548

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I'd like to express my thanks to my advisor, Serhan Ada, for his patience and
valuable supports throughout the writing process, as well as the esteemed professors
of my Jury, Esra Yıldız and Bengisu Bayrak, who contributed with valuable ideas
to my thesis.
I'd like to thank Burak Delier, Beral Madra, the CABININ team, Mona Mahall, and
Aslı Serbest for accepting the in-depth interviews and not withholding their
experience and knowledge from me.
I'd also like to thank my mother and sister for their unconditional love and support...
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................... İİİ
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. Vİ
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... Vİİ
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... Vİİİ
ÖZET ................................................................................................................... İX
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................... 7
CENSORSHIP AND CONTEMPORARY ART ................................................ 7
1.1. NEW DECISION-MAKERS AND CHANGING METHODS .................. 12
OF CENSORSHIP ............................................................................................. 12
1.2. MAKING CHOICES: CORPORATE CENSORSHIP AND SELFCENSORSHIP
................................................................................................... 16
1.3. SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF CENSORSHIP ............................................ 18
1.4. THE TRANSITION FROM SYSTEMATIC CENSORSHIP TO SELFCENSORSHIP
................................................................................................... 25
1.5. CENSORSHIP IN VISUAL ARTS IN TURKEY ....................................... 27
CHAPTER II ........................................................................................................ 31
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE BIENNIALS AND
CONTEMPORARY ART SCENE IN TURKEY ............................................. 31
2.1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BIENNIALS ............................................... 31
2.2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURE, ART AND POLITICS IN
TURKEY (1920 – 2000) .................................................................................... 35
2.2.1. 1980's and Afterwards: The Increasing Influence of Economy and
Companies on Art .......................................................................................... 38
2.2.2. Cultural policies under AKP rule (2002-2020) .................................... 41
v
2.3. CONTEMPORARY ART BIENNIALS IN TURKEY AND CENSORSHIP
(1986 - 2020) ...................................................................................................... 45
2.3.1. International Asian - European Art Biennial (1986 - 1992) ................ 45
1.3.2. İstanbul Biennial (1987-2000) ............................................................. 47
2.3.3. Biennials outside of İstanbul (2006 – 2020) ........................................ 51
2.3.4. A Native and National Biennial Initiative: Yeditepe Biennial (2018-
2020) .............................................................................................................. 56
2.4. MANAGERIAL AND CURATORIAL PRACTICES IN THE BIENNIALS
........................................................................................................................... 58
2.5. THE IMPACTS OF BIENNIALS ON THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF
CITIES ............................................................................................................... 62
2.6. EFFECTS OF SPONSORSHIP ON ART ................................................... 72
2.7. SOLIDARITY NETWORKS AGAINST CENSORSHIP IN TURKEY .... 78
CHAPTER III ...................................................................................................... 81
THREE CASES FROM TURKEY .................................................................... 81
3.1. CASE 1: 9TH INTERNATIONAL ISTANBUL BIENNIAL "FREE KICK"
(2005) ................................................................................................................. 82
3.1.1. Burak Delier’s non-exhibited Artwork “Muhafız” .............................. 82
3.1.2. The Confiscated Catalog of the Free Kick Exhibition ......................... 88
3.2. CASE 2: 5TH ÇANAKKALE BIENNIAL (2016) ....................................... 92
3.3. CASE 3: 7TH SİNOP BIENNIAL (2019) ............................................... 98
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 103
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 110
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................... 126
vi
ABBREVIATIONS
AKP
CABİNİN
CHP
ECHR
EU
İBB
İKSV
NATO
NGOs
OSCE
TCK
TDK
TSK
TTK
TURİNG
Justice and Development Party
Çanakkale Biennial Initiative
Republican People's Party
European Court of Human Rights
European Union
İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality
İstanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Non-Governmental Organizations
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe
Turkish Penal Code
Turkish Language Society
Turkish Armed Forces
Turkish Historical Society
Turkish Touring and Automobile Association
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Xu Bing, Book from the Sky (1987–91)........................................... 23
Figure 2.1: Jan Dubkowski's censored work (1987)............................................ 46
Figure 2.2: Hale Tenger, I Know People Like This II (1992)............................. 48
Figure 2.3: Sevil Tunaboylu, Imaginative (2012) Installation............................. 54
Figure 3.1: Burak Delier, Guard (2005)............................................................... 83
Figure 3.2: Burak Delier, Untitled (Girl with EU Flag) (2004)........................... 83
Figure 3.3: Demet Yoruç, Hulk (2004)................................................................ 89
Figure 3.4: Murat Tosyalı, Obedience (2004)..................................................... 89
Figure 3.5: Angela Melitopoulos, Still from “Passing Drama” (1999)............... 99
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to examine censorship cases in the field of
contemporary art in Turkey after 2000, focusing on three biennials. The period of
the Justice and Development Party (AKP) from 2002 to 2022, when the effects of
these policies became unmistakably visible, was preferred to examine more clearly
the question of how censorship cases were affected by neoliberal policies and
conservative discourses. Cases that fit the new and comprehensive definitions of
censorship were chosen, based on the idea that censorship is a process, and the
classical definitions of censorship that refer to state censorship were abandoned.
Three cases were chosen for this thesis from the Istanbul Biennial, the Çanakkale
Biennial, and the Sinop Biennial. However, in order to better understand the impact
of the censorship and its evolution over time, the old censorship cases from
biennials were also used. These cases are also discussed in the thesis' Biennials and
Censorship in Turkey section. The work begins with a historical look at censorship
in the first section, followed by a historical look at biennials in the second section.
The changes in government policies at the time of the incidents, as well as how
artists were mentioned in government officials' speeches were investigated. With
these findings, it was investigated whether the targeting that served as the basis for
the cases followed a parallel logic. The study seeks to reveal the elements of change,
with record to censorship of contemporary art in Turkey influenced by shifting
political stances.
Keywords: Censorship, Turkey, Biennial, City, Visual Arts
ix
ÖZET
Bu çalışma, 2000 sonrası Türkiye’de çağdaş sanat alanında gerçekleşen sansür
vakalarını, bienallerde gerçekleşmiş üç vaka aracılığıyla incelemeyi
amaçlamaktadır. Sansür olaylarının neoliberal politikalar ve muhafazakar
söylemlerden nasıl etkilendiği sorusunu daha net inceleyebilmek için, bu
politikaların etkisinin şüphe götürmez bir şekilde görünürlüğe kavuştuğu Adalet ve
Kalkınma Partisi (AKP) dönemi (2002-2022) tercih edilmiştir. Vakalar seçilirken,
sansürün bir süreç olduğu fikrinden yola çıkarak yeni ve kapsayıcı sansür
tanımlarına uyan vakalar seçilmiş, devlet sansürüne referans veren klasik sansür
tanımları dikkate alınmamıştır.
Bu tez için İstanbul Bienali, Çanakkale Bienali ve Sinop Bienali'nden üç ayrı vaka
seçilmiştir. Ancak, sansür unsurlarının etkisini ve yıllar içerisindeki değişini daha
iyi görebilmek için bienallerde gerçekleşen daha eski sansür vakalarından da
faydalanılmıştır. Bu vakalar da tezin Türkiye’de Bienaller ve Sansür başlığı altında
görülebilir. Çalışma, ilk bölümde sansüre ve ikinci bölümde bienallere tarihsel bir
bakışla başlar. Üç sansür vakasının gerçekleştiği dönemlerdeki hükümet
politikalarındaki yön değişiklikleri ve aynı tarihlerde hükümet yetkililerinin
konuşmalarında sanatçılardan nasıl bahsedildiği ile vakaların temelini oluşturan
hedef göstermelerin paralel bir mantıkla ilerleyip ilerlemediğine bakılmıştır.
Çalışma, Türkiye’de çağdaş sanatta sansürün değişen siyasi dengelerden etkilendiği
fikrinden yola çıkarak, değişimin unsurlarını açığa çıkarmayı hedefler.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Sansür, Türkiye, Bienal, Kent, Görsel Sanatlar
1
INTRODUCTION
Censorship cases in contemporary art are usually not inventoried and documented
by artists and art professionals, and this situation poses an obstacle to the
establishment of a solidarity network against censorship. As a result of this
situation, artists and arts institutions are becoming vulnerable, and this predicament
underlines the significance of working on each censorship case individually. If there
is not any follow-up on the effects of censorship, censorship becomes continuous.
Censorship, which we encounter in the arts and in any situation where there is any
form of expression, is typically carried out under the name of protecting the public
from harmful productions and protecting social sensitivities. However, because the
definition of "what is harmful" is subjective, censorship issues are frequently open
to abuse. Consequently, conducting a study to investigate the relationship between
censorship and corporate policies in contemporary art becomes critical for
preserving artistic creativity and freedom of expression.
In this study, censorship in art biennials organized in the field of contemporary art
in Turkey will be investigated. The reason for choosing biennials for this study was
motivated by the need to draw attention to censorship cases because the incidence
of censorship in these organizations is less visible. Biennials have a more complex
organizational structure than smaller formations such as galleries, and they have a
variety of external and financial connections, such as sponsorships and media
agencies. Therefore, they are more convenient in order to observe the dynamics of
various factors on censorship, such as the economy, society, corporate censorship,
or urban policy. Biennial organization processes take place behind closed doors. As
a result, institutional pressures on curators and artists are frequently not visible. On
the other hand, censorship cases are rarely reported in the press. In this thesis, three
of the cases covered in the press were chosen for further investigation.
2
The research questions of this study are:
• The AKP government came to power in 2002, with the promise of
libertarian, egalitarian, and European Union-oriented policies. After the
2011, the government began to express more overtly populist religious and
social sensitivities. The European ideal was abandoned. Especially after the
Gezi events in 2013 and the failed coup attempt in 2016, government
pressures increased. All kinds of restrictions and hate speeches began for
the opposition group, which represents half of the people. So, did this
tremendous turn result in changes in censorship methods or censorship
topics? Has the political discourse of the AKP influenced self-censorship?
• Has self-censorship replaced censorship these days?
• What are the factors that make biennials vulnerable to censorship?
If we look at the primary sources on this subject, Banu Karaca is one of the people
who made contributions to Turkish literature in this field. Karaca's articles
"Contemporary art production and the policies of censorship in Turkey" (2012) and
"Images delegitimized and discouraged: Explicitly political art and the arbitrariness
of the unspeakable" (2011) examine censorship during the AKP era and have
largely contributed significantly to this thesis. Another significant study in the
literature is Sibel Yardmc's book "Urban Change and Festivalism: Biennial in
Globalizing Istanbul" (2014), in which she examines the dynamics and limitations
of biennials through the Istanbul Biennial.
Three cases were chosen for this thesis from the Istanbul Biennial, the Çanakkale
Biennial and the Sinop Biennial. In the cases of this research, it will be investigated
which organization or who is censoring the artworks; whether it originates from
internal or external decision-makers; how it is concluded; and what their effects are
on art production. It is critical to consider the peculiar characteristics of the contexts
in which censorship occurs. As a result, each of the examined cases differs in
3
specific ways, such as the manner in which censorship occurs and the progression
of events.
In the past, censorship was primarily used by the state; however, in recent years,
the state has retracted its hand, and censorship processes through legislation, state
organs, or the so-called public interest have been replaced by other censorships,
shaped by the state's ideological apparatuses and market demands, and thus the
most well-known censorship definitions have been modified. Therefore, in order to
clarify what we will consider censorship in this study, the first section of the thesis
will examine the various forms of censorship as represented by the works of various
critical thinkers, scholars, and art theorists. In the continuation of the first part of
this study we will focus on how to figure out the broad lines of current reflections
and censorship factors in the contemporary art scene.
In the second part of this thesis, the history of biennials, as well as their approach
to audiences, sponsorship schemes, organizational structures, media relations, and
connections with the city in which they take place, will be briefly mentioned. Also,
it will be attempted to determine whether the institution's economic and local
political connections influence its stance on censorship, and if so, how. This
criterion is significant in terms of understanding how the responses of the
organizations to censorship affect the survival and sustainability of the events.
The third section of the thesis will be devoted to case studies. The cases are chosen
from censorship or self-censorship cases that occurred in biennials in Turkey. All
three cases in the third part of this thesis are distinct in terms of organizational
structure, planning, connections to the city, and their aims.
Three cases from the Istanbul Biennial, Çanakkale Biennial, and Sinop Biennial
were chosen for this study in order to investigate these questions for different
dynamics. The cases are drawn from events that occurred after 2002 in order to
determine whether the current conservative politics in Turkey have an impact on
4
censorship events. These three cases were chosen because the actors who lead the
artist to self-censorship/censorship differ in each case. Thus, it will be possible to
see if there is a difference in how people in different positions react to censorship.
Despite the fact that other censorship cases were observed in this three biennials
except the three studied in this thesis, one censorship case was chosen from each
biennial.
Istanbul is one of the world's few metropolises. The Istanbul Biennial attracts a
much larger number of visitors in comparison to the Çanakkale Biennial and the
Sinop Biennial. This city has a higher rate and number of international visitors than
the other two biennials. The Istanbul Biennial is also attempting to gain
international media attention. This situation hasn't changed much since the first two
biennials, which featured world-renowned artists. The organizing institution of the
Biennial, the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (İKSV) has the largest
presence in Turkey's cultural and artistic scene. And the Biennial requires more
funding than the other two biennials. The Biennial's relationship with the city
dwellers does not extend to the periphery. Furthermore, it covers only a part of the
residents of the city center. The target audience is middle-income and above, with
a bachelor's degree or higher. The Biennial is sponsored by large capital owners
such as Koç and Eczacıbaşı. Despite the fact that the biennial generates a lot of
activity in the city, it is not expected to have a big impact on the tradespeople,
except for the hotels, catering, and entertainment venues in the city center (Beyoğlu
and its surroundings). The "Free Kick" case from the Istanbul Biennial was chosen
both to examine whether censorship issues have changed since the early years of
the current government because it occurred in the early 2000s, and to understand
whether large-scale sponsorships have had an impact on the selected works.
Çanakkale is a more outward-looking port city than Sinop. In comparison to Sinop,
tourism is more intense and active on the periphery of the city. The Çanakkale
Biennial's relationship with the city's residents does not include all segments of the
public. In terms of the bond it forms with city residents, it falls somewhere between
5
the Istanbul Biennial and the Sinop Biennial. This censorship case was chosen from
the Çanakkale Biennial because it is appropriate for investigating the effects of
power balances and rent conflicts between local governments and the biennials. The
Çanakkale Biennial, is realized in cooperation between a civil initiative (CABININ)
and the manucipality. In this case, the biennial director, Beral Madra, was directly
targeted by the AKP deputy Bülent Turan. It is estimated that the reason for the
targeting was to weaken the supporter of the biennial, Çanakkale Municipality.
Following the censorship case in 2016, it was discovered that the name of the
Çanakkale Municipality was not written on the supporters list on the official
website. Çanakkale Municipality, which is run by the Republican People's Party
(CHP), was a supporter of the Biennial since its establishment.
Sinop, a port city, has less international contact than Çanakkale and İstanbul due to
its location. The Sinop Biennial has a stronger connection with city dwellers than
the other two biennials. Some of the artists are invited to the city to produce
artworks in collaboration with the local community. Workshops are realized in
collaboration with city residents to connect the local public with the biennial. The
mobility created by the biennial is expected to affect a larger segment of the city's
residents and business owners than the other two biennials. The Sinop Biennial case
is appropriate for investigating the relationship between censorship and the impact
of local people's touristic expectations. The censorship in this case was caused by
the Biennial director's fear that the artist's political questioning about Atatürk’s
policy would be offensive, after artist Angela Melitopoulos exchanged ideas with a
local for the creation of a work.
The information in this thesis was gathered through qualitative research. The study's
target population is artists and art professionals, and the sample group is artists and
art professionals who are subjected to censorship at biennials in Turkey. In the
study, periodicals, related articles, letters of the biennial curators, printed and online
materials, interviews given by the directors, curators and artists to various
publications, and exclusive interviews with the people mentioned in the cases were
6
used. In-depth interviews were conducted with the artists and other actors in the
cases (curators, directors, and so on) to learn more about the issues that are
supposed to trigger the censorship and the case's process. As research material,
relevant data from library archives, academic and non-academic online and printed
materials, and legal correspondence were gathered.
7
CHAPTER I
CENSORSHIP AND CONTEMPORARY ART
Art is a means of expressing one's knowledge, thoughts, and feelings. Art and
creativity should always be viewed as a communal means of transmitting feely
knowledge, as they shape people's imaginations and become a part of their social
existence. But the provocative and unpredictable aspect of art has always frightened
governments and official authorities. As a result, states and corporations have
always attempted to exert control over the arts. They have used this power to serve
their aims and try to silence art that does not provide their purposes. However, the
arts' desire to tell the truth frequently contradicts the demands of the authorities. In
art, the desire for parrhesia1 is combined with unpredictability. Concerning the
issue Ali Artun (2018) stated, that “keeping up with any actual policies by
abandoning art's political existence is incompatible with art”. Thus, he states that
censorship and other forms of intervention are incompatible with the very nature of
art.
Parallel to Artun’s opinion, Diderot stipulated that for the artists, independence as
a duty. Diderot (2000) expresses his anti-censorship stance in his famous
Encyclopedia by sacralizing the artist’s stance, and he imposes exact
responsibilities on artists for telling the truth:
“We invite Artists to heed scholarly advice regarding their side of things, and not
to allow the discoveries they will make to perish with them. They need to know
that when they hide a useful secret they make themselves guilty of larceny in regard
to society; and that it is not less vile to prefer on these occasions the interest of a
single person over the interest of all, than in a hundred other cases where they
would not hesitate to articulate their view.”
1 Parrhesia: Ancient Greek word has three different forms, as related by Michel Foucault.
Parrhesia is a noun, meaning "free speech". Parrhesiazomai is a verb, meaning "to use
parrhesia". Parrhesiastes is also a noun, meaning one who uses parrhesia, for example "one who
speaks the truth to power.” (Foucault, 1983)
8
If we consider art is extremely significant for spreading ideas, it is true that the
artist’s independence is extremely important. The artwork gains a historical
dimension by discussing and criticizing the past, a social-realistic dimension by
reflecting the current situation, and a political dimension by designing the future.
While art creates some universal values, it always directs its function from the
individual to the collective. In addition, Lukacs saw art as a tool to overcome
societal contradictions and disruptions. In his opinion, the most powerful artwork
was a bridge that connects the past and the future through the present. Art also has
a provocative power due to its unpredictability and ability to give different
directions to its own speech due to its indirect language. Burak Delier (2015), an
artist and academic, defines this unpredictability of art as follows:
“Instead of attempting to gain recognition, influence, and function, art is a
dysfunctional, contradictory, bouncing, ambiguous speech that aspires to take a
critical or a conformist position within the functioning of society. Its protest and
resistance are entirely based on corrupting the language and transporting the person
who hears this discomposed speech to another world.”
Because of the social back reflections of art, artists have always said what no one
else in society dares to say, and as a result, art can sometimes prod the masses into
action. States and authorities have attempted to use this power to their advantage in
every era, and sometimes they restricted artistic expression. Because of the
characteristics of art that seek truth and help create a collective consciousness,
authorities have always attempted to keep it under control, direct it, or exploit it in
their interests. At this point, censorship steps in to create tame art. The phrase
attributed to Bertolt Brecht in various articles describes this power of art as follows:
“Art initiates people to observe, perceive, grasp, think, criticize, interpret,
evaluate. In this hierarchy of values, one knows that while developing not only his
own personality but also the level of the society he lives in, all this will transform
into a lifestyle.”
According to the conventional definitions, censorship is the suppression of speech,
communication, or other information, on the grounds that material is regarded as
objectionable, harmful, or sensitive. It occurs in various ways and is based on
9
various claimed reasons, including protecting national security, controlling
obscenity and hate speech, and protecting children or other vulnerable groups.
Censorship can be applied by governments, private institutions, and corporations,
and may occur as a result of social oppression. Creating an artwork comprises many
successive processes, such as conceptualization, production, and exhibition.
Censorship can occur at any stage of these steps.
A democratic and liberal society is built on the protection of fundamental rights. In
this context, freedom of expression is essential. Protecting freedom of artistic
expression has reciprocal importance. It protects both the artist's and the audience's
rights. Many countries have legal protections against censorship, but none of these
are absolute. Frequently, the need to balance what could be censored and could not
be censored is accompanied by the need to balance conflicting rights. Also, there
are no laws against self-censorship. This is one of the factors influencing the lack
of follow-up, documentation, and visibility of censorship cases. Another reason is
that the definitions, actors, and ways of censorship have expanded, and most
censorship occurs implicitly. According to Pelin Başaran (2012), some artists do
not want to be associated with censorship cases because they want to protect their
relationships, and the announcement of censorship makes them more likely targets.
For these reasons, they tend to conceal censorship cases.
While investigating artistic freedom in terms of the relationship between the state
and the art world, the starting point should be centered on creativity, which is the
basis of art and the source of the state’s reaction. Throughout history, numerous
states have attempted to restrict the art and the artist under their ideology through
legal regulations. As an expression of various thoughts, art has always expressed
opposing facts in every period. And, occasionally, artists have produced works in a
context that aims to provoke the masses with a critical perspective.
As an example of the government's provocation through art, we can point to the
Degenerate Art (Entartete Kunst) Exhibition in 1937. As an extreme example of
10
state censorship, The Degenerate Art Exhibition occurred by the Nazi's requirement
of using art and censorship as a propaganda tool. Under the Nazi’s directorship,
artists could only use art as a political instrument to manipulate people. Failure to
act in accordance with the censorship was punishable by law, even fatal. The
Degenerate Art Exhibition is a historical example whose goal was to promote Nazi
values while slandering others. Also, the former Soviet Union maintained an
extensive program of state-imposed censorship. The Chief Agency for Protection
of Military and State Secrets, known as the Glavlit, was the main organ for official
censorship in the Soviet Union. The Glavlit had complete control over all written
things, from personal to commercial, even beer and vodka labels. Glavlit censorship
employees were present in every major Soviet publishing house or newspaper. The
agency employed nearly 70,000 censors to review information before it was
disseminated by publishing houses, editorial offices, and broadcasting studios.
(Ermolaev, 1997)
If we take a closer look to more recent examples of this situation in the world,
almost 300 Cuban artists are fighting for their artistic freedom because of new
censorship rules imposed by the Cuban government on artists. Performance artist
Tania Bruguera was detained upon arrival in Havana because of new censorships
and released after four days. Several Cuban artists, led by Bruguera, boycotted the
government-sponsored 14th Havana Biennial (2021) to draw attention to the
government's crackdown on cultural workers. Similar protests olso erupted during
the biennial's 2018 edition.
However, in the nineteenth century, the once-universal state's preemptive
censorship began to fall out of favor, if not completely eliminated. Today,
"censorship" refers to practices that take place with the consent and participation of
civil actors and institutions, as opposed to state oppression, which can only define
a limited part of preventing expression. As a result, censorship must be viewed as
a productive force rather than an oppressive one (Bunn, 2015). Matthew Bunn
(2015), one of the scholars working on the “new censorship theory”, contends that
11
censorship should no longer be classified as "oppressive/authoritarian" or
"productive/structural".
12
1.1. NEW DECISION-MAKERS AND CHANGING METHODS
OF CENSORSHIP
Instead of focusing on state actions to understand censorship, the "new censorship
theory" has broadened the traditional framework of "censorship" to include the
practices and actors that shape the forms of communication. This new definition of
censorship expanded it beyond prohibition and obstruction to include the aspect
that shapes the content of production processes. According to Bunn (2015) new
censorship debates involve private actors free of illegitimate coercion, arising from
voluntary interactions within civil society.
