This paper was published at the book The Entrepreneurial Principles of the Cultural and Creative industries compiled by Prof. Dr. Giep Hagoort (Utrecht University/Utrecht School of the Arts), assoc. Prof. Dr A. Thomassen (Auckland University of Technology), Drs. R. Kooyman (Ars Nova), 2011.
Abstract
The Turkish counterparts of the cultural capitalists (Dimagio, 1986) are now pursuing their own cultural entrepreneurship at the dawn of the 21st century in Istanbul.[1] As Europe is going under serious crisis of cuts in the state subsidies, the Istanbulian cultural scene is attracting attention with its artistic and cultural landscape that is heavily shaped with the cultural investments of the private sector – sponsorship of corporations and investments of families of industrial conglomerates.
Among these Brahmins[2], the Eczacıbaşı Family deserves exclusive focus with their initiation of the highly praised Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (İKSV) in 1973, which is today the indispensable leading cultural entrepreneur who has built and shaped the local cultural sector and the contemporary artistic scene. Nonetheless though, İKSV is also accused of being a gatekeeper in the local artistic scene, of not outreaching to public but staying within the secure circle of its elite audience and not showing a firm political stand.
This paper aims to explore, focusing on the Istanbul Biennial organized by IKSV as of 1987, how an arts institution’s cultural entrepreneurship in Istanbul could succeed in compliance with the support of its stakeholders – audience, local and international funders and policy makers in today’s environment where the contemporary artistic scene has acclaimed its international outreach, the city has lived its entitlement of European Capital of Culture, the city government is talking about creative industries yet the audience is still questioning the credibility and the relevance of the cultural institutions.
The study will rely on literature review and quantitative and qualitative research with in-depth interviews with members of the Eczacıbaşı family who have been active in the board and management of cultural investments of the family as well as administration team of İKSV.
Keywords: Philanthropy, cultural entrepreneurship, creativity, Istanbul, cultural policy, funding.
The Istanbul Biennial
Biennials have become an increasingly popular institutional structure for the staging of large-scale exhibitions causing ‘the biennialization of the contemporary art world.’[i] Whereas Daniel Birnbaum, asserts that the idea of biennials have come to extinction as innovative art exhibitions are being suppressed by the glamour of art fairs,[ii] Obrist emphasizes this change is merely due to the relocation of geographies of the biennials, now flourishing in emerging economies, from Cuba to Korea, Senegal, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates and beyond as of the first decade of the 21st century.[iii]
The Istanbul Biennial with its confinement in 1987, following the Habaña (1984) after the São Paulo (1951) Biennials, as one of the first of non-west Biennials, has been a leading force in the process of culture of biennials replacing the conventional institutional art framework in 1980’s and 1990’s by its high quality and engagement in major geo-political discussions.[iv] The Istanbul Biennial, phrased as “ poignant, relevant and intellectually engaging” [v] proudly announcing its being “ranked among the most important European art events of the year along with the Venice Biennale”, has finalized its 12th edition in 2011 with reports of a total of 110.000 people of which approximately 700 international press from 50 different countries and 4000 arts professionals and a total of 6000 internationals visiting in two months. [vi]
Istanbul Biennial is the second festival that sprang in 1987 from the International Istanbul Festival[vii] of the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (IKSV) currently in celebration of its 40th anniversary, founded by seventeen businessmen under the leadership of Dr. Nejat F. Eczacıbaşı of the Eczacıbaşı Family, a leader conglomerate in pharmaceutical industries, as ‘an industrialist who planned an urban festival of arts, similar to those held annually in several European cities’[viii].
As the art and cultural scene in Turkey function within an inadequate state support deprived of necessary cultural policies relying on a weakened civil society with the public domain diverted to the philanthropy of the private companies, whose ‘intervention’ into the arts is inline with the neoliberal model in USA and UK in 1980’s,[ix] the Eczacıbaşı Family could be named either as to be one of Wu’s intervening companies (Wu:2003) or Di Maggio’s Brahmin families (Di Maggio:1986). In spite of the praises the family has received, their name has also been a usual target to accusations of being a monopolist in the local cultural scene for possessing the name of the city in their entitlement of two arts institutions, Istanbul Modern Museum (2004) as well as the IKSV both of which are being directed and sustained under their auspices.
