 |
Interview with Ferran Barenblit |
|
| Two programme seasons have now been completed
since Ferran Barenblit took over as director of the Centre d'Art
Santa Mònica in Barcelona. The new programme started with
the remodelling of the building, so this is a good moment to take
a look back over these last two years. David G. Torres, who was
a member of the first team of curators, talks to Ferran Barenblit. |
|
DAVID G. TORRES
The programme of exhibitions
at Santa Mònica is run by a team of curators. How does this
team work?
It’s a body which two independent curators are invited to join for a specified
period, for the purpose of forming a team to decide on the programme of exhibitions,
taking part in the planning of other activities and making a lot of the decisions
relating to the centre.
Is it a democratic body?
Yes it is, and I’m just one member of it, though without of course relinquishing
my responsibilities as director. The key word here is debate rather than democracy.
But it is also a structure that in itself is the
solution to an institutional problem.
It arose from an attempt to break away from a very Iberian tradition of commissioning
outside professionals to organise exhibitions in art centres, although now we
are increasingly seeing curators as members of the staff of these institutions.
As a freelance myself, I had been part of a system of what Gerardo Mosquera calls
hardware without software. In the German, Scandinavian and Anglo-American systems
the curator is a member of staff responsible for organising the programmes. I
would perhaps have liked to copy this model here, but there were practical difficulties,
i.e. the complicated system of engaging staff for public institutions. The curatorial
team seemed to me to be half-way between the two.
The first change-over has already
taken place, between me and Frederic Montornés, and Jacob
Fabricius has started work while Miguel von Hafe Pérez
is finishing his programme. Can you describe the process?
In your case, the reason for joining the team was connected with our earlier
collaborations together, which also happened with Miguel, and in addition there
was the fact that you both work together on the Pontevedra Biennial in
2004. With Miguel, who works in Oporto, there was another important factor: sharing
the idea of the periphery of Europe.
|
|
|
 |
|
| David G. Torres i Ferran
Barenblit |
|
|
|
|
At the beginning, you and Miguel were
more involved in defining the nature of the centre, and now,
with the dynamic already established, the curatorial team
is more focused on programming. In fact, that first team
was the one that thought out how the centre could operate,
and the one that defined it. Apart from the architectural
remodelling, all the early operational decisions were taken
as
a team.
At the end of your time on the team you decided to take over the editing of this
Newsletter, which initially we had only contemplated as a mere list of activities.
This also led to the idea of the CASM vol. annual reviews. The fact of having
played a role in defining the dynamics of the Santa Mònica is an advantage
now that you’re continuing to be involved as an external collaborator.
On one occasion I remember someone asking Miguel
whether he intended to continue living in Oporto, because it was incompatible
with being a curator in an internationalised field. It was hurtful to think
that there were people in the art world who considered it a mistake to live
in Oporto.
In a city such as Oporto, which is more “peripheral” than Barcelona,
Miguel has been able to draw attention to the Portuguese scene. To bring
in a curator in a more powerful position from Paris or Germany would not
have been playing the right cards for Santa Mònica.
Despite these relationships,
we have sometimes been criticised for contradicting
ourselves.
Argument and dissention form part of the job. Frederic is now asking searching
questions about everything.
|
|
Non-exhibition
formats should be
as important as the exhibitions
themselves. |
|
|
Would it be true to say
that Frederic is the token local curator and Jacob
is a switch from Oporto to Copenhagen?
We could say that. With the differences in their methods of working and their
discourse.
Will we be seeing Portuguese
artists replaced by Danish artists?
I was surprised that Jacob’s first ideas
didn’t involve Danish artists. Apart from that,
he’s extremely keen to get to know the local
scene.
But I hope he’ll show us what’s
happening up there.
Scandinavia is in fact a very interesting scene.
Will following the present
pattern mean that you don’t intend to hold group
shows? Are you closing the door on curators who are
not part of the team?
