Master of Arts Thesis
Euroculture
University of Uppsala, Sweden ( Home) University of Strasbourg, France ( Host )
January, 2015
Rethinking Istanbul Biennial In The Process of Globalization
Submitted by Gözde Sütçü Robin
Student number home university: 820616-7945 Student number host university: 21119150 Contact details (telephone/email) +33651496731
Supervised by:
Name of supervisor home university: Mathias Persson Name of supervisor host university: Alexandre Kostka Toulouse, France Signature
MA Programme Euroculture Declaration
I, Gozde Sutcu Robin hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “Rethinking Istanbul Biennial In The Process of Globalization”, submitted as partial requirements for the MA programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, texts, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the bibliography.
I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.
Signed:
Gözde Sütçü Robin
Date: 14 January 2015
Preface
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friends: Turkan Kantale, Louwane Courtney, Astrid Walsh and Ayse Nil Ozden. My husband, Charles Robin, deserves special recognition for supporting me during the long and arduous process of writing my thesis. I am filled with gratitude for his patience and understanding. And finally, I would also like to thank my professors; Mr. Alexandre Kostka for helping me in choosing my subject which allowed me to further identify and refine my professional goals and Mr.
Mathias Persson for his effective guidance.
Gözde Sütçü Robin
Preface………..……4
Abstract ………..…..5
Introduction ………..……….….……..6
Literature Review ………..…...9
Globalization………...11
Global City and the Culture Industry……….………….……….…13
The Cultural Policy of Turkey………...20
2010 European Capital of Culture: Istanbul ………...26
History of The Biennials ……….……....29
Why A Biennial in Istanbul?...34
The Evolution of the Istanbul Biennial………...43
Istanbul Biennials From 1987-2013……….…....45
1st International Istanbul Biennial……….45
2nd International Istanbul Biennial ………...47
3rd International Istanbul Biennial ………47
4th International Istanbul Biennial ………48
5th International Istanbul Biennial ………50
6th International Istanbul Biennial ………51
7th International Istanbul Biennial ………53
8th International Istanbul Biennial ………55
9th International Istanbul Biennial ………57
10th International Istanbul Biennial ………..58
11th International Istanbul Biennial ………..…60
12th Istanbul Biennial ………62
13th Istanbul Biennial ………64
Conclusion……….…73
Bibliography………..………....77
Abstract
During the 1980s and 1990s, the world witnessed a radical change in which globalization diminished the power of the nation-state and shifted that impetus to a certain number of
“Global Cities.” London, New York and Tokyo appeared to be the first of these cities and they acted as the heart of the new commercial and financial geography. In order to further strengthen their status, these cities organized transnational cultural events such as fairs, festivals and biennials. Those events have been assumed as a driving force behind other political, economic and financial activities in the era of globalization.
Since the 1980s, Istanbul has emerged as a candidate for a new global city at the eastern frontier of Europe. Thus, with the encouragement of the government, the private sector has begun to organize several large-scale cultural events in order to reshape the city as a global city and re-present the nation with a more European outlook. This is in keeping with the desire to facilitate Turkey’s EU accession process and attract global commercial activities.
The Istanbul Biennial is one of the most important of these cultural initiatives. Thus, this research will scrutinize the Istanbul Biennial within this framework. The main premise will be: “The organization of the Istanbul Biennial aims to attract global financial activities, enable the political aspirations of the city and therefore transform the city into a global one.”
Key words: Culture Industry, Global city, European Union, Cultural Policy and Istanbul Biennial.
Introduction
Art, money, and political power have always coexisted in a complex, dynamic, and interdependent relationship. Although the relationship between these components has mostly been treated separately, a significant broader interaction becomes apparent with the conditions of globalization. Since globalization began accelerating in the 1990s, certain cities have emerged as power centers whose influence ranges beyond national borders in terms of politics, culture and economy. London, New York and Tokyo appeared to be the first of these cities and they acted as the heart of the new commercial and financial geography1. In order to further strengthen their status, these cities organized transnational cultural events such as fairs, festivals and biennials. Those events, as part of the Culture Industry, have becomea driving force behind political, economical, and financial activities in the era of globalization.
Istanbul, particularly after the 1980s, has emerged as a global city candidate on the eastern frontier of Europe with its potential for being a regional command and control center, with its capacity to attract global capital flow, with its multinational and multicultural social structure.2 Therefore, several cultural initiatives and activities began to be organized, in order to increase the brand value of the city and met the requirements of globalization.
The liberalization policies from the 80s on had the effect of cutting off state spending for art and culture.3 This highlighted the role of the private sector in the culture industry. Thus, the private sector started to take a proactive role in organizing transnational cultural events with the encouragement of government, in order to attract global financial activities, which would eventually increase the political power of city governments.
Analyzing the International Istanbul Biennials, organized by Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (abbreviated hereafter as IKSV), presents an opportunity to examine the intertwined relationship of money, politics, and art—in the respective roles of private sector financing, city government, and the culture industry.
1 Saskia Sassen, “Overview” in The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (Oxford: Princeton University
Press, 1991), 4.
2 Caglar Keyder, “Capital City Resurgent: Istanbul Since the 1980s”, Lecture delivered at LSE European Institute on Monday, 8 December 2008.
3 Serhan Ada and H. Ayça Ince, eds, Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey (Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009),177.
