THE GREAT M.P.
IN ISTANBUL
22 NOVEMBER-30 JANUARY 2008
AT BM SUMA CAC
IN MAURIZIO PELLEGRIN’S INSTALLATIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHY I OBSERVE THE FORMATION OF THE CHANGE OF PARADIGM IN THE LATE 70’S WHEN MNEMISM STARTED TO DISSOLVE THE RIGIDITY OF PURE MODERNISM AND UTOPIC PROGRESS. ARTISTS OF THAT ERA STARTED TO RELATE THEIR CONCEPTS TO THE TOTALITY OF HUMAN CREATIVE PRODUCTION AND THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ENTERED INTO A DIALECTICAL DIALOGUE. AT THE SAME TIME UMBERTO ECCO INDICATED THAT THE WORK CONCEPT HAS UNDERGONE A RADICAL TRANSFORMATION AND BECAME “OPEN WORK”, IN WHICH NOT ONLY TRIVIALITY AND MEDIA, BUT ALSO HISTORY, POLITICS, PHILOSOPY AND AESTHETİCS GET IN TOUCH WITH EACHOTHER.
ASSOCIATING WITH THE WORK OF JEOSEPH BEUYS, WHO LEAD THE WAY IN THIS NEW EXPANSION, PELLEGRIN’S WORK HAS A LIKENESS IN THE SENSE THAT IT HAS THAT AURA OF MEMORY, HISTORY, AND CULTURAL HERITAGE. BEUYS’ MATERIALS WERE ORGANIC AND ARCHAIC AND PELLEGRIN’S ARE CULTURAL AND ARTHISTORICAL, BUT THE WAY OF COLLECTING ARTEFACTS AND OBJECTS, ASSEMBLING AND ARRANGING THEM IN THE SPACE WITH METAFORIC FORMATS IS A NOTICEABLE AFFILIATION. THE ESSENTIAL CONTINUITY AND STABILITY OF FORM IN OF PELLEGRIN’S WORK SINCE HE STARTED TO RPODUCE IS ALSO QUITE ANALOGOUS TO THE ATTITUDE OF THESE ARTISTS OF THE 70’S. HIS WORK IS EVIDENTLY IS NOT AIMING UTOPISM AND SOCIAL PLASTIC, BUT THE SENSITIVITY OF DEALING WITH THESE MNEMOSIC OBJECTS AND ARTEFACTS HAS ITS TRADITIONS IN THE DECISIVE 70’S.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO COMPARE HIS WORK WITH JOHN CAGE, WHO INSTALLED EXPONATES FROM DIFFERENT MUSEUM IN MUNICH INTO THE NEUE PINAKOTHEK UNDER THE TITLE “MUSEUM CIRCLE” (1991). HE USED HIS RANDOM METHOD IN DISPLAYING THESE EXPONATES AND INDICATED TO THE HETEROGENITY AND UN-UNDERSTANDDABLE RATIO OF THEIR TOGETHERNESS. PELLEGRIN USES THE SAME KIND OF EXPONATES COLLECTED FROM ANTIQUE SHOPS OR BORROWED FROM MUSEUMS, BUT HIS WAY OF BRINGING THEM TOGETHER IS MINUTELY CALCULATED AND DISPLAYS AN INTENTIONAL POETIC AND AESTHETIC ORDER. HOWEVER, I WILL AGAIN SAY THAT LIKE BEUYS AND CAGE HIS INTENTION IS TO GET AWAY FROM THE TRIVIALITY, BANALITY AND FRIVILITY OF THE CONSUMTION CULTURE. AND GUIDE THE VIEWER ENTER INTO A PHILOSOPICAL JOURNEY THROUGH OBJECTS AND ENVIRONMENTS. IN THE TIMES OF BEUYS AND CAGE ALL THESE ATRIBUTES OF SO CALLED LOW CULTURE OR POPULAR CULTURE WERE DISTANCED FROM THE ART JARGON AS WELL AS FROM THE AGENDA OF THE INTELLECTUAL ARTIST. TODAY IN THE AGE OF POST-POP, POST-MEDIA ART WHERE LOW AND POPULAR ARE MATERIALS OF TRANSGRESSION FOR ARTISTS, PELLEGRIN’S WORK IS SIGNIFICANTLY EXTENDED BEYOND THE PROVOCATION OF NEO-LIBERAL CAPITALIST TRAPPINGS AND IMPLEMENTS. HE SKILFULLY INVOLVES THE MEANING OF PARTICULAR HISTORICAL/TRADITIONAL AND MODERN OBJECTS INTO THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL ENVIRONMENT.
