İKSV General Director Görgün Taner: We’ve heard you and thought this through; we’re getting ready to change
by Cansu Çamlıbel
“There’s no such thing as a faultless person. And just like people, institutions, too, not only can, but do make mistakes. Isn’t being able to acknowledge and remedy these mistakes what virtue is all about? İKSV is now calling out to those who contributed feedback over this period to say, ‘Please come forward and lend a hand, so we can make transformational changes together.’ That said, there’s one issue I have a problem with: cancel culture... That’s my main objection. This attitude of ‘Let’s strike this down, let’s tear that apart…’ benefits no one. But unfortunately, the current social media environment is based precisely on this impulse. People caught up in this cancel culture don’t carry a basket of eggs on their backs, but we do.”
Founded in 1973 by businessperson Nejat Eczacıbaşı, the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (İKSV) is Türkiye’s most established institution in its field. Most people who produce art and culture in Türkiye today or work in that field cross paths with İKSV at some point, one way or another. What seems to be at the root of debates about İKSV for some time now is this: Everyone knows that İKSV has the vital responsibility of enabling free, contemporary art production in Türkiye, even people who have parted ways with İKSV. Criticism of İKSV since the summer has many dimensions, but its gist is a call to İKSV management for “change in line with the spirit of the age.”
When İKSV management didn’t accept the Advisory Board’s proposed curator for the 18th Istanbul Biennial to be held next year, the board members chose to resign, and İKSV appointed Iwona Blazwick, one of the board members, as biennial curator. Back then, I had an interview with Defne Ayas, the curator that İKSV didn’t opt for, to understand what had happened. After this interview was published, I called Görgün Taner, General Director of İKSV, and told him my column was open to him if he wished to respond to allegations about the institution he represents. During our conversation, Taner only said that he would get back to me after completing an internal assessment. Last week, the phone call I’d been waiting for three months finally came, and I was invited to Deniz Palas, İKSV’s headquarters in Beyoğlu, overlooking the Golden Horn.
I had no doubt that the Eczacıbaşı family and İKSV management were working diligently to respond to questions and criticism that had accumulated during a long period of silence. Yet, what Görgün Taner told me clearly indicated they had taken the criticism far more seriously than I had imagined, a remarkably rare behavior for prominent individuals and institutions in Türkiye. Rather than sweeping the remains of their crisis-ridden summer under the rug, they decided to embark on a process of change and transformation. Görgün Taner told me how they invited not only the managers of international culture and arts institutions but also stakeholders in Türkiye who had voiced criticism to take part in a six-month assessment. They personally contacted artists, curators and intellectuals who were overt about their anger at İKSV and said, “Please come forward and lend a hand, so we can make important transformational changes together.”
To me, the most crucial part of this interview was Görgün Taner’s answers to my questions about whether İKSV would be able to safeguard the field of culture and arts in Türkiye against possible government interference in the future. In this respect, he stated, for instance, that the Istanbul Biennial would continue to belong to İKSV as long as the Foundation existed, no matter the steps taken by any institution or organization. He added that İKSV had succeeded in protecting its projects – and the Biennial more specifically – from external influence so far, and that he didn’t believe it would be any different in the future. I sincerely hope that İKSV will not only achieve the goals of its journey to become “more transparent, pluralistic and inclusive,” but also succeed in shielding platforms that enable arts and artists to freely express themselves from the deeply polarized political climate.
“Collective shouting is not the best way to communicate with us”
- Approximately three months ago – on August 3 – İKSV released a statement saying that “Iwona Blazwick has been appointed curator of the 18th Istanbul Biennial,” and suddenly there was pandemonium. However, behind this seemingly plain and straightforward statement, a very different process had unfolded: the entire Advisory Board, which your institution had formed for the purpose of selecting the Biennial curator, had resigned when their unanimous recommendation of Defne Ayas for the curatorship of the 2024 Istanbul Biennial was rejected by İKSV management. Moreover, Iwona Blazwick, a member of the same board who had herself voted in favor of Defne Ayas for this position, was subsequently appointed curator of the 2024 Istanbul Biennial by İKSV. In response to the controversy and commotion in Türkiye’s culture and arts sphere sparked by this chain of events, your institution released another statement that said, “The Advisory Board is, as the name suggests, merely a consultation body. The final decision belongs to us.” That phrasing was also perceived to be quite patronizing, wasn’t it?
