art+argument @ the Trudelhaus, Baden - the results!

We gathered at the Trudelhaus in Baden as a sunny Sunday afternoon drew to a close to celebrate the finissage of Rita Ernst, Clare Goodwin and Silvia Reichwein’s exhibition, and to debate the important issue: Power lies on the periphery! Defending the motion Gregory Hari drew on a friend’s experience. This friend had spent several years in a North American province, far more remote a place than exists in Switzerland, and found it formative. ‘I guess we say ‘in’ and ‘out’ [of the city, said Hari’s friend] because they are the centres where people from all directions come and go. Like the gravity of a sun which causes comets to enter and exit a solar system again and again.’ Hari put it to the audience that artists need the periphery as much as they need the city’s force to work against.

Sandi Paucic countered that history demonstrates how art requires the city to become meaningful. Famous Swiss painters like Henry Fuseli (Johann Heinrich Füssli) and Arnold Böcklin had to travel beyond Switzerland to find success and fame, because Switzerland had no significant cities that could support culture. ‘Only since we have the wonder of Art Basel, which happens since the 1970s, since [Paul] Nizon’s ‘Der Diskurs in der Enge’ stated that Switzerland was still too small to do any cultural production, surprisingly since then, things have blossomed. There was a miracle in the 80s and 90s when the art in Zurich started to become international!’

Claudia Spinelli, defending the motion, was not convinced, and said that there were equally valid examples of artists, such as Vincent van Gogh, who had thrived away from urban centres. She also attacked the so-called virtues of the city – a large audience does not make a well-qualified audience or even good viewing conditions. ‘Let me give you an example: we spent our holidays in Paris, and my seven-year old son had seen the Mona Lisa in some comic, and so he wanted to see the real Mona Lisa. So … we went to the Louvre. It was horrible. You would see more of this painting in a reproduction, because it was covered with glass, and you have half a minute for which you are allowed to be two metres away from it. I think centres are very bad for art.’

Jacqueline Falk was the last to put her opening arguments, against the motion. She spoke of the essential role of the city for the artist, and the artist’s role in the city in turn when it comes to cyclical development and regeneration. Falk compared the city where she works – Zug – to another hub – Qatar. Even if Qatar came late to high culture, it has quickly become an important cultural centre. ‘Our city of Zug is also the centre of a canton, and it is important that the little villages around Zug … support the city and give the money to the city because that’s where everything happens. We have the institutions that provide band rehearsal spaces, concert halls and theatre stages for upcoming and well-established artists to come to our city to perform.’

After these divisive opening gambits, a combative debate ensued. The benefits of the periphery in an internet age were considered, as well as the quality of experience for artists in major urban centres. The market came to the fore frequently, ad did pleas not to consider the market and artistic life as one. There was also discussion as to whether Manifesta – the biennial of the periphery - had got lost or found itself in choosing Zurich as its next site. A close debate ended with a narrow victory for the opposition.

Thanks again to the Trudelhaus, and Sadhyo Niederberger in particular, for the invitation to debate in Baden, and to the participants. Please remember that what was said during the debate does not necessarily accord with the participants’ own opinions! All the debaters were playing assigned roles. If you want to know more about art+argument, please email aoiferosenmeyer(at)gmail.com

art+argument at the Trudelhaus, Baden

Power lies on the periphery

An art+argument at the Trudelhaus, Baden

on Sunday, 4th May 2014 at 17h

Trudelhaus, Obere Halde 36, 5400 Baden

Jacqueline Falk, Gregory Hari, Sandi Paucic and Claudia Spinelli will debate the role of major cities versus regional hubs, where culture should be and where it flourishes. 

This debate takes place on the occasion of the finissage of the exhibition ERNST, GOODWIN, REICHWEIN at the Trudelhaus; the finissage will begin at 16h, with the debate at 17h.

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 @ florian christopher - the outcome!

On the 2^nd April a select gathering assembled in Florian Christopher Seedorf’s Showroom in Zurich. The topic for debate: art is a private affair.

Benedict Tomlinson opened the defence of the motion by recounting the history of private collections and their contribution to public culture. Numerous landmark institutions have private origins, from the Tate Gallery in London to the Guggenheim museums around the world, the Fondation Beyeler outside Basel and, latterly, the Rubell Family Collection or the Uli Sigg’s donation to the M+ museum in Hong Kong. Thanks to private individuals a wealth of art has become accessible to everyone, and can even reinvent failing cities, as is the example with the Guggenheim in Bilbao.

Veronika Spierenburg countered that the experience of art had to be a public experience. Going to a museum is not just about the art, but also about doing something in common with fellow citizens. She also made the point that political statements or activity must, by definition, be public. If art is to be political, it must therefore also be public.

Anna Francke supported Ben’s opening arguments with a paean to the art market. This private mechanism in fact sustains the art world; private spending helped the art world recover from the slump of the late 2000s. Art fairs are not only good for galleries and buyers but also benefit cities, associated businesses and visitors. But Caroline Loemmart contested that the art market only hindered public appreciation of art, making it ever more difficult for public institutions to compete. While the so-called generosity of private collectors and their donations often has more to do with escaping tax payments than real munificence.

