Kurds in Turkey however did not necessarily ensure a positive policy for the recognition and acceptance of the Kurds and the increasing cultural diversity of the Turkish population, according to the Turkish scholar Ismail Beşikçi.63 According to him the government instead sought for emphasizing the process of ‘turkification’ in their policy —
55 Göktürk, Soysal and Türeli. Orienting Istanbul: 12. 56 Ibid., 15.
57 Ada and Ince. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey: 98. 58 Ibid., 129.
59 Ibid. 60 Ibid.
61 Ibid., 129-130.
62 Bruinessen. ‘Diversity and Division among the Kurds.’: 1.
63 Ismail Beşikçi was well known for analyzing Turkey’s Kurdish Policies in different books such as ‘Kürt Sorunu’
13 which meant the further improvement of the Turkish national identity, with the exclusion of other cultural elements of ethnical groups.64 Seeing this development in politics, indicates that the 6th
Five Year Development Plan (1990-1994) has reverted to an aim of the government to embrace
national identity and culture.
Another remarkable aspect in the course of this plan and under the political rule of Özal, is the liberalization of the country in the 1980s. As mentioned in the introduction of this research Istanbul had undergone shift in this period, from a capitalist to a neo-liberalist country. In the context of the liberalization and globalization, the trade and financial sector experienced a fast growth, and it took thereby the cultural sector with it.65 However, as described in the introduction,
the liberalization in addition caused for cuts in financial support from the government, whereby the arts and culture of the country began to rely on the private sector — subsequently led by the wealth families of the city, such as Eczacıbaşı and Koç.66
Another remarkable happening is that the last year of the 6th Five Year Development Plan went along with an economic crisis in Turkey. Due unexpected developments in the balance of payments an inflation took place within the economy, which eventually lead to a one year economic crisis in 1994.67 In 1995 Turkey came according to Professor Meltem Müfüler-Baç at the Sabanci
University in Istanbul, out of this crisis. However, it still struggled with the economy and tried to ensure that no other inflation would be caused.68 During this same period and with an idea of ensuring that no further inflation occurs, Turkey took action in tightening its economic relationship with the EU, via the so called Customs Union Agreement.69 This agreement ensured that goods could be transported between Turkey and the European countries without any customs restrictions — which implemented the ideals of globalizing the Turkish economy. With this agreement on the other hand, Turkey also took its first steps in breaking up the boundaries and negotiating about its entry in the EU.
The 7th Five Year Development Plan (1996-2000), aimed at improving democratization in society and freedom of speech, in light of EU membership of Turkey, according to Inci and Ada.70
One can claim that the Customs Union Agreement (1995) and the democratization of the country in the same period had its influence on the development of the 7th Five Year Development Plan. Thereby it should be notified that Turkey’s aspiration of receiving a membership status of joining the EU was accepted in 1999. On the other hand in 1997 a political happening took place, the so called ‘soft’ or ‘post-modern’ coup d’état. In which the Erbakan government was overthrown by the military and fell on June 18th 1997. The coup caused for violation of human rights according to Hale William, professor in Turkish politics at SOAS University of London.71 In addition it created
confusion and a division of the society, in secular groups, Islamic, left-winged groups and the terrorist PKK supporters, according to the Turkish sociologist Elifcan Karacan.72 One could also state that the aims of democratization were also sought after the military coup came to an end. The 8th Five Year Development Plan (2001-2005), regressed, just like the 5th and 6th plans, on the concept of fostering national culture and as Ada and Ince accentuate it: ‘the production and
development of national culture, and the support of cultural and artistic activities.’73 The 9th Five
64 I. Beşikçi. Kürt Sorunu. Istanbul 1991: 79.
65 Madra. ‘The Hot Spot of Global Art: Istanbul’s Contemporary Art Scene and its Sociopolitical and Cultural
Conditions and Practices.’: 105-112.
66 Atasoy. Hegemonic Transitions, the State and Crisis in Neoliberal Capitalism: 216. 67 M. Müfüler-Baç. Turkey’s Relations with a Changing Europe. Manchester 1997: 59. 68 Ibid., 61.