We’ve often thought of inviting other
curators. We haven’t done so, but I’m open
to all suggestions. At any rate, there are a very large
number of people going through this centre who work
on and product projects.
When do you expect there’ll
be another changeover on the team of curators? Or aren’t
there going to be any more changes?
The essence of the team is regular change, at a pace, like up to now, that
is sufficiently slow for each curator to be able to define a project of his
own and sufficiently fast to keep on renewing our perspectives.
Barcelona
It’s occasionally been insinuated that there hasn’t been enough
local art.
First of all one would have to decide where the limit of “local” lies.
But at any rate we are working hard not only with local artists but on all
the projects that are being done outside the exhibitions. The centre’s
role is to generate an international context of a high standard for art here.
And, above all, to produce a significant piece by the artists who exhibit.
We could show only local artists, but then perhaps nobody from outside would
come. It’s strange, because in Madrid they think I have a local quota
to meet because there’s always been at least one artist from here in
each series of exhibitions.
But has there been a quota?
It’s been purely on the basis of conviction:
that of responsibility to the local scene.
What position does Santa
Mònica occupy in a city filled with institutions
devoted to a greater or lesser extent to contemporary
art? It has to exist alongside the MacBa, the Fundació Tàpies
and the Fundació Miró, CaixaForum and
the Sala Montcada, both run by the Fundació “la
Caixa”, the Virreina, the Capella and also the
CCCB.
The space left among all these institutions
is necessarily small. Fortunately, relations between
all of them are very good. But it is the Santa Mònica
that has had to carve a space for itself, that has
had to reposition itself in the local context. The
individual exhibitions are a distinguishing factor.
And, above all, we have made every effort to generate
a context for local output.
But, for example, showing
Pep Agut – in addition to the personal interest
in working with him – demarcated the functions
of the MacBa, where he had had a large retrospective
exhibition, as against the Santa Mònica, where
we exhibited one specific piece.
What you’re saying about Pep is important in order to demonstrate that
this is not a race and there are no hierarchies. Maria Norman is showing
now. She’s a figure in contemporary art who dates from the 1970s but
she’s delighted to exhibit with artists who are thirty years younger
than her.
In the central square in Gothenburg, in Sweden, are the library, the theatre,
the art museum, the art centre, the concert hall and the Hasselblad photography
centre, all in adjacent buildings. The art centre and the art museum have
different directors and independent programmes and nobody asks why there
has to be an art centre.
Santa Mònica has
sometimes been accused of having no line.
Well, we’re also accused of having just the opposite. I think an art
centre has to have a broad perspective. It’s obliged to include different
types of work. If we go back and define its place in the city, I think it
should generate a lot of projects and serve as a platform. To do this, it
has to work in many directions.
|
|
We’re weak on communication,
but it’s difficult to be newsworthy. |
|
|
What do you think of the reception given to
what you are doing?
I think the local context has responded well. The openings are packed,
and this can sometimes be a good indication of the response. But, of course,
it’s impossible to remain free from any controversy.
The public in general is more difficult to assess; it’s hard to get
close to them. The number of visitors has grown, but I don’t know whether
this is purely circumstantial.
Institution
You mentioned the difficulties in engaging staff for public authorities:
does this mean that Santa Mònica is not independent?
It’s not a separate legal entity. Santa Mònica defines its own
content; we take the decisions relating to programming. At the same time
it is part of the Department of Culture of the Catalan Autonomous Government
and is not self-governing as far as decisions regarding staff, image, press,
contracts, etc. are concerned.
One of the features of
your arrival was another refurbishment of the building.
Why was this done?
It had some serious deficiencies. It had been
designed and remodelled in the 1980s; the route followed
by visitors was not well thought out; the general state
of the building was inappropriate; the exhibition rooms
were considered as one space for sculpture and another
space for painting; two more areas, on the first and
second floors, were not very practical for exhibitions;
and there were no lifts for the public and no air-conditioning.
