Skip to content

Updates

ACT NOW! Submit your story to ArtLeaks and end the silence on exploitation and censorship! Please see the submission guidelines in the "Artleak Your Case" page

Submitted and current instances of abuse are in the "Cases" section

To find out more about us and how to contribute to our struggles, please go to the "About ArtLeaks" page

Please consult "Further Reading" for some critical texts that relate to our struggles

For more platforms dedicated to cultural workers' rights please see "Related Causes"

For past and upcoming ArtLeaks presentations and initiatives please go to "Public Actions"

Artists respond to the Guggenheim-Gulf Labor split

April 29, 2016

An exhibition of newly acquired works from the Middle East and North Africa, titled “But a Storm is Blowing from Paradise,” opens today at the Guggenheim in New York. Ten of the participating artists have issued a statement condemning the museum’s recent decision to end talks with the activist group Gulf Labor Coalition.

The artists listed below have work included in the Guggenheim Museum’s collection and in the UBS MAP exhibition: But a Storm is Blowing from Paradise: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa. We express our disappointment over the Guggenheim Museum and Foundation’s recent decision to end dialogue with the Gulf Labor Coalition, concerning labor practices in the construction of their Abu Dhabi Museum. As artists connected in various ways to this region, we believe in new institutions as cultural forces; we support their creation but also believe they can be catalysts for greater social change. We hope that the Guggenheim remains committed to innovation on both a representational as well as a structural level. Furthermore, we believe that dialogue is the most productive way forward for all parties involved. This exhibition is one form of dialogue and we regret that it opens amidst the current development in the exchange between the museum and GLC. We urge the museum to reconsider and reverse its decision to terminate its dialogue with GLC and affiliated NGOs.

List of names:

Abbas Akhavan
Kader Attia
Ali Cherri
Mariam Ghani
Joana Hadjithomas
Iman Issa
Khalil Joreige
Hassan Khan
Ahmad Mater
Zineb Sedira

Note: Joana Hadjithomas and Khalil Joreige are collaborators, so they collectively constitute one of the 16 discrete artistic participants in the exhibition, and they both also signed the statement separately.

Guggenheim Museum Terminates Negotiations with Gulf Labor Coalition(GLC) over Labor Rights in the UAE

April 19, 2016

Dear Colleague,

In 2007, the Guggenheim Foundation and the leadership of the United Arab Emirates embarked on the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi Museum project, designed to serve as a catalyst for cultural exchange and to expand narratives of art history. Eight years later, our mutual commitment remains strong.

While construction of the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi Museum has not yet begun, our work to deliver on its potential continues. A team of curators based in New York and in Abu Dhabi has been actively developing a curatorial strategy for the future museum and has convened several forums with leading academics and critics to chart the project’s curatorial and intellectual parameters.

To date, the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi Museum project has acquired more than 250 artworks; 70% by non-Euro American artists, with a concentration on art from West Asia. In 2014, an inaugural exhibition, Seeing Through Light: Selections from the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi Collection, welcomed more than 90,000 visitors in Abu Dhabi and was extended due to popular demand. At the same time, museum educators in New York and in Abu Dhabi continue to build on four years’ worth of public programs and workshops aimed at engaging with the vital and diverse populations of the UAE and the region.

Despite these tangible efforts and successes, the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi continues to be maligned by some critics as a symbol of aggressive commercial expansion and as a perpetrator of grave abuses against foreign migrant workers. We would like to set the record straight.

There are currently no workers on the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi and there is no construction on the site because a contractor has yet to be selected. Since the inception of the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi project, the Guggenheim and the Tourism Development & Investment Company (TDIC) have held ongoing discussions about TDIC’s plans to safeguard conditions for workers who will build the future museum and to define measures for continuous enhancement of those conditions. As the museum developer, TDIC is fully responsible for construction and selection of contractors, and has committed to selecting a general contractor of international standing and high integrity.

In 2010, TDIC developed its Employment Practices Policy (EPP), which outlines workers’ welfare requirements on its projects including the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi. The EPP, which was endorsed by the Guggenheim and to which we contributed recommendations for its revision in 2015, has been noted by Human Rights Watch as providing “more labor protections than anywhere else in the Gulf.”