According to Judith Butler (1998), censorship occurs within the communication
processes that structure people's thoughts and make them communicable.
Therefore, for Butler (1998), censorship is a continuum. The definition of
censorship should cover processes such as obstructiveness, annihilation, or
exclusions. Censorship, and particularly self-censorship that is a by-product of all
sorts of censorship, causes confusion. After the 20th century, censorship is no
longer limited to governmental authorities. It has become an issue that different
powers come into play. Because of this situation, how and when it emerges has
become more unpredictable. Richard Burt (1998) also stated this as follows;
"While some critics have tried to keep a narrow modern definition of censorship
as state power in place in order to avoid confusing it with other, perhaps less brutal
kinds of constraints, like market censorship, others have argued that in the
postmodern present, censorship has been displaced by less visible kinds of
domination and control and that the word should be either redefined more broadly
or abandoned."
We can define censorship as a practice in which discursive applications are
maintained. Pierre Bourdieu (1991) argues, that censorship is “constituted by the
very structure of the field in which the discourse is produced and circulates”.
Because we can no longer mention just state censorship due to changing actors, it
is critical to draw attention to various censorship methods, such as punishment,
13
prohibition, targeting, threatening, intimidation, preventing, assault, illegitimacy,
and marginalization. Başaran (2011) stated that targeting, intimidating, and
threatening have become the most commonly encountered methods in the recent
decade. It is possible to talk about the censors as institutions, individuals, and
groups which favor the interests of the state, rather than the censorship that the state
played an active role in.
In the 21st century, words like ‘forbidden’ or ‘prohibition’ are insufficient to define
censorship. Censorship definitions have shifted and expanded over the last decades.
The boundaries between different definitions have blurred, and sometimes what is
censorship has become confusing. On the other hand, broadening debates about
censorship promote the sustainability of art and art institutions. According to
Freshwater (2003) "the ethical responsibilities of examining work that has been
silenced demand a model of censorship which is inclusive, rather than exclusive."
Certifying to rejection of certain forms of restriction and compression because they
do not fit into a convenient category, repeats the act of exclusion. As a result, the
redefinition of censorship should be based on the experiences of those who are
censored.
Nevertheless, all censorship definitions have expanded in the postmodern era, along
with the emergence of new networks, institutions, and marketing models, as well
as other independent variables. Today, social theorists have revisited the definition
of censorship, and they stated that it is not executed from a single source. As a
result, it has become more complex to define and identify censorship cases. Richard
Burt (1998) summarized this situation as “censorship now has no fixed place".
Under the influence of the post-structuralist theory, censorship became a field of
research, and social theorists redefined the actors and power channels. They
categorized recent discussions on censorship under the headings: reconstruction of
censorship after postmodern theory, and art market as new censor. Burt (1994) has
stated the contradictions of censorship and the need to update the definition:
14
“Critics of the new censorship tend to assume that censorship operates
ahistorically: all censors and all artists are basically the same. Even when they are
reading censorship cases within a historical narrative, cultural critics rely on
ahistorical oppositions between unchanging agents and forces: criticism and
censorship fight out a battle for social change over public space, setting public art
against privatization, corporate sponsorship, and commodification.”
Helen Freshwater (1994) stated a broader definition of censorship that reflects also
the socio-historical properties of the control, conditioning, or silencing in various
situations. According to her definition, censorship is a whole multivariate process
that occurs through the relationships between triggering agents rather than
determined acts carried out by specific authorities. Annette Kuhn (1990) stated one
of the most up-to-date definitions of censorship. Kuhn defined that censorship
appears through the interaction of various triggering forces, and she deduced it is
"a process, not an object".
“Censorship is not reducible to a circumscribed and predefined set of institutions
and institutional activities, but is produced within an array of constantly shifting
discourses, practices and apparatuses. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as either
fixed or monolithic. It is an ongoing process embodying complex and often
contradictory relations of power.”
Based on these revised definitions, we can say that the term “regulative censorship,”
which refers to the classical concept of institutionalized power, has been expanded
to “constitutive censorship,” which refers to the agents of communication and the
context within which they operate. When we analyze how censorship occurs, we
find legal constraints, public censorship, police intervention, and self-censorship.
When examining legislative regulations to censorship, we come across several
laws, such as laws against hate speech, and laws to protect others' reputations and
rights, public health and morals, national security, public order, public safety, and
territorial integrity, and so on. And they can not define the specific forms of
offensive expression. For this reason, we may see laws based on social sensitivity
rather than hate speech. Also Julia Farrington (2013) stated that about Turkey:
"... since there have been so few court cases concerning artistic expression, the
boundaries in the arts are controlled to a far greater extent by non-judicial
15
considerations including public opinion and prevailing and changeable morality,
taste, sensitivity."
Censorship due to manipulated and so-called public’s demand is most often the
result of conservative groups requesting the removal of the artwork. This can be
violent and can result from a protest, or sometimes it causes a threat to the artistic
event. Also, the media plays a critical role in influencing public opinion. We can
see that negative and provocative statements about the work elicit a reaction from
the public, and social media has made it easier to disseminate provocative news and
negative opinions. The public's perception of what is appropriate may have a
significant impact on institutions that present controversial work. However, the fact
that people or the media react to the artworks raises their visibility and reinforces
their meanings. According to Stallabrass (2004), the attacks on the artworks drew
more attention to them and strengthened their meanings:
“Such acts also challenge the commonly held view that all art is a good, a product
of sovereign self-expression. When public works of art are attacked, their setting,
purpose, and the politics of their commissioning are all highlighted.”
Also, Karl Marx indicated that censorship creates its own heroes. According to
Marx (1974):
“If the censorship law wants to prevent freedom as something objectionable, the
result is precisely the opposite. In a country of censorship, every forbidden piece
of printed matter, i.e., printed without being censored, is an event. It is considered
a martyr, and there is no martyr without a halo and without believers.”
While censorship has a short-term effect of shutting out the work, its long-term
effect may also be the creation of a myth about censored works, which facilitates
its pervasiveness.
16
1.2. MAKING CHOICES: CORPORATE CENSORSHIP AND SELFCENSORSHIP
The government's pressure on the arts may lead to art institutions seeking financial
support from private philanthropy and/or corporate sources. However, this does not
eliminate the risk of or actual obstacles to freedom of expression. Capital also has
a significant impact potential on artistic and expressive freedom. Sponsors give
money in return for some influence that expresses the view they would like to, and
it is always a matter where the money comes from. Freshwater (2013) stated on this
subject as follows:
"But how organizations can truly support freedom of expression when they are
pressured to take money from major corporates with poor human rights records is
always an explosive issue."
Confusions about what is acceptable or salable may influence artists' decisions.
They may avoid bringing up certain topics because they are afraid of eliciting public
hostility. They may avoid offending their close circle because they are afraid of
being ostracised. Freshwater (2013) also stated the effect of this situation on how
we express ourselves:
"Also self-censoring is a part of everyday interaction in which we edit out the
expression that may be inappropriate, hurtful or offensive or out of a desire to be
respectful or polite. They could feel that uncertainty about what they say to each
other, they could be not sure what is and isn't offensive, and that uncertainty means
losing out on the opportunity of understanding each other, by closing down
expression and debate on complex issues."
Likewise, curators and institution managers must make hard decisions about which
works to exhibit. While making their decision, they must gain the approval of
funders, sponsors, artists, and audiences. In this case, self-censorship may be
involved. But self-censorship can be noticeable if only there is "the decision to drop
a particular piece of work, or cut certain phrases, characters or aspects of a work is
dictated by either fear of the consequences or triggered by prejudice" (Farrington,
2013). Because each organization has its own mission, managerial decisions should
17
be based on their objectives. Limitations on specific activities are sometimes used
to silence debate on occurrences. Farrington (2013) stated on this issue as follows:
"Trustees on art boards come from a wide range of business, legal and marketing
backgrounds bringing a heightened awareness of reputational damage, relations
with governments and corporates."
According to Jim McGuigan (2002), the arts and culture sector is vulnerable to
marketization as a result of its management processes. McGuigan (2002) also
distinguished between the concepts of commodification and marketization, which
are not exactly identical to each other:
“State-funded cultural goods have become marketized to such an extent that their
circulation resembles that of the non-state sector, the ‘private’ market of cultural
commodities. Such a development constitutes a strand in the larger process of
commodification, whereby all value is ultimately reduced to exchange value.”
According to Kenan Malik (2013), "cultural diversity policies have inadvertently
fuelled institutional self-censorship". Indeed, rather than encouraging a genuine
diversity of expression, these policies may suppress free speech that may offend.
Most of the statements on this subject are the same: "in the name of diversity, you
can't say that” or “because we live in a diverse society, you can't say that”. In a
nutshell, we can say that globalization by preserving local characteristics, also
known as glocalization, places some constraints on institutions for free expression.
18
1.3. SOCIAL PARAMETERS OF CENSORSHIP
Discussions on art are determined by the dynamics brought about by social changes
within a society. According to Steven C. Dubin (1992), special circumstances that
elicit the discussion arise as a result of social divisions and individual alienation.
The reference point is what is deemed dangerous in society at a given time, and
what is dangerous is usually defined by common sense. The formation of the
dynamics within the society parallels the apparitions of the acceptance of
censorship justifications within various segments of the public.
Obscenity and humiliation are shaped by social and moral values, and, on occasion,
as a result of a class struggle. Censorship is defined by Debora Shuger (1998) as
"multicultural approaches in which it is regarded as the intimidation of
marginalized groups by the dominant culture". Gans (1999) also stated that those
with authority in culture and politics might use conflicts about obscenity to enhance
their status. And he mentioned about the class struggle as: "struggles over obscenity
in the art are covert struggles over class and status".
Harry White (1997) also analyzed censorship as a matter of class. In his analysis,
he proposed that "it is not the expression which poses the perceived threat, but its
audience". According to White, censorship is implemented for people rather than
their expressions. As Bourdieu (1991), has argued, individuals respond to a given
object depending on their cultural capital, which is usually conditioned on class:
“Among the most effective and best-concealed censorships are all those which
consist in excluding certain agents from communication by excluding them from
the groups which speak and or the places which allow one to speak with authority.
In order to explain what may or may not be said in a group, one has to take into
account not only the symbolic relations of power … but also the laws of group
formation themselves (e.g. the logic of conscious or unconscious exclusion) which
function like prior censorship.”
19
With the new cultural criticisms of social interaction, the appearance of censorship
within the systemic frameworks of everyday social relations was discussed as a
critical factor affecting what is allowed. For instance, Pierre Bourdieu contended
that "censorship can also work through the social distinctions that are created by
the symbolic relations of power and with an understanding of the laws of group
formation". Bourdieu (2007) employs the concept of "habitus" to explain an
individual's temperament, attitude, disposition, habits, and practices. "Habitus" is
formed as a result of a person's partially unconscious internalization of the rules,
values, and practices of the environment in which he/she lives. According to
Bourdieu's concept of "habitus", people are already conditioned through institutions
and language, except through conscious acts. People produce by thinking and acting
in socially sanctioned ways (Bourdieu, 2007):
“Censorship is never quite as perfect or as invisible as when each agent has nothing
to say apart from what he is objectively authorized to say: in this case he does not
even have to be his own censor because he is, in a way, censored once and for all,
through the forms of perception and expression that he has internalized and which
impose their form on all his expressions.”
It is possible to say that "habitus" offers a cultural route for the individual. This
route guides both the person's physical and mental practices. The individual also
builds knowledge about the external world through habitus.
Individuals communicate within the limits of consensus, in accordance with the
norms of the field in which they communicate. Although the state may be a driving
force behind this behavior, it is not the only one wielding power. Concordantly,
Judith Butler (1998) stated that the “mechanism of censorship is actively engaged
in the production of subjects, but it is also engaged in circumscribing the social
parameters of speakable discourse.” Power dynamics with multiple facets can result
in both explicit and implicit censorship depending on their direction. According to
Butler (1998), implicit censorship “refers to implicit operations of power that rule
out in unspoken ways what will remain unspeakable.”
20
In 'The Invention of Tradition’ Eric Hobsbawm (1992) identified three overlapping
social contracts that resulted from the industrial revolution: "those that structure or
symbolize social cohesion, group membership, real or invented communities; those
that legitimize the authority status and relations; those that enable socialization, the
inculcation of beliefs, value systems and conventions of behavior". According to
Hobsbawm, these sorts of traditions serve the submission to authority and
identification with society. On this ground, we can say that censorship is based on
the establishment of tradition. Traditions are one of the most important guides for
rulers in developing national values because they shape communities and establish
value systems and authority. Thus, they legalize societal oppression of national
values. Censorship practices are shaped by national values, and censorship is used
to shape national values.
Those who use or support censorship claim to be doing so for the public's benefit
and protection. They usually argue that censorship is necessary to protect weaker,
more vulnerable, and easily moldable communities: "the young; the less-educated,
naïve, or susceptible; certain religious or ethnic groups; a particular social class".
Gary D. Stark (2009) detailed the reasons of this situation as follows:
"Such justifications for censorship are based on two paternalistic-authoritarian
assumptions: first, that some people, being weak and corruptible, can be saved
from harmful products only by strict rules imposed by external authority; and
second, that some social elements, because of their immaturity, inferiority, or some
peculiar corruptibility, are not competent to defend themselves against harmful
ideas or influences and are thus in need of the censor’s tutelage."
The unsecured and vulnerable audiences are typically those who lack the ability to
respond: young, uneducated, or politically powerless individuals who must accept
the status of being unable to make their own decisions. Hungarian-German writer
Ödön von Horváth (1972), defined this situation as: "censorship is guardianship”,
and observed the “for guardianship, one needs police; for police, one needs the
penitentiary.”
21
The effect of fundamentalist and conservative groups is reflected in a high range of
legal practices direct or indirect. According to Sara Whyatt (2018), over one-third
of court cases worldwide against artists in 2016 were based on insult to religion and
traditional values, and some of them were imprisoned. Certainly, this is not an
unusual situation. UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, Karima Bennoune
(2017) stated that "the arts are among the best ways to fight fundamentalism and
extremism. They are not luxuries, but critical in creating alternatives, making space
for peaceful contestation" (Bennoune, 2017).
As previously stated, militant non-state actors who attack artists may inflict
ultraviolence, which is frequently carried out in public. They may intend to instill
fear in people who are not directly affected. Bennoune (2017), reported these abuses
as follows:
“There are common themes across fundamentalist and extremist abuses of cultural
rights. Such abuses often involve attempts at cultural engineering aimed at
redesigning culture based on monolithic world views, focused on ‘purity’ and
enmity toward ‘the other’, policing ‘honour’ and ‘modesty’, claiming cultural and
moral superiority, imposing a claimed ‘true religion’ or ‘authentic culture’ along
with dress and behaviour codes often alien to the lived cultures of local
populations, stifling freedom of artistic expression and curtailing scientific
freedom.”
In her article 'Promoting the freedom to imagine and create', Whyatt (2018)
mentioned Istanbul as one of the cities where censorship is severe. If we consider
other cities in this article, we notice that there is no clear East-West divide, and
metropolitan areas come to the fore:
“Artists, alongside their audiences and technical staff, are especially vulnerable,
as so horrendously shown in recent years in Istanbul, Kabul, Manchester, Paris and
elsewhere. Lesser threats, such as hostile crowds gathering outside controversial
exhibits or performances, can lead to police instructions to cancel events or remove
‘offensive’ works from display in the interest of public safety. Often, on being
threatened, venues and arts festivals themselves will withdraw works.”
Art forms frequently make use of satire. It is unsurprising that satirical works can
enrage their targets, frequently referred to as rulers, religion, or royals. Artist can
22
handle images, writings and performances that ridicule and expose prominent
political and public figures, and they may be subjected to trials, fines, and even
imprisonment. While individuals frequently have the right to compensation when
they get harmed, it is widely accepted that public figures should not be protected
from criticism (UN Human Rights Committee, 2011). Criticism of public figures'
political functions can also be considered as offense, and freedom of expression can
be restricted. Public figures can abuse these laws because of the lack of clear
boundaries. Insult laws can be very broadly interpreted, and they can be used to
silence artists and remove their works from public view. As Sara Whyatt (2018)
stated;
"A study of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) points
out that ‘there is no standard usage for the English-language terms ‘defamation’,
‘libel’, ‘slander’, ‘insult’, etc. in official and unofficial translations of national
criminal legislation’ (OSCE, 2017). So the question arises as to how such an
imprecise concept as ‘insult’ can be legislated at all?"
The Algerian sociologist and women's human rights activist Marieme Helie-Lucas
defined fundamentalism as “political movements of the extreme right, which in a
context of globalization […] manipulate religion, culture or ethnicity, in order to
achieve their political aims.” Based on this definition, Bennoune (2017) came to
the following conclusion:
"Some forms of contemporary extremism that have a particular impact on cultural
rights focus on myths of a homogenous nation, claims of ethnic or racial superiority
or purity, and populist ultra-nationalism directed against liberal and pluralistic
democracy, and indeed against human rights."
Censorship and self-censorship create a multifaceted picture of how society
controls art and expression in different ways. In contrast to traditional statesanctioned
censorship, which is direct and obvious, contemporary censorship is
managed by a variety of competing interventions, such as public safety and/or
public order, religious sensibilities, and corporate interests. These inhibitions are
frequently applied with no clear guidance or legal basis. Although censorship is
sometimes accepted as legitimate and even beneficial to social order, it usually
serves to maintain the social and political system's established norms. It has
23
profound ideological dimensions, reflecting the interests of specific groups, and it
is intimately linked to the dynamics of dominance and power.
Figure 1.1.: Xu Bing, Book from the Sky (1987–91)
Source: (Blanton Museum of Art, 2016)
An artwork, which is abstract, can assume a concrete meaning with the sense
imposed by the society and the rulers, and it can take on an inappropriate meaning.
Public opinion has the ability to ascribe meaning to artworks, and this can
sometimes be incorrect or unfair. For example, due to a misunderstanding, the work
of biennial artist Xu Bing, 'Book from the Sky', which he displayed in Beijing in
1988, became extremely controversial in China. The work was both attacked and
defended. It was a fabrication of invented characters derived from Chinese
ideograms that meant nothing. The authorities censored the work because they
associated it with avant-garde art, which was banned after the Tiananmen Square
massacre. Xu Bing specified the influence of his work on the public as follows
(2000):
24
"Handing one’s work to society is just like driving living animals into a
slaughterhouse. The work no longer belongs to me: it has become the property of
all the people who have touched it. It is now concrete and filthy."
Another characteristic of contemporary art is that it is open to interpretations other
than those provided by its creator. As in the previous example, this can be
challenging for the work of the artist. The meaning of the work can sometimes be
deliberately distorted in power struggles and perception operations. This risk is
almost entirely beyond the control of the artist or curator. The only thing that can
be done is for art historians, critics, and journalists to assess the event from various
angles in order to spark new debates and reinforce the work's meanings.
25
1.4. THE TRANSITION FROM SYSTEMATIC CENSORSHIP TO SELFCENSORSHIP
The act of self-censorship is usually a method used by the cultural producers to
survive without completely opposing the government. Many artists, researchers and
journalists continue their lives with institutionalized, internalized self-censorship.
In general, a piece of truth is not presented after conscious or unconscious selfcensorship
mechanisms, but rather a polite, cropped, and cute presentation. When
the state supports the pressures related to social sensitivities, the fear of getting
negative reaction becomes internalized and manifests as self-censorship. Prolonged
censorship may result in self-censorship. If censorship is applied systematically,
self-censorship becomes so internal that there is no need for undisguised
censorship.
In the place where there is self-censorship, unique sounds are not heard and a
homogeneous situation is formed. Burak Delier (2015), described this situation as
follows, and this definition also provides insight into self-censorship in Turkey:
“Actually, the contemporary art scene is extremely heterogeneous. However, this
heterogeneity does not appear; different attitudes and colors are not exposed. Or
no one wants to be the center of attention. As a result, the field of art is perceived
as a quiet monolith. This silence could be attributed to the recent ground drift
caused by the institutionalization of the art world. Artists may not trust their
positions, or they may think they have to lower their voices and adjust their
attitudes. But let us determine that the most important reason for the contemporary
art environment and the actors operating in this field to be perceived as
homogeneous is that they are not in sight.”
Systematic censorship can arise from social or economic resources. In the case of
social pressure, censorship can be applied due to economic concerns. When
sponsorship or marketing is involved, with a threat, these two concerns may grow
concurrently because the audience reacting to the artworks is also the recipients.
Proving the positive economic impact of arts is inevitably significant for art
institutions. In uncertain funding times, art institutions and companies find it
26
difficult to continue to promote cultural activities. The Assistant Director of the
Royal Shakespeare Company Erica Whyman, stated about this topic (Farrington,
2013): “Market forces and the political climate have made us very nervous about
making work that most people don't like.” As concerns about sustainability and
fragile economic ties combine with the long-term deprivation of collective support
for institutions and artists under pressure, self-censorship takes the place of
censorship.
27
1.5. CENSORSHIP IN VISUAL ARTS IN TURKEY
Censorship has always been a contentious topic in Turkey, as it has been in all
around the world. Many artworks are still subject to censorship, with arguments
citing obscenity, religious criticism, and the usage of separatist slogans. Changing
political dynamics has resulted in substantial changes in what censorship is and who
the censors are during the previous two decades in Turkey. Erden Kosova (2012)
stated this situation with the following words:
"In addition, the glidings on the political ground in the last two decades make the
need to evaluate the censorship issue with a fresh eye and an analytical perspective.
As a result of the sharp polarization in recent years, we have seen that not only the
units in charge of the state's security and administration, but also civil actors in the
political sphere, can make moves to narrow the expression field of dissenting
opinions. During this period, we witnessed several incidents that shook the thought
patterns that had developed around the concept of oppression. These incidents were
not limited to the state, but also non-state formations that did not tolerate difference
and imposed their own limitations and restrictions."
Kosova describes Turkey as a region where the society legitimizes government
power and this becomes almost genetic in nature. The Ottoman Empire's imperial
control mechanisms have been transferred to a new form of nation-building that has
been imposed on society, and a political environment has been formed in
militarism, nationalism, and statism.
Censorship issues coincide with dissenting opinions, such as communist
propaganda, contempt for nationalism, military, or religion, or missionary
propaganda. In Turkey's early years, the centralized administration wielded
decision-making power, and censorship laws, particularly for films, were enacted
between 1932 and 1939. The Censorship Board was made up of members of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of National Defense, and a member of the
Turkish Armed Forces (Aydemir, 2015). Also the police had the authority to
prevent the screening of films they deemed inappropriate (Aydemir, 2015). Thus,
the right to censorship has shifted from the governors to the central committee.
28
Political tensions in art emerged after the 1940s, when artists created works that
addressed social issues and human reality. (Özsezgin, 2002). During this time, Nuri
İyem, one of the founders of the 'Yeniler' group, was arrested and imprisoned in a
military prison. When he wanted to show his paintings, security forces wouldn't let
him unless they knew which pictures he would show. The censors did not allow
İyem to attend the Sao Paulo Biennial in Brazil. Furthermore, İyem's studio in
Asmalmescit was under control. Plain-clothes police officers arrived to conduct a
background check under the guise of attending a painting class. (Yetkin, 1970)
The severity of censorship and discussion about censorship in Turkey increased
during the Democratic Party (DP) era. When DP came to power, it limited the free
press regime, although its lofty promises of the 1950s and were only briefly
implemented. The social rights of press workers were governed by law of 1952, but
with a new draft law in 1954, the rights were further restricted (Bulunmaz, 2012).
The administration started a war against the opposition press. This period became
known in Turkish press history as a time when a large number of press lawsuits
were filed (Bulunmaz, 2012). The pro-government press was allowed to engage in
unlawful behavior.