This paper will discuss whether or not the Istanbul Biennial happening as ‘an event of the city, in the city, and about the city’[x] can be defined as among the best practice of Turkish private cultural entrepreneurism focusing on the dynamics of the local cultural scene considering the relation of the Biennial with its constituencies – the City/State, private funders, audience and artists. This analysis will be based on the four fundaments of entrepreneurship as stated by Hagoort as economical – innovation; psychological – intuition; management related – professional environment one must work at / self-entrepreneurship; and biological – environment in which the organization must function.[xi]
The Environment – The City and the State
The social, political and the economic context of the 1980’s wrought by the consequences of neo-liberalism, military coup and the forthcoming globalism have had indispensable effects in development of the Istanbul Biennial. Looking at the first two editions in 1987 and 1989 that were entitled as International Contemporary Art Exhibitions; commonly stated as provincial exhibitions in the periphery[xii], we see an isolated local artistic environment where most were not interested in global arts developments being disconnected to the existing networks and the international artists could only be convinced to participate to these first exhibitions with the curatorial credibility against the existing prejudices about the host city at the peripheral country.[xiii]
This scene though was reverted entirely with the opening of the International Contemporary Art Exhibitions to the international curators and hence to the global funds and networks as of the 4th edition; taking the name Istanbul Biennial in 1995 inline with the rapid transformations in the city[xiv]. Keyder’s statement in late 90’s, that Istanbul was not becoming a global city but experiencing the impact of globalization as an ‘informal globalization’ because of the constraints imposed by the political sphere and the lack of coherent and unifying entrepreneurial vision at the local level[xv] has been surpassed by the success of the city in the new century to follow[xvi]. This success though has created a “divided city” as in all global cities, where lessening of public funds emerge a two-tier system causing the two spheres to grow apart life, styles being redefined through the medium of consumption to which restaurants, nightspots, concert halls and exhibition spaces contributed.[xvii] More and more the “to be gentrified” districts of the city got to be crowned by the grand private investments of cultural buildings built by award wining architects. This though could hardly be claimed to be a result of mutual labor of the state and the private enterprises as suggested by Wu in UK and USA. In the case of Turkey, the state’s actions show more interest in ventures of shopping malls and hotels.[xviii] As city marketing has been based on ‘cultural entrepreneurship’ and ‘policies of creative industries’, phrasing arts as an urban economic development strategy where artists and cultural workers were mere service providers for global metropolises as of 1980’s, there has been stated an open alliance of artistic and economic interests with the cultural policy.[xix] Yet, in the case of Turkey, the state is still working on to define its cultural policy and with its hesitation to ally with the local artistic scene, it seems to lend a hand to the private investors leaving the public domain to the corporate hands.[xx] Although the lease of public property to the private cultural investors could be seen as an evidence of such an alliance, the dichotomy arises, as this partnership is not being supported by necessary legal implementations or tax benefits for cultural institutions that are still regulated with restrictions in their activities of income generation.
Hence, the Istanbul Biennial conveys the ‘entrepreneurship’ and the ‘uniqueness’ in the sense that it is the Biennial of the city, which was not initiated by the city unlike its predecessors the Venice Biennial or Documenta but initiated and sustained by a private foundation. The share of the state support[xxi] as well as that of the City to the Biennial and to the rest of the festivals of IKSV has never been more than 10% in total on an irregular basis with the rest compensated by corporate sponsors for a 75-80% of all budget.[xxii] Although IKSV was initiated by an endowment supplied by the Eczacıbaşı Group that continues to fund the Foundation as the Leading Sponsor, IKSV’s board of directors have never been obliged to invest financially unlike their European and American counterparts[xxiii]. The board that embodies members of the Eczacıbaşı family, artistic directors, artists, CEO’s, and the Mayor of Istanbul as well as the Chief Magistrate can be said to be acting more like an honorary or an advisory board.
