BATTLE OF IDEAS LISBON SATURDAY 4 NOVEMBER, 16:00—19:30 STATE OF THE ARTS: GLOBAL VERSUS LOCAL 16:00—17:30 Speakers: Francisco Vidal - visual artist; representative, Angolan Pavilion, Venice Biennale 2015 Manick Govinda - head of Artists’ Advisory Services; speaking in a personal capacity Patrick Dickie - artistic director, Teatro Nacional São Carlos, Lisbon Sandra Vieira Jürgens - writer; research fellow, Instituto de História da Arte + info: http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/state-of-the-arts-global-versus-local/ ARCHITECTURE: PRESERVATION OR MODERNISATION? 18:00—19:30 Speakers: Alastair Donald - associate director, Institute of Ideas; co-director, Future Cities Project Ana Tostões - architect and architecture historian; Chair, DOCOMOMO International; Professor, Técnico - University of Lisbon António Brito Guterres - policy programme officer and researcher, Dinâmia-Cet Iscte-IUL Joana Varajão - architect, RA\\ Architecture & Design Studio Rita João - designer and founder, Pedrita Studio + info: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/preservation-or-modernisation/ Admission is free. To reserve a space contact: reservas@zedosbois.org | +351 21 343 0205 | www.zedosbois.org STATE OF THE ARTS: GLOBAL VERSUS LOCAL 16:00—17:30 'The globalisation of the arts has been gathering pace in recent times. Less than half a century ago when artist Joseph Cornell (1903 – 1972) died, he had never travelled outside his home city of New York. By contrast, many of today’s globetrotting artists seem to traverse continents from exhibition premiere to cultural biennal. Uber-curator Hans Ulrich Obrist recently revealed he is on the road 50 weekends of every year – perhaps not surprising given the Biennial Foundation reports that there are now 220 biennials throughout the world. Recently, Lisbon has emerged as a global player. Since the New York Times reported in 2008 that ‘Lisbon has the potential to become the most cosmopolitan and international city’, there has been a surge in openings of gallery spaces. And with major international dealers opening outlets and the emergence of the international art fair, ARCOlisboa, artsnet recently declared that ‘Lisbon has become one of Europe’s hottest art capitals’. How should we assess the transformation of the arts into a global industry? Many welcome the emergence of vibrant new arts scenes. Jochen Volz, curator of the São Paulo Biennial, says biennals create platforms that ‘actively promote diversity, freedom and experimentation, while exercising critical thought and producing an alternative reality’. Others are less positive. Artist and critic Robert Storr argues ‘the ecosystem of the “global” artworld is like that of the planet itself – overheated and dire’. Meanwhile, claims of openness are called into question by regular controversies. Documenta 14 festival, for example, opened to acclaim for its showcase work, ‘The Parthenon of Books’, Marta Minujin’s plea against all forms of censorship. But the festival then banned a performance of Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi’s controversial poem, ‘Auschwitz on the Beach’. Dana Schutz’s painting of Emmett Till, ‘Open Casket’, at Whitney Biennial sparked accusations of cultural appropriation and calls for the painting to be removed from the exhibition and destroyed. Rather than cosmopolitan pluralism, is the globalisation of arts giving rise to a more censorious, divisive arts world? Where once artists appeared to relate strongly to local scenes, is there a danger that in today’s air-miles artworld, artists are becoming detached from the environment that shaped them? Do newly dominant galleries such as Tate, MOMA and MAAT have less to say about the place they are based? Yet while Storr warns of a ‘relentless melting of aesthetic distinctions, dissolving of institutional barriers and fusion of cultures’, artists have long been international operators, whether European court painters to English monarchs, or pioneers of American modernism drawn to continental Europe. Should we view the global circuit of biennials in the twenty-first century as merely extending the ethos of the established international expo, or does today’s globally recognisable arts product threaten the erasure of cultural specifics? Can the globalisation of art bring new exciting opportunities for experimentation or will it merely consolidate the power of an artistic elite? Should the arts be refocused on the local, or is the benefit of the arts to offer universals?' ARCHITECTURE: PRESERVATION OR MODERNISATION? 18:00—19:30 ‘Museums, monuments, even large areas of cities have become protected from change because they have been aestheticised as belonging to a given cultural heritage.’ When philosopher Boris Groys expressed frustration at the slow pace of urban and social change because heritage is more valued than innovation and progress, he was one of many to take sides in the longstanding battles over the desire to preserve versus the need to modernise cities. So how best should cities cater for economic and population growth? And to what extent should we protect existing buildings, spaces and places, which many view as essential to ‘authentic’ city life and for creating a sense of belonging and connection to place? After 40 years of population decline, Lisbon’s return to growth sees it face profound questions over how to develop. An influx of money, tourists and new tech-based employment has led to significant new modern developments such as the EDP Headquarters, but also a spate of new hotels and office buildings. Some worry that the city’s existing fabric will be transformed by a large influx of investment in real estate and tourism infrastructure. Consequently, historic downtown neighbourhoods such as Mouraria, that once provided relatively cheap accommodation, might no longer be within reach of ordinary citizens and businesses. For most of the twentieth century, preservation reflected a judgement that buildings or townscape were, in some way, of architectural or historic value. In recent years, different reasons have been used to justify conservation. Reflecting fears that globalisation and a quickening pace of change are creating ‘social amnesia’, many European cities promote the benefits of ‘urban memory’. Here advocates are less interested in architectural quality than in using objets trouvés, fragments of the urban fabric or memory of past events to refashion cultural identity and boost emotional attachment to cities. The Lisbon Seminar, for example, concluded that ‘erasing the past, by destabilising memory, fractures communities’. Preservation, they argue, can provide ‘significant benefits not just in economic and social terms, but in psychological terms too, insofar as it enriches a sense of belonging and identity’. By contrast with traditional heritage organisations, advocates of urban memory see their brand of nostalgia as a creative process – less living in the past than using memory to create the future. How should we view the current interest in preservation and memory, and who should decide what is worth keeping? Is conservation on the basis of emotional attachment an appropriate way to judge the worth of a place? Or should such judgements be more aesthetic, practical or commercial? How should the urban environment responded to aspirations for future transformation? Given identity is continually evolving, does prioritising heritage over modern development threaten to repeat a formula that is out of date, while failing to meet contemporary social and economic needs?'