Painters were still oppressed in the 1960s. Works from a group exhibition of 'Yeni
Dal' painters2 were confiscated, and the artists were put on trial in a military court.
The case ended in acquittal because the judges could not find any evidence of a
crime. In 1969, a group swooped down on an exhibition organized by İbrahim
Balaban in Adana, and they broke some paintings. Because of the suspicion of
communist propaganda, the peace symbol pigeon, village and peasant themed
compositions were prosecuted, and artists were not allowed to paint anything other
than traditional paintings (country-life, still-life etc) (Yetkin, 1970).
2 'Yeni Dal' painters: İbrahim Balaban, İhsan İncesu, Vahi İncesu, Kemal İncesu, Avni
Memedoğlu, and Marta Tözge.
29
It could be said that this pressure continued in the following years. Orhan Taylan
(1979) stated in his article what happened during the 12 March 1971 coup period
between 1971 and 1974, and afterwards as follows:
"Several civilians forced artists to remove their artworks with no court orders,
citing reasons such as only being of left-wing. The state even invented a fake "TKP
Case" to break the opposition of intellectuals, famous writers, and artists agonized
in Balmumcu. Artists who produce with sensibility and devotion became more
productive. Then, "after the period of pressure," amnesties were granted, and
prohibitions were lifted. Was the bourgeoisie giving up their fight against
progressive art? No, they just changed tactics, become a more sinister, more cruel
form of struggle. Indeed, the fervor in progressive art protests was stopped soon.
We are now entering a new era. On the radio, reactionary speeches and right-wing
threats are becoming more common. The government planned to pass laws that
would further restrict freedom of expression. Democratic institutions were closed
one after the other."
The socio-cultural landscape has changed since the 1980s, with the election of rightwing
regimes. Meanwhile, national priorities, planned actions, and social values
have shifted. Following legislative changes and the disintegration of the communist
bloc, it became clear that accusations of communism or the artist's political
preferences would not constitute grounds for prosecution in the 1990s. The
oppression on art turned to the moral and national values of Turkish society.
(Özsezgin, 2002)
In today's Turkey, it is possible to talk about the censorship of the institutions,
individuals, masses, to favor the interests of the state, rather than the censorship in
which the state played an active role after the 1980s. In current situation, Pelin
Başaran (2001) remarks the most common censorship methods as "targeting,
intimidating, and threatening". The decapitation of the Monument of Humanity,
built by Mehmet Aksoy, which President Erdoğan described as "monstrous," in
2011 is an example of targeting, banning, and marginalization.
30
Beside from that, the 27th provision of the Republic of Turkey's 1982 Constitution
recognizes everyone as a subject of the right to freedom of science and art.3
However, Beral Madra (2018) stated that "it is difficult for an artist to deal with
issues related to religion, sex, and the use of national symbols". For example, if an
artist uses the Turkish flag in a critical way, he/she may face legal conclusions.4
Nevertheless, Madra said that "artists in Turkey are well trained in finding
metaphors that reflect their critical approach."
3 27th provision of the Republic of Turkey's 1982 Constitution: “Everyone has the right to
study and teach, express, and disseminate science and the arts, and to carry out research in
these fields freely. The right to disseminate shall not be exercised for the purpose of
changing the provisions of articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The provision of this
article shall not preclude regulation by law of the entry and distribution of foreign
publications in the country.” (Turkish Constiution, 1982)
4 Examplary, in her installation titled "I Know People Like This II" Hale Tenger created
the Turkish flag with "Priapus" a touristic icon with a small head and phallus. For this
reason, a lawsuit was filed against her for insulting the Turkish flag. Tenger was acquitted
a year later.
31
CHAPTER II
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE BIENNIALS AND
CONTEMPORARY ART SCENE IN TURKEY
2.1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BIENNIALS
The term "contemporary art biennials" refers to periodic international group
exhibitions held in a specific region and expected to showcase "the most cuttingedge
art" in the global arena (Kompatsiaris, 2019). Biennials are one of the most
influential models for conceptualizing, categorizing, and exhibiting contemporary
art. However, the desire for artistic production to be universal, noncommittal,
ordered, and rational, on the other hand, creates a conundrum that artists and
curators must deal with (Filipovic, 2006).
The precedent for the biennial was established by World's Fairs, which were first
organized in the mid-nineteenth century. Countries participated in exhibitions in
London, Paris, Vienna, and Chicago to demonstrate major developments in
agriculture, industry, and handicrafts. In this context, it is possible to argue that
these exhibitions are more concerned with economic and political goals than
focusing on fine arts. (Yardımcı, 2014). The formula of the biennial was to create
a space that Baudrillard (2005) would describe as "somewhere between a carnival
and a museum". Rosa Martínez (1999), the curator of the 5th Istanbul Biennial, has
replied to the question ‘what makes a biennial?’ as follows:
32
"The ideal biennial is a profoundly political and spiritual event. It contemplates the
present with a desire to transform it. As Arthur Danto says, in a definition I love,
a biennial ‘is a glimpse of a transnational utopia’."
The Venice Biennial, which has been held since 1895, is the oldest biennial. It is
not a coincidence that biennials begin around the same time as World's Fairs. This
is the period in Europe when railway networks are built, the masses become more
mobile than ever, trade develops, display values emerge, and alternative forms of
display and vision emerge. It is also the time when Europe developed a national
classification system and used it to legitimize colonialism. This classification
system has determined how exhibitions are displayed at World's Fairs and the
Venice Biennial. (Yardımcı, 2014).
Due to the threat of lack of interest on a national scale, Venice needed to promote
itself on an international stage. The architectural texture, geographical location, and
history of the city were all suitable for the building of the biennial myth. The first
Venice Biennial was established by the Venetian City Council, and it was an Italian
Art exhibition to commemorate King Umberto I's silver jubilee. A year later, the
council decided to implement an invitation system in order to promote the work of
overseas artists as well. Thus, the first international biennial opened in April 1895,
and attracting up to 224,000 people, during Europe's colonial period. (Patel, Sunil
& D’Souza, 2018)
The Corcoran Biennial in Washington in 1907 and the Whitney Biennial in New
York in 1932 were the next biennials, but both had only a national emphasis. The
biennials expanded around the world in the second part of the twentieth century
with the establishment of 'second wave' biennials5. In 1984, Havana and three other
new biennials were inaugurated in only one year. 'Second wave' biennials fueled a
'biennial boom' in the 1990s, with a significant increase in the number of new
5 “Second wave” biennials: New biennials that organize international exhibitions within
curatorial frameworks rather than the old postcolonial pavilion display system that
emphasizes national representation.
33
biennials created. By the mid-1990s, there were more than 60 biennials on
practically every continent. (Patel, Sunil & D’Souza; 2018)
Particularly after 1990, the cultural world changed its focus away from the West,
and many exhibitions were held outside of Europe. The Sao Paulo Biennial, which
has been held since 1951, is one of the most well-known Biennials outside of
Europe. The biennial established as a part of a larger initiative to modernize
Brazilian society. It enabled Brazilian art to interact with Western art and elevated
Brazilian artists to the global art scene. Another large-scale event in Europe is
Documenta, which takes place every five years in Kassel, Germany. The first
Documenta was held in 1955, following World War II, with the goal of revitalizing
the art scene and reintroducing the country to the international agenda. Unlike the
Venice Biennial, Documenta is not organized as a series of national pavilions, but
according to Tim Griffin (2004) both biennials repeat the Eurocentric view.
The biennial model has spread and is now widely used. It is now redefining the
socio-political economics and aesthetics of "international art" all over the world.
Today, over 300 biennials are held in various locations, many of which are
unexpected. (Patel, Sunil & D’Souza; 2018)
Now, there are 281 global biennials in 51 countries listed in the directory of
Biennial Foundation, and cities frequently continue to invest large sums of money
in these biennials because they generate a lot of tourism. Every day, new biennials
enter the list for various reasons, such as increasing city visibility, revitalizing
tourism, and competing in the global arena. Various actors get involved in the
process because large scale art events have a great income potential as the total
number of visitors reaches millions. For instance, Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata, who
presided over the expansion of the Venice Biennial in the 1930s and the first
organization of the Venice Film Festival, is president of the Italian Hotel
Companies.
34
As demonstrated by the examples, while there is a "liberation" from the constants
of traditional institutions, we cannot claim that these organizations are "free" from
economic and political factors. This situation inextricably links the existence of
biennials to capital, investors, and media.
Biennials have evolved from a mere art medium to a phenomenon that shapes
contemporary art as a result of the profound effect of commercialization. Because
the artists wanted to be part of this global network, their works adapted to the
specifications, and a common language and tradition emerged. In recent years, we
see artworks created with similar tools that focus on topics likely to garner global
attention (such as feminist or postcolonial art) in order to gain global representation.
Therefore, biennials have become such a dominant element in the art world that
they have quickly become a leading format that goes beyond being a showcase of
art and overshadows it. A new genre known as "biennial art" emerged. Under the
format and logic of the biennials, site-specific installations, conceptual artworks,
and video art came to the fore.
In the 21st century, biennials and mega-shows, whether in Havana, Kassel, or
Istanbul, continue to use similar marketing strategies based on a claim of dialogue
and internationalism. According to Charles Esche (2005), curator of the 9th Istanbul
Biennial, biennials were once a source of experimental, risk-taking works, but
today, they burn themselves out with raw financial goals and big ambitions.
Unlike other biennials that try to repeat the tendencies of Western art a few
generations ago in different geographies, the İstanbul Biennial takes a postmodern
approach. Mcevilley (1993), praises the Istanbul Biennial's focus on conceptual art,
but this also means that the Biennial turn one's back on the history of local art. The
biennial exhibits an art without history that positions itself according to the West.
35
2.2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURE, ART AND POLITICS IN
TURKEY (1920 – 2000)
“Turkey is a country with deep socio-cultural divisions, and its cultural policies are
still viewed as an important tool for symbolic and ideological investment by those
in power” (Polo, 2018). As Ada pointed out, the absence of a written cultural policy
in Turkey till 2010’s did not imply the absence of such a policy (Ada, 2009).
According to Ada (2009), there are three major periods in Turkish cultural policy.
In the first, as part of the nation-building program, the state implemented a statecentered
cultural policy. According to Ada (2009), the period 1920-1950 was "the
period of powerful and central institutions." This was the foundation and structuring
period of the Republic. Attempts were made to create a classless, cohesive mass by
constructing a national identity "free of all diversity." For these purposes, the Law
of Unification of Education, the Turkish Historical Society (TTK), the Turkish
Language Society (TDK) were established. People's Houses were opened in 1932
and Village Institutes in 1940 to disseminate national culture to the general public
(Ada, 2009). In the early days of the Turkish Republic, cultural actions were
motivated by the need to build the nation. This is also consistent with Poirrier's
point of view: “the implantation of cultural policy […] is closely linked to the
building and consolidation of nation states” (Poirrier, 2011). The support for the
painters' homeland trips and the support for the performing arts followed the same
logic.
There were no restrictions on painters until the first years of the Republic, as there
were only subjects such as landscapes, still-life and portraits, but paintings on nudes
were kept hidden in the artists' own studios until the 1940s. After the 1930s, Turkish
artists began to create works that addressed social issues and human reality
(Özsezgin, 2002). In the 1940s, depicting village life and pigeons in artworks was
considered a sign of communist propaganda by the government (Yetkin, 1970).
36
There was also a restriction on works which were supposed to going abroad during
these years. Nuri İyem's paintings were not allowed to go to the Sao Paulo Biennial
in Brazil.6 The works were taken out at the last minute, and the artist was not even
notified. Nuri İyem decided not to participate in international exhibitions after this
incident anymore. Also, the curator of the exhibition, Hadi Bara, has resigned from
his duty. Other cases of censorship for artists who were supposed to participate in
international exhibitions were seen in the years that followed.
The second period started in the 1950s. Ada (2009) describes the period between
1950 and 2000 as "the period of privatization and ministries." Policies enacted
during the Republic's first quarter were repealed. Turkey joined NATO and took
the first steps toward European Union (EU). Turkishness gained a racist foundation
based on Central Asia during this period, and Islam became an identity component.
Between these years, the first Ministry of Culture was established, and İKSV began
operations with the Istanbul Festivals in 1973. (Ada, 2009).
Between these years, contemporary art was getting less and less support, but
projects promoting national identity or tourism got a boost. The role of private
cultural foundations established by banks, large corporations, and leading
entrepreneurial families in culture has grown. In 1980s, embarked on major
economic reforms in line with neoliberal policies, the Turkish economy's
liberalization and integration into global trade resulted in the formation of large
industrial and banking conglomerates (Polo, 2018). Those who contributed to
Turkey's industrialization in the 1960s began to play a prominent role in the arts
through philanthropy and cultural patronage in the 1980s. These businesses and
families organize large-scale festivals and museums. They set aside large sums of
money for sponsorship.
6 Also, İyem’s workshop was under surveillance. Under the guise of attending painting lessons,
plain-clothes police officers arrived at Nuri İyem's workshop in Asmalimescit to conduct a
background check. (Yetkin, 1970)
37
The Eczacıbaşı family is a prime example. İKSV, founded in 1973 by Nejat
Eczacıbaşı, has played an increasingly important role in the field of culture and arts.
The festivals organized by İKSV had a significant impact on İstanbul’s cultural
scene. Other private institutions that have had a significant impact on culture
include Koç, Sabancı, Kıraç, Borusan, Garanti Bank, and Akbank, through their
foundations and cultural centres.
Before non-governmental organizations such as İKSV (1973) emerged, public
authorities influential in the fields of culture were the relevant units of various
ministries. Even, among the members of the drafting committee of the 1st
International Istanbul Festival7 (1973) were also several public authorities like as
the Culture Undersecretary of the Ministry of State and the General Director of the
Tourism Department of the Ministry of Tourism. With the transfer of the various
functions of the state to economic actors and non-governmental organizations in
time, some of these units' responsibilities were taken over by associations and
foundations supported by individuals and/or private institutions. İKSV, one of the
first examples of these institutions, is still the most effective and remarkable.
7 The drafting committee of the First International Istanbul Festival: Mehmet Önder (the Culture
Undersecretary of the Ministry of State), Semih Günver (the General Director of the Culture
Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Cengiz Altuğ (the General Director of the
Tourism Department of the Ministry of Tourism).
38
2.2.1. 1980's and Afterwards: The Increasing Influence of Economy and
Companies on Art
Various reformer art movements that were stifled during the 12th September coup
(1980) regained vigour after 1983. Until the late 1980s, exhibitions were mostly
organized by artist initiatives; in the 1980s the biennials introduced the concept of
"curatorship". Art began to intersect with other disciplines such as politics and
sociology, and the term "curator" appeared also in exhibitions.
In the first years of the 1980s, new connections and institutional structures in
contemporary art emerged, which have persisted to this day. When Turgut Özal's
government took office in 1983, it immediately began the process of economic
restructuring. (Zürcher, 2000). The government's economic plan entailed improving
the balance of payments, combating inflation, and establishing an export-oriented
free market economy. (Zürcher, 2000; Bek, 2002) During this time, the
globalization and transition to the information society caused changes in Turkey as
well. (Gürsel, 1998; Bek, 2002)
This policy of opening up to international markets resulted in the culture and arts
scene as part of an effort to promote the country's culture and values. Indeed, Turgut
Özal , the Prime Minister, stated the government's cultural policy as follows:
"Culture and art are the fundamental elements of rapprochement and solidarity in
international relations, as well as in the protection and development of national
values." (Çubukçu, 1996; Germaner 1999).
After the 1980s, the art sector experienced a major shift. Like in other fields, culture
was privatized. The private sector and galleries sponsored by private banks
determined the direction of the art environment. In Turkey, the art market emerged
in the 1970s, and a new generation collectors appeared in the 1980s.
39
Following 1980, these the neoliberal economic policies resulted in the rise of new
actors in the field of contemporary art, where official support was more and more
limited. These actors continue to be the primary stakeholders in the Turkish art
market. Paul DiMaggio (1982) addresses the concept of “corporate philanthropy,”
which emerged in the art sector after the 1980s, and refers to the actors who gained
power in this field as “cultural capitalists.” According to DiMaggio's definition of
corporate philanthropy, cultural capitalists are also actors who invest in
contemporary art, establish art institutions, and support or realize major art events.
After the dissolution of the communist bloc in the 1990s, it was recognized that
accusations about the political views of artists and their expressions were no longer
valid, and the pressure on artists over this issue has worn off. The moral values that
society adopted have now become the new benchmark for judging accusations. The
focus of this decade's artworks shifted from social themes to individualism and
identity politics. Researcher and journalist Erman Ata Uncu (2016), came to the
following conclusions about the main issues of artworks done after the 1980s on
identity politics as follows:
“Clearing the way for neoliberal economic policies to prosper by suppressing all political
opposition, the decade after the 1980 coup was the most effective factor in determining the
direction of Turkey's political climate, from which derived a paradigm shift in the 1990s
art landscape. The emergence of identity politics as a response to the eradication of any
possibility of organised political opposition in the 1980s became the driving force behind
contemporary art practices' response to the core values of 1990s state ideology, such as
'nation' and 'borders'. Being an arena, where since the beginning of the Republic ideology
was both contested and developed concurrently, the art landscape witnessed this new
impetus, with the emergence of artworks engaging with concepts of nation, secularity and
religion in a challenging way, along with new modes of censorship and suppression.”
After the 1990s, biennials began to emphasize critical and polemical aspects of art.
According to Kompatsiaris (2019), the subprime mortgage crisis in the United
States in 2007 and the European debt crisis in 2009 prompted a rethinking of
Marxist theory and class politics, as well as a bold left rhetoric. As this discourse
permeated the art world, there was an increase in art boycotts, protests against
unpaid labor, and ethical concerns about art institutions. Because the biennials have
40
a neo-capitalist structure and an acquired critical attitude, they were labeled as
hypocritical and suspicious, and their sincerity was questioned.
Furthermore, after the 1990s, arts institutions became more reliant on private funds
and commercial support because they were enthralled by the benefits of
privatization. The contemporary art world became an epicenter for the spread of
neoliberal culture and its mechanisms. Various privileges and legal regulations,
such as tax exemptions granted to the private sector during the neoliberal era,
encouraged businesses to invest in art sector (Arslan, 2013). Over time, these
companies have risen to a dominant position in the art world.
41
2.2.2. Cultural policies under AKP rule (2002-2020)
The third period is the AKP's cultural policy period. İnce (2013) likens the AKP's
cultural policies to the "Mehter March8 steps", because of the incongruity of
discourse and practice, and it moves forward but frequently backward.
Yıldız (2020) stated that the fact that “the Justice and Development Party won the
elections in 2002, with 34.28 percent of the vote, signaled the beginning of a new
era in Turkey”. This period was shaped by neoliberalism and neo-Ottomanism.
According to İnce (2018), the AKP's cultural policies have three goals: neoliberal
pragmatism, state power centralization, and conservative Islam as an ideology.
In 2008, to encourage cultural patronage, the government enacted tax incentives.
(Laws 5225 and 5228, enacted in 2008) As a result, many large private museums
were established in the 2000s by wealthy patrons and private cultural foundations.
Culture has become an important component, particularly for cities that can attract
tourists (İnce, 2009).
The AKP, which won a third consecutive term in 2011, announced the start of their
"mastery period". This was characterized by "an authoritarian tone and
interventionist policymaking" in order to establish political dominance (İnce,
2018). After winning nearly half of the votes in the 2011 elections, the AKP's
reluctance to begin negotiations for full EU membership was notable. Turkey's EU
accession process has slowed, and the government has severed ties with EU
programs like Creative Europe (Yıldız, 2020).
To fill the conservative art gap, the AKP attempted to seize control by rejecting
existing modernist cultural productions (İnce,2018). According to Aksoy & Şeyben
8 The Mehter March, the Ottoman military music, is performed by walking two steps
forward and one step back.
42
(2014) AKP wants to “create yet another elitism, based this time on nostalgic and
idealized perception of Ottoman and Islamist past and its cultural artistic
achievements”. With each passing day, the state's voice grew louder from above.
Alternative voices became isolated, and state power became centralized.
Erdoğan's accusations against artists for being elitist and excluding the public began
in 2012:
"As a result of a regulation change in the City Theatres, they (artists) began to
humiliate and belittle both us and all conservatives. [...] Is art your monopoly?
Those times have passed. The era of belittling and scolding this nation with a
despotic intellectual attitude is over." (İBB, 2012)
These were the first concrete signals of the conservative "cultural engineering"
effort, which is still in effect today. According to Aksoy and Şeyben (2014), these
polarizing discourses include exclusion rather than negotiation and encounter.
These discourses assume that the public's expectations differ from the events such
as the Istanbul Biennial or the Istanbul Design Biennial. However, each year, these
biennials draw an increasing number of visitors.
According to Ada (2013), the "national culture" was emphasized in Turkey's
cultural policy in 2013. Parallel to this, the policy's components were revealed to
be the promotion of Turkish culture abroad and giving priority to countries with
which we share cultural similarities. Ada (2013), stated the cultural policy is shaped
around the term "us", and this concept of "us" is based on Turkish and Muslim
identity. If there is a "us," there should also be a "they" as Ada points out. This
demonstrates that the AKP government abandoned unifying policies, including the
Kurdish-Turkish peace process, which they initiated. The state's harsh response to
the Gezi protests in April 2013 demonstrated the sharpness of this "us" versus
"them" divide.
The Gezi Park Events, which took place in 2013, influenced the arts and culture
environment as well (Yıldız, 2020). Some artist solidarity organizations were
43
formed, though most of them no longer exist. However, it became more difficult to
organize exhibitions with political annotations. Salt Beyoğlu, founded by Garanti
Bank, was closed suspiciously in 2015 after hosting the exhibition "How did we get
here" which dealt with the transition to neoliberal policies and the military coup of
September 12th.
Following the failed military coup attempt on July 15, 2016, efforts to transform
culture accelerated. The state of emergency declared following the coup attempt
was used to shut down independent NGOs and cultural institutions (Yıldız, 2020).
In the midst of an oppressive environment, a case that demonstrated the inextricable
link between economy and art occurred at the end of 2019. Ali Güreli, the
Chairperson of Contemporary Istanbul, send a letter about Operation Peace Spring
to his international business partners. He urged collectors not to be swayed by fake
news in the international media, and wrote that the operation poses no threat to the
Turkish economy, which is accustomed to attacks, and that economic indicators in
the art market are positive (Lai & Masters, 2019). This case demonstrated how
much current political tensions have influenced the art scene.
Thus, during the AKP regime, not only minorities' voices were sought to be
silenced. Government agencies such as Diyanet frequently targeted women and
LGBTQ+ activists. Since 2016, the Pride Parade has been prohibited, and police
have also disrupted March 8 and other women's rights activists' marches in Taksim
(Yıldız, 2020). Except for Taksim Square, these marches now take different routes
in Beyoğlu and are always met with police intervention. Perhaps as a result of this
pressure, less risky subjects such as the Anthropocene, which do not directly
address cultural diversity, have been now preferred as themes for the biennials.
On June 1, 2016, the government resigned from the Creative Europe program.
Culture and art institutions such as İKSV and SALT already had ongoing
application processes. According to Diler (2016), Görgün Taner, İKSV General
Manager, stated that "the Ministry of Culture and Tourism's budget can only
44
account for 0.5 percent of the total budget of the country". Considering this figure,
the significance of programs like Creative Europe for institutions becomes clearer.
This decision, combined with the conditions of the state of emergency, hampered
constructive cultural negotiations both within the country and with the rest of the
world.