Annual public, independent monitoring reports by PricewaterhouseCoopers continue to show improvements among those who are working under the EPP on current TDIC projects on Saadiyat Island. At the same time, the government of Abu Dhabi has taken additional measures to strengthen protections for workers at the national level, including decrees enacted in January of this year that standardize contract terms and increase flexibility for workers to move between employers.

For six years, we have engaged in open dialogue with critics and others concerned about the topic of worker welfare. Despite this progress and our demonstrated and ongoing commitment to this issue, some of our critics have dismissed efforts by TDIC and the Guggenheim as meaningless while simultaneously taking credit for the changes that have been made. The Gulf Labor Coalition, in particular, has pursued a campaign of direct action against the Guggenheim since 2010 in the media and in our museums in New York and Venice. We believe this treatment is unfair, convenient for publicity purposes, and distracts from sincere efforts to address an issue to which TDIC and the Guggenheim have dedicated significant energy and resources with measureable progress.

Since 2010, we have engaged with Gulf Labor to seek common ground on the issue of worker welfare, participating in numerous phone calls and in-person meetings by members of the Guggenheim Foundation’s Board of Trustees and senior leadership. After our most recent meeting, held in February 2016, we reached the conclusion that these direct discussions are no longer productive. Gulf Labor continues to shift its demands on the Guggenheim beyond the reach of our influence as an arts institution while continuing to spread mistruths about the project and our role in it.

Despite this change in our posture toward Gulf Labor, our commitment to workers’ welfare on the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi project remains as strong as ever and we continue our dialogue with other NGOs including Human Rights Watch and the International Labour Organization. We also continue to pursue progress with our partners in the UAE and have offered to update Gulf Labor on major project developments.

The Guggenheim is and always will be a champion for art and for artists. We respect activism and recognize its value. We welcome dialogue and accept criticism. But we cannot stand silent in the face of deliberate falsehoods.

As global arts institutions in a rapidly changing world, we all face challenges that will require our best thinking and our mutual support. In that spirit, I welcome your questions and thank you for your continued collegiality.

Yours truly,

Richard Armstrong
Director, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and Foundation

Gulf Labor Coalition responded to Armstrong’s letter

On April 13, 2016, Guggenheim Board of Trustees unilaterally severed negotiations with the Gulf Labor Coalition (GLC). In a conference call, the Guggenheim informed GLC that they will no longer meet with us, nor listen to our proposals about the living and working conditions of the workers who are and will be building museums in Abu Dhabi.

On April 17, 2016, Richard Armstrong, Director of the Guggenheim Museum, sent an email to artists, art critics, curators, and museum directors all over the world describing GLC as a group that “continues to shift its demands,” is “continuing to spread mistruths,” and uses “deliberate falsehoods.”3 He insisted that no work had begun on the Abu Dhabi site, a recurring claim that GLC has already challenged.5

GLC has a long history of thinking creatively about how to advance dialogue with the Guggenheim and Tourism Development & Investment Company (TDIC: Abu Dhabi), about demands that are foundational to building a global museum on Saadiyat. The core demands (Living Wages, Recruitment Debts, Worker Representation) were formulated since the announcement of the artist boycott of Guggenheim Abu Dhabi in 2011, and were included in multiple letters to the Guggenheim.

GLC has published research reports, analyzed each Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC) monitoring report, invited NGOs and labor organizations (e.g., ILO, HRW, ITUC) to join discussions, and initiated multiple meetings with Guggenheim. In response to all this work by GLC, statements by the museum made it clear that the Guggenheim is not serious about dialogue with artist groups towards fair labor standards.

The GLC negotiation team regrets that Guggenheim has broken off negotiations in a hostile manner. Despite our show of good faith by maintaining a moratorium on protests for a year, and despite Guggenheim’s own public statements about constructive dialogue, the museum has rescinded and closed the path to working with rights organizations, ready to help create workable frameworks for guaranteeing workers’ rights.

