Istanbul 27/08/2013
Jun Yang: I would like to talk with you both about the Taipei Biennial 2008, particularly about a proposal for a contemporary art centre in Taipei.
Vasif Kortun: Yes, that project – I remember the posters quite well:
“What an art centre is, should, could, would be.”
JY: Although I am neither a researcher nor a curator, nor did I ever have the ambition to run or direct an art space, I felt the whole project was an interesting opportunity to test the institutional ground from the perspective of an artist, to step out of my own comfort zone, and to think about a potential contemporary art institution.
In the pamphlet for the Biennial, you mentioned the institutional situation, which I used for further discussions about a possible contemporary art space in Taipei. In fact, it was you who proposed using a pavilion on the Biennial site for my project since I did not have a physical space in mind.
VK: From the beginning, I have always wanted to ask you: Did you have in mind the possibility of extending “the proposal” beyond the life of the Biennial into a concrete space and situation that has later become the Taipei Contemporary Art Center? Or was it first just meant to be an interrogation? Or was the biennial a means to find a reality through the interrogation?
JY: Well, it was a new agenda, and I was not completely familiar with the situation in Taipei – at that time, I was not living there. From a present point of view, a certain sense of naivety was involved in proposing something like that. I was unaware of many situations; my understanding of the context was vague, and the outcome was unclear to me at all in the beginning. At the same time – most probably because of that naivety – I engaged myself completely in this topic and, believe me, it was very exciting not to know the result beforehand.
VK: I remember that from the very beginning, the proposed institution already had an aesthetic: through the flag that was installed on the pavilion, the color coding, and above all, how you transformed the pavilion architecturally and how it made use of the existing space. In a way, it was like performing an art center.
JY: Maybe it was… let me say it this way: The content was not that clear in the beginning – it was about to be developed over a longer period of time with others – so I started working on the “wrapping” first. Certainly, this marked also the start, one could say, the blueprint of a potential institution.
VK: I think, it diversifies things, first there is the space and then there is the “centre”. Normally, there is a “centre,” and then you look for space to contextualize the content in a physical entity. In this sense, the project was performed within an aesthetic structure and then developed further.
JY: Well, I thought it would be more effective to start and perform with a certain visual identity because this was confronting people with friction between something “real” and something “fictitious.” At that time, it was very important to have a pseudo-visual identity, at least somehow to pretend that. Actually, afterward, the Taipei Contemporary Art Center (TCAC) had a very different visual look.
VK: What I found noteworthy is that the project responded to a particular crisis in Taipei. It opened certain debates.
JY: Initially, the museum director did not take the project too seriously. They thought the project was a smoke grenade that would start, calm down, and stop. However, there were certain things that I needed to do to create such a legitimate project: that is why we worked with the Artco Monthly Art Magazine to promote our ideas. That was also a collaboration, which made the museum kind of “worrying” – in terms of why this project is attracting so much media attention and why an art magazine is interested in these issues. Indeed, the museum could not foresee the many activities in the pavilion and around it.
VK: It was also good that you invited speakers and did some screenings, like Bert Theis, one of the founders of the Isola Art Center who presented the institution. Besides, he participated as an artist in the Taipei Biennial 2008.
JY: Another presentation was by Lin Hongjohn, curator of TB10, and professor at the Taipei National University of Arts. Together, we hosted a gathering; more than hundreds or two hundred art students were joining. It was in a way, the first in a series of gatherings, which resulted in a loose group the students formed afterwards. They called themselves YTA (Young Taipei Artists). Finally, the museum felt more and more things were coming up that were slightly out of its expectations and control. This feeling peaked when I organized the huge weekend gathering, in which almost everybody was involved who played some role in the Taiwanese art scene. In fact, the structure for the conference was inspired of our own Biennial gathering.
VK: I remember we had this biennial meeting in the hotel lobby.
JY: Because of the typhoon after the opening, we all, artists, curators – around fifty people were stuck in the hotel, people could not depart, and all places in town were closed, and therefore, all of us spent that evening, and the night in the lobby creating and forming a big round table discussion. Afterward, I thought that was quite an interesting model for a conference, and I appropriated that idea for my gathering at the Howard Beach Resort. About fifty people were discussing the urgent issue of a contemporary art institution in Taipei. Because the weekend gathering took place in a hotel outside of the capital, at the beachside, we were “stuck together”. For this event, we rented all the rooms, the conference room, the restaurant, the bars.
VK: It was important that people from former or other art centers attended.
JY: I agree; there were people from other art initiatives as well as art students, professors, curators, or very engaged artists from different generations – so it was an interesting mix of people.
VK: Unfortunately, the project did not have the official support it deserved.
JY: We were kicked out of the pavilion even before the Biennial closed. The park was transformed, and the pavilion was adapted to the upcoming festival. Basically, it was on very short notice that we were told to move out.
VK: I remember we wrote a statement to condemn that situation.
JY: I was not offended because I did everything necessary for the project. Of course, we kept on working because the magazine contribution was published in May of the following year.
VK: I cannot think of any other institutions being facilitated – perhaps “born” out of such a situation. It is probably more interesting that such a result or consequence emerged from a Biennial. Was it significant for you that it was part of a Biennial?
JY: Being part of a big event gave the project more credibility to reflect on these issues. Such a format works like a seal of approval. Looking back, I also think the project suggested that Biennials could support long-term and enduring projects, perhaps rethink what a Biennial can do.
VK: In the 9th Istanbul Biennial 2005, we tried something similar. We had initiated a sub-project called Hospitality Zone. For the duration of two months we hosted activities that could not happen otherwise. The project made things possible for art initiatives beyond the systems and structures they usually have at their disposal. For instance, it offered exchange spaces for the producers and the audiences. So, we created a kind of in-between space: the hospitality zone. Another aspect was our interest in the limits of institutional hospitality and also, of course, in our limits.
I always learn from one project to the other. Some ideas from the Istanbul Biennial were transferred to the Taipei Biennial 08. But I did not have that kind of reading Manray has about Taipei, its context, and the small-scale organizations there. For me, it was difficult to say beforehand if your proposal would make sense, if a Biennial would speed things up, or even if it could help produce new kinds of molecular institutions.
JY: How far do you think a project within a Biennial or the Biennial as such can stimulate some debates?
VK: It is imperative for a biennial to find its role, and the position it should find, in my opinion, find a space outside the commercial world. At best, a biennial deals with urgencies and emergencies and facilitates needed situations. A biennial should set in all its alliances, connections, and networks in a particular way to make these things happen. It is a powerful force because it is a temporary format. We need temporary situations.
JY: From a certain point of view, I tried to do the opposite. Finally, this proposal, which started at the Biennial 08, has led to a “real” institution. However, the process of thinking and rethinking what an institution is /should be/ could be/ would be did not end when the TCAC opened in 2010. The reflection is still ongoing; I would say that temporariness meets continuity and endurance.
vasıf kortun 