Questions for further investigation:
“How does the process of globalization foster the growth of the culture industry, and how does the growth of the culture industry foster globalization?”
“How can the Istanbul Biennial, as a part of the culture industry, contribute to the development of the national political and economic climate?”
“What role has the Istanbul Biennial played in representing the Turkish nation in the international arena?”
“What are the real motivations prompting the private sector to support such cultural events?”
“Can the Istanbul Biennial act as a catalyst to accelerate Turkey’s EU membership process?”
The research methods employed in this study are based on archival exploration including the archives of the IKSV, data structuring, and interviews with the key agents directly involved: curators, gallery personnel, artists, and policy makers. Such data were collected from printed sources, primarily newspapers, art journals, gallery publications, catalogues, and the writings of artists, curators, and policy makers.
This paper will begin by reviewing the discourse of globalization with a focus on the realm of “global city” and its interaction with culture industry, in order to shed light on the Istanbul Biennial, as a part of the culture industry which acts as a catalyst for remaking Istanbul as a global city. Subsequently, Cultural Policy of Turkey will be scrutinized within the context of the EU membership process, which has had a significant influence in boosting the culture industry in Istanbul via its frameworks such as the European Capital of Culture Program. In order to further understand the essentials and motivations that gave rise to a Biennial in Istanbul, the paper will depict the socio-political and economic situation prior to the Biennial. Accordingly, the evolution of the Biennial, starting in 1987 until the present, will be rehearsed by analyzing the artists, curators, conceptual frameworks and exhibition venues. The intention will be to illustrate the two-way interaction between the transformation of Istanbul into a global city and the organization of the Biennial. That is to say: Istanbul feeds the Biennial and the Biennial, in turn, feeds
Istanbul4, in terms of its aspiration to evolve into a global city in order to strengthen its position within global power relations.
4Stated by Mustafa V. Koç, Koç Holding Chairman of the Board of Directors during the press conference of 12th Istanbul Biennial, “The 12th Istanbul Biennial Opens Saturday September 17th”, accessed 22 October 2014. http://12b.iksv.org/en/12thistanbul_Biennial_ENG.doc.
Literature Review
Berala Madra, a curator and critic and the general director of the first two Istanbul Biennials, has published several essays about the Biennial and its relationship with the city and the modernization process in Turkey. She has mostly contextualized the Biennial in the socio-political and cultural developments of the country. Some of her essays have been collected in a book called ART: Every Two Years in which she introduced and commented on nine biennials, which were held between 1987 and 2003. She emphasized the themes and exhibition strategies of each biennial in the context of the economic and political developments of the same year. Most of her recent essays introduce Istanbul as a global city in the East of Europe, with a strong emphasis on the geopolitical location of the city in which she questions the cultural policies of the EU and their re-generational and transformative effects on Istanbul. She highlights the increased amount of cultural production, cultural exchange and new opportunities provided for Turkish artists by EU grants under the framework of the EU Culture Policy.
One of the best-known and most prestigious publishing companies in Turkey, called İletişim Yayınları recently published a series called Art-Life, which currently comprises 32 books. Entitled Urban Change and Festivalism: The Biennial in a Globalizing Istanbul, written by Sibel Yardimci, contributes to the current debate by analyzing the biennial in the context of the global developments and cultural requirements of the new world order.
In another of her essays focusing on the Istanbul Biennial, Interlocking Flows:
Globalisation, Urbanism, and Culture in Contemporary Istanbul (2001), she aims to present how the city and cultural production re-create each other. On the one hand, she attempts to analyze how Istanbul, as an urban space, shapes and structures cultural production within the city, while on the other, she tries to describe the role that production and consumption play in culture, complementing and supplementing other economic activities and playing a part in the urban regeneration of Istanbul.5
Another major book contributing to the global city and culture industry debate is Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe, edited by Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli. This book analyzes the social, political and urban regeneration impact of being the 2010 European Capital of Culture on the city, and the relationships between governmental
5 Sibel Yardımcı, “Interlocking Flows: Globalization, Urbanism, and Culture in Contemporary Istanbul”, (paper presented in the Critical Management Conference, The management of creativity and creative industries stream, Manchester, 2001).
public authorities, non-governmental organizations, artists, and the public during this time period. Its goal is to bring a new approach and solutions regarding the image of Istanbul, which is reflected as a city of culture, history, and diversity. In addition to the academic research, there are the writings of professionals who work in cultural based jobs. It consists of five chapters: Paths to Globalizations, Heritage and Regeneration Debates, The Mediatized City, Art in the City, and A European Capital? The book includes discussions about gentrification, architecture, art exhibitions, cinema, literature and many more, showing the traces of integration with Europe and the steps towards globalization on the streets of Istanbul and in the daily lives of citizens.
In addition to the above literature, Caglar Keyder’s earlier book, Istanbul: Between the Global and Local has also become prominent because of his focus on strongly correlating the culture industry with globalization. His book attempts to analyze the potential of Istanbul in becoming a global city as defined by the concepts of theorists like Sassen, and establishes whether or not it would miss opportunities unfolding in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.7
Although the issues of the culture industry, the global city and the Istanbul Biennial have attracted considerable scholarly research, what seems to be missing from the current discussion is the linkage with, and to, the critical analysis of Turkey’s process in achieving EU membership. Thus, this research seeks to fill this gap by examining the cultural policy of Turkey within the context of the EU membership process by looking at the themes of cultural funding and the relevant legislation of the European Union. It seeks to understand the importance of these interconnected forces in reshaping Turkish culture and, thereby, enhancing Turkish aspirations for EU membership.
7Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?
(London and New York: Routledge, 2010),12.
Globalization
For the purposes of this paper it is important to begin by reviewing the discourse of globalization. The focus will be given to the increasing role of cities in the process of globalization, with emphasis on the culture industry, in order to analyze the Istanbul Biennial as a part of the industry, which fosters, and contributes, to both the political and economic climate of Turkey.
Globalization refers to the rapidly developing and ever-increasing network of interconnections and interdependencies that characterize material, social, economic and cultural life in the modern world. At its most basic, globalization is a description of these networks and of their implications: of the “flows” around them – and across international boundaries – of virtually everything that characterizes modern life, for example: flows of capital, commodities, people, knowledge, artworks, information, ideas, crime, pollution, diseases, fashions, beliefs, images, and so forth.8
As Thomas L. Friedman’s simply defined:
Globalization is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach into individuals, corporations and nation- states farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before.9
Such dense and increasing global connectivity has complex and controversial effects on people’s cultural experience. According to Antony Giddens cultural globalization involves the increasing “reflexivity” of modern life: “the systematic integration of myriad small individual actions into the workings of social institutions which appear autonomously to govern our lives.”10 Accordingly, culture, is a dimension which effects globalization whilst also being simultaneously generated and shaped by it.11
Globalization has a multidimensional feature, that is to say, it occurs simultaneously within the spheres of the economy, of politics, and of culture. With these global interactions and
8 George Ritzer, Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 352.
9 Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (Anchor Books,
2000),9.
10 George Ritzer, Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 354.
11 Ibid. 355.
interdependencies across time and space, cities started to assume an important role. Since the 1980s, which marked the era of Thatcher-Regan liberalization,12 we have become increasingly familiar with the term of globalization. Since the middle of the 80s, we have been introduced to the term “world city” as suggested by John Friedmann in 1986 and subsequently with the concept of a “global city” as introduced by Saskia Sassen in 1994.
According to Friedman, “world cities” serve as command and control centers for banking and finance, management and ideology; they are large urbanized regions, defined by dense patterns of interactions rather than by political and administrative boundaries. Thereafter, Sassen brought out the concept of “global cities” which are “command and control centers of the world economy that are at the top of the world-wide hierarchy of place-bound human activities.” Global cities are introduced as the key platforms for advanced services, creating new knowledge within a network of information flows, and serving as transnational market places for the implementation of global economic operations.13 Additionally, Sassen contends that the digitization of the world economy and cultural activities drag cities into the global flow more than the local.14
12 Alexander Bergmann, ed., Music-city Sports-city Leisure-city A reader on different concepts of culture, creative industries and urban regeneration attempts (Bauhaus-Universität Weimer Institut für Europäische
Urbanistik, 2008). 147. Accessed 12 October 2014, https://www.uni-
weimar.de/architektur/raum/publikationen/culture-citybergmann.pdf .
13 Tüzin Baycan-Levent, “Globalization and Development Strategies for Istanbul: Regional Policies and Great Urban Transformation Projects” (Paper presented at the 39th International Planning Congress, ISoCaRP Congress, “Planning in a More Gloalised and Competitive World”, Cairo, Egypt, 17-22 October 2003), 3., http://isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/359.pdf.
14 Saskia Sassen, “The City: Between Topographic Representation and Spatialized Power Projects”, Art Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2 (College Art Association, 2001), 12, accessed 18 November 2014, doi:
10.2307/778059
Global City and the Culture Industry
As George Ritzer suggests, for a better understanding of the role of cities in the global era, it is helpful to think of the city as being in a state of constant change. Most of us experience cities as an accumulation of buildings, roads and parks that we learn to recognize and navigate through. However, it is important to perceive cities as an outcome of activities and social processes that preserve them or which may change them as well.15 In fact, cities are living social entities, thereby making them important actors within the social, political, cultural and economic evolution of a country. As it is clearly depicted by Ritzer; “Cities are not isolated from their geographic and social surroundings and they are not autonomous social entities. Cities emerge within and, are sustained by, their connections with their geographic, social and political surroundings.”16 It is in this context that the culture industry became important tool for cities in order to extend their impact reaching wider than the political borders within which they are located.
As Political Philosopher Chantal Mouffe contends, in the Fordist and Post-Fordist era, culture became an economic marketing tool because, culture and economy have merged in an inseparable way and the culture industry became the driving force of globalization.17 Culture industry embodies the potential of fostering the process of transformation of a city into a global city due to its multidimensional interaction with the economy and politics in the era of globalization.
In the Post-Fordist era, cultural production became increasingly “the business of cities”
firstly, because of its direct relation with tourism, and secondly, due to the fact that the production of culture builds an image for cities in the international arena.18 In the Post- Fordist era economy marked a switch from a production based to a consumption-based one and on that ground culture became an economic marketing tool. Because, such a switch has augmented the importance of developing symbols to sell a product as a marketing
15 George Ritzer, Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 354.
16 Ibid, 256.
17Chantal Mouffe, “Democratics Politics in the Age of Post-Fordism,” in Open: The Art Biennial as a Global
Phenomenon, No:16 (Netherlands:Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009), 34.
