'Press only': pre-opening of Innen Stadt Außen, Berlin

Yesterday I got the opportunity to attend the press opening for Olafur’s latest exhibition: Innen Stadt Außen.

Innen Stadt Außen (Inner City Out) is the first solo exhibition by the Danish-Icelandic artist Olafur Eliasson (b.1967) in a Berlin institution. The show’s central theme stems from Eliasson’s close relationship with this city, in which he has lived and worked for many years. His site-specific investigations within the Martin-Gropius-Bau are amplified and commented on through various ephemeral projects in public space, thus linking the museum to other places within the city.¹

I picked up a press kit – full of papers and details concerning copyright – and a pair of headphones for on-the-go translation into English and managed to be seated in the second row. The work was introduced by Daniel Birnbaum, famous for his writing about art, who talked about the process of curating the exhibition: how do you do an exhibition in Berlin for Berlin? Arguing that it is the meeting – the encounter – that is the art, he explained that it was important to not only exhibit in the museum and pointed to a variety of works that can be found in the city (including pavilions, driftwood, and an amazing bike). Olafur Eliasson’s work was not really about science itself, but rather about things you already know, reminding you of what you know and can do; natural phenomena were simply points of departure for artistic experimentation.

Olafur then spoke of his attachment to Berlin and how he had lived and worked in the city since the early 1990s. Describing it as an unpredictable city, he noted how it had been rather remote and removed from the market which had allowed for experiments without the need for exhibitions.  Luckily, though, and he said it with a grin, more exhibitions had come along since. Rather than tell the gathered press how to experience or interpret his work, he was interested in teasing some of the ideas and questions that he had been attending during the process of putting the exhibition together. Calling it a very personal experience, he talked about the relationship between museums and public space, claiming that we need to recreate a public space that is animated by the values we ascribe to it, such as values, styles, and a reflection of society. Moreover, acknowledging the close relationship between art and politics, he contended that artists are co-creators who can, and should, have serious relationships with wider society on important issues.

Allowing, or enabling, space to be unpredictable allows for meetings to happen. This is a dialogue with space. Creating space by engaging with it. And it comes with a responsibility: to co-create space rather than to conceive of space as fixed, static, awaiting consumption. Working with the museum to admit unclear spaces is not easy but it is important. Olafur also complicated the temporality of the exhibition, arguing that the exhibition had already started as soon as he had started talking about it, and that the memories of the exhibition would also be part of it all. When you walk through, there is an interplay of the inside and outside, bringing the outside into the museum and the inside out in all manner of contortions. He talked about the spread of rooms, where his work spreads over several at a time, not quite fitting into one particular room. But here again, he didn’t want to talk too much; it’s for you to discover yourselves, he said, it’s up to you. He mentioned the two different entrances/exits and abruptly, decided he was going to leave it at that.

Questions followed, once the director of the museum and one of the sponsors’ representatives had spoken. Do you try to teach perception? Do you have a political-societal aim? No, not to teach, but to challenge perception. Perception is a process and can be changed and debated. As you see, you become active; it is a case of actively perceiving rather than passively consuming.  Therefore, it is political, as consumption is a driving force of the world. Art can make possible, as well as investigate, a co-creation of the world; it is both political and critical. Is a volcano a piece of art? This topical question had apparently already been considered by Olafur; noting that near the particular volcano which recently erupted in Iceland, the Earth’s crust vibrates and was a nebulous and interesting space, he playfully suggested people should visit to improve the country’s economy. Where is all the driftwood? There are some logs in the city, he answered, but you don’t need to search for them. Instead, the hope was that you might stumble upon them, happen on a log in an unexpected part of town. The driftwood does not seek to solve problems or issues of space, what we allow space to do and how we share it, but is a way of engaging with space which does so without recourse to fetishism. Quite frankly, Olafur said, it does not even have to be art. The label of ‘art’ adds nothing to the role of the driftwood, furthermore it is not about the market!

The exhibition which we were then able to explore was fascinating. I am not sure I feel like I can write about it: I lack an understanding of art history and am not aware of the constellations of artists it might draw upon or reference. What I can say, however, is that the work is both immediate and extensive. It is not an exhibition that you need to be patient with: it is surprising and captivating. Yet I found that the intensity of the experience did not dissipate. I found myself almost forced to move. To move differently. To watch my shadow, realising it was no longer my shadow. Catching a glimpse of a room full of models, of all sizes and structures, bathed in a yellow-light. An empty room somehow became different;  imbued with a sense of anticipation. And grass at the window sill. And mirrors, lots of mirrors. Not just reflections but constructions of different spaces, a proliferation of new spaces created as you moved in the enormous structure known as the Mikroskop. Some parts of the exhibition felt as if they had been abandoned, leftovers, little holding them together. An experimental assemblage perhaps. And then a room, which you could not see. Bathed in fog and colours, lots of colours. Incredibly intense colour. Pure colour? I think of the fog now. It is blue. Nothing but blue.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

