by Pegah Byroum-Wand
2024

Back in August 2023, when the symposium took place, I took notes in my little notebook in black and red ink as a “documentarian” of the event. I knew that sharing experiences and knowledge of working in, alongside, with, or against (German) cultural institutions would be a contested topic. But eight months later, the world and humanity have been turned upside down in horrific ways once again, and I am lost for words. I am shocked by what marginalized people are experiencing in this country once again, particularly in the cultural and academic fields, but it is not very surprising, taking into account the long history of racism, colonialism, and antisemitism in Germany.

Documentation ascribes meaning and visibility to things. Documentation can be a written account of talking points, it can serve as proof or a source, and might also serve as an archive that ascribes authorship and knowledge to the perspectives of individuals. This would, however, contradict the character of emancipatory movements’ collective voice ¹ . As empowering and existential as naming and attribution are most of the time, citation can also make individuals into targets of defamation, especially in our current societal climate. Considering the participants and organizers of CCC a temporary and collective three-day movement, the following documentation neglects individual authorship and attributions.

At the beginning of the symposium, I tried to capture as much as I could in my notebook to provide a „complete“ picture. But I am wondering: What am I (not) aware of because of my social positionality? This documentation is a summary of what I was aware of, as a cis-gendered, able-bodied, academic, woman and racialized person with German passport privileges and parents who were political refugees. My notes are not chronological but themed summaries of the CCC debates. 

My reflections are marked by „«…»“.

Prologue: Reflections on internalizing institutional settings at the symposium 

« During the opening panels of the first day („Unlearning Curation & Undoing Artworld Hierarchies“ and „Alternative Curatorial Methods“) I recognized a pattern that I had noticed in some past events by self-organized, grassroots, or other power-critical groups, and some of the events organized by myself, too: We try very hard to question institutional frameworks, exclusive notions of professionality, urgency, and work performance. Or briefly: We try to overcome „White Supremacy Culture in Institutions“ ² . Yet, here we are, reproducing norms inherited from working in/with such institutions, for example organizing panel discussions on a stage with a seated audience in front of the stage, listening to the panel guests sitting above. All eyes are towards the stage and the panelists perform under the usual gaze politics.
We could start practicing some kind of „oppositional gaze“ ³ as a form of resistance, and change these hierarchical settings of exchange, couldn’t we? When starting to work in sharing circles later, we interrupted the logic of these hierarchical gaze politics more and more, and created mutual exchange on a more equal level.“ »

(Alternative) Curatorial practices within and outside of German institutions

The panel discussion on „Alternative Curatorial Methods“ revolved around the question of how to prevent common curatorial practices that reproduce inequality and how to develop alternative ones instead. After all, being part of the art and cultural scene in Germany can sometimes mean being complicit in power, oppression, exclusion, censorship, or exploitation.

An example of a common curatorial practice discussed by the panelists is the combination of visual and textual elements to emphasize the authority and credibility of the written word. This method is normalized in many cultural institutions and curatorial settings. One alternative practice presented on the panel is the collage as a method of multi-perspectivity and multi-directionality that undermines authority. It enables us to gain back our agency within institutional and curatorial work.

The sharing circles following the panel centered on two interesting aspects of the discussion, among others. Firstly, it is discussed that to counteract the danger of being complicit in exclusionary curatorial methods or generally in exclusionary practices of the institutions, we need to care about and cultivate our feelings of discomfort. In doing so, we can normalize having (uncomfortable) discussions, articulate our demands and needs, and also build support structures within and outside of institutions, as workers on payroll or as freelancers. This debate intensifies during the following days of the symposium when talking about censorship and scapegoating, work conditions, and negotiating contracts. 

Secondly, the pitfalls of representation politics, tokenism, and gatekeeping in curation are pointed out by the participants. Sometimes we are being put on the spot and are seen as representatives of a certain homogenized and marginalized group. Therefore, we should remember that we must also serve as an infrastructure for other marginalized artists and cultural workers, academics, and practitioners to come. We should be aware that even when our curatorial work might be critical, we are often still satisfying a problematic audience’s needs to realize our projects and enhance our careers. Therefore, it is also crucial to reflect on how much we are profiting from our communities’ struggles. 

« My reflections on the collage not only as a method of curation but also as a method of collaboration and working together during our symposium are: Which words can describe collective agency in the space of the symposium? Are our perspectives connected, braided, intertwined, separated, or alienated? What happens to our feelings and fears, to our tears and traumas? Who is missing from the symposium? We are building up structures and networks together, articulating demands together, but can we also tear down oppressive walls together?

« People with many privileges can withdraw from feeling uncomfortable – people with little or no privileges might not be able to do so. (Former) marginalized persons might gain powerful positions within institutions and become „native informants“ ⁴ , gatekeeping their status. They maintain their position by being complicit to the structural powers that marginalized them in the first place. Can we call these kind of native informants „Toxic Tokens“?» 

Curating Conflicts, Censorship, and Scapegoating in Germany and Beyond

The panels „Censorship and Scapegoating“ and „Curating Conflicts“ address the topic of conflicts and complicity in the fields of arts and culture. Conflicts can lead to scapegoating and censorship by cultural institutions, particularly by people in power like directors.

The panelists argue that the mentioned people in power, and many other people too, often strive for some kind of quick fix for conflicts. Sometimes they even silence critical voices to avoid confrontation and accountability and maintain their privilege of not feeling uncomfortable. Accordingly, we as artists and cultural workers of all kinds should become more comfortable with addressing conflicts collectively. At the same time, this requires a lot of resilience and strength because criticism articulated outside a set institutional framework is often perceived as an attack. In this context, one panelist promotes the method of „intentionally creating conflicts in the space of lies“ to confront strategies of silencing and censorship within institutions and in public debates. 

