Art versus politics

Drawing the Line: Artist Daniel Buren Speaks Out Against Europe's Arts Cuts

ttp://www.artinfo.com/news/story/37177/drawing-the-line-artist-daniel-buren-speaks-out-against-europes-arts-cuts/

ARTINFO UK: "Like architecture, public art is always dependent on politics. You are chosen by a group of politicians, but as time goes by these people are replaced by others who might stop financing the piece just to attack their predecessors. The artist ends up in the middle of a stupid fight between two politicians and the work usually suffers from it."

Daniel Buren: "If you are in charge of a city, small or big, you have to take care of millions of things whether you like them or not. Even if you are in a place like France where the church and the state have been separated for centuries, the state has to maintain churches. As a mayor, even if you are against religion, there's no way you can say "I don't give a shit and won't restore this cathedral." It should be the same thing with contemporary art but isn't — and I think that's a huge issue."

LONDON— French conceptual artist Daniel Buren has often been a controversial figure over the years, usually for the same reason. Best known for paintings and installations involving stripes, his signature motif for the last four decades, Buren provoked an uproar in 1986 when his monumental forest of differently sized black and white columns, titled "Les Deux Plateaux," was unveiled in the courtyard of Paris's Palais Royal— and again in 2010 when it reopened after a €6 million facelift. Last week, the artist was in Britain to install a new piece for the opening of Turner Contemporary in the seaside town of Margate.

The work, occupying a double-height gallery on the new building's first floor, will consist of mirrors and colored film arranged to create an "infinite view," while a large circle traced in film will echo the view of the seascape outside. Buren, an old hand at such ambitious installations in institutions and public spaces alike, talked to ARTINFO UK about the sweeping cuts to art funding across Europe and politicians' lack of long-term commitment to the public art they commission. 

How do you start working on a site-specific piece like the one you are currently installing in Margate? Do have a strategy?

I don't have any kind of regular system. It depends on the space, on the type of exhibition, and whether the piece is a public work or it is meant for an institution. I usually like to see the space before I start working, but this is not a rule. Sometimes I just go there and improvise a work in eight or 10 days. For this piece, I went to Margate when Turner Contemporary was under construction. I could almost have worked from plans, but visiting the city gives you some perspective and ideas.

As you know, the cultural situation is quite strained in the U.K. at the moment. The government voted major funding cuts and art institutions across the country are now waiting to hear from the Arts Council if their funding will be renewed.

I've heard about it but it would be wrong to say that I know the situation really well. Having no money to do things has become very banal. Institutions are getting poorer and poorer everywhere. It's not only an English problem — the situation is the same throughout the Western world, and especially in Europe where museums are paid for by the state, the cities, or the regions.

Do you feel that people are less interested in contemporary art or is it just an economical problem?

There's a lot of confusion: the public for contemporary art has never been as important as now, but politicians keep limiting institutions' budgets, making it difficult for them to survive. It's a total contradiction.

It is really exciting to see a venue like Turner Contemporary opening in Margate, but in the current climate one hopes that it'll be given the means to sustain its activity in the long run — which is often a concern for new institutions. There is a parallel here with the situation of your piece "Les Deux Plateaux" at the Palais Royal, which was commissioned at great expense in the 1980s but not properly maintained and had to undergo major restoration last year.

Exactly, it's the same contradiction. Politicians who are abandoning artworks by not paying for their maintenance end up either losing the piece or having to spend a fortune to restore it. This can be really frustrating.

Have you ever felt let down by commissioners?

The maintenance is always really problematic. Unlike 25 years ago, people now understand the benefits of commissioning a piece of public art but they still don't get that they are responsible for it afterward — and as an artist you automatically end up in big conflicts.