About Goloss:

Goloss is a new non-commercial exhibition space run by the independent curator, Katarina Stenbeck. Goloss facilitates research and investigation of present day culture and art’s role herein. Through group shows, solo projects and diverse experiments by cultural producers, Goloss will create a space devoted to critical research and discussions on the potential of the art of our time.

Installation shot 1, World View, Goloss 2010

The following is a translated excerpt of the Danish invite:

In the exhibition called World View, Morten Goll examines the relation between news media’s image production and its underlying ideological structure. The two works presented at the show investigates how the spoken word as well as mass media’s imagery forces an ideological reading on to our understanding of the world.

The work Verdensbillede, 2010 consists of a series of pencil drawings on A3 size paper, with motives based on photographs found in Danish news papers during the period of February-April 2010. Using the pencil Goll processes mass media’s representations of human life. In a wide range of diverse situations, from people fleeing catastrophes, people talking or cheering to people waiting or fighting, we are presented with the ongoing, well known abundancy of images served up daily by global media. In the transformation process from photographic image to pencil drawing Goll eliminates the context depicted by the camera in order to concentrate on the representation of the singular individual human being. “The images I take interest in are those in which one or more individuals have become anonymous representatives in a news story, thus somehow they have become instrumentalized by a specific ideology in a reading of the world. By eliminating the catastrophe, the conflict or “the faith”, the image no longer reproduces the ideological construction. By removing the news paper as context, the images detaches from the ideological canon which they are part of to instead re-open as signs that can tell us about lived experience, to which we can relate in the same way as we do with the stories of our own lives.”

Boy Soldier, A3 pencil drawing

In the video work “Dictionary to Skave School”, 2006, a group of 4th to 7th grade students defines 53 words in their own language. The topics vary from Family, democracy and capitalism, to the color blue, the internet and the concept of light. Placed in front of the class room map of the world, the kids describe in their own words, a series of subjects and concepts which are regarded as central  to the concept of Danishness and Western culture. Through the voices of the children, Goll points towards the ideological significance of the words and their function in relation to the continuation of global power and welfare relations. The video is in Danish only and can be watched here:

Car, A3 pencil drawing

Seeing the light, A3 drawing 2010

Installation shot 3, World View, Goloss 2010

Cheers! A3 pencil drawing

Woman and rescue team, A3 pencil drawing.

Family on beach, A3 pencil drawing

Installation shot 4, World View, Goloss 2010

Tatooed guy, A3 drawing, 2010

Installation shot 2, World View, Goloss 2010

Photographers, A3 pencil drawing

Three Guys. A3 pencil drawing

Man jumping with bag, A3 pencil drawing

Installation shot 5, World View, Goloss 2010

Standing Man, A3 pencil drawing

Grandma's had enough! A3 Pencil drawing.

Flags. A3 pencil drawing

Installation Shot 3, World View, Goloss 2010

Background

Over the course of the last fifteen years, the Danish Alien Act has been altered several times, with the aim of making it less attractive to seek asylum in the country. The Social Democrats that governed the country during the 1990s began this process, but was voted out of office in 2001, when a coalition of right-wing parties won the election on the premises of getting tougher on the foreigners. The new right-wing government, supported by the ultra nationalist and outspoken xenophobic Danish People’s Party, launched a massive attack on basic human rights of refugees through a series of tightenings, which today renders Denmark as the European nation with the toughest Alien Act of all. Exhibiting its blatant hypocrisy, this government at the same time launched an activist foreign policy, which lead to the Danish participation in the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and ’03. Although these military interventions have caused thousands of civilians to flee their homes, Denmark has never acknowledged its responsibility as one of the warring parties. On the contrary, it has taken several measures to repatriate Iraqi and Afghan refugees, which has sent Denmark on collision course with human rights and the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Although these changes have provoked many critical voices on the way in which the Danish asylum centers are functioning, no one has so far asked the asylum center residents directly about their opinion.

The Asylum Dialog Tank

ADT was founded in response to this situation. It took form as a series of workshops in the Danish asylum centers Kongelunden and Sandholm during the months of January and February 2009. The participants were residents from asylum Center Avnstrup, Center Kongelunden, and Center Sandholm as well as students from The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, The School of Architecture, Copenhagen College of Social Work, The Danish School of Media and Journalism, The University of Copenhagen, Architects Without Borders, and more. During the two workshops, the participants collectively developed ideas and strategies on how to improve the living conditions for asylum center residents in Denmark. ADT Kongelunden had about 24 participants, 9 of which were residents. The ADT Sandholm had 46 participants, 32 of which were residents.

It was a key strategy of the ADT workshops that all participants were considered equal, regardless of their legal status. ADT does not accept stigmatizing labels such as “phase 1, 2, or 3 asylum seekers”, partly because they refer to different degrees of rejection by the Danish state, partly because they lead to victimization, and partly they connote “unreliable individual.” In ADT, on the contrary, any identity that the refugees and students chose to present themselves by was accepted. Overall, ADT was a social experiment in which the refugees were invited to act as experts on asylum law and asylum center living, while the students were invited to help find alternative solutions to the Danish system in close collaboration with the residents. Since the Danish state has made it its trademark to disrespect the rights of refugees, the only way to restore justice and dignity is to ask the refugees in the camps for help.