The debate swiftly became an open discussion about the differences or benefits of the private and public in the art sphere. Issues raised included the difficulty of any art space being truly independent of financial interests; the entanglement of private and public interests in nominally public institutions and the lack of transparency thereof; and which institutions are accountable for their actions, not to mention to whom.  The benefits of exposure to art were also picked over – whether the idea of public education and improvement through culture is still valid today. And if free institutions really were purely providing art for art’s sake or were a government means of stimulating other (private) businesses.

A highly productive conversation in Florian Christopher’s private salon closed with a tied vote for which side had made the better arguments.

art+argument @ florian christopher, Zurich

Art is a private affair

at the off-space

florian christopher, Zurich

Anna Francke, Caroline Lommaert, Veronika Spierenburg and Ben Tomlinson debate whether art should be in the open or behind closed doors.

7pm, 2nd April 2014

florian christopher

c/o Seedorf

Gotthelfstrasse 37

8003 Zurich

The exhibition space is on the 4th floor (no lift) and space is limited. Attendance will be limited to 20 guests. PLEASE RSVP to artandargument(at)gmail.com to reserve a place. 

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 'This is the house that Jack built' - What happened !

On 29^th October a crowd gathered on the second floor of a villa in Zurich’s Allenmoos district to find out whether art is, or is not, a luxury. Opening the debate Brigitte Dätwyler based her argument – that art is a luxury – on the hard facts of art. Given the nature of art spaces and the kind of branding associated with art, it is clear that art is something for the wealthy 1% in the world. She continued: “On a more personal level it may be considered a waste of time and money. It is something that artists cannot afford to do, many times, but still they do it. It is a luxury for them – they choose to live on the brink of poverty just to have self-fulfilment. Self-fulfilment is the luxury.”

Nadja Baldini represented the opposite thesis. She presented an alternative view of art to one dominated by the trio of artist – gallery or museum – and collector. Art is not only the art market. Instead there are other forms of art making that do not result in a product. This artistic research generates knowledge, which cannot be sold. And art as a part of education is no luxury: “I believe art has a transformative potential and that it can act as questioner, can activate what we think, or can be a critical instrument in relation to a culture. I don’t see how it can be a luxury.”

Stefan Wagner referred to Bertold Brecht’s Threepenny Opera in defence of his thesis that art is luxury. The little-known version Wagner cited went:

"Ihr Herrn, die ihr uns lehrt, wie man brav leben
Und Sünd und Missetat vermeiden kann
Zuerst müßt ihr uns schon zu fressen geben
Dann könnt ihr reden: damit fängt es an.
Ihr, die ihr euren Wanst und unsere Bravheit liebt
Das Eine wisset ein für allemal:
Wie ihr es immer dreht und immer schiebt
Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Kunst.
Erst muß es möglich sein, auch armen Leuten
Vom großen Brotlaib sich ihr Teil zu schneiden"

[You gentlemen who think you have a mission


To purge us of the seven deadly sins

Should first sort out the basic food position


Then start your preaching, that's where it begins

You lot, who preach restraint and watch your waist as well


Should learn, for once, the way the world is run


However much you twist, or whatever lies that you tell


Food is the first thing, art will follow on

So first make sure that those who are now starving


get proper helpings, when we all start carving]


Continuing in this vein, he asked if the people of in Spain, Portugal and Greece want museums. “Art is just about making more money. This is maybe not the way we need to support the arts... Art is a private thing – we don’t have to think about art politics. Art is like luxury – if you’re going to buy a soap, a really expensive soap, say – it’s a private thing. Art, too, is luxury.”

Stefanie Herrmann’s viewpoint was quite different; she acknowledged and embraced the art market, “because it’s a job creation programme for inadaptable individuals of all disciplines. Which means that it’s a melting pot for several evil energies, and a kind of re-integration into society for lateral thinkers, people with a particuar useless talent, players, gamblers, corrupt people, psychopaths, terrorists, losers and so on.” With these people gainfully employed making art, all of society will profit. “We profit from it because we have less unemployment, less of a financial burden, fewer handicapped people, because we no longer view them as handicapped, fewer patients, fewer critics of the system and fewer demonstrations. And fewer criminals, because they are embedded in another system. Legal corruption, a higher GDP, a legal black market and an ideal market for money laundering. And – an important point – more attractive living rooms.”

Jonathan Meese and Yoko Ono - well integrated criminals?

This was just the beginning of a rambunctious discussion that became increasingly heated as the night went on. Before pistols were drawn, the audience voted that the proposition – Stefan and Brigitte – had won the debate.

Many many thanks to our hosts and to the very spirited participants: Nadja Baldini, Brigittte Dätwyler, Stefanie Herrmann and Stefan Wagner.

art+argument @ 'This is the house that Jack built', 29th October 2013

Is art a luxury?

In the context of 

'This is the house that Jack built'

a temporary exhibition in a villa built in 1908

by Helmrinderknecht contemporary design gallery, Barbara Seiler Galerie and friends,

Nadja Baldini, Brigitte Dätwyler, Stefanie Herrmann and Stefan Wagner debate whether art is a luxury or a necessity.

7pm, 29 October 2013

Allenmoosstrasse 112, CH-8057 Zürich

(Tram 10/14 to Salersteig)

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 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!