69 W. van den Donk. The European Union, Turkey and Islam. Amsterdam 2004: 20. 70 Ada and Ince. Introduction to Cultural Policy in Turkey: 129.
71 H. William. Turkish Politics and the Military. London 1994: 185-186.
72 E. Karacan. Remembering the 1980 Turkish Military Coup d’État: Memory, Violence and Trauma. Siegen 2014:
139-140.
14
Year Development Plan (2007-2013) referred to the significant role of Turkey becoming a part of
the EU. Turkey was declared as becoming the European Capital of Culture of 2010 by the EU commission, which was agitated via the Participation Partnership agreement — signed by Turkey in 2006.74 To work towards this achievement and in addition with the Civil Society Dialogue, the commission transferred 21,5 million euros to encourage democratic developments and to instigate the people from both sides to be more active in economic, cultural and also political
developments.75
In the last year of this development plan protests arose against the removal of the Taksim Gezi Park. The government which at this time and still has been led by the right-winged AKP (Ak Parti — Development’s Party) under the rule of the Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, came with urban development plans for Istanbul’s Taksim Gezi Park. This meant that trees would be cut down and a building known as ‘Topcu Kislasi’, a historical military barrack, would be aborted.76 The protests against this happening took in first case place by a small group of protesters,
the Turkish politician Fatma Bostan-Ünsal accentuates.77 However, when this group started to block the use of construction machines for the destruction of the historical barrack and the trees, the Istanbul police obtained from the government the order to stop these protests, by deploying violence with the use of tear gas and water cannons.78 This local event eventually caused, according to Bostan-Ünsal, a national happening — which also led to the centralization of the subject of democracy, such as individual rights and the freedom of speech.79
The 10th Five Year Development Plan (2014-2018) and thereby the last plan until 2018, focusses on the culture and arts of Turkey, especially two subjects in a broad sense: the cultural heritage of Turkey and ensuring the Turkish culture and arts are recognized on an international level.80 How these aims are and will being pursued can currently not be clarified due the still
ongoing use of this plan. However the main focus of this development plan is the subject about the improvement of the educational system in Turkey.81 According to Yunus Akgün, cultural analyst and member of the Akgün Group (one of the leading brick manufacturers of Turkey), there is a clear lack of a good educational system in Turkey.82 He gives two reasons for this: first of all there is an economic inequality between the citizens of Turkey. This situation can clearly be seen in the quality of education — there is a distinction between public and primary schools, high schools and universities.83
The next limitation in the educational system, according to him, is the educational system itself. With every step of the education, Turkish school children have to undertake important exams that are deterministic of their future. This exam oriented system has negative effects on the students Akgün states — the students from primary school until the university do not focus on developing themselves, but are moreover focused on passing the courses they have to undertake to enter the high schools or universities and sections they want to be in.84 According to the Turkish artist and
educator Alper Şen, who spoke from a perspective of an educator during the interview in June 2016, this failure seems to be accentuated via the teachers, whom had their education from an older
74 Göktürk, Soysal and Türeli. Orienting Istanbul: 269.
75 Delegation of the European Union in Turkey, ‘EU - Turkey Civil Society Dialogue.’ 12 July 2016
<http://avrupa.info.tr/de/eu-and-civil-society/civil-society-dialogue/eu-turkey-civil-societydialogue.html.>.
76 F. Bostan-Ünsal. ‘Gezi Park Protests in Turkey: Transformation of Local Protest into a National and International
Crisis.’ Middle East Studies Journal 47/1 (2016): 19.
77 Ibid. 78 Ibid., 19, 21. 79 Ibid.
80 10th Five Year Development Plan published on 2 July 2013 by the Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Development.
Department of Ministry of Development. Ankara 2014: 44-46.
81 The subject about fostering education in Turkey has been accentuated all over the 10th Five year Development plan. 82 Y. Akgün. ‘Problems of Education System in Turkey.’ International Journal of Education 12/1 (2016): 23-24. 83 Ibid.
