Collaborative Praxis and Contemporary Art Experiments in the MENASA Region

Atteqa Ali

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9783030479244
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030479251
• Topic: Art
• Subtopic: Art General

This book examines the ways in which artists and arts organizations today forge collaborative, socially engaged situations that involve non-professionals in the process of making art, often over a period of time, through creating opportunities to examine collective concerns and needs. Collaborative art praxis is gaining prominence in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia (MENASA) region. This is a discursive method that is experimental, with results that often expand the notions of what art is­—and how it can be produced. After an introduction to global approaches to such a practice, Ali examines the foundation of contemporary art in the MENASA that is linked to a longer history of colonialism. The book analyzes artist-led initiatives and community-based organizations through themes including relational aesthetics, war and violence, blight in marginalized places around the world, in addition to questions associated with art and its value in the fields of global contemporaryart and society.

© The Author(s) 2020

A. AliCollaborative Praxis and Contemporary Art Experiments in the MENASA Regionhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47925-1_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction: A Brief Outline of Globalized Practices of Collaborative Art

Atteqa Ali¹

(1)

Zayed University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Atteqa Ali

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

1.1 Introduction

In February 2019, the organizing body for Documenta , the major international art event held every five years in Germany and, more recently, in another part of the world, announced that the artistic director for the 2022 edition would be ruangrupa, a collective of artists in Jakarta, Indonesia.¹ In this unprecedented move, change was placed front and center since the artistic director of one of the art world’s most preeminent exhibitions has always been a professional curator, in addition to usually being a white European male. Selecting an association from the Global South, Documenta officials stated that they deliberately aimed to bypass the standard operating procedures to open the multifaceted undertaking to those outside of the Western mainstream.² While some in the industry might believe that Documenta is a trendsetter, offering what will be the next influential development in global contemporary art, it is more likely that the austere institution has been on the back end of a critical tendency that artists have been leading for a significant amount of time. The appointment of ruangrupa might effectively symbolize how collaborative practices have been sweeping across various sectors of the complex web of artists and art institutions internationally and the appeal of “social engagement.”³ In this gesture, such practices have reached the very top establishment. Ruangrupa’s assumption of the lead in the premier event illustrates the shifting artistic and curatorial practices that define art today, and indicate that collaborative practices will become even more significant than they are already, if for no other reason than the spotlight that will be cast on them when the edition of Documenta opens in 2022.

During the last two decades, collaborative art praxes, sometimes categorized as participatory art, relational art, dialogical art, social practice art, socially engaged art, community-based projects, community arts, and other related terms have become a staple of the global contemporary art world. Some might consider them the trending modus operandi in artistic practices today. As such, the Documenta establishment might have felt an urgency to address the universal adoption and interest in such communal activities.

Other recent developments signal the turn to collaborative, socially engaged practices. In this case, it is related to activism in art. In late 2018, the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York that stages a prestigious biennial exhibition of important artistic developments in the nation faced an internal challenge made public. In the backdrop of American politics in which questionable practices at the United States-Mexico border were exposed, the Whitney board member Warren B. Kanders came under fire.⁴ His company Safariland produced the tear gas that the American authorities were utilizing against children and women, as it was reported. This violation against humane treatment toward those seeking asylum in the United States ignited a groundswell in different groups across the country. For individuals and groups involved in the arts, it was unacceptable that the American government took such actions and a supporter of one of the most prominent museums facilitated the act. Many of the Whitney’s staff members wrote a letter in outrage of Kanders’ presence on the board.⁵ One of the artists invited to participate in the biennial, Michael Rakowitz decided that he could not participate in the event because of the institution’s association with the inhumane activity at the border. At the opening of the Whitney Biennial exhibition on May 17, 2019, the artist collective Decolonize This Place led a protest against the institution’s apparent lack of response to the Kanders affair.⁶ The organizer of the action, Amin Hussain read aloud the letter from the Whitney staff.

Rakowitz , whose work is discussed in Chap. 4, was, at the time of the exhibition’s opening, the only artist who decided to remove his work from the Whitney Biennial. In addition, the artist collective Forensic Architecture created a work—a documentary film that musician and activist David Byrne narrated—specifically dealing with Warren Kanders’ involvement in the gassing of innocent civilians at the border of United States and Mexico as well as other areas of conflict including Palestine.

