Art + Argument at Art and the City - The Results!

A glorious sunset provided the backdrop as we sat high in the Mobimo Tower on the 6 September to debate the motion ‘Public art should be a guest, not a resident’, one of the last events of Art and the City. Paulina Szczesniak opened her defence by comparing art, a part of everyday life, with an invited guest in your home. This metaphorical friend - a cousin from Guatemala - might crash on your sofa and fill your flat with noise and festivity during his short visit. “You stay up late, you cook and you talk with him, so after this week, when he leaves, you’re probably extremely tired, your flat looks like hell, you are probably late with your work. But you’ve had the time of your life, which you’ll always think of and you’ll never forget.” A flatmate, in comparison, is chosen for quietness. You don’t want your flatmate to disrupt your life. “Art should be loud and it should be exciting, and it should move you. So art should be like the cousin from Guatemala and not like your boring flatmate.”

Meret Ernst countered this idea, citing the history of art in public spaces as far back as the Renaissance, proving that public art is not a novel nor short-lived concept. Even if art in public can be temporary, “as a resident public art has a totally different standing in our culture. I think the most effective thing about public art is in fact its durability… we are constantly reminded of the intentions of the artists and of societies that commissioned this public art a long time ago”. If public art were to be only considered a guest, this notion would be lost. Permanence should not scare us, after all nothing lasts forever, but, she said, “this is the most important thing – that we have a society where public art has a place”.

Sabina Lang took a different view. Placing art in public space means, to her, showing it outside the “institutional, protected space” of the gallery. This means its reception is not, cannot be, controlled. “A city is in permanent change and we can’t transform it into a museum. If preservation, which is necessary if an artwork is installed permanently, becomes the only task toward the work of art, then this work of art will not be a resident.” As a guest a work can delight, can annoy, can bring gifts or not, but most of all, it will always provoke a reaction. Thanks to this reaction, the memories of a temporary work will live on even after a work has been removed. “This is one of the qualities of contemporary art, that we can have it around us for a limited time, then share this moment, this experience and this memory. And I think the same thing as Meret – let’s face it, nothing lasts forever. We are all guests, or at least we should behave as if we are guests.”

Susanne Sauter unpicked some of the difficulties inherent in public art, given that, for her, all art is public. She argued against art being a guest, as a guest requires a host, when public art can emerge from other (more grass-rooted) configurations than the traditional form of commissioning or patronage. In response to the comparison of art with the welcome or unwelcome guest on one’s sofa, she suggested that when she has a chance to share her environment with a piece of art, she would like it to stay. “If we give art to a large public it has to be, there have to be interesting pieces that can really stand for a while, that have endurance… It would certainly be a shame if it were just for a short moment. And because it’s addressed to a large public it’s important that people can get used to the piece and work it through in their minds, digest the piece.”

The ensuing debate covered the nature of urban space, who the public is for public art, how art comes into shared spaces and the durability of an idea. Despite their differing arguments, all the participants were very much for life with art in public. At the closing vote on which side argued most convincingly most of the audience abstained, unwilling to pick winners or losers, but the opposition championed by a few votes.

Many thanks to all the participants and to Art and the City for the invitation to participate. To know more about Art + Argument contact aoiferosenmeyer (at) gmail.com. And please remember – the opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the speakers!

Public art should be a guest, not a resident

Meret Ernst, Sabina Lang, Susanne Sauter and Paulina Szczesniak debate public art and its timing

6 September 2012, 18h30

Turbinenstrasse 18 (Mobimo Tower)

8005 Zurich

Ring bell of flat 23D, take lift to the 23rd floor

This debate takes place in the context of Art and the City. 

Four cultural experts in two opposing teams debate and discuss a motion that they have been assigned. Each participant has been given a position opposing or defending the motion, and each has five minutes to argue their case uninterrupted. Thereafter the speakers challenge each other, and the audience may in turn question the speakers. The event ends with a vote for the more persuasive team. 

This is a forum for discussing culture where the unspeakable may be said. Each speaker must play his or her assigned role, regardless of whether they agree or not. Speakers benefit from temporary immunity: what they say during the debate is not necessarily their opinion and they cannot be held to their word afterwards. 

