In the early weeks of May, AKD (European Culture Association) hosted hosted a large number of  art and culture experts from EU and Non-EU in the nostalgic atmosphere of Darphane-i Amire (Ottoman Mint Factory) which is planned by History Foundation to be the “city museum” since early 90’s. However, considering that 5th and 7th Istanbul Biennale was launched there,  the partly restored building serves as a suitable space for exhibitions, congresses and symposia since that time. 

The date of utilizing historical buildings for culture and art events goes back to 1983, paradoxically at the time when 40.000 people were in jails and the constitutions was radically cleaned off the democratic paragraphs. The mega-exhibition entitled “Anatolian Civilisations” summed up 6000 years of culture in ambitious exhibitions distributed to numerous buildings on the historical peninsula. From that point of re-thinking history, which was evidently not at all the intention of the generals but an inevitable outcome, many historical buildings in Istanbul has been discovered as exotic or architecturally correct for culture and arts. Although the intention is good and benefitable, the utilization, employment and provision of these state or local state owned buildings have always been an experience suggestive of nightmare. Neglected restorations and maintenance on one side, lack of concept in administration and usage on the other, make these buildings a playground for culture industry entrepreneurs. Yet, we have also witnessed during a few biennale that they have also been misused by internationally renown artists and curators, so that the next biennale curators are delibaretly avoiding historical buildings and still searching for a suitable space, at least at the time I was wrting this text.

This time, with the support of many foreign culture institutions in Istanbul, the space was successfully utilized for a rather intimate gathering to discuss the cultural relations between Turkey and EU. The themes varied from cultural policies, administrations, managements, fundings to artistic events, experiences and communications in EU and Turkey that determine the characteristics of a period of cultural re-encounter and re-construction.

I have presented a short overview on the current interaction/exchange between the institutions and individuals of EU and Turkey. In Turkey the effects of the EU membership period  started at beginning of the 90’s on individual networking level and gradually developed into private-institutional relationship. At the same time, in accordance with the global economy and politics the cultur in Turkey gained independency, autonomy and private sector interest. The rupture between the Istanbul based contemporary art productions and Ankara based cultural policy became distinct. Istanbul art scene turned its face towards EU. 
If one should be more realistic or if one should confess: This is still a “oneway” relationship; we are still receivers rather than givers. To my opinion, the cultural relation of Turkey to EU is at the moment quite pragmatic and has no true comittment: Culture is being used- not to say abused - by the state, local governments and private sector for their goal to enter in EU. The culture actors ar still too naive, fragile and unsure. If we might describe this relation we have  to say it is ambiguous, complex and detached, because the conditions of the culture industry in Turkey cannot fully respond to the requirements of the culture industry in EU.
 

For the art production in Turkey there is support from EU, support from private sector, but no-support from central and local governments. EU institutions and foundations include Turkey into their program; private sector is becoming very conscious of promoting art;
however, central and local governments show no response, no reaction, no action yet...
Official and public funds are hardly reachable for the individuals of the art scene. Therefore the institutions and individuals cannot respond to “exchange” programs, which is the basis of a real exchange. 
This yet incomplete process has a very crucial moment: EU started to expand its culture policy at first to the East European countries and later to the Balkans. Although the process is not yet complemented there yet, Turkey very quickly - maybe too guickly- became the field of expansion. The policy is being extended over Turkey to South Caucasus, to Near and Middle East. Therefore, Istanbul is no more the border or bridge, but a “complex” transmitter of EU culture to further east. 
There is a dilemma of identity within the concept “complex”: it means emblematic/carismatic position; it means distanced and nonchalant to EU, to Anatolia and to east and south-east of Turkey; it means spoilt by overindulgence; it means hegemony of micro-politics against the macro politics.
With this complex identity Istanbul is in a state of continuous fusion and con-fusion.  
The border of EU has long ago shifted to East and Southeast Turkey, around which the countries are expressing themselves with the cultures of their again “emblematic/carismatic” capital cities, which are astonishingly similar to Istanbul.  In the near future – i might be exagerating- Istanbul will become a “cultural representative” of Tibilisi, Yerevan, Baku, Teheran, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, Cairo and Tel Aviv...And, most of these cities are winners  as well as victims of globalisation. Because for these cities, Modernity was a false appearance and rupture, Post-modernity was the outcome of post-colonial / post-soviet period and the capitalist drive, Globalism became a hurricane. These tradition and history laden cities are not centers of welfare and democracy. The state and the context of these citites determine the “gaze” of EU societies to the Non-EU territories. Istanbul, among them is comissioned and designated not only to construct a relation – which I hope is a communication based on equality – with Turkey in the whole but also with all these cities around its borders. This is a twofold task; a task that should have been fulfilled long before...

