#strangemessenger

[strangemessenger]

Searching for visual significance in times of transition

 As you’d might have noticed, recently I’ve changed the style of my blog. I started in 2005 to post works of art which somehow grabbed my attention. Mostly accompanied with a short text which I found on the internet. These texts were selected with the criteria that they should shortly explain a little more about these works and the practice of the artist to a broader audience.

Picture above: Sculpture in front of the bus station in Varna, Bulgaria.

 After publishing for several years now it helped me to get a clear idea about what is going on in the contemporary art scene. More recently I realized that this form of writing is not convenient anymore, so I needed a change to keep it interesting.  My ongoing research after the political role of visuals, with a special interest for the public sphere, made me decide to widen my view. So I form now on I will not limit myself by the art category only, but will focus on the visual and political meaning of a wide variety of situations and arrangements. This blog will be for now the place to share my observations and thoughts. If you have any tips about legal or non legal visual interventions please inform me.   This summer my wife and I travelled to Varna in Bulgaria on the Back Sea coast. As a Dutch resident I am used to a stricktly controlled public domain and my aim was to focus on the Bulgarian situation. When searching for these spots in this post-communistic society, that is also described as a society in an era of wild capitalism, I realized how little I really knew and know about its communist past. I am wondering what exactly were the living standards and conditions.   What I hear from stories is that it was highly controlled by the communistic party (dictatorship). The ideology was that everything was for everybody but this meant it was at the same time from no one at all. This gave rise to large scale corruption. I hear there were camps for dissidents and the parties ideology was the only true ‘religion’ which was allowed. I am wondering if this is part of your historical luggage, how would this past influence you in today’s society? A question which is keeping me busy.  When I looked for old pictures of Varna I saw clean and broad streets that were well ordered and maintained. As for now they look often broken and damaged by the time. With some exceptions of course around big multinationals who recently invaded the fragile local economy. When you look at this, knowing that there is a non functioning government in this country and where there is a huge gap between the large majority of very poor people and the often corrupted rich, it doesn’t make you too optimistic. Keep this in your mind when you look at the photo's below, these circumstances makes it still hard for me to understand the core of what these images are telling me.   The photo below shows a garden that was made by someone who claimed this public ground for private use and is willing to protect ‘his’ property.

If the public space is not equipped by governance people build their own benches for private use only...

Or this space where a certain group of people meets after work.

 On one of our walks we came across this broad staircase leading to a pedestrian tunnel that is currently out of use. Trees are growing everywhere and a lot of garbage is collected here. What are the nowadays opportunities I wonder? It looked to me as a great spot for a public theatre, imagine how this area must have looked when it was newly made...

 On one hand it looked as so much is possible to improve this environment, on the other hand a paralyzing heaviness is controlling the hot summer streets of Varna. As a place where transition is balancing and could go in all sorts of unexpected directions.

 Within this ambiguous state of existence you can feel a need for visual direction and social planning. The question is only how and who to give direction towards this 'new identity' within this new political context, while carrying the weight of a loaded past; The highest pylons with flags in Europe were raised in the Bulgarian Black Sea city of Varna.  In Bulgaria you can still find a lot of impressive monuments from the communistic era. These flags I am showing were placed right in front of The Park-Monument of the Bulgarian-Soviet Friendship. Where a huge propagandistic sculpture was showing that this territory was part of the Soviet zone of influence, now two major flags were chosen to symbolize the new era. The flags are more than 294 sq.m (21.5 m. x 13 m.), ‘which is the size of the biggest flag in Europe situated in Madrid’ says an online article.

 The flags and the monument are clearly visible on the left when you drive from Varna up north by the seaside. When we tried to enter the monument by foot from the sea garden we had to cross several busy motorways, as if we were not meant to be visiting this site. What I try to say is that the monument is part of Bulgaria’s history but it looks like searching for the right context in todays picture. On the internet I found a paper from a representative of the young generation Bulgarians who states that it is sad that these monuments aren’t used to attract tourists. The monuments are missing in the governments brochure for tourism. These sounds are all part of a general debate which ishould lead towards a new way of dealing with these sites.

There is not a lot I can find on the internet about this particular monument, but I read that for a work to be qualified as a Socialist Realist one it not only had to be figurative, also certain ideological qualities had to be present, most important was, to show in a clearly and understandable manner the future-in-the-present, to somehow embody progress towards the utopian state of Communism. I am wondering within this light how to look at these two large flags and how they relate to this future-in-the-present?

