katalog-overlapping voices - Ritesinstitute

curatorial responsiBility and the
exhiBition of israeli and palestinian
political art in europe
alexander ari Joskowicz
curators and organizers of exhibitions of Palestinian
and israeli political art in europe will likely encounter
two opposing positions concerning their
responsibilities. the first is that there is no need to
contextualize such works in a european country,
even when they are exhibited in a society that was
deeply implicated in the shoah (as in the case of
austria). the artworks will speak for themselves,
and whatever entanglement there is between israeli,
austrian, and Palestinian history is not qualitatively
different from the entanglement that the
histories of other countries also entail. according
to this perspective, although many austrians were
implicated in the crimes committed by the nazis
half a century ago, this need not mean that the
austrians of today are incapable of seeing israeli
and Palestinian realities on their own terms. the
second position presents austrians and austria as
a society so deeply implicated in nazi crimes that
the exhibition of political art which deals with Jews
in any way necessitates elaborate explanations on
the history of austrian antisemitism and the fate of
austria’s Jewry during the second world war.
the first option is difficult to sustain given that austrian
and Jewish history are not simply “entangled”.
Rather, perceptions of Jews, israelis, and Palestinians
continue to be strongly conditioned by the
images, debates, and sentiments that stem from
nazi rule in austria. the idea of an austrian nation
gained acceptability in the post-war era when austrians
sought to dissociate themselves from allegedly
german (that is non-austrian) crimes. it would
be disingenuous to claim that austria – a nation
state whose very existence is predicated on the
disassociation from crimes against Jews – represents
a neutral space for the representation of art
that highlights the consequences of the foundation
of a “Jewish state”. in a country like austria
and others with a history of strong nazi or antisemitic
sentiment, the discussion of guilt acquired
by israel and israelis often becomes part of an at-
tempt to deflect accusations that its citizens were
implicated in the crimes of national socialism. if
the history of nazism is not part of making such
an exhibition site specific in large parts of europe,
what is?
the second position is much more sensitive to questions
of site specificity but has its own pitfalls. this
essay explores the possibility of a particular form of
contextualization that is conscious of the limitations
and dangers of creating ethically charged suggestions
of perception for viewers. it will consider what
sort of interventions actually create a space that
allows for an engagement with the artists’ works
and political message; even in a context that demands
particular historical sensitivities. although
it explores the holocaust and israeli and Palestinian
art specifically, the reflections pursued here
might also apply in other contexts as well – for example,
the way that the history of colonial relations
and european islamophobia colour the reception
of political art from former north african and
middle eastern colonies in different european
countries today. lastly, this piece should not be
read as an explanation of the curators’ choices
(which have been made according to their own
considerations) but rather as an attempt to enter
into dialogue with them and the other organizers
of the exhibition.
Intervention and Explanation
the reception experience of the audience is conditioned
not just by the arrangement of the exhibition
space. it is shaped by many additional elements
some of which can be controlled (such as the title
of the exhibition) and others that cannot (such as
the public identity of the producers and curators).
one of the aspects that cannot be changed is the
fact that the artists are marked as israeli or Palestinian.
no matter what the title of the exhibition
and how much effort the curators put into challenging
preconceived categories, the “overlapping
voices” will always be read as israeli and Palestinian
voices.
there are two problems attached to this identification
with a “side” in a conflict. the first is that the
works could be seen as authentic voices or representative
expressions of the feelings of one side.
since this is the issue that is usually and often
addressed by critics and artists alike, i will not discuss
it further. a second problem that has received
much less attention is the fact that viewers with
little knowledge of the political circumstances in
the middle east will focus on the pedagogical function
of the works. they will mine them for basic information
about political realities rather than read
them as political commentaries.
this is even true for projects that are not ostensibly
trying to explain anything. Yoav weiss’ project,
which comments on the so-called separation
wall in israel, is a case in point. in his statement,
weiss notes that pieces of the Berlin wall eventually
sold for good money, once the structure lost
its policing function. according to weiss the israeli
wall will surely meet a similar fate and parts of
it will soon become similarly coveted souvenirs. he
thus offers a special deal for early birds who already
want to secure their part of the wall.
in the israeli context, weiss’ work is an intervention.
interpretations of his work there are always
predicated on the fact that the viewer already
knows the israeli wall and the reality it stands for.
it should concern us less that individual viewers in
austria or elsewhere in europe might miss the fact
that weiss is speaking tongue-in-cheek. more importantly,
even those european viewers who understand
this work as an ironic commentary will
engage its references to the less familiar israeli wall
through the lens of the more familiar Berlin wall.
as careful austrian viewers will scan his artwork
with the aim of understanding the israeli wall, its
implications, and political meaning, they will inevitably
do so through the prism of what they know
33