Possibilities of Discussing Istanbul As an Agonistic Space
By Övül Durmuşoğlu

Charles Esche, one of the two curators of 9th International Istanbul Biennial thematized as Istanbul, had mentioned the notion of agonistic space discussing the theoretical backdrop and had emphasized his aim to use Istanbul as agonistic space for this biennial in the press meeting introducing him and 9th Istanbul Biennial to public in early 2005. It is not surprising to hear this notion from Esche, combined by the well known political theorist Chantal Mouffe, working on issues and problems of democracy, also recognized by the contemporary art circles. Agonism signifies a space of multiplicities where opposite parties exist together not terminating each other but recognizing each other’s difference.  According to Mouffe, strongly opposing a consensus created through disregarding or terminating the antagonisms, one of the most important functions of the critical art is creating this agonistic space. Thus, in this context, public space stops being a homogenic design where multiple voices reach a rational consensus and turns into a project of multiple voices where multiplicities constantly discuss their contradictions creating different ‘us’s on the axis of us and them. As mentioned in the previous article about Biennial, in recent years the views over public space are focused on the idea of a territory of multiplicities where rationality does not work. As a curator attempting to create alternative discourses against the institutionalization in contemporary art, Esche reveals his side in this discussion over public space by using the notion of agonism.

Esche had also suggested that he would especially avoid using the ex-used historical spaces in the Old City and form the Biennial around the liveliest area of Beyoglu to see it on this axis of multiplicities. The curators Kortun and Esche, having experienced problems of permits from bureucratical authorities, finally decided to use Deniz Palace Apartments and Bilsar Building at Şişhane, Tobacco Warehouse at Tophane, Garanti Building between Galata-Karaköy, Antrepo No: 5 and Garibaldi Building, Platform Contemporary Art Center on İstiklal Street. The Biennial, the box of curiosity, began. Esche claimed informally this being his best project. The comments of the international circle were pretty positive. Istanbul Biennial, following after the disappointments of Venice Biennial, efficiently overcame most of them. Despite this entire positive atmosphere, some urgent questions should not be disregarded. It is illusionary to expect a radical critical position from biennials generally, sponsored by various corporates and emphasized as to play their role in the cultural introduction of that specific city in the time of globalized cities and cultures. And then again, one shouldn’t arrive at quick conclusions because of biennials’ being biennials. And one should positively take into account attempts like the published collection of well-chosen articles titled Art, City and Politics in an Expanding World instead of a hardcover catalogue. The discourse(s) posed by curators forming the biennial should be investigated through the end product. In this context, did the Biennial, being discursively clearer and more tangible than its previous example, really achieve to see the city as a territory of multiple opposites as Esche had suggested? How far the works exhibited made the audience think and question of Istanbul as an agonistic space?

[...]

(Cut! Fulltext as RTF-File: HERE!)

start | core | home
22•06