Kategori: Texts

General Assembly, 24.X.2002, Ecole Nationale Supérieur des Beaux-Arts, 14 rue Bonaparte, Paris.

Dear colleagues and friends,
The title of the AICA round-table at Manifesta 4 was ”Art as Social Construction?” The event took place during the opening days of Manifesta 4 on Saturday May 25, 2002 at 6 p.m. in Manifesta’s Trespassing Space in Frankfurt am Main. Manifesta 4 had no theme, no label, which was a part of the curatorial strategy. But the AICA title was close to the work of the three curators, Iara Boubnova, Sofia, Nuria Enguita Mayo, Barcelona and Stéphanie Moisdon Trembley, Paris. On August 14, 2001, I got a letter from Martin Fritz, coordinator of Manifesta 4, asking for the possibility of an AICA round-table in Frankfurt. The strategy for future AICA round-tables was discussed at the General Assembly on October 4, 2001 in Zagreb. The event in Frankfurt was organised by AICA’s Manifesta Commission including the three Executive Board members, Kim Levin, president, Ramon Tio Bellido, general secretary and Angelica Bäumer, general treasurer, Henry Meyric Hughes, president of the I.F.M., and the vice presidents Evelyn Weiss, German section of AICA, and Christian Chambert, who also coordinated the activities. The close cooperation with I.F.M. from now on was announced at the Administrative Council in Paris on February 22, 2002. There is a formal partnership with Manifesta including Manifesta 4 and the next two ones, Manifesta 5 in 2004 in San Sebastian and Manifesta 6 in 2006. The Executive Board of AICA decided in the last moment to continue the planning of the round-table, despite the fact that the promised funding was not yet made available. AICA is still waiting for the money to pay the fees agreed on to the panelists and also other expenses. As there was no money in the budget for travel expenses for panelists coming from outside Germany the organisers had to profit from the fact that the non German speakers we wanted to invite were going to go to Frankfurt anyhow. Hopefully it will be possible next time to pay the travel expenses for participants coming from other European countries and from outside Europe. The AICA round-table at Manifest 4 in Frankfurt was the fifth one I organised together with Kim; the previous four being Manifesta 2 in Luxembourg, 1998, Ars Aevi in Sarajevo, 1999, Manifesta 3 in Ljubljana, 2000 and the biennial in Istanbul 2001. I am grateful for the intense and stimulating cooperation with Kim during the years. It has helped AICA to take a vitalising jump right into the middle of the contemporary art scene.

The invited speakers were: Kim Levin, New York, president AICA, art critic Village Voice; Ira Boubnova, Sofia, curator Manifesta 4, senior curator in the Museum of Fine Arts, Sofia; Sabine Vogel, Berlin, art critic Berliner Zeitung, curator; Jon Mikel Euba, Bilbao, artist Manifesta 4; Ekaterina Degot, Moscow, curator, art historian, art critic; moderator: John Peter Nilsson, Stockholm, vice president AICA, vice president Swedish AICA, art critic Aftonbladet, editor NU: The Nordic Art Review.

The round-table was held in English in a crowded auditorium. The panelists described a variety of inspiring aspects on the theme. The discussion was lively and we got a lot of interesting questions and contributions to the debate from the audience. The program along with a short introducing text was published on the Internet by international AICA and by Swedish AICA. The event was announced by the organisers of the Manifesta 4 programs at http://www.manifesta.de In the printed program of the biennial you could find information about the AICA round-table. I sent out the program by e-mail to hundreds of addresses; to critics, artists, institutions and others. We also distributed a leaflet in Frankfurt. The round-table was open to the public with no entrance fee. The discussion was taped by the Manifesta 4 staff and a copy is available at the headquarters of AICA in Paris.

I was in constant contact with Kim concerning the planning of the round-table. AICA is grateful to all the panelists who accepted the invitation with short notice and a lot of enthusiasm. We are very thankful to all the AICA people and others who helped us collect the short list of names for the panel. Special thanks goes to Ramon Tio Bellido, Nada Beros, Iara Boubnova, Hedwig Fijen, Martin Fritz, Antje von Graevenitz, Marieka van Haal, Thomas Thiel and to John Peter Nilsson, Anders Olofsson and other colleagues of the board of the Swedish AICA section, who all gave good advice and proposed excellent speakers. We are also happy for the collaboration with Manifesta 4, its board, its administrative and technical staff, the three curators and the exhibiting artists.