Currently, the AKP appears to have abandoned the EU ideal. As İnce (2018) stated:
"The AKP eschews any desire to reach a broader audience or to protect cultural
rights, freedoms, and cultural diversity. The conversion projects explored here
concentrate almost entirely on the built environment and economic capital, and
ignore its main actor, the community." (İnce, 2018).
For now, it seems the AKP does not offer any cultural vision other than conservative
forms of expression, and particularly since 2016, it appears that there are only
backward steps rather than forward steps of the "Mehter March".
45
2.3. CONTEMPORARY ART BIENNIALS IN TURKEY AND
CENSORSHIP (1986 - 2020)
2.3.1. International Asian - European Art Biennial (1986 - 1992)
The first art biennial in Turkey, the International Asian-European Art Biennial, was
organized in 1986 by the General Directorate of Visual Arts of the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism (Bek, 2002).
For the biennial, an advisory board was formed, which included artists, and the
Ministry and Fine Arts Directorate officials9. This committee established
relationships with the ministries of culture of other countries in order to select artists
to be invited, and recommended that the works be identified by the curators who
would also be the member of the Biennial’s international jury10.
The Asian - European Art Biennial was held in a single venue, the State Museum
of Painting and Sculpture (Anonymous, 1987). The biennial featured art trends in
the 1980s, and the exhibition was not organized around a specific conceptual
framework. Despite the biennial's 'non-conceptual' nature, the artists' personal
concerns, formal inquiries, artistic approaches, and problematized concepts were
all represented in some way.
9 1st International Asian – European Art Biennial (1986) Organizion Comiettee: Mehmet
Özel, İhsan Yüceözsoy, Halil Akdeniz, Erdoğan Aytun, Ergün Erişen, Hüsamettin Koçan,
Ertuğrul Özkök, Kaya Özsezgin, Hasan Pekmezci, Tunç Tanışık, Zeynep Yasa Yaman.
10 The International Jury of the 1st International Asian – European Art Biennial:
Doğan Kuban, Minor Mumtaz Bhrani, Madoun Akli, Dominique Gauthier, Anna
Imponenta, Ali Atakan, Anikon Kovacs, Zbigniew Taranienko, Tudor Pavu, Muhammad
Musa Asselim, Boğdan Krsic.
46
Political impacts and censorship cases have been encountered since Turkey's first
ever biennial, 1st Asian-European Art Biennial (1986). In order to clarify the
current situation, it is necessary to briefly mention the reasons underlying these
cases chronologically.
The work of the Polish painter Jan Dubkowski, which was exhibited in the Ankara
Painting and Sculpture Museum hall within the scope of the 1st Asian-European
Art Biennial in 1986, was removed upon the order of the president of the period
Kenan Evren after his visiting the exhibition. In response to this, Turkish artists
showed their reactions and wrote a statement condemning the ban. Likewise, the
chairman of the jury of the Biennial, Doğan Kuban's statement to the newspapers
was in the same direction. Despite all these reactions, the final decision of the
Minister of Culture Mükerrem Taşçıoğlu was to remove the painting. The minister
grounded his decision on the rules of the laws on obscenity like the president.
Figure 2. 2: Jan Dubkowski's censored work (1987)
Source: (1st Asian - European Art Biennial Catalog, 1986)
47
1.3.2. İstanbul Biennial (1987-2000)
Contrary to the common knowledge, the International Istanbul Contemporary Art
Exhibitions were Turkey's second biennial event, which was organized by İKSV in
1987. İKSV, which organized festivals in the fields of performing arts and cinema
such as music, opera, ballet, and theater, was the founding body of the 1st
International İstanbul Contemporary Art Exhibitions in 1987.
The objectives of the Istanbul Biennial were stated by İKSV as: exhibiting
international cultural events; introducing Turkish artists to the international art
scene by establishing a relationship between the international art environment and
the art environment in Turkey; and documenting international art exhibitions with
catalogues.. (İKSV, 1987; Bek, 2002)
Each Istanbul Biennial differs in terms of the organizational/curatorial model
applied, in terms of the structure of the selection committee and the venues used.
National exhibitions were displayed in the first two biennials with the goal of
promoting the countries' arts. The national pavilions have been opened in the third
biennial, and the curators from the respective countries chose the artists. Starting
from the 4th International Istanbul Biennial, the national pavilion model was
abandoned and replaced by a mixed model understanding that included all
countries. (Bek, 2002)
Another example of censorship cases during this period was the trial of Hale Tenger
for her artwork that presented at the 3rd Istanbul Biennial in 1992, 'I Know People
Like This II'. Tenger's artwork purportedly referenced the Turkish flag, and it
composed with the Greek god of fertility Priapus (with an oversized phallus) and
multiple statuettes of the 'three wise monkeys'. The artwork generally attributed to
current political realities of Turkey, such concepts as indifference. Tenger was tried,
after columnist Beşir Ayvazoğlu mentioned her artwork in his column in the right48
wing daily newspaper Türkiye. Tenger stood trial for violating the penal law and
insulting the Turkish flag. Even though Tenger was acquitted of these counts, she
refused to exhibit her work again, due to the impact of the long trial process upon
her, as Uncu (2016) stated.
Figure 2.2.: Hale Tenger, I Know People Like This II (1992)
Source: (Salt Research Archive, 1992)
While "exporting art", the national reference becomes a significant brand, a key
difference indicator. As a result, as in other markets, we are confronted with a global
market that emphasizes cultural identities in the art market and national identities
in the global environment. According to Jameson (1991), rejecting modernism's
patterns and standards and replacing them with the production of "new" and
"different" constantly does not change the existing order as an extension of the post49
industrial production order, but only legitimizes it. Avşar Karababa (2011) came to
the following conclusion about art production in the early 2010s:
"In recent years, prominent artists on Turkey's contemporary art market have
revealed products that deal with issues of identity. Indeed, being a "opponent" is a
requirement for art when questioning national identities, religious, ethnic, and
sexual identities. However, paradoxically, local artists are often introduced in the
global markets with their 'Turkish' identity."
Although the Istanbul Festival by İKSV has been running since 1973, the
emergence of the Biennial as a separate event after 1987 is due to more than just
the initiative reaching a certain level of maturity during these years. The effort to
make Istanbul a remarkable destination for global capital plays an important role in
this process. The split between the historical peninsula and the Galata-Pera region
coincides with a shift in consumption patterns and cultural consumption during that
time period. (Yardımcı, 2016). Among the targets of İKSV which are written on
paper in the institutions' first years, the promotion of the city comes to the fore:
"to contribute to making Istanbul a cultural and artistic capital; which is the capital
of two empires, the home of two major religions, the crossroad of the East and
West with a history of three thousand years... contributing to the promotion of
Turkey's culture, established on a unique cultural land loaded with the remnants of
various civilizations."
There was a challenging environment when Turkey's first biennial was held for the
first time in 1986. There were talented artists as well as newly wealthy businesspeople
eager to support the artists. But there had been just another coup. With the
following sentences, Madra (2018) conveyed the hopeful but also challenging
atmosphere of those years:
“From 1923 on, during the establishment of the Republic, art was a tool for
modernization under the patronage of the state. The big transformation started in
the mid-1980s, when state capitalism turned into liberal capitalism and postmodernist
transformation began. The business sector became more important for
the development of the fine arts than the state. The business sector wanted to have
some kind of visibility as they developed their place within global capitalism.
Therefore, the biennial was a tool. Turkey had a very difficult political situation in
the 1980s; […] it was still not a stable democracy at that time. The important
international artists were not so willing to come to Istanbul and contribute to
Turkey’s visibility.”
50
Although the Istanbul Culture and Art Foundation's building is in Beyoğlu and most
of the festivals are held in the nearby neighbourhoods, the exhibitions were held in
different areas within and around the historical peninsula of Istanbul for a long time.
Behind this decision was the creation of exhibition spaces that are appropriate and
unique, emphasizing the city's historical characteristics. As the Biennial directors
and former head of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Cultural Affairs Department
Şenol Demiröz frequently mentioned, the city had a critical exhibition venue
problem. In terms of technical features, there are very few available spaces
compared to the urban area and the population. In this sense, in the early years of
the Biennial, the interaction of the venues with the artworks was prioritized over
the interaction of all the activities with the city.
The geopolitical position of the city has been the most important aspect in the
development of conceptual frameworks for the İstanbul Biennials. The curators
have held exhibitions that make cultural and political references based on Istanbul's
status as a bridge between the East and the West. (Bek, 2002) This emphasis on
geopolitics is shared by other biennials in Turkey.
51
2.3.3. Biennials outside of İstanbul (2006 – 2020)
The Biennial, which had previously been restricted to Istanbul until the 2000s,
began to expand to other cities following these years, and biennials began to be held
in other cities of Turkey as well. During this period, Sinop (2006), Antakya (2007),
Çanakkale (2008), and Mardin (2010) biennials were established, and all three of
them are still held today. The common feature of these three cities is that they are
located in the border cities of Turkey and they all have a multicultural structure.
Çanakkale is located on Turkey's western coast on the shore of the Dardanelles
Strait, Sinop is located in the country's northernmost point by the Black Sea, and
Mardin is located on the border with Syria, in the country's southeast. One of these
cities, Çanakkale, has risen to the top of political agendas, owing to the newly
opened 1915 Çanakkale Bridge, and has been the subject of rent disputes and
political gain.
The International Sinop Biennial, which held its first edition in 2006, was defined
as “an international project Sinopale, in the context of local development, draws the
civil society together with the purpose of building dialogue through culture and arts,
within the framework of the artistic production based on a model sharing”.11 The
aims of Sinopale are stated as "to working at urban, national and international levels
in order to make citizens of all ages perceive anew their own living spaces with a
vision for the future, reflect on urban problems, share the historical collective
memory and organise it by means of artistic production, and to create a better social
living space". (Sinopale, 2006)
The Antakya Academy Association organized the first International Antakya
Biennial in 2007. Turkish and Bulgarian artists collaborated under the Biennial's
theme "Travel in Time". The Biennial's goal was to strengthen ties between the two
11 What is Sinopale?: https://sinopale.org/sinopale/what-is-sinopale-2/
52
countries. The Biennial, which took place in Antakya in October 2007 and Plovdiv
in April 2008, was indicated as a way to make Antakya more known, as well as to
keep the transnational dialogue alive (Arkitera, 2007). In the 2nd Antakya Biennial
(2010), the number of countries represented increased to eight with the participation
of artists from Turkey, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Germany, Lebanon, Palestine,
Croatia, and Kazakhstan. The third and the last biennial was held in 2012, with the
theme "One Person in a Multicultural World".
The foundation of the Çanakkale Biennial was formed by the international
exhibitions held within the scope of the Troia Festival, which has been organized
by Çanakkale Municipality since 2006. The curators of the biennial, Denizhan Özer
and Seyhan Boztepe organized two exhibitions as part of the Troy Festival prior to
the launch Biennial: “Dreams of the Past” (2006) and “Border Line” (2007). As a
result, the first International Çanakkale Biennial was held in 2008. The Biennial,
established with individual efforts, grew and was sustained by a civil initiative
known as CABININ (Çanakkale Biennial Initiative). The International Çanakkale
Biennial attempted to make Çanakkale visible in the international art and culture
environment, as well as to engage in mutual interaction and communication with
the citizens.
The first Mardin Biennial, titled "Abrakadabra," was held in 2010. The Biennial’s
goal is indicated as "to bring momentum to the city through art, artists, scholars,
students and people from different cultures, to create new mediums of sharing art
and to bring new dimensions to the definition of artistic center of attraction, and
last but not least, to place Mardin at the center of artistic venues through a series of
important exhibitions".
Since their establishments, these three biennials have expressed the same
problematics with different words. In this context, it is possible to say that their
aims are similar. Like other biennials, these three biennials aim to make the
respective city visible through the use of art.
53
When discussing censorship in biennials, it is necessary to mention a significant
censorship event that occurred in these peripheral biennials. Another instance of
censorship occurred at the 3rd Çanakkale Biennial (2012). An unidentified person
or persons cut a painting by Sevil Tunaboylu in the wall installation "From Dreams"
at the 3rd International Çanakkale Biennial with an unidentified cutting tool. Ten
days after the exhibition ended, Sevil Tunaboylu learned from a friend that her work
had been destroyed and that the biennial management had not informed her until
then. Censorship is encountered from two perspectives: first, the work has been
attacked; second, the attack is hidden from the artist.
After being attacked, the work was displayed in its damaged state until the end of
the exhibition. Tunaboylu (2013) expressed the biennial directors' attitude as
follows:
"During these meetings, Seyhan Boztepe informed me that I would be
compensated for my work and that I would no longer be required to decipher the
issue. Beral Madra, on the other hand, said that if I react to the attack on my
painting, the organization will be in a difficult situation, and you will become an
artist who wants to attraction."
Another significant point to note in this case is that when a notch is made in the
work, its meaning changes. The work's meaning has been flipped 180 degrees by
exposing it in this manner. As a result, it may be interpreted as hostility toward
Kurdish guerrilla women. Tunaboylu (2013) described his dissatisfaction with the
situation as
"a hateful notch on a Kurdish guerrilla woman! It was on display for several days
as if it belonged to me. So I shot that lady. The work of art is also removed from
its context in this case, and it's still breaking."
54
Figure 2.3.: Sevil Tunaboylu, Imaginative (2012) Installation
Source: (Çanakkale Biennial, 2012)
According to Tunaboylu (2013), after the criticisms, director Boztepe, said, “the
delay in informing the artist was not made for any reason other than the mistake
caused by the decision-making problem because of the shock of the event and the
intense period of that time” He apologized by saying:
“I do not want the beauties of the organization to be ignored, as can be seen from
the images shared via social networks and media. I hope this event does not
overshadow the purest and most natural intentions of the biennial as well as the
artists, the curators, and the entire organization.”
55
These apologies in this case clearly demonstrate that, as in most censorship cases,
there is an attitude that prioritizes the institution's continuity. When this institutional
attitude persists, it leads to self-censorship. This case brought up the questions
frequently discussed in censorship cases today; "should the institution continue
despite censorship" or "should we defend completely uncensored art, despite the
risk of the institution not continuing?"
56
2.3.4. A Native and National Biennial Initiative: Yeditepe Biennial (2018-
2020)
Although the Yeditepe Biennial is not organized in the field of contemporary arts
like the other biennials that this thesis intends to investigate, it reveals important
information about the AKP government's cultural policies and the type of art it
seeks. This biennial is organized under the auspices of the Presidency of the
Republic of Turkey. The Yeditepe Biennial demonstrates the AKP's support for
conservative, local, and national art and craft. Historical and touristic sites were
chosen as venues in order to benefit from tourism and thus increase the number of
visitors (Yıldız, 2020). Furthermore, rather than modern or contemporary art, the
Yeditepe Biennial featured contemporary interpretations of traditional Ottoman
handicrafts such as miniature, calligraphy and illumination.
The goal of the Yeditepe Biennial is to "show the point at which our traditional arts
have reached today, as well as the influence of tradition in the works produced in
the new art branches of the new age" (Yeditepe Biennial, 2018). Also Serhat Kula
(2018), the curator of the first biennial, states that the Biennial's goals are to "share
the exhibited art around the world," as with other biennials, and to "contribute to
the state's art policy".
President Erdoğan's speech at the Biennial's opening reveals how contemporary
artists perceive, as well as which art is targeted by the government:
"Turkey has long been a prisoner of a sterile and narrow perspective based on a
specific period and pattern in art, culture, and history. This mentality, which is
more Byzantine than Byzantine, more Western than Western, but in any case at
odds with national values, did not value the legacy of our forefathers." (Erdoğan,
2018)
He also referred to these artists as Western supporters, as well as supporters of the
Gezi Protests, who excluded those who did not support the Gezi Protests:
"We are well aware of how these circles target our artists who oppose the Gezi
protests. [...] We are currently working to make the Atatürk Cultural Center
Turkey's number one opera house. Those Gezi supporters, as you know, shouted a
57
lot. Shout as loud as you want, we pull down the AKM. [...] They did the same to
our artists who traveled to the region to support the Olive Branch Operation12 as
they did in Gezi. They exhibited the same immorality and banditry that they did
when they lynched our artists back then." (Erdoğan, 2018)
All of these discourses demonstrate an attempt to distinguish between "your artist"
and "our artist." And the disapproved artist is one who opposes the government.
The discourse aimed specifically at supporters of the Gezi protests.
As Begüm Özden Fırat (2018) stated, the Biennial claims to explore different
corners of the city. The biennial route, on the other hand, consists primarily of the
spaces discovered and used by the Istanbul Biennial in the 1990s. In addition to
previously used historical sites such as the Hagia Sophia Museum, which now has
been turned to a mosque again, the Turkish and Islamic Arts Museum, and Gülhane
Park, structures such as the Nuruosmaniye Cellar, which was opened to visitors for
the first time, were also used for exhibitions.
Despite a large financial support, the biennial failed to attract the attention of
national and international media despite its goal of increasing the government's
presence and visibility in the art and culture scene (Yıldız, 2020). Furthermore, it
can be said that the logic of the global biennial contradicts with traditional arts. The
biennial audience attends the biennials to keep up with the global art agenda.
12 Operation Olive Branch, also known as Operation Afrin, is a military operation
launched on January 20, 2018 by the Turkish Armed Forces and the Syrian National
Army against Afrin district of Aleppo province, and to the city of Tel Rif'at in the Azez
district.
58
2.4. MANAGERIAL AND CURATORIAL PRACTICES IN THE
BIENNIALS
The Istanbul Biennial can be an example to demonstrate the relative freedom
obtained by being trustworthy. Factors such as public trust, the presence in the
international arena, and the fact that it has provided high added value to its investors
and the country since its inception, may allow the Istanbul Biennial to operate more
freely. In 1997, a participant of the 5th Istanbul Biennial, curated by Rosa Martinez,
Oleg Kulig had not been subjected to any sanctions while performing ‘The Future
Family’ by living with dogs, which may be abhorrent to traditional Turkish family
values. According to art critic Osman Erden (2011), Kulig would most likely not
have been able to exhibit his work as freely if his work had been brought to the
agenda. Although he was invited to the prime news on Star TV, one of the
mainstream television channel of Turkey, he was released to the public as a dog
lover and funny man rather than an artist who believes that traditional family
structures will collapse.
However, in general, the relationship networks that art institutions are trying to take
root have stifled the possibility of organizing politically free exhibitions.
Furthermore, given the major ruptures in the political scene since the 2000s, it is
possible that also the Istanbul Biennial may not be free of these concerns now. The
strategic boundaries of the biennials force the curators to select risk-free artworks.
Looking back, we see similar attitudes in the art world. As Hannah Ellis Petersen
reported in the Guardian in 2017, several Turkish artists involved in 15th biennial
spoke about the difficulties of working in Turkey. They said, politics was present
in their work, but in subtle, layered ways. Despite their claims to be politically
democratic and pragmatic, the biennials employ highly selective quality criteria as
well as individual-oriented and competitive tools (Gielen, 2019). According to De
Beukelaer, such implicit policies are "methodologically nationalistic" (De
Beukelaer, 2017; Otte & Gielen, 2018).
59
According to the İKSV, the aim of the International Istanbul Biennial is to create
an interactive environment in the field of visual arts between audiences and artists
from various cultures. Yardımcı (2014) cites the following:
"Since 1987, the applied model, the structure of the selection committee, the way
the artists were chosen, the locations, and the themes have all changed numerous
times. The national exhibitions that took part in the first biennials gave way to
exhibitions created with themes determined by international curators."
In a similar vein, Gielen stated that, "The biennial is the ideal example of cultural
homogenization driven by the West on the one hand; on the other, it is the ultimate
place for artistic pluralism and cultural diversity." (Gielen, 2018)
These exhibitions' ambiguous policies are far from coincidental, and they are
critical to their long-term viability and operation. For the sustainability of
contemporary art in Turkey, it is critical for art institutions to stay on the side of the
government, avoid meddling, and maintain a safe distance. However, as Kortun
(1992) stated in a letter to Murat Belge during the 3rd Istanbul Biennial, "one of the
responsibilities of art is to make a slit, to dare to show, and to reveal". Tom Seymour
(2019), asked in his article, how Turkey's art scene to deal with dictatorship, and
still successfully host a commercial art fair. He replied this question as follows:
"Answers lie at the 16th Istanbul Biennial and Contemporary Istanbul, both of
which opened to the public on 14 September. For Nicolas Bourriaud, the French
curator of the Istanbul Biennial, the answer appears to be to focus on the relatively
safe and collegiate topic of climate change – ‘the landscape of the Anthropocene’,
as Bourriaud terms it."
Also according to art critic Louisa Buck, who reviewed the Biennial for BBC radio,
the artists were "reining in quite a lot" on the political criticism in comparison to
previous editions. She described this ecological theme as "problematic" because it
was conveniently distant from "human rights, freedom of expression, and
everything else that is actually going on in Turkey right now."
Alex Marshall (2019), wrote in the New York Times that the Biennial's relatively
nonpolitical focus certainly relieved the organizers. And what the chairperson of
İKSV, Bülent Eczacıbaşı, said in an interview ratifies Marshall's point of view:
60
“Phew!,” when I heard the theme. It was chosen by Mr. Bourriaud, who in turn had
been selected by an international advisory board, free of interference. It was a
relief, as I felt the people in Ankara wouldn’t have any objections.”
The biennial of 2017 "A Good Neighbor" was found more critical and political by
the world press. The Istanbul Biennial that year did not shy away from controversial
topics such as the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, but it also included coded references
to the domestic situation. On the other hand, it is possible to argue that this situation
has had no effect on Turkish artists. The artworks that mention authoritarianism,
resistance, and feminism are mostly about other countries and were created by
international artists. Hannah Ellis-Petersen (2017) wrote the following to the
Guardian:
"In recent years the Istanbul biennial has grappled with subjects such as the city’s
anti-authoritarian protests in Gezi Park in 2013 and Europe’s migration crisis. In
2009 the biennial’s manifesto said ‘politically neutral art is a means of policing the
art world’. Scandinavian duo Elmgreen and Dragset say biennial offers a nuanced
perspective on the country, but Turkish artists admit need to censor their work."
Elmgreen and Dragset acknowledged a lack of anti-government slogans or artwork
incorporating overt activism, but they denied they applied self-censorship. They
stated that "contemporary politics has infiltrated in more subtle ways," and that the
biennial as a whole provides a more nuanced perspective on the country than is
typically provided by international media. Elmgreen also stated the following:
“It’s a little flat if art gets reduced to being a direct response to very populist
politics, and very simple answers on very complicated matters. I don’t like the
situation in Turkey but I also don’t think the mindset ‘we have an issue, we better
call some artists here and they can just respond to it like a jack-in-a-box’ is helpful
either.”
The curators distinguished between the art world and geopolitics because art does
not use the same simplified populist language that politicians and the media do.
Nonetheless, as Hannah Ellis Petersen reported to the Guardian in 2017, several
Turkish artists involved in the 15th Istanbul Biennial referred to the complexity of
working in Turkey, and they resurfaced politics in their artwork, albeit in subtle,
layered ways.
61
Another key aspect to consider while planning exhibitions is the actors' flexibility
and adaptability. The adaptability and flexibility of artists and curators are critical
in terms of "harmony" in artistic production processes and exhibition of artworks.
The curator may intervene in the artist's work in collaboration with the artist during
the creation or exhibition of an artwork. In this case, if the artist refuses to accept
intervention or direction, they may not want to work with them again. The curator's
flexibility also necessitates avoiding conflicts with the agencies or actors who
financially and otherwise support the exhibition. Even “independent curators” are
not independent, because the exhibitions they curate are funded by certain capital
organizations, individuals, and institutions. As a result, the curator must adjust to
features such as whether or not the content they create is political, or whether it is
offensive to the upper crust of society. Also biennials are events that allow for the
coexistence of "high" and "low" culture, or "elitist" and "popular" (Kompatsiaris,
2019). They can pacify art by attempting to reconcile avant-gardism's destructive
and elitist morality with public's popular taste. The constraints imposed by those
who fund the exhibition limit the curator's freedom. Thus, the curator goes through
a process which may end with an self-censorship mechanism. If the curator and/or
artist object to these constraints, they may be censored. In other words, when there
is no self-censorship, there is censorship.
