A Discussion with Art Historian Barış Acar: Climate Change, Politics and Contemporary Art
“Can that which is apolitical be political? Is a political uprising not based on the Enlightenment possible? People are not making these political choices because they have become more conscious of the climate. It’s an instinctual choice. It’s all about the survival instinct. This is why I don’t believe that a realpolitik defined within a parliamentary system can take the steps necessary to solve a problem as radical as ecology. It would mean a betrayal of the foundations on which they rely and I sincerely don’t believe they have the courage, let alone the means, to go through with such an act. ”
Barış Acar: We will be talking about the exhibition Planetary Dysphoria* but I’d like to follow a different method open the subject of the exhibition up to discussion and avoid turning this into a promotional pamphlet. That’s because the subject you’re working on, climate change and its reception require such perspective.
I’ll start from a point that might come off quite irrelevant: Todd Philips’s controversial movie, Joker. When I left the theatre, I was very undecided about it—I needed to think about it. This was, naturally, the similarities to the Occupy movement that the director chose to create in the later scenes. There was a predisposition to precarity, which could be interpreted as looking down on these grassroots movements—and it was. The forced narrative around the movie (that it would increase violent tendencies, taking security measures at theatre exits in the US, etc.) was only mean to serve that. This attitude has more to do with portraying mass movements as unhinged crowds, promoting the movie while covertly projecting vague threats, than any real goal. That is to say, that may be how the film’s logic works, or perhaps it is what is desired by its producers—but therein exists a breaking point: The failure of the message. I believe that Joker’s position (as opposed to the other Jokers) lies in his inability to convey a message, his lack of belief in the message, the removal of the possibility of a message by linking it to madness. Therefore, their message-based argument of “politics from the above” - “politics from below” fails to work in this instance. On the other hand, I can comfortably interpret the lack of the message as an intervention from below, because the rulers signify “rationality”, whereas Joker and all the other clowns crowding the streets signify “irrationality”. Here I use these terms in a political scientific sense. What I mean to point out is the conscious (Bewusst) and the unconscious (Unbewusst), and the link between the two—but let’s not dwell too long on this. The movie used the position of the clowns to signify the irrational in this division between those who rule and those who are ruled. This is precisely the reason why I found this Joker to be more, for the lack of a better term, revolutionary than Heath Ledger’s Joker. Ledger’s Joker followed the enlightenment model and aimed to send a message to the masses. His burning of the money, his revolt against the system, etc. Once the message was revealed and the mystery was resolved, his game would finish and all would be well. The rational would self-repair, remove the error, find the right path, and make everyone happy. That’s how its politics positioned itself. Whereas Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker insistent on the TV Show that he wasn’t a political character. By associating him with madness, the film already removed the possibility of any message-based/redemptive/enlightened politics. This Joker’s constituent element was this instinctual reaction without a message or any secrets to reveal. Here, the question becomes this: Can that which is apolitical be political? I think if you study the Occupy movement from this point of view, this becomes a very exciting proposition. Is a political uprising not based on the Enlightenment possible? I find the film to be valuable simply because it raises these questions. I will even argue that we can set off from here and touch on Greta Thunberg’s political position. She’s a figure making rounds in all political aisles yet no one takes her “seriously”. She’s viewed as a caricature, a cartoon character, even as the centre point of some conspiracy theories by some. Others romanticise her and emphasise her age, her courage, etc.—almost “unconsciously” following her, what she wants to do, and her way of doing it. Though I’d argue that the new uprising will come out of not message and enlightenment but from the basest of places, instinctual reactions. This is why I find this character to be important. Although she seems like a complete caricature now, I believe that no one can guarantee that Thunberg won’t simply turn into an underground figure. I find Joker to be very similar.
Were you able to watch the film? Would you care to join the discussion from the state of politics over there?
Senem Çağla Bilgin: I’ve not seen it. I’m quite picky when it comes to watching things to better manage my time and properly define the limits of digital consumption. Because this also has to do with climate change. I will touch on this in a bit but let me talk about the political atmosphere here first.