I look forward to deepening the collaboration with Manifesta in the coming events. I also hope that it will be possible for AICA to develop the idea of round-tables at other events, not least outside Europe.

At the end of November 2001 I was invited to Sarajevo by Ars Aevi to give a lecture on contemporary art. Furthermore I participated in ”Forum Ars Aevi 1992 – 2002 On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of Ars Aevi in Sarajevo 22 – 25 June 2002.” This was the fourth time during four years I visited Sarajevo to attend meetings organised by Ars Aevi. I communicated anniversary greetings from Kim Levin and AICA. At the seminar ”Ars Aevi Museum in Progress” I presented my reflections on the project including new ideas for the future. Among others we listened to the following speakers: Bruno Cora, Jesa Denegri, Baronessa Lucrezia De Domizio Durini, Enver Hadziomerspahic, Lorand Hegyi, Henry Meyric Hughes, Meliha Husedzinovic, Joseph Kosuth, Beral Madra, Asja Mandic, Edin Numankadic, Sania Papa, Efi Strousa and Harald Szeemann.

I was invited by Yugoslav art critics and curators to visit Belgrade, where I saw colleagues at several meetings between June 25 and June 28, 2002. The idea was to meet with art critics, art historians and curators and to exchange information and ideas between the newly reconstructed Yugoslav AICA section and international AICA. Among others I met Zoran Pavlovic, new president of the Yugoslav section, Branislava Andjelkovic, Zoran Eric, Zana Gvozdenovic, Lidija Merenik, Irina Subotic and Jelena Vesic. The members of the Yugoslav section told me about a lot of projects for the future. The discussions were constructive and will be continued. The trip to Sarajevo and Belgrade in June was funded by the Swedish Institute in Stockholm.

Thank you for your attention.

Christian Chambert
chairman Special Projects and Programs
President Swedish AICA, Vice President AICA

[The report has been supplemented after the General Assembly.]

From Konstperspektiv 2002/3

Charlotte Bydler, art historian and critic, and Christian Chambert, chairman of Svenska Konstkritikersamfundet

Lately we have seen how cultural journalism has been scrutinized in media. Konstperspektiv met with Charlotte Bydler, art historian and critic, and Christian Chambert, chairman of Svenska Konstkritikersamfundet, to talk about the status of cultural journalism with a special focus on the art criticism.

KONSTPERSPEKTIV: What differentiates art journalism from other forms of cultural journalism?

CHARLOTTE: Before answering that question you need to be aware that art criticism looks different in different media. But they have certain things in common, for example that they usually discuss news of some kind. The criticism is by tradition evaluating, but it has also a strong pedagogic task in introducing and presenting art and artists that are not immediately spotted.

CHRISTIAN: It’s no coincidence that the criticism is debated right now. Culture journalism is in a crisis, and is struggling to find a new audience. This has led to the critical coverage becoming mixed with other material, and sometimes it can be hard for a non-initiated reader to decide which genre a text belongs to. I think that art criticism, especially during periods of crisis, should take the offensive in telling what is worth our attention.

CHARLOTTE: I’m not sure I agree that this is a problem. Maybe for the critics and the artists, but not for the reader who gets the chance to read more texts which eventually can lead to a visit to an exhibition. KP: Most people probably like to read positive texts that encourage to see an exhibition. But how about the critical and assessing texts – are they threatened?

CHRISTIAN: I would say that it’s the art that is threatened. Many critics want to support new art because it’s supposed to be endangered. That’s understandable, but the consequence can easily be that the critical scrutiny is overlooked inspite of it being important.

KP: Isn’t there a risk that close personal contacts blunt the critical sharpness?

CHARLOTTE: I honestly don’t know how, as a critic, you can avoid getting to know artists. After all, they are the most important source of knowledge about the works. Of course there can be an unintended influence, but that’s someting every individual has to be observant of. Maybe we should do as in scientific journals where the writer always has to state the personal relation to their subject, for example who has financed the research. This kind of ethics is missing completely in the field of art.