The workshops at Center Kongelunden and Center Sandholm each contained three elements: a video workshop, a dialog tank, and a presentation. The purpose of the video workshop was to introduce the workshop participants to each other and to prepare them for the following dialog tank. Participants were divided into groups, all of which were asked to formulate a question that would become the subject matter for their videos. For three days, the group members then collaborated on producing and editing their videos. The purpose of the questions was to engage the participants in a critical reflection on their immediate situation, and thus, it also functioned as a kind of research for the dialog tank. It was a mandatory guideline that the groups developed questions that could be posed to both refugees and Danes. Each group produced a 5-10 minute video that were shown to the entire workshop.

Watch the movies here!

The purpose of the dialog tank was to analyze the asylum center in question, and to develop alternative solutions to the problems found there. The dialog tank was divided into a phase of problem recognition and a phase of problem solving: During the last phase, we searched for answers and solutions to the problems identified during the first phase.

The third and last element of the ADT workshop consisted of a presentation, during which the participants presented their ideas and solutions to the entire group. All three elements will be elaborated upon below.

The result of the problem definition phase

During the problem definition phase, we discussed the shortcomings of the Danish asylum centers in general, as many of the residents participating in ADT had several of years of experience with many different centers. The conclusion was that the centers are generally in okay condition, and that the Danish Red Cross, which has been appointed by the Danish state to run the centers, is doing a good job. Over the years, the Danish Red Cross has done its best to improve the architecture and interior of the centers in accordance to clients’ needs. It is beyond doubt that The Danish Red Cross is doing its best to help its clients, but as long as they agree to act according to an inhumane Alien Act, the organization’s humanitarian measures are bound to fall short of their clients most basic needs. However, the asylum center residents who participated in ADT, all expressed that they could endure the disrespect of their human rights, if only there was a set time limit to this situation.

Danish asylum centers were built to accommodate refugees only temporarily – and no more than 12-24 months, while waiting for their application to be processed. In reality, asylum seekers live in these enclosed and parallel worlds for much longer – some up to 12 years. Room and boarding comes with the prohibition of work, education, and integration into the general society. In most cases, the asylum seekers would prefer to work or study, this way contributing to the society they live in. Instead, asylum seekers face isolation, poverty, and mental paralysis. The state has banned these people and rejected their desire to live a normal self-sustaining life, and they are thus left as clients of a dubious welfare state, which does not want them, but cannot force them to leave. From the inside it seems that the Danish asylum centers are designed to break people down. Even if Denmark decided to turn the asylum centers into five star hotels, the residents would still feel imprisoned, since they don’t enjoy the basic rights to a normal self-sustaining life.

The consequence of the above is that Danes generally perceive asylum seekers as costly clients and parasites on the Danish welfare system rather than potential colleagues and contributors to society. But the fact is that they have become so against their own will.

The result of the problem solving phase

Faced with this reality, ADT concluded that the Alien Act is the biggest obstacle. Thus, we have to work to change the voters’ perception of asylum seekers. In order to do this, we identified a strong need for the existence of a self-organized independent platform outside of the centers upon which refugees would be able to develop and display identities of their own choice. Through such a platform, they would gain agency and self-empowerment to simultaneously change public opinion and fight for social justice. Consequently, ADT decided to create two new independent institutions:

1.Visavis, a newspaper controlled and written by the asylum seekers addressing the Danish public.

2.The Trampoline House, an asylum seeker driven and controlled drop-in culture house designed as a meeting place for asylum seekers and Danes.

Both are intended to serve as mouthpieces for refugees living in Denmark and as a means for social justification and integration. It is ADT’s goal that both Visavis and The Trampoline House will become permanent non-government institutions in near future. The newspaper will be written and produced by refugees, aided by a professional editor, and a board consisting of refugees and Danes. As for the distribution of the paper, we are working on adopting the distribution concept of Hus Forbi, an existing Danish newspaper for homeless people. This paper is sold on the streets by homeless, thus facilitating direct contact between citizens and the homeless.

The Trampoline House will be a private non-profit drop-in culture house run by refugees and users of the house. The founding principles of the culture house are integration, learning, exchange, networking, and mutual respect. It will serve as a platform for shifting activities: café, concerts, exhibitions, reading groups, Danish/foreign languages classes, video workshops, pro bono legal aid and counseling, hair dresser shop, bicycle workshop, etc. Some of the activities are already offered by the Danish Red Cross, but only for some asylum seekers depending on whether they are categorized as phase 1, 2 or 3 refugees. Other activities are not at all allowed for asylum center residents. The culture house will accept all refugees and Danes regardless their legal status, and since it is independent of the state, we can operate according to the needs of the users of the house rather than according to the Alien Act. The Trampoline House is the asylum seekers’ possibility to organize and represent themselves, to establish and develop relations to the Danish society, and to command a platform, from which they can inform Danes about their situation. Every human is a valuable resource, not a victim.