I’ll attempt to comment on this issue of patronizing without being patronizing myself. A biennial is larger than its curator. Yes, the Advisory Board is consulted on the matter of the selection of the curator, but this isn’t the board’s only task. It’s incorrect to reduce the board’s purpose solely to that duty. Throughout its tenure, the board also has the responsibility to exchange ideas with İKSV about the various approaches being proposed for the biennial and to take part in a continuous dialogue and debate. Everyone is calling on us to have a dialogue, but dialogue requires two-way communication, it can’t be one-sided. We heard the voices of people who called us out. We heard them even though some aspects of their criticism were purely speculative, and we considered all the feedback. However, I still have to insist that collective shouting, as occurred in this instance, is not the best way to communicate with us.
“The debate has shown us the need for transparency and dialogue.”
- Before we go into more detail, I want to first ask you something that I should probably ask last: Have you been able to say to yourself that you “made a mistake”?
The lesson I personally learned from all this is that a 51-year-old institution, in fact all institutions for that matter, need to stop and look inwards from time to time. Sometimes this can be achieved by internal initiatives, sometimes by external prompting, sometimes by the voices of people within the institution who aren’t on the management team. Being questioned by outsiders is essential for the process of introspection. How would change take place? First, you have to decide to change. If you haven’t made this decision, no matter what the outcome, you’ll inevitably return to the idea of “What a fantastic job we’re doing!” You’ll end up doing the same things over and over. For this reason, I see these recent events as the start of a process we had actually planned to initiate as we enter the second half-century of our existence but hadn’t yet started for one reason or another.
Throughout this process, we failed to explain ourselves well enough. We saw that we needed to look for ways to better communicate with our artists, audiences and stakeholders. Actually, this whole debate is important for the development of culture and arts. In that respect, we’re pleased by the interest shown in İKSV and by the current environment, where everyone openly expresses their opinions. We’re confident these discussions will carry İKSV even farther. In addition, the debate highlighted the need to make İKSV’s decision-making mechanisms more transparent and establish an open dialogue. Accordingly, we’ve drafted our plans and are taking concrete steps towards change.
“We’ve understood the ethical issues.”
- What exactly do you mean by change? Last month, you announced an amendment to your regulations that strengthens the Advisory Board. But this step wasn’t considered sufficient at that point. And when it became clear that the amendment wouldn’t apply to the 2024 Biennial, your critics interpreted this decision as “a purely cosmetic change, not a true change in mindset.”
Our only aim in making this decision was to create the necessary conditions for a successful biennial. Because the Advisory Board is not a “selection committee,” we didn’t think that appointing one of its members as curator would constitute a conflict of interest, and our decision complied with our regulations at the time. Nevertheless, we understand and respect the ethical concerns raised by offering the curatorship to one of the former members of the Advisory Board. We thoroughly reassessed our curator selection policy and regulations, taking into account the feedback we received from the art world and public. We made some changes to our regulations that further strengthen the transparency and impartiality of the selection process. According to the new regulation, from 2026 onwards, İKSV management will select one of the three curatorial candidates recommended by the Advisory Board. In the event that the approaches of all three candidates don’t align with the Foundation’s vision, İKSV management can request that the Advisory Board propose different candidates.
“The proposals of the candidates recommended by the Advisory Board didn’t reflect our vision.”
- So, why couldn’t this policy apply to the 2024 Istanbul Biennial? Why did you reject the Advisory Board’s proposal in one go? Did you dislike Defne Ayas’ approach? Or what were you looking for, and why couldn’t you find it in Ayas?
We work hand in hand as a sizeable team to make each biennial unique and different from the previous one. We have different expectations for each new biennial and set a new vision that reflects current conditions. The previous biennial reflected the spirit of the pandemic: It questioned and went beyond traditional exhibition formats, it embraced a multidisciplinary approach, its projects extended the scope of the biennial beyond the field of art. When reflecting on the next biennial, we chose to adopt a different approach, one that envisioned a vigorous exhibition both artistically and aesthetically that prioritized the production of new works of art, and that put the works, rather than the texts, front and center. The project proposals presented to us by the Advisory Board’s candidates didn’t fully reflect the vision the Foundation expected from this edition.