 The park-monument of the Bulgarian-Soviet friendship was built by Architect: Kamen Goranov and Sculptors: Alyosha Kafedzhiyski, Evgeni Baramov on the Turna Tepe hill, this site the Russian forces had their base before the successful attack on Varna during the Russian –Turkish War of 1828–1829.

Picture above: Old photo of the monument I found on the internet.

 Build in 1974 and constructed for 7 months with the help of 27000 ‘volunteers’, the monument is made of 10000 tons of concrete and 1000 tons of armature iron. More than 20 000 trees were planted in the area surrounding the monument. During the night, the 7th symphony of Shostakovich used to be played on the public announcement system in the park. The 48m wide monument was illuminated by 180 spotlights, so it was visible from the sea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._7_(Shostakovich) http://youtu.be/xuCUdGyUrr0  Soon after the political changes in the beginning of 1990 the monument and the adjacent bookstore, bomb shelter and tourist office were abandoned. Today the eternal flame has disappeared, just like the massive bronze letters from the inscription reading “Friendship for centuries throughout centuries”.

Picture above: Old photo of the eternal flame.

 Here on the website of art historian and curator Reuben Fowkes you can read much more about Soviet War Memorials in Eastern Europe. http://www.translocal.org/reubenfowkesnet/papers/soviet%20war%20memorials.htm http://www.translocal.org/writings/sovietwarmemorials.html

 At this very moment the place looks abandoned, people are using the stairs for their sport exercises. Some boys where spray painting their tag on the concrete when we were visiting the site. Later on I found information online that a few adventurers were reporting on their visits to the site. They described the existence of the atomic bomb shelter and a system of large tunnels which might even reach for kilometers towards the Sea Garden.

Link to a few of these blogs: http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2012/04/urban-exploration-soviet-propaganda.html http://io9.com/5899924/an-extremely-creepy-tour-of-an-abandoned-soviet-war-memorial http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/european-international-sites/83202-monument-bulgarian-soviet-friendship-varna-bulgaria-july-2013-a.html 

 When I go back to where I started my post, I am not aware enough of the situation during the communist rule in Bulgaria. But the walk towards this monument made a big impression on me. Living in times where image culture is continuously bombarding us with a large amount of images made me think that I had become numb for visuals. But here I am not sure anymore what to think. I am unable to disconnect the monument from its past and that makes it impossible to say that I like what I see and feel here. Even out of this context and abandoned as the site appears today, it still brings an overwhelming visual experience which I haven’t felt for any other visual art piece so far. And I am not only talking about the size, but the way the whole experience is embracing the viewer. When you Google on the biggest sculptures in the world you might find out that they are all made to impress and communicate ideology. In this light I wonder how we could perceive and contextualize the large scale inflatable’s of Paul McCarthy or sculptures by Jeff Koons?

 My mind shifts between these communistic monuments and searches for a capitalistic variant of high-tech visual propaganda. Is it in the explanation of the word democracy or the visualizations around terrorism these days? Is it comparable with the fear that the gigantic Russian soldier sculptures bring to their audience, always depicted high above the serving citizens? Fear as a tool to control is as old as ages.

 The Statue of Liberty in NY watches over seas and people to come to the land of the ‘free’ in the same way as The park-monument of the Bulgarian-Soviet friendship. The symbol of Western ideology might as well be dominated by the logo of Apple or Microsoft. Ask yourself, do we know who is behind the steering wheel of the visual representation of our times, towards a future in the present?  

Text Edwin Stolk (originally published here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

[strangemessenger]

Less is more, more or less

 Friday 7 June 2013 I went to Tent, a contemporary art space with a focus on Rotterdam based art, to attent the manifestation: Less is more, more or less. The central theme of this manifestation was the collecting and de-collecting of art in public space and continued with an exhibition; case studies by the artists/architects; Sarah van Sonsbeeck, Saskia Noor van Imhoff, Yasser Ballemans, Lilith Ronner van Hooijdonk, The Force of Freedom, Witte van Hulzen & Sander Breure and is on show from 7 till 16 June 2013.  While travelling by train to Rotterdam an article in Spits, a handout newspaper, got my attention. It was about the times of glory when the artist’s colony Ruigoord started by the Provo’s in July 1973 and how its transformed today. While in the past artists were living and working together in Ruigoord, the atmosphere today has changed; ‘now people are less collaborative’, I read in the article. This sentence keeps echoing in my head while I pass by the Starbucks, Albert Heijn To Go and all the other shops in the impressive new central station building, before I enter the city on my way to Tent through the noisy construction area in front.