The Newspaper’s editorial office will be located in the Trampoline House. The paper’s prime function is to serve as a link between people living in the asylum centers and people living outside of them. It must be readable for refugees and Danes alike, since the goal is to promote integration and to brake down isolation. In line with this, the people who will work on the paper have to be both refugees and Danes.

The Trampoline House opened as temporary test site in the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts’ exhibition space, Q, on March 5, 2009. During the opening night we had about 250 visitors, refugees and Danes alike. The following days we experienced a full house, of 20 – 60 visitors at all times. The temporary site closed on March 15, but having proved the necessity for a Trampoline House, our next step will be to raise money to establish a permanent platform. In the meantime we will launch the first issue of Visavis  on May 15, 2009.

ADT presently counts: Kalbsh Ahmad, Kaosar Ahmed, Marewan Ahmad, Soran Karim Ahmad, Refa Aldan, Abdul Ali, Ahlam Alnies, Hassan Arab, Mohammadi Arash, Lethe Bjørg, Pavlovic Bojan, Maureen N. Chi, Nabil Darwish, James Dickson, Mia Edelgart, Morten Goll, Johanna Guldager, Hamid Haidari, Selini Halvadaki, Joachim Hamou, Stine Laurberg Hansen, Aziz Hashimi, Farzad Hassani, Elsa Hepta, Sofie Holten, Husan, Hasan Jalali, Ziad Kabbani, Mira Kellerman, Memo Kara Khalil, Arendse Krabbe, Misja Krenchel, Aram Mahamadi, Fatma Mahmoud, Aras Manaan, Ditlev Marboe, Maja Moesgaard, Otman Miloud, Tone Olaf Nielsen, Maher Omar, Yassin Rahmani, Nabila Saidi, Afraz Naif Saleh, Ann Sofie, Stan, Therese, Hasim Ullah, Ester Vilstrup, Laura Winge, Erik Yakubjan, and Eva Ågaard.

Several grass roots organizations currently work to change the conditions in the camps. We would like to express our thanks to these groups because of their work and their dedication, which has been our inspiration. ADT’s contribution to this field is that we are  a network of refugees and Danes, who have begun the work of breaking down the invisible wall that institutionalized racism presents.

This text was finished in the beginning of April 2009, as a contribution to Framework, The Finnish Art Review, June 2009 issue.

Morten Goll, Joachim Hamou, and Tone Olaf Nielsen

PS: visAvis, the newspaper hit the streets on June 5, 2009 and sold 500 copies during the first 24 hours. Check out visAvis’ website at www.visavis.dk

please watch Kunstpausen’s account on the Trampoline House below:

Please also watch Kurdantv’s report:

A group consisting of students from the two institutions and residents from two Danish Asylum Centers (non-Danish citizens claiming refugee status) will join a think tank with the purpose of re-thinking the social design of the asylum center. During the project we will change the social dynamics that the residents are forced to live in. Instead of being labeled “asylum seekers”, whether “rejected” or not, they will be accepted on equal footing, whatever identity they choose to present, and will be met as experts with a valuable knowledge in asylum center living. While the system systematically charges anybody with allegations of fraud, ADT automatically accepts anybody as a human being with rights equal to Danish citizens. ADT is not considered about, and does not judge the strict Danish legislation on foreigners. ADT is concerned with the social design of the asylum centers where people are stored for years, with limited rights and under condition which, although not prison-like, still resemble punishment.

The logic of ADT could be expressed shortly as: If you treat people the same way as you would like to be treated yourself, then dignity and agency is preserved, and the social dynamics will enable the involved to act, to grow, and to contribute…

More about this project to be posted here… For now the poster will do!

Poster, ADT Kongelunden

Flyer, step 1 ADT Kongelunden

Flyer, step 2 ADT Kongelunden

Along with a number of artists I was asked to donate a site-specific art-work to Danmark Indsamlingen, a nationwide fundraising event to take place on January 26 , 2008, and hosted by Danish Radio and TV (DR). The idea was that artists decorate the chairs used by the guests of the TV-show. The chairs will be auctioned of by Laurids.com at at later point. The income will be donated to the 12 life aid organizations who are organizing the event.

Please check out the auction at Lauritz.com

The fundraiser is for the benefit of African children under 5 years old. 12 life aid organizations are to receive the income: SOS-Børnebyerne, Danish Red Cross, BØRNEfonden, Red Barnet, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, ADRA Danmark, Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, CARE Danmark, IBIS, Folkekirkens Nødhjælp, Dansk Flygtningehjælp.

All the chairs in question are designed by Arne Jacobsen, and the 6 chairs which became the basis for this art work are of the series 7 design.

In respect of the iconic design, I decided on a minor modification. In fact one could say, the mere adding, or highlighting of a discourse which is already present as a precondition for the economy that allows such iconic trademarks of good taste to proliferate.

