Hordaland Kunstsenter

On the Track of ‘Onkel Kurti’… A confessional correspondence between artist Felice Hapetzeder and art theorist Mille Winther (flashing prejudices, humor and lack of humor!)

 

Copenhagen the 19th of may, 2008.

Dear Felice!

I was pleased to join the screening of your video work ‘Onkel Kurti’ last Saturday evening in the intimate space of Gallery Koh-i-noor, a positive atmosphere was framing the event. But I hope you are resistant to a slightly more critical perspective on the evening? A late-night discussion on your work became almost as harsh as your own statements in the video. I was taking part in the discussion, which in the end turned into a competition of advices and critique of your video, a strange ‘autonomic’ critique you could call it, because you weren’t there to reply. Don’t know if it’s right of me to confess…. But I will try to turn the discussion we had into a small compilation of questions…I feel quite convinced that you are all right about the fact that your work was intriguing and upsetting some people instead of just leaving them indifferent? Anyway, I would like you to have the last word by answering me.

As you already know we all ended up in a bar drinking beers. Some hours after you left we started out a discussion on your work. People were slightly drunk and the tone got a bit aggressive – this might even amuse you – people were apparently provoked by the fact, that you were stating some prejudiced points of view in your work. Some were wondering what the murky nazi-background of Onkel Kurti had to do with Turkey? From which perspective did you see the necessity of utter simplified statements about Turkish culture and religion, drawing subtle parallels to Second World War? Does almost all kind of utterance become legal in the pretext of subjectivity, was asked. This question could be turned back to myself, and the discussion I was taking part in. How do we discuss and criticise cultures foreign to us (as well as art) in a respectful way? How do we avoid stepping into the trap of ignorance by making superficial judgements? Can we show responsibility through our way of discussing, joking with, and shed light on foreign cultures – as well as art?

The video work ‘Onkel Kurti’ contained many different tracks and open ends. Personally I got very curious about Onkel Kurtis existence and hoped you were going to meet the old bastard in the end! All the unrevealed expectations became part of the work. I wasn’t really provoked by the video, but I was wondering; how do we connect the discussion of national identity to a broader context without denying the personal level? What does our choice of addressing the topic reveal about our identity? Which ways of discussing and criticising are proper when discussing each others differences and each others (art)work?

That was a lot of questions! Hope it’s alright…the interview turned into a letter while I was figuring out how to address you, taken the discussion we had Saturday evening into account…Would love to hear from you soon.

Best wishes,

Mille.

 

Stockholm the 26th of May 2008

Dear Mille, How interesting that you were having this discussion! I didn’t have all the time that I wanted for talking to everyone after the screening, I have to confess that I was quite tired too. During the discussions at Koh-i-Noor gallery after the screenings I realized that there was some tension. But the critique was never really put out there and I just assumed that it was a question of liking or disliking the film as work of art. As you know, I am speaking thru different points of view in the film, almost as if the work was suffering from split personality. There is the biographical self, the facts section and the different levels of prejudicial outbursts. I think it should be quite clear that these prejudices are not something I want to further or which is my opinion. They are meant to be humorous at first and get worse as the film proceeds. Humour is an important way of communication, but can also be abused. In Onkel Kurti I wanted to use the humour to get this kind of conspiratorial cosy feeling and then turn it over so that it would get to be something really unfriendly at the end. I think this is the way prejudices work, they grow bigger when you accept them. With Onkel Kurti I wanted to investigate the darker parts of my own mental map. Travelling into my heart of darkness, I claim to also have found a corner of the darkness of our ”Western Civilization”. One possible way of continuing with the Limits of forgiveness project, which Onkel Kurti was the first part of, is to go back and meet him again. But I think it is problematic to create biography in that way. I will have to make some decisions to keep art and life separated so that it doesn’t become documentary drama. I am also considering using other people’s experiences, trying not to abuse of anybody’s confidence in the process. I wonder if the discussion you were having would have been possible with me present? After the first screening of Onkel Kurti in Stockholm, there was an intense discussion, which seemed to clear some questions in the audience. Maybe such a neutralization of the questions is unnecessary. Like it is unnecessary to state that there is a big difference between Laibach or Front 242 and a nazi group like Ultima Thule in Sweden. It is so easy to criticise a Nazi Fascist state or even the George Bush administration but apparently taboo to criticise an other regime, which is accepting killings of transvestites, suppression of minorities and torture. Can it be because Turkey has a key position as NATO base in the near east? That the country is on the verge of entering the EU? That it is a Muslim country that has good relations with both the USA and Israel? Or is it because we as western artists should be blind to the evils of non-western governments, classifying them as historically suppressed? That must permit us to criticise and make subversive artistic statements aimed also against others than the traditional nemesis of the western artists or intellectuals – Mother USA. During my stay in Istanbul I felt that working with contemporary art by itself meant disrespecting local culture. The way I was constantly questioning and exploring the context made me a parasite. In my limited knowledge it is against all that Islam stands for. This was also a question I had to battle with, however contradictive. The art world in Istanbul is a part of this disrespect: financed by powerful and rich people who want Turkey to Go West. They are once again, like Atatürk, trying to modernize Turkey by means of aesthetics. Building the highest skyscraper, banning the Islamic party, the shawl. Humour is a good way of discussing, maybe the best! I cannot help myself by being somewhat glad that this discussion seemed to transcend the usual embedded art context. I had planned for Onkel Kurti to be an icebreaker to start to share experiences but I think it is a little too controversial for that. People want to speak and ask about the film, after having seen it. The film is an artwork and as such it will not be screened in a mosque or a church but in the art-scene, where there is more of a critical approach. It probably needs some kind of framework of for instance a discussion afterwards. But I don’t think it is disrespectful as art, or even out of the line. I hope I was able to answer some of the questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Best Felice

 

Dear Felice. Thanks for answering. I think Onkel Kurti IS an Icebreaker in some sense…maybe the discussion I referred to shows that scandinavians are lacking sense of humor…haha. Just to continue my own track. Our reception of art might be very narrow minded – just to state a few more prejudices. Political correctness is for sure dominating these days… help! Well, lets keep in touch, let me know if you are getting on the track of Onkel Kurti again.

Best, Mille."