Picture above: Central station Rotterdam

 The Witte de Withstraat shows a diversity of people and activities this morning and the weather is nice. At the entrance of Tent a warm welcome appears by employees and at 11 o’clock the program starts with the first part out of three. Opinions: What can we know?  At the introduction, Siebe Thissen, head art and public space at the Centre for Visual Art in Rotterdam and one of the initiators of the manifestation points at an article in BK which tells us that in Utrecht over the past 60 years, 313 works were realized in public space with funding and half of these works are disappeared. So 150 are missing, 21 are missing or stolen, 85 are demolished or removed and 44 are totally disappeared. This obviously shows that the city is moving and also the sculptures which inhabit the space. How are we dealing with this process of collecting and de-collecting? Opinions.  The discussion about art in public space is obviously an actual political discussion based on financial decision making. The Historian Rutger Bregman entered the stage and pointed in his fast, easy and funny speech towards the pessimistic nature of the Dutch society, a nature rooted in paradise which is fueled by an overwhelming nostalgia and lacks future idealism. With his 25 years of age he represented the young generation, a spoiled generation which according to Bregman only wants to act when it looks good on their CV. We have to look at the future, but exactly here he forgets to add his ideas for the future. That the past is fading, well so be it, and he would even not mind a new sort of ‘Iconoclastic Fury’. A speaker like Bergman reminds me that it is an art to speak to an audience which needs more than only good presentation skills.  Philosopher and writer Omar Muñoz Cremers pointed at contemporary culture as imprisoned by its past, as if new technologies scared us and reversed our attention to the past. As an example he pointed at the website Tumblr where youngsters celebrate the aesthetics of the 60-ties, 70-ties and 80-ties. The internet which promised new possibilities for future perspectives now looks back and starts to play safe. We forget to ask the question; what exactly are the future perspectives for our urban landscapes and how is art in general going to relate to this?

Picture above: Zadkine "The Destroyed City", Rotterdam

 Art Historian Jan van Adrichem pointed at the diversity of art in public space and the social context being part of the public domain. That for example Zadkine’s sculpture "The Destroyed City", which represents a man without a heart, a memorial to the destruction of the centre of the city Rotterdam in 1940, has maintained a different status over the years. He gave the example of American citizens living in Rotterdam, placing flowers at the sculpture after the horrible 9/11 attacks. He compared the status of the sculpture with the Damsquare monument in Amsterdam and mentioned its role in city branding. He explained that the sculptures in the center of Rotterdam were placed in a line, to give them more attention. They are part of an increasingly, visually, overwhelming environment with commercial expressions.  In the discussion I missed in general the real future perspectives for art in public space. An innovative discussion which dared to go beyond art as an object, a piece on a chessboard, which seems depended from the political climate and the institutional permission to be protected, conserved or stay on its pedestal. That’s why the discussion stayed unfortunately a little official. I missed examples of art that avoids becoming the object of its own existence and especially a discussion about this attitude in art, because it concerns the themes of collecting and de-collecting. Field trips.

Picture above: Die Bocht at ‘Het Terbrechtseplein’ a project by Observatorium

 As part of the program there were six field trips organized, I signed in for a project of Observatorium. It is an artists group formed by Geert van de Camp, Andre Dekker and Ruud Reutelingsperger, which creates relationships between art, landscape and society. As they state on their website: “We like our artworks to be a common good, to create a sense of place and to be used.” For this project we went to ‘Het Terbrechtseplein’ which is a large flyover where 150.000 vehicles pass by on a daily bases and it connects the city of Rotterdam in several directions. 

