Concerning the title of this discussion, I find strange relationships between the economy and the art in international or local level. In Turkey, there are three kinds of investments in contemporary art: -private investment made by gallery owners -company investments as random collections and more or less determined project supports -corporate art and cultural centers There is no significant official or local government investment in contemporary art; all kinds of govermental institutions have modernist, populist and burocratic policies. If you open the Web-site of the Minsitry of Culture, you will see what I mean; conventinal paintings and sculptures of practically unknown artists are shown as important art production. Acording to this outline, the artists have the following sources to maintain their positions: -private galleries present their artworks, which are appropriated to the taste of the collector, -corporate art and culture centers occasionally offer them exhibitions and catalogues, -curators help them to be introduced to the international art world. We cannot talk about a culture economy or culture industry in Turkey, when it comes to contemporary art. Major cities like Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir have their more or less autonomous art scenes; wherein Istanbul is quite exceptional with its private and corporate galleries, cultural centers and biennale. The culture of the country is determined by the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Education within the frame of unitary state ideology; the traditional art and arts&carfts is being mutated and converted into the simple needs of tourism; schools and universities are supplied with a revolting combination of nationality and internationality. The mass culture on the other side is being molded by television, mcdonaldism and hollywood. I am not reluctant to describe our morbid art scene; it does not mean that we gave up realizing projects, on the contrary we are delighted to create antagonistic and provocative milieu through our art projects. As an art critic and curator within this milieu which does not correspond to the Western-made art scene, I have to communicate and collaborate with established curators, artists and institutions. Even if I have succeeded to be in concert with the high priority sytem from time to time, I have most of the time felt as an outsider and as an outsider, I felt like questioning the relationship between art and economy in the Western-made art scene. My questions were essentially answered by Adorno's essay on culture industry as well as by my observations and experiences since 20 year. I have selected some paragraphs: 1. "New on the part of the culture industry is the direct and undisguised primacy of a precisely and thoroghly calculated efficacy in its most typical products. The autonomy of works of art, which of course rarely ever predominated in an entirely pure form, and was always permeated by a constellation of effects, is tendentially eliminated by the culture industry, with or without the conscious will of those in control. The latter include both those who carry out directives as well as those who hold the power." My contrübution to this paragraph is: Since the beginning of the 80's the mega exhibitions have become an essential product of the culture industry. The artworks are being reviewed and evaluated within the constellation of culture industry exhibitions; their autonomy is being eliminated by various effects from different directions. The artists being conscious of this elimination are pursuing new ways of running away from this fate. Installations are not only the outcome of the super-technology and abundance of material, but also the consequence of an escape from the system. The next paragraph is: 2. "The two faced irony in the relationship of servile intellectuals to the culture industry is not restricted to them alone. It may also be supposed that the consciousness of the consumers themselves is split between the prescribed fun which supplied to them by the culture industry and not particularly well-hidden doubt about its blessings. The phrase, the world wants to be decived has become truer than had ever be intended". This paragraph is very much related to the words of Harald Szeeman ( In an interview for Turkish newspaper Radikal 22 June 1999), no doubt one of the most individual and creative curators of the art world. He says that a biennale should be "jubilant", should reflect positive energy and should not be depressing. He describes his biennale as a "show" and indicates that three months after the biennale the prices of the works of the artists will be multiplied; but he curiously adds that curators are not commercial transmitters... It is very significant that even he is using the jargon and methods of cultural industry. The question here are: If artworks have lost their autonomy, can we speak about the autonomy of the curators? If the biennale is a showcase for the art fair, what is the ideology and concept? The curators are not direct commercial transmitters, but their network is linked to galleries, collectors, institutions; what is the code of right and wrong behind this ambiguity? 3. "The most ambitious defense of the culture industry today celebrates its spirit, which might be safely called ideology, as an ordering factor. In a supposedly chaotic world it provides human beings with something like standards of orientation, an

d that alone seems worthy of approval. However, what its defenders imagine is preserved by the culture industry is in fact all the more thoroughly destroyed by it." The mega-exhibitions have become an ordering factor within the culture industry; they are accepted as standards of orientation and approval. When we look to the list of curators over the last ten years, we see the same names, occasionally some new names...The question is, who is interrogating the success of these curators? Are these curators always successful, so that they maintain their positions for ever? What about the curators, who are operating in Non-western countries? All critical approach coming from the local artists and art people is being marked as "local opinion" and not considered as a serious protest. We, in the Non-western countries feel that, as much as we want the culture industry to be anchored, we will be exposed to a kind of destruction... In 1984 Hans Haacke, who always digged the facts and asked the question how is art used and for what purpose, talks in an interview with Jeanne Siegel about art and economy. He said, that the companies and institutions are not only protected by myth-images but also by the art industry. His famous work entitled "Taking Stock" unveiled the intricate relation ship between Mrs. Thatcher, Saatschi&Saatchi and Tate Gallery. Furthermore he says that Saatchi's influence on art unavoidably extends to the production, distribution and evaluation of art works in general, and thereby by design or unwittingly it affects contemporary consciousness.  beral madra mailto:btmadra@turk.net