18 Sharon Zukin, The Cultures of Cities (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1995) Transferred by: Sibel Yardımcı, “Interlocking Flows: Globalization, Urbanism, and Culture in Contemporary Istanbul”, (paper presented in the Critical Management Conference, The Management Of Creativity And Creative Industries Stream, Manchester, 2001), 3.
strategy.19 As Zukin points out, “culture is a system for producing symbols and every attempt to get people to buy a product becomes a culture industry.” That is to say, “culture in the Post-Fordist era is not only an industry in itself, but a tool to frame and sell other industries.”20 This is due to the fact that culture sells, attracts tourists, generates economic activity, and is an integral part of the entertainment industry.21 In this respect, art biennials represent a perfect example of a marketing strategy to brand and to represent the hosting city with carefully created images just like other products. Although the main motivations for organizing a biennial can be altered depending on the particular economic and political situation, and the future aspirations of the countries, this paper reflects on the Istanbul Biennial as a product of the culture industry, which is used to represent and recreate Istanbul as a global city. In order to fully understand the concept that a biennial as a product of the culture industry fosters the process of remaking a city as “global,” the following section will introduce the common characteristics of global cities, with a specific analysis of the status quo of Istanbul.
19Sharon Zukin, Landscapes of Power. From Detroit to Disney. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991), 12.
20 Brendan Cormier, “Public Culture:The Question of Culture and Control” in Music-city Sports-city Leisure-
city A reader on different concepts of culture, creative industries and urban regeneration attempts. Edited by Alexander Bergmann (Bauhaus-Universität Weimer Institut für Europäische Urbanistik, 2008), 46, accessed September 22, 2014, https://www.uni-weimar.de/architektur/raum/publikationen/culture-citybergmann.pdf.
46.
21 Thierry de Duve, “The Glocal and the Singuniversal Reflections on Art and Culture in the Global World,”
in Open 16 The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, (Netherlands:Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009), 46.
According to Ritzer, one of the main characteristics of a global city is that it is a
“cosmopolitan place,” usually where various cultures from around the world are represented on the streets of the city. Such cities are often the sites of greater economic opportunity than their surrounding neighbors which turns them into a hot spot for immigration.22
Being located at the joining point of two continents, as the gateway to the hot climates and oceans, as the outer reach of the Silk Road extending to Europe,23 being the capital of the Eastern Roman, Byzantine and the Ottoman Empire24 ensured Istanbul a highly cosmopolitan character. However, the cosmopolitan character of the city did not serve the suitable conditions to create the new and homogenous Turkish nation after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, Istanbul snatched the status of being a capital city to Ankara by the establishment of new Turkish Republic in 1923. The declaration of Ankara as the new Turkish capital represented a strong symbol of the political and cultural preferences of the republican regime. In republican eyes, Ankara was the city of the future and the symbolic heart of the new secular nation. Ankara is considered immaculate and modern, in contrast to Istanbul which was the center of the Caliphate and the sultanate and exhibited the features of its imperial and dynastic traditions and considered as decaying and dirty, belonging to the past rather than the future.25
Concequently, during the first part of the 20th century, Istanbul gradually lost its status.26 This diminished status, added to the newly imposed Turkification policies of the recently created republic, resulted in a population decline.28 Due to population exchanges with Greece, in 1923, and the exodus following the pogroms in 1955, non-Muslim
22 George Ritzer, Globalization (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 254.
23 Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture,“Geographic location and strategic importance”, accessed: 01 December 2013 http://www.ibb.gov.tr/sites/ks/en-us/0-exploring-the-
city/location/Pages/geographicalandstrategicposition.aspx
24 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?
(London and New York: Routledge, 2010),7.
25 Murat Gül, The Emergence of Modern Istanbul: Transformation and Modernisation of a City (London:
Tauris Academic Studies, 2009), 85.
26 Michael McAdams, “Global Cities as Centers of Cultural Influence: A Focus On Istanbul”, Transtext(e)s
Transcultures, 153. 2007, accessed 07 September 2014. http://transtexts.revues.org/149
28 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?
communities dwindled. More then ever before, Istanbul became more Turkish, and Muslim. 29
As Caglar Keyder states starkly “in 1913, one out of five people in the geographical area that is now Turkey was Christian, but by the end of 1923, this percentage had declined to one in forty.”30 “During these ten, devastating years, an estimated two-thirds of the Armenian population perished in massacres, and from deprivation and disease.31 Istanbul’s population went from an all-time high, of an estimated 1,100,000 before the First World War, to around 600,000 in 1922. Bereft of its native bourgeoisie, its foreign residents, its imperial household and bureaucracy, Istanbul ‘died’”.33
During the republican period in Istanbul, the first population census took place in 1927, recording the population as 700,000.34 Radical population growth didn't begin until after 1950, however, with the migration of the Anatolian peasants - due to the city's rapid industrialization - it increased from 983,000 in 1950 to 10,923,000 in 200035. This also brought a remarkable change in the composition and diversity of the population, forcing the emigration of non-Muslims.36
The population also grew by expanding the city limits, especially in the 1980s, when city dwellers doubled in number. Istanbul was growing at a rate of 3.45%, making it the fastest growing metropolitan city of the seventy-eighth largest city in the world.37 According to the population registry system based on address, between 2008 and 2012, Istanbul attracted an annual average of 64,000 immigrants. Therefore, the size of the population increased to
(London and New York: Routledge, 2010),7.