Shortly after the last meeting of our Advisory Board, we faced the February 6 earthquakes, which deeply affected us all. We entered a delicate period. For a while, we ceased all ongoing activities because of the earthquakes. Then, the selection process had to be accelerated to ensure the biennial was ready by September 2024. We had to make quick decisions. Without waiting for the identification of new candidates, the preparation and assessment of proposals, and the development of projects, we focused on the idea of working with a new curator who already knew the biennial well and who we believed had the ability to carry it towards the future we envisioned.
“When choosing Iwona, we didn’t think it would constitute a conflict of interest.”
- In that case, you were certain that Iwona Blazwick would create the biennial you envisioned.
As a person well acquainted with the Istanbul Biennial, who has observed diverse editions over the years and contributed on different levels as a member of the Advisory Board in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2022, who is intelligent and judicious and possesses a powerful artistic vision, Iwona Blazwick was a curatorial candidate aligned with our expectations for this edition.
- Didn’t you anticipate that your transfer of Iwona Blazwick from the position of “selector” to that of “selected” would give rise to a conflict of interest from an ethical standpoint?
We didn’t, because the Istanbul Biennial’s Advisory Board is not a selection committee. That’s why we didn’t consider this choice to be a potential conflict of interest. In fact, there have been other cases in the past where the initial curatorial candidates suggested by the Advisory Board weren’t chosen. So, this wasn’t the first situation of its kind. No article in our regulations at that time ruled out such a decision. Therefore, when making this decision, we genuinely had nothing else in mind but to achieve the best possible biennial, make a quick decision, and ensure that we meet our deadline of September 2024.
It was January when we decided that the Advisory Board’s proposal was not in line with the vision we envisaged for the 2024 Istanbul Biennial. In any case, İKSV can say to the Advisory Board that its recommendation “does not match our expectations.” From our point of view, this was the sole issue, but, of course, we still lent an attentive ear to the debate that has occupied us for months and which we’re discussing right now. We also respected and assessed the ethical debate, which is precisely why we reviewed our regulations, to ensure that these disputes don’t happen again in the future.
“There’s no such thing as a faultless person. And just like people, institutions, too, can make mistakes.”
- The new regulations may have strengthened the Advisory Board, but in the end, the fact remains that its recommendations for the next biennial have been disregarded.
We fully trust Iwona Blazwick to organize an outstanding Istanbul Biennial with her experience, skills and reputation. Now, looking back at how things unfolded, everybody can of course draw certain conclusions from the details or make diverse speculations about our decisions. Moreover, there’s no such thing as a faultless person. And just like people, institutions, too, not only can but do make mistakes. Isn’t being able to acknowledge and remedy these mistakes what virtue is all about? İKSV is now calling out to those who contributed feedback over this period to say, “Please come forward and lend a hand, so we can make transformational changes together.” That said, there’s one issue I have a problem with: cancel culture... That’s my main objection. This attitude of “Let’s strike this down, let’s tear that apart…” benefits no one. But unfortunately, the current social media environment is based precisely on this impulse. Moreover, should everybody wish to turn their attention to unpacking old baggage, a lot of things would come out, and I don’t think that’s at all necessary. There’s no point in quarrelling over what happened in the past, because no one can win that argument. What we want to do now is look towards the future and leave sensational news and polemics behind. We heard you and truly respect your criticism. We’ve thought this through and we’re taking steps accordingly.
“Saying ‘We won’t work with Iwona’ would amount to postponing the Biennial until 2026.”
- If indeed you heard the criticism and decided to take action, why insist on working with Iwona Blazwick?
Because we made this decision with the confidence that Iwona would create a good biennial and out of consideration for the calendar. We aren’t changing our decision, because saying “we won’t work with Iwona” would amount to “we can’t do the Biennial in 2024.” In other words, it would mean postponing the Biennial until 2026.
- If you had taken swift action back in August, when the crisis broke out, wouldn’t you have had a whole year before September 2024?
