Conducted and Translated to English by Tijen Tunali

Turkish critic/curator Beral MadraBeral Madra is a seminal art critic and curator on the contemporary Istanbul art scene. She directed Gallery BM (1984-1990) and has directed the BM Contemporary Art Center since 1990.

She coordinated the 1st (1987) and the 2nd (1989) Istanbul Biennale, curated exhibitions of Turkish artists in the 43rd, 45th, 49th, 50th and 51st Venice Biennale and co-curated the exhibition Modernities and Memories-Recent Works from the Islamic World in the 47th Venice Biennale.

She is also the founding member and art advisor of Diyarbakir Art Centre (est. 2002).

Since the late 1970s, you've been a major figure on the Turkish art scene. You were the curator of the first two Istanbul biennials in 1987 and 1989 and you curated the Turkish pavilion at the 44th, 45th, 49th, 50th and 51st Venice Biennials. Could you describe what is the main role of the biennial contemporary art system of a particular country?

BM: Biennial in the contemporray art system is a vesel that shows the potential of progressive ideas in a country through art works. This potential of avant-garde ideas demonstrates to the rest of the world that the artists and intellectuals of that country are ready to be involved in a global conversation in social, political or theoretical matters.

Hüseyin B. Alptekin, "Don’t Complain": LED installation, 2006, 52nd Venice Biennial and11th Istanbul BiennialIn your articles you often argue that "the art biennial in Istanbul cannot produce its own discourse because it is too much dependent on the European art world." Is this because of the Eurocentric ideology of the biennials or the financial support coming from European institutions lately?

BM: The first international exhibition that was organized by the IKSV (Istanbul Foundation of Art and Culture) in 1987 was not called a biennial, it was called "international contemporary art exhibitions." As far as I am concerned if it retained the name it would have been better. When you call an art activitiy a "biennial" you immediately put it in the Eurocentric discourse of the dominant exhibition system. Since 1989 the European institutions started investing in our artists in terms of direct and indirect financial support. I think it is a wonderful development because Turkish artists, unlike European artists, don't get any kind of support from the state institutions.

I think that the emergence of the art biennials, even in the remote parts of the world, cannot be interpreted simply as the dissemination of the global contemporary art. Because this process- just like globalization itself-is an unequal process. However, we should also be careful in dismissing such development as merely a project of the Eurocentric art market. And most of all the contemporary art production is not limited to art biennials; thus, it is not adequate to interpret the situation of contemporary art in the new world order through the emergence and development of the biennials. I think it is not right to talk about the "global art" or "global art history" without taking into account the existing inequalities between the centers of art in the Western world and the developing world.

BM: Yes, you are right. The art systems of the countries are diverse and depend on the development of economic systems in those countries. For example, some countries have art systems that are transparent and some not. Therefore, an artist from a marginal group or a class has the possibility to be visible and to enter the art world of such countries. In my opinion, the art system functions in three parts: There are the art professionals, the production of aesthetics and the art market. Then there are, or must be, the art institutions that play the role of a filter. The art professionals establish the relationship between the institutions and the artist because the artwork should pass through the institutions to the market. The market does not accept the artwork that is not legitimized by the art institutions. Therefore, art professionals should have the right conscience and work ethic to do a good job as an intermediary. The art market system is not a homogenous system all around the world and its character differs according to the economic system of one country. The private galleries, museums and collectors have different relationships with each other in each country or geography. In order to understand the art system in one country, we have to be careful in understanding if this system of relations is well developed. We also have to analyze which group is more powerful in the system, the public sector or the private sector. Ideally, there should be a democratic balance between all the actors of the art institutions and the market. In the countries that have developed a steady financial market and working democracy, we see that this balance works fine.

Canan Senol, "Fountain": Video Installation, 2000, 11th Istanbul BiennialWhere does contemporary Turkish art stand in this process?

BM: In Turkey, we have black holes in democracy and we have not yet completely passed to the postmodern period yet. Turkey has been one of the countries that has accepted all the political and artistic discourses produced in Europe, including the way the art production and the market function. But if you apply a European model to a country like Turkey, it collapses. We have to be careful analyzing the contemporary art scene and the biennials in such countries that do not have a steady political-economic structure that feeds the art system. The important thing is to understand who has the power over the realm of art. And you best realize this in the position that mainstream press takes. In the countries that do not have a working democracy and that have not developed a working financial structure, the artists have different roles than in those countries that do. For example, the artists do not have to fight against the social system because it works for them as well. On the other hand, in such countries like ours, the artist has a great struggle. Neither the public nor the private sectors support the artist, they have to support themselves.

In 1989 in an article you put contemporary Turkish art on the table and said that, "before the Istanbul Biennial the art structure in Turkey was non-existent." I agree with what you are saying. I think the Istanbul Biennial forced the contemporary art professionals to look at the production of art and a few art institutes in Turkey more critically and posited the question: "what could be done and how?" However, 22 years after the launch of the Istanbul Biennial the structural difficulties in the Turkish contemporary at scene persist. In a country like Turkey that orbits around the Western art system, what could be done?