62
2.5. THE IMPACTS OF BIENNIALS ON THE COMMERCIALIZATION
OF CITIES
Biennials heavily depend on the support local governments in Turkey, as do all
cultural events in the country. It is nearly impossible to organize large-scale events
such as biennials without the support of the local government, municipality, and
public administration. It is not just a matter of providing financial resources. The
allocation of venues that make exhibitions appealing is only possible with the
cooperation and authorisation of local authorities. Every biennial also reaps the
benefits of local sponsors and volunteers to some extent. The purpose of the local
support received is more important than the amount. Biennials may also benefit
from the knowledge of locals about local features and history. Workshop practices,
such as those seen at the Sinop Biennial, are an example of this.
Cultural sectors are becoming increasingly important in countries' development
strategies due to their high added value potential. When discussing the relationship
between the city and the biennial, the question of how art has become established
as a PR field due to its characteristics is raised.
After the İstanbul Biennial became "free of charge" in 2013, the number of visitors
increased exponentially, and the interest of viewers in the Istanbul Biennial has also
increased every year. The Chairman of İKSV Bülent Eczacıbaşı (2015) stated as,
“while the number of spectators of the Biennial was 40,000 in 1999, approximately
340 thousand people visited in 2013, and this figure has increased rapidly over the
past two decades.” And the most recent 16th Istanbul Biennial, held in 2019, was
visited by 451 thousand people. These figures highlight the significance of the
Biennial due to the amount of movement caused by the event.
Biennials and other art events are not autonomous agents of the art world. They
have to seek out sustainable economic resources, which necessitates organizing
63
their internal and external production relations and locating reliable sources of
funding within the framework of global neoliberal cultural policies. In addition,
Kompatsiaris (2014) stated the following on the subject:
"Even when they pursue criticality, they also need to demonstrate their role as city
promoters or as sites where networking and portfolio-career building are
reproduced in order to somehow engage with the necessary capital flows. If not,
they run the risk of losing parts of their economic support or go bankrupt. If they
decide to operate as social critics, they usually have to bear in mind that their
critique should not disturb or push the limits to the extreme."
According to Christian Marrazi (2011), capital formation has been transformed
within the productive patterns of post-Fordism to drain added value from the
‘‘immediate living labour, the wage labour of the factory’’ since the 1970s. In
Fordism, the removal of added value was mainly limited to the manufacturing
space, whereas in post-Fordist accumulation it spread in the reproduction of capital
in the touristic and cultural sectors. In this regard, the overmultiplication of
biennials can be associated with the expansion of experience economies, such as
the economization of creativity, but also with capital mobility and deterritorialized
information and communication flows. Thus, cultural events and exhibitions are
increasingly used by funders and local governments as "vehicles of economic
generation or as 'quick fix' solutions to city image problems" (Quinn, 2005).
As a result, cultural policies tend to prioritize economic growth over artistic value.
Certain social and cultural issues, such as participation, democracy, education, or
civic potential, are mostly presented as trimmed in these events. Kompatsiaris
(2014) stated in this context:
"an art event bears the promise of adding symbolic capital to respective locales and
of turning previously industrialized downtown zones to attractive business
opportunities for retail investors and real-estate developers."
Biennials are committed to a cosmopolitan perspective that articulates the artistic
and cultural particularisms of the host cities, a property that transforms them into
agents of what De Duve (2007) refers to as "glocalization." With the rise of
postmodernism since the 1980s, the "local" dissolves into global identity
64
(McEvilley, 2001). For these reasons, biennials include artworks that often are not
for sale, such as large-scale installations, temporary projects, and interdisciplinary
works. As a showcase, the biennial city should be colorful, bright, transparent,
clean, vibrant and safe; it should have an exoticism that draws attention as well as
comfort, infrastructure, and security systems that make the public feel safe.
In cities striving for globalization, arts and artists play new roles. As the variety of
international art events, exhibitions, biennials, and festivals grew, so did the number
of institutions in the cultural scene.
According to Böhme (2017), biennials are "activities aimed at giving things, human
beings, towns, and landscapes an appearance or look, endowing them with a
radiance or glow, an atmosphere, or producing an atmosphere within ensembles".
Biennials create an environment that is both privileged and highbrow, despite their
criticism of bourgeois implications. Looking at this instrument of alteration and the
environment it produces can bring to light how production in these grounds informs
how the artworks for biennials are chosen. According to Kompatsiaris (2019) in
these rituals, certain productions take part on the grounds deserving of aesthetic
interpretation, and they are reminiscent of aesthetic capitalism’s publicity politics.
The way artworks are displayed in exhibitions may be similar to how consumer
goods are displayed. Yardımcı (2014) stated the following about the exhibition
venues:
"The entrances are specified; the venue is artificially and temporarily arranged, the
flow of visitors is directed, and the entire space is dedicated to the consumption of
colorful commodities or thrilling experiences."
The biennial cannot be considered in isolation from political strategy and economic
prospects, urban transformation projects, and global art market networks. The 14th
Istanbul Biennial's budget (approximately 3.3 million Euros) was raised through
the creation of various resources, such as private sponsorships, funds from foreign
cultural institutes, and in-kind support (Eczacıbaşı, 2015). Yardımcı (2014) stated
the following about this issue:
65
“The race to organize festivals and biennials and host star curators and artists is
motivated by the belief that such events will draw the attention of global public
opinion and capital to the city. Festivals and biennials are viewed not only as art
events, but also as engines of globalization and economic revitalization. For this
reason, festivals and biennials are associated with the interest and influence of the
city elite.”
Aside from their theoretical and curatorial statements, which see biennials as places
for enabling politics, the complexities of their mission are frequently addressed in
exclusionist terms. Harutyunyan et.al. (2009) argued in their article on the 11th
Istanbul Biennial13 that, despite all its Brechtian rhetoric, the biennial remains a
capitalist spectacle that serves the interests of sponsors:
"Their view holds in short that effective political action must take place outside an
event such as a biennial, as the latter due to the structural affinities with neoliberal
modes of development, post-Fordist work paradigms and the institutionalized,
conservative artworld is unable to weaken the system."
Such contradictions between the biennials' ideological and economic conditions
ultimately restrain any convincing and emancipatory politics. Three well-known
critics have made similar statements on the subject. According to Harvey, "events
that emphasize cultural difference or focus on contemporary art are also used to
create the theatrical atmosphere." Beral Madra (1992), the director of the first and
second editions of Istanbul biennials, stated: "Politicians enter into the process of
using the culture as a mediator, and private sector as a billboard, media as a
sensational material." And biennial artist Utku Varlık (2001) said "the biennial
system, which uses the economic support of international companies and the
ministry of cultures very well, has become a light board of the capitalist world."
The growing urban population allows cultural diversity in cities of the global South
and local cultural elements to be added to the global market. Festivals, which are
part of this transition, are seen as one of the most significant steps toward cultural
unification with the West. While festivals take this step, they do not reject the
13 Event and Counter-Event: The Political Economy of the Istanbul Biennial and Its
Excesses (Harutyunyan, Aras, & Goodfield; 2011)
66
heritage of the nation-state. The fact that governments and corporations intervene
in the arts, according to Julian Stallabrass (2004), is a clear situation:
“In the UK it was the explicit aim of the Conservative government led by Margaret
Thatcher to transform the uncomfortably political character of contemporary art by
making it more reliant on market forces. Likewise, Ronald Reagan personally
supported corporate involvement in the arts from, among others, oil and tobacco
companies.”
Because of the instrumentalization of culture, biennials find it difficult to highlight
diverse voices and create critical positions. The theorist of post-modernism
Jameson (1992) emphasized the transformation of culture's social function:
"The capitalist system has destroyed the semi-autonomy of culture. However, this
does not mean that the relative autonomy that culture had in the early days of
capitalism was erased. This situation originates that culture expands in every area
of society. Multinational capitalism has received and colonized culture and every
area of daily life through culture. This means that the critical distance and the
possibility of a cultural policy based on this distance disappear."
Similarly, the economy, which serves as the backbone of both the state and the
public and private institutions, has an influence on the visibility of some artworks.
The biennials' audience development practices are not independent of the economy.
Because each biennial plays an important role in the city's marketing, and this
criterion plays a significant role in the structuring of the biennials. As a result, a
category known as "biennial artist" was born. Ali Artun (2018) describes the
biennial artist's as: “the biennial artist turns into an employee who represents the
institution's policy.”
Within the biennial's creative elements, a caste structure exists among the curator,
consultant, and artist. According to Feyyaz Yaman (2003), the founder of Karşı
Sanat, this system has an indirect power consensus that pushes the artist into
conformism and makes him/her passive. This situation forces most artists to create
similar works. Turkish artists, according to Mehmet Aksoy (2003), have the same
reactions as American artists because they grew up in the same neighborhood.
67
While the social, geographical, and ethnic phenomena that shape the artist's
personality fade away, globalized works that resemble one another emerge.
According to Short and Kim (1991), a city life colored by international events is
one prerequisite for surviving the city wars with success, as are a revitalized city
center, a moderate business world, and telecommunication networks: "Art
exhibitions, galleries, museums, fairs, and festivals attract not only tourists but also
global capital, the ruling class, and the skilled workforce." Vasıf Kortun (1992)
described the economic dimensions of biennials in an interview with Hami Çağdaş
in a manner similar to Short and Kim:
"Our aim is to organize the most comprehensive and rip-roaring work in the most
economical way. At the same time, you are struggling with both the Sao Paolo, the
Sydney and the Venice Biennial for the same money."
Belgian curator Barbara Vanderlinden (1997), on the other hand, emphasized in one
panel held as part of the 5th Istanbul Biennial that the reason for holding an
exhibition in a certain place is "significantly political":
"Where an international exhibition will be organized creates a new map in terms
of the city that sponsors it. The names of these places are included in the name of
the exhibitions, while a cultural and political status is added to the city and
country."
Governments are aware that cities are increasingly competing for investment on a
global scale. Stallabras (2004) explains the forces driving the extraordinary
proliferation of biennials as follows:
"The most successful cities must secure, along with economic dynamism, a wide
variety of cultural and sporting fixtures. The biennial is merely one arrow in any
would-be global city’s quiver – or, as often, in one that aspires to that status –
drawing in a particular class of tourist (some of them extremely wealthy) and
hopefully entertaining those residents who have the power to leave."
However, emphasizing tourism returns limits the role that biennials can play in
democratizing cultural production, consumption, and representation processes.
68
Many old slogans that are thought to appeal to global public opinion, such as "a
bridge between continents," "an intersection for civilizations", "the metropolis of
empires" or "a cultural mosaic" are used for the Istanbul Biennial’s promotion.
Biennials reveal how the cities were introduced; sterile and far away from chaos.
In this situation, where poverty, impropriety, and crime are kept hidden, artworks
about these issues, particularly about the host country, cannot take place. A
statement by Hou Hanru (1997), who was the curator of the 10th İstanbul Biennial
in in 2007 and holds a series of exhibitions in rapidly growing and changing Asian
cities, clearly puts the art-world interest to biennials:
"These new global cities represent the erection of new economic, cultural, and even
political powers which are bringing about a new world order and new visions for
the planet. What is the most important thing is that with their own specific legacies,
these cities become new and original spaces in which new visions and
understandings of modernity, and new possibilities of ‘Utopian/ dystopian’
imagination, can be elaborated and reinvented."
Cities commercialize themselves in similar ways in order to compete with each
other, and biennials and festivals based on the same canon become uniform in this
purpose. Still, these events also have their own local dimensions. This situation was
described by Maurice Roche (2000) as follows:
“They create symbolic and real mediums, junction and destinations in a world of
flows. In a world where space-time is stuck, its calendars and periodicity rebuild
the space and re-establishes the distance. In a world that is culturally identical and
where spaces become interchangeable, they create temporary originality, a
difference, a locality in time and space.”
While the art world is focusing on the politically liberal aspect of rhetoric, and
promoting the benefits of cultural diversity or hybridity, the dream of global capital
has been fully reflected in exhibitions. As a result, art discourse, institutions, and
works were quickly created to reflect this. Julian Stallabrass (2004) states this
situation as follows:
“Throughout the 1990s biennials and other art events were founded across the
globe, while cities built new museums of contemporary art, or expanded old ones.
The activities of these museums became steadily more commercial as they adopted
corporate ideals, establishing alliances with business, bringing their products
69
closer to commercial culture, and modelling themselves less on libraries than shops
and theme parks. At the same time, contemporary art has moved into closer contact
with selected elements of a mass culture that has become so pervasive that this turn
is sometimes confused with a new engagement with the real life.”
There is no coincidental similarity between biennial art, but rather a functional
relation. Aesthetic elements are incorporated in the general manufacture of
consumer goods. The manufacturers of such items subsidise the arts. Also, Beral
Madra (2003), the director of the first two Istanbul biennials, stated the following
about the perception of cultural productions that resemble commercial goods:
"The museum is no different from the industrial enterprise. There will be launched
consumer goods from one, and artwork and culture from the other; and it will be
marketed to this world."
Recently there is a reaction from some critics that they are not critical and activist
enough especially for the exhibited works in the Istanbul Biennial. These criticisms
are generally due to the fact that the selected curators mostly draw attention to their
activist aspects and while making more risk-free choices for the biennial. Benjamin
Buchloh (1997), in his compelling statement on contemporary art, stated as follows:
“the long trend for politics to move from the public to the private realms was
reflected in an art that focused on artists’ identities and the way these could be
constructed through assemblages of conventional signs. It was more comfortable
to explore these concerns than the intractable issues of social class and indifferent
political institutions.”
In his essay 'Biennials Within The Contemporary Composition,' Terry Smith
describes the situation as "biennials can even appear as an antidote to severe social
and political concerns". Biennials have been used to alleviate post-conflict societies'
crises while also reviving depressed economies, putting the biennial regions on the
'global art map.' Biennials boost property values, stimulate inward investment for
job development, and attract top talent. According to art historian Charlotte Bydler's
essay 'The Global Art World, Inc.' art world has long been charmed with "travel,
cosmopolitanism, and internationalism". Biennials have contentiously evolved into
"spectacular forums" for the interchange between internationalism and nationalism.
70
Furthermore, J.J. Charlesworth (2017) stated in his article "The End of the
Biennial," that the biennials fail to satisfy criticism and political sensitivity because
of their political and economic connections. It is also worth noting that biennials
emerged in the aftermath of a major political or economic crisis.
"That, of course, is the dilemma for the biennial format today – that while it
remains a reputation-engine for art’s economy the radical aspirations of curators
push the big international exhibition to activate, facilitate and empower its host
community, to be more political. But those aspirations are a delusion, since while
curators can delegate their authority to various ‘creative mediators’, the large
international exhibition is inevitably a top-down structure which, by definition,
cannot be reformed. But it does mean that what that art is, and who chooses, can’t
be left to the judgment of one individual."
Finally, when we consider the relationship between capital and censorship, a
question arises: can resistance art take part in institutions funded by corporate
capital and its dominant powers? For depicting actual resistance in art, the French
philosopher Badiou (2010) recommends the term "subjective determination": “In a
militant art, ideology is a subjective determination, not of an artist, but of a process,
or struggle, of resistance”. The affirmative nature of the İstanbul Biennial's
principles transforms the disadvantages and dubious outcomes of resistance art's
struggle into its goals. In his foreword to the 7th Berlin Biennial's book "Forget
Fear," Artur Zmijewski (2012), the curator of the 7th Berlin Biennial, stated how
art's "enormous potential for conceiving and creating a reality or practicing politics"
is stymied from being realized. There were various aspects revolving around artworld
practices, mechanisms, and ideologies. What stood out in this foreword was
his statement that "the effort to position art as a safe space kept the works in the
biennials out of the discussion":
"For years now, we have been witnessing a process of incapacitation whereby
artistic radicalism is transformed into velvet critique. This process can be linked to
the emergence and growing influence of the profession of a curator and the
overwhelming institutionalization of art. The curator has become a traveling
producer of exhibitions, one who speaks of social issues in the soft language of
pretended engagement. The lack of discussion is explained as granting artists
complete freedom, as if engaging in discussion were a form of captivity. The
71
aversion to politics has turned art into a kind of panic room, a refuge from politics
and ideas. How much hesitation, how much angst there is among artists, that they
might make a mistake and fail to meet the standards of the institution or the
expectations of the market. The institutionalized art world, which above all
represents its own interests (fundraising, surviving among the institutional
competition), strips the artists of their radical and formative political potential."
Thus, biennials that clean up the aftermath of political crises, heal social wounds,
encourage investment, and generate employment try to project the image that life
exists here. As a result, it is expected that these sterilizing events will not highlight
the failings of societies and institutions. The works censored at the biennials are
also works or situations that will disrupt this sterile environment.
We could also give a recent example of art being used to heal a political crisis in
Turkey. The merger of art institutions to revitalize tourism in Istanbul, which had a
difficult year due to terrorist attacks in 2016, reveals the instrumentalization of art.
In order to attract more visitors, many art organizations, such as Contemporary
Istanbul and Sakıp Sabancı Museum, joined forces in 2017 and moved Istanbul Art
Week to September, when the Istanbul Biennial was scheduled.
72
2.6. EFFECTS OF SPONSORSHIP ON ART
Julian Stallabrass (2004) analyzed the relationship between free trade and artistic
freedom as being “the economy of art closely reflects the economy of finance
capital.” In 1986, Philip Morris ran an advertisement that stated, “it takes art to
make a company great,” and included examples of art that they had supported in
order to improve legitimacy with the public. Corporations strive to be creative,
cultural, and philanthropic, and they consistently use art as a tool to achieve these
goals. Private institutions also will be referred to as socially responsible if they
continue to support cultural and artistic activities for an extended period and
consciously as part of their “corporate culture”. While sponsors develop their
corporate identities through the development of their brands or the promotion of
their products, they also contribute to consumer awareness in this direction and the
growth of public recognition.
Holding a sponsored exhibition, is directly involved in the instrumentalization of
art by corporations. According to Chin-tao Wu (2005), sponsorship is the "effort to
acquire cultural capital as a way of achieving economic goals". There are
idiosyncratic codes and meanings of sponsorship to art for companies. Companies
add artistic sensitivity, progressiveness, and innovation to their images in this way,
with the goal of gaining public dignity. Sponsorship is an important component of
a company's public relations and marketing efforts. The goal of the sponsorship is
to publicize the company's name, establish a charitable identity for itself, and have
a voice in the city's economy. According to Yardımcı (2014), the expectation of the
capital groups from sponsorship cooperation is the consolidation of the company in
the economy of the city, rather than the hot financial gain.
Galleries usually deal with sponsors on exhibition basis, providing 'in-kind support'
to meet needs such as technical equipment, printed material, accommodation,
and/or beverages. The majority of exhibition managers agree that sponsors "do no
73
harm" to the exhibitions; sponsors only appear on exhibition announcements and
do not interfere with the artistic tendencies of the galleries or the content of the
exhibitions.
Sponsorship is considered as an alternative to state support, as well as means of
avoiding state censorship. Many companies can put exhibition organizers in a bind
because they view sponsorship as an advertising tool, and they may be confronted
with institutions attempting to place advertisements in the exhibition area.
According to Esche (2005), "big capital makes its impact feel much more intangible
and subtle." In the event of a disagreement, however, "negotiations are always very
polite, and the ground of compromise is found with the sacrifice of both parties."
However, the biennial processes and the negotiations that take place in this process
are surrounded by the logic of the private sector.
Sponsorship refers to corporate-speak regarding arts subserviences in order to
legitimize the firm as innovative, as well as a vital component of the art audience.
These corporate-speak is a part of the process of opening up the art world to
commodity economy operations. Accessibility and more ordinary forms of
commodification merge with exhibitions, at least partially, through commodity
fetishism. The purpose of these implementations in the biennials is effective public
relations. The risk here is that the relationship with the 'other' is limited to the
consumption of an aesthetic production, otherness, historical/social conditions.
As both Wu (2001) and Rectanus (2002) stated, as much as 70 percent of exhibition
costs in Europe come from private sources, and they benefit the most from the
publicity associated with these events. Sponsorship and other long-term
collaborations with art institutions provide obvious and measurable benefits to
companies. There are additional advantages to having a charitable image.
Furthermore, large-scale sponsorship may politically pressure art. Stallabras (2004)
stated this image-building process as follows:
74
"There is an appeal to potential customers who are otherwise hard to reach: art
audiences are richer and better educated on average than the general public, and
are thus highly valued by companies. [...] This is the case, for example, with BP’s
long alliance with the Tate. Similarly, the German tobacco company Reemstma
sponsored Documenta IX to promote West cigarettes through limited-edition
posters and packs; examples appear in the back of the catalogue to the event. [...]
Wu gives a striking account of the machinations of the cigarette company, Philip
Morris, a major sponsor of the arts in the US, which opposed – unsuccessfully, as
it turned out – proposed anti-smoking legislation in New York by threatening to
withdraw all of its arts support from the city."
When the state retracts its support from the culture and the culture is being
privatized, art owes its existence to the private corporations where it is presented to
the society. If no sponsors are found, the exhibition may not take place. However,
this is a risky merger for arts organizations. Avşar Karababa (2011), states the effect
of sponsors on the art scene as follows:
“Sponsorship also means official approval of art. The fact that a company is the
sponsor of an exhibition means that it ratifies the exhibition and its works.
However, while the system embraces its 'opponent' and takes it under its protection,
it makes it meaningful and cleansed from its content.”
Corporations have certain criteria to be persuaded to finance artistic events. Projects
that do not meet these criteria are unlikely to be funded. Concerning this issue,
according to Rectanus (2002), the main criteria are whether the cultural event is
compatible with the interests of the company's core markets and whether the
exhibition is likely to receive beneficial media exposure. Julian Stallabrass listed
the outcomes of this situation as follows:
“an emphasis on the image of youth, the prevalence of work that reproduces well
on magazine pages, and the rise of the celebrity artist; work that cosies up to
commodity culture and the fashion industry, and serves as accessible honey pots
to sponsors; and a lack of critique, except in defined and controlled circumstances.”
Sponsorship can also have an impact on the selection and production of artworks
because it frequently requires eye-catching work that addresses acceptable topics.
According to Stallabrass (2004):
“Sponsorship also tends to produce spectacular, costly works, in which expense is
a manifest quality. This conspicuous consumption simultaneously validates artist,
75
museum, and sponsor, and is another force driving large-scale installation, video,
and other high-tech displays. Furthermore, when large corporations sponsor or
make alliances with an art institution, they expect – given their own global reach
and expectation of economies of scale – to engage with an transnational culture.”
Multiculturalism is frequently used as an argument by arts organizations. This
increases the dependability of arts institutions and is also a preferred reason for
corporations that will provide financial support. Martha Rosler (1997) reached the
following conclusions about the multicultural approach of art institutions and their
borders:
“Each position is strategic for soliciting financial and social support, and the term
accountability is a shibboleth of public art institutions. People in the lower ranks
of museum hierarchies are now often motivated to adopt humanistic goals of
inclusivity, but they are operating primarily by the light of abstractions rather than
lived experience, since museum professionals are drawn primarily from the social
elite. […] One result is an art world version of multiculturalism, necessary but
sometimes painfully formulaic, which produces a shadow constellation of the
identities of the wider society but without the income spread. Such adaptations are
relatively transparent while things are running smoothly, but under stress the
presumptions are easy targets for ideological sniping from the political right. What
is at stake, beyond ideals, is financial support, whether to keep one's job or to
garner enough funding, in house or externally, to mount particular exhibitions.”
