Nicole Hackert
Gallerist, Berlin
1
I find art that consciously »participates in debates« to be intolerable. Art is in itself asocial and within that lies its potential for change (also social as far am I concerned).
2
This is bad.
3
I honestly don’t have the vision to say.
4
Isn’t funding always provided based on the need for representation? As long as a party does not explicitly stand behind it …
take the money and run.
5
The »commercial sector« within the art system is, and has always been in post-feudal times, »jointly responsible« for competition amongst artist and as a result—thank God—jointly responsible for the majority of artistically exceptional works in visual art. To maintain anything else is either naïve, utopian, or dishonest.
6
They do so regularly as long as it benefits their artists.
7
None.
8
I don’t know.
9
This doesn’t correspond to my experience.
10
Were not specifically a lot of international producers of art involved in the exhibition based in Berlin and thus in the debate? … selected by many international curators who do not live in Berlin?
The tendency toward regimentation that slops over from the list of questions is one that makes me very uneasy and in my opinion, one from which no good art can be created either in Berlin or anywhere else in the world. Art comes into being out of a maximum amount of egomania. Conversations among artists—call it discourse—take place in bars and clubs that they discover for themselves—mostly places where the drinks are affordable. Berlin has offered these possibilities and freedoms in the last decades not least as a result of affordable rents and available studio space. Out of a maximum amount of freedom that has evolved as a result of these conditions, among other things, an art scene that is virtually unparalleled in the world has thus emerged. Any attempt to artificially cement or institutionalize these special conditions now would be accompanied in my opinion by a loss of art (art that rocks and remains).
On Twitter
No Responses / Leave a Reply