The example emphasized by a panelist is the topic of Jewish identities in Germany, and how cultural institutions deal with them. Many times, Jewish identities are being appropriated in German discourse. Public criticism by leftist Jews, targeting German politics, is dismissed in the media and institutional debates. In many cases, discussions regarding Jewish identities and antisemitism are more about Germany itself than about enhancing heterogeneous Jewish perspectives and protecting Jewish lives. This goes hand in hand with the ignorance towards Jewish-Muslim relations and alliances, global south coalitions, Palestinian-Israeli coalitions, and many more.

The sharing circle also discusses documenta fifteen and how political decision-makers in Germany dealt with the curatorial conflicts, showing how deep racism and antisemitism are still engrained in German society. Racism and antisemitism became (and still become) weapons against the very people who are affected by it. The public debate and the steps taken in the aftermath of documenta fifteen showed that the identities of marginalized and racialized people are evaluated through the scope of German identity. This affects tactics of divide and conquer by the German state regarding which demands by local and international social movements are acknowledged or discussed publicly and which are silenced or criminalized (Afghanistan, Iran, Kurdish Movements, Palestine, etc.)

The tone-policing, and censorship in and outside of German institutions lead more and more to a self-censorship of affected people. Jobs, contracts, and professional reputations and existences are at stake. The discussants also raise the question of how to protect ourselves from being surveilled and punished by the state. One conclusion was that we need to continue building coalitions and ally-ships, which are crucial to keep up spaces of critical debate.

Being (in)dependent: Artists/Cultural Workers and State Funding

Spaces of critical debates and discourse within institutions are mostly accessible to artists and cultural workers by being funded. Funding in the field of arts and culture in Germany is granted by the state and is motivated by social trends, identified by (cultural) politics, activism, and political agendas. However, state funding often leads to complex relationships of interdependence and dependency between the funder and the funded person or group because it affects questions of artistic freedom, entitlement to the artwork, and many more. 

One example is the engagement with the violent colonial history of Germany which was implemented in the coalition agreements of the Bundesregierung in Germany only in 2018, leading to a range of funding for decolonial art, projects, and research. 

«The lack of sustainability due to the limited funding of these projects serves to maintain the status quo of society. Funding is given to conduct projects but often ends before structural changes can happen.»

Taking into account the conditions of state funding and the insecurity linked to it, the participants of CCC engage in creating a code of conduct on days two and three. The code of conduct includes ideas for creating networks, working in and with institutions, focusing on negotiating contracts, and knowing labor rights and legal terms. This includes workers on the payroll as well as freelancers. Since we are producing for an art market, it is important to normalize being paid for de-briefing, pre-and after-care, and writing long applications.

A code of conduct can be understood as a framework of guiding principles, including accountability, inclusivity and anti-discriminational approach, mutual respect, and work conditions. Codes of conduct create conditions for workers and institutions regarding their terms of collaboration to agree and rely on. One crucial aspect of the discussion is the negotiation of contracts, considering the vulnerabilities of freelancers and workers on payroll alike (see CCC posters). The discussants agree that support and communication structures outside of institutions can be very helpful in sharing knowledge and resources on legal aspects. Mentors, e.g. elders, who help with bureaucracy, are needed to ensure that there are no terms of policing, discrimination, and censoring included in the contracts. Moreover, many discussants emphasize the need to unionize and organize and to turn to existing counseling organizations such as Diversity Arts Culture in Berlin. All these measurements create more self-confidence and knowledge to articulate demands instead of waiting until being granted permission.

Some more questions of the group regarding contracts and working conditions are:

• What do we need to feel safe and appreciated in our work environments?

• How can we become comfortable with articulating our needs and desires?

• What are the terms of communication, working hours, and access to institutional resources (e.g. material, technical support)? 

• Who is the contact person?

• How are we dealing with visa issues, ownership of the work, or shared knowledge?

• Can the contract include aspects of process orientation and flexibility regarding the artwork?

• How are we addressing and dealing with discrimination (discrimination of people who are neurodivergent, affected by racism, classism, sexism, ageism, and ableism)? What are the structures of accountability and protection?

Articulating independent visions and creating networks of care 

Most panels and sharing circles of day three, e.g. „A manifesto for radical care or how to be a human in the arts“ and „Kuration als pflegende Angehörigkeit“, underline one important relation: on the one hand the crucial knowledge of the laws, rights, and work conditions within institutions and engaging with them to contribute to structural changes towards equality. On the other hand the development of our visions and goals that are independent of the status quo, but focus on practices of care.

While it is important to know about the institutions we are working for (on payroll) or with (as freelancers), we should not exhaust ourselves with changing and re-contextualizing existing organizational structures in the field of arts and culture only. There must be space and energy to create very own visions and dreams, instead of only „serving“ the needs and desires of the institutions. The sharing circles discuss on the one hand the idea of being more driven by collective positive values and sustainable visions for art, culture, and society rather than being defensive in conflicts with institutions. On the other hand, defensiveness is sometimes a sign of not feeling heard or seen and needs to be acknowledged. Inspired by feminist curatorial methodologies, among many more, we should focus on care and empathy as commons. 

In this context, as pointed out in the last sharing circle of day three, it is also important to appreciate the work of those, who have paved the way for us.

« But who are „we“ and „our“ values?»

«Do we have to define ourselves in relation to what we reject? Is there space to invent something new? »