29 Ibid.
30 Çağlar Keyder, “The Consequences of The Exchange of Populations” in Crossing the Aegean
An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey, ed. Renée Hirschon, Vol:12. (2003). 41.
31 Ayşe Öncü, “The Politics of Istanbul's Ottoman Heritage in the Era of Globalism: Refractions through the
Prism of a Theme Park” in Cities of the South: Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century, eds. Barbara Drieskens, Franck Mermier and Heiko Wimmen, (London, Beirut: Saqi Books 2007), 241.
33 Ibid.
34 Caglar Keyder, Istanbul, Küresel ile Yerel Arasinda (Istanbul:Metis, 2009), 18.
35 World Population Review, "Istanbul Population 2014," 19 October 2014, accessed 2 November 2014, http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/istanbul-population/.
36 Caglar Keyder, “Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 29.1, March 2005, 124-134, accessed 13 October 2014, doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 2427.2005.00574.x
37 World Population Review, "Istanbul Population 2014," 19 October 2014, accessed 2 November 2014, http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/istanbul-population/.
13,854,740. The population has also jumped by 9% during the past five years, 30% of this rise is accounted for by immigrants.38
The Arab spring has also brought radical growth to the population of Istanbul and a considerable change in its composition. Since the revolution, and subsequent civil war in Syria (2011), the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey has exceeded 1 million people as at the beginning of 2014, more than 100,000 settling in Istanbul alone.39 On the first of January 2014, the population of Istanbul was 14,160,467, which is 18.5% of the total population of Turkey (76,667,864 as of January 2014).40
In this regard, the unique geographical location of Istanbul as a bridge between Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia creates a confluence of civilizations, cultures, policies and financial activities.
As a transcontinental city, which makes Istanbul a hotspot for migration, it eventually became the largest city in Turkey and Europe, and the fifth largest city in the world.41 Regarding the impact of the population size on global influence, it could be argued that the size of a city does not really matter, but the formulation of the population does make a difference with its creative groups, high skilled workers, intellectuals, global wealth owners and students.42 Considering that, every year, more than 200,000 unskilled and uneducated people, and refugees, migrate to Istanbul,43 the city has had difficulties absorbing such an increase in terms of its social, political and economic status quo. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to say that Istanbul displays strength in terms of it being a “cosmopolitan place.”
38 Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), No: 13425, 28 January 2013, accessed December 2013
Http://www.Turkstat.Gov.Tr/Prehaberbultenleri.Do?Id=13425
39 Salim Fuat, “Türkiye’nin Suriyeli Göçmenler Sorunu”, Sinif Mücadelesinde Marksist Tutum (2013),
accessed 11 October 2014, Http://Marksist.Net/Selim-Fuat/Turkiyenin-Suriyeli-Gocmenler-Sorunu.Htm.
40Istanbul.com, "Turkey's Demography: The Colorful Population Of Istanbul", accessed: 18 December 2014, http://www.istanbul.com/en/explore/info/turkeys-demography-the-colorful-population-of-istanbul.
41 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?
(London and New York: Routledge, 2010) 5.
42 Michael McAdams, “Global Cities as Centers of Cultural Influence : A Focus on Istanbul”, Transtext(e)s
Transcultures, 3, 2007, 161. accessed 07 September 2014. http://transtexts.revues.org/149
43 Caglar Keyder, Istanbul, Küresel ile Yerel Arasinda (Istanbul:Metis, 2009), 36.
Another characteristic of global cities is that they have a significant influence over the regions surrounding them. Global cities have such an influence, as they are often the administrative centers for cooperations, government bureaucracies and non-profit organizations, which usually form part of an international network of organizations, and therefore they serve as a link to the global reach.44
When the potential of Istanbul is analyzed according to this characteristic, the city displays strengths due to its central location. (Being located between Europe, the Middle East and the former Soviet Republics.) Some of the organizations that are currently based in Istanbul include: The International Labour Organization (ILO), The International Finance Corporation (IFC), The Organization Of The Islamic Conference Research Centre For Islamic History, Art And Culture (IRCICA), BSEC Headquarters, the Permanent International Secretariat of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC PERMIS) and The Parliamentary Assembly Of The Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC). Even to be present at the meeting of any of these headquarters demonstrates the accelerated transformation of Istanbul into a global city, and has encouraged friendly and neighborly relations in the Black Sea region.
Another key element of a global city is its cultural offerings. Global cities, such as New York, Tokyo, Paris, and London, have a strong culture industry.45 These cities frequently offer space for large-scale international cultural activities.46 In this respect, it can be argued that Istanbul exhibits strengths in terms of being a global city due to its rich cultural industries, which sprang up from the earliest biennials and were unleashed following the liberalization of the 1980s. The EU membership process has also nurtured the cultural life of the city as well as the country. Turkey has been a partner country for EU initiatives, since 2002, promoting culture, which includes grant programs, competitions, regulations,
44 Ayşe Öncü, “The Politics of Istanbul's Ottoman Heritage in the Era of Globalism: Refractions through the
Prism of a Theme Park” in Cities of the South: Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century, eds. Barbara Drieskens, Franck Mermier and Heiko Wimmen, (London, Beirut: Saqi Books 2007), 241.
45 Josefina Cabigon, “Cities in Globalization” Asia Pacific Social Science Review Vol 6, No 2 (2006).
accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/journals/apssr/pdf/200612/science_3.pdf.
