Between Art and Design, Without Borders
Ieva Astahovska
05/12/2011
The following is an interview with Jan Boelen – art and design critic, curator and teacher – who visited Riga in connection with the project, “Make Design! Dutch Design Made in Latvia!” and gave a lecture on the new definitions in design. Jan Boelen heads the Department of Social Design at Design Academy Eindhoven, and, since 2002, he has been the director of the contemporary art center, “Kunstcentrum Z33”, in Hasselt, a town in the province of Limburg. “Z33” has become a notable event center in the Belgian art and architecture scene. In 2012, it will host the European contemporary art biennale, Manifesta.
Tell me about “Z33”, of which you are the director, and which in your lecture, you introduced as a new type of art place.
In 2002, I founded Z33 – a regional contemporary art place. It consists of several infrastructures and ways of how to mediate or transform knowledge – it's an exhibition place, we do publications, lectures, debates etc. We are always looking for the right medium for the right message. At first, the discussion between art and design was at the core of creating our exhibitions. Now, it is shifting more towards discussions about themes that evolve in society.
Z33 started connecting things and their context, which were already there, and brought the international scene to our place. As artistic director of Z33, I try to make links with different organizations and all kinds of parties that are involved in societal themes. For me, contemporary art is not autonomous – it is related to society (this doesn’t mean that an artist can’t be autonomous). It is always reflecting and connecting the world in which we live in. That is how we develop the program.
Designers and artists both react towards what is happening in society. I don’t see the need for the distinction of whether it is a design- or an art exhibition. We also involve other disciplines – philosophers, researchers, all kinds of people who are reflecting on what is happening in society.
Could you mention some exhibitions which exemplify how this line between art and design dissolves?
If you go see the exhibition going on now in Z33, Architecture of Fear, you'll see that it is not so much an exhibition on architecture, but on the system of fear – the system that is, in fact, ruling society at this moment. This is not a society of opportunities, but a society where everything is directed by fear, starting with commercial companies and politics, all the way up to the environment. If you read the press, “crisis” is the word used most often; crises are everywhere – financial crisis, political crisis, economic crisis. Fear is all around us and we, as human beings, are trying to react towards it by creating order – constructing, building, and trying to control the irrational aspects of life.
This exhibition was created not only by artists, but also by designers. Other disciplines were included as well – for instance, there was also a debate with legal specialists about freedom versus security – how far can one go with security systems, aren't they already limiting our freedom, etc.
What has changed in the last years – Z33 is going more and more into the public space, which we are explicitly calling “open space” – the space outside the white cube in which we traditionally make exhibitions. This “open space” is a common playing field for several players – we invite architects, artists and urban planners to collaborate on such public space projects, to circle the relevant things that are on the agenda – these can be issues of heritage, the economy, or the population; or things that have to do with ecology or nature. For several years now, we have been developing this program in a 10 square-km area – it is an ongoing exhibition program and the actions of artists, designers and others have put these things on the political agenda.
For instance, there is a beautiful rural area with old hills and very small, but beautiful, churches – they are the landmarks of the region. The big problem facing catholic churches in the Flanders area is that they are disappearing; they are not being used anymore. But they are the core of these very little villages – people were baptized or married there; all of the most important events in their social lives took place around these churches. I see as our task putting this problem on the agenda. Of course, the line becomes very thin – how far do we go to find strategies, to have discussions with all of the people that are involved in these projects. How can sculpture, or an action, a workshop or performance, be used in that process. >>
Another exhibition, Work Now, was about labor. It started with the intent to make an exhibition that dealt with economics and consumerism. When we started researching it, we saw that, especially in contemporary art and design, a lot has already been done. But the economical system doesn't only consist of consuming. For instance, when you meet somebody, you always ask the simple question: “What do you do?” Our identity is formed by what you do, the question of who you are or where do you come from is just in second place. If you have no job, you have no identity.
Also, labor is changing; it is a different concept now. Working hours are shifting. Leisure time also becomes work time – you still keep on checking your e-mails. In fact, the way in which artists work has become the model of a new capitalistic system for a lot of companies: it is to always be creative, to always look for solutions as to how to present their work.
That was our starting point – we were interested in how the notion of labor is continuously changing; how we are going from a post-Fordist society to a society that has completely new rules, new ways of organization, new demands. We brought together people from different disciplines – from organizations and syndicates, owners of companies, even philosophers – and started discussions with different groups.
At the moment, Z33 is not taking any stands; we're leaving it open. All you see are just different positions. And afterwards, you don’t know anymore what is what – you start to reflect.
Is the audience an important issue for you, and does it change? I remember Charles Esche, the director of the Van Abbe museum in Eidhoven, mentioning that, along with the exhibition of more socially-engaged projects, their audience changed from elitist bourgeois to a completely different segment of society. Are your projects well-perceived by the audience?
