Whose (Art) History? / Kimin (Sanat) Tarihi?

ai???SILENCIAai??? ai??i?? SILENCE


 Kimin Sanat Tarihi? / Whose Art History?

Kimin Sanat Tarihi? / Whose Art History?

[scroll for English]

KAi??MAi??N (SANAT) TARAi??HAi???

SANATAi??ILAR: Can AkgA?mA?AY, Ai??zgA?l Arslan, Nancy Atakan, Mehtap Baydu, Zeynep Beler, Fulya Ai??etin, Arzu EAY, Guerilla Girls, Sibel Kocakaya, Servet KoAi??yiAYit, GA?mA?AY Ai??zdeAY, Merve A?stA?nalp

'KadAi??na' Haddini Bildirmek (Nochlin 1999)

Postmodernizm tarihin sonuna gelindiAYini ilan ettiAYinde aslAi??nda mutlak bir sondan deAYil tarihin muzafferler tarAi??fAi??ndan yazAi??lmAi??AY sA?regelen doAYrusal anlatAi??sAi??nAi??n sonundan bahsediyordu. BugA?n tarihin Ai??znel olduAYunun farkAi??ndaysak eAYer sanat tarihinin de bu A?st anlatAi??nAi??n bir parAi??asAi?? olmadAi??AYAi??nAi?? dA?AYA?nemeyiz.

Sanat tarihi anlamAi??nda A?zerine yeniden dA?AYA?nA?lmesi gereken milyonlarca konu olabilir. Bu sergi baAYlamAi??nda ise bunlardan yalnAi??zca biri olan kadAi??nlarAi??n kA?ltA?r kurumlarAi??ndaki dA?AYA?k temsil oranAi??nAi??n daha geniAY bir gA?Ai?? iliAYkisi aAYAi??nAi??n sonucu olduAYu tezi dolayAi??sAi??yla da (sanat) tarihin tAi??pkAi?? 'cinsiyet' gibi nedensiz bir kavram olduAYu dA?AYA?ncesi iAYlenmektedir.

Dahiler Miti

X. Kamuya; dahi, AYaheser, pahabiAi??ilemez, Ai??Ai??AYAi??r aAi??Ai??cAi??, etkili, saAYlam, sarsAi??lmaz ve gA?Ai??lA? gibi kelimlerin yalnAi??zca Beyaz Erkek SanatAi??Ai??larAi??n Piyasa DeAYerlerini arttAi??rmak iAi??in kullanAi??ldAi??AYAi??nAi?? itiraf edeceksin.

Guerrilla Girlsai??i?? Code of Ethic for Art Museums

GAi??rA?nen o ki tA?m bA?yA?k (ve erkek) sanatAi??Ai??lar doAYuAYtan edindikleri dahilik denen, tanAi??mlanamayan bir AYey ile kutsanmAi??AY. BaAYka bir deyiAYle sanatAi??Ai??larAi??n baAYarAi??larAi?? yalnAi??zca kiAYisel biriciklikleriyle aAi??Ai??klanabilen bir fenomen.

H.S. Becker'a gAi??re ise '(AY)Ai??hret teorisi der ki AYAi??hret iAY A?zerinden tanAi??mlanAi??r. Oysa gerAi??ekte bir sanatAi??Ai??nAi??n, iAYin ve geri kalan her AYeyin AYAi??hreti sanat dA?nyasAi??nAi??n kolektif hareketinin sonucudur.' (Becker 1982). EAYer durum bAi??yleyse, sanat tarihinde adAi?? olmayan kadAi??n sanatAi??Ai??larAi?? nasAi??l aAi??Ai??klamalAi??yAi??z? KadAi??nlar gerAi??ekten 'bA?yA?k' olmayacak kadar kabiliyetsiz mi yoksa bu da baskAi??nAi??n bir baAYka formu mu?

Becker'in perspektifi dikkate alAi??ndAi??AYAi??nda, bA?yA?klA?AYA?n ya da dahiliAYin bir sanatAi??Ai??nAi??n baAYarAi??sAi??nAi?? aAi??Ai??klamak iAi??in yeterli olmadAi??AYAi?? ortada. Peki ne oldu da bu tamamen nedensiz kavramlar (sanat) tarihi, nasAi??l anlaAYAi??dAi??AYAi??nAi?? ve okunduAYunu derinlemesine etkiledi? Belki de sanat tarihini kadAi??nsAi??z yazmak 'doAYal' olandAi?? ve tarihAi??iler bA?yA?klA?k ve dahilik miti altAi??nda, sanatAi??n ve diAYer her AYeyin iAi??inde bulunduAYu gA?Ai?? iliAYkilerine dokunmadan iAi??i boAY kelimelerin arkasAi??na saklandAi??… Foucault'nun iAYaret ettiAYi A?zere 'gA?Ai?? ancak kendi varlAi??lAYAi??nAi??n Ai??nemli bir kAi??smAi??nAi?? saklayabildiAYi sA?rece katlanAi??labilirdir. BaAYarAi??sAi?? kendi mekanizmalarAi??nAi?? saklayabilme yetisine paraleldir.' (Foucault 2012)

TartAi??AYmanAi??n devamAi?? Linda Nochlin'in 'Neden hiAi?? bA?yA?k kadAi??n sanatAi??Ai?? yok?' makalesinin parAi??alarAi??nda aranabilir.