The texts consists of two lines on each chair. The first line states:

from here you can listen to the children of (a specific refugee camp)

The second line is a term from the global neo-liberal economy.

All six chairs

Please check out the Danmark Indsamlingens website at:

DANMARKS INDSAMLINGEN

Please see each chair below:

“From here you can listen to the children of Laine”. (Refugee camp in Southern Guinea) – SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES

“From here you can listen to the children of Sandholmlejren”. (Refugee camp in Denmark) – FREE TRADE

“From here you can listen to the children of Kou Kou”. (Refugee camp in Chad) – EXPORT-LED DEVELOPMENT

“From here you can listen to the children of Kalma”. (Refugee camp in Darfur) -
FINANCIAL DEREGULATION

“From here you can listen to the children of Goz Amir”. (Refugee camp in Darfur) -
ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

“From here you can listen to the children of Ain al-Hilwe”. (Palestinian Refugee camp in Lebanon) – MOBILITY OF CAPITAL

I would like to thank Lars Paaske at the vinyl-sign company “Skilteriet”, Copenhagen for his support in making this work possible.

DINLEME NOKTASI – Burada Türkleri dinleyebilirsiniz – Lütfen noktanin amacina saygi gösteriniz, ve dinlemenin disinda herhangi bir sekilde baskalariyla iletisim kurmayiniz.

Translation: LISTENING POST – Dedicated to the Turkish people – Please respect the task of listening and do not engage in any other conversation while using this post.

Quote from Organizers: “The Unmarked Categories exhibition open in K2 Gallery in İzmir between 11 september and 11 october 2007. Project attends to question current dominant power structures from the perspective of the powerless.”

Turkish politicians favor nationalist rethoric as a means to rally together the nation on the Kurdish question, not to speak of the unsettled relationship to Cyprus, which is a huge problem in terms of the country’s possibilities for joining the EU. The Post is an attempt to create a neutral position on this socio-political battlefield.

The Listening Post was on show inside the K2 at the opening, but was later moved to the street.

2004

The Listening Post was introduced in a different context for a show in Domus Felix, Lejre, Denmark and later the same year at Minority Report – Challenging intolerance in contemporary Denmark, Århus. This time the post asked its users to listen to the Danish People. The Danish government, dependent on The Danish People’s Party, has since 2001 conducted a proto-fascist policy towards Danish citizens and refugees of Muslim/Arab origin. The politicians depend on a concept of Danishness according to which Danish culture is under siege from outside forces and inside traitors. In this paranoid conception, the Danish People’s identity is a key issue. Allegedly this is not about blue eyes and blond hair, since that would evoke memories about ethnic cleansing in fascist and Nazi regimes. Instead they talk about cultural difference. The outcome remains the same… Of course there is a huge opposition to this reduced and paranoid concept of Danish culture. The Government is well aware of this, and one of their main politics was – from the beginning – to wage a cultural war, in order to roll back the culture radicals in favor of a cultural conservatism. I doubt that they will win this war in the long run, since that would mean that cultural producers gave up the tradition of critique as a means of development. In other words, to eliminate the main force that has driven the Western societies since the renaissance, and especially since the introduction of Modernism. The consequences being cultural fundamentalism and cultural fascism.

However, to get to the point. The Listening Post was introduced in Denmark during this cultural war, as a neutral listening post on this cultural battlefield.

During the Domus Felix show, I sat on the post one full day of every week. The post was located outside the gallery, next to an central intersection in the village of Lejre.

Later the same year, the post was moved to Århus, where it was mounted at the square in front of the City Hall. Here it took part in a couple of demonstrations, was used by passersby, and was eventually damaged by unknown perpetrators. This appearance was a part the program of “Minority Report – Challenging Intolerance in Contemporary Denmark”. For this show I also organized the public conference “Normer for Medborgerskab” (Norms on Citizenship), which is described in detail elsewhere on this site.

The Listening Post in Århus with flags from a recent demo in support for Christiania

2003

The Listening Post was first shown at Enter Intercessor, Raid Projects, Los Angeles in 2003. It was 1 month into the Iraq war, and in the light of the blind- , and deaf-ness, not to say mindless behavior of the US lead coalition, I found it necessary to construct a listening post to be used for contemplation of the relations between the “we” and ”the others” at an inter-cultural as well as inter-state level.

The post was also the stage for my performance at the opening of the show. During the opening I sat in one of the chairs, obeying the rules of the post, as they are printed on it. Thus, the Post, being dysfunctional at the outset, since it has no listening equipment directed at ”the Iraqi people”, became twice dysfunctional in that communication was disturbed rather than enhanced. It turned out, that it is a provocative act to make an effort of ones presence, while demonstratively refusing any participation in the social activities.

The post was introduced with the following catalog text:
Art is communication. All communication requires a sender, a receiver and a media that carries information. Meaningful communication requires that the involved parties exchange not only information but also identities. That is to be a listener as well as a speaker.