That’s not how it works. You see, many people think it works like this: A curator is chosen, a discussion takes place, a decision is made, and the next day everything starts to be prepared. But that isn’t how the process works. There’s the matter of resources, marketing, applications, and the production of artworks. We announced our decision concerning Iwona in August, but the process had started long before that. The theme was determined, invitations were sent to artists. The 20 artists producing artwork for the 2024 Biennial have come to Istanbul, they’ve gone to the venues where they’ll be crafting their works; some have even started production. Numerous funds have been applied to. It’s far too late now for a new curatorial selection process, and it was too late back in August as well. Would we have made the same decisions, say, four years ago? It’s very difficult to answer questions of this kind. Poring over the same questions again and again isn’t a solution either. In the end, there was only one reality, and we chose our steps accordingly. While taking these steps, our only concern was ensuring a successful biennial. We’ve heard and understood the criticisms, and we’ll try to take the steps needed to address all of them. As İKSV, we’ve now begun a process of questioning everything, including our current standing in every field as well as our policy, our positioning, our boards and regulations. This is the decision we’ve made. It will be a six-month-long process.
“We’ll work with an external professional team to bring about change.”
- What does this decision of yours mean? What kind of process awaits İKSV?
İKSV has made the decision to begin a comprehensive program of change in which we’ll review our current processes. With 50 years behind us, we hope to contribute to the future growth of the Foundation by critically evaluating its vision, strategic priorities and governance model. This process, which we’ll launch in early December, will touch on different areas ranging from our goals to our management structure and workforce, from our artistic programs to our communication strategies. I see no harm in disclosing the name [of our consultant], because I asked him for his consent beforehand: We’ll be working with the renowned Prof. Dr. Oğuz Babüroğlu, President of the Chair of Action Research at Sabancı University, and his team. During this process, which will be confidential, the opinions of experts and stakeholders outside the organization will also be sought and the resulting action plan will be announced to the public. Until then, we’ll keep the public informed of our progress from time to time. At the end of this project, we plan to organize an international symposium, ideally in April 2024, to which we’ll invite culture and art institutions and associations and foundations from different countries to share their experiences and good practices.
- Which international organizations will you invite?
The Venice Biennale Foundation, Stavros Niarchos Foundation, Sharjah Art Foundation, and Theaster Gates Dorchester Projects, to name a few. Obviously, the Venice Biennale was one of the first we invited, but they, too, are dealing with a problem. A far-right former journalist was appointed to its head by the ruling political party, and said the Biennale was a “fiefdom” of the leftists and he came to dismantle it. This messed up our plans a bit, but in the end, the Biennale Foundation is a firmly established organization, and whoever attends our symposium will be professional. I doubt that the entire staff we’re in contact with will be dismissed all at once. We want to ask these international organizations, which we consider to be like us, “What problems have you faced, and how have you overcome them?” Because we want to get through this process the right way, using the practice of collective thinking, to situate İKSV and the Istanbul Biennial in a better position.
“I personally called everyone who feels dubious about us; we want to include our critics in our change process.”
- As I understand, you’ve invited your stakeholders from the international culture and arts world, but have you also invited your stakeholders from Türkiye to take part in this six-month evaluation process? For instance, have you extended an invitation to the authors of the “open letter” to İKSV to sit down, voice their criticism and questions, and discuss the issues together?
I have talked with some of the people who wrote that letter, I also talked to some other people as well. Three of the former have accepted my invitation, for instance, but I’m not at liberty to divulge their names now. What I can say is that I called many of my friends who overtly voiced various misgivings about us. I also called people I didn’t know personally. I tried to explain our position to all of them. Some of my points they agreed with, others not. But that’s precisely how discussion and transformation processes operate. This is a collective transformation process. Besides, let’s not forget the state of the world; there’s polarization everywhere. Türkiye, too, has had its share of polarization. Ensnared as we are in these conditions, there’s no need for new sources of polarization. At İKSV, we’re taking steps to remedy some of our shortcomings. While in the process of taking these steps, we want to include as many people who have an opinion on the matter as possible. Specifically, we want to include everyone who is critical of us. Of course, I’m not talking about five or six hundred people. However, anyone who hasn’t been invited can always write to us or otherwise reach us and ask questions. Nowadays, the way feedback is collected has also changed, and we’re trying to keep up with it.
“People caught up in this cancel culture may not carry a basket of eggs on their backs, but we do.”