The declaration that the share of public funds to the Biennial is at the same percentage of IKSV’s individual donors programme[xxiv] gives us a clear portray of the intensity of the need of private sponsorship. In the case of the Biennial, Koç Holding’s pledge to be the 10-year long sponsor has enhanced a financial relief for the management that has to reapply each year to State funds without a certainty of if, when and how the funds would be committed.[xxv] This clear abstinence of financial support on the side of the state is clarified with Fereli’s comment that Municipality perceives IKSV as a competitor to Kültür A.Ş – the commercial company of the Municipality set up to do the services for culture, art and tourism.[xxvi]
The Criticisms
Despite of this success of realizing a worldwide acclaimed Biennial without public support though, the Istanbul Biennial has been receiving many criticisms, majority of which rise from the local arts scene. It has been accused of abandoning traditional local artists and artworks produced before 1980’s because of the disinterest and ignorance of the foreign curators to the local arts scene; for being an “ad-hoc show of carelessly collected and exhibited works”; for becoming a business deal for the sponsors and their star artists to show off and for getting funding from George Soros.[xxvii] Most of these oppositions derived from the nationalist approach such as in 2007 when the Dean of the Arts Faculty of a local university signed a petition accusing the curator of the 10th Istanbul Biennial for insulting the Turkish Republic for Turkey’s modernization process was phrased as “a top-down imposition” in the Biennial text .[xxviii] The most supraising challenge though has recently been done for the 12th edition by an artist initiative that distributed postcards, which when scraped off revealed a part of a letter from the founder of the Koç Company – main sponsor of the Biennial – to the 7th President of the Republic where he offers his support in praise of the military coup d’état in 1980 that devastated the intellectual and the artistic circles of the time.
And from a sociological approach, the Biennial and the IKSV has most severely criticized by study of Yardımcı (Yardımcı: 2005) with her argument that IKSV is part of the festivilized urban life where the festivals are unchallenging ‘safe parades ranging from entertainment to soft-core politics’ because of their dependence to private funding.”[xxix] Questioning the authenticity of the Istanbul Biennial, Yardımcı also argues that Istanbul festivals ‘fail to develop their own language’ but use canons of the aesthetic taste and criteria depicted by cultural authorities of the international networks of the global art markets instead of focusing on their own specificity.[xxx]
Concluding
Kirby notes that entrepreneurs take initiative, assume autonomy and innovate taking risks only for “they make things happen”(Kirby, 2003)) and this is what the Eczacıbaşı Group did in creating IKSV and the Istanbul Biennial. Under such circumstances, the intuition and innovation of the Eczacıbaşı’s to found the Istanbul Biennial have indeed created a respectable case of entrepreneurship that carried the family and the company name to a level beyond any prior expectations. What started as a philanthropic deed of creating a music festival like any other European counterparts, is in its 40th anniversary today Turkey’s most well known and reputable arts institution that has acted as an innovator realizing the first contemporary and international arts events in classical music, jazz, film, theatre and visual arts in the city.
Whereas the American culture emphasizing a free market economy where the government has a small role and self-reliance attitude of the philanthropic culture have made private entrepreneurship respectable (Chong, 2002), the constituencies of IKSV seem to value this more as an opportunity that has led IKSV to be a power player and a monopoly in the scene. This arises as entrepreneurship of IKSV is regarded more commercial than social. Ironically, whereas the act of seeking private sponsorship, corporate donors and international grants that is a mere methodology to realize the artistic event in such a lack of public support for the managerial team of the Istanbul Biennial, this has been the reason that the Festivals of the IKSV in the focus of the Biennial have been charged of being tools of the urban elites in their motivation to market the city helping Istanbul to emerge as the showcase and gateway for Turkey’s new era of integration into the world scene[xxxi]. Yet, Örer, the current Director of the Istanbul Biennial emphasized that lack of public support should be taken as a proof that the ‘marketing of the city’ is not a priority, a necessity nor an imposition and that neither the state nor the City Management has shown a specific interest in using the Biennial for cultural tourism not even during the tenure of the ECOC 2010[xxxii]. Örer identifies such denouncements due to the far long existing prejudices against the Biennial and the lack of understanding of the actual financial setting the Biennial management realizes its work; referring to this as “being forced into being identified as a power hub against our will”. This comprehension is so strong that even the public outreach activities of the Istanbul Biennial – talks, education programs and free admission for university students do not seem to overcome the corporate image.
Still, if IKSV’ s cultural entrepreneurship with private philanthropy is being taken as a model and a best-case scenario by other Biennials such as Athens in this era of economic crisis and termination of state funding[xxxiii], it should be t Istanbul Biennial’s challenge to communicate this model to its local stakeholders.