GLC & NGO Coalition’s Meeting with Guggenheim (Feb 2016)
GLC spent the first half of 2015 requesting a meeting with the Trustees, to no avail. Only after a May Day occupation of the Guggenheim New York, and the Peggy Guggenheim in Venice, did they finally agree to meet with GLC. We had meetings with Guggenheim on June 3 (attendees included, for the first time after many requests, Guggenheim Board Chairman William Mack and President Jennifer Blei Stockman) and September 15, 2015 (attendees included Board member Stephen Robert). We then requested a “summit” level meeting between GLC, Guggenheim, and several organizations with global expertise capable of helping Guggenheim meet international labor and rights standards. We were told the earliest a meeting could happen was six months later in February 2016. As a gesture of good faith, GLC continued a moratorium on public actions (since May 2015) while negotiations were ongoing.

GLC assembled an NGO coalition for the February meeting. These organizations brought expertise in labor, migration, human rights, and construction in the Gulf. Their members were: Fiona Murie (Building and Woodworkers’ International), Jill Wells (Engineers Against Poverty), Sarah Leah Whitson (Human Rights Watch), Jeffrey Vogt (International Trade Union Confederation), Shilkha Silliman Bhattacharjee (Society for Labor and Development). The Guggenheim team was led by Richard Armstrong and Trustee John Calicchio. A significant aspect of the meeting was the NGO coalition’s view that what was transpiring in the Gulf would fall under the umbrella of “Human Trafficking” or “Forced Labor.”

At the end of what appeared to us as a productive three-hour meeting, we sent a letter to the Board with two concrete proposals:
1) To initiate, as of April 1, 2016, a meeting every two weeks between GLC, our NGO partners, and representatives from the Guggenheim Museum, the Board of Trustees, and TDIC.
2) At these meetings, propose revisions to TDIC’s EPP in 5 areas: i) Living Wages; ii) Recruitment Debt; iii) Worker Representation; iv) Accountability for Sub-Contracting Tiers; v) Enforcement of existing and future provisions; and vi) Robust Monitoring.

Guggenheim Breaks Off Negotiations (Apr 2016)
On April 13th we were told that the museum leaders feel that the museum has always conducted themselves in “a spirit of goodwill,” in contrast to GLC’s “antagonistic” conduct with “demands [that] are simply escalating.” The museum staff then told us that our proposals lie “outside of their reach,” as they are “matters of state.” Even though we left the February meeting feeling optimistic, we were now informed that “the tenor of the last meeting was not productive,” nor is the “general pattern of your behavior.” This is in spite of the fact that the core demands (Living Wages, Recruitment Debts, Worker Representation) were consistently included in multiple letters to the Guggenheim since 2011.

The upshot, in Guggenheim’s view, is that meetings have begun “to generate unrealistic expectations.” Consequently, the Guggenheim did not wish to have any more in-person meetings with GLC and the rights organizations. This was followed by Richard Armstrong’s email sent to curators, critics, and artists on April 17, which called us a group that uses “deliberate falsehoods.” Armstrong’s latest email matches accusations he also made against GLC in August 2015, when he sent an email to GLC describing us as people who “distort the facts and peddle mistruths” and use “deliberate falsehoods.”

GLC’s Track Record
GLC and allied groups G.U.L.F., Taxi Worker’s Alliance, S.a.L.E. Docks, Fair Labor Coalition, WBYA, and others carried out protests since 2011 that were reported by the global press. What is less widely reported are the research, fact-finding trips, and meetings by GLC to find solutions. Our members have carried out several fact-finding missions to the Saadiyat labor camps. In addition, we prepared analysis of PwC reports on labor conditions on Saadiyat, and made these reports public. No corresponding public analysis of PwC reports was forthcoming from Guggenheim or TDIC.

GLC initiated an average of two annual meetings with Guggenheim since 2011. These were attended by various Guggenheim staff, including Richard Armstrong, Sarah Austrian, Hanan Worrell, Reem Fadda, Suzanne Cotter, and Nancy Spector. Some meetings were also attended by TDIC members Bassem Terkawi and Rita Aoun Abdo. Unfortunately, the departure of multiple staff (Cotter, Spector, Terkawi) disrupted consistent dialogue.