In hindsight I would change the initial sentence to: “Communication is an art form…”. In the light of the current political development, the definition of art itself seem less important than the ruling politicians’ failing communicational skills. They seem perfectly capable of speech, but as they are unable to listen to their supposed enemies, be they terrorists or just Arab people living in Iraq, they keep bringing wood to the Middle East fire. They only pretend to communicate, and if anything, this is a way to upset your opponent.

A text printed in vinyl and mounted on all four sides declare the purpose and the rules of engagement:

LISTENING POST – Dedicated to the Iraqi people – Please respect the task of listening and do not engage in any other conversation while using this post

-

Photo from the opening performance at Raid Projects, 2003

The Listening Post will be placed in a street next to K2, for public use during the month of the show.

Also on display at K2, was the TV program, Medea and the Bosporus (58 minutes, Turkish subtitles). This is a TV-program, produced for tv-tv with 3 invited guests, who are all well known Danish politicians. Poul Nielson is a Social Democrat and a former High Commissioner to the EU. Morten Messerschmidt is MP of The Danish Peoples’ Party, which promotes an extreme right wing nationalist agenda. Yildiz Akdogan is a candidate to the parliament and head of the network www.trieu.dk, working to promote Turkeys candidacy to the EU. An invited audience consisting of mainly Danes of Turkish decendance is in the studio.
During the program the politicians and the audience performs a heated debate on the subject of Turkey’s possible entrance into the EU. Simultaneously, they take part in the Greek tragedy Medea. Medea is played by Yildiz Akdogan, Jason by Morten Messerschmidt, King Kreon by Poul Nielson. The audience act as the tragedy’s chorus.

Please watch the full lenght of a Danish version of this program elsewhere on this site.
Medea and the Bosphor is a production of Joachim Hamou and Morten Goll.

Medea TV program in background, artist talk conducted on the day of the opening of the show in foreground.

Below is a transcript of the talk:

Artist talk by Morten Goll – September 11, 2007 / K2-CAC Izmir

Morten: When tv-tv came into being in May 2005, a group of artists took over a
TV station and thus became players on a cultural scene which normally does not allow for artistic experiments. At least not to the extent that the artists actually control both the technology, the station politics, and the broadcast content. The involved artists all have individual careers. tv-tv is thus a network of artists who collaborate, argue and fight to keep the station alive. I mostly collaborate with my colleague, Swedish artist Joachim Hamou. When I use “we” in the following, it means him and I.

As you are all aware, art is by tradition expressed in certain media, like painting, drawing, or video… you are familiar with all these categories…
The TV program as an artistic category shouldn’t be conflated with video art. I consider it to be a completely different category in its own right.

To begin with, TV was a challenge because of the change of context. As long as you stay within the boundaries of the gallery, you can rest assured that the audience is an educated one, familiar with the aesthetic language and the local context. Not so when your viewers are located in their own living rooms, armed with a remote control. In that case, potentially you have a lot more viewers, although you have no way of knowing how you work is received, or if they stay in the room with you?

Audience: Did the viewers recognize tv-tv’s programs as art projects?

Morten: I don’t know, probably not…-and it really doesn’t matter to me, since what we are aiming for is to become TV – to change TV. We regard TV as a stage for communication. A stage dominated by a certain general discourse and some severe limitations concerning the format, the aesthetic choices and the subject matter. What happens if artists decide to squat this territory, take over the means of production, and experiment with the existing formats, the aesthetics and subject matter? That is what we try to do in tv-tv, and the TV program, which we present at this exhibition is an example of the strategy. In it, we adapt the format of the political debate, but challenge the program structure as well as the participants by adding layers of discourse which forces the program in an entirely new direction.

I am sorry for the missing Turkish subtitles. We didn’t manage to finish the Turkish version in time, but it is due to arrive tomorrow… ( the program with Turkish subtitles arrived K2 at 12 sept 2007)

The participants are three quite famous Danish politicians. The young blond guy is Morten Messerschmidt, a member of the parliament for The Danish People’s Party, which is an ultra right wing party with xenophobic tendencies. They are promoting a strict definition on Danishness. They take pride in staying within the rules of democracy, although they constantly challenge consensus about what constitutes a viable democratic argument in a pluralist society like Denmark, which they in fact define as mono-cultural.
The older male is Poul Nielson, Social Democrat and former high commissioner to the EU. Also former minister of several governments since the late 70′s.

The last panelist is Yildiz Akdo?an, a young upcoming, energetic politician of Turkish descent. She is the head of a network which promote Turkey’s entrance into the EU. She is also running for the parliament as a social democrat in the next election. (After this lecture she was elected a Member of Parliament in the election of November 13, 2007)

The audience to the debate is a group of Danes mostly of Turkish descent.

Anyway, these three people have been summoned to discuss whether Turkey should be accepted into the EU family. So far, this debate is absolutely predictable. It happens all the time on TV: politicians are invited to take part in public discussions. But this debate is quite different after all, because we have convinced the politicians that the debate must be countered by their simultaneous participation in the Greek tragedy of Medea.