David Cameron is The Conservative Party member and a former Prime Minister. He was criticised harshly for his centrist political opportunism and elitism. He pushed Brexit, which he said he believed would not happen, to its final stages, and had to resign in 2016 when the UK voted to leave the European Union. It comes off quite convoluted reading it now, doesn’t it? But like your interpretation of the Joker character, we have the same breaking point: the failure of the message. There’s a Britain that associates Cameron with madness for his actions during the Brexit proceedings—one that argues that we should not leave the EU and which appears to be the majority. And then a shocking political chaos wherein we must leave the EU. Is this not a process with which we’re fairly familiar because of Turkey? The rest is also patently absurd. Theresa May’s hardline pro-Brexit profile despite being in the same party as Cameron and her resignation at the end for botching up the process, and Boris Johnson who suddenly finds himself on that stage.
Now all of these dynamics are clear to see in not just Britain and Turkey but also Brazil, the US, China, and many others. I’m sure everyone can see these parallels. But when someone like Greta Thunberg appears and starts talking about climate change “apolitically”, whichever class we look at it from, the consistency of her message must reach everyone because there are millions currently following this subject. What bothers me is that this has become a trendy topic. Anything that becomes a trend is bound to become a victim of overconsumption, and then lose all significance. Last summer I read Greta’s first book. It was a collection of her speeches and also told how she became interested in the climate crisis. It talks about this child who, because of her Asperger’s, has difficulty adapting to school, eating, communicating with her family and the people around her; and how she could get through these critical issues once she became interested in a subject almost to the level of OCD because her life now served a purpose. The only reason her family is supportive of her is that they saw that their daughter can live a healthy life this way. Now, this is a really good start. But, as I said, she is a big reason why this subject has consciously or unconsciously become consumption material. So, we go back to the beginning—the message begins to contradict itself.
My work on Planetary Dysphoria started about a year and a half ago. Right before this subject became completely popular. My conversations with my friend Ashley Gorst, a successful economist who also works on the subject of climate change, led to an epiphany that put me face to face with the question of where I stood on this important subject during my commute back home every evening. First, like many, I found myself in the midst of all this info-pollution, wondering if I should become a vegan, stop using plastics, recycle, use more public transit, live in smaller dwellings—that way I could play my part against climate change and positively impact the issue. I did all I could for a while and I still do some of them. But then I realised what a thoughtless behaviour this was, and decided to read up more serious stuff on the subject and form my mechanism of understanding again. After various books and commentary, I happened upon a book that shook me and became the biggest propulsive force in my work preparing this exhibition. Charles C. Mann’s ‘The Wizard and The Prophet’. Before I talk about the book, though, I’m curious about your thoughts on this “lack of message” via the lens of the climate, politics, art, and more importantly our methods of consumption.