46 Ayşe Öncü, “The Politics of Istanbul's Ottoman Heritage in the Era of Globalism: Refractions through the
Prism of a Theme Park” in Cities of the South: Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century, eds. Barbara Drieskens, Franck Mermier and Heiko Wimmen, (London, Beirut: Saqi Books 2007), 241.
European capitals, and the European Years. 47 The European Capital of Culture Program was another accelerating force for the culture industry of Istanbul,48 which also benefited the 11th Biennial by providing 15% of its budget. 49
Biennials paves the way for cities to enter into the global economy by attracting global financial wealth, as the rhythm of the biennial can be coordinated with the rhythm of contemporary international tourism.50 Thus, there is no question that the reasons for the proliferation of art biennials are mainly, if not exclusively, economic due to the fact that the contribution that culture makes to a city’s economy goes far beyond its direct economic footprint.51 That is why the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts conducted a study on economic impact. It aimed to present the economic aspect of the cultural activities organized by the IKSV in 2011, and offered basic policy recommendations with regards to the necessary public support, to reveal the economic return aspects of cultural production in Turkey.52 According to this report, the IKSV activities have generated an economic impact of 70,000,000 TL, which is almost twice as much as small and medium sized enterprises (SME) with an annual turnover of less than 40,000,000 TL in 2011. This report emphasizes that the social and economic value generated by cultural activities is quite significant, given that the culture industry unifies societies, increases the brand value of cities, nurtures creativity and design, and contributes directly to the urban economy and indirectly to the national economy, through interaction with other sectors.53
47 Republic of Turkey, Ministry for EU Affairs, “Education and Culture (Chapter 26)”, last update 22 October 2014, accessed 10 November 2014, http://www.abgs.gov.tr/?p=91&l=2.
48 Michael McAdams, “Global Cities as Centers of Cultural Influence : A Focus on Istanbul”, Transtext(e)s
Transcultures, 3, 2007, 161. accessed 07 September 2014. http://transtexts.revues.org/149
49 Ilkay Balic, ed., 11th International Istanbul Biennial. What keeps mankind alive? The Texts (Istanbul:
Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2009), 24.
50 Boris Groys et al., Open: The Art Biennial as a Global Phenomenon, No:16 (Netherlands:Nai Publishers SKOR, 2009), 64.
51 World Cities Culture Forum. Policy Briefing 1: Istanbul Summit 2013 (BOP Consulting, 2013), accessed
30 November, 2014,
http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/sites/default/files/publications/WCCF%20Policy%20Briefing%20
%231%20Istanbul%20Summit.pdf.
52 IKSV Economic Impact Research, December 2012, Istanbul. 7.
53 Ibid.
The Cultural Policy of Turkey
In order to further understand the developments which prepared the legislative ground for the organization of a biennial in Istanbul, the next section will summarize the Cultural Policy of Turkey within the context of the EU membership process, which has had a significant influence in boosting the culture industry in Istanbul via its frameworks such as the European Capital of Culture Program.
Cultural policies have always assumed a central role in both the establishment of a modern Turkey and the foundation of a national identity since the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. 54 In the early years of the Republic, cultural policies and concrete objectives were set via the agenda of revolutions. Ataturk's main aim was to build a homogenous country under the support and supervision of the state, and in accordance with the standards of nationalism and modernization. This aim was most likely to be achieved through cultural policies.55 The 1st Five Year Development Plan (1963-1967) did not include cultural guides in detail. It mostly covered educational development and included targets for Western and Turkish art and promoted the theatre. The 2nd Five Year Development Plan (1968-1972) established a clearer strategy, as well as sharing the same principles and objectives as the previous one. The 3rd Five Year Development plan (1973- 1977) was the first to include a section for culture only.56 Most importantly, the Ministry of Culture was added to the Cabinet, which was established after the 1970 military coup.57 The first Minister of Culture was Talat Sait Halman. With his support, Nejat Eczacibasi, a businessman, founded the IKSV, in 1973, in accordance with The Ministry. The IKSV has a general objective to make Istanbul one of the world's foremost capitals of culture and arts, to create continuous interaction between the national and universal, traditional and contemporary values, via culture and arts, and to contribute actively to the development of cultural policies.58
54 Serhan Ada and H. Ayça Ince, eds, Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey (Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009), 119.
55 Ibid. 126.
56 Ibid.128.
57 Ibid.
58 The Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, “Main Objectives”, (2013), accessed 12 December 2013, http://www.iksv.org/en/aboutus/mainobjectives.
This action shows the clear execution of the cultural policy that fostered the establishment of the IKSV and the organization of the 1st Istanbul Festival (1973) that forms the roots of today’s Istanbul Biennial. The Festival showed that it had understood and accepted the cultural policy by organizing non-profit events.59 The 4th Five Year Development Plan (1979-1983) was not a great improvement on the previous one neither economically, socially, culturally or politically. Its main idea was to remove geographical disadvantages in the cultural field and to give a larger share of the national income to these areas, and therefore enable more production and consumption of culture.60 The military regime of September 12, 1980 reduced the Ministry of Culture to the level of secretariat under the Ministry of Tourism, which resulted in it losing its independency.61 In the5th Five Year Development Plan (1985-1989) the main focus was on National Culture. The objective of the plan included: promoting the works of culture and including them in daily life; the restoration and conservation of privately owned historic works; translating ancient Turkish works into modern Turkish and passing them on to future generations; providing education and employment prospects for the national arts and crafts; furthering research on Turkish music; advancing and promoting literature, painting, theatre and the moving image.62 Thus, the 5th Plan included more cultural and educational projects to promote culture and the arts, which also enabled the evolution of the Istanbul Festival into the Istanbul Biennial. In this sense, the5th Plan differs from the others.