Nochlin'in sorusuna cevap ne tarih boyunca unutulmuAY kadAi??n sanatAi??Ai??larAi?? bulup onlarAi?? sanat tarihi kanonuna sokmaya Ai??alAi??AYmakta ne de 'bA?yA?klA?k' iAi??in yeni ve ayrAi?? bir tanAi??m bulmakta. Nitekim gA?nA?n sonunda her iki yaklaAYAi??m da var olanAi??n yAi??kAi??lmasAi??nAi?? deAYil yeniden onaylanmasAi??nAi?? saAYlayacaktAi??r.

Kimin (Sanat) Tarihi?

Ai??ncelikli olarak 'Neden hiAi?? bA?yA?k kadAi??n sanatAi??Ai?? yok?' sorusunun kim tarafAi??ndan ve hangi AYartlar altAi??nda sorulduAYunu tespit etmek yerinde olacaktAi??r.

Her ne kadar sanat tarihi beyaz, BatAi??lAi?? erkek tarafAi??ndan yazAi??lmAi??AY olsa da 'ortaya konan dA?AYA?nceler, gA?cA? (kalemi) kullananlar ve gA?ce maruz kalanlar tarafAi??ndan eAYit AYekilde paylaAYAi??ldAi??AYAi?? sA?rece' (Nochlin 1994b) baAYarAi??lAi??dAi??r. Bu da gA?Ai?? iliAYkilierinin normalleAYtirilmesine, baskAi??lananAi??n daima pasif kalmasAi??na Ai??n ayak olan yapAi??larAi?? ortaya Ai??Ai??krarAi??r Ai??A?nkA? bildiAYimiz, Ai??AYretildiAYimiz tek doAYru budur. Ortada kalan ise kusursuz bir cinayet; suAi??lu yok, maAYdur yok ve en nihayetinde suAi?? da yok.

Sorun aslAi??nda 'kadAi??nAi??n sanat tarihi iAi??indeki tartAi??AYmalAi?? yeri' deAYil tarih yazAi??mAi??nda 'ona karAYAi?? takAi??nAi??lan tavAi??rdAi??r'. Bu yaklaAYAi??m ise sanat tarihi yazAi??mAi??nAi??n seAi??ici (dAi??AYlayAi??cAi??) tavAi??r ve dil sorunlarAi??nAi??n yeni ve eliAYtirel bir bakAi??AY ile okunmaya baAYlamak iAi??in ideal bir alan oluAYturmakta. SonuAi??ta tarihi (yeniden) okumak, en az onu yazmak kadar gA?Ai??lA? bir strateji.

Kimin MA?zesi/Galerisi?

MA?zeler ( ya da kA?ltA?rel enstitA?ler) bir Ai??oklarAi?? tarafAi??ndan 'toplumlarAi??n kendini temsil biAi??imi' (Dubin 2006) ya da 'disiplin aygAi??tAi??' (Bennett 1996) olarak gAi??rA?lmA?AYtA?r. Ai??zA?nde ise ikisi arasAi??nda bA?yA?k farklardan sAi??z etmek zor.

Bu baAYlamda mA?zeler hiAi?? 'bA?yA?k' kadAi??n sanatAi??Ai?? barAi??ndAi??rmayan tarihin hem nedeni hem de sonucudur. Bunun yanAi??nda kA?ltA?rel kurumlarAi??n sanAi??lanAi??n aksine herkese ait olmadAi??AYAi?? ya da toplumu yansAi??tmadAi??AYAi?? gerAi??eAYini gAi??rmek, 1985 yAi??lAi??nda kurulan Guerrilla Girls gibi kA?ltA?r kurumlarAi??ndaki cinsiyetAi??ilik ve Ai??rkAi??Ai??lAi??AYa karAYAi?? bir Ai??ok grubun bir araya geliAYini hAi??zlandAi??rdAi??.

MA?zelerin yAi??netimsel yapAi??sAi??ndaki cinsiyet farkAi??, kadAi??nlarAi??n temsili ve stereotipik imgelere gAi??ndermeler yaparak Guerrilla Girls bir anlamda dA?zeni aksatmayAi?? ve rahatsAi??z etmeyi baAYardAi??. Bunu yaparken ise ne keAYfedilmemiAY bir sanatAi??Ai??yAi?? yeniden yA?celtmeyi ne de kavramlarAi?? esnetip dA?zene hoAY gAi??rA?nmeye Ai??alAi??AYtAi??. TA?m bunlardan daha temel bir AYeyi kA?ltA?rA?n altyapAi??sAi??nAi??, ideolojik ve sanat tarihsel yapAi??sAi??nAi?? hedefledi. Talepleri var olan ataerkil sAi??ylemde bir yer talep etmek deAYil tam da o dA?zeni yAi??kmaktAi??.