In 2011, we introduced the Guggenheim to the Institute for Human Rights in Business (IHRB) and suggested they take IHRB’s consultative advice. In 2014, GLC urged Guggenheim to invite International Labor Organization (ILO) to join Guggenheim and TDIC for negotiations. In 2015, we introduced working models of fair labor practices in the UAE that Guggenheim could build upon (the carpenters’ union project). ITUC and Human Rights Watch invited Guggenheim to discuss measures for protecting labor rights. Guggenheim did not respond positively to any of these invitations.

Guggenheim’s Track Record
The Guggenheim seems to be pursuing a self-destructive path, putting institutional hubris and PR needs2 before migrant labor rights. Guggenheim appears to have agreed to meetings with GLC to stave off negative press following UAE travel bans on three GLC members1, and the May occupations of the Guggenheim in NY and Peggy Guggenheim in Venice. Now that the press has moved on, Guggenheim has broken off communication with GLC. This is institutional power that treats the labor force building museums, and the artists involved in museums, as disposable and replaceable.

Many of our signatories have long-standing working relationships with the Guggenheim. We are saddened to see a once prominent New York institution damage their global reputation, and goodwill among artists, by refusing to take legal and ethical responsibilities for a building that carries its name. The Guggenheim is following the same path NYU took in silencing critics, until a New York Times story on worker abuse forced the university to begin the process of paying reparations to workers.

Faced with a concrete and optimistic path forward, the Guggenheim chooses to focus on distracting issues like our “antagonistic” tone, avoiding the more relevant facts on the ground: the bodies, lives, and dreams of thousands of workers who are accumulating massive recruitment debts, being cheated on wages, exploited by corrupt contractors and subcontractors, denied any meaningful collective representation, and forced to live out of sight and under watch.

On behalf of the Gulf Labor Coalition (organizing committee):
Amin Husain, Andrew Ross, Ashok Sukumaran, Ayreen Anastas, Doris Bittar, Doug Ashford, Eric Baudelaire, Gregory Sholette, Guy Mannes-Abbott, Haig Aivazian, Hans Haacke, Joseph Rauch, Kristina Bogos, Mariam Ghani, Michael Rakowitz, Naeem Mohaiemen, Natascha Sadr Haghighian, Nitasha Dhillon, Noah Fischer, Paula Chakravartty, Rene Gabri, Sam Durant, Shaina Anand, Tania Bruguera, Walid Raad.

See the Gulf Labor Coalition timeline of events via downloadable PDF here: Gulf_Labor_Timeline_Apr-18.pdf

Protest and withdrawal of exhibition due to censorship at the Cultural Centre of Belgrade

March 17, 2016

unnamed-7

“Kamerades”, a collective of documentary photographers from Serbia, decided to close down the exhibition of their works at the gallery of the city of Belgrade’s cultural center on March 15, five days after the opening. With the publicly announced withdrawal of their work they protested against the censorship of an integral part of the exhibition, after four posters had been disappeared from the show on March 14.

More than hundred cultural workers and citizens followed the call of the authors circulated through several internet platforms of the cultural scene and other media to take part in taking off the photographs from the walls of the Artget Gallery. In front of the gathered crowd and journalists artistic director Ivana Tomanović and members of the photographers collective stated that under these circumstances the exhibition titled “Dirty Season – Uncensored” becomes pointless.

Four photographs of overpainted posters of the election campaign 2012 had been removed without consultation with the authors and directors of the program section of the Belgrade Cultural Center (KCB). The depicted posters, integral part of the exhibition that critically examines the visuals and rhetoric of election campaigns in Serbia, had been mounted on the inner side of the gallery’s window front and such been visible from the street.

Ivona Jevtić, director of the Belgrade Cultural Center, denied censorship in a written statement of March 15 and called the situation a misunderstanding. She explained that for a display in the window a permission of the monument preservation office is obligatory. She added that she had informed the program director about the attained permission to mount the cyrillic lettering of the institution’s name on the window front, in place of the posters.

