Realized by the joint efforts of Istanbul Municipality and Yapı Kredi Arts and Culture, the exhibition ‘This Place’ offers a multi-perspective narration of Istanbul that highlights the co-existence of the anthropic and the natural within the ecosystem of urban. Crucially -and aligned with the current tendencies in ecological discussions- in its efforts to pay attention to the other stakeholders of the city, the exhibition embraces the concept of more-than-human. The curator states the aim of the exhibition as examining the shared urban spaces by focusing on the “historical, cultural and political transformations of the concepts of “nature” and “environment” (This Place, 7), hence, the exhibition revolves around the concept of urban political ecology. This focus mostly finds its expression in the pieces exhibited and only partially in the curatorial choices and even though the exhibition tackles ecological issues it arguably fails to communicate the urgency of the topic and to involve a wider public in the discussion.
The exhibition offers an account of how nature transforms, and in this transition how the so-called dualities of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ are not dualities at all but a dialectic. Since this is so, the exhibition rightly points to the need that ecology and ecological concerns should be approached from a social and political perspective, which necessitates individual and societal responsibility. The curator’s statement regarding the title of the exhibition points towards this idea: “This Place” is where the subject, the commentator stops and encounters others, meets them, and thus, is where the questions of responsibility and justice arise, where the subject, the action, space, and time can re-organize” (This Place, 7). Then, it is possible to say that the exhibition, is not only concerned with providing an account of the natural and urban transformations but equally and perhaps more remarkably with the relationality of the actors and stakeholders, either living or non-living, that can not be thought separate from those transformations. Significantly, such a take on the matter underlies the social ideas of ‘responsibility’ and ‘justice’ within the context of ecological and environmental problems.
This Place displays nature representations, which take on another layer of meaning in their relationship to each other within the context of ecological discussions, as well as including different types of ecological art[1] -some communicating scientific data, some are politically engaged, others self-reflective on societal and individual levels. In general terms, the works draw attention to industrialization and urbanization paving the way for today’s ecological issues of loss of biodiversity, overpopulation, human invasion, destruction of nature and water ecosystems, and gentrification. Equally important, besides pointing towards these issues, the exhibition also dives into a ‘biographical’ effort that tries to provide an ecological portrait of Istanbul, by highlighting its natural/cultural characteristics that define its identity like water (natural sources like streams, rivers, and sea as well as urban systems like aqueducts, cisterns, fountains), its landscape (natural ones like caves, hills, cultural heritages like hissars, mosques, squares and the pressing reality of never-ending construction sites), as well as the cultural practices that revolve around these qualities like sailing, fishing, and environmental activism. Building on this point, it is possible to say that the exhibition rejects the cartesian separation between city-nature and examines them together, as interrelated processes. Such approach necessitates an embracement of the view that what is about the city, also includes ecological processes; and what is thought to be natural comes to include, within itself, what is social and political (This Place, 111).
To examine the artworks more closely in regards to these thematic subcategories, two remarkable examples of the dialectical relation of nature and culture are the ‘Yarımburgaz cave’ and ‘One to two’ installations, which respectively relate to the concepts of Anthropocene and Capitolecene. Yarımburgaz installation includes the remnants of the cave and videos-photographs of its current state. The site holds the knowledge of the area’s climate and population changes throughout the time and it is said that it “can shed light on the history of the last one billion years of Istanbul and the whole region” (This Place, 10). Besides highlighting the significance of the site, the installation simultaneously exhibits the uncontrolled human intervention to the site, the damage, and the destruction caused by visitors. The installation makes the effect of human beings on nature strikingly visible and contrasts its ecological and cultural importance with the fact that it is on the route of Kanal Istanbul. Similarly, Özlem Günyol and Mustafa Kunt’s work ‘one to two’ show how capitalist ideology and the state instrument demolish nature, in this case, the endemic flora of Northern Forests facing extinction because of mega projects in the area (This Place, 17).
One of the natural forces that shape the city’s identity and culture, as it is aforementioned, is water, and therefore the theme can be viewed throughout artworks and other documents in its relation to the city and transformation. The video installation ‘This is not a line’ takes Istanbul’s coastline as its subject matter and shows, in a time-lapsed record, the incredibly fast transformation of the Istanbul Airport area, Yenikapı Landfill, and Marmara shore covered with mucilage (This Place, 12). The installation is also striking in demonstrating how the natural ecosystem is interrupted by the state and private capital as it explains that the landfill area in Yenikapı is to be covered with a 1 million capacity rally area, a huge parking area, and a sewage plant. The invasiveness of humans becomes all the more apparent from the ‘birds-eye’ view, and how it comes to occupy much of the water and soil ecosystems as well as exploit these natural resources. This invasiveness and the humans’ toxic relation to other living beings in the city is tackled by Nermin Er, in her work ‘Encounters’ where she creates an alternative, less romanticized, and more real silhouette of the city in which the construction sites takes up a large part with only few dog silhouettes towards the sides of the work. The depiction reflects, not only the unplanned urban sprawl but also the process of how dogs have been exiled to the outer parts of the city, to detention centers “following the mega projects and gentrification” in Istanbul (Yıldırım 2019 as cited in This Place, 23). Through this representation, Er brings out the concepts of ecological justice and spatial politics, in its specific focus that while the living space of people gets bigger, the smaller it becomes life for other living entities in the same environment. The map collection from the 1920s even more clearly shows the spread of urban settlements. In contrast to these accounts, stand the postcards, which, with the views of the old Istanbul they demonstrate -the coasts, public spaces, greenery- points to co-existence of the stakeholders of the city, sailers in Yenikapı and Küçüksu, stray dogs in cafes, birdhouses on mosques, etc.