Grubun aktivist ve ironik yaklaAYAi??mAi?? (Ai??r. Advantages of Being Female Artist) Baudrillard'cAi?? bir deyimle; 'gerAi??ekliAYi aAYAi??rAi?? uAi??lara kadar iterek sistemin kendi aAYAi??rlAi??AYAi?? altAi??nda ezilmesine neden olacak' (Baudrillard 2001) bir taktik. Belki de gA?nA?mA?z dA?nyasAi??nda izlenebilecek en etkin yAi??ntem ve 'Neden hiAi?? bA?yA?k kadAi??n sanatAi??Ai?? yok?' sorusuna tek cevap.

RaAYit Mutlu

 

=================================

 

Whose (Art) History?

Putting ai???womanai??? in her place (Nochlin 1999)

When postmodernity declared the end of history, it didn't necessarily suggest an ultimate end but rather an end to the linear narrative of history that is written by victorious. Today we are aware that history, as we know, is a subjective one and there is no point in thinking that art history isnai??i??t a part of this master-narrative.

Though in art-historical context there could be millions of issue to re-think, this exhibition will focus more on gender issues surrounding cultural organizations and argue that under-representation of women is a result of much greater power relation in the society. The exhibition will assume and try to prove that (art) history, just like gender, is an arbitrary construction.

Myth of Genius

X. Thou shalt admit to the Public that words such as genius, masterpiece, priceless, seminal, potent, tough, gritty and powerful are used solely to prop up the Myth and inflate the Market Value of White Male Artists.

Guerrilla Girlsai??i?? Code of Ethic for Art Museums

Apparently, all great (and male) artists are blessed with genius, something they born with and something indescribable. In other words, artistsai??i?? success is a very personal phenomenon. Nevertheless, this assumption is highly problematic.

According to H. S. Becker ai???(t)he theory of reputation says that reputations are based on works. But, in fact, the reputations of artists, works, and the rest result from the collective activity of art worlds.ai??? (Becker 1982) If this is the case, how we are supposed to explain the lack of women artists in art history? Are the women really incapable of greatness?

If we take the Beckerai??i??s approach, it is inevitable to say that greatness or genius has nothing to do with why great artists are so great. Writing art history, as it is now, was just ai???naturalai??? thing to do for historians and they invented an arbitrary criterion to justify their system (or ideology) which in the end become an unquestionable norm. As Foucault asserted ai???power is tolerable only on condition that it masks a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to an ability to hide its own mechanisms.ai??? (Foucault 2012)

Further discussions to this issue lie in the deconstruction of Linda Nochlinai??i??s 1971 essay, ai???Why there have been no great women artists?ai??? (Nochlin 1994a)

The answer to Nochlinai??i??s question is not finding overlooked women artists who are equal to great masters or inventing new definitions for ai???greatnessai??? for women as the both methodologies would only confirm the same discourse.

Whose (Art) History?

First of all, it is important to specify by whom and under what conditions we are asked, ai???Why there have been no great women artists?ai???

Although one can say that everything we perceive as the history of art is written by white, Western male; it is successful as long as these ai???views are shared by those who exercise power and those who submit to itai??? (Nochlin 1994b)

This is again naturalisation of power relations in society that limits the mobility. Oppressed is destined to stay oppressed because ai???this the only way we are taughtai???. It is a perfect crime; no one is guilty, no one is the victim and ultimately there is no crime.

Therefore, it is not ai???problematic position of women in art historyai??? but rather ai???problematic approach taken by art history against womenai???. This should be followed by the examination of problematic language and selective approach to art history in favour of whom power already belongs. After all, (re)reading the history is as powerful as writing it.

Whose Museum/Gallery?

Museums are understood by many as a ai???primary way that a society represents itselfai??? (Dubin 2006) or as ai???disciplinary machinesai??? (Bennett 1996) that assert certain values to a society. In fact, there is no big difference between the two statements. Consequently, in the context of representing women, cultural organisations become both result and reason of the art history without ai???greatai??? women artists. Seeing that museums are not, in any way, belongs to everyone; lots of movements come together to point the issue of sexism and to some extend racism in museums. One of the most notable of which is Guerrilla Girls, formed in 1985 with the motto of ai???reinventing the “f” word: feminism!ai???

By pointing out the gender gap in operational structure of the art world, representation of women in museums and galleries and stereotypes, Guerrilla Girls, in a sense, disturbed the order of things. Their methodology is neither promoting an undiscovered woman artist nor modifying concepts to look good to museums. They targeted something more essential and challenged the infrastructures of museums and their ideological and art-historical stances. They were not demanding ai???a place in the given framework in male discourseai??? but rather struggling for destructing the discourse itself.

Furthermore, their activism is useful in Baudrillardian terms; they are pushing the discourse of art history to the end with the works like ai???Advantages of Being Female Artistai???. Their tactic ai???to provoke an excess of reality and to make the system collapse under the weight of this excess.ai??? (Baudrillard 2001) seems to be the only answer to question ai???Why There Have Been No Great Women Artists?ai???

RaAYit Mutlu