FK: Mr. Brenner, since
2007 you worked on the project “This Place”, inviting 10 internationally acclaimed
photographers to work in Israel and the West Bank. What is the main topic of project?
FB: The project deals with Israel as a place and a
metaphor. I see
Israel as the pathology of the world. So it has of course to do with Israel,
but in many ways you can look at these images and you don't think Israel, if
you wouldn't know that it is about Israel. So it is an exploration of the human
condition, on the polyphony outside and within. It is about the exploration of the human condition and
the polyphony within each of us. It is of course the polyphony that Israel is
about, but unless it brings us to listen to our own polyphony, the conflicts
that start within our self. Most of the time we have to find the inner man. It
is not about the outside. The outside journey is important in as much as it
brings you back to deal with your own wars that you are waging inside or you
don't dare to wage inside and that you bring outside.
Frédéric Brenner Palace Hotel 2009
Copyright: Frédéric Brenner / courtesy Howard
Greenberg gallery
|
FK: What is
characterizing this metaphor you talked about?
FB: The first metaphor, when I initiated the project
or when I tried to phrase the working hypothesis, was for me that Israel is a
place of radical otherness and a place of radical dissonance. For me it is not
at all a conflict about Jews and Muslims, it is not about Israel and Palestine.
It is really about three narratives. Remember this is a cake that was divided
after the First World War and the French and the British divided the cake. So
the French and the British were mainly Christians. So it is about three
narratives: It is Christianity, Islam and Judaism. And this is basically a
play, which is going on for 2000 years. Today it is only happening with new
garbs. So I really look at three monotheistic religions, which translate into
three major narratives who are wrestling with each other. So the idea of
"This Place" is to look at Israel as a place where the maps of the
sacred overlap, compete ultimately and exclude each other.
And when I say Israel as place and metaphor, I really
think that the first metaphor has to do with Israel as a place of radical
otherness. A place where every single person is the other of somebody else, a
close and a far other: A Russian for an Ethiopian, a Moroccan for a German, a
French for an American, an Arab Christian for an Arab Muslim, an Armenian for a
Jew. And this goes on endlessly. But again, this otherness and this strangeness
is within ourselves to discover that we are strangers even to ourselves. And I
believe that for me Israel is called the Holy Land or the Promised Land. There
is a promise attached to that land and that's what started my project. There's
a promise for every person, wherever they come from and this is a promise of
redemption. And redemption is truly about intimacy, it is about opening an
inner space and an inner place in order to embrace. It is a promise for compassion for the multitude of
selves within each of us and for all other human beings. This promised
land, belongs to no-one and every-one, it is nowhere and everywhere
awaiting for our own humanity to awake. And maybe it is played everywhere else in the world,
but also in Israel because so much has been projected on this place for 2000
years. I mean just take the church. The church is the reproduction of a
Jerusalem, where ever, it is a small temple erected anywhere where Christianity
has been present. So this place is very loaded.
FK: You said that you
want to do a project without a political agenda. What you describe now are as
well the political circumstances, the narratives and the things behind. So why
was there this wish to do it apolitically, or without agenda?
FB: I didn't want to do it apolitically. How can I
explain … As I said I wanted to look beyond the political narrative, not to
ignore it or bypass it, but not to mistake for what it is not. What interested
me is to look at the root level, to look at the archaic stakes before it
becomes political or religious and to invite the people to look within. So that
was what I wanted to do. Everything is political. Of course there is a
political layer. But my perspective is really meta-physical; it is really an
exploration of the human condition. And of course, Israel offers an incredible
stage for an incredible polyphonic ensemble. This polyphony is within us.
Fernando Pessoa says somewhere: "Each
one is several, many, is a profusion of selves … in the outstretched colony of
our being, people of all kinds exist who think and feel in different ways". There are many people who think and
feel in different ways within ourselves, that is what I believe. And it is hard
to embrace that.
FK: For the project you
decided to work in Israel and the West Bank. Why did you decide on these two
regions and what about Gaza?
FB: Originally I only wanted to work in Israel,
because we didn't want the project to adopt a dual perspective. We didn't
really exclude the West Bank, but we didn't include it directly. But in the
formulation of the project the photographers stressed us in order to define
what are the limits of this project. By including the West Bank we where
running the risk of falling again in a dual perspective, for/against,
victim/perpetrator, ... But the very choice of the artists that we had made was
likely not to get us to end up there. So we eventually asked to define the
limits of the project, we included the West Bank. And for better or for worse
it has redefined what Israel is today, absolutely. But we decided to exclude
Gaza, because Israel left Gaza some years back so it didn't made sense to
include it. And also for security reason, we couldn't be responsible for the
security of people. And we thought that Israel is far enough complex not to add
one more layer. The project is to expose people to the many fault lines, to the
many rifts and paradoxes of this highly contested place. And I wanted to look
at Israel without complacency, but with compassion. This double movement was
very important.
FK: Another
interesting aspect is, that you only chose international photographers. How do
you relate to this, as especially in Israel we find an amazing art and
photography scene that you could have relied on?
FB: Within one people, we wanted outsiders, but we
wanted "spectateurs engagées". We didn't want people who were trapped
just by the very fact that they live there in the Israeli-Palestinian
dialectics and too close to the subjects. But at the very beginning, I had a
vision to create a counter point - I didn't know which form it could take – and
to have 12 artists and four or five could be Israeli and Palestinians. And then
because I had to carry on so much for the project, I abandoned the idea. Later
one of our curators came back with that idea but we photographers didn't accept
it. And then also you must understand that at the beginning I also abandoned
that idea at least for some time because out of the Palestinians we wanted to
include, some answered that they will never work on a land of occupation, even
though they have basically been fed and nurtured by great Israeli dealers. And
then later, when one of our curators wanted to include them, they asked
"Why do you come to us so late? It is suspicious". It is very loaded
and this is sad. Regarding the boycott of Israel, Fazal Sheikh said that he
thought he could do more by looking, observing and bringing his point of view
than by just boycotting. So it is stupid that they were given the possibility
and they refused it at the beginning. This is why I didn't pursue it. And then
when we went to them later, they found it was suspicious, which is actually
true. So then we couldn't have Israelis neither because it would have made it
political while the entire idea was to look beyond that.
FK: For the
moment, the world premiere at the Dox Center in Prague is the only venue in
Europe for the world tour. Do you plan to make more shows in Europe?
FB: It is not easy in Europe. The truth is, France
didn't want to take it. It should have gone to the “Jeu de Paume” in Paris, but
out of very political reason it was denied. I won't quote the words, but it was
very ugly. And London obviously despite all the connections was afraid.
Somebody said about "This Place" that it is the hottest potato in the
art world and they don't want to burn their hands with that, while they haven't
seen the show. And we talk about a major art gallery in London that I won't
quote. That was what our former curator reported. We definitely want to have a
show in Berlin and Martin-Gropius show is interested, but they have not
committed. I hope with what has been published it will work out. We would love
it to come to Germany.
FK: So when you
looked for an exhibition venue, you were confronted with the point that the
project was seen in a political light.
FB: This is what always comes up when you say Israel.
And in a way, the subject
is always first in the way people see it and not the modality. Meanwhile the
modality really is to open another space.
FK: Mr. Brenner, thank
you very much for the interview.