I should start with the fact that I don’t make exhibitions for the public or target groups. Strangely enough, I make exhibitions for myself. Very egoistic, but I try to be honest – is it meaningful to make that project? I start with that motivation, and I see that the public relates to most of the projects we do. The more authentic I am, the more people relate to it. From that moment on, you build your own public.
The public is not made up by the bourgeois or youngsters, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t develop tools for how to mediate it. But that is the second phase. The first phase is: can you make an exhibition that is meaningful and needed, about a specific subject with specific elements?
Z33 started ten years ago. It is not in a very big city, and we started with 25 thousand visitors per year. This number is now 40 thousand. Part of them are coming from other parts of the country. I find it very extraordinary, but this is due to our making exhibitions that are connected with everyday life. Labor, or nature, or fear are a part of everyday life – things we discuss all the time. In this way, we develop our audience; not by focusing on a certain target public. To me, that is a quite old-fashioned, marketing-way of thinking. The only thing we can do is develop tools that help people, who are viewing the exhibition, relate to the language that is presented.
Is such a relationship between an art institution and its public typical for Belgium?
In my lecture, I mentioned Charles Esche's comparison of a museum being like a power plant – their role is to produce energy. This is very important; you need power plants, and at the same time you also need libraries, and all kinds of services.
I see our institution as a useful part of society. If you act like an “awareness machine”, society can only become better because of it. Therefore, we encourage debate. The more debate goes on, the more things can change. Because what is happening in the world cannot stand still; we have to react. That’s why places like ours are needed. And also, to instigate international exchanges between artists and designers, and to set up ambitious projects, like the European Contemporary Art Biennial, Manifesta. That also encourages a lot of the parties in the region itself to do things, to present, to catalyze the energy that is there.
It is very important to create contexts and links with the surrounding world – a collaborating network that creates and develops a climate for contemporary art in our region. This is more about creating an attitude and an atmosphere, rather than numbers. The real things that change are mental in nature. That kind of change is more sustainable than the numbers of visitors who are cuing for blockbuster exhibitions. The right people find each other, they create a critical mass, and they start new things – they make them visible, tangible.
Can you tell me how the discourse of the next “Manifesta” connects with what you are doing?
When you invite Manifesta, it is a competition not unlike the Olympic games – content and infrastructure are important; and money, of course. We have to start with content and see how that relates with our program, in this case – landscape and transformation. Limburg is a former coal mine area. After the collapse of the communist regime, Europe also changed – the industrial society ended, the last industrial activities collapsed. The mines closed, and all kind of initiatives were taken to reshape and realize the economy into another economy. But the buildings – they are huge (thousands and thousands of people worked there), they are still there, and new activities were developed in and around these buildings.
How are they used now?
For all kind of activities. One of them is a cinema, another is a cultural centre, another is used for education; some are also used for industry.
The whole region is in transformation. We are near the Dutch and German border, near the Walloon-speaking part of Belgium. There is a mixture of languages and a lot of different nationalities – Polish, Turkish, Italian etc. Lots of things had to change – people, their activities, industries, education; the issue of language is also changing. The region – the country itself, its landscape – is transforming.
All of the landscape that you see around is man made; even every tree is planted – it is there through human intervention. In that landscape of transformation, we invited the Mexican curator, Cuauhtémoc Medina, to develop the program for the next Manifesta. He came up with a proposal that has three levels: first, Manifesta, as always, should remain a biennial for contemporary art. Second, it should show how historically, coal – as a material and also as a medium, as energy, as the power that industrialized Western Europe – transformed society starting at the end of the 19th century. And lastly, the social and cultural heritage of the coal industry. When the mines were closed, there emerged a sort of denial of the fact; there is no museum, not much has been done to maintain the history of these places. This will now be presented for the first time together, as a whole; it is also a metaphor for all of Europe.
You are visiting Riga in the context of design exchange-workshops. You also mentioned that Z33 is not an institution specifically for just design or art. The boundaries are melting, but students still study either in a department of design or a department of visual arts, and we still speak about them as separate fields. In your lecture, you also spoke of the new definitions of design.
Until the 19th century, most art was applied art, commissioned painting, or sculptures for churches or secular buildings. That is a completely different perception of art compared to the one we know today, where the artist or designer him-/herself takes the initiative to create something. They take a piece of white paper, formulate a question or an answer themselves, and come up with a critical position. Designers can use design as a tool to make things visible, to develop scenarios that reflect on things; they use their visual capabilities to put it all together.
That comes very close to what the artist is also doing. At that moment, there is no line anymore (for me) between art and design, because the artist is using the same process. At that moment, we would rather speak about contemporary culture, where these elements come together; the question of “is it art or is it design?” is not very interesting anymore.
Still, design is more often associated with a pragmatic, utilitarian functionality.
But that is a very traditional view. People who say that are not involved with the latest developments in design. >>
+++pagesplit+++
The new trend is to use an experimental, even seemingly critical, position for the sake of consumerist culture. It can be a new way with which to attract attention, to be spectacular, attractive, interesting.