- Of course, we should also discuss the “Not you as well!” implication, which was one aspect of the criticism voiced against you. The younger generation, which views the field of culture and arts as a space for liberation, likened your manner of doing things to the attitude of those currently governing the country.
Members of younger generations are already unable to speak in this ecosystem. They’re suffocating and saying, “There are only a few safe spaces where we can speak, and one of them is İKSV. Please don’t act that way.” They’re right, of course. However, we also feel the need to say, “You sometimes use the very language you dislike against us.” We’d like to see everyone refrain from this. Approaching us with “cancel culture” won’t make everything better. People caught up in this cancel culture may not carry a basket of eggs on their backs, but we do: We provide vital support not only in the field of contemporary art but also in a range of other disciplines. The feat is to not break the eggs and instead carry them together. If we can make everyone a partner in this process, then we’ll all feel more motivated. We don’t want “business as usual” after having gone through all this. Young people want to have a say and have their words taken into consideration. Perhaps this is what we haven’t done enough of to date. From now on, that is what we will do.
“The Istanbul Biennial will be organized by İKSV for as long as İKSV exists”
- This latest crisis has also led me to think of other issues. After all, İKSV is an organization rooted in the republican tradition and embracing the values defended by Atatürk. Its dominant position in Türkiye’s culture and arts scene is broadly known and recognized. Do you have any concerns that at some point the government might step in to seize control of this field, or that other actions might be taken to assume command of the Istanbul Biennial?
İKSV has been hosting a range of festivals ever since its foundation, that is, since the 1970s. It developed them one by one, and then the Biennial arrived in 1987. The Istanbul Biennial will continue to be organized by İKSV for as long as İKSV exists. Similar activities may be organized by diverse institutions and organizations, including the public sector. After all, the diversification and proliferation of culture and arts activities is what we all want. However, İKSV observes certain values and principles when organizing its activities and programs. İKSV management will never relinquish these core values and principles.
“The Istanbul Biennial is part of the personal history of millions of art lovers.”
- Do you mean, “We can never be appointed an administrator?”
We’re a foundation; a non-profit, public benefit foundation. All our activities and accounts are transparent and available on our website. Incidentally, friends who criticize us may take a look at them. I sincerely wonder which other organization displays their accounts as openly as we do. I should further add that the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (İKSV) has a management team and a written charter. So, we don’t have any concerns in this regard. The Istanbul Biennial is now a world brand, and İKSV, the organization that generated this brand, is the host of the Biennial. Others may of course initiate similar events and programs today using the name of Istanbul. But I believe “İKSV’s Istanbul Biennial” has come to occupy a special place in the hearts and minds of Istanbulites and art lovers in Türkiye and across the world; it has made Istanbul an international center of contemporary art and added to the personal histories of millions of viewers, hundreds of artists, and dozens of young people who’ve worked with us on production.
- During this latest curatorship crisis, it was broadly speculated that the reason why İKSV management was reluctant to work with Defne Ayas was its experience collaborating with her on the Türkiye Pavilion at the Venice Biennale in 2015. The inclusion of the phrase “1915 Armenian Genocide” in the catalogue of Sarkis’ Respiro exhibition curated by Ayas apparently caused a problem, requiring another catalogue to be printed at the last minute.
Endlessly reopening and revisiting this issue hurts not only us, but also numerous communities in Türkiye.
“No one interfered with the content of Sarkis’ exhibition back in 2015.”
- By “numerous communities,” I guess you mean the Armenian community in Türkiye.
Of course, it’s a community we’re always in close contact with. We organize joint activities in solidarity with the Hrant Dink Foundation. So, bringing this issue back on the agenda again and again may cause more harm than good in my view. Still, as a general principle I can tell you this: The Venice Biennale is based on national participation, the works are exhibited in country pavilions. There’s the German Pavilion, British Pavilion, French Pavilion and so on. The contents of exhibitions held at the Türkiye Pavilion are prepared under the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the additional contribution of the Ministry of Culture. Ultimately, since a country is being represented, doing anything outside the legal framework of that country is out of the question.