Therefore, one can state that the first two biennials were seen as proactive steps taken in the realization of these objectives. In this period, important improvements related to synchronization with the West, in the sense of art, politics, and economy, took place. One important political event in the country is that Turkey completed its full EU membership application on April 14, 1987.63
59 Serhan Ada and H. Ayça Ince, eds, Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey (Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009), 98.
60 Ibid, 129.
61 Ibid. 129.
62 Ibid.
63 Summeries of EU legislation, “The 2004 enlargement: the challenge of a 25-member EU”, accessed 11
November 2014,
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enlargement/2004_and_2007_enlargement/e50017_en.htm.
The 6th Five Year Development Plan (1990-1994) covered culture separately, with a fundamental policy in development, modernization and opening up to the world.64 The 7th Five Year Development Plan (1996-2000) aimed at a democratic society and more freedom for individuals.65 It can be claimed that the enhanced relations with the EU, via the Customs Union, and the aspirations of achieving candidacy status, influenced the determination of the goals and progress of the Five Year Development Plans. It should be emphasized that Turkey received its membership status around this period, in 1999.
Repeatedly, the concept of national culture formed the basis of the 8th Five Year Development Plan (2001-2005). It identified Turkish cultural values and transmits them to the next generation. The aims of it were listed as “the production and development of national culture, and the support and popularization of cultural activities.”67
The 9th Five Year Development Plan (2007-2013) referred to cultural policies as a significant part of the EU integration process. The need for co-operation between NGOs and local administrations is emphasized, as is the importance of collaboration between the public and private sector. The decline in the ministry’s budget from 7%, of the whole budget in 1992, to 4% in 2008 is featured in the plan.
As seen above, the cultural policy of Turkey is formulated in a very vague and ambiguous manner. There are no well-defined short or long-term goals. An impartial control mechanism aimed at scoping the achievements does not exist.68 In this regard, one can argue that the cultural policies are not methodical and focused. The priorities of the plans are subject to change according to the differing political and economic leanings of the elected parties and the times.69
Since the 2000s, the political agenda of Turkey increasingly started to be shaped by cultural policy, due to the EU membership process and the apparent necessity to regulate the needs of the private sector, such as “giving tax exemptions for the private sector's expenditure on cultural activities in certain fields, or undertaking initiatives, which will
64 Serhan Ada and H. Ayça Ince, eds, Introduction to Cultural Policy In Turkey (Istanbul: Istanbul bilgi University Press, 2009), 129.
65 Ibid.
67 Ibid. 130.
68 Ibid.127.
69 Ibid 128.
ensure the operation of transnational cultural industries within certain international standards or norms, and the establishment of Turkey's cultural industries.”70 This process was triggered by the signing of the Participation Partnership in 2006, which appointed Istanbul as a European Cultural Capital in 2010.72
The cultural policy of the government can be defined as a nation state policy dating back to the foundation of the Republic and implemented up until the Justice and Development Party (abbreviated hereafter as AKP) came to power. In short, national state policy was trapped in a vicious circle, offering no opportunities to escape, and in which individuals with one single language, culture and religion tried to be brought together under a Turkish identity. Due to this, it was necessary to support branches of the arts, which encouraged the policy of creating and implementing a modern Turkish nation. Therefore, while opera, ballet, music, theatre and cinema (to some extent) were supported by the government, visual arts was not supported to the extent that it should have been. The private sector recognized this gap in the 1970s and tried to fill it.73 Right at this point, it should be kept in mind that the implementation of the 1st International Istanbul Festival, which was organized in 1973, came to fruition under the leadership of Nejat Eczacibasi. The cultural art life, which began to flourish under the leadership of the private sector in 1970s, is now almost totally endorsed by the private sector with the involvement of increasing numbers of private galleries and bank galleries.
The visual arts have been afforded importance during the AKP period, and the situation is that local administrations supporting the visual arts do so in tandem with their social policies. The cultural policy, which focuses on reviving the Ottoman culture, highlights traditional handcrafts, miniatures and calligraphy and the like. The cultural policy, as followed by the private sector, works in quite a different way to that of local government.
For example, Rahmi Koç, one of Turkey’s prominent manufacturers, entered the list of Honorary Trustees by donating 10 million dollars to the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Furthermore, the cultural policy adopted by the private sector is closely related to
70 Ibid. 102.
72 Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and Ipek Tureli, eds., Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?
(London and New York: Routledge, 2010),269 .
73 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014
where it wants to locate itself in the international arena.74 The cultural policy of non- governmental organization works in parallel with the cultural policies of the EU. The difficulty these three foundations - the private sector, government and non-governmental organizations – have is a meeting of minds on a common point, thus making it difficult for Turkey to reach the international standards set for modern art. For this reason it is difficult to catch up with the international levels in foundations such as, museums, galleries and art schools which we can call motionless substructures. It is easier for these three (private sector, government and non-governmental organizations) to meet on a common point at the implementation of large scale international activities, such as festivals, fairs and biennials, which we can call moving substructures. Even so, the exceptions should not be ignored.