Let me give you a brief account of Medea. To the Greeks Medea was a beautiful stranger, in fact a witch from the country of Kolchis, beyond the Bosphor…. today the territory of Georgia…

Audience: Well, from beyond the Black Sea, The Sea is not the same as the Bosphor…

Morten: …Well, you’re right for sure, I apologize my limited geographical skills. But she is a woman who falls in love with the Greek hero, Jason, when he travels to her country in search for the Golden Fleece. He succeeds capturing the prize due to her assistance, and consequently they have to flee her country. But they are in love, so they go back to Jason’s home town, Korinth, get two sons, and live happily for a number of years. Until one day, King Creon offers Jason his throne on condition that he rejects Medea and marries his daughter instead. Jason takes one look at his once beautiful exotic wife and decides that her beauty no longer can compete with the young and powerful princess. Medea, upon receiving the news, becomes furious, and the play continues as the  communication between wife and husband disintegrates, leading to Medea’s ultimate and catastrophic revenge: the killing of their own children.

In this context, we see Medea as a study of a communication break down, leading to mortal revenge and self destruction. Much like todays global politics, leading to terrorism.

In the program, the former High Commissioner Poul Nielson plays the old King Creon, while Yildiz Akdogan act as Medea, and Morten Messerschmidt plays the part of Jason. The three politicians alternate between acting the Greek Tragedy and the current one. The audience of the TV show likewise play two parts. During the Greek tragedy sessions they pose as the chorus. The Chorus, by the way, has a quite interesting role in the Greek tragedy. It can lament, rejoice and comment on the course of events. From their remote position they have a crucial overview of events, endowing  them with analytic power. However, they cannot interfere with the course of the tragedy. Much like a TV audience, except that they are inserted in between the audience and the the play.

Audience: When did you realize the piece?

Morten: in 2006.

Audience: How long is the piece?

Morten: It’s 58 minutes. It is a long piece for an art video, but OK, if you can watch it in your living room.

Audience: How was the reaction in the community after you screened the piece?

Morten: My experience is that you don’t often get reactions on TV programs. It’s somewhat problematic, because I really appreciate feed back. Most of the feed back we receive was from professional TV people. We do have quite a few viewers who are professional TV people at the big stations, who seem to be curious about what we come up with. I think however, that traditional art media have the same problem. Painters rarely get qualified feed back from their audience. Some of the reactions were from people who were quite astonished: “what the hell was that?”, and some have been quite positive, although also mystified.

Audience: Probably, there is a reaction, but you may not come to know about it.

Morten: Yeah, Maybe they think it sucks, but they won’t tell you…

Audience: What was your personal experience of the performance when you did this? – Because the piece is also important as politics.

Morten: Well, – Yes… my personal experience… Let me say first, that I believe it is crucial to do a different type of research as a TV host, than as an artist. It is a role that requires ability to perform and the knowledge and skill to keep producing interesting questions in order to control the discussion. It’s a job for a professional journalist, which I am obviously not. Anyone can tell from watching the program, that the host has a slightly awkward behavior. A professional host would have a more precise and condensed language. On the other hand, it is one of our strategic choices to let an amateur play this part. The staged reality which politicians act in, is already alienating the viewer, and by obstructing the seamless flow of information through the insertion of  “a regular guy” as the program’s anchor, we lessen the distance between politicians and viewers.
The media is generally so professionalized that the aesthetics per se generates a barrier between viewer and program protagonists. The limited time slots they allow for a speaker to develop arguments are so short, that it is impossible to unpack an advanced discourse. Our remedy in this case is to allow for slow communication. The different pace of the debate is part of our attempt to use Bertoldt Brecths “estrangement” strategy. Maybe the untrained and slow questions are not so stupid after all. And we want to brake the spell of the modern TV debate, which dictates that any discourse longer than 5 minutes is off limits. Some arguments will not last the scrutiny past 5 minutes, but if the program structure promote only the short headline argument, and never takes time to a confrontation beyond that, then their account of “the real” is never challenged thoroughly. The consequence is a culture based on Warhol’s prediction of fifteen minutes of fame for anyone. Only it is rather 10 shallow seconds of attention, and then on to the next talking head.

We try to rethink the structure and the aesthetics of the political debate, and in that sense, our interest in a conclusion on the discussion on whether Turkey should become a member of the EU or not, is less than our interest in how they conduct their classic roles in the political debate. How does the structure of language, the classic presentation of opposing arguments, and the TV friendly format control and mediate the outcome?

Audience: So there is no conclusion?