Kültigin Kağan Akbulut (2019), brings the following comment regarding the
criticisms that Nicolas Bourriaud remained apolitical in relation to the subject he
chose for the 16th Istanbul Biennial “Anthropocene” (2019). In line with the
curator's philosophical attitude, he suggested to see artworks dealing with current
environmental issues. There are numerous artworks depicting waste piles, the Third
Bridge, polluting factories, and field research. Akbulut stated, “we can see the basis
for the Biennial's criticism of political apathy, particularly in the international
press.” According to him, the biennial did not explicitly aim at the capitalists.
Beral Madra (2018) also stated that the biennials are linked to the art market. There
are always partnerships and collaborations with market actors, collectors, galleries,
and dealers. They are inseparable. But a curator must present and advocate for his
76
or her ideas in such a way that they remain independent, unaffected by the art
market manipulations.
If major art investments are advertising spaces for sponsoring institutions, we can
conclude that problematic subjects end up not being included in biennials because
no negative content is displayed in advertisements and institutions and curators may
experience ‘internalized self-censorship’ as a result of this. Based on this issue,
Akbulut (2019) deduces the following:
“Efforts to avoid even the most minor annoyance in art and cultural institutions
linked together by large corporations and banks carefully purge the programs of
anything that could be interpreted as "resistance aesthetics" or ‘politics’. Political
correctness and the common tone that everyone accepts demonstrate that a
foundation of compromise is being attempted to be built on. The most common
issue that this ground generates is, of course, the spread of self-censorship as a part
of the production process.”
Due to a very low proportion of the public budget allocated to culture in comparison
to European countries, corporations in Turkey have sought to fill this void in order
to have a significant impact on the art economy. Sponsors, for example, contribute
over 70% of the İKSV festivals’ budget. Sponsorship reaching these dimensions,
as well as large capital groups establishing their own museums, art galleries, or
publishers over time, indicate a significant shift from public to private on urban
culture. These glidings also affected the Istanbul Biennial.
In an interview Nejat Eczacıbaşı, the founder of İKSV, stated that İKSV is Turkey's
first institution to be funded on a large scale by sponsorship. The budget for the first
Istanbul Festival was 8.5 million TL. Ticket sales covered just 32 percent of all
revenues. Even in 1973, when sponsorship was not very frequently practiced,
wealthy individuals and corporations contributions also 35 percent of all budget.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Tourism and Promotion, and the
Turkish Touring and Automobile Association’s (TURİNG) contributions
represented 31 percent to the overall budget. In other words, sponsors covered over
30 percent of even the first festival's budget.
77
The wealthy families' philanthropy and contemporary art activities, as well as the
initiatives of the individual (collecting, for example) associated with these families
and capital groups in the art sector, express a societal process that increases the
value of the artwork. The price of the work is expected to rise when it is exhibited
by a non-profit art institution founded by these families (which are often funded by
other companies owned by wealthy families). As a result, actors relevant with these
well-established family groups and corporate philanthropy arts institutions are
conceptualized as “value-creating subjects” in contemporary art (Olgun, 2019).
According to Olgun (2019), value-creating subjects are divided into two categories:
members of capitalist families who actively take part in corporate philanthropy and
arts institutions and, members of the boards of directors and curators of arts
institutions associated with these families.
Wealthy philanthropists play a crucial role in providing artists with various
financial and moral opportunities to continue their artistic production. The visibility
of an artwork in philanthropic art institutions, as well as its inclusion in the
permanent collections of these institutions, enables the artist to advance in his/her
career. This situation, increase the value of artwork by allowing the artist to increase
their capital and acting as mechanisms to confirm the artist's speciality. (Olgun,
2019)
Those who shape the contemporary art market are no longer just those who assign
monetary value to artwork. The formation of the contemporary art market is guided
and evaluated by wealthy philanthropists, non-profit institutional structures, and
capital groups. The inclusion of artworks in exhibitions at Arter, Istanbul Modern,
etc. and the biennials increases the artist's visibility and predicts a situation in which
the value of their works increases paralelly.
78
2.7. SOLIDARITY NETWORKS AGAINST CENSORSHIP IN TURKEY
Although censorship is always a hot topic in Turkey, the number of censorship
solidarity networks is insufficient. The majority of previous solidarity initiatives
have ended. It should be noted that solidarities have closed down, not because there
is no longer censorship, but because they are indifferent.
One of these formations was the monthly discussion program Açık Masa (Open
Table)14, which Mürüvvet Türkyılmaz began organizing at DEPO15 in 2010. The
Açık Masa discussion program featured invited artists, curators, collectives, critics,
and social scientists. The role of art in gentrification processes, art in the public
sphere, curatorial practices, censorship in art, and art feminism relations were all
discussed in the speeches. However, Açık Masa is no longer active since 2013. The
issues discussed in the interviews have not decreased since that date, but rather have
gradually increased over the years.
Another solidarity initiative was the e-mail group 'sanattasansür,' which was active
during the same years as Açık Masa. Although the communication platform, where
artists share their censorship experiences and exchange ideas on their censorship
experiences, sparked a lot of interest in the beginning, it didn't result in much
activity in the end. This could be due to the belief that simply announcing the cases
will not solve the problem, and it is possible to easily obtain news or share the
opposing parties' opinions on various social media platforms. This e-mail group
was also where Sevil Tunaboylu preferred to discuss the censorship she
encountered during the Çanakkale Biennial.
14 https://www.depoistanbul.net/event/acik-masa-istirak-programi-2010-2011/
15 “DEPO is a space for culture, arts and critical debate in the center of Istanbul. Depo
focuses on practices which deal with historical and contemporary social issues.
https://www.depoistanbul.net/en/about/
79
Another organization, Kamusal Sanat Laboratuarı (the Public Art Laboratory), was
established in 2011 with the aim of “organizing actions and processes, producing
spaces and experiences that favor labor, freedom, life, nature, and people”. The
laboratory held public meetings every week. It produced both reflexive and longterm
actions. Kamusal Sanat Laboratuarı started their work in July 2011 with the
action it took during the Istanbul Biennial. The laboratory, produced replicas of the
cards prepared and circulated by İKSV for the promotion of the 12th International
Istanbul Biennial and distributed them during the opening ceremony of the
Biennial. When the replica cards were scraped, a letter was discovered, revealing
the connections between the biennial sponsor, the Koç family, and the September
12, 1980 military coup. This action was followed by other actions criticizing
capital's instrumentalization of art and censorship.
During the same time period, Siyah Bant (Black Band)16, which began broadcasting
in 2012. It is a platform where censorship cases in Turkey are being researched,
documented, and discussed through and, censorship resources, and censorship
examples from around the world are shared. The aim of Siyah Bant, is to inform the
public about censorship, to discuss methods of combating censorship, and to raise
awareness that censorship in art is a violation of the right to freedom of expression
defined by international human rights conventions and the Turkish constitution.
Siyah Bant has held speeches and published publications on these topics. Their
publications on censorship are available both in print and online.
Susma Platformu17, which began operations on September 1, 2016, is a platform
established to combat censorship, self-censorship, prohibition, obstruction,
isolation, defamation, and lynching cases faced by communities and individuals
working in the fields of culture, art, and media. The introduction statement of Susma
Platformu, states that it will "especially support local artists and journalists far from
16 http://www.siyahbant.org/siyah-bant%E2%80%99in-amaci-hedefleri-ve-faaliyetleri/
17 https://susma24.com/hakkimizda/
80
big cities" and that "it is open to the participation of media members, artists, and
organizations from various ideas".
Only Susma Platformu is still active today among these formations. The platform's
financial sustainability may be the most important reason for the continued
existence of Susma Platformu. Every year, the Platform receives funding from
various institutions. For the first 15 months, the platform was supported by the
MATRA program, of the Dutch government. Its activities were continued with the
support of the European Commission's "Civil Society Networks and Platforms
Support Program" between 1 December 2017 and 30 November 2019, under the
joint management of the P24 and Article 19 associations. They have been
continuing their activities with the project "Stronger Voices Against Censorship
and Self-Censorship" with the grant they received through the Hrant Dink
Foundation Civil Society Strengthening Grant Program since December 15, 2019.
Solidarities that do not have full time salaried employees may fade after a while
because of the other works and hustle of the volunteers and executives.
81
CHAPTER III
THREE CASES FROM TURKEY
Creating an entirely independent and uncensored exhibition, with the support of
local governments and sponsors with changeable political balances, is always one
of the most challenging issues for curators to deal with. This challenge stems from
the political nature of contemporary art, and biennials encounter it every two years.
In the biennials, the process is usually carried out behind closed doors until the
exhibition, and each stage is meticulously carried out until the exhibition is
removed. As a result, censorship cases are rarely documented at biennials. Despite
this, three censorship cases in Turkey have been reflected in the news and have had
a significant impact. Censorship issues and consequences differ in these three cases.
These cases, which occurred between 2005 and 2019, also demonstrate how
sensitive and risky issues in contemporary art have evolved.
82
3.1. CASE 1: 9th INTERNATIONAL ISTANBUL BIENNIAL "FREE
KICK" (2005)
Hafriyat organized the "Free Kick" exhibition as part of the 9th Istanbul Biennial
(2005), which was part of the "Manufacturing Defect" exhibition and talk series.
Two distinct cases of censorship occurred in the 'Free Kick' exhibition. The first
being the withdrawal of Burak Delier's work, 'The Guard' and the second is the
confiscation of the catalogs of this exhibition, curated by Halil Altındere.
3.1.1. Burak Delier’s non-exhibited Artwork “Muhafız”
Given Burak Delier's statements and the case's progress, the removal of 'The Guard'
can be interpreted as a case of collective self-censorship. Although there is no
definition of collective self-censorship in the literature, Delier (2005) defined this
case as "collective self-censorship" in his article. Delier had two works at the
exhibition; one was a photograph, which the artist did not give a name but mostly
known as "The Girl with the EU Flag", the other was also a photograph titled "The
Guard" which depicted a back-turned figure holding a cleaver and staring at the
guard in front of the Dolmabahçe Palace.
83
Figure 3. 6: Burak Delier, Guard (2005)
Figure 3. 7: Burak Delier, Untitled (Girl with EU Flag) (2004)
Source: (Free Kick Exhibition Catalog, 2005)
Vasıf Kortun (2005) wrote in the Biennial's newspaper "2Yılda1" that after
expressing his concerns to Halil Altındere, Delier himself withdrew the work. He
stated that this incident paved the way for further discussion on the work. Today
'The Guard' has gained meanings that it would not have had if it had been displayed.
Kortun's (2005) statement clearly expresses further his concerns and fears caused
by the work in a way that supports Delier's thoughts:
"Delier's work was crashing into a blunted area where debate could not take place,
where flags were unfurled and guns were fired. All of the complexities of
addressing the issue within these limited patterns, especially since one work will
capture both the exhibition and the entire Biennial. I believe this retreat is critical
in order to discuss this work, the status of an artwork, and democracy."
84
According to Delier (2005), some of the artists in the exhibition also suggested that
the work be removed. The artists' concerns coincided with Kortun's concerns: "with
the growth of the size of the work, its impact increases, its semantic shifts when it
comes side by side with other works, propaganda for violence etc." Furthermore,
he states that some of these artists said that withdrawing his work would militate in
favor of him, and they made such suggestions to protect him. When he consulted a
friend about publishing a news about his work in order to avoid this pressure, he
received an answer that the editors of the newspaper believe it is better not to report
in the newspaper in order to protect him. In short, Delier was surrounded by a soft
but strong pressure environment that urged him to withdraw ‘The Guard’ and be
prudent.
As Delier pointed out, the decision was made by more than one person, and the
reason was a pervasive atmosphere of fear that extended beyond individuals.
Indeed, such a deep and widespread concern is the result of attacks on exhibitions
that took place close to the biennial. Three weeks before the opening of the
Biennial, on 6th of September 2005, a nationalist group attacked an exhibition at
Karşı Sanat, which was commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 6-7 September
massacres, and an exhibition attendant was beaten. During the same time period,
attendees at İstanbul Bilgi University's "Conference: Ottoman Armenians During
the Decline of the Empire" (September 24, 2005) were attacked. Orhan Pamuk, the
Nobel laureate, was on trial for art 301 of the Penal Code because he said in an
interview with Das Magazine, "we killed 30 thousand Kurds and 1 million
Armenians" (Anonymous, 2007)18, and he was attacked by nationalists at the court
exit. Even a few years later, in 2007, these ultra-nationalist threats and fear reached
a climax with the murder of Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of the Agos newspaper.
All of these indicate that the goal of the collective pressure to self-censorship is to
keep the exhibition going, in order to reach the closing date safely. As Delier (2005)
18 2005-12-16 Lawsuit Against Author Orhan Pamuk – Review. Retrieved from
https://www.ab.gov.tr/p.php?e=37429
85
stated "so the implicit logic in this action says that a work is sacrificial in order to
preserve the whole."
According to Delier, self-censorship occurs when artists and art institutions cancel
their activities in anticipation of any possible attack before censors, repressive, and
assailants take action, and what triggers this preference of the self-censor is their
own or their environment's experiences. The dominance of fear in our souls leads
to a survival psychology in which the inconvenient is suppressed for the sake of
maintaining the event, and the relationship of this social-psychology with the logic
of power results in sacrificing minority.
The tendency in the cultural world to bring various sub-identities and others to the
fore places cultural producers in an environment where they are not the main subject
and indicates a tortuous, indirect, subtle way of speaking to be followed. In the
biennials, these indirect speeches frequently overlap with artistic speech. "The
Guard" did not fit the Biennial’s conciliatory tone; it was rather speaking directly.
Through his work "Guard," Burak Delier (2005) explains the aesthetic criteria that
uncodified but internalized in an institutionalized manner for artworks eligible for
biennials:
"Because "The Guard" was perceived as too challenging, direct, rude, and direct,
it created tension and was collectively self-censored. In this case, fear is pushing
us towards a devious subaltern language, in an environment motivated by the
promise of happiness and freedom - democratization, recognition of different
identities and positions. It was not deemed sufficiently devious, cunning, and
artistic, and as such, it was a work that negates rather than affirms, as it sought to
directly discuss the violence here today, the source and legitimacy of the violence,
and to make a critique. It was snarky because of the negativity, lack of
recommendation, and reference to a current disaster."
This is also due to the fact that the biennials serve as a showcase for their cities.
The works that focus on the problem contradict the logic of this showcase system.
Another example of this situation, perhaps worthy of parenthesis, is the debate over
the 16th Istanbul Biennial (2019). The Biennial, which focused on the
"Anthropocene" as a theme, was criticized for not focusing on the problems in
86
Turkey, despite the fact that there were numerous problems with this issue. As a
result, biennials end up more focused on other unrelated issues.
According to Delier's response in the in-depth interview, it seems that he was not
concerned about a threat posed by his artwork until he noticed a reaction from his
surroundings. Delier stated that he never thought he should retract his artwork:
"One or two days before the opening, I said you can remove it and I left the spot."
(Delier, 2022). As a result, it would not be incorrect to refer to a totally manipulated
process in this context. It is however significant that the act of
dismantling/removing the artwork is performed by other artists rather than Delier.
Delier delegated the decision about his artwork to other artists because he was
dissatisfied with it or wanted to share responsibility for it. Delier stated:
"I did not retract it. For 15-20 days, I resisted the insistence of some participating
artists, the curators' solutions, and the horror scenarios. They wanted to remove it;
I quit a few days before the opening." (Delier, 2022).
Artworks that were withdrawn prior to opening have been unlucky in gaining
support from the media and the general public. Perhaps this is due to the perception
that the works that were removed previously were not exhibited as a result of a
consensus. During the in-depth interview, Delier described the process by which he
sought media support as follows:
"I attempted to share the incident in Hürriyet, but the editors preferred to shorten
the censorship news and focus on my other work (The Girl with the EU Flag) by
saying, 'If we can't focus specifically on The Guard, we can't protect you.'" (Delier,
2022).
We can conclude from this that the media and biennials share a common acceptance
of what is displayable and what is not. In this case, both consider the same artwork
to be risky and believe it is appropriate to display the other artwork. Both the media
and biennials aim to reach the general public. This could be due to the fact that they
address the public and a populist approach results from this standpoint.
Delier (2022) also said, "The Free Kick exhibition was presented to the curators
and the Institution before it is exhibited". Given that the other artists and curators
87
are familiar with the artworks in the exhibition, we can conclude that the
unexpected agendas that occurred just before the exhibition opening had a greater
impact on the cancellation decision than the artwork itself being found to be
inappropriate. Delier goes on to say:
"I suppose this work went unnoticed, or concerns arose after the political climate
was tense at the time. A photography exhibition describing the 6-7 September
events at Karşı Sanat was attacked 20 days before our exhibition." (Delier, 2022)
Delier also expressed his feelings about the case in the following ways:
"It was pointless to keep the artwork because they (other artists) were constantly
attempting to intimidate and persuade me to remove it. Who or what would I
defend against? You shouldn't stand together when you talk about 'freedom of
expression' to artists." (Delier, 2022).
The fact that there is still no consensus on what constitutes censorship, particularly
in contemporary art, can also affect the behavior of actors involved. Therefore,
clearly identifying the censorship can be effective in reducing censorship cases.
Delier (2022) said that despite the time passed, he thinks that if the process happens
now, he would probably behave in the same way. The lack of organized support
among artists today causes artists not to find enough strength to stand up against
censorship. Looking at the current situation, we can predict that the Guard will most
likely not be chosen for the exhibition from the start.
88
3.1.2. The Confiscated Catalog of the Free Kick Exhibition
There was also another censorship case in the 9th İstanbul Biennial related to the
'Free Kick' exhibition. The exhibition catalog was confiscated because of "the
Guard", as if to corroborate those who wanted “the Guard” to be withdrawn.
Furthermore, not only was "The Guard" the subject of the case, but there were two
other works with images of the Turkish army that differed in meaning and attitude.
The catalog became the subject of a lawsuit because the expressions assumed to be
criminal could spread through the media (catalog).
Within the scope of the Biennial, the exhibition curator and artist Halil Altındere
organized a photography exhibition that brought together 34 artists in the
"Hospitality Zone," which took place in Antrepo 5. Antrepo was devoted to
lectures, film screenings, and two exhibitions: "Projeckt: Production Fault", curated
by the artist collective Hafriyat, and "Free Kick", curated by Altındere. The "Free
Kick" exhibition was described as being provocative by the international press: "the
works are more provocative, tackling issues of political repression and Turkey’s
ongoing aspirations to EU membership" (Urena, 2005).
A court decision was made to confiscate the catalog of the "Free Kick" exhibition
on charges of insulting the army. The decision was overturned because it was
"against democracy," but an investigation was launched against the exhibition's
curator, artist Halil Altındere, with a request for two years in prison under Turkish
law's article 30119. The catalog was distributed free of charge as part of the
exhibition and sold out on the opening day (Ergün, 2005).
19 Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code makes it illegal to insult Turkey, the Turkish
nation, Turkish government institutions, or Turkish national heroes such as Mustafa
Kemal Atatürk. It went into effect on 1st of June 2005.
89
On 13th of October 2005, the Beyoğlu 2nd Criminal Court of Peace ordered the
confiscation of the catalog in accordance with the Press Law, following a
'anonymous' denunciation. According to the verdict, the TSK was humiliated in
three photographs with the themes of soldier, rank, and uniform in the catalog.
Additionally, it was stated in the verdict "it is understood that there is their bad
intentions such as Turkish soldier should be attacked regardless of the conditions
and circumstances." One day after the verdict, the police went to Altındere's office
in Beyoğlu and searched the catalog in order to seize it, but they couldn't find any
catalogs because they were all sold out on the opening day (Ergün, 2005).
Figure 3. 8: Demet Yoruç, Hulk (2004)
Figure 3. 9: Murat Tosyalı, Obedience (2004)
Source: (Free Kick Exhibition Catalog, 2005)
The exhibition has been criticized by art critics such as Antmen for lacking the
necessary aesthetic abstraction, implying that it is vulgar and too direct, as cited by
Karaca (2011). Indeed, Altındere is aware of his lack of metaphors, and as Karaca
90
(2011) states, Altındere consciously chose this "in order to reach every segment of
society" and "to involve everyone in the discussions opened by the exhibition".
It appears that the attempt to seize the catalogs was not carried out very
meticulously, as if it was almost already known that the decision would be reversed.
Karaca (2011) said "I myself was able to purchase it in a bookstore close to
Altındere’s office while the confiscation order was still in effect." And she stated
as follows:
"Upheld only for a short while, enforced rather inconsistently and quickly
overturned, what was this order intended to accomplish, and what did it actually
achieve? [...] the confiscation order did succeed in delegitimizing the exhibition to
a certain extent. It gave the court not only the opportunity to investigate whether a
denigration had indeed taken place, by probing the rather hazy boundaries between
what constitutes an artistic critique versus an insulting “depiction” or portrayal, but
also to comment on the artistic merit of the works."
Altındere's brother, lawyer Murat Altındere, objected, claiming that the catalog
could not be judged under the Press Law and that there is no article that regulates
the crime of "insult" in the article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). He stated
that there was an examination of the ideas of disarmament and the power of
uniforms, but there was no insult to the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). Murat
Altındere also stated in their appeal request that the artworks can contain criticism
as part of the essence of the art, and that paragraph 4 of TCK article 301 stated that
"expressions of thought intended to criticize do not constitute a crime."
The Beyoğlu 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance overturned the seizure order,
citing 'Article 9/10 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which should
be considered before the applicable domestic law rules. The court also stated in the
verdict:
"None of the photographs shown as a reason for the confiscation decision violated
the reasons for restriction stated in these articles. Although the artistic value of the
photographs is being debated and is not welcomed by the majority of society, it
should not be forgotten that democracy is to accept all expressions as long as the
content adheres to ECHR standards" (Ergün, 2005).
91
When AKP came to power in 2002, they established a policy that was oriented
toward Europe. Their implementation of conservative policies began in 2011, when
they received roughly half of the vote (Yıldız, 2020). The reversal of the decision
to recall the catalog of "Free Kick" exhibition, as well as the outcome of the case in
favor of Halil Altındere, can be attributed to harmonization with European Union
policies, which provides freedom of speech and cultural diversity, implemented
during those years.
92
3.2. CASE 2: 5th ÇANAKKALE BIENNIAL (2016)
Since its inception in 2008, the Çanakkale Biennial has not shied away from dealing
with politically sensitive subjects, such as the theme for 2012, the Arab Spring
uprisings. The 2016 edition, titled Homeland, was concerned with the current
migrant crisis, which is thriving on the city's Aegean Sea front. The 5th Çanakkale
Biennial, which could not be realized and focuses on the phenomenon of
"immigration" with the works of 42 international artists, had been dedicated to all
those who became stateless on the first anniversary of the day Aylan Kurdi's lifeless
body washed up on Turkey's shore. If we go back to 2014, two years before the
case, as the city was preparing to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the
Çanakkale War, the Biennial team has decided to have a critical approach to wars.
The title of the 4th Biennial in 2014 was "Only The Dead Have Seen The End Of
War".
Unfortunately, the Biennial could not take place in 2016 because AKP Çanakkale
Deputy Bülent Turan launched a campaign to target the artistic director, Beral
Madra. As a result of this campaign, Madra announced her resignation from her
position in order not to jeopardize the event. Following Madra's announcement, the
entire biennial team decided to withdraw, and the 5th edition was canceled before
it could begin. The Çanakkale Biennial Initiative (CABININ) announced that
Madra had resigned without referring to them and that the whole organisation had
been canceled.