Art + Argument is an itinerant event bringing together exciting minds from the Swiss art scene and beyond. To know more, write to aoiferosenmeyer (at) gmail.com.

Art + Argument x 2

Wait five months for a debate, then two turn up at once....


Firstly, I'm delighted to announce that Oliver Kielmayer will be adopting and guest-chairing Art + Argument (in Swiss German) at the Helmhaus Zürich on the 16th August in response to his recent receipt of the City of Zürich prize for art communication/curation. His provocative challenge will be: Oliver Kielmayer does not deserve the award! In his own words:

WeAreTheArtists feat. Art + Argument: 

Oliver Kielmayer hat das Zürcher Stipendium für Kunstvermittlung nicht verdient!

Das Künstlernetzwerk WeAreTheArtists pflegt einen offenen Diskurs und authentische Kommunikation über Kunst und versteht sich mit seiner dezidiert subjektiven Perspektive als Erweiterung und Korrektiv zur herkömmlichen, professionellen Kunstberichterstattung. Ganz in diesem Sinne soll Oliver Kielmayer, der diesjährige Gewinner des Stipendiums für Kunstvermittlung und Gründer von WeAreTheArtists, betrachtet werden. Das Gesprächsformat Art + Argument, 2009 von Aoife Rosenmeyer ins Leben gerufen, bildet dabei die ideale Struktur zu einer solchen Analyse: Es handelt sich um ein Rollenspiel, in dem jeweils zwei Teilnehmer für oder gegen eine vorgegebene These Partei ergreifen müssen. An der Veranstaltung am 16. August 2012 im Helmhaus lautet diese These, dass Oliver Kielmayer das Stipendium für Kunstvermittlung nicht verdient hat. 

Als Gesprächsteilnehmer hat Oliver Kielmayer vier befreundete Künstler und Kunstvermittler eingeladen. Sie begleiten ihn bereits seit vielen Jahren in seinem Berufsleben, sie wissen viele persönliche Dinge über ihn und haben keine Hemmungen, gewagte Vorwürfe zu erheben oder notfalls zu konstruieren. Die Gesprächsleitung, traditionell bei Art + Argument eher diskret im Hintergrund agierend, übernimmt Oliver Kielmayer selbst.

Secondly, Art + Argument returns in English on the 6th September as guest of Art and the City, the city-wide public art event this summer in Zurich. We will debate the motion: Public art should be a guest, not a resident. More details will follow soon!

Art + Argument at Galerie Béatrice Brunner - the results!

In Bern on 15^th March, Wendy Shaw opened the defence of the motion ‘Swiss culture must be defended’ robustly: “Swiss culture must be defended, not to the death, as the saying goes, but to the life”. The dangers it faces are not from alien invaders but instead from complacency and the belief that the traditions of democracy and self-reliance will be perpetuated automatically. The referenda and votes that are the manifestation of Swiss democracy focus on single issues run the risk of being blind to the bigger picture. “This disappearance is not democratic, it is quite the opposite: it becomes an inability to speak in the face of a democracy that requires an object example in order to distil a general problem. And sometimes, an entire forest needs to learn to speak, listen, and above all take sides without having a tree to single out.” In a country where long meetings dominated by those in power, nothing seems to change. Alternatives only flourish in the margins, in non-profit surroundings or other non-hierarchical systems. “Maybe there can be no ‘against’ in a country that defines itself through neutrality, in which every argument becomes a waltz of apparent consensus against a sudden double-step by the dancer in command.” It is this very consensus that we must guard against, and that in culture as much as anywhere: “between truly charming whimsy in off spaces and formal mastery in the gallery, art speaks politely without challenging; one would think there are no politics in Switzerland. But the political, when functioning, refuses to stay properly only in its own realm. Instead it must invade every expression, discovering a drive to speak where no speech is possible, even here, where Swiss culture mounts its own autoimmune attack – an attack which only argument can hold at bay.”