Morten: In this case there is no conclusion. The predictable discussion, call it the current tragedy, is played to the end of its time line. Our concern is to focus on how they get there. I believe that if people, and politicians alike, are able to step out of their designated roles, and change the structure of interaction, then we can also change the possibilities for accomplishment.
Let me give you an example of a negative structure: At one point the Danish news constantly brought Somali women into the studio for interviews. Over the course of almost a year, these different women had to respond to the same type of questions, focusing on Somali culture and a certain alleged tradition involving mutilation of female genitals. The women had to apologize and reject their membership of this supposedly backward culture. My point isn’t that mutilation of female genitals is not backward, but that the interviewers are able to control the identity of their victims by way of posing certain question, while ignoring others. On the surface it appears to be democracy at work, since members of a minority group are offered airtime. But a true democracy allows all its citizens to negotiate and develop their own identities. It ought to be a human right to be able to represent yourself as more than the stereotype identity that your fellow citizens find fitting for you.
Most of our identity building happens as a side effect of communication. Thus,   the way we execute communication, how it is structured: flat or in some version of hierarchy is a key point in the development of democracy. Democracy is the only solution, but it requires constant scrutiny and critique in order to stay alive. it is our duty as citizens to demand improvement and development of the democratic process. Since we regard televised communication as a key point in the process, we do TV programs.

The Medea project is but one of our experiments. In another quite successful program, we Interviewed the Danish Minister of Culture on his administration of the arms length principle. Again, we attempted to change the structural setup in order to allow a different kind of communication, and again we operate with two levels of content. First, the actual conversation, next, a meta level in which the power relations and the stereotype identities of the participants are questioned.
The means to achieve such goals are countless. In this case, for example, we worked on psychological issues on how to ask questions, and how to create transparency of this rare moment where an ordinary citizen gains access to a representative of the highest power.

It turns out to be some rather long programs, but they can’t get much shorter if both discursive levels have to be properly presented.

Audience: How do you convince the politicians that they must take part in all this?

Morten: Well, we don’t tell them everything. We tell them that they are to take part in a Greek tragedy and a political debate. They already know the tragedy, and since it is part of the foundation of Western culture, a pillar of society, they feel safe with it. Also, it is my experience that people will do almost anything to become part of an art piece.
But in respect to this question, I find it really important that Medea is really an outstanding piece of literature. When you read it you really can’t decide who’s the bad guy. Medea and Jason are both heroes and villains. Throughout the play you alternate between identifying with one or the other. It is a rare quality to have a drama where you can’t decide who’s the villain. This means that any of the participating politicians can feel safe in the roles we assign them.

This quality underlines my understanding of the play, and how we use it in our program: Euripides is not interested the conventional blame game. His inclination is to study the malicious dialog in order to show how both parties loose control and collectively steers towards Armageddon.

Morten Messerschmidt may know that I am totally opposed to his political views, but he does understand that I want to give him a fair fight. It is the precondition for democracy. He actually asked me when I first approached him, if our intention was to make him look stupid?
I responded: “absolutely not”, which is true. I told him that we wanted to create a different context for the debate, and that it was an artistic experiment aiming at  innovating the format of the political debate.

Audience: Did you give them copies of the finished program?

No, I don’t think we gave them any DVD’s. They received e-mails announcing the first broadcast and they received a honorarium for their participation.

Audience: Did you let them check the program prior to broadcasting it?

Morten: No, we actually didn’t feel that we had to, because we did a really fair editing of the material. Again, I have to make clear, that although I hate some of the viewpoints put forward in the program, it is not our strategy to censor. Our strategy is to focus on the structure of how communication is performed and in order to do that you have to show everything.

It is a different matter, that in my personal opinion, the only way to positively change the mode of communication between Turkey and the EU, would be to immediately allow Turkey to enter EU. They are already more or less married and if we let the two parties further alienate each other, we might end up in a situation similar to that of Medea and Jason. The Western World already plays Jason’s part in its relation to the Middle East.

Audience: Did you as a host argue against the opinions you did not share?

Morten: I tried not to, and it wasn’t really necessary since the forrmer High Commissioner and Yildiz were able to create a balance. Not to mention Ömer, a really sharp guy in the audience. In fact I supported Messerscmidt on a few occasions. In these matters fairness is really the key. If you can’t be fair to your enemy, then you’re no better than the rest. The stakes are high: It is about the administration of democracy.

And it is not a problem at all, since our real goal is to enable people to analyze what happens in front of their eyes. To look underneath the language and draw their own conclusions. Of course I hope that these be different from those of Messerschmidt. (laughs)

OK, well, I think I might be talking too much?

Audience: But this is your talk. (laughs)

OK, then, let me draw your attention towards one of Yildiz’ arguments, which she brings up frequently. She says, that it is of utmost importance to keep negotiations on track, because it is a way to make the Turkish government stick to their promises of improvement of the Turkish democracy. As you know, the current  government has a somewhat shaky foundation based on both religion and democracy. When you think of the Turkish nationalist tendencies, which are expressed the troubled relations between the Kurds in the East and Ankara, or  the Cypriotic problem, which consists of an illegal Turkish occupation of one third of Cyprus, an occupation which have not been terminated for 30 years… then you have to agree with Yildiz, that it is important to pull Ankara in the direction of democracy.

Audience: Cyprus?