15 educational system or the same system as their students. Besides that, Şen adds that the teachers and schools use outdated books and do not purchase new publications.85 A Turkish former high school teacher living in the Netherlands, Ali Dur, added to this statement during another interview: ‘It is not only about the substantively bad books. In our time we had to write essays, writing is a very good way of thinking creatively and also of learning. Nowadays kids have to learn the things that are only written down in their books, no creativity and self-consciousness is used with this.’86 This
lack in good and challenging information for the students, in combination with students who want to perform well to get high grades in order to get into the high schools and universities of their choices, created this field of so called ‘dershane’ Ali Dur states.87 These dershane’s are the
grammar schools of Turkey. These are paid specialized schools where students get trained to pass the entrance examinations of the high school and university. Nowadays almost everyone in the last year of high school goes there to prepare themselves for the exams they have to undertake.88 These statements show how much of the educational system in Turkey is nowadays lacking and has yet to undergo significant development in order to provide education on a certain base level. An aim which the 10th Five Year Development Plan also seems to pursue, based on its main focus on promoting an improving education in Turkey.
Another striking aspects which could be pointed out, is that this plan went along with the (political) happenings in the previous years. A part of these happenings were the ongoing terrorist attacks of the Kurdish Rebels — known as the PKK (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê — The Kurdistan Workers’ Party) — on the citizens of Turkey, in the year of 2015. For example on 20 July 2015 the PKK killed 32 activists and injured 100 others. Furthermore, on 10 October 2015 two PKK suicide bombers killed 103 people and injured more than 250 others.89 Other happenings in 2015 include the refugee crisis which is in 2016 still ongoing and the war in Syria caused of the influx of refugees into Turkey, which in May 2016 has reached over 3,1 million people. This increase prevalence of refugees, according to the European Commission of Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, makes Turkey the country with the largest refugee population in the world at the moment.90 These happenings of both the PKK and the refugee crisis, are both ongoing and centralized issues in contemporary Turkey.
Like in the above mentioned Five Year Development Plans, the cultural policy of Turkey seems to be formulated in particular in the context of democratization and national identity.
However according to Ada and Ince, a controlling mechanism in achieving the mentioned goals per development plan does not exist — which in regard initiated that these cultural policies are not methodological.91 This seems to be so according to Ada and Ince the case, because of the
preferences of the plans are subject to change regarding different political and economic discourses of the political parties in power, which also seems to be coming to the surface in the analysis of these above mentioned development plans.92 This finding raises the critical question whether the
cultural, political and economic changes of the zeitgeist of each political party in power, with a focus on also the development plans, are in some way (as an embracement or reaction) visible in the analyzation of the different editions and actants of the Istanbul Biennial? For example did the strategy of the leader Turgut Özal in the Gulf War (1990-1991) also effect the third Istanbul Biennial (1992) in any way and in relation to one of the actants of this edition? Or the other way
85 A. Şen. A combination of a ‘semi-structured interview’ and ‘informal — conversational interview’. 20 June 2016. 86 A. Dur. A combination of a ‘semi-structured interview’ and ‘informal — conversational interview’. 18 June 2016. 87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 K. Major. Ankara explosion: Timeline of bomb attacks in Turkey between 2015 and 2016. 17 February 2016. 21 July
2016 <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/a-timeline-of-bomb-attacks-in-turkey-between-2015-2016-a6879841.html>.
90 Turkey: Refugee crisis, echo factsheet. May 2016. 21 July 2016
<http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/turkey_syrian_crisis_en.pdf>.
17
2. The development of the Istanbul Biennial (1987 - 2015)
Within the three paragraphs of this chapter, the development of the Istanbul Biennial will be mapped by describing three actants: the conceptual framework(s), the curators(s) and the represented arts. The first paragraph will zoom into the actant of the conceptual framework — which can be understood in the context of this research as a wide network of theme’s and concepts which sometimes differ and sometimes overlap within the different editions of the Istanbul
Biennial. The second paragraph focuses on the actant of curator(s). Which speaks for itself, the curator(s) are the ones who have superintendence over a specific edition of the Istanbul Biennial. From there on the actant of the represented arts will be discussed in the third paragraph of this chapter. This actant refers to a selection of artists, their artworks and in particular the nature of the works of art.
