[26. maj 2001]

Off and on
Lars Bang Larsen on "The Copenhagen Curse".

To describe the current situation on the young art scene here, a friend of mine from Germany recently used the term "The Copenhagen Curse". With this he outlined a structural deficit that bears certain symptoms: In Copenhagen there is an environment with a comparatively dense mass of young artists, but it seems that a likewise dense institutional apparatus seems unable to facilitate substantial possibilities of production and exhibition for these artists.

Among other things, this has the unfortunate effect of causing a few to escape to neighbouring countries where their practice to a larger extent resonates with critical and institutional circuits.

The relatively productive artistic environment which has asserted itself in Copenhagen up through the 90s, could in part be due to the phenomenon "sweet neglect" that the art critic Terry R. Myers used to describe of the Los Angeles art scene. This is basically a moniker for the autonomous development and slower pace of an art scene outside of the markets of major art metropolises. The "sweet neglect" of a commercially slack art scene will indeed go a long way in terms of developing talent, but in the long run it unfolds with the inherent risk of inertia in regard to creative and academic resources, as well as public discussions of contemporary art. (Obviously, the Copenhagen Curse is not only detrimental to the young art artists, but to the continuity and viability of the whole art scene, its agents and discussions and their ability to accumulate and apply artistic knowledge).

Experimental, non-commercial spaces are nodal points in the development of "sweetly neglected" art and artists. Spaces of this type typically reflect and respond to specific energies among the artistic community that surrounds it...

The efficiency of the experimental space reciprocates local agents and discourses in the more fragile parts of the art world's ecosystem - these are the space's resource and condition of possibility. The Germans use the great concept "off space" for the alternative, experimental space that refers to the increasing socialization of artistic production. The "off space" is also a term which resonates with being a model of resistance, a spanner in the works of the art world's more smoothly running echelons.

What is the raison d'être of experimental spaces? Some agents of the experimental spaces place their efficiency in relation to the horizon of big institutions. That is, the argument goes that in experimental spaces you have the opportunity to experience work by young artists in the beginning of their careers before they gain exposure by the established institutions and museums.

For the greater part, this argument is motivated by an irritation with the lack of circulation on the art scene. You want to see the latest, but it isn't available. So you combine your own mobility as an independent agent with the agility of minimally bureaucratic, short term programming (without the responsibility of referring to or supplementing a collection) - and provide a usually rather small, informed audience with what you believe to be relevant.

The experiments of the experimental space thus takes place out of a sense of belonging to a local scene and assuming responsibility for introducing certain tendencies on the young art scene, rather than a commercial motivation.

The question is if mainstreaming of artists is an unavoidable path? Is the major institutions necessarily art's terminal station? And does experimental spaces to some extent facilitate this trajectory towards general acceptance and exposure of artists? When one uses the "before-the-big-institutions" argument, one risks positing the experimental space as the rabbit in the race, which is bound to be caught up with sooner or later by the establishment.

Because, so the inherent logic of the argument goes, the two basically are part of the same public sphere whose transparency will, sooner or later, provide for an understanding of artistic positions. The argument also entails that experimental space and established institutions are part of the same art world circuit (where, one could add, the competition for terms like "experimental", "critical" and "alternative" for better or worse is increasing). In this way, the experimental space is involved in facilitating a general circulation and productivity in the art world at large, and that the established institutions necessarily are where art ends up.

But is it necessarily so? The inherent conflict I see in the Before-the-big-institutions - argument is between the idealism of establishing an exhibition program with a minimum of resources, and the fatalism of taking part in the general undifferentiated art world flux, where differences are quantitative (scale of the institution, who presents what when) rather than qualitative.

At a recent seminar, the British critic and curator Matthew Higgs gave an introduction to his curatorial work which back then surprised me a bit. He said that everything he knew about curating he owed to the avant-garde pop group Joy Division. As a teenager he started his own chapter of the Joy Division fan club, and to his own surprise quickly became friendly with the band. This direct contact with cultural producers gave him a whole new sense of involvement, of being present in effective discussions in culture. Perhaps it is this involvement and mutual stimulation of a subcultural and social infrastructure that bespeaks the efficiency of the experimental space? Through experimental space, writes the critic Marius Babias, "The social context, largely excluded in artistic practice, has superseeded the aesthetic context and is now beginning to come into its own."

This also pertains to the experimental space in the form of a leisure club. Maybe it won't provide the cure for the Copenhagen Curse, given that spaces like Mogadishni act on a micro level, rather than on the level of persistent, large-scale institutional strategies. But surely initiatives like Mogadishni Leisure Club can help exacerbate art world crisis in a productive way, by establishing qualitatively different models of interpretation and interaction.

Lars Bang Larsen