(Half)round-table, IfREX

On Thursday 22 April, the class reassembled for their regular round-table discussion with Olafur. Before that got underway, there were some more presentations (less parachute-like this time) from students who had either been unable to attend the week before and some students, those who had been away from the school for a while, presented their work for a second time those so that Olafur could see what they had been doing. There was much more discussion at the end of presentations and at times I felt that the atmosphere was rather charged as I listened to critiques, debates, and differences in opinion. Questions were varied, addressing not only site-specificity but how works might relate to art history, various techniques for sensing space, and exploring art as an object and/or experience.

A few hours later, the ’round-table’ began (although not at a round-table, which is half dismantled) and was primarily concerned with the forthcoming Keller exhibition, where the students will all show some of their work and reflect some of what they have been doing over the last two semesters. There was mention of a discussion last semester (perhaps another round-table discussion) where they re-considered the rules of what a show can be. Although the discussion did not lead anywhere in particular (and why should it?) the group have continued to re-evaluate making and presenting art. Olafur argued that experiments provided some sort of tentative foundation precisely for these re-conceptualisations; experiments as building stones for re-consideration. However, he also made the point that the students should only push for radical or avant-garde art if is what they want and that they should think carefully about what it is they are doing and why. Next time they have a show, it was suggested, they might work within the imposed constraint of pretending exhibitions had never been invented: how, then, might they display and share their work?

There was a lengthy discussion about the title of the Keller exhibition, with everyone keen to be involved in the naming process. I was asked to think of a name but since then, all the suggestions I have made to students has been met with blank looks. How to have a title for a group show, which is composed of autonomous works? It is a very diverse group and I opted for vague, general titles (such as ‘A series of spatial experiments’ and another, inspired by Erin Manning¹, called ‘timed spaces / spaced times’). I’m curious to see what title they do settle on, but in the meantime feel free to suggest titles below!

One of the other issues which came up included a book IfREX are working on, due to be completed towards the end of this semester alongside another show (the Rundgang). The book, it is hoped, will not represent the show but look to amplify its qualities; to see the book as an extension of the show. The plan is for it to not be an introduction to the students’ work but rather to engage more specifically with the work done at the school. I am sure this topic will return over the forthcoming weeks and I look forward to following the book’s life. Perhaps it might be possible for me to contribute something to it, time will tell.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Galerie M, Marzahn

On Wednesday 21 April one of the students at the school organised a trip for people to get the chance to visit her work in a gallery just outside of Berlin.  Timea had been working with people living in Marzahn and wanted to show her work there too. A day before, an email was sent round on the IfREX mailing list with a few observations on the work from one of her colleagues:

What I saw was a somewhat fragmented afterimage of a long period of interaction between immigrants who stranded in Marzahn and Timea. The majority of the communities Timea got involved with where Vietnamese. This reminded me of the project ‘Reorient’ that has represented Hungary on the 2006 Venice Biennale of Architecture. Reorient had put enormous effort and time into mapping Chinese communities in Budapest just to find how impossible this undertaking was. After Reorient fell flat due to the impenetrability of the closed world of this huge immigrant community, they even had to come up with a plan-B that they were able to exhibit something.

Timea however was able find out a lot about the stories and the dreams of the people she worked with. What she presents I think is a model of this somewhat displaced life of former East German Vietnamese people making themselves at home in the concrete jungle of Marzahn. Listening to three generations of Vietnamese woman singing to a communist karaoke DVD at the opening certainly displaced me in space and time.

Although rather figurative, the work was interesting in how Timea had engaged with a heterogeneous immigrant community and been able to put together a series of works with their help, on the ground floor of a tower-block. This raised the question of how the work might travel, even if it was ‘only’ to the centre of Berlin. One suggestion was to have a round-way bus service as part of the artwork, which would ferry people from Berlin city-centre out to Galerie M, but also allow those who live in Marzahn to travel in to visit exhibitions or galleries that they might not otherwise get the chance to see.

One of the videos, part of the show, was a split-screen story where you would see the same room on both sides, but on one side it would be inhabited and lively, and the other bare and empty (except for some hidden traces, a theme which animated another work in the gallery). The camera would pan around the room before moving on to another room and the next and so on. However, the empty rooms started to appear on the other side after a while, and vice versa, and it was no longer clear whether the people we could see were moving in or out of the accommodation: pure transition. The slightly different speeds of the panning cameras created a rather unsettling perception that the split in the screen was moving from its central point to both the left and the right, but also seemed to indicate the different sorts of rhythms that create and produce a space. Upstairs from the gallery was an exhibition on Marzahn and art in large-scale housing projects which was also well worth a visit.