Compared to the first two paragraphs, the last paragraph will be written in the form of a case-study. To get a better understanding of what kind of artists and the (nature of their) works that were presented during the Istanbul Biennial, the case study will focus on the recent edition of the Istanbul Biennial, namely the fourteenth Istanbul Biennial (2015). This will be done to illustrate or give the reader an impression of kind of represented art one could expect at a specific conceptual framework of the Istanbul Biennial and under leadership of a specific curator. This in additions shows how the three actants are connected to each other. Moreover, the final paragraph will further investigate how these actants are expressed in relation to each other.
These actants according to the Actor Network Theory, are inseparably linked to each by the effects they might have on each actant and therefore they are overlapping sections.93 Mapping these
actants will not only provide more information about the biennials development within each actant, but it will also show how actors together form networks and (un)able developments in the Istanbul Biennial as a total. Eventually by using this method in this chapter the following sub-questions will be answered: ‘What was the approach of the Istanbul Biennial’s, in terms of their conceptual framework, curator(s) and represented arts?’ and ‘What kind of (in)direct factors during the Biennial’s have had influence on these aspects?’
The sources for this chapter will be provided by using a qualitative research methodology, mainly in form of literature research and in particular written curator texts, articles and catalogues from different editions of the Istanbul Biennial. Also interviews will be used in particular in the second paragraph — this way the visions of the curators will be mapped, in order to get a better understanding in what context they have created the conceptual frameworks of the different edition of Istanbul Biennial. It is important to notify that these sources are partly from those of the
organization itself, however these sources are needed because of the lack of specific academic publications about the editions of the Istanbul Biennial. These sources will be supplemented with articles and books from (art) critics and scholars in the fields of art or a related field.
18
2.1 Conceptual Framework(s)
As mentioned in the previous chapter according to art critic and associate professor in Sociology at Mimar Sinan University in Istanbul, Sibel Yardımcı, the International Istanbul festival which was organized in 1973, branched in the 1980s into the first Istanbul Biennial (1987). According to Yardımcı this went together with the modernization project of the national state in the 1980s, which eventually shifted into a strategy of globalization in the 1990s.94 Whether this modernization
strategy is visible in the conceptual framework of the first and second Istanbul Biennial, which are held in the 1980s, will be analyzed in this paragraph. From thereon it will be observed whether the conceptual framework of the Biennial has shifted to a strategy of ‘globalization’ in the 1990s. With the awareness that Yardımcı’s statement cannot be taken as a fact, in this paragraph it will be researched whether the shift she is describing is visible in the development of the conceptual frameworks of the third until fourteenth Istanbul Biennial. This will be done by going through and objectively describing the conceptual frameworks with the consecutive editions of the Istanbul Biennial. By also mentioning the economic and political factors which took place at the same time as the Istanbul Biennial’s and which could have led to possible reactions in the conceptual
framework. It is thereby important to not overlook the fact that Sibel Yardımcı’s statement comes from a publication in 2006. The other conceptual frameworks of the Biennial that took place after 2006 are therefore open sources in which possible changes in strategy and other developments that occurred during the period between 2007 (10th Istanbul Biennial) until 2015 (14th Istanbul
Biennial) are possible. Thereby it is also crucial to accentuate that this also applies for the first edition until the ninth, because how the strategy in the conceptual frameworks of the biennials developed, does not need to be consistent with Yardımcı’s statement.