Regarding the censorship at Artget Gallery, several organizations of the cultural scene have reacted with official statements. The Independent Cultural Scene of Serbia (NSSK) called for a boycott of the Artget gallery and appealed to the city authorities to change the director of the Belgrade Cultural Center. The National Council of Culture condemned the interference into the exhibition as impermissible act of censorship instructed by the director of the Belgrade Cultural Center Ivona Jevtic. The Serbian PEN center called on the public to show solidarity with the programming team of the Cultural Centre of Belgrade and the authors of the censored exhibition and demanded the director’s instant change.

The act of censorship instructed by the director of a cultural institution is one example of how high the pressure on cultural workers in public institutions has become in recent years in Serbia. Additionally to the austerity measures imposed by the neoliberal reforms, cultural workers at public institutions and cultural production in general are confronted with political decisions by the authorities that are threatening the institutional autonomy and professional integrity of their institutions.

In 2013, over 800 cultural workers had gathered to protest against budget cuts (https://art-leaks.org/2013/06/23/artists-and-cultural-workers-stage-massive-protests-in-serbia/). The last director of the Belgrade Cultural Center, Mia David, had been dismissed through illegitimate procedure in 2014. (http://www.blic.rs/kultura/vesti/mia-david-dosli-ste-da-me-izbacite-na-najgrublji-nacin-postujte-zakon/mbbgkgl). She was also responsible for the October Salon (www.oktobarskisalon.org), the biggest manifestation of contemporary art, which was organized annually by Belgrade Cultural Center since 1960. Against the protest of the cultural scene, the October Salon was reduced by the city authorities to a biennial manifestation in 2014, without consultation with representatives of the cultural sector ( https://art-leaks.org/2014/10/29/stop-the-october-salon-massacre-belgrade-serbia/ ).

Belgrade, 15/03/2016

Cultural Centre of Belgrade Program sector statement on the termination of the exhibition “Dirty Season – Uncensored” by the photo collective Kamerades before its closing date:

Cultural Centre of Belgrade Program sector supports the decision made by the photo collective Kamerades to terminate their exhibition “Dirty Season – Uncensored” before its closing date. This exhibition was opened at the Artget gallery in the Cultural Centre of Belgrade on March 10th 2016. We, workers in culture, are bound by our professional standards to open spaces for artists/artistic groups and other authors and not to stifle or limit cultural production. To support freedom of expression, critical thinking and respect integrity of an artistic work are values that form the very foundations of cultural and artistic institutions. We are against the decision and actions of the acting director of the Cultural Centre Belgrade Ms. Ivona Jevtić to censor the exhibition Dirty Season – Uncensored by partially removing its contents. These actions, that we haven’t been notified of, have caused the exhibition to close before its closing date.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Anonymous Stateless Immigrants Statement on “Post-Peace” Exhibition Censorship

March 9, 2016

As artists in “Post-Peace” we express our discontent over the decision by Akbank Sanat to cancel the exhibition over “the delicate situation in Turkey.” As members of ASI (Anonymous Stateless Immigrants), we proposed to create a “Refugees Cultural House” envisaged after Alexandra Exter’s (1882-1949) “A Stage For Tragedy.” This platform was designed to bring together refugees interested in culture in Istanbul together to produce and perform music, theater, and dance for the duration of the exhibition; it began in October 2015, and continued unhindered for five months. We were promised an exhibition budget and participation fee. Talks between curator Katia Kruppenova, Akbank Sanat, and other artists increased during these months. Materials were purchased and performances were confirmed. The musicians Hozan Peyal, Maryana Golovchneko, Hannibal Saad and Moutaz Arian were all invited and confirmed to perform, each promised an artist fee.

Notice of exhibition’s cancellation was delivered to us via email by Katia Kruppenova on Thursday, February 25, 2016, four days prior to the opening. Few artists participating were already in Istanbul, flights were paid for, hotels and accommodations booked, then cancelled by Akbank Sanat, leaving several artists stranded and in desperate need of last minute accommodation upon arrival to Istanbul. We strongly condemn Akbank Sanat’s malicious and irresponsible behaviour in this regard. By cancelling the exhibition a mere four days prior to the opening, then cancelling accommodations for artists already either in Istanbul or en route, they left many in dire financial straits by forcing them into expensive hotels at their own cost. Akbank Sanat’s official reason for the cancellation was pitiful. When pressed by members of the media to elaborate on reasons for the cancellation, Akbank Sanat responded with the following meagre and unexplanatory statement:

“We have been organizing International Curator Competition for 4 years. We have supported and hosted many curators and artists during these exhibitions. As you all know, the last competition was held 5 months ago. In the intervening months, we worked very hard on the project and gave it our full support in anticipation of a wonderful exhibition.