The museum might have felt conflicted between its responsibilities toward the community of artists and its board of directors. It did not remove Kanders as vice chairman from its board and encouraged Rakowitz to remain in the biennial. At first Kanders remained steadfast in his decision to carry on with his duties as the vice chairman of the Whitney’s board of trustees. He believed that he had not acted in a malicious manner and needed to support the good work of the museum. His reasoning was that his company was for the betterment of the world at large and that the protest was misdirected.⁷ Apparently other board members feared that if the protesters got their demand to have Kanders removed the activists would come after them to resign because of the museum leadership’s clandestine involvement in oil companies and with defense contractors; essentially, companies that the advocates were targeting. Eventually Kanders did resign from the Whitney Museum following the announcement by eight artists that they intended to remove their works from the exhibition. This took place in July 2019, halfway through the four-month run of the biennial. Kanders wrote in his resignation letter, “the politicized and oftentimes toxic environment in which we find ourselves across all spheres of public discourse, including the art community, put the work of this Board in great jeopardy.”⁸ Whereas protesters had attempted to highlight the pain and suffering that the product that Kanders’ company produced had caused ordinary civilians, the Whitney Museum’s resigning vice chairman took the stance of the victim in this statement by insinuating that he had been pushed out illegitimately and that that kind of action would leave the institution in a precarious position. He seemed to suggest that the protesters did not understand all of the good that he and others like him had done for the museum and arts in general. And that there should be alarm bells ringing because his support as well as the money and resources provided by other board members was critical to the sustaining of such an organization. It appears that his was a warning against too much “political correctness,” a phrase that became popular in the 1990s to label an act or words as leaning toward politically liberal views. The sentiment was that the activist voice should not take over an art museum; the museum should not be politicized. The stance maintains a separation of everyday life and what goes on inside a museum. The associated statements with this development seem to suggest that politics should not “dirty the waters” of a higher calling. The response of the Whitney’s director Adam Weinberg to Kanders’ resignation appeared to echo this conviction. The New York Times provided insight into his apprehension at the mixing of art and political reality:

“The Whitney Museum is one of the most progressive, the most diverse, the most engaged, open programs of any major institution in the country,” Mr. Weinberg added. “Every museum director is looking as us right now and saying, ‘Gee, if the Whitney is being targeted, what’s going to happen to us.’”⁹

Like its resigned vice chairman, the museum’s director appropriated a victim stance that aimed to limit investigations into museum fundraising sources, particularly corporate donations. Even as he spoke about the radical leaning of the institution’s programs, he cautioned the art world to maintain a comfortable distance from making demands about funding. Without stating it directly, he insinuated that activism should be curbed before it gets out of hand because money is crucial to run such cutting-edge programs. Weinberg did not offer any efforts to compromise or screen the funding sources coming into the institution. He did not suggest, for example, that the museum would make efforts to secure donations from individuals and organizations that attempt to not inflict pain and suffering in the world. Instead, he seized the opportunity to question, and perhaps vilify the motives of the activists because, as he sees it, art museums need the support of rich people, despite the questionable supply of profits for the companies with which they are associated, in order to put forth its great programming.

The duplicitous stance goes against some of the more controversial, activist work directed at museums and their boards of trustees and corporate funding in the history of contemporary art. These undertakings are a hallmark of the subversive quality of some recent works; artists have been engaged and commenting about dubious activities that they noticed in the world around them. For example, Hans Haacke shed light on the monetary gifts provided by Philip Morris to arts organizations while it also supported a conservative US Senator Jesse Helms. In 1990, Haacke said, “I have a particular interest in corporations that give themselves a cultural aura and are in other areas suspect. Philip Morris presents itself in New York as a lover of culture while it turns out that if you look behind the scenes, it is also a prime funder of Jesse Helms, someone who is very hostile to the arts.”¹⁰ For museums and other cultural institutions, there is perhaps a blind eye turned to the source of funds. While museum sponsorship is an important and complicated topic that is not the subject of this manuscript, it is critical to consider because of the line in the sand that is often drawn in between art and activism. For political and social activists, it is crucial to be aware of the root of funding. Oftentimes, artists are politically and socially engaged in the current events of the society. And, as suggested by the topic of this book, artists have been seeking out ways to engage communities and audiences in platforms that go beyond normative topics that deal only with the production of art. The Whitney Museum has been at the center of this debate on many occasions during its existence. The instance connected with the 2019 Whitney B...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction: A Brief Outline of Globalized Practices of Collaborative Art
• 2. Charting Sociopolitical Art in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia
• 3. Getting to Know You: “Relational Aesthetics”
• 4. Come Together: Institutional Frameworks, Communities, and the Rise of Collaborative Art Praxis in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia
• 5. What Is It Good For: War, Social Engagement, and Contemporary Art Experiments
• 6. Collaborative Art Praxis and Globalization: Agency and Marginalized Communities Around the World
• 7. Conclusion: Collaborative Art Praxis and Contemporary Art Experiments
• Back Matter