HIS WORK FOR AND IN ISTANBUL CONSISTS OF MANY LAYERS MERGING THE ARTIST (AS SELFPORTRAIT), THE SELECTED HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTS, THE COLLECTED/ASSEMBLED OBJECTS AND THE CITY AS THE SUBJECT OF THE WORK. THE ARTIST ENTERS INTO ISTANBUL, INTO THIS SCENE OF RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY WITH THE AIM OF CREATING A VERY SUBJECTIVE ORDER BETWEEN THE CITY’S TREASURES OR HERITAGE AND THE OBJECTS CHOOSEN BY HIM TO EXPRESS, EXPLAIN OR CONVEY HIS PERCEPTIONS, THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS.
THE TITLES OF HIS WORK REVEAL HIS APPROACH AND METHOD OF DEALING WITH A COMPLICATED SUBJECT MATTER, IN THIS CASE ISTANBUL.
THE QUESTION, THE MEMORY, THE CONTINUITY, THE PRESENCE, THE IDENTITY THE TRIBUTE # 1, THE TRIBUTE # 2, THE CONSTRUCTION, THE MEASURE #1, THE MEASURE #2, THE TRANSMIGRATION, THE DEATH, THE SIGNS, THE GHOST, THE MUSIC, THE THOUGHT, THE ENERGY, THE MULTIPLICITY # 1, THE MULTIPLICITY # 2, THE WILL, THE JOURNEY, THE DREAM
LINGUISTICALLY AND PHILOSOPHICALLY THESE ARE THE ATTRIBUTRES THAT DESCRIBE ISTANBUL’S POSITION IN WORLD HISTORY AS A CITY OF CONTINUITY AND INTERRUPTIONS, OF SETTLEMENT AND MIGRATION, OF LIFE AND DEATH, OF CHAOS AND ORDER. PELLEGRIN HANDLES THE CITY WITH POETIC CARE AND RESPECT BY USING NOBLE WORDS ALMOST BLESSING IT. AT THE SAME TIME WITH THESE TITLES HE NARRATES HIS EXPERIENCE AND METHOD OF UNDERSTANDING THE SPIRIT OF ISTANBUL.
THE COLLECTED OBJECTS, THE READY MADES THAT ARE PEACEFULLY PLACED ON THE STONES OF A FOUNTAIN OR A TOMB CREATE A SWINDEL OF ANTAGONISM; THEY BEAR A DOUBLE POINT OF VIEW. AS AN OBJECT/ARTEFACT/TOOL OF EVERYDAY USE THEY REFLECT THE PRESENT CIVILISATION- EVEN IF SOME OF THESE OBJECTS ARE ALSO HISTORICAL – AND THE ARTISTS IDENTITY AS A PECULIAR COLLECTOR. HOWEVER, BY PLACING THESE OBJECTS/ARTEFACTS/TOOLS INTO THE HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL ENVIRONMENT PELLEGRIN CREATES NEW MEANINGS FOR THESE OBJECTS AS WELL AS FOR THE ARCHITECTURE. THE VIEWER EXPERIENCES A SUBVERSIVE EFFECT, A GAP OPENS IN THE AESTHETIC PERCEPTION WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE OBJECT ITSELF BUT TO THE SELECTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE PLACE.