Looking at image 1 shows that the first two editions of the Istanbul Biennial (1987 and 1989) carried both the same title ‘Contemporary Art in Traditional Spaces’. Analyzing the title accentuates the representation of contemporary art. But the critical questions that arise here are: what kind of (contemporary) art and whom did these biennials represent? To get a better
understanding of this part of the title it is useful to look at the core of political happenings, in relation to the cultural and artistic aims in Turkey during this period of the biennials. The year of in particular the first Istanbul Biennial (1987) was politically compelling while the elections in the politics took place.95 What happened during the elections is that the amount of parties participating was increased, while the controlling of the leaders from the political parties was reduced and even detached.96 Before the elections there was no democracy in Turkey according to Beral Madra, the curator of the first two Istanbul Biennial’s (1987 and 1989).97 With the elections the
democratization of the country was pushed forward and this had its positives outcomes for the arts sector in Turkey she accentuates.98
The boosting of the cultural industry of Turkey went, according to professor Dr. Serhan Ada and sociologist Ayça Ince, via the cultural policies.99 They accentuate that these policies were set in concrete objectives via the agenda of political happenings at that specific moment.100 At the same
period as the two editions of the Biennial took place, the 5th Five Year Development Plan (1985-1989) was formulated by the Turkish government as part of the cultural policy (see also chapter 1). According Ada and Ince this plan as part of the cultural policy assumed a central role in two main
94 Yardımcı. ‘A Leap Forward by the Istanbul Biennial.’: 3.
95 W. Hale. Turkish Politics and the Military. London 1994: 279 - 281. 96 Ibid.
97 J. Hoffmann and A. Pedrosa. İsimsiz (12. İstanbul Bienali), 2011 - İstanbul'u Hatırlamak / Untitled (12th Istanbul
Bienni-al), 2011 - Remembering Istanbul. Istanbul 2011. — B. Madra. ‘Introduction.’ Uluslararasi International birinci Istanbul Bienali. [mus.cat.] Istanbul 1987: 37.
98 Ibid.
19 aspects: the establishment of a national identity and the development and modernization of the Turkish culture as mentioned in the first chapter.101
Image 1: Graphic with on the left every edition of the Istanbul Biennial and on the right the title of each edition.102
The 5th Five Year Development Plan has pursued these goals, by translating ancient Turkish works of art into modern and contemporary Turkish art, with the idea of passing it over to the next
generations.103 By using the past Turkish art in the creation of modern works of art the national
identity was trying to be founded in forms of Turkish modern arts, whereby at the same time a modernization of the arts took place. Out of the context of the 5th Five Year Development Plan, one can suggest that the first two biennials could have been seen as active steps to realize these goals by the government.
An inside source that tells us more about what we could understand with ‘contemporary art’ regarding these biennials is the catalogue text of the second Biennial (1989). In the introduction text the director of the IKSV, Aydin Gün accentuates that during the Ottoman Empire figurative arts in the form of paintings and sculptures were neglected, because of the religious belief of Islam at the court.104 According to Gün this seems to have worked against the development of visual arts in the
101 Ibid., 119.
102 The information within this image originates from the IKSV databases, to be specific the information is collected
from the website of each mentioned edition of the Istanbul Biennial and brought together in this graphic.
103 Ada and Ince. Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey: 129.
104 A. Gün. ‘Introduction.’ Uluslararasi International ikinci Istanbul Bienali. [mus. cat.] Istanbul 1989: 12.
Istanbul Biennial editions Title’s
First Istanbul Biennial 1987 Contemporary Art in Traditional Spaces Second Istanbul Biennial 1989 Contemporary Art in Traditional Spaces Third Istanbul Biennial 1992 Production of Cultural Difference Fourth Istanbul Biennial 1995 Orient-ation- The Vision of Art in a
Paradoxical World
Fifth Istanbul Biennial 1997 On Life, Beauty, Translations and Other Difficulties
Sixth Istanbul Biennial 1999 The Passion and the Wave
Seventh Istanbul Biennial 2001 Egofugal - Fugue from Ego for the Next Emergence
Eight Istanbul Biennial 2003 Poetic Justice Ninth Istanbul Biennial 2005 Istanbul
Tenth Istanbul Biennial 2007 Not Only Possible, But Also Necessary: Optimism in the Age of Global War Eleventh Istanbul Biennial 2009 What Keeps Mankind Alive? Twelfth Istanbul Biennial 2011 Untitled
Thirteenth Istanbul Biennial 2013 Mom am I Barbarian?