Deputy Turan accused Madra of being a coup supporter, and invited the Çanakkale
Municipality, which supported the Biennial, to take responsibility:
"Beral Madra, well-known for her support for the HDP, is the general art director
of our city's Biennial. We request the municipality refrain from supporting this
event. At the very least, the municipality can demand that Beral Madra be removed
from the list."
93
Also, Madra announced that she had resigned from her position as the Biennial's
art director in order for the event to take place safely:
"It is extremely important that Çanakkale Biennial, which was held for the fifth
time with great efforts, be held in Çanakkale this year as well. If my role in the
curatorial team would put any risk to the realization of this event, I waive it."
However, the CABININ team, which founded the biennial, thought that this was
not a viable solution for the security, they also did not want to organize the event
without Madra. CABININ announced the cancellation of the Biennial in a written
statement on their website, and they openly stated that these "sensitive" days of the
state of emergency caused a loss of motivation.
"In these circumstances, where art is overshadowed by developments that exclude
it, as well as the sensitizing atmosphere created by the realities that surround us
today, we have lost our ability and enthusiasm to carry out the Biennial in
accordance with our most vital values."
Also, in the in-depth interview, the CABININ team confirmed that "as the process
evolved under the state of emergency, there were many uncertainties, including
security," and that the decision was influenced by the unpredictable conditions
created by the state of emergency (CABININ, 2022).
A coup attempt occurred on July 15, two months before the opening date of the 5th
Çanakkale Biennial on 24th September 2016, causing a significant upheaval in
Turkish politics. This incident heightened security precautions throughout the
country. This unexpected circumstance had an impact on artistic activities as well.
The CABININ team's decision was clearly influenced by the failed coup attempt
and the state of emergency that occurred just before the biennial's opening date.
According to the CABININ team's response, security concerns began before MP
Turan targeted Madra:
"In this state of emergency, which occurred three months before the Biennial's
opening, we assessed the situation with the components of the Çanakkale Biennial
from various sectors, including public, private, sector, and non-governmental
organizations. A public consensus was formed that the Biennial should begin on
the scheduled date." (CABININ, 2022)
94
However, tensions on the social and political levels remained visible and palpable.
Under these circumstances, the quality and quantity of contradictions and conflicts
between the local government and the central government in Çanakkale increased.
Following this period, the central government increased the pressure in an attempt
to consolidate its power. The number of police interventions and detentions has
increased. Tensions between the opposition party-led local government and the
central government grew as a result of the central government's will to power. When
we look at the case as a whole, we can conclude that the 5th Çanakkale Biennial
was sacrificed due to political conflicts between parties. In our in-depth interview,
Madra stated that she was aware of the conflict, but she did not think that they
would use an international event as an instrument (Madra, 2022). "Events related
to contemporary art were not on the agendas of either the previous or current
governments. [...] But it appears that it has reached a point where a reason must be
found no matter what." (Madra, 2022).
According to the CABININ team, another important factor that triggered the
cancellation is that the Biennial is thought to be exclusively supported by the
Çanakkale Municipality. However, the Municipality only covered half of the
budget. CABININ stated that "it cannot be avoided that certain sectors perceive it
as being under the control and authority of the Çanakkale Municipality".
Underlying this perception was the Municipality's weight in the city's cultural
environment, and everything done was attributed to the municipality:
"For example, our art center MAHAL, which we opened in 2013 with no support
from Çanakkale Municipality, was long regarded as a municipal venue, and it took
a long time to change this perception. There are still people who come to the venue
for the first time and wonder, 'Is this the municipality's?' " (CABININ, 2022).
Before Madra resigned from her position at the Biennial, CABININ made an effort
to protect Madra and the Biennial from polemics. During the in-depth interview,
Madra (2022) stated that while traveling to Çanakkale on the Yenikapı - Bandırma
ferry shortly before the opening, Seyhan Boztepe greeted her in Bandırma and said,
95
"You are going back with the same ship, Beral". This intervention can be viewed
as the final attempt to bring the biennial to life before it is canceled.
When the CABININ team shared their cancellation decision with the local
administration prior to their announcement, the municipality stated that they wanted
the Biennial to take place in order to avoid a step back. However, CABININ said
that they decided to cancel the biennial after observing that the parties, who were
unrelated to art and opposed each other, shared a common expectation that the
biennial would devolve into a political tool. (CABININ, 2022)
According to the website of the Çanakkale Biennial, the Çanakkale Municipality is
not a supporter of the biennials held after 2016. When we first noticed that the
municipality was no longer listed as a supporter, we can assume it was due to the
municipality's decision. During the in-depth interview, however, the CABININ
team stated that they preferred to part ways with the municipality:
"In this process, we have decided not to work with the Municipality, which
disappointed us by acting with its political expectations rather than its public
responsibility, as long as their current structure remains. (Before the dissolution of
the agreement with Municipality) there was support regarding the use of space”
(CABININ, 2022)
Beral Madra (2016) pointed out that in the press release, all moral responsibility
was excluded, the right to free expression and criticism was ignored and distorted
information was given in the form of slander, accusation and notice and wrote as
follows:
"The political tension, controversy and violence increased significantly today and
Turkey the producer of the biennial CABININ's initiative and our team, who faced
all the difficulties of holding a biennial on the agenda of violence, war and terror,
and who saw the possible problems and difficulties in the process ahead of them
and made this decision. I acquiesce with concern and respect."
According to Madra (2018), aside from the team's willingness to support her, they
neither believed it was safe to hold the biennial. It was a self-censorship motivated
by a security need:
96
“The organizers were hesitant to invite twenty artists from various countries due
to the political conflict. They said the political conflict in the city was too intense
to hold a safe biennial."
Akbulut (2016) interprets the attack on Madra in terms of the city's power balance
as follows:
“When it comes to Çanakkale Biennial, there are certainly conflicts more important
than art. The planned bridge project for Çanakkale Strait piqued the interest of local
newspapers in particular. While the quiet coastal city aspires to become a megacity
with investors, the AKP does not appear to want the CHP to retain control of the
local administration in Çanakkale."
Although the investment of the neo-capitalist system in art is seen as a necessity,
an environment of sufficient support and freedom for art cannot be formed. In her
statement, Madra (2016) mentions as follows:
"Looking back to these fifty years, I can say that artists and curators have had
strong experience in creating new strategies and methods to bypass the possible
threats coming from conservative and oppressive circles. Even if the private
sector’s investments in contemporary art (such as the private museums in Istanbul,
or the İstanbul, Sinopale, Çanakkale, and Mardin Biennials) are a must for the
neocapitalist image of Turkey and cannot be ignored by the ruling politicians and
economy, there is no guaranteed ground for the trouble-free production of
contemporary art or other creative activities."
Based on the answers provided by the CABININ team during the in-depth
interview, it is concluded that the biennial's cancellation was a process rather than
a momentary decision (CABININ, 2022).
This case demonstrates the impact of local political conflicts on an international art
event. However, as a result, a collaboration has formed between Thessaloniki
Biennial and Çanakkale Biennial. In 2017, Osnabrück Kunsthalle and Thessaloniki
Biennial showed solidarity by inviting numerous artists from the 5th Çanakkale
Biennial to take part.
In situations where political fanaticism is invoked, supporters of both sides generate
speculative and out-of-context agendas to support or defame the other. However,
97
by canceling that year's edition, the CABININ team not only saved the biennial
from being instrumentalized for political interest, but increased the visibility of the
biennial as well. "When the biennial was cancelled, the political aims desired by
the political parties were also taken out of context" the CABININ team added.
(CABININ, 2022)
In this case, we can see that CABININ's decision to withdraw enabled them to find
new ways for the continuity of the biennial. There is a fine line between looking
out for time and place-specific conditions and self-censorship/censorship.
According to Kutlu (2010), while citizens in Turkey do not take part in participatory
practices other than voting, civil initiatives are quite active in Çanakkale. The city's
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are well-organized and active enough to
influence decision-making processes. According to Kutlu (2010), people easily
band together around various local issues, such as the restoration of a historic
district and the organization of cultural events. Although CABININ, one of the
case's subjects, is also a civic initiative, the CABININ team noted in the in-depth
interview that the biennial also has strong links with other NGOs and civic
initiatives in the city:
"We, the Çanakkale Biennial Initiative members, breathe, live, and work in this
city. Apart from the biennial, we have 20 years of experience in art, culture, and
civil society." (CABININ, 2022)
It is understood that the CABININ team was able to make the necessary security
decisions quickly during the case because civil initiatives had been settled to a large
extent in the city and the team was active in this initiative environment.
98
3.3. CASE 3: 7th SİNOP BIENNIAL (2019)
The 7th Sinop Biennial was cancelled on September 5, 2019 by the biennial's
curators, Aslı Serbest and Mona Mahall, after the screening of Angela
Melitopolous' video Passing Drama (1999) was cancelled by the Biennial's director,
T. Melih Görgün. The curators decided to cancel the entire program in Sinop, as
well as the program planned in Istanbul as part of the Biennial. The curators stated
about the censorship as follows:
"At the day of the screening, without having seen the work, nor seeking direct
communication with the artist, Melih Görgün assumed that her work was one-sided
(pro-Greek) and thereby an offence to the people of Sinop." (Altyazı, 2019)
According to the curators, after watching the first four minutes, the director decided
to censor the film without even having to watch it from beginning to the end.
Serbest and Mahall consider the cancellation as censorship, which opposes their
idea of free artistic expression and harms their curatorial work.
Following the incident, Sinop and Istanbul programs completely stopped, while
Melitopoulos' censored film Passing Drama was screened in Mars Istanbul20 on
October 12, followed by a panel discussion with biennial director T. Melih Görgün
and artist Angela Melitopolous. Then, Angela Melitopolous opened to screening
the documentary film.
“Passing Drama” handles refugee and immigration issues that Melitopolous learned
about through her own family’s history, in the Turkey-Greece regulations and
Greece-Germany (guest workers) lines, on the internet. In the director's words, the
film depicts the fatal practices of many nation-states, such as exile in the early 20th
20 Mars Istanbul was founded in 2000 by Pınar Öğrenci as an architecture office to
produce architectural research and restoration projects/applications, and in 2010 it
evolved into an independent art initiative.
99
century, in the sentences as heavy as stone. This work is not limited to Turkey or
the Ottoman State, but it also demonstrates how the gaps in the official written
history in a large part of Europe are linked to all nation-states.
Figure 3. 10: Still from "Passing Drama" (1999) - Angela Melitopoulos
Source: (Documenta14, 2017)
"Passing Drama," further won three awards21, is based on various memories shared
by refugees, as well as a depiction of Angela Melitopoulos' family's migration. The
name Drama refers to a small city in Northern Greece, which is inhabited by
refugees who are survivors of exchange of populations from Asia Minor to Greece
in 1923. During World War II, their children escaped the Bulgarian occupation and
21 "Passing Drama" won three awards: Award of the German Filmcritics for experimental
video 2000, Award of the Council of Europe, VideoArt Festival Locarno, Award of
Internationale Mediafestival Medi@terra Athens.
100
worked as sloggers in Hitler's Germany. The refugees' homeland was constantly
changing. The video depicts the past from the perspective of a minority, whose past
appears to have been demolished by industrial machines in favor of the majority.
The curators Aslı Serbest and Mona Mahall drew the conceptual framework of the
"Here and Where" as follows:
"The Sinop Biennial is based on situated practices and collaborative processes.
Moving on collective routes, the aim is to gather diverse histories, experiences, and
artistic inquiries in situ. They pass over nation-states and contain fragments from
the past and future; the memory of a Russian spy whale from Cold War times, as
well as perfectly intact ancient ships deep down in the dark sea together with tons
of plastics. They are the site of particular relations and rites, of acts of political
resistance and historical persistence." (Serbest and Mahall, 2019)
In Sinopale, unlike other biennials, artists create works in which residents of the
city are involved in the production process. In this censorship case, we can see that
this collaborative work has been a reason increased tension. As part of the practice
of the Biennial bringing together the locals and artists, Angela Melitopoulos had
been invited to research the actuality of the story outlined in “Passing Drama” as
well as to learn about the current situation of political memory in Sinop.
Melitopoulos (2019) explains the effects of the nation-state phenomenon on artistic
production in an interview, and describes how restricted the environment of
freedom of artistic expression was in the days following the incident:
"On the one hand, the strength that art takes from its vital importance amazes
everyone; on the other hand, this force is confronted with the troubled silence of
the public, which is compelled at the cultural level, either to be contained by the
identity of the nation-state or to sacrifice its uniqueness to the enthusiasm of the
nation-state. The public debates that we had in the 1990s are no longer possible.
The atmosphere is tense, irrational, and self-censored."
The film had previously been shown in Ankara and Istanbul. At this point, Mahall
and Serbest stated that they believe the censorship was influenced by a local context
and the director of the biennial's socio-political concerns as a member of the Sinop
community (Mahall & Serbest, 2022).
101
Although the curators' decision to cancel the event was partly motivated by a desire
to protest the director, we can conclude that they share the same motivations and
concerns as the CABININ. During the in-depth interview, Serbest and Mahall
stated they did not want to continue an art program under threats: "our main concern
was the safety of the artist, the team, and the students, who were taking part in the
public program." (Mahall & Serbest, 2022). According to the curators, the director
and his assistants told them that screening the film was risky. However, the film
was an important part of the biennial's program. For them, not showing this video
meant that the biennial would be cancelled (Mahall & Serbest, 2022).
Mahall and Serbest stated they felt alone, especially when the director publicly
claimed that this was just their misunderstanding or miscommunication (Mahall &
Serbest, 2022). Subjects are frequently left alone/feeling alone in cases of
censorship, as is well known. However, this is not a common incident in
international events. As we saw in the case of Çanakkale, there is typically
international support. Works or exhibitions can be displayed in various cities
around the world to raise funds. However, in this case, the curators state that they
felt isolated, and while some newspapers reported on the censorship, most cultural
institutions chose to ignore or marginalize the events (Mahall & Serbest, 2022).
As a result of this case, while a discussion with the curators and director at Mars
Istanbul may cause us to be mistaken that the biennials may have a democratic
environment, the curators' statements show that, despite this effort, the biennial
administrations are not democratic enough. In the biennials, the freedom of
expression is eroded by political and tacit attitudes and discourses. After the
program was called off, Serbest and Mahall invited the director to a public
discussion. During the in-depth interview, they stated that this was wrong because
Görgün was "publicly reformulating lies about their misunderstanding and
miscommunication" (Mahall & Serbest, 2022). During the meeting in Marsistanbul,
director Görgün absolutely denied to referring to censorship. He claimed that
Melitopoulos' film was added to the program at the last minute, and he objected to
102
the screening due to the city's sensitivities. As a result, no one accepted
responsibility for the censorship.
In a political climate that emphasizes national unity and solidarity, the biennial
director may have been nervous about discussing a subject that is said to offend the
sensibilities of city residents. Regarding this situation, Madra (2022) says that
before beginning to work on a project, the biennial administrations signed a
protocol with the curators. The boundaries of these themes that the curators can
address are defined in these signed protocols. It's debatable whether this is
censorship in biennials. The question of whether Melitopoulos' work was included
at the last minute, as Görgün claimed, remains unanswered. However, it appears
that prior to the censorship, the biennial administration had already approved a
conceptual framework which was critical to the nation-state. As a result, after
approving this conceptual framework, preventing the screening of an awardwinning
work that is highly relevant to the topic raises questions about the level of
criticism allowed in biennials.
103
CONCLUSION
The impossibility of holding a completely independent and uncensored exhibition
in an event with as many funding, venue, and promotion issue as a biennial became
clear as soon as I began working on my thesis.
Censorship in Turkey is traced back to the Democratic Party era of the 1960s. From
1960s to the 2000s, censorship was carried out through methods such as law
enforcement intervention and suing the work with the claim of an anonymous
complaint; however, after the 2000s, the causes of self-censorship have increased,
including targeting, threatening, intimidation, obstruction, attack, delegitimization,
and marginalization. Since the state of emergency was declared,
there has been an increase in targeting and threat cases (for seeing the examples,
see Siyah Bant publications). The fearful atmosphere has prepared a better ground
for this.
The AKP government came to power in 2002, promising libertarian, egalitarian,
and European Union-oriented policies. After the 2011, the government began to
express more overtly populist religious and social sensitivities. The European ideal
was abandoned. Especially after the Gezi Events in 2013 and the failed coup
attempt in 2016, government pressures increased. All kinds of restrictions and
insulting speeches began for the opposition group, which represents half of the
people. So, did this tremendous turn result in changes in censorship methods or
censorship topics?
It has been observed that the changing political discourses of the AKP government
during its 20-year administrative process also had an impact on censorship. The fact
that law enforcement officers do not seal the doors of the exhibitions, or that the
exhibitions/works are not prosecuted, does not mean that there is no state
104
censorship. On the contrary, the government now wishes to have more control on
cultural sphere.
The idea that contemporary art is a freer field than other fields of art and that the
government deals with it less stems from the indirect discourse of contemporary
art. However, this situation has changed during the AKP period, when people were
targeted rather than content (see the chapter about the Yeditepe Biennial for
Erdoğan's discourses on artists, as well as the Çanakkale Biennial case).
In the 2000s, censorship issues changed due to shifting political dynamics. Given
the great schisms in the political scene since the 2000s, biennials are not immune
to the anxieties that these schisms bring. These concerns set strategic boundaries
for biennials and influence work selection. It is almost certain that Delier's work is
not going to be chosen for the biennial today.
The government's tolerance for differences and opposition has declined,
particularly since 2011. According to the government, the artists exclude those
whom they assumed they represented. The government labeled a large opposition
group, including artists, as lumpen and pro-coup after 2013. Following the 2016
coup attempt, being a supporter of terrorism has become the major accusation used
to silence people seen as rivals. Women, LGBTI+s, students, and minorities,
particularly those living in Kurdish provinces, were the most oppressed during the
period when tolerance for differences declined. The pressure has increased more
than ever before as a result of the neoconservative influence. The failed coup
attempt in 2016 was also seen as a suitable foundation for pressure and targeting.
Another reason for censorship is that people in political authority can use conflicts
about “obscenity” to elevate their status. Looking at the example of the 5th
Çanakkale Biennial (2016), it can be said that today’s instrumentalized censorship
excuses are more than just obscenity in Turkey. The accusations of supporting a
105
terrorist organization or being a coup supporter are now accusations that replace the
accusation of obscenity. These accusations are part of targeting and intimidation.
Coming to the question of whether censorship has been replaced by self-censorship,
compared to the cases, it is clear that between 2000 and 2020, the intervention of
state administrators and the judiciary was largely replaced by self-censorship.
People who are wanted to be controlled are now only targeted with a few excuses
and forced to resign. The targeted person's elbowroom is automatically limited. As
a result of the disappearance of practices such as police intervention and litigation,
the censorship process progresses very quickly and the felon's dock of the
censorship is emptied.
In the cases, we can see that psychological fatigue from the process, safety concerns
and lack of media support were effective for censorship/self-censorship. When an
artist decides to self-censor, the misconception that the result is the artist's own free
decision and that he/she makes the decision alone can make it difficult for the artist
to get support. To avoid making this mistake, it is necessary to approach censorship
cases with the understanding that they are a process, not a momentary event. Even
if the artists support the curator's or director's decision to self-censor the entire
exhibition, their grievances are more certain and they have a better chance of
finding support.
When we examine the increasing discourses of pressure, intimidation, and targeting
directed at artists by individuals after the 2000s, we see they coincide with the
government's discourses. As a result, it is possible to conclude that the AKP
administration's and the president's statements caused an increase in
censorship/self-censorship cases. Because of increased targeting and intimidation
policies, the most expressed concern in the thesis's in-depth interviews was a
potential attack on the exhibition. It has been observed that works with direct
discourse (parrhesiastes) face more difficulties in biennials, and these works have
a lower chance of being selected for biennials. In the cases, the works involving
106
parrhesia were found to make biennial directors/other artists more concerned about
their safety.
Today, many artists and institutions practice self-censorship. With its history of
military coups and the effect of social polarization that escalated in the 60s, Turkey
has a decades-long history that pushes the press and artists to self-censorship. The
absence of the rule of law and the lack of solidarity networks also pave the way for
self-censorship.
It has been observed that censorship and self-censorship decisions were generally
made with well-intentioned motivations, such as not jeopardizing the exhibition or
the institution's continuity. These goodwill statements are also shared by other
actors who drag the artist/curator into self-censorship.
Given the great schisms in the political scene since the 2000s, biennials are not
immune to the anxieties that these schisms bring. These concerns set strategic
boundaries for biennials and influence work selection. Although large funds may
affect the biennial's conceptual framework and the restrictions on the selection of
works, its effect is not clearly known. It is a mystery how much the protocols signed
with the curator, before the idea of the exhibition was born, narrowed the content
of the exhibition.
Although, after the 1990s, biennials began to emphasize critical and political
aspects of art more in their conceptual frameworks, the censored works are also
those which address the same issues. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the
biennials' critical and political conceptual frameworks are insufficient. The
question of whether the curators added the Melitopoulos' work to the exhibition at
the last moment, as Görgün claimed, remained unanswered. However, it appears
that the biennial administration approved a conceptual framework that criticizes the
nation-state prior to the censorship case. As a result, after approving this conceptual
107
framework, not screening an award-winning work, directly related to the conceptual
framework, raises questions about the level of criticism allowed in biennials.
In the research, it was also discovered that biennials can only be censored because
of political conflicts, regardless of the conceptual themes they address. Arts
organizations sponsored by a local government can be targeted to destabilize the
party. As seen in the Çanakkale Biennial case, Beral Madra was targeted for her
position rather than her political ideas, as she was on the management team of an
international event sponsored by the municipality led by the opposition party.
Censorship has been observed in places such as Çanakkale and Sinop, where
residents identify as libertarian and progressivist. We can say that in places where
the people of the city make up the majority of the biennial's visitors, the biennial is
more exposed to the sensitivities of the people of the city, or they must pay more
attention to their sensitivities. It is also more dangerous to exhibit critical works in
places where they are relevant. Examples include the censorship of Delier's "The
Guard" rather than "The Girl with an EU Flag" work, as well as the tension created
by Melitopoulus' attempt to speak out on a sensitive local issue. In addition,
censorship of works criticizing the flag, public institutions, the Turkish Armed
Forces, and religion has been consistent throughout the country's history.
In the case of the Istanbul Biennial (2005), it is seen that the limits of political
discourse permitted by the media overlap with the limits of political discourse
permitted by biennials. Both the media and the biennial preferred to show the same
works by Delier.
So, what are the factors that make biennials vulnerable to censorship? Since the
first Venice Biennale, the biennials still have maintained the tourism-oriented
perspective. This is especially noticeable at biennials held in cities that require more
investment, such as Çanakkale and Sinop. This situation makes the biennials more
108
vulnerable to censorship. Tourism prioritization forces biennials to make less risky
plans.
Another factor that makes the biennials more vulnerable to censorship is the fact
that they are not free of economic and political ties. The economic structure of art,
which cannot be self-sufficient without other markets, makes it more vulnerable to
censorship. Local ties are extremely strong, and continuity is essential. In the cases
of the Çanakkale Biennial and the Sinop Biennial, it was seen that the organizers'
concerns and responsibilities as members of the city community also had an impact
on the decisions.
Although it is assumed that differences in the number of visitors to biennials impact
censorship, censorship was observed in three different biennials of varying
popularity. Similarly, it is assumed that the biennial visibility in the international
press or the size of the funding may influence censorship, but it has been seen that
these are not the main reasons for censorship.