Barış Acar: I think you’ve made a good point of bringing up the realpolitik because we need to make sure it’s clear what our political grounds are and where we’re speaking from, politically. Like you underlined, some links tie together politics, art, ecology, and all. It also makes sense that you’re putting consumption in front and centre. The expectation would be, if we were on level ground, that consumption (as an aspect of economics), art and ecology, and the interests between them should be talked about in a political context. In a rational system of thought, politics would be comprehensive. But I think your model is more correct. Politics (the real one) is positioned under the denomination of consumption, with other things. So, the determinant category in the dominating capitalist culture is “consumption”. Things being the way they are, art, ecology, even politics has to be discussed from a consumption centred perspective. I would not want to list the symptoms thereof in art—I believe they are quite obvious. This includes the swamp that criticism itself has sunk into. While ecology is discussed these days, is it a true discussion, or does it also simply exist as a market within the consumption. Does ecology have its politics in this sense, or is the ecological intervention a movement impactful enough to affect the realpolitik, vis-à-vis the organisation of Green movements into political parties in Europe, their entering the parliaments, etc.? My answer to these questions would be negative. The rising consciousness has various forms. For example, I think there’s a phase difference between the last time the Greens in Austria (Das Grüne) entered the parliament in the previous elections and this time. The last time there was a strong sense that they were simply in fashion, and they failed to keep their seats in the following elections. However, there was a steep increase in their votes when the most recent elections happened last October, and they returned to the parliament. Not because they had better politics, I don’t think, but because of this very real fear of losing ecological balance that the public feels. That’s only my interpretation, of course. Others may view these events in other ways. I mean to distinguish the effect here from consciousness in particular. People are not making these political choices because they have become more conscious of the climate. It’s an instinctual choice. It’s all about the survival instinct. This is why I don’t believe that a realpolitik defined within a parliamentary system can take the steps necessary to solve a problem as radical as ecology. It would mean a betrayal of the foundations on which they rely and I sincerely don’t believe they have the courage, let alone the means, to go through with such an act. All these things I’m telling might come off complicated somewhat, but what I’m trying to recount is very simple. You can’t talk about ecology in a world where Donald Trump is running a country. The same goes for Turkey. When the current parliamentary political composition is so focused on consumption as to incessantly extend to wars, Greta’s platform will come off very naive and naturally fail to become a real political dynamic.
It’s exactly at this point where the whole “not trusting the message” issue, of which I’ve used Joker as an example, comes into play. Today, the message is the parliament. It is realpolitik. It is the position which Anonymous insists on underlining in their message regarding Greta—the argument that is “the leaders whom you’re asking for assistance are the people who have put the world in this state in the first place and any measures they take (if they decide to take any in the first place) will never change the outcome,” will play a decisive role in the end. Greta stands in front of us as the survival instinct against the message. This, as you have also said, has a lot to do with her condition. So, it’s in vain that she’s trying to appeal to the current system’s universe of messages—although perhaps it’s not that to which she’s trying to appeal. We could view it as a dialogue with the masses through these debates with the rotten political system, against that very same system. I don’t intend to follow another conspiracy theory. On the contrary, I’m trying to underline the role of the “unforeseeable” against the way the message works. Greta’s “voice” is the reflection of a mass survival instinct. It has not yet found a “statement” (a politically defined identity). This is precisely why it poses a threat to the system. To me, Greta is a symbol of the uncountable majority. In that regard, she carries within her several suggestions on how politics could be run. Politics isn’t made up of messages; it has to do with the ways the messages are conveyed, the methods, and the forces, most of all. The downfall that we’re skirting, brought on by the ecological destruction that we’re fast approaching, necessitates new political forces. This, of course, is not something that will happen on its own. It’s necessary to organise. I believe what we are witnessing today is the search for new forms of organising. At least that is what I’ve interpreted from the circulation of cultural elements.
Let us now move the question on to art. I will not start my question with art’s role. Because art does not deal with roles, goals, missions. What is the position of art at the threshold of ecological collapse? What politics do you believe art produces today? What do the artists say? I’m not talking about their statements. I’m asking this in terms of where they stand and the direction in which they speak.
Senem Çağla Bilgin: This is a truly very comprehensive question. If we think about it within the periphery of contemporary art and without making any generalisations, popular-contemporary-art currently displays a worse version of the Greta model, which I mentioned and railed against a bit ago. While with Greta we have a more instinctual and indirect consumption in question, “visible art” (by which I mean museums, galleries, and artists that reach large masses) manifests the dynamics that relate to and bring up the climate crisis only as a means of consumption. It is limited by place and time. For example, in his latest exhibition at Tate Modern, Olafur Elliason brought an ice mass from Iceland to bring focus to the climate crisis and displayed it in front of Tate Modern. The ice melted shortly, of course. Now, speaking about the realities of an ecological catastrophe, the spatially and temporally limited “climate” of a corporate name like Tate Modern isn’t all that independent from unrealistic political promises. One again, there exists an incorrect message. There are more real issues we must question and discuss. The global population will reach 10 billion in the next 30 years. Is the planet ready to support that? Even if it did, what kind of a planet would that be?