Audience: The Island of Cyprus! (laughs)

Morten: It is interesting, though, how Morten Messerschmidt uses the same facts to draw the opposite conclusions. And more so, since he, as a representative of the extreme right, is using left wing rhetorics to support his argument. Of course I must agree with him when he states that Turkey has no business what so ever in occupying Cypriotic territory for 30 years, although I doubt that his interest in the faith of Cyprus is  based on principles of justice. This is revealed when Ömer (the guy in the audience) asks him if the logic of his argument also counts in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Here, Messerschmidt sees a totally different situation… In other words, he uses an argument based on democracy and human rights to support a Western colonialist agenda in which the West has a right to fight the Muslim world.

It is our hope, that our program gives its viewers the capacity and time to analyze the political debate in terms of tactics, and to analyze the way those tactics affect the the subject matter. In the case of Yildiz’ and Messerschmidt’s completely different conclusions on the same political reality: what is the difference between rejection and embrace, and what identity do you assign to your opponent when you choose one or the other? Medea’s tragedy is our comparative case story.

Audience: What are your plans for the future?

Morten: We don’t have any plans right now but the possibilities are numerous.
Let me tell you in short about a tv-program that we did in Paris, France this spring. It was during the election campaign for the presidential elections of 2007.
Our initial idea was to do interviews with the two main candidates, Segòlene Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy. Of course we couldn’t even get close to them.
Sarkozy had invited the cultural elite of Paris to a meeting, and we tried to cover it, but it was not possible to get close to him. Instead we decided to use existing footage of the candidates. First we sampled video clips from their websites, where they discuss with news anchors of different French TV stations. Then we hired two actors and did a re-enactment of the interviews. So far it is quite conventional: you could say that nothing is added. However, when you realize that Sarkozy is played by a female and Royal by a male, the narrative begins to stray from the predictable tracks. The mere fact that we historizise a current event by way of actors, creates a Brechtian “verframdung”, which enables the viewer to analyze the event in a new way. By changing the sexes of the politicians, we perform a gender critique, which becomes quite obvious when the news anchor asks a male Royal, if “she isn’t tired?”

In most of our projects we adapt an already existing media format and alter it slightly…. Little strange subversions which change the situation completely.
It is also obvious in the Interview with the Cultural Minister. Our point of departure is that I am not fit to interview a professional politician. To counter this problem we arrange a meeting with a media-coach, where I receive advise . Everything is taped, and when we edit the final program, we juxtapose the coaching with the actual interview. The effect is multi faceted. First it is very humorous. Second, it questions the authority of the interviewer, since he acts like a puppet on a string. Third, it questions the authority of the Minister, since it is obvious to see how  successful the strategy is (he can be manipulated as well). Fourth, since we actually manage to perform an extraordinary interview with the top politician, the traditional journalistic consensus about how-to-do-it, is challenged.

Needless to say, it is of utmost importance that these experiments take place on the screen in people’s own living rooms. Our aim is to raise viewer criticality of what TV broadcasting serves to them. We hope, that when viewers zap between stations, and mix our programs with whatever is on air tonight, there will be a spill-over effect. It is about raising criticality towards the media as a whole, and the singular program as well. Because we love TV

Thank You for listening, it has been really nice to come down here and to participate in a great show.

In April 2007 tv-tv was invited to Le Plateau, Paris, France to participate in the exhibition, Sociéte Anonyme. tv-tv went to Paris with a team of 11 producers, who produced 7 hours of television for the Local TV broadcasting station, La Locale. This program is one of many that was was conceived and produced at for this occasion.

The video is constructed by using the soundtracks from web-published TV interviews as script. The soundtracks feature the two major presidential candidates of the 2007 election, Segolene Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy, in dialogs with different anchor’s of French TV news programs. The dialogs are re-enacted by two French actors, Claude Monique Scherer and Jean-Pascal Bazin. While the female, Claude plays Sarkozy, the male, Jean-Pascal plays Segolene. The program was first broadcast in Paris at La Locale during the last weeks of the presidential election campaign in France.

Concept: Morten Goll & Joachim Hamou, director and editing: Joachim Hamou

]]> http://mortengoll.org/?feed=rss2&p=93 0 http://mortengoll.org/?p=138 http://mortengoll.org/?p=138#comments Sat, 12 May 2007 19:41:56 +0000 Morten Goll http://mortengoll.org/?p=138 “Art and philosophy with animals” is a 4 minute TV collage by Morten Goll and Ulla Hvejsel.

In April 2007 tv-tv was invited to Le Plateau, Paris, France to participate in the exhibition, Sociéte Anonyme. tv-tv went to Paris with a team of 11 producers, who produced 7 hours of television for the Local TV broadcasting station, La Locale. This program is one of many that was was conceived and produced at for this occasion.

The animals are mostly filmed in the park Buttes Chaumont, adjacent to Le Plateau. The sound is different soundtracks of French and international artists, poets and philosopher’s (including an infamous computer named “Hal”) reciting their own work.