For me that is not an interesting approach to design. That approach is only about craftsmanship and the material that is featured in order to create value.
In your lecture, you also mentioned social and critical design; in Eidhoven Academy, you are head of the Social Design Department.
I would like to get rid of all of these adjectives – critical, social, sustainable design. Normally, they should be integrated into the design itself. But to communicate what you are doing, you have to say – we are focusing here more on that, how we interact with an object, and how it changes our behavior. There is a kind of new ecology occurring among all of the objects that surround us.
Ever more increasingly, the environment is being designed. Today, even nature, for instance – forests are designed, everything is touched by man. That means that we are continuously creating new objects and content. This also changes our behavior. That’s why I was interested to set up a Social Design Department, where you can research how design can effect humans and their needs. We are not that object-oriented anymore; I find that very intriguing.
Maybe one can call it “an expanding notion of total design”. But isn’t there also a lot of speculation that because it can be used in so many cases, it loses its identification?
The definition is very open. Everybody must decide for him-/herself what design means to them. We have the possibility to fill in the definition of design ourselves.
You were speaking about a new understanding of design. On the one hand, the way you explain it, this could also be applied to the field of applied art in the historical sense. If art was also previously linked to design, what was the difference back then, in comparison with today? How does this new situation differ?
In the way how technology and science come in. Like the project, Alter Nature, in which biology and science have a big impact. For instance, what is happening now in the internet world is also transferred into the real world. How the software is developed, how thinking is happening on a meta level; how structures and things that we construct for the internet world, which is a parallel world, are connected to the things that surround us.
From your point of view, does this greatly affect art and design?
I would like to give a more inspirational and poetic answer, but in fact, it is science and technology that are changing this definition. Our needs are not changing, but rather the way we use this knowledge to answer these needs is changing; this can be on several levels, and they have to be fulfilled by the things that we develop.
Doesn’t that lead back to pragmatic understanding?
Yes, but these are all kinds of needs and levels, they are very complex. In your life, you need poetry, food, air and water, clothes, etc. These needs are there, but technology and science have a big impact on that. Even on the way we deal with poetical and other things.
This leads to collaboration being an important aspect.
The next term for social design will deal with “we”: how do we create and collaborate together, how do we create communities, participation, sharing. These are essential, crucial processes that bring things together, make bridges, make unexpected connections.
In the recent past, in the 1960's – 1980's, both here, in the USSR, and in the West, the glue that connected art, design and architecture was “the environment”. Would you say that the notion of environment is now being replaced by science and technology?
In 1972, the Italian radical design exhibition, The New Domestic Landscape, took place at MoMA. You could see two movements there. 1972 was marked by the world oil crisis; if until then, there was a very big belief in the future, then after that, you could also see the shift in exhibitions: several groups said – a new society has to be built. And there were two directions. On the one side were the groups that were intrigued by creating and making a new society through technology and science. On the other side, there was another approach: design and architect groups like Superstudio and Archizome came with low-tech thinking – about very social projects, community. On one end, there is kinetic art, on the other – Arte Povera. Even in art you can make these distinctions. One – very human, social, related to material; the other – science, technology, machines, mechanics.
Do you see the same thing happening now?
It is still present. Most of time it is about these paradoxes: order and chaos, rational and irrational, mechanical and non-deterministic. Always about these opposites, which need each other to keep society in balance.
These days, these positions are more hybrid.
Yes, because you can create these communities much faster. Share your ideas with larger groups and faster, through technology and science. Big advantages and changes will be integrated.
In art and design, there are several schools and traditions that have developed and are even kept as labels or brands – like Italian or Scandinavian design. Does the regional, local context still have relevance in the global world?
The more global we are, the more local becomes important. The more our own identity becomes important. I live in this world, but I’m from Europe, etc.; it includes all kind of levels of identity. The very small dot where you are now is connected with the global society.
Don’t these differences disappear? Do they actually still matter?
It seems that it still matters for a lot of people. I don’t say that it matters for me. Nationalism was never so high a concept to be a kind of solution, for political and economical reasons. It is used and abused. Most of the time, it is only a construction.
You answered from a socio-political point of view. If you could look at it from a removed perspective – is it a relevant thing in art or design? – this territorially and culturally based sensitivity.
This is a very complex discussion. I like it if artists are capable of grabbing certain points of their own history that affect key elements of their culture – certain climates, the natural circumstances of where he lives and works. If you see and are aware of these qualities, you can use them to look upon the world; as a material to see how you relate to that world.
Today, quite often, in art and culture in general, there is a wish to look back into history. Would this be applicable to design as well?
That’s how Dutch design became famous – by using all kinds of elements from the history of craftsmanship. That’s one of the reasons why we are invited here. But I hope that the students won’t learn to copy things; I hope they learn that it is not the formal aspect of culture that matters, but rather, the mental state of culture. That is an interesting exercise.
