Review: Aestheticizing Activism: The Role of Exhibitions in Politics
Aestheticizing Activism: The Role of Exhibitions in Politics taking place at de Balie during Amsterdam Art Weekend was a panel discussion moderated by Edo Dijksterhuis, introduced by Rutger Pontzen, with panelists Imara Limon, Richard Kofi, Particia Kaersenhout, and Maarten Doorman. The panel consisted of response to Dijksterhuis’s questions regarding art, activism, and politics, and centered mainly on the Dutch art world and its institutions. The panel discussion and this event in general represents, in my view, a microcosm or a snap shot of the current situation within the institutional, Dutch art world: voices of people of color can be heard within mainstream channels but only as long as they have been welcomed, approved, and accepted by established, national institutional structures (the invited speakers comprise of two institutional curators and one, Mondrian-funded artist, raised and educated within the Dutch system) and as long as they are introduced and moderated by the gate keepers of Dutch art and culture (represented by Rutger Pontzen, Edo Dijksterhuis, and Maarten Doorman). Just as Limon pointed out in one of the examples she provided from her work experience at the Amsterdam Museum, the museum staff wants to ‘represent’ other voices to a certain, limited extent while keeping those voices in check so that their own positions and perspectives will not actually be challenged or changed. In other words, as Kaersenhout stated regarding the current exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum “I am a Born Foreigner,” representation of other voices exists as an image the institution wants to project about itself. The institution is not interested in true collaboration which would mean the sharing of power in the form of full decision-making and other authorial roles.
While it is already obvious that Dutch institutions and their various displays (through funding, exhibition, publication or collection) are white and male, here ‘white’ and ‘male’ gain a particular face through Doorman the panelist, Pontzen the introduction lecturer, and Dijksterhuis the moderator. Beyond echoing each other’s perspective, these men, holding esteemed cultural posts in the Netherlands, displayed self-confidence and ease as they asked irrelevant questions, claimed to play “devil’s advocate” on issues of racism, and made uneducated assumptions about good art, activism, politics, and “the world.” They appeared self-assured in discussing a subject they exhibited complete ignorance of. These are the people according to which taste is fashioned, instituted and naturalized: Pontzen, who managed right from the start to position white, male, Dutch, canonical artist Vincent Van Gogh as his protagonist for an artist seeking to “change the world,” and proceeded to state that art attempting to be political has little effect and that the real question is whether the world is “interested.” Dijksterhuis, who continued to question whether political art can actually be “good art,” and Doorman, whose contribution was unmemorable.
The panel patiently responded to all questions and statements, beginning with Limon who reminded that art can have the important function of providing representation and visibility of certain subject positions, issues and questions which have been erased. It can fill in gaps in history, show the blind spots of stories and collections, and supplement with missing knowledge. As Kaersenhout implied, art can also come from a deep inner need and have the function of healing. To the many recurrent questions about whether art is already political and whether it should be political, Limon stated that for some people the combination of the two is not a choice. This statement was followed up on by Kaersenhout who provided herself as an example saying that her art is always seen in light of her being a black, female artist. By providing the example of Wendelien van Oldenborg’s work for the Venice Biennial, Limon’s statement also meant that for some people a political engagement with the art that they make comes hand in hand with their art making. That is, it is not simply in the subject matter of the artwork, but in the commitment to social justice through the very approach and perspective taken. Kofi added to this point that all art is indeed political precisely because it always incorporates a certain perspective through which a story is narrated.
Limon seemed to highlight moderator Dijksterhuis’s own position and self-perception as she responded to his questions regarding audiences who simply “do not come to the museum.” She stated that the claimed neutrality and apolitical stance of institutions prevents them from addressing their own, white identity, and that it is precisely the self-identification of the institution which is at the heart of the problem and results in what Kaersenhout named the museum’s “neglected audiences.” In the final part of the conversation, a focus on politics in relation to art became central. Dijksterhuis provided the example of the recent Documenta in order to claim that political art is “flat” because it has a clear meaning. His view represents the understanding of fellow gate-keepers in the Dutch art world of what art should be. According to this definition, art should not provide answers, nor make statements or arguments since it would compromise the artistic quality. As pointed out by an audience member, this view is itself white (as well as male). It also reflects a superficial understanding of art, since making a clear statement does not mean that it is ‘easy’ to understand. Making an argument through art is often, if not always, extremely layered and complex. Indeed, this view represents the current problem in the Dutch and contemporary art world, portraying precisely how ‘politics’ and by extension those associated with it, has been rendered inferior and placed in opposition to art and aesthetics. Particularly at this point of the conversation, what seems to be missing from the discussion is a definition of politics which would bring to the foreground precisely these underlying assumptions and their implications.
Final remarks considering the museum’s collection and returning to the question of collecting the art of people of color made it clear, if it wasn’t already, that the Dutch art world is far from holding a discussion truly able to consider a de-colonial perspective on a deeper level. The problematic idea of ‘inclusivity,’ which can be seen as parallel to Dutch notions of ‘tolerance,’ comes up time and time again as a well-intentioned solution. It is not only education that is missing, but also, as the panel participants mentioned in different ways all throughout the discussion, it is the ideological subject position upon which the foundation of education rests which needs to be examined. Regardless of the changing positions of institutions and education, however, those voices that do not fit the national institutional mold are beginning to rise and create a place for themselves.