In spite of all the critics, it is a relevant and indisputable fact that the Istanbul Biennial as of 1987 has been the first international contemporary arts exhibition acting in place of those galleries, museums, art fairs and contemporary art schools that either did not exist at the time or did not get actively involved in international contemporary arts till late 90s. A less mentioned fact is that the 1st International Biennial in Turkey has actually been organized in 1986 in Ankara, the capital city, under the title ‘International Asia-Europe Art Biennial’ that would go on only for four more editions till 1992. This Biennial taking place within the premises of state’s arts institutions and being organized by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture itself was not a story of success with the contreversial discussions it has evoked against its artistic integrity and professionalism and hence could not be sustained.[xxxiv] The Istanbul Biennial on the other hand with its professionalism, has been praised of acting as a school, rising a new generation of art community via its introduction of international contemporary artists, curators and theoreticians to the scene enabling the visibility of conceptual art in the country.[xxxv]
Whether or not the cultural industry of the city will enjoy a share of Turkey’s target to be one of the world’s top 10 economies in 2023 as Bülent Eczacıbaşı, the current chairman of the board of IKSV, hopedin his speech at the opening ceremony of the 12th Istanbul Biennial is out of scope of this modest attempt to highlight IKSV’s case of cultural entrepreneurism focusing on the Istanbul Biennial. This search has proved that regarding the entrepreneurship of the Istanbul Biennial even though its necessity is unquestionable, the Istanbul Biennial and the IKSV need to formulize a strategy to communicate to its constituencies their relevance to the city and society with a focus on the social entrepreneurship. For although entrepreneurship is in the cultural policy agenda of most European states such as Netherlands and UK as to support alternative income generation for the culture sector with the hope to replace the diminishing public subsidies, Turkish cultural entrepreneurship is currently being defined and structured by the deeds of the private sector in the absence of state input and the private sector has to accept and reflect their social responsibilities to the society.
References
Beral Madra, Post Peripheral Flux: A Decade of Contemporary Art in Istanbul (Istanbul: Literatür, 1996).
Banu Karaca, “The Politics of Urban Art Events: Comparing Istanbul and Berlin.” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by Deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010), 234-250.
Çağlar Keyder, “Istanbul Into the Twenty-First Century,” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by Deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010), 25-34.
Çağlar Keyder, “The Setting,” in İstanbul: Between Global and the Local, ed. Çağlar Keyder. (USA:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc, 1999), 3-28.
Chin-tao Wu, Privitising Culture, Corporate Art Intervension since the 1980’s, (UK: C.T, 2003).
Chin-tao Wu, “Biennials Without Borders?,” New Left Review 57 (2009): 107-115.
David A. Kirby, Entrepreneurship, (UK: McGraw-Hill Education, 2003)
Derrick Chong, Arts Management, (UK: Routledge, 2002)
Esra A. Aysun, “Looking At The Independent Art Scene Of Istanbul As A Possible Case Study For The Future Positioning Of European Cultural Institutions” (paper presented at the AIMAC 11th International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management, Antwerp, Belgium, July 3–6, 2011).
Giep Hagoort, Art Management Entrepreneurial Style, (Utrecht: Utrecht University Utrecht School of the Arts Research Group Art and Economics, 2003).
Giep Hagoort, Cultural Entrepreneurship, (Utrecht: Utrecht University Utrecht School of the Arts Research Group Art and Economics, 2008).
Hans Ulrich Obrist, “Futures,Cities,” Journal of Visual Culture 6 (2007): 359-364
Hou Hanru, “Not Only Possible, But Also Necessary: Optimism in the Age of Global War” in 10th International Biennial Catalogue, ed. İlkay Baliç Ayvaz, İstanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfı, Istanbul (2007).
Huo Hanru interviewed by Nilgün Bayraktar, “Optimism Reconsidered.” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, (Oxfordshire: Routledge,2010), 201-215.
Jale Erzen, “Art in Istanbul:Contemporary Spectacles and History Revisited,” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by Deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010), 216-233.
Joel L Fleishman,The Foundation: A Great American Secret: How Private Wealth is Changing the World (Public Affairs, 2007).
Marcus Graf, “The International Istanbul Biennial,” in User’s Manual: Contemporary Art In Turkey (1986-2006), ed. Halil Altındere and Süreyya Evren. (İstanbul: art-ist, 2007), 64-72.
Nina Möntmann, ed., Art and Its Institutions, (London: Black Dog Publishing, 2005).
Osman Erden, “Türkiye’de Güncel Sanat Alanını Şekillendiren Unsurlar” (unpublished PhD diss., Istanbul Mimar Sinan University, 2011).
Paul J DiMaggio, Non-Profit Enterprise in the Arts: Studies in Mission and Constraint, (New York: Oxford University Press,1986).
Sibel Yardımcı, “Festivilising Difference: Privatisation of Culture and Symbolic Exclusion in Istanbul”, European University Institute Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies, EUI RSCAS Mediterranean Programme Series 35 (2007).