INBETWEEN THE PHOTOS OF THE INSTALLATION WHICH IN FACT ARE THE PRODUCTS OF A PERFOMANCE PELLEGRIN HAS REALIZED AS A VISITOR LEAVING HIS TRIBUTES TO THE EACH SELECTED ARCHITECTONIC PLACE/SPACE, SELFPORTRAITS IN VARIOUS POSITIONS INDICATE HIS AMBIGUOUS PRESENCE WITHIN THIS CITY ODYSEE. BY INSERTING HIMSELF INTO THE CATALOGUE PELLEGRIN DESIGNATES IT INTO A BOOK OF DOUBLE NATURE AND KNOWLEDGE: IT IS A SUBJECTIVE VISUAL CHRONICLE OF ISTANBUL AS WELL AS AN ACCOUNT OF AN ARTIST DEALING WITH A SELF-INFLICTED TASK OF DECIPHERING THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS CITY.
Interview with Maurizio Pellegrin
Thursday, July 10, 2008
BERAL MADRA: YOU ARE A MOBILE ARTIST TRAVELLING BETWEEN VENICE AND NEW YORK WHEN NOT TO MENTION ALL THE OTHER CITIES YOU HAVE BEEN VISITING FOR YOUR WORK. ISTANBUL ENTERED INTO YOUR AGENDA IN 2000 ON THE OCCASION OF THE GROUP SHOW CURATED BY VITTORIO URBANI IN THE MODEST SPACE OF BORUSAN ART GALLERY. IT SEEMS THAT SINCE THAN ISTANBUL BECAME ANOTHER OBSESSION FOR YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE SPIRITUAL, MENTAL AND PRACTICAL PROCESS OF GETTING INVOLVED WITH A CITY AS AN ARTIST, WRITER AND PHILOSPHER?
MAURIZIO PELLEGRIN: There are cities in which you get involved and other cities, no matter what you do, but you cannot have a deal with.
As it happen in life, sometime it depends on you or it depends from the other side or it is a mutual business.
This is just to say that it is not an automatic procedure and does not happen all the time.
I do not even think there is a process as well; I would prefer to use the word chance. In addition sometime the relation rests only on a spiritual level, in other cases it travels on mental channels and in some cases it is able to become a practical event.
It is quite obvious that a city is many things and hundreds of scholars could easily explain and focus on this, offering different perspectives for different artists and so on. It has been important to my encounter with the city something apparently not noticeable or relevant: the sound of Istanbul.
It is that noise between the things, that constant agitation, never peaceful, a wave without a precise code. It is something dramatic and tragic, beyond our desire or expectations. Every city has a sound, Venice has a particular sound that I recognise immediately: an acute sound immediately suffocated, even more in the winter with the fog. New York beyond the usual noise has a sort of inner tumult.
The other thing beyond the light in which I get involved is the energy created and propelled by a not precise source but by various different centres. Nothing is in order or linear, nothing is circular as well. A sort of order-disorder that at the end is able to balance the force.
In term of relation you can be against a city, you can resist to a city, you maintain a sort of isolation in a city, and you can be physically in but with your mind far away. It depends from your behaviour and state of the mind and at the end by your inner reason to be in a place.
My first approach with Istanbul at the beginning has been only related to my mind, later I have been able to establish a spiritual relationship related to my real desire to be connected at another level.
Only years later again I was able to translate in some parts my emotions and state of the mind and spirit in practical events, works of art or exhibitions.
I think it is not easy and requires an amount of humility and desire of listening at different levels.
My approach is often driven by an action, or in other cases my reaction is simultaneous, or sometime I discover I had a connection only years later with the use of memories and objects.
I do not want to forget that the relation with Istanbul, being a Venetian, has obviously a different special meaning, which is based on historical and legendary mutual exchanges and fighting, relevant for the development of both the cities.