The fact that the biennials' organization processes are conducted behind closed
doors until the exhibition doors are open, was a challenge for this research. As a
result, the institutional pressures and censorship that curators and artists faced prior
to the exhibition's opening could not be observed. Although there is a chapter on
sponsorship in my thesis that investigates if major sponsorships may affect
censorship, the subjects of the cases stated in in-depth interviews that they received
no direction from the sponsors. Sponsorship may have an effect on the agreement
with the curator before the conceptual framework is drawn. However, because the
agreements were kept secret, it was impossible to assess their accuracy or the scope
of their impact.
The priority for future research on censorship may be to focus on these still gray
areas of censorship. For those who will work on censorship in Turkey in the future,
immersion in how current government policies affect the internal dynamics of
109
institutions and sponsorship, and how this is reflected in censorship, can provide
valuable contributions to the literature. Although censorship studies have been
extensively studied in the literature, it is still a subject that needs to be attention to
changing dynamics. In fact, the studies on new definitions of censorship, which are
also mentioned in this thesis, are relatively young.
110
REFERENCES
1st Antakya Bienali. (2007, October 2). Arkitera.
https://v3.arkitera.com/h20723-1-antakya-bienali.html
1st International Asian – European Art Biennial Exhibition Catalog. (1987). The
Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey
1st International Contemporary Art Exhibitions Catalog. (1987). Istanbul Culture
and Art Foundation
2. Uluslararası Antakya Bienali. (2010, October 15). Arkitera.
https://v3.arkitera.com/e3705-2-uluslararasi-antakya-bienali.html
Ada, S. (2009). For a New Cultural Policy. Introduction to Cultural Policy in
Turkey, ed. Serhan Ada and Ayça İnce. Istanbul Bilgi University Press:
87-118.
Ada, S. (2013). Re-visiting Cultural Policy in Turkey: A Sense of Dejavu.
Cultural Policy and Management Yearbook 2012-2013, ed. Philipp
Dietachmair. Istanbul Bilgi University Press: 136-141
Adorno, T. (1991) ‘Free Time’ in The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass
Culture, ed. J. M. Bernstein. Routledge: 225
Akbulut, K.K. (2016, September 11). Mesele bienal değil, Çanakkale'nin rantı.
Gazete Duvar.
https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/yazarlar/2016/09/11/mesele-bienal-degilcanakkalenin-
ranti
111
Akbulut, K.K. (2017). Ohal’de Bienal’i bitirdikten sonra. Gazete Duvar.
https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/yazarlar/2017/11/26/ohalde-bienalibitirdikten-
sonra/
Akbulut, K.K. (2019). 10 adımda 16’ncı İstanbul Bienali. Gazete Duvar.
https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/yazarlar/2019/09/27/10-adimda-16nciistanbul-
bienali/
Aksoy, A. & Şeyben, B.Y. (2015). Storm Over the State Cultural Institutions:
New Cultural Policy Direction in Turkey. International Journal of
Cultural Policy 21: 183-199.
Aksoy, M. (2003, November 23). Sanat Kıyımına Artık Son Verilmeli.
Cumhuriyet. 14
Alptekin, H. (2001). Mutual realities, re-mapping destinies. A Coffee-House
Conversation on the International Art World and its Exclusions.
Kahve-Society
Alworth, D.J. (2016). Site Reading: Fiction, Art, Social Form. Princeton
University Press: 1-24
Armağan, İ. (1992). Sanat ve Toplum Bilimi. İleri Kitapevi: 57-58
Arslan, A.S. (2013). Kent Hakkı Bağlamında Kamusal Alanın Yeniden Talebi ve
Kamusal Alanda Sanat. İdealKent: Kent Araştırmaları Dergisi, Issue 10:
86-107
Artun, A. (2018). Çağdaş Sanat ve Kültüralizm. İletişim Yayınları: 49.
112
Aydemir, S. (2015). A Brief History of Censorship of the Cinema of Turkey. 34th
Istanbul Film Festival, ed. Carmen Gray. https://fipresci.org/report/abrief-
history-of-censorship-of-the-cinema-of-turkey/
Badiou, A. (2010, October 13). “Does the Notion of Activist Art Still Have
Meaning?”. Lecture at Miguel Abreu Gallery, New York
Banned, S. (2012). Censorship, Society, and Literary Life in Imperial Germany.
Berghahn Books: 23
Basualdo, C. (2010). The unstable institution. The biennial reader (1st ed.).
ed. E.D. Filipovic, M. van Hal & S. Øvstebø. Hatje Cantz. 124-135
Başaran, P. (2011). Sansürün ismi sanatta toplumsal hassasiyet, internette
güvenlik. Akşam. https://www.aksam.com.tr/pazar/sansurun-ismi-sanattatoplumsal-
hassasiyet,-internette-guvenlik--64136h/haber-64136
Başaran, P. (2012). Sanatta Sansür: Farklı Aktörler ve Mekanizmalar. Siyah Bant
Yayınları: 4-5
Bek, G. (2002). Çağdaş Türk Sanatında Bir Sergi Oluşumu ve Sanat Ortamına
Etkileri: Bienaller, Sanat Yazıları 9, Hacettepe University Faculty of Fine
Arts Publication: 41-57
Bennoune, K. (2017). Field of Cultural Rights, Seventy-second session
of the General Assembly. New York, US.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsI
D=22331&LangID=E
Berardi, F. (2009). The soul at work: From alienation to autonomy. The MIT
Press
113
Biçer Olgun, H. (2019). Çağdaş Sanat Piyasasinin Sosyolojik Teşekkülü:
Çağdaş Sanat Alanında Değer Yaratıcı Özneler Ve Sanatsal Cemaatleşme
Olgusu. Sosyolojik Düşün Volume: 4, Issue: 1: 1-9
Biennial Foundation, Biennial Directory.
https://www.biennialfoundation.org/network/biennial-map/
Bing, X. (2000). No Questions, No Answers: China and A Book from the Sky.
Modern Chinese Literary and Cultural Studies in the Age of Theory:
Reimaging a Field. Duke University Press: 243
Blanton Museum of Art. (2016). Xu Bing: Book from the Sky.
https://blantonmuseum.org/exhibition/xu-bing-book-from-the-sky/
Boltanski, L. & Chiapello, E. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. Verso Books:
138
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press
Bourdieu, P. & Darbel, A. (1991). The Love of Art: European Art Museums and
Their Public. Polity Press
Bourdieu, P. (2007). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
Harvard University Press
Böhme, G. (2017). Critique of Aesthetic Capitalism. Mimesis International.
Buchloh, B. (1997). Critical Reflections. Artforum, vol. 35, no.5: 68-102
114
Bulunmaz, B. (2012). Türk Basin Tarihi İçerisinde Demokrat Parti Dönemi Ve
Sansür Uygulamaları. Öneri Dergisi, 10 (37): 203-214
Bunn, M. (2015). Reimagining Repression: New Censorship Theory and After.
History and Theory 54. Wesleyan University Press: 25-44
Butler, J. (1998). Ruled Out: Vocabularies of the Censor. Censorship and
Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation. Getty Research Institute for
the History of Art and the Humanities: 249
Burt, R. (1998). Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation.
Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and Humanities: 32
Burt, R. (1994). Administration of Aesthetics: Censorship, Political Criticism, and
the Public Sphere. Minneapolis, US. University of Minnesota Press: 14
Censorship noun. (2018). Oxford English Dictionary. UK.
Charlesworth, J.J. (2017). The end of the biennial. Artreview.
https://artreview.com/opinion-online-jj-charlesworth-the-end-of-thebiennial/
Çağdaş, H. (1992, July 27). Interview with Vasıf Kortun. From the Salt
Research Archive
Çubukçu, A. (1996). 12 Eylül’ün Kültür Politikası ve Sonuçları. Cumhuriyet
Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi 13. İletişim Yayınları: 838-840.
De Beukelaer, C. (2017). Ordinary culture in a world of strangers: toward
cosmopolitan cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy.
Routledge: 792-805
115
De Duve, T. (2007). The glocal and the singuniversal: Reflections on art and
culture in the global world. Third Text 21: 681-688.
Delier, B. (2015). Sanat Dünyasının Senaryoları. Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları: 20
Diderot, D. (2000). Ansiklopedi ya da Bilimler, Sanatlar ve Zanaatlar Açıklamalı
Sözlüğü. Yapı Kredi Yayınları: 261
Diler, F.G. (2016, October 6). Ankara Soykırım Bahanesiyle Avrupa Kültür
Bağını Kopardı. Agos. https://www.agos.com.tr/tr/yazi/16682/ankarasoykirim-
bahanesiyle-avrupa-kultur-bagini-kopardi
Dubin, S.C. (1992). Arresting Images: Impolitic Art and Uncivil Actors.
Routledge: 37
Eczacıbaşı, B. (04 October 2015). Eczacıbaşı: Sanata yatırım sanayi kadar önemli,
sanat nefes aldırıyor. T24. https://t24.com.tr/haber/eczacibasi-sanatayatirim-
sanayi-kadar-onemli-sanat-nefes-aldiriyor,311740.
Eczacıbaşı, N. (1973, August 20) Festival 8.5 milyon liraya maloldu. Milliyet.
Erden, O. (2011, September). Bir Yöntem Olarak Sansür! Genç Sanat: güzel
sanatlar dergisi 197: 53
Ergün, D.B. (2005, October 27). Katalog toplatıldı: Bienale '301' gölgesi.
Radikal. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/katalog-toplatildi-bienale-301-
golgesi-761374/. accessed on 2020, December 5
116
Ermolaev, H. (1997). Censorship in Soviet literature: 1917-1991. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Erzen, J. (1999). Cumhuriyet’ in Son Çeyreğinde Sergiler. Cumhuriyet’in
Renkleri, Biçimleri ed. Ayla Ödekan. Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal
Tarih Vakfı: 206-211
Esche, C. (2005, June 12). Debate: Biennials. Frieze.
https://www.frieze.com/article/debate-biennials
Farrington, J. (2013). Taking the offensive: Defending artistic freedom of
expression in the UK. Index on Censorship.
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/takingtheoffensive/
Filipovic, E. (2014). The Global White Cube. OnCurating Issue 22: 45-63
https://www.on-curating.org/issue-22-43/the-global-whitecube.
html#.Xp7xOlMzaYW
Freshwater, H. (2004). Towards a Redefinition of Censorship, Censorship &
Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Rodopi Press: 225
Foucault, M. (1983), Discourse and Truth: the Problematization of Parrhesia (six
lectures), The University of California at Berkeley
Gans, H.J. (1999). Popular Culture and High Culture: an Analysis and
Evaluation of Taste. Basic Books.
Germaner, S. (1999). Cumhuriyet Döneminde Resim Sanatı. Cumhuriyet’in
Renkleri, Biçimleri. Tarih Vakfı: 8-26
117
Gielen, P. (2018), Safeguarding Creativity: An Artistic Biotope and its
Institutional Insecurities in a Global Market-Orientated Europe. ed. Y.
Watanaby. Handbook of Cultural Security. Edward Elgar Publishing: 398-
416
Gielen, P. (2019). "Emancipating cultures : from canonising cultural
institutions towards commoning art constitutions", Cultural policy
yearbook 2019 : forced migration and cultural production / Ertürk N. (ed.);
Ünsal, D. (ed.). İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul
Griffin, T. (2003, November). Global tendencies: Globalism and the largescale
exhibition. Artforum International: 152-163
Günal, A. (2016, October 10). Turkey: Art in troubled times. Index on
Censorship. https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/10/turkey-arttroubled-
times/
Günyaz, A. (2002, September). Eksik Olmasınlar. rh+ Sanat: 45
Gürsel, S. (1998). 1980’li Yıllar ve Sonrası. Cumhuriyetin 75 Yılı (1979 - 1997) –
Cilt 3. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Hanrou, H. (1997, October). Interviewed in Franklin Sirmans, Johannesburg
Biennale: Meet the Curators of Trade Routes: History and Geography,
Flash Art, vol. 30, no. 190: 78-82
Harris, G. & Shaw, A. (2016, September 5). Crackdown in Turkey after coup
attempt. The Art Newspaper.
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/crackdown-in-turkey-after-coupattempt/
118
Harris, C. (2001). Beyond multiculturalism? Difference, recognition and social
justice. Patterns of Prejudice Volume 35 - Issue 1: 13-34
Harutyunyan, A. & Özgün, A. & Goodfield, E. (2011). Event and counter-event:
The political economy of the Istanbul biennial and its excesses. Rethinking
Marxism, 23: 478-495.
Heath, D. (2007). Obscenity, Censorship, and Modernity. Companion to the
History of the Book. Blackwell Publishing.
Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T. (1992). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge
University Press: 9
İnce, A. (2013). The ‘Mehter March' of Cultural Policy in Turkey. L’Europe en
formation no 367: 75-92
İnce, A. (2018). Converted Spaces, Converted Meanings: Looking at New
Cultural Spaces in Istanbul through a Cultural Policy Lens. Turkish
Cultural Policies in a Global World: 105-126
İstanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfı. Retrieved April 12, 2020 from
https://www.iksv.org/tr/sponsorluk-programi/sponsorlugunkazandirdiklari
Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,
chapter 1. Verso.
Jameson, F. (2000). Architecture and the Critique of Ideology. Architecture
Theory since 1968. The MIT Press. 442-461
119
Karababa, A. (2011, November). Çağdaş Sanat Dile Geliyor. E-Skop.
https://www.e-skop.com/skopdergi/cagdas-sanat-dile-geliyor/400
Karaca, B. (2011). Images delegitimized and discouraged: Explicitly political art
and the arbitrariness of the unspeakable. New Perspectives on Turkey, no.
45: 155-183.
Keyman, F. (2002). Globalleşme, Alternatif Moderniteler ve Türk Kapitalizminin
Kültürel Ekonomisi. Toplum ve Bilim 93: 83-109.
Kompatsiaris, P. (2014). Curating Resistances: Ambivalences and Potentials of
Contemporary Art Biennials; Communication Culture & Critique 7: 76-91
Kompatsiaris, P. (2019). Biennial art and its rituals: value, political economy and
artfulness. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture Volume 11, Issue 1.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20004214.2019.1627847
Kortun, V. (1992, June 25). A telefax to Murat Belge about the Istanbul Biennial.
From Salt Research Archive
Kortun, V. & Elveren, M. (2021). What Do We Do Now. Exhibitionary Acts of
Political Imagination. ed. Cătălin Gheorghe, Mick Wilson. PARSE,
University of Gothenburg, Sweden & Vector, National University of the
Arts in Iasi, Romania. 26-31
Kosova, E. (2012). Değişen ve değişmeyen boyutlarıyla sansür; Sanatta Sansür:
Farklı Aktörler ve Mekanizmalar. Siyah Bant Yayınları: 6
Kuhn, A. (1990). Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality. Routledge: 127
120
Kutlu, Ö.Z. (2010). Voice from the Field: the Cases of Kars and Çanakkale in the
Context of Participatory Local Cultural Policy Development in Turkey.
Cultural Policy and Management Yearbook (KPY) 2010. Istanbul Bilgi
University Press: 119-130
Lai, O. & Masters H.G. (2019, 16 October). Contemporary Istanbul Chair
Defends Turkish Military Offensive In Syria. Art Asia Pacific.
https://artasiapacific.com/news/contemporary-istanbul-chair-defendsturkish-
military-offensive-in-syria
Madra, B. (1992, October). Bir gün, Belki… Ama Nasıl? İstanbul Dergisi. 48-55
Madra, B. (2003). İki Yılda Bir Sanat Bienal Yazıları 1987-2003. Norgunk
Yayıncılık: 70
Marrazi, C. (2011). The violence of financial capitalism (1st ed.). Semiotext(e).
Marx, K. (1974). On Freedom of the Press and Censorship. McGraw-Hill.
Marshall, A. (2019, September 19) Turkeyʼs Art Scene Makes a Comeback,
Under Erdoganʼ s Shadow, New York Times. https://nyti.ms/2LD1P57
Martínez, Rosa. (1999) interview with Carlos Basualdo, ‘Launching Site’,
Artforum, vol. 37, no. 10: 39
McEvilley, T. (1993, November). Arrivederci Venice : The Third World
Biennials. Artforum International. 113-115
McGuigan, J. (2002). Culture and the Public Sphere. Routledge: 67
121
Melitopoulos, A. (1999). Documenta14.
https://www.documenta14.de/en/calendar/1936/passing-drama
Melitopoulos, A. (2019). Sinop üzerindeki gölge. Altyazı Fasikül: Özgür Sinema
No: 3.
Metzger, G. (1974). Art Strike.
https://www.thing.de/projekte/7:9%23/y_Metzger+s_Art_Strike.html
O’Neill, P. & Wilson, M. (2010). Curating and the educational turn. Open
Editions.
Oral, S. et al. (2017). Türkiye'de Sansür ve Otosansür: Eylül 2016 Aralık 2017.
Susma Platformu. https://susma24.com/wpcontent/
uploads/2019/07/Tu_rkiye_de_Sansu_r_-ve_Otosansur_TR.pdf
Orosan-Telea, M. (2018, September 15). Contemporary Turkish Art: Interview
with Beral Madra. ARTMargins. https://artmargins.com/contemporaryturkish-
art-interview-with-beral-madra/
Otte, H. & Gielen, P. (2018) “When Politics Becomes Unavoidable. From
Community Art to Commoning Art”, Dockx, N. & Gielen, P. (eds.)
Commonism. A New Aesthetics of the Real. Valiz Books.
Özsezgin, K. (2002, September). Türkiye'de Sanata Baskı ve Sansürün Süreçsel
Oluşumuna İlişkin Gözlemler. rh+ Sanat: 39
Patel, S.A; Manghani, S. & D’Souza, R.E. (2018). Extracts from How to
Biennale! (The Manual), https://www.on-curating.org/issue-39-
reader/introduction.html#.YYf_sdZBzVo
122
Pease, A. (2000). Mass Culture and the Aesthetics of Obscenity. Cambridge
University Press: 167-198
Petersen, H. E. (2017, September 15). Istanbul biennial hires provocative curators,
but where's the political art? The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/15/istanbul-biennial-hiresprovocative-
curators-but-wheres-the-political-art
Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Quinn, B. (2005, May). Arts festivals and the city. Urban Studies, 42: 927-943
Rectanus, M.W. (2002). Culture Incorporated: Museums, Artists and Corporate
Sponsorships. University of Minnesota Press: 73
Roche, M. (2000). Megaevents and Modernity: Olympics and Expos in the
Growth of Global. Routledge: 232
Rosler, M. (1997). Money, power, contemporary art. Art Bulletin c.79, no.1:
20-24
Rosler, M. (1990). Video: Shedding the Utopian Moment. ed. Hall D. and Fifer
S.J. Illuminating Video: An Essential Guide to Video Art: 49
Sassen, S. (2005). Global City: Introducing a Concept. Brown Journal of World
Affairs, 11 (2): 27-43
Sassoon, D. (2002, September). On Cultural Markets. New Left Review no:17:
113-126
123
Serbest, A. & Mahall, M. (2019). Here and Where - A Politics of Location.
Conceptual framework of the Sinop Biennial 7.
http://sinopbiennial.org/?p=121
Seymour, T. (2019, September 19). Amid populist turbulence, Istanbul’s
art scene is forging defiantly ahead. Wallpaper Magazine
Short, J. R. & Kim, Yeong-Hyun. (1999). Globalization and the City. Longman
Limited.
Shuger, D. (1998). Civility and Censorship in Early Modern England;
Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation. Getty
Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities: 89-110
Sinop Bienali’nde sansür. (2019, November - December). Altyazı Fasikül:
Özgür Sinema No: 3. İstanbul
Sönmez, N. (1996). Türkiye’de Çağdaş Sanat: 1983 – 1994. Cumhuriyet Dönemi
Türkiye Ansiklopedisi 14. İletişim Yayınları: 1100-1112
Stallabrass, J. (2004). Contemporary Art: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford
University Press: 3-92
Sutton, B. (2016, September 9). Organizers Cancel Turkish Biennial Amid Fears
of Government Crackdown. Hyperallergic.
https://hyperallergic.com/321408/organizers-cancel-turkish-biennial-amidfears-
of-government-crackdown/
Tang, J. (2011). Biennalization and its discontents. Negotiating values in the
creative industries: Fairs, festivals and competitive events. ed. J. S.
Pedersen, & B. Moeran. Cambridge University Press: 73-93
124
Taşçioğlu, M. (1986). Sunuş. 1st International Asian - European Art Biennial
Catalog. Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey.
Taylan, O. (1979, December 26). Baskı dönemi hoş geldi safa geldi. Politika
Dergisi: 6
Tenger, H. (1992). I Know People Like This 2. Salt Research Archive.
https://archives.saltresearch.org/handle/123456789/8905?mode=simple
Tunaboylu, S. (2012). Hayalden. Çanakkale Biennial.
https://www.canakkalebienali.com/sevil-tunaboylu/?l=en#galleryxx
Tunaboylu, S. (2013). Kesici Alet. http://www.siyahbant.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2013/03/Sevil-Tunaboylu_9_Ocak_2013_Tam-
Metin.docx
Tüzel, H. (2003, September 28). Reklam mı, Sanat mı. Radikal.
Uncu, E. A. (2016, December). The Grey Zone: Censorship Disguised. Di’van,
no:1. 28-29.
Vanderlinden, B. (1997). Bienallerin ve diğer mega sergi modellerinin eleştirisi ve
savunusu. Beşinci Uluslararası İstanbul Bienali Ek Kataloğu: 206
Varlık, U. (2001, October 11). Kavramlar Yeterince Tartışılmıyor. Cumhuriyet
Virno, P. (2004). The Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of
Contemporary Forms of Life. Semiotext(e): 58
125
Von Horváth, Ö. (1972). Zensur und Proletariat, Gesammelte Werke. Suhrkamp
Verlag: 667
Watt, N. (2005, September 26). Turkish protest over genocide conference. The
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/26/turkey.eu.
White, H. (1997). Anatomy of Censorship. University Press of America: 88
Whyatt, S. (2018). Promoting the Freedom to Imagine and Create, Unesco
Reshaping Cultural Policies: 215
Wu, Chin-tao. (2001). Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since
the 1980s. Verso Books.
Yaman, F. (2003, October). Adalet yok, tragedya var. Post Express: 11
Yardımcı, S. (2014). Kentsel Değişim ve Festivalizm: Küreselleşen İstanbul'da
Bienal. İletişim Yayınları: 94-104
Yetkin, Ç. (1970). Siyasal İktidar Sanata Karşı. Bilgi Yayınları: 233
Yıldız, E. (2020). An Overview of Cultural Literacy in Turkey through Private
Contemporary Art Institutions and Independent Arts and Cultural Spaces
under the AKP Rule, Critical Arts Vol. 34 No.5: 121-138
https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2020.1829669
Żmijewski, A. (2012). Foreword. Forget Fear: 7th Berlin Biennale for
Contemporary Art. ed. Zmijewski A. & Warsza J. Köln. König
Zürcher, E.J. (2000). Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi. İletişim Yayınları.
126
APPENDIX
In-depth Interview Questions
• When did you first consider discontinuing the biennial?
• What were your main concerns that led you to make this decision?
• Did you feel supported or alone during the process?
• Did you receive any public support or reaction during this process?
• Did the local government contact you before or after you decided to cancel
the exhibition?
• Did any sponsors make an attempt to contact you during this process?
• Do you believe the process would have ended the same way if it had not
occurred in a location funded by cultural capital owners? (For instance, if
the work was shown in a artist-run gallery rather than the biennial)
• Did you consider public safety when making the decision to suspend the
biennial?
• Were you concerned about the possibility of not receiving support and
invitations from art institutions or sponsors in the future?
• What do you think the relationship is between the long-term viability of an
art institution and censorship?
• Is there anything you wish you had done differently during the process?
• Do you think censorship processes, reasons, or actors have changed over
the last two decades?