The IKSV closes the gap in Turkey in the field of right to reach art and culture, despite the fact that this right actually falls under the responsibility of the government. When the status quo in the world is observed, it is clearly seen that, right to reach art and culture is regulated by government. In Europe, which is known to have welfare state policies and in America, which has free market capitalism, both places have a long established and well- balanced cultural policy that ensures the creation and distribution of art and culture.
Therefore, even though the government does not make contributions by producing art and culture, it sets the infrastructure and guarantees production in this field. The rights of the artists are ensured by regulations in law and a free base is created for artistic production by protecting social rights, freedoms, and rights against censorship.75In Turkey there is no equivalent support by the government, nor is there a clearly determined policy to regulate the production and consumption of art and culture. The budget of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism within the overall state budget is very small in Turkey, thereby demonstrating the lack of importance actually given to culture and art. The IKSV plays an active role in fulfilling some of these government shortfalls via the support of the private sector.76 The IKSV is one of the leading NGO that supports, encourages and guides the arts in Turkey. The acquired experience of the IKSV in the field of art and culture highlights it as an important player in the organization of international events in accordance with the government’s policies. That is to say, the IKSV has largely been the representative body
74 Interview with Beral Madra, Art Critic and Curator, Canakkale, Turkey. 26 September 2014
75 Interview with Ozlem Ece, Coordinator in the Department of Cultural Policy, IKSV, Istanbul, 29 Mart 2013
76 Ibid.
for the Turkish government in art and cultural events at an international level.For instance, the IKSV applied to the European Council for the 2010 European Capital of Culture programme on behalf of the Turkish government.78
78 Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (IKSV), “History”, accessed 15 December 2013
http://iksv.org/en/aboutus/history.
2010 European Capital of Culture: Istanbul
The European Capital of Culture (ECoC) was initiated in 1985 and is designed to: promote the cultural richness and diversity of cultures in Europe; celebrate the cultural features Europeans share; increase European citizens' sense of belonging to a common cultural area; and foster the contribution of culture in the development of cities. In addition, the ECoC initiative introduced an excellent opportunity for: regenerating cities; raising the international profile of cities; enhancing the image of a city in the eyes of its own inhabitants; and breathing new life into a city's culture while boosting tourism.79
In 1999, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe took the decision (1419/1999/EC) to extend the initiative to involve non-member and candidate countries, which included Turkey. Istanbul was proposed as a candidate for the ECoC in 2000, and that marked the beginning of the initiative.80 Istanbul was named alongside Pécs (Hungary) and Essen (Germany).81 Every year different cities are chosen to be the European Capital of Culture, more than one city represents the ECoC due to the decentralization aspect of the program.
Istanbul was designated as the European Capital of Culture in 2010 further to a recommendation by the European Parliament on November 13, 2006 and was approved by the Council of the European Union Ministers of Culture.82
An executive body "Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Agency" was set up by law in 2007 to implement the ECoC initiative. This agency enjoyed a strong political and financial commitment by the national government, as well as a significant degree of autonomy, at least at the outset.83
According to the National Report of Cultural Policy in Turkey:
79 Creative Europe, “European Capitals of Culture”, accessed 18 October 2014,
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/tools/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm.
80 Creative Europe, “Ex-Post Evaluation Of 2010 European Capitals Of Culture”, accessed 18 October 2014,
3, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc/ecoc-2010-report_en.pdf.
81 Bulent Ozan and Can Unver, “Exploring the Impact for Istanbul of Being a European Capital of Culture”,
Ernst & Young, Volume 4, Issue 4, 55, 2012, accessed 3 October 2014, http://performance.ey.com/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/Exploring-the-impact.pdf
82 Creative Europe, “Ex-Post Evaluation Of 2010 European Capitals Of Culture”, accessed 18 October 2014,
3, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc/ecoc-2010-report_en.pdf.
83 Ibid,17.
…nearly 2,634,900 TL monetary support has been given to a total of 570 local, national, and international organizations and charities that carry such activities (festivals, commemoration ceremonies, concerts, exhibitions, performances, conferences, seminars, panels, fairs, and such) and local municipalities during the year 2010.84
In total 2436 projects have been launched within the scope of the European Capital of Culture. 60% of the budget of the program was devoted to cultural heritage and urban projects; however, only 49% of the budget has been used because of large unfinished projects such as The Ataturk Cultural Centre.86
Throughout the project, the following activities have been achieved:
- 1598 shows/concerts - 763 exhibitions
- 336 books/magazines and catalogues - 1127 stage performance
- 1201 conference/seminars/symposiums - 735 workshops87
Even though there was an inconsistency in the budget, “Istanbul 2010” still received the largest budget of any ECoC to date. It was also one of the largest and most substantial ECoC to date, featuring both a diverse cultural program with many innovative elements and an extensive program of renovation and refurbishment of cultural heritage sites and venues88. The main focus of the “Istanbul 2010” was the four elements, namely; earth, air, water and fire, which were said to have a special meaning to Istanbul, although activities based on a broad range of artistic and cultural disciplines took place throughout the twelve months of the title year.89
84 National Report, Cultural Policy in Turkey, European Programme of National Cultural Policy Reviews, Ankara: Council of Europe. October 2013. 94.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
