1

L O C A L I S E D

2

LOCALISED

Published by Ctrl+Z Publishing 2009

EDITORS Anne Szefer Karlsen, Morten Kvamme, Arne Skaug Olsen

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Toril Johannessen

DESIGN Pjolter

TEXTS BY Knut Ove Arntzen, Malin Barth, Jørgen Blitzner, Espen Sommer Eide, Øyvind Pål Farstad, Melanie Fieldseth, Gisle Frøysland, Are Hauffen, Ingvill Henmo, Toril Johannessen, Erik Joung, Annette Kierulf, Eva Kun, Per Kvist, Jørgen Larsson, Sissel Lillebostad, Jørgen Lund, Rita Marhaug, Marie Nerland, Heidi Nikolaisen, Anngjerd Rustand, Arne Rygg, Steinar Sekkingstad, Hilde Skjeggestad, Torunn Skjelland, Renee Turner, Maia Urstad, Ole Mads Sirks Vevle, Synnøve Vik, Jeremy Welsh

TRANSCRIPTION Åsne Hagen, Toril Johannessen, Vilde Salhus Røed

TRANSLATION Gillian Carson, Egil Fredheim, Geir Haraldseth, Gunnhild Hagberg-Karlsen, Hilde Lyng

THANK YOUAtle Maurseth, Marie Nerland, Svein Rønning

Anne Sofie Bertelsen, Sven Åge Birkeland, Hans-Jakob Brun, Anne Marthe Dyvi, Marianne Gathe, Erlend Høyersten, Frøydis Lindén, Trond Lossius, Åse Løvgren, Nina Malterud, Sjur Nedreaas, Julie Lillelien Porter, Dag Sveen, Sveinung Rudjord Unneland, Solveig Øvstebø

PRINTED BY AIT Otta

TYPEFACE:Gill Sans/Minion Pro

DISTRIBUTED BY Audiatur / www.audiatur.no

Published with support from City of Bergen, and in collaboration with Bergen Kunsthall on the occasion of the Bergen Biennial Conference September 2009.

ISBN978-82-92817-07-0

3

L I S T O F C O N T E N T S

4   Foreword7   Introduction – Anne Szefer Karlsen and Arne Skaug Olsen12   Survey – Espen Sommer Eide 17   Conference Confessions – Anngjerd Rustand22   Bergen as a City of Art – Steinar Sekkingstad 31   The Novelty is Gone, and That’s the Perfect Place to Begin –  Renee Turner36   Survey  – Jørgen Blitzner39   On Home Ground  - Toril Johannessen49   Survey – Eva Kun52   Survey – Ole Mads Sirks Vevle53 The Biennial as Seen by the Directors -  Ingvill Henmo77   Survey – Malin Barth80   Survey – Gisle Frøysland83   The Possibilities Lie Within Continuity – Heidi Nikolaisen 89   An Internal-Extroverted Expert-Public-Minded Event of Knowledge! – Sissel Lillebostad and Arne Rygg94   An Injection Against Conservative Bergen – Synnøve Vik103   Survey – Torunn Skjelland105   Another Attempt: From City of Culture 2000 to Biennial City 2011 –  Rita Marhaug113   Social Space and the Interdisciplinary – Marie Nerland, Knut Ove Arntzen and Melanie Fieldseth129   Bergen As One Large Venue – Jørgen Lund134   Survey – Jørgen Larsson137   Survey – Maia Urstad139   c/o The Bergen Biennial – Jeremy welsh148   Art and the Biennials – Per Kvist154   Survey – Øyvind Pål Farstad156   Survey – Are Hauffen158   The Art of Creating a Biennial – Annette Kierulf 168 Survey – Hilde Skjeggestad170 Survey – Erik Joung173 Contributors

4

F O R E W O R D

Ctrl+Z Publishing was approached by the Bergen Kunsthall winter 2008 with a request to edit a publication on the occasion of the Bergen Biennial Conference in September 2009 which would in some way mirror the local art scene’s response to the City of Bergen’s proposal to create a Bergen biennial. The anthology Localised is rooted in, but edited independently from, this conference.

To help us as editors get an account of the local art scene, we invited artist Svein Rønning, curator Marie Nerland and gallerist Atle Maurseth early in the process to an informal conversation and mapping session to ensure width in our selection of contributing locals. We had close to ninety independent professionals and representatives of a variety of institutions on the list at the end of this evening whereof fourty-four voices can be heard here.