Sibel Yardımcı, Kentsel Değişim ve Festivalizm: Küreselleşen İstanbul’ da Bienal, (İstanbul:İletişim Yayınları, 2009).
Esra A. Aysun is a cultural operator and a lecturer on arts management. She is the founding co-director of CUMA and is consultant for theatre DOT. She is the local Coordinator in Turkey for Arts and Culture Program of the Open Society Foundation and a board member of IETM and Cimetta Fund.
[1] Aysun, E.A. 2010. “Leaps of Contemporary Art in the New Era and the Case of A77.” Cultural Policy and Management (KPY) Yearbook 2010, 2010, p.156-169.
[2] DiMaggio, P. J.1986. “Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth Century Boston,” in Non-Profit Enterprise in the Arts: Studies in Mission and Constraint, Paul J Dimaggio, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 41 – 61.
[i] Chin-tao Wu, “Biennials Without Borders?,” New Left Review 57 (2009): 108.
[ii] Osman Erden, “Türkiye’de Güncel Sanat Alanını Şekillendiren Unsurlar” (unpublished PhD diss., Istanbul Mimar Sinan University, 2011).
[iii] Hans Ulrich Obrist, “Futures,Cities,” Journal of Visual Culture 6 (2007): 359-364
[iv] Huo Hanru interviewed by Nilgün Bayraktar, “Optimism Reconsidered.” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, 214. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010.
[v]“ The Istanbul Biennial Vintage is the New Vanguard”, Economist, September 24, 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/2153007 last accessed at November 25,2011.
[vi] The numbers of visitors of the previous Biennials are stated as: 51.000 in 2005 for the 9th edition; 91.000 in 2007 for the 10th edition and 101.000 in 2009 for the 11th edition.
[vii] International Istanbul Film Festival (1982), International Istanbul Theatre Festival (1989), International Istanbul Jazz Festival (1994), International İstanbul Festival changed its name to the International Istanbul Music Festival (1994)
“History İstanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts,” İstanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, accessed November 23, 2011, http://www.iksv.org/en/aboutus/history.
[viii] Sibel Yardımcı, “Festivilising Difference: Privatisation of Culture and Symbolic Exclusion in Istanbul”, European University Institute Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies, EUI RSCAS Mediterranean Programme Series 35 (2007): 3.
[ix] Esra A. Aysun, “Looking At The Independent Art Scene Of Istanbul As A Possible Case Study For The Future Positioning Of European Cultural Institutions” (paper presented at the AIMAC 11th International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management, Antwerp, Belgium, July 3–6, 2011).
[x] Görgün Taner, The General Director of the Foundation in his interview at Art Unlimited in September/October 2011.
[xi] Giep Hagoort,Cultural Entrepreneurship. Utrecht: Utrecht University Utrecht School of the Arts Research Group Art and Economics, 2008.
[xii] Marcus Graf, “The International Istanbul Biennial,” in User’s Manual: Contemporary Art In Turkey (1986-2006), ed. Halil Altındere and Süreyya Evren. (İstanbul: art-ist, 2007), 72.
[xiii] Beral Madra, Post Peripheral Flux: A Decade of Contemporary Art in Istanbul (Istanbul: Literatür, 1996), 17.
[xiv] Interview with Melih Fereli, previous General Director of IKSV, 25.10.2011
[xv] Çağlar Keyder, “Istanbul Into the Twenty-First Century,” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by Deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, 27. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010.
[xvi] Banu Karaca, “The Politics of Urban Art Events: Comparing Istanbul and Berlin.” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by Deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010), 243.
[xvii] Çağlar Keyder, “The Setting,” in İstanbul: Between Global and the Local, ed. Çağlar Keyder. (USA:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc, 1999), 24.
[xviii] Today’s entrepreneurial triumph is very much related to the financial expansion with the current government’s, AKP (Justice and Development Party)’s neo-liberal discourse to include foreign funds to the emerging economy of the country and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s – prior Mayor of the city – interest in the urban regeneration of Istanbul. However, Erdoğan’s prior actions effecting the cultural scene of Istanbul evokes no trust for future– the only state Concert Hall and Opera House being closed since 2008, City Theatres being renovated to be multifunctional congress halls and the only public Art and Statue Museum being evicted from its facilities to be relocated; and following the Haydarpaşa and Galata Port Projects that aim to transform the city ports into cruise ports for luxury consumption, now the main cultural axes of the city – the Beyoğlu area has been hit with exchange of real estate to high scale investors contributing to further regeneration of the district with more shopping malls and hotels changing the ad-hoc cultural district into a one for luxury shopping and one where only the impressive cultural institutions of private companies will remain.