Since almost a decade the cultural entities in EU and independent groups in Turkey are showing interest to discover and know eachother on the platform of post-modern reconciliation, i.e. on a basis of recognition from Western European art and culture institutions, curators, theoreticians and culture managers. In tune with this endevaour EU funds have opened their doors to numerous projects that has been realized by mostly officially appointed curators and culture managers in EU art institutions which throughout the last half of 20th century were unimaginable for an artist from the Non-west. The main objectives of this acknowledment should certainly be evaluated within the theoretical discourse of globalisation as well as within the inevitable fact that most of these countries/cities have large communities of Turkish origin which should be amended with their own contemporary cultural vigour in their self-inflicted isolation. As a consequence, throughout the 90’s when Turkey’s hopes to come near to EU was choked within the turmoils of PKK terrosim and suppressed civil war, the demand of displaying culture and art from Turkey emanated from the EU centers of culture. Numerous contemporary art exhibitions with selected artist from Istanbul have been realized particularly in Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, France, Austria, all curated by local curators, sometimes in collaboration with the Turkish one’s. Throughout the years the general approach of the curator from EU involved a three or four days visit to Istanbul, one or two hours interview-like talk with the local art experts or galleries, occasional visit to the studios of the artists which ended up in an ecclectic group show with a synthetic concept or rather with a title that can activate the phantasy of the most orthodox public. Who profited of these exhibitions? Despite the lack of financial profit and despite the lack of interest of the market the artists could gain an experience and encounter different publics. Possibly, the EU curators could overcome their orientalist tendencies through these short visits to Istanbul. A small group of artist who could extend their relations from institutional level to the market oriented level gained international recognition. The most profound channel of communication in contemporary art was the Istanbul Biennale, which has been influenced since the early 90’s by EU art centres and curators. With this biennale Istanbul art scene has unconditionally opened its doors to EU cultural policies, thus generously endowing the membership process, which in turn had its subversive repercussions in the local discourse.

Recently - not in the sense that Turkey with its cultural sources is vigorously exporting critical art or thinking to EU, but as a kind of exchange - some NGO’s under the auspices of the ministry of foreign affairs or other related state offices and with the eager support of multinational corporations inaugurate a mixture of high and popular art&culture packages in EU to enchance the membership process. Here, a typical culture industry and it  entrepreneurs word by word carry out the theories of Theodor Adorno as the outcome of global capitalism and these celebration packages are introduced as the most effective implements to bypass the habitual aversion of EU societies.   
However, as seen from the eyes of the global traveller the current cultural status of Istanbul as a megapole of the region between the Balkans, South Caucasus and the Middleeast is enchanting. A city that can compete with New York in the energy, dynamism and color of its entertainment or popular culture. Yet, culture in the sense of critical, theoretical, spritual and aesthetic creation has a modest space within this amalgam of popular heterogenity. A modest space because of the absence or inadequacy of the official, local or private institutions, because of the reluctance of  their administrators or managers, because of the submissive behaviour of all the existing creative communities. In fact this dilemma is very much related to the problems of general education. Recent investigations on over 3000 college level students in Istanbul – 20% never goes to cinema, only 17% reads books , 50% of them spend their free time in bars, discos or wandering around, art and culture events have not been mentioned at all - prove that the current culture events and productions hardly reach them. The existing infrastructures of art and culture, such as the art and design education, the biennale, the corporate and private galleries, local art market, publications etc. are more or less local and need support from the state in their attempts to enter the international competition, which in turn lacks in funds and expertise. Although glamorous, Istanbul is not a city of international intellectual celebrities to live and work; they only travel to Istanbul to be inspired. Although a city of historical architectural wonders, Istanbul is full of scary contemporary architecture. Although a city of pleasant surprises and contradictions, the quality of daily life and utilities are dropping behind the EU cities. The challenges of traditional, modern and post-modern urban structures, the gap between the rich and poor districts, the difference between the social classes, the antagonism between the rural and urban communities and the discrepancy between the macro culture and micro-cultures still make this city the object/subject of orientalizm even if it is also the cultural object/subject of Turkey’s integration to EU.
    
To my opinion cultural communication or dialogue between Turkey and EU in a meticulous ı manner depends on Turkey’s determination to establish a macro-economic stability in tune with a political stability. 

©Beral Madra
Published in Relais Culture, August, 2005