In his book, ‘The Wizard and the Prophet’, Charles C. Mann, whom I mentioned before, puts the opposing arguments of two most important scientists of the 20th century in duelling positions. William Vogt argues that consuming more than what Earth gave us is an irreversible catastrophe and must be stopped immediately. Norman Borlaug, on the other hand, argues that we must continue production and that that’s the only way everyone can win. However, Norman Borlaug has another major impact on the climate crisis and its means of consumption: With the “Green Revolution” he brought about after World War II, Borlaug, with his technique, managed to get 4 products per unit area where the yield was once 1 product per unit area. This method is still used in modern agriculture to this day, and this is how we’re able to handle the population.
Looking at the things we assign to be ethical values and the recent general arguments of environmentalists, it shouldn’t be hard for us all to be Vogtians, should it? Here, Borlaug asks this: “We are nations that have life within Western civilisation and have had everything for many generations. But if we look at third world countries, at Africa, Pakistan, the various areas of India, lecturing these communities -that are fighting hunger and poverty - about the climate and limiting their necessities would be nothing but racism.” At that point, having been a Vogtian up until then, I had a different epiphany. I could give you examples of both sides for the sake of detail but what I mean to say is, having read both of these conflicting mantras led me to conclude that having absolute environmentalist views about the climate crisis is no different from turning the whole thing into a one-dimensional form of consumption. I started thinking again. In the end, as Charles C. Mann put it; “There was no right or wrong, only balance.”
“Here, Norman Borlaug asks this: We are nations that have life within Western civilisation and have had everything for many generations. But if we look at least developed countries, at Yemen, Chad, Madagascar, Afghanistan the various areas of Pakistan, lecturing these communities -that are fighting hunger and poverty - about the climate and limiting their necessities would be nothing but racism.”
So, as we created the exhibition Planetary Dysphoria, we took pains to create this balance. Sara Thorsen Fredborg - a Royal College of Art graduate and a Danish curator—and I visited many exhibitions, studios, and alternative venues in London for about 6 months. We had to change our direction multiple times to establish the links between the climate crisis and fields connected to it, and to lay down those foundations properly. The exhibition was no civil initiative project; it relied on or represented no political views. On the other hand, it also did not argue for a green enough ideology to enter the radar of environmentalist groups. I should also add that the concept of Planetary Dysphoria comes from Emily Apter and her text “Art and Ecology”. Dysphoria is a mood disorder. The exhibition attempts to explore the climate crisis from a humanistic and existential point of view, through contemporary art. I’d like to take a moment here and talk about an event. While we continued our preparations for the exhibition, I received a phone call. It was Steve Sweeney from the Morning Star newspaper. He told us that he had heard about the exhibition before its opening and that he’d like to interview us (Sara and me) and turn that into an article. This could have been excellent PR but the paper was a direct outlet for a party, so we politely declined the offer. So, I think we’ve correctly conveyed our message with the exhibition.
Barış Acar: I agree with what you said in the context of contemporary art. There’s a dual trap here. They either illustratively simplify the ecology issue into any other common issue—which naturally becomes commoditised—or they aestheticise it and turn it into a part of some fancy show. And as with your example, those who pull off both successfully are regarded as successful in the market. And on the subject of ecology, I’ve yet to foresee any moves in terms of art that has any qualities that can be associated with politics. However, as you said, some are in search. I believe that, as with Joker’s act, things will only change once they stop playing to the audience and return to their instincts.
* Artists who participated in Planetary Dysphoria: Mert Acar, Araminta Blue, Sofia Bonato, Andreea Ionascu, Ayşe Kipri, Michela De Nichilo. The exhibition which took place at the Generation & Display Gallery in London, between the dates of 18th October – 07th November 2019 was curated by Sara Thorsen Fredborg and Art Elsewhere.