It was a matter of being able to provide good working
conditions. And in addition, it was financially and
institutionally possible to do so.
Do you still think the
refurbishment was adequate?
I think we achieved more rational working areas, although it’s true
that the cloister is still problematic. We removed the marble flooring, the
tiles and the grille hanging from the ceiling there and gained more daylight.
It’s not a purpose-built centre: it’s a Baroque convent with
a long history. There are things that, now, I would have done differently.
|
|
This is a project
without any hierarchies:
exhibiting on the second
floor is no more significant than in the cloister. |
|
|
What things?
I don’t think the reception area is very
good. On the other hand, I very much like the fact
that the entrance is at street level, because the ramp
didn’t work. But it needs a reception area. At
present it’s a hybrid space.
The links between the
different spaces are still rather confusing. Perhaps
it’s a question of signage. In fact there is
one new bit that isn’t used: the link via the
walkway.
Perhaps we need to redesign the signage.
On the other hand, the walkway was important to the architect, but I don’t
consider it essential. At first we thought that visitors would be guided,
that there’d be a route to follow. But practice has shown that this
isn’t possible with the type of work we do.
The only room that was
still a passage after the refurbishment (on the second
floor) is now offices.
This room followed the earlier usage as a passage
and is still not a good space. It can only be used
in very specific cases.
Exhibitions
Santa Mònica has maintained a pattern of three exhibitions in three
rooms. What is your opinion of the exhibitions that have broken away from
this pattern, such as Silvia Prada’s this summer on the staircase?
For the moment we’re going to continue the pattern of three rooms and
three exhibitions. But in the original idea, we thought we’d have many
more things distributed around the centre. So Silvia’s drawings on
the staircase hark back to this idea. There are no hierarchies here: exhibiting
on the second floor is no more significant than in the cloister.
Similarly, there is no reason why the other activities should be less important
than the exhibitions. In fact, there are activities that play a central role
in the overall programming because of their ambitious nature and the work
involved.
Christian Jankowski exhibited
in the Santa Mònica in December 2003 and now
he’s going to exhibit again this year.
From the outset we decided that his project would be in two phases: an initial
presentation of existing work and, later on, the production of a new piece.
The first phase was to introduce his work. Specific aspects, such as his
lecture at the Faculty of Fine Arts, worked very well. This working model
seems to me to be an interesting experience, and I also think it will result
in some very good work. Christian was the right person for this, because
he absolutely needs to make use of the producers of images in the place in
which he’s going to work.
|
|
|
 |
|
| David G.
Torres and Ferran Barenblit |
|
|
|
|
|
But working
repeatedly with the same artist is something that the galleries
and freelance curators do. How do you justify this repetition
in a single art centre? Particularly considering it’s
public money, which in principle should be spent plurally.
The cost of the first exhibition wasn’t high. I think the commitment
with Christian is circumstantial. It’s all within the framework of
the general project: the next exhibition will be the second part of the project.
It’s just that we’ve left an interval of two years between one
part and the next. If we hadn’t made it clear from the outset that
we were doing a two-part project, then it could be said that I decided to
repeat an artist two years later.
I don’t imagine it will happen with other artists, although we have
done other projects with some of those who have exhibited here. For example,
in Los Angeles we did a modest project that was a selection of videos by
artists from Barcelona who had exhibited here, with Mabel Palacín,
Martí Anson, Carles Congost, Tere Recarens and Pep Duran.
Activities
Antonio Ortega’s in charge of the programme of activities. He’s
introduced new formats such as the Capital closed-door discussions and the
Consulta media area, a new model of a documentation space.
I’ve always thought that the non-exhibition formats should be as important
as the exhibitions themselves. In fact, one-third of the space is not dedicated
to exhibitions: the whole of the first floor with the function room, the
lecture room and the media centre.
|
|
The centre’s
role is to generate an international context
of
a high standard for art here. |
|
|
But the Capital closed-door
discussions and the Alternatives to exhibitions, despite
it being an effort to apply R+D to art, could be seen
as elitist activities.