Due to the nature of the commission, we wanted to create a platform as open as possible to different textual parti-cipation. We have invited a number of local artists such as Øyvind Pål Farstad, Gisle Frøysland, Are Hauffen, Erik Joung, Eva Kun, Jørgen Larsson, Torunn Skjelland and Maia Urstad to answer a four question survey to collect a certain directed response to what we believe to be key questions in relation to the local scene. Espen Sommer Eide, Rita Marhaug and Malin Barth chose to respond to the survey with independent texts, Ole Mads Sirks Vevle presents an honest and intuitive reply, while the young collective Ytter created an informal conversation based on the questions. Hilde Skjeggestad suggests in her response that the City should finance another Norwegian biennial and provide interested audience from Bergen with subsidised travel, while Jørgen Blitzner poetically describes the biennials around the world as the art world’s GPS system.

In addition to artists we of course wanted to hear other

5

art professionals’ responses. The editor of the Oslo-based Norwegian art periodical Billedkunst, Ingvill Henmo, was asked to interview the directors of the state-funded art institutions BIT Teatergarasjen (Sven Åge Birkeland), BEK, Bergen Center for Electronic Arts (Trond Lossius), Bergen Art Museum (Erlend Høyersten), Bergen Kunsthall (Solveig Øvstebø) and Bergen National Academy of the Arts (Nina Malterud). The responses are varied and the interests in the biennial are diverging, but there seems to be a positive anticipation connected to the idea of the biennial among the directors.

We asked art historians Steinar Sekkingstad and Jørgen Lund to interview art historians Dag Sveen and Hans-Jakob Brun respectively. Their description of the recent and con-temporary art scene in Bergen are valuable additions to the interview Toril Johannessen did with artist Sveinung Rudjord Unneland and artist-curator Åse Løvgren who describe their views on international connections to Bergen at the moment.

We also initiated conversations between another selec-tion of locals. Jeremy Welsh, artist and professor at the Bergen National Academy of the Arts, talks to recent MA-graduates Anna Christina Lorenzen, Vilde Salhus Røed and Stefan Törner about being based in Bergen as young artists. Art critic Synnøve Vik talks to the gallerists Marianne Skipperud Gathe (Galleri Gathe), Anne Sofie Bertelsen (Galleri Langegården) and Sjur Nedreaas (Galleri s.e.) who discuss media coverage and conservative attitudes to art, while curator Marie Nerland, associate professor in theatre studies Knut Ove Arntzen and dance critic Melanie Fieldseth discuss the cross-pollination between different art scenes in Bergen.

In addition to these responses and conversations we com-missioned five separate essays by art professionals related to the Bergen art scene. Based on her teaching experiences in Bergen American artist Renee Turner was asked to let her

6

own local situation in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, inform an opinion on if Bergen should go ahead and realise the biennial idea. Per Kvist, former dean of the Department of Specialized Art at the Bergen National Academy of the Arts, draws on Theodore W. Adorno to voice a loud yes to the idea of the biennial. Artist and curator Annette Kierulf looks back at Momentum 2006 to share her experience as biennial curator with the readers. Artist Heidi Nikolaisen map different ways of interacting locally and internationally both with and without the framework of a biennial through three specific examples. Curator Sissel Lillebostad and artist Arne Rygg staged their own e-mail correspondence in response to the commission and their dialogue resulted in the text titled An internal-extroverted expert-public-minded event of knowledge!

The editors would like to thank everyone involved for their contribution to Localised!

On behalf of the editors,Anne Szefer Karlsen, Bergen, August 2009

7

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Anne Szefer Karlsen and Arne Skaug Olsen

The word Biennial stems from Italian and is originally the term to describe an event re-occurring every second year. In contemporary art, however, it has also become the description of a certain format of exhibition. The as of now familiar Biennial Format is a geographically positioned large exhibition displaying art works made by artists often coming from a variety of geographies. For a long time the word biennial was something we associated with only a few places in the world, like Venice and São Paolo, but during the past decades or so there has been a spring tide of new biennials. It is difficult to say if we are permanently flooded or if the tide will withdraw and leave only a few biennials, while the rest will be washed to sea. In the wake of this first wave the City of Bergen has forwarded a proposition to establish a biennial in Bergen, which in turn has resulted in a discussion of if it’s at all advisable to host such a project in Bergen, if it is relevant, important or necessary to do so.

When the biennial format is being discussed, it is usually kept on a general level, and it is impossible to include all the local situations affected by the different biennials. Thus the question of how the locals relate to the biennial becomes secondary. This book aims to localise the discussion and to seriously consider this predicament so often mentioned in passing in the public debate on the biennial. Reading these texts it is apparent that it is precisely this main characte-ristics of the biennial, the juxtaposition of the local and the international, which is discussed most thoroughly.