Picture above: ‘Het Terbrechtseplein’ a project by Observatorium

 Under the outdated flyovers, large water reservoirs were realised for periods of heavy rainfall and high levels of ground water. In the same time they tried to improve the urban area as gateway to the city. In one of the large reservoirs the biggest ‘exhibition space’ of Rotterdam is created by Observatorium in collaboration with Annemieke Diekman (landscape architect) and Centre for Visual Art in Rotterdam. The ‘grand hall’ is especially meant for sculptures from the public domain which had to be removed elsewhere.  On the other side a small pool is created surrounded with green. In the water pool a scaled imitation of the flyover is made by Observatorium, unable to reach yet but pointing at a possible future where these large concrete highways in the sky could function as a park or deliver a ‘mountain’ view over the city when the highways are losing its current function. This situation is scheduled to change in about 15 years and will give new opportunities for the whole area.  For now it is clear to me that this impressive site functions mainly as a metaphor and generator for future possibilities under the enthusiastic lead of Observatorium. The sculpture in the water is not more than a marker, if you ask me, which asks attention for this laboratory function on site. For the future I am curious how this project will survive and develop when power structures are going to mention in the visualization and planning of the area. We see local governments who involve artists in areas of decay, but the role of artists in well developed areas is a different one. In other words ‘Het Terbrechtseplein’ project I think is very nice, but I would like to see the same laboratory and freedom for thoughts for the ‘Grand shopping mall’ inside the central station of Rotterdam. In my opinion the future of art in the public domain should depend on broad ideological questions of today’s society and intervene with ‘share holders’ as visual opposition in the core of society.   Case studies.  Last but not least a talk show was organized where the participating young artists were interviewed about their case studies concerning the theme collecting and de-collecting by Sacha Bronwasser writer/speaker on art and film and Hans van Houwelingen known for his versatile and critical look at art in public space, public life and cultural politics. Sacha Bronwasser started with a compliment in direction of the curator for the selection of the artists, a compliment which I personally have doubts with.  Where the architects Lilith Ronner van Hooijdonk agreed on the fact that collected art in public space is sometimes outdated, their solution would be to bury the art for times to come. Yasser Ballemans, artist, wants to celebrate the victory of art and suggests dressing up as public sculptures in a carnival parade would be a good idea. Witte van Hulzen & Sander Breure compare art in public spaces with public parks, they laugh, but like real artists they decide to dictate the rules of perception for its visitors by their architecture. Artist Saskia Noor van Imhoff is stuck by the choice between the artistic gesture of form or its visual martial statistics. Where artist Sarah van Sonsbeeck suggests that looking, in remembrance of the removed artwork, at the sky is a fancy thing to do.

Picture above: The Force of Freedom-INSERT DELETE SELECT UPDATE-2013- photo by Janssen Adriaans

The most promising ideas came in my opinion from The Force of Freedom, who stated that the collection of public art could use an update and suggested a collection in an open source data base. Public sculptures which could be ‘open sourced’, updated, transformed, reused but also deleted.  The audience was laughing by this idea; I admit it sounds funny but in my opinion it could lead to new thinking about serious future possibilities. How otherwise to activate the political potential of individual voices when it comes to the visual outcome of real public space and art? Where it sounds radical it points at initiatives which we already witness today, where governments redraw their hands of the art in public space civilians take over and create foundations to adopt works. Maybe there are small municipalities without large budgets who would love to adopt unwanted sculptures from an open database.  Think about the example Historian Jan van Adrichem gave about the changing status of Zadkine’s sculpture "The Destroyed City", where the 9/11 attacks gave new meaning to the monument. We could consider this as an update and it shows that a changing surrounding could update and add to a message from the past. A visitor of the fieldtrip to Joep van Lieshout told me that his sculptures in public space are rented out for a certain period of time, so it includes a delete function. When you look at Observatorium’s project at ‘Het Terbrechtseplein’, it invites you to think about this area, a place where gathered expertise (open source) can possibly lead to future innovations.  Here I sense new ideas for the future of art in the public domain. This isn't a time for populist talks as Historian Rutger Bregman did, we can also live without the dusty talks by officials about selection criteria and lists. Hans van Houwelingen stated several interesting things during Less is more, more or less for which I am thankful, for example that there is nothing wrong with being an expert in a certain field and art should become more powerful. It is as far as I am concerned our serious task to achieve this together, to open up our daily surrounding, share expertise and reclaim it visually.

Text Edwin Stolk (originally published here) Link: http://tentrotterdam.nl/shows/actueel/20130607_LessisMoreMoreorLess.php?lang=en

[strangemessenger]

#strangemessenger blog about art

[strangemessenger]

After publishing my open letter in Dutch to Minister Bussemaker the end of June 2015 I received several requests for an English translation.

[strangemessenger]

Artists: it is not about if- but where the world is listening to.

 It has been a while since the discussion around an article by art critic Hans den Hartog Jager was published in NRC(Dutch newspaper). Headline of the article: Engaged artists the world isn’t listening. (part 1/2) To be honest with you, this is something I am actually quite happy about..... read the full text here:

http://strangemessenger.blogspot.nl/2015/02/artists-it-is-not-about-if-but-where.html

[strangemessenger]

How MONEY decides what is NOW and for how long...

(For the love of god by Damien Hirst)

11th February I went in the evening to a presentation at Leiden University by Anna Tilroe, amongst other positions she is an art critic and curator. Her presentation with the title: Power and commerce, was part of a series of lectures by the theme: Art for the happy many.

Read my full review here:

http://strangemessenger.blogspot.nl/2014/02/how-money-decides-what-is-now-and-for.html