This structure was designed by Antonio as a form of production of ideas,
in the same way as works of art are produced. He indicated subjects of interest
and the critics able to handle them. Nobody is talking behind anyone’s
back, and the aim is to make it public. It’s a study, an exchange of
views, among professionals that Amanda Cuesta, in one instance, and Beatriz
Herráez, in the other have selected. And it only takes place behind
closed doors in order to reach some conclusions.
Communication
No catalogues of artists or of the exhibitions have been
published. Why?
With twelve, thirteen or fourteen projects by artists a year, plus activities
and the media centre, I don’t think there is much point is producing
so many publications. And there’s no reason to do it with certain projects
and not with others. A small catalogue for each exhibition doesn’t
produce results as regards impact or generating desirable context. On the
other hand, concentrating everything in a single publication that covers
the whole work of the centre, that allows for different views and also leaves
us room to do others in addition to the annual publication – that does
produce results.
Efforts have been made at
communicating and disseminating art through this Newsletter,
and through CASM vol. 1 or specific publications such
as Amanda’s one with Capital.
But I don’t know whether I would talk about dissemination and communication,
because if we have one weak point it is precisely communication. The invisible
nature of much of what we do doesn’t help, but it’s difficult
to be newsworthy, which is what Catalina Serra was asking for at QUAM, the
Montesquiu Art Fortnight.
 |
|
VOLUME 1 details
the activities held in the Centre d’Art Santa
Mònica between October 2003 and October
2004 in five sections: 5 minutes looks at the role
of an art centre as a catalyst of art today; Glocal takes a look at specific artistic realities; Cash,
art and economy; Context, Barcelona as work context
in art and Sound focuses on the audio programming
in the centre.
Catalan, Spanish and English editions.
Prize: 18 € |
Since it’s hard to
get any mention in the media, Santa Mònica has
produced its own formula with this Newsletter.
The Newsletter is important on account of its
simplicity: a single sheet of paper folded into four.
Yes, well, but its format is going to change.
It’s been like this for a year and a half.
It’s a fundamental communication tool, and one that we pioneered.
I didn’t know anything about the Los Angeles
project you were talking about. Do you think Santa Mònica is good
at communicating what It’s doing?
We use channels such as e-mail. But it’s not essential for
everyone to know about everything we’re doing. For example, right now
there’s an exhibition by Marcel Dzama in Grenoble that was shown here
in the spring. I don’t know whether that information is of much concern
to visitors to the centre or to readers of the Newsletter, although it is
important for Santa Mònica.
Why
doesn’t the centre have its
own website? That’s an essential
channel for dissemination and communication.
There will be one soon.
In this, too, we depend on the
Department of Culture.
What
role do you think Santa Mònica
plays in the international scene?
I think our working model
is well understood abroad, particularly
in Scandinavia, Germany and Britain,
basically because its role is considered
to be like that of a kunsthalle.
I think the fact that Santa Mònica
has become a point of contact for
certain people is important.
And what role does it play in the much trumpeted
overseas promotion of Spanish art?
Overseas promotion can’t be the responsibility of an institution
like ours. We can participate in certain ways. Basically by producing a benchmark
piece for certain artists, but particularly by working in a context of equality
in art from here and art from outside.
What
is your position concerning the
strategies for the promotion of
Spanish art abroad?
We’re at a point
where there’s a of lack of
definition. A new scene is emerging
and I hope new strategies will
be established.
Last word
In general terms, how do you see these two years?
I think the model that
we designed nearly three years
ago and that began to be actually
applied two years ago is functioning
well: placing the emphasis on generating
work in art, on producing work
by artists whose most visible face
is an exhibition, but also other
tools such as the activities and
publications.
And I would highlight the number of people who have passed through here in order
to work on a specific project and who have at some time or other considered this
their home. |
|
|