The Stadt Theater in Bern

Barbara Bader, who had heroically joined the opposition at the last minute when Sibylle Omlin was unable to take part, started her argument by citing recent news in Swiss cultural politics. One prominent person in the primary arts funding organisation seems willing for this funding to be decimated – but who is he to judge what Swiss culture is? And how important is his organisation really? It’s budget of 35 million CHF is equivalent to that of the Hochschule der Künste Bern (HKB) or the Stadttheater in Bern. “Imagine,” she suggested, “auditions at the Stadttheater. They’re blind auditions, there’s a curtain behind it is a person who is a good artist or not such a good artist. The person who chooses doesn’t really care whether it’s a Swiss artist or not, because what they want is that the show on stage is good art.” The same is true when the HKB are recruiting staff or students; what is important is quality of the culture produced, not the nationality of the artist. “Where culture really happens is in towns, is in cantons. That’s where culture comes from and I don’t think that many people care who does the art, who does the culture if it’s good culture.”

From the outset Raphael Urweider’s defence was provocative. He identified Swiss culture as “a fragile, endangered species” which we would ignore at our cost. Swiss culture can be identified for its modesty, discretion, finesse and underpinning by hard work and Protestant values. “Foreigners who visit Switzerland are often offended by Swiss people staring at them because they have not lived here long enough. What they don’t get is that the staring is neither offensive nor hostile. Swiss people have a friendly look at each other, they are aware of their neighbour; everyone is treated as a next of kin. Foreigners often think is that the offensive, accusatory, but it is only part of the openness and awareness that is a big part of Swiss culture. Think of an innocent, curious child, when someone in the bus is looking at you with eyes wide open, think of empathy and concern, not of a judgemental stare.” And at the heart of this is the essence of Swiss democracy. “That is true Swiss culture, compromise, but a compromise is not a flashy or exciting thing, a compromise is a fragile small common denominator that makes Switzerland a true model of democracy.” But these values are not always perceived, and thus they must be defended. From the outside (brash neighbours to the north being picked out in particular) and from the Swiss that do not recognise the wealth they possess. “Swiss culture is like an endangered flower in the mountains, like the edelweiss. It doesn’t smell, it has no alarming flowers, but it has a noble whiteness that is soothing the eye and pleases the mind.”

Luzia Hürzeler’s rebuttal of the motion was based on her experience as an artist. She started by quoting Ben Vautier’s 1992 work La Suisse n’existe pas, and wondered how something that doesn’t exist can be defended. What would she do if her own work were to be defended on nationalistic grounds? “An artistic work tries, in my eyes, to see or combine the world in a new way, to invent a new system to capture the world, to place us in it. I don’t believe in the idea of an international art, I think that the place and the way we live and we grow up conditions cultural practice in complex ways. But I don’t believe in national art either. I find it very reductive to put artistic or any cultural practice or works in the box of a nation.” Not to mention that the idea of nationhood is ever more outdated: we live in a time not of powerful nations but of powerful axes and routes. And how do you define any person’s nationality? “How can I be sure to belong to a place, to a culture? The American sociologist Troy Duster is investigating the development of contemporary genetics and ancestry testing. He says that to put ancestry testing in perspective we first have to ask the question ‘when do we come from?’ rather than ‘where do we come from?’ Because all of us go back centuries upon centuries upon centuries, the question is at what moment we stop to locate our belonging, and the further back we go in the family tree, the more the origins multiply. Otherwise said, at some point in history, everyone comes from nearly everywhere.” She concluded by saying “not Swiss culture must be defended but culture also, but not only, in Switzerland”.

Ben Vautier, 1991

In the ensuing debate the definition of Swiss culture became more distinct and more diffuse at once – it could be the air in Swiss cheese, or the motorway vignette on every car that traverses the country. One side could not be convinced there was a threat to be encountered while the other side saw it looming large. Insults were gleefully traded and opinions challenged, though the final vote was close. The proposition won by 12 votes to 10 – “a compromise!” they declared.

Many thanks to Béatrice Brunner, Jacqueline Baum and Ursula Jakob for the invitation to debate in Bern, and many, many thanks to the participants for their enthusiasm and ideas. Please do not quote the participants from this debate - each was playing a role they had been assigned for the event!