Significantly, some documents and works voice the public regarding ecology and politics: the selection of news headlines about Istanbul’s ecology problems and oppositions to environmental policies display a record of resistance, and how the natural environment can’t be separated from what is political in an urban context. Füsun Onur’s horizontal sculpture, with the red text ‘burası’ on it, carries special significance because of its historical context, that is, it was produced at a time (the early 90s) when the Turkish government was creating pressure in public spaces (This Place, 16). The work, therefore, carries the quality of being an activism symbol.
In short, the exhibition includes works that tap on current ecological problems in İstanbul, some more urgent than the others, like Kanal İstanbul (Burak Delier, Courier), loss of biodiversity (Özlem Günyol-Mustafa Kunt, One to two), natural heritage preservation (Sinem Dişli, Yarımburgaz cave), gentrification and uncontrolled urbanization (Nilbar Güreş, Çırçır series). However, besides these, one of the major pressing issues, that in my opinion must have been included in the exhibition is the vast deforestation policies and zoning of forest ecosystems for construction and housing; as well as the most fundamental and individually important topics of clean water and organic food free of chemicals. Therefore, I think it would be fitting for the exhibition to include the questions of agriculture policies, the treatment of the soil, and its effects on an average citizen who buys their vegetables and fruits from markets. Lastly, the contemporary local public activism against the ideological decisions and malpractices regarding the natural environment and its sources, as well as the ecological policies -or the lack thereof- was not represented enough. While, ironically the realization of such an exhibition in this specific time, reflects the zeitgeist of the era, the rising eco-interest, and eco-anxiety of the people. That is why I think their voice should have been heard more in the exhibition.
Another subject that needs to be pointed out is given that Yapı Kredi is able to form a collaboration with the municipality and that in this exhibition its focus is the concept ‘urban political ecology’, choosing a public space for the exhibition would have been a more relevant and sound curatorial choice. This would, to a great extent, eliminate the ‘threshold fear’ or the bias that the wider public may have towards a contemporary art institution, hence, communicating its subject in a ‘neutral’ space accessible for everyone. Considering that the ecological crisis is an urgent and big problem, it is legitimate to argue that there need to be radical changes in culture and arts to make people participate in art. However, it is seen that in the This Place exhibition, the viewer is mostly put into the traditional passive consumer/observer and is not involved in the exhibition as a participator in meaningful ways. Therefore, it is ironic that an exhibition that takes public space and environmental justice as its subject is decided to be organized inside a private art institution (one that is specifically owned by a bank) that has security guards at the entrance. To sum up, I find the choice of space too sterile, too controlled, too at odds with what the exhibition tries to convey.
In terms of content, when the exhibition is evaluated holistically, I think it does not quite meet the expectation for such a big effort (the collaboration, vastness of the archives, successful artists, etc) on such a hot topic. What I more specifically mean is conveying the ‘immediacy’ of the subject, creating a holistic vision of the present and the possible apocalyptic future. Of course, it may be the case that the exhibition didn’t aim for these effects from the beginning, or such stance can be easily viewed as the reduction of art to a mere tool of ecological communication, but still, the cruciality and the urgency of the ecological crisis rightly makes one look for such effects and aims: maybe the ‘shock’ effect (as in In-yer-face style) that would put one in a mood to learn and if possible, do more regarding the subject (to take on an activist approach), or providing a way for the viewer to personally relate to what is being communicated (appealing to the emotions). It is in this sense that I’ve found the exhibition ‘traditional’ in its take of the matter, while it had the sources for realizing more innovative ways (I mean the fact that the organizing institution is one of the biggest actors in arts and culture scene in Turkey and the collaboration with the municipality is opening new possibilities).
The curatorial text argues that “This Place” invites us to revisit the discussions of justice in an urban space that is created not only by the people but also by the interactions of all entities, living or not, sharing this space, through cultural artifacts and artworks” (This Place, 9) but this seems to be limited to the content of the artworks in the form of passive contemplation, the exhibition place remains to be a mere ‘showroom’ that does not make an effort to transform the space into one in which ‘public discussions’ and participation is possible. At some point in the text Güler asks “Within the urban context, how can we rebuild the ground for the public discussions of the place and effects of ecologies of different scopes[…]?”. As an exhibition that embraces the public culture and art accumulation of the city, and as one that carries the concern to transform institutions to create better dialogues with “space, time and entities around us” (This Place, 9) one way of ‘rebuilding the ground for the public discussions’ can be by questioning the art institutions and arts role in ecological crisis. Hence, it requires a level of self-reflexivity. Since the exhibition lacks this, it seems to be, at least partially, about ‘following the trend’ and ‘doing the right thing’ rather than a sincere attempt for raising awareness, encouraging activism, and aiming for change.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This Place exhibition catalog. YKY, 2021. https://images.ykykultur.com.tr/upload/document/593ccc2a-b595-4887-8709-7396e3d29606.pdf
[1] Ecological art, characteristically, is the form of art that deals with ecological concerns.