Just like the entertainment business the art circuit has been affected by social, political and financial globalisa-tion. And it is first of all these changes which have created

8

favorable conditions for the biennial format as we know it today. Earlier times’ imperialism has had to make way for today’s indigenization1, meaning that existing cultural phenomena are adapted and adopted by geographical, linguistic or cultural areas. Films and television series are translated from one cultural circuit to another, while local versions of generic game- and reality shows pop up with hardly anyone being aware of their origin. The format is “indigenized”, brands are appropriated. The biennial occupies the art field in the same way pizza occupies the culinary landscape. Inherent in the formatting there is an expectation of recognition no matter where in the world: The biennial has become the art circuit’s proof that we too are part of the globalised world. Just like the nation states needed their museums to signal cultural independence, the biennial today is used to indicate global agency.

One of the traits of the biennial is the juxtaposition of the local and the international. With this book we purposely put on the local spectacles. It would prove impossible to ask a set of international professionals working elsewhere if they think Bergen should host a biennial or not. What qualifications would they have to answer this question? The aim of this book is not to evaluate the answers given in each text. Rather this anthology has become a diverse discus-sion on whether the Bergen art scene should participate internationally through the format of a biennial or not. There is already a wide international network anchored in Bergen through individuals and institutions, and the urgent question is if it’s interesting to our local setting to adapt to the biennial format, or whether a new format should be created to prove global participation.

There is something extraordinary about a biennial. In the wake of the Lillehammer winter Olympics in Norway

1) See Globalisation and Art Exhibitions by Zoran Eric, in aica press’ online publication Art Criticism & Curatorial Practices in Marginal Contexts – Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), January 2006.

9

in 1994 there was much talk of the so called Olympic-effect – huge expectations were tied to local and national financial growth to happen in the years following this mega sports event. A similar Olympic-effect is talked of several times in relation to the discussion of the proposed Bergen biennial. Opposed to the biennial the Olympics is a one-off event, an expensive one time happening where the preceding discus-sions revolve around how the investments should be utilised after the event, just as much as how the event itself should be pulled off. Investments necessary to establish a sizeable art event will not vanish in the same way as is the case with the Olympics, they will generate new value. In other words we are not talking about reusing ruins, but about slow construction of something. And this something can have many guises. This is apparent when we take a look at how the local species of biennials separate the one from the other. Dak’Art has a defined geographic focus, the Gwangju Biennale repeatedly occupy the same building, Periferic has grown from individuals’ initiatives, the Johannesburg Biennale made it to two editions, the Shoreditch Biennale only made it to one and the second edition of the Tirana Biennale was set in Prague, but was in the end re-named the first Prague Biennale. In other words, a lot is demanded by those who potentially should create a new format.

A returning and important question working on this anthology has been: Should the Bergen biennial be useful for Bergen? There are many ways to approach such a question, and the answers will mirror the different positions within the Bergen art scene. To say that utility value is the pillar of Norwegian society is not an incorrect claim. Thus it is not surprising to trace scepticism towards the political initiative which is the outset of the proposition of a biennial, but one must at the same time take a closer look at the term utility and its meaning in a larger context. The greatest privilege of the artist is not financial support structures, but the free

10

space she creates by spending her time unproductively, distanced from society’s demand of productivity and utility value. This privilege is under pressure from several sides. A local politically initiated biennial can work as an argument to further instrumentalise the arenas for artistic production and reflection. It is paramount not to lose sight of the fact that the proposition of a Bergen biennial is a question of politics touching upon the Bergen art scene in a principal way. This art event will not only be the largest and most important single initiative in cultural life in Bergen in over fifty years, but it also demands rethinking of local circumstances.

No matter how international ones participation, as an active participant in the field of art one must always feel at home. This “home” does not allude to common origin, but is rather intended as a description of several voices existing simultaneously on the same arena, in a community. This community is not a fixed dimension, as it can be the international arena, just as well as the local context. There is a tendency in the local focus which can be reinforced in a positive direction when encountering the biennial machinery and its audience, much larger than what we are accustomed to in Bergen. At the same time, the local focus in this anthology could border on provincialism which is something we have to be wary of celebrating. By allowing this future event to feel at home is not the same as celebrating one voice, one statement, but allowing and encouraging the event to be the antidote to our own provincialism. What one must pit provincialistic2 thinking and political instrumen-talisation against is disagreement. Arts have a characteristic position as an area of society which situates itself outside of the paradigm of utility governing other parts of society. It is not the role of art to decorate or please, but to display what cannot be displayed otherwise. A sizeable art event

2) Not provincial, but in the meaning of being anchored in one specific geographic place.