However, over the course of our preparations, Turkey went through a very troubled time. In particular, the tragic incidents in Ankara are very fresh in people’s memories. Turkey is still reeling from their emotional aftershocks and remains in a period of mourning.

In accordance with Akbank Sanat’s sense of responsibility in the Turkish contemporary art world and following various considerations regarding the delicate situation in Turkey, the exhibition has been cancelled.”

In response, curator Katia  Krupennikova stated:

“In October 2015 I won the Akbank Sanat Curator Competition with an exhibition project which brings together artists from a variety of origins to question how war and peace appear today. The title of the show is “Post-Peace,” a term that is a possible name for our difficult and confusing present. It was planned to open on 1 March 2016 and run until 7 May, 2016 in Akbank Sanat, Istanbul.

The project was selected by an international jury consisting of Bassam El Baroni (independent curator and theory tutor at Dutch Art Institute, Arnhem), Paul O’Neill (curator, writer and Director of the Graduate Program at the Center for Curatorial Studies, Bard College, New York), Iris Dressler and Hans D. Christ (directors of the Württembergisch Kunstverein Stuttgart). Developed and coordinated by Basak Senova, the competition is intended to provide support for emerging curators, reinforce interest in curatorial practices, and encourage new projects in the field of contemporary art.

On the 25th February, 2016, a few days before the opening, the exhibition was cancelled by Akbank Sanat.

The official explanation letter to myself and the jury states the following reasons:

“…over the course of our preparations, Turkey went through a very troubled time. In particular, the tragic incidents in Ankara are very fresh in people’s memories. Turkey is still reeling from their emotional aftershocks and remains in a period of mourning. Therefore, many events, including – but not limited to – exhibitions, concerts, and performances, are being cancelled every day.”

I, along with the artists in the show, believe this to be a case of political censorship. I fully recognize the tense political atmosphere in Turkey right now, and the reasons why Akbank Sanat may not wish to be associated with the exhibition. But this is also why it is essential to have open discussions and a place for people to engage with different perspectives on issues relevant in the Turkish context and beyond.

This situation is a very complicated one, and that is why I am currently in discussion with several institutions in Istanbul to host conversations about the ethics and responsibilities of art professionals working in tense political and social environments. I am also proposing to these institutions to co-host events and parts of the exhibition. I believe that turning this unfortunate situation into a critical dialogue is the best and most constructive decision.”

We stand in solidarity with Kruppenova and all the other artists who have been censored. Since our voices have become silenced, we would like to use this occasion to state that such a contemporary system of organizing contemporary art has no integrity to art, artists nor creation of content and context for discussion and formation of alternative communities. Accordingly, censorship can be seen as a byproduct of biopolitical control undermining even the possibility of alternative initiatives through the reproduction of fear and spatial polarization.

All told, censorship reminds us of the power of art and culture to act outside dominant hegemonic structures and interests. This might be the only advantage of a broken arm when censorship becomes a form of readymade political art.

Anonymous Stateless Immigrants collective

6/02/2016

Istanbul

Statement by the Jury for the Akbank Sanat International Curator Competition 2015

March 8, 2016

We were very disappointed to hear that Akbank Sanat took the decision to cancel hosting the prize winning exhibition proposal ‘Post-Peace’ conceived and curated by Katia Krupennikova. We selected Katia’s proposal for it’s embrace of the complexity of the current global situation and it’s identification of the proliferation of war as a dominant characteristic of our times. Akbank Sanat went on to produce the exhibition giving the curator all it’s financial and technical support only to unilaterally announce the exhibition’s cancellation less than a week before it’s scheduled opening on March 1st 2016. Akbank Sanat’s statement pointed toward the sensitive nature of the situation in Turkey as the reason for this very cautious move. Given what we know of the situation, it remains important for us to note that although we understand the complexity of the current political conflicts in Turkey and their possible impact on the art context, we still cannot help but identify this as censorship. We wish Katia and the participating artists in ‘Post-Peace’ all the best in locating an alternative venue in Istanbul or elsewhere.