Art + Argument will now take a few months' break, but will be back. If you'd like to know more or receive emails about future events please contact aoiferosenmeyer (at) gmail.com.

Lineup for Art + Argument at Galerie Beatrice Brunner!

Swiss culture must be defended!

Luzia Hürzeler, Sibylle Omlin, Wendy Shaw and Raphael Urweider debate nationalism, protectionism and the arts

15 March 2012, 19h

Galerie Béatrice Brunner

Nydeggstalden 26

3011 Bern

This debate takes place in the context of Jacqueline Baum and Ursula Jakob’s exhibition Muttersprache – Vaterland at the gallery.

Four cultural experts in two opposing teams debate and discuss a motion that they have been assigned. Each participant has been given a position opposing or defending the motion, and each has five minutes to argue their case uninterrupted. Thereafter the speakers challenge each other, and the audience may in turn question the speakers. The event ends with a vote for the more persuasive team.

This is a forum for discussing culture where the unspeakable may be said. Each speaker must play his or her assigned role, regardless of whether they agree or not. Speakers benefit from temporary immunity: what they say during the debate is not necessarily their opinion and they cannot be held to their word afterwards.

Art + Argument is an itinerant event bringing together exciting minds from the Swiss art scene and beyond. To know more, write to aoiferosenmeyer (at) gmail.com

Art + Argument at Galerie Beatrice Brunner

Swiss culture must be defended!

Thursday 15 March 2012, 19h

Galerie Beatrice Brunner

Nydeggstalden 26

3011 Bern

The next Art + Argument debate will be at Galerie Beatrice Brunner in Bern in the context of the exhibition 'Muttersprache - Vaterland' by Jacqueline Baum und Ursula Jakob. An expert panel will debate art, nationalism, national characteristics and if culture should be protected. Please join us!

Art + Argument is an itinerant event bringing together exciting minds from the Swiss art scene and beyond. To know more, write to aoiferosenmeyer (at) gmail.com

art + argument with MA Communication Design, HKB

art + argument was part of a multi-faceted event that took place at Progr in Bern on the 19 January to mark the end of the first semester of the MA Communication Design at the Hochschule der Künste Bern. A packed Progr reading room was introduced to the Communication Design course before the module leaders presented the semester work of each of the students in brief.

Next it was the turn of six brave MA students, barely out of their assessments, to debate the motion: Effective design must be radical. Mikael Oettli, Lea Siegwart and Ida Hegstad spoke for the motion, while Stansje Steiger, Patrick Savolainen and Matthias Zumbrunnen opposed it. The students speaking for the motion presented radical design as an essential appreciation of the nature of things, a decisive force that pushes away from the repetitions of tradition. Radical design breaks through this; it is the designer’s responsibility to be radical and contribute to the advancement of design. Their opponents demonstrated that radical design was an activity for outliers who are not interested in speaking to and for a larger community. The obsessive nature of radicalism means it is unwilling to compromise as is necessary for effective communication.

The ensuing discussion covered, amongst many topics, the possibility or impossibility of radicalism, what is entailed in effective design, for whom design is created and the benefits of innovation.

A closing vote for which side put the more convincing arguments was, for the first time in art + argument history, a dead heat. At Progr the debate was followed by an apéro during which the students’ work could be viewed; the event closed with two student performances.

Many thanks to the HKB and the Communication Design course for the invitation to hold a debate during this event, and particularly to the students who were willing to try debating. Please remember that the opinions expressed were purely hypothetical and do not represent the students’ true opinions!

Effective design must be radical

Thursday 19.1.2012, 5–8 pm

Progr

Speichergasse 4

3011 Bern

Art + Argument has been invited to explore the topic 'radical?' with students of the MA Communication Design at the HKB. The event will open with an introduction to Communication Design at the HKB, followed by an Art + Argument debate with students from the course. After a short break there will be an opportunity to view the students' semester projects.

Art + Argument is an itinerant event bringing together exciting minds from the Swiss art scene and beyond. To know more, write to aoiferosenmeyer (at) gmail.com