11

in Bergen can become an admonishment to conventional- and consensus oriented thinking both within the arts and society in general, and thus strengthening art as a radical agent. It is by contributing to this unproductive disagreement that the event can become useful, and not by symbolically establishing Bergen as player in the international field of culture.

In other words, the event needs to be useful on arts’ own terms. Because of the conservative characteristics of Bergen, it is important to not forget that the seed of radical culture has had fertile ground in Bergen’s cultural life before. Since this radicalism historically has not been apparent within visual art, an art event of this magnitude will open up for far-reaching consequences in the field of visual arts in Bergen. When politicians think big, those who make up the back bone of the art infrastructure and its primary, most devoted audience must think better. Which is what this book attempts to do: Conservatism and consensus must be met with demands and dissent, disagreement and dynamics in order to recreate itself.

Translated by Anne Szefer Karlsen

12

S U R V E Y

Espen Sommer Eide

Should the Bergen biennial be useful for Bergen?

The philosopher and cultural theorist Peter Osborne opens his article in the catalogue of Manifesta 5 in San Sebastian 2004 with a tirade of questions that go straight to the core of this problem area:

What does it mean for the art in an exhibition when that exhibition is conceived as an “instrument of investigation” into its site and a means of cultural and economic “reinvi-goration” of the surrounding area? What does it mean, that is, for our understanding of it as art, rather than the mere occasion for the pursuit of a set of independently defined social goals? What does it mean not only that this might be so (that an exhibition might be so conceived), but that it is so, and is so, moreover, as a matter of course? What does it tell us about contemporary art that such a contextualization is a normal part of art’s cultural functioning and, furthermore, that it is a central part of art’s critical functioning as art? What does it tell us about what art is; that is, about what art has become? What does it tell us about what art is becoming? What kind of this is this kind of art?1

Unfortunately, Osborne does not answer any of the questions he poses but that might not be of relevance here. It suffices that the questions have been posed in such a sharp and insistent manner, which makes it possible to see the entire complex of problems clearly, as if from a bird’s-eye view. I gather questions like these will be central to the Biennial Conference this coming autumn. It will be exciting to see if anyone dares to present any answers and, further, if anyone 1) Peter Osborne, Art as displaced Urbanism: notes on a new constructivism of the exhibition form, Manifesta: European Biennal of Contemporary Art 2004, s. 65.

13

dares to deal with the consequences of the answers when the Bergen biennial initially is organised. It is easy to lose sight of the artwork and the alternative formats in which it can best be presented and made to "work", especially when one places it in a context wherein it should serve a greater (or rather, perhaps, a lesser) good and specific purpose. Still, the starting point – that art should have a meaning, and an effect upon its surroundings – makes it attractive to the many, myself included. It seems in vain to call for the autonomy of art today. Although autonomous art has proven to be the most saleable at the auction houses these days.

What does it really mean that the Bergen biennial should be useful to Bergen? It is obvious that a biennial in many ways will be of advantage to artists, curators and others involved in Bergen’s art scene. Plenty of expertise will pro-bably come to town, which might be an inspiration for and useful in other ways to the locals. The planned conference on biennials prior to the biennial itself is a good idea; for certain it will bring forth lots of interesting thoughts and critiques on this theme. But an undercurrent to this question is whether it is useful to the city of Bergen or the region – which I gather is one of the main reasons for the City of Bergen to initiate such a project in the first place. And all of a sudden, the matter seems to be a little bit more complicated. As we know, biennials have traditionally played a part in so-called "gentrification", worldwide. They are placed in old working class or industrial areas and the like, hoping to attract an influx of hip artists, which in turn will bring about changes to the urban landscape (cafés, trendy clothes shops, galleries), eventually boosting the property market squeezing the artists out of the neighbourhood, and voilá: "mission accomplished". With regards to Bergen, if one should follow this scheme, one would have to place the biennial in Loddefjord or Danmarksplass (but even there it might already be too late), yet, it seems more realistic to picture gentrification of the city of Bergen as a whole, and