İKSV assumes responsibility for the coordination of exhibitions held there. The artistic content of the exhibition is shaped entirely under the coordination of İKSV. Government ministries do not interfere with the artistic content of the exhibition other than to provide their general support for its realization. Every year, from the very start, we remind the artist and the curator selected for the Türkiye Pavilion at the Venice Biennale of the legal framework, and leave them free from there on. The artist decides which path to take, and what they will or will not address. In 2015, neither İKSV nor the Ministry of Culture interfered in any way with the content of the exhibition, which is still available in its entirety on the project website. We were extremely proud to host Sarkis’ works at the Türkiye Pavilion, and to share his project Respiro, curated by Defne Ayas, with the art world at large. Since the very first Istanbul Biennial, we’ve maintained close contact with Sarkis. Sarkis also contributed one of his works to the 50th Anniversary Young Artist Fund that İKSV founded in 2022.
“To this day, the government has not interfered with the Türkiye Pavilion at the Venice Biennale; I don’t expect this attitude to change”
- You said, “The artistic content of the exhibition is shaped entirely under the coordination of İKSV. Government ministries do not interfere with the artistic content of the exhibition other than to provide their general support for its realization.” You even added that there hadn’t been government interference back in 2015. Do you think it’s possible that the government might interfere in the future?
To date, we’ve organized the Türkiye Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, and during this time we’ve only provided information to two ministries. We haven’t experienced any interference. I truly don’t believe the ministries will make a different decision or change their attitude in the coming years.
- Then you haven’t received any sign of this from the government’s side, is that so?
Not only has there been no such sign, we’ve always provided transparent information to both ministries on this event’s procedures and how curatorial selections are made. As recently as last year, Mehmet Nuri Ersoy, Minister of Culture and Tourism, attended the inauguration of Füsun Onur’s exhibition Once Upon a Time... in Venice, and we toured it together. He told us how happy he was that the Pavilion was organized by İKSV. Our ministries and the government are well aware of İKSV’s role in ensuring the Türkiye Pavilion’s presence at the Venice Biennale and in acquiring a permanent venue there.
“The whole Venice adventure started with a telephone call from Vasıf Kortun”
- Could you please refresh our memories and tell us how it all started?
It started when Vasıf Kortun called me one day and said, “Would you consider establishing a Türkiye Pavilion in Venice? Would you be interested in doing this?” I replied, “Let us think about it; would you curate it?” That’s how it all began. At first, we weren’t granted a specific place there; we tried to do what we could wherever we were authorized to exhibit. We also experienced significant financial difficulties in preparing the Pavilion. However, after Bülent Eczacıbaşı became Chairperson of the Board of Directors of İKSV in 2010, he rolled up his sleeves and got busy. In 2012, he called 21 patrons, and convinced them to contribute 120 thousand euros each. This is how we were able to commit to covering the Pavilion’s expenses for 20 years, and to sign the agreement stipulating that İKSV would assume its organization. It’s not as if this Pavilion existed before us and everything was rosy from the onset. This platform came to be thanks to İKSV’s experience in the field, Mr. Eczacıbaşı’s personal efforts, and the generous contributions of 21 patrons. Our ministries are perfectly aware of all this as well.
“The Eurasian Biennial wouldn’t be our rival, it would be our stakeholder”
- A little earlier, you said something to the effect of: “Of course, any institution or organization can hold events similar to our Istanbul Biennial, but this won’t affect our prominent position.” Last week, journalist Ertuğrul Özkök wrote about his conversation with Minister of Culture Mr. Ersoy, stating that the latter had a dream of a “Eurasian Biennial” which would use the Haydarpaşa and Sirkeci railway stations as its primary venues. Could a future Eurasian Biennial, organized under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture, become a rival of İKSV’s Istanbul Biennial?
As I said earlier, the diversification and proliferation of cultural and artistic events would only make us happy. It’s my hope that the Eurasian Biennial leads to very positive outcomes for Istanbul and Türkiye. We prefer to focus on the word “stakeholder” rather than “rival.” In our view, non-profits in the field of culture and arts and the events they organize aren’t competitors. Today, the Istanbul Biennial is an event organized by an institution with 51 years of local and international experience. The key word here is “sustainability.” Furthermore, I think it’s invaluable for an art event to move beyond an exhibition to become an evolving structure that transforms its spatial surroundings and in turn changes and transforms with it.
The interview was published in Turkish on 13 November 2023 in t24.com.tr.