The trip to Marzahn, it had been hoped, would serve not only as a chance to see and respond to a student’s work but also as an opportunity to discuss various issues which had been raised at the transparency talk the week before, in preparation for the following day’s round-table discussion with Olafur. This did not materialise quite as planned, with the group disbanding before any decisions were made…

Inside IfREX

On Monday 19 April I met up with Christina and Eric to continue our discussions about my work and what might be possible while I am in Berlin, and at IfREX. They were both keen to hear how I had found the first week of the semester, realising that it might be quite different to what I was accustomed to. The students, I noted, were quite noisy during the arranged events and would get up, leave, (sometimes) return, make tea, chat even. Christina was quick to reassure me that this was something that her and Eric had become used to and that they understood as the students had so much timetabled. Indeed, this semester they are trying to have fewer things on so the students have more time to do their own work. I also mentioned that I had found the week rather intense, with discussions going on for several hours; it transpires that is rather rare to have so many hours in one week. They were also eager to hear about my time in Montreal and to find out what initial comparisons I could make between here and there. As it had been only a week that the semester had been underway, it was difficult to make any clear connections and I was anxious to not sound as if I understood all there was to know about IfREX (I’m not sure I ever shall). Instead I answered that I had picked up on some resonances but that my hearing might be out, pointing to artists as students, collectives and experimentally-driven spaces. To this end, they were receptive to me organising some sort of dialogue between the various sites I have spent, and will spend, time at – whether in the form of a conference or publication.

On this note, we also talked about how I plan to ‘use’ my field-sites in my work. For example, would I be comparing the labs, judging the labs? Rather than critique the labs, or nominate one as being better than another, I outlined how I would like to draw on these empirical engagements in different ways to explore quite theoretical ideas about experiments, aesthetics and participaction (among others). In a sense, I would be attending to these experimental spaces as I seek to elucidate or assemble a sketch of what an experimental geography, or a geography lab, could be like. Related to my plans for how to incorporate the field in my writing, as if they were somehow separate, was the question of what I could write. There was no need of a contract we decided together but there were matters of circulation (who could access my work) and timing (when my work would be available). It turns out that I am one of the first people to have access to the school and it is important how IfREX is talked about; indeed, what the press writes about the Institute is a intertwined process. For the time being, they are keen to read more of what I have written – I had submitted an essay when applying to the school – and we hope to continue the conversation, or dialogue, over the coming weeks.

Zagreb publication launch, IfREX

The following day (16 April) the students met to launch, celebrate and discuss a recent publication resulting from a fieldtrip to Zagreb in the first semester. The publication, a collection of posters were not quite what I had expected but meant for a number of ways of creating your own publication, without being restricted by page numbers or a particular order. Not everyone had contributed something for the posters as it was optional and students had joined since the trip (IfREX is now in its third semester) but everyone was keen to have a look through and after a short introduction, the room quietened as people explored the posters.

When we came together again to discuss the posters, Eric and some of the students more directly involved in the production talked about how and why they had made various decisions about the final output. Falling somewhere between documentation and an artwork in itself, the posters were both flexible and specific, and searched for a way of being individual within a group. The students were initially quiet – it was a Friday afternoon – but fairly soon became rather animated. Not all were happy with the posters and there were complaints about how fragile they were and the folds down the middle. This was countered by those who argued that the fold allowed for the posters to be put together in different ways, like pages, and that there were all manner of playful possibilities. The ephemeral quality of the posters seemed to mirror the shortness of the trip to Zagreb. For me, it was an engagement with evocation rather than representation.

Later on, after a short coffee break, Eric presented a lecture which looked at space and perception through Japanese gardens which the group had visited at the end of the second semester during a trip to Japan. Beginning with an interest in phenomenal narratives, Eric explored the sakuteiki (Japanese records of garden-making) and the spatial and perceptual dimensions of particular techniques (such as borrowed landscape, miniaturization, altered perspective, folding screen, and hide and reveal). Although there was a tendency to focus on the visual and on cognitive science, there was much of interest in this talk which was not afraid to digress. It even ended with a reading from Beckett’s Molloy!

A series of parachute presentations, IfREX

On Thursday 15 April a day-long series of ‘parachute presentations’ was organised by the students. The idea, not dissimilar to pecha kucha, was for each person to give a 10-minute introduction to their work. The time constraint worked well, providing a set of appetisers, enabling the whole class to present projects, exhibitions and interests in one day. Leading up to the event, many students remarked that although they knew each other very well, and indeed Olafur had noted that the group had developed a certain intimacy, they were less aware of what sort of art everyone was engaged with. Further, for myself and other newcomers to the school, it was a great introduction.