Bassam El Baroni, Paul O’Neill, Iris Dressler and Hans D. Christ

_______________________________________________________________________

FOLLOWING THE CANCELLATION OF THE 2015 AKBANK SANAT INTERNATIONAL CURATOR COMPETITION

I was in Cyprus when I found out about the cancellation of the Post-Peace proposal exhibition, which was the winner of this year’s Akbank Sanat International Curator Competition. I have been working on Kemal Ankaç’s Cultural Massacreproject for the past year, and was setting up the exhibition and working on its book. I was far away and working intensely on this project. Therefore, I decided to keep silent for a while as I had difficulty in keeping up with the rapidly accumulating emails and phone calls, and furthermore, I realised that I needed time to perceive, grasp, and digest what was going on.

We are going through a period in time in which we are forced to perceive everything as either black or white, and accordingly, we are rushed into making either black or white decisions. To observe this during my silence was as painful as the cancellation of the show. I am determined to stay in the grey area and derive a positive conclusion from all that has been going on. And while doing so, I will not rush.

First off, I would like to talk about the process of this competition. In 2011, I took a proposal to Akbank Sanat to develop a competition that would provide support for emerging curators, reinforce interest in curatorial practices, and encourage new projects in the field of contemporary art, and this institution has been supporting this competition since then, including the first year’s preparations. Since the beginning, the competition’s format and structure has been modified every year according to the experience derived from and feedback given by the jury of the previous year. Three people work as application reviewers in leading up to the selection process, where both the reviewers and the International Jury (consisting of three or four people) change every year. Apart from the 1-person staff who gives technical support, no one from Akbank Sanat is involved in the selection process. I only follow the proceedings of the selection and have no say whatsoever in the results. Afterwards, Akbank Sanat unquestioningly implements all aspects of the exhibition.

This year the reviewers were Annie Belz (Associate, Middle East & Africa, Artforum International), Stephanie Bailey (Managing Editor of Ibraaz, Contributing Editor of ART PAPERS, LEAP and Ocula), and Ovul O. Durmusoglu (Curator and writer, Berlin/Istanbul). The jury consisted of Bassam El Baroni (Independent curator and theory tutor at Dutch Art Institute, Arnhem), Paul O’Neill (Curator, writer and Director of the Graduate Program at the Center for Curatorial Studies, Bard College, New York), and Iris Dressler and Hans D. Christ (Directors of the Württembergisch Kunstverein Stuttgart). Since Katia Krupennikova’s proposal was evaluated and selected by proficient names in their fields, it was undoubtedly clear that another great project was to take place in Istanbul. I was aquatinted with most of the artists Katia had proposed – I have been following them closely – and the new names would be new added values for me.

The staff in the institution, the artists, and the curator all spent a tremendous amount of time, labour, and energy. Most of the works in the exhibition were commissioned and produced, the catalogue was prepared, and many artists were invited to Istanbul. Most of the budget for the exhibition was spent. A very strong public program was planned. Hence, as we read in both Katia’s and the institution’s statements, this process was highly appreciated by all the actors involved in the project.

However, Akbank Sanat cancelled the exhibition 5 days before the opening. There was only a one-sentence statement: “Due to evaluations of the delicate nature of recent events in Turkey, the exhibition has been cancelled”. No negative remarks were made concerning the exhibition, curator, or artists.

At this point, rather than throwing trite accusations and coming to rapid conclusions about the incident or those involved, we have to take a step back and think. I believe that it is time to produce some important questions which we should first direct to ourselves instead of coming up with rote answers.

The first question I ask myself is whether there is a possibility of turning this occasion from an unfortunate incident into a constructive occurrence. This is the only thing I strive for at this point. I’m sorry if I have disappointed those who expected a partial statement from me, but I refuse to think in terms of black and white. I still believe that another world is possible.

Başak Şenova, organizer of the Akbank Sanat International Curator Competition