BERAL MADRA: SINCE A DECADE ISTANBUL IS GETTING THE ATTENTION OF WORLD INTELLECTUALS AND ARTISTS; MOST OF THEM INDICATE THAT THIS CITY IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS, HAS A PARTICULAR CHAOS AND IS EXTREMELY INSPIRATIONAL. YET, I AM OBSERVING THAT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE- EVEN YOU- ARE NOT LIVING AND WORKING IN ISTANBUL AS THEY WOULD LIVE IN PARIS, LONDON, BERLIN, THEY ARE IN FACT VISITING. IS THIS SHORT ENCOUNTER ENOUGH TO KNOW THIS CITY? OR IS IT THIS SHORT ENCOUNTER THAT MAKES IT MORE ATTRACTIVE?
MAURIZIO PELLEGRIN: Generally, I do not think the short encounter is enough. It is not enough an entire life to know ourselves and I suppose we can apply the same principle to a city that it is in a constant transformation. I am also a little bit against the common stereotype of the visitors that found the city in few days so marvellous or enchanting and so on. It is the same banal comment of people for example about their trip in India. The most of us start with an approach typical of the predator, we modify the city in relation to our needs and we want to encounter something that it is already in our mind. In the same time it is also true that after a profound knowledge or experience of the city it could happen that you loose that natural approach, giving space to an analysis more complete or profound but without that immediacy. Consequently changing the parameters of the connection a new series of reactions will be established. It is more or less the same difference between a love story and an affair. In addition I am often sometime suspicious of the artist’s approach to a city, and even more of the architect’s approach.
BERAL MADRA: YOUR WORK, PARTICULARLY YOUR 2005 VENICE WORK IS A TOTAL INSTALLATION THAT PRESENTS “MUSEUM IN MUSEUM” AND I KNOW THAT YOUR ISTANBUL WORK IS AN EXTENTION OF THIS VENICE WORK. WE KNOW THAT EVEN NOW MUSEUMS PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE AS REGARDS TO THE RELATION OF ART AND SOCIETY. CAN WE EXPLAIN YOUR APPROACH OF MULTIPLYING THE CONTENT OF THE MUSEUM WITH THE COLLECTION OF YOUR SELECTION AS AN INTELLECTUAL AND PILOSOPHICAL INTERVENTION TO THE IDEOLOGY AND INTENTION OF THE MUSEUM? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PROPOSE TO THE PUBLIC WITH THIS INTERVENTION?
When I create a site specific work or an intervention in a museum collection I am going to operate an addition or a subtraction or a substitution and definitely a change. In relation to the way to proceed, your intervention could be scarcely visible and announced, or very implosive, but this at the end determines only the time of reaction of the public. Sometime you want an active viewer in other cases you want a passive viewer. I notice that there are museums where the display of the collection is organized around a philological agenda, in other is related to a timeline, in other it is just a collection of artefacts able to testify this or that. In any case a level of energy is established. I like to work around that energy, creating different tensions, and often offering to the public a sort of different possibility that it becomes many possibilities in a time. With my interventions I work on categories of objects, and adding or transforming the museum’ objects automatically I operate a change in the hierarchies of the elements displayed, their symbolic power, and their status.
In addition to the objects plays an important role the space in which this operation takes place. All the characteristics of volume, mass, form, dimension, light and temperature are the elements that influence the communication and underline the intervention.
The viewer can see or not, or it can only perceive the swift with different states of the mind. Personally I prefer the museum with a collection of different ages, for the contemporary art I prefer the small collections. I find often the big museum of contemporary art a little bit sad; I perceive the same when I go with my children to a zoo. I like complication and implication, interrelation and different platforms. I like also the idea that it is the artist in charge and it is not only the curator or the museum that always decides the display. I never understood why the museums do not have artists as consultants, or the major international exhibitions do not have a number of artists in the board as well.
NOVEMBER 2008