14

in relation to the rest of Norway or Europe. Such regional gentrification has been a trend in our

time as well. Especially in nearly abandoned industrial communities with a desire to revitalize themselves, filling up the bank accounts of one Florida2-inspired awakening preacher after the other in the effort. The ideas brought forth from these countless workshops and brainstorming sessions (which most of the time end up in using old industrial edifices as culture centres), usually give the community in question an actual revitalization in the short-term, but realistically speaking how many art exhibitions having the old industrial culture as the theme, "utilizing the ruins of the industrial era in a surprising and innovative way", are we able to digest before today’s news is old news and we are back where we started? We are left with one alternative, which is to place a call to UNESCO and make them put a World Heritage stamp on the village. In the case of Bergen as a city, the aim has to be to get out of the UNESCO-trap: To make the city emerge as something else than a museum of wooden houses and a wannabe Salzburg. This may prove a fundamental deficiency in the idea of Bergen as site for a biennial. Bergen is not a poor city, nor a city with obvious political or social problems (with the exeption of the park Nygårdsparken, of course). Most of all, Bergen seems like a city with a big inferiority complex. So what should one aim for? Increased tourism? More investments? More wealth?

Internationally, such gigantic art projects with (too many) millions to spend have a peculiar logic of their own. I participated in Manifesta 7 in 2008 with a performance called Building Instruments and a text contribution to the catalogue. The theme of this biennial was "Residues", that is, 2) Richard Florida (1957), professor at University of Toronto. Focus on social and economic theory with a particular focus on urban planning. Author of the books The Rise of the Creative Class (2002), The Flight of the Creative Class - The New Global Competition (2005) and Who’s Your City? (2008), where he discusses theories on the creative climate of cities and the effect it has on local business development.

15

the remainder of a past industrial area – the Rest of Now. Also on this occasion an old factory, Alumix in Bolzano, Italy, was put to use. The exhibition was not rooted in the community itself, which proved to be a problem. "International curators" were flown in and out; they commissioned a "international artists" to make pieces especially for the occasion in the honourable hall of the melting furnace. But no-one from the sleepy South-Tyrolese community itself seemed to notice that there was a biennial happening in town; and not so many of the "international audience" seemed to have figured out the complicated route – by plane, train and bike – to the beautiful factory at the foot of the Alps either. One could of course ask if it is necessary for a biennial to be rooted in the local community, or if it needs to attract a large audience. It might just as well have an impact in other ways than through being a public attraction. Is it not until after the artwork has been withdrawn from the public sphere that it really becomes political? But in the case of Manifesta it was clear that they had prepared for a grand influx – claiming otherwise in retrospect is mere intellectual explaining away.

In comparison, I experienced similar conditions during a presentation in Linz, which is a European Capital of Culture 2009 (did anybody catch this news?). The term "Capital of Culture" has now become completely watered down and the millions that are thrown in are, if possible, even more invi-sible than they were in Stavanger just recently. It is seldom possible for a small place to attract enough visitors to make up a full audience at every event during the year as a Capital of Culture, and a cultural tumbleweed atmosphere spreads easily around town. Locally, the event might be experienced as if your town and its inhabitants have suddenly become the scenery in an endless French Cirque Nouveau show. The only solution is to take cover. This goes for the good old World Fairs too, which have become a sort of tourism fair for unknown destinations. I was fortunate enough to play a concert with Alog at the Expo 2008 in Zaragoza.

16

The concert took place outdoors at 1 a.m. on a Monday, right after Cirque de Soleil had finished their evening show on stilts, just next to the pavilion of Austrian lederhosen dancers, and we were completely drowned – sound-wise – by two artificial waterfalls. Thousands of empty plastic cups (recyclable) blew through the ice cold and deserted desert-night, when we entered the stage with our musical Bergen pavilion.

Of course, it will not be like this at the upcoming Bergen biennial! But good ideas are always at the peril of drow-ning in what we could call the implementation machine or the report-writing machine which get going during such large scale productions. Consequence analyses have never resulted in good artistic or curatorial ideas. The very first step is good ideas, and in this respect one might have started erroneously by first announcing the biennial (which in itself is not much to get excited about and more a symptom of the international poverty of genres), instead of first coming up with formats that are interesting and exciting, and then letting the project grow into a biennial over time.

To keep the focus on this topic in the debate coming up, it is my opinion that one should do a complete turnaround and ask if Bergen can be useful to the biennial. How can Bergen as site be useful to the Bergen biennial? To my mind, this is a more interesting question. Then the biennial may grow to become something distinctive with its own format and context, and the art avoids being reduced to a psychology for the city’s many complexes.

Translated by Gunnhild Hagberg-Karlsen