CHRISTIAN: It is common, for young writers especially, to write about artist-friends in the same generation. I don’t see anything strange in that. Neither is it unusual today that the artists themselves write about their own and their colleagues’ works, often in a very inspiring way. But I agree that it is a question of credibility that the writer is clear about his role when writing a certain text.

KP: Sometimes you hear, especially from artists, that the critics have got too much power.

CHRISTIAN: It’s probably the power of the media they mean. And they have definitely got a lot of power. But you have to remember that there will never be as many critics as artists. Therefore there will inevitably be a power relation, which I think is less palpable today than earlier since the number of media and writers has increased.

CHARLOTTE: Of course it can be tough to have work criticized without being able to defend it. However, we shouldn’t forget that the art criticism isn’t about the relation between artists and critics only. Most important is the audience, and if we want the art criticism to develop we need an open discussion about it where all parties can have their say.

KP: Is it a problem that the art criticism only seems to adress its traditional audience, the educated middle class that no longer exists?

CHRISTIAN: I don’t quite recognise that description. Undeniably a lot has happened. Today several papers have writers of different ages and with varying background. And new writers are recruited all the time.

CHARLOTTE: We can be happy about the proportionally large variety in Sweden’s limited art life. But still the critics in national media comment on more or less the same exhibitions. There is still only one ”system” to work within so to speak. Everyone agrees that the criticism should single out the important – but the question is for whom? The art with an international focus in the cities has a completely different audience than the local art that exists both in cities and in the countryside.

KP: Is the selection for the art criticism too narrow? Is too much left out of the coverage?

CHARLOTTE: I think most of today’s critics are pretty familiar with new media. They know less about all the subcultures that we can see on the art scen today. It would be good if media could use different writers for different kinds of art, more like the case is in music criticism. There’s still this old idea that art kan be evaluated according to a common standard, but it cannot and because of this a lot of art is considered uninteresting or irrelevant.

Christian Chambert and Anders Olofsson

CHRISTIAN: We shouldn’t forget that the art scene has changed quite dramatically since the mid 90’s. It used to be less common that foreign artists were shown in Sweden. Today almost always some are here, and Swedish artists exhibit frequently on the international arena. It’s nice, but at the same time it has become more difficult for the critics to follow what’s happening. For the artists there is a well developed system for grants which makes the participation in this international exchange easier, but for critics there’s no equivalent. That is a big disadvantage.

CHARLOTTE: And often it’s only possible to read about Swedish successes abroad. It’s very provincial. KP: Are we really that uninterested in the rest of the world? After all a lot is written about foreign art in Swedish press.

CHARLOTTE: That’s true. But most of these texts describe what is happening on the cosmopolitan art scene, on the big international exhibitions like all the biennials. Very few critics take an interest in local phenomenons. And that uninterest applies to both Sweden and other countries.

CHRISTIAN: Yes, we mustn’t loose the local perspective. After all the local level is where the audience is. We also have to realize that to audience and artists in many other parts of the world, in for example Turkey, Cuba, India or Eastern Europe, the possibilities of travel are not as good as here, and the big international exhibitions are often their only chance to get a glimpse of the art outside their home country. But still the biggest problem is that the criticism is still too narrowly focused on western art, and shows very little interest in exhibitions in the third world.

KP: Finally, what do you wish for on behalf of the art criticism in the future?

CHARLOTTE: Most of all I would like to see a division of the critics into different special fields, so that all kinds of art expressions can be handled with the same competence.

CHRISTIAN: Since the conditions of the art criticism ultimately is a matter of resources I would also wish for more generous economical frames, so that the critics can develop in their professional roll. I’m mainly thinking about means for travels and furtherance and money for penetrating articles that take longer time to write.

Text and photo: Anders Olofsson

Facts: Svenska Konstkritikersamfundet is a voluntary organisation and the Swedish section of AICA (Association Internationale des Critiques d’Art). It’s an organisation under the umbrella of UNESCO and has ca 250 members. Read more about the association and its activities on http://www.aicasweden.org/

Translated from the Swedish by Carina Ode