I was invited to talk about my own work for 10-minutes and tried to provide an short overview of my research and why I am in Berlin, with the hope that it may be of interest to some! I found it difficult to know how to pitch my talk, as I wondered if what I had to say might be both obvious (we are interested in experiments at IfREX, nothing new in what you say)  and confusing (why and how will you investigate these issues as a geographer). It was hard to gauge a reaction, but I had tried to provide a bit of time at the end for questions. Two came my way: (1) What is geography for you? and (2) What sort of data will you collect? My rather vague answer to the first question was to discuss how I see it as a point of departure for all sorts of different projects, all with an interest in space. On reflection, I perhaps should have stressed my interest not in what something is but in what something does. In this respect, geography enables me to examine the spaces of aesthetic experimentation and draw on work from a range of other fields. In response to the second question, I tried to explain how I think of generating materials rather than looking to extract data or evidence, as such. This might include all sorts of different things and would not necessarily be restricted to text and/or talk; further the techniques would be open to suggestion, flexible and experimental (in that they might not generate much or anything at all). My fieldwork diary, audio recordings, photos, videos, sketches would be just a selection of some materials that might be produced.

The students’ talks were interesting and stimulating, as well as wide-ranging. To list them all here, or to choose just the highlights would be a disservice to their richness. The day finished with discussions on how you might, as an artist, talk about your work. How to let your artwork do its own work, rather than your talk having to supplement it. Although these are questions that might ordinarily be posed in art schools, I have no idea (!), I found it interesting to think through them with regards to geography and my own work.

Institut für Raumexperimente, Berlin

On the 13 April there was a meeting for the Institute’s guests, those on scholarships and grants. Christina Werner and Eric Ellingsen who run the Insitute (along with Olafur Eliasson) talked a little about IfREX and discussed the provisional blueprint, or timetable, for the summer semester. Later we were invited on a tour of the studio (1st floor), the Institute (2nd floor) and the kitchen (ground floor). The studio is far bigger than I had anticipated and there were many people looking very busy. Upstairs, the Institute, or school, appears even larger due to the white walls and open-plan design. There are partitions between work-spaces but these can and do move around as needed. Although we only met for a few hours, there was a lot of information to process.

The next day there was a ‘welcome back and transparency talk’ with Olafur, followed by food and drinks downstairs. I arrived early for the talk and sat myself down on a spare seat, clutching a book tightly in my hands (Whitehead’s Concept of Nature, if you were curious). Nothing seemed to happen for a while but after a while there was a critical mass which moved over to sit in, between, and on, what was somebody’s work-in-progress: a large wooden contraption with mattresses here and there. Normally, I was told, there is a roundtable in this space where everyone sits around but there was no room for it with the structure there. Instead, we tried to sit in a sort of circle and waited for Olafur to arrive.

When he did arrive, shortly afterwards, his eyes darted around the room: “You are new, hello!” he said to me, before moving on and around the circle in search of other unfamiliar faces. He settled down and welcomed back the other more familiar faces. He asked about the students’ recent trip to Japan. He talked about the Institute.

IfREX has a specific duration: 10 semesters. And then it will end (perhaps). There is no clear structure but rather different speeds or intensities. This semester will be running at 100% (instead of double-time, apparently).

Olafur praised the development of a certain sort of intimacy between the students and how they had been able to work together, sharing the space at the school. A sensitivity for being-together, is what he called it. He was also keen to cultivate hospitality towards guests, gesturing vaguely in my direction, as they can bring new ideas and approaches to the school.

Eah guest was introduced and welcomed in an official yet thoroughly personal manner. I remember feeling wanted and excited to be told that IfREX could see overlaps between its work and mine. Olafur mentioned Doreen Massey to the students and his interest in her work; later on in the evening, I reminded him that I had met him through her almost a year ago.

The blueprint was sketched out in more or less detail, and some internal issues were addressed (such as food, storage space, and the school’s homepage). I wondered if these issues would persist during my time here.

And then it was time for a drink and some food. And small-talk. And further discussion.

If only all inductions were so interesting.

Bernauer Strasse U-Bahn, Berlin

I arrived in Berlin at the beginning of April for the first stint of two month-long trips.  I’m staying in a small but nice flat along a quiet street, situated between Mitte (city centre) and Prenzlauer Berg (trendy 19th century apartment buildings). I have a pleasant walk to work and enjoy varying my route, exploring different streets and pathways. My travel pass is valid for a month and so I’ve also been trying to visit some of the tourist sites in my spare time.

The semester started on the week beginnging the 12 April and will run until mid-July. My plan is to stay here for the opening and then return towards the end. Unfortunately, up until just recently I have had trouble getting online which has been frustrating; I had hoped to provide more regular updates on my research but it just hasn’t been possible. The following posts are an attempt at ‘cathcing up’ and sharing some parts of the last few weeks.