[xix] Banu Karaca, “The Politics of Urban Art Events: Comparing Istanbul and Berlin.” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by Deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010).
[xx] Esra A. Aysun, “Looking At The Independent Art Scene Of Istanbul As A Possible Case Study For The Future Positioning Of European Cultural Institutions” (paper presented at the AIMAC 11th International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management, Antwerp, Belgium, July 3–6, 2011).
Ironically, a naive and a fraud organization to which the participating artists are reported to have filed law suits – the First Bosphorus Art Bianele – was able to announce to take place under the umbrella and the sponsorship of the Office of Prime Minister of The Republic of Turkey, Ministery of Culture and Tourism, and the Greater Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul. Although the officials denied the mentioned sponsorship, the logos can still be seen on the web. (http://nesebanu.com/anasayfa/index.html last accessed at 30.11.2011).
[xxii] The best resource to see allocation of costs and income are at the Guide book of the 11th International Istanbul Biennial:What Keeps Mankind Alive edited by WHV and İlkay Baliç, p.36-37: 26 % International Funding Institutions; 25 % local sponsorship; 1 % catalogue and other sales; 3 % sponsorship in kind; 10 % Ticket Sales, 15 % 2010 European Capital of Culture; 5 % Ministry of Culture and Tourism; 15% Promotion Fund of the Turkish Prime Ministry (Public support was highest as 35% due to the special funds from the European Capital of Culture 2010 Agency.) For a similar event, participation of the Turkish Pavilion at the Venice Biennial likewise organized by the IKSV, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Publicity Funds provides for the rent of the Pavilion only leaving rest to be compensated by private donors
[xxiii] Interview with Melih Fereli, previous General Director of IKSV, 25.10.2011
[xxiv] Şelale Kadak, “İKSV’de Çarpıcı Rapor:Kamusal Alanda Sanat“,Sabah,August 28, 2011,http://www.sabah.com.tr/Pazar/2011/08/28/iksvden-carpici-rapor-kamusal-alanda-sanat last accessed at November 25,2011.
[xxv] Interview with Bige Örer, the Director of the Istanbul Biennial, 23.11.2011.
[xxvi] Interview with Melih Fereli, previous General Director of IKSV, 25.10.2011
[xxvii] Jale Erzen, “Art in Istanbul:Contemporary Spectacles and History Revisited,” In Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe?, edited by Deniz Göktürk,Levent Soysal, and İpek Türeli, (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2010), 216-233.
[xxviii] Hou Hanru, “Not Only Possible, But Also Necessary: Optimism in the Age of Global War” in 10th International Biennial Catalogue, ed. İlkay Baliç Ayvaz, İstanbul Kültür ve Sanat Vakfı, Istanbul (2007),15.
[xxix] Sibel Yardımcı, “Festivilising Difference: Privatisation of Culture and Symbolic Exclusion in Istanbul”, European University Institute Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies, EUI RSCAS Mediterranean Programme Series 35 (2007): 4.
[xxx] Yardımcı, “Festivilising Difference: Privatisation of Culture and Symbolic Exclusion in Istanbul”, 5.
[xxxi] Sibel Yardımcı, Kentsel Değişim ve Festivalizm: Küreselleşen İstanbul’ da Bienal, (İstanbul:İletişim Yayınları, 2009).
[xxxii] Interview with Bige Örer, the Director of the Istanbul Biennial, 23.11.2011.
[xxxiii] Interview with Bige Örer, Director of the Istanbul Biennial, 23.11.2011.
[xxxiv] Most vital criticizations to the Biennial was: not having a coherent artistic concept; being badly organized; cencorship of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism regarding some of the artworks; Turkey’s President announcing the artworks as deformity; invitation of pavillions from too many countrys causing the exhibition hall to turn into a bad parade. For more information please see
Burcu Pelvanoğlu, Uluslararası Asya-Avrupa Sanat Bienali,
http://www.sanalmuze.org/paneller/Ssd/burcu_pelvanoglu_3.htm last accessed at November 25, 2011.
[xxxv] Osman Erden, “Türkiye’de Güncel Sanat Alanını Şekillendiren Unsurlar” (unpublished PhD diss., Istanbul Mimar Sinan University, 2011).
Güncel Durum 