Download - Publication by Rajataide Association
Rajataide Association was formed to serve art
and artists in 1996. It is not a trade union, but a
forum for those interested in contributing to the
contemporary art scene. It's members are mainly
young professional artists, but there are also
students and cultural workers from various fields.
To keep its view fresh also in the future, the
right to vote or take part in the board of directors
has been reserved to those under 36 years. Older
age, however, does not prevent participation to
exhibitions and other activities of the association.
Gallery Rajatila is an art gallery near Tampere
city center maintained by Rajataide association
since 1997. Gallery Rajatila concentrates to display
contemporary art and artists. Gallery Rajatila is
committed to offering opportunities to young
emerging and recently established artists with
interesting and fresh ideas. Our object is to
enable versatile and experimental exhibitions.
\
Rajataide Association
Gallery Rajatila
Hämeenpuisto 10,
33210 Tampere, Finland
\
www.rajataide.fi
Front cover, left to right : Arttu Merimaa, Of Simulation and Dissimulation \
Maija Kovari, Sempervivum Soboliferum \ Sanni Seppä, I Love Animals, part 1:
Nordic Birds \ Jenni Lahtinen, Dance \ Jussi Koitela, Study Circle
Publication by
Rajataide Association
\with contributions from
Pelin Tan and artist members
of Rajataide Association
\ page 3 \ Pelin Tan: The Question Autonomy in the Practice of Commons: Present and Future of Artist Run Practices
\ page 14 \ In Dialogue with Members of Rajataide Association
\ page 22 \ Featured Artists
\ Miina Hujala \
3
T h e Q u e s t i o n o f
A u t o n o m y i n t h e
P r a c t i c e o f C o m m o n s :
P r e s e n t a n d F u t u r e o f
A r t i s t R u n P r a c t i c e s
— An Essay by Pelin Tan —
4
“The creation of instituting society, as instituted society, is each
time a common world – kosmos koinos: the positing of individuals,
of their types, relations and activities; but also the positing of
things, their types, relations and signification – all of which
are caught up each time in receptacles and frames of reference
instituted as common, which make them exist together.”
— Cornelius Cotariadis ¹ —
In the last ten years, most artist run practices around
the world reached to an edge to face governmental
cultural policy, new public space regulation, spectacle
institutional constellations and conditions of
precarious labour. Although these recent and harsh
conditions (or crisis) are squeezing the artist run
practice or alternative collective space practices; at
the other hand, it provides new potentialities to invest
within such crisis. Thus, the potential future of these
practices is inert in what degree that they deal or
resist with the crisis. Moreover, new methods / models
of dealing and resisting are necessary. How artist run
practices will come over with this? Does the question
of autonomy in terms of space, economy and art form
is possible in perspective of institutional criticism?
5
The core causes for the establishment of artist
run spaces are based on the need of self-organized
exhibition spaces, the need of display non-object
oriented of art forms or related relational art practices
(which is generally neglected by the art market and
gallery circle), to establish non-hierarchical self-
organization among other networks and a flexible
control of funding dissemination.
According the problems that I introduced
above, I certainly believe that artist run spaces have
also abilities in flexible “network labour” that produces
collective action, disseminate and control surplus
value by introducing a minor parallel economy.
Above that, these practices have the flexibility to
evolve within the social – political urban everyday life
that able them to trans-crossing other networks of
assemblies other than contemporary art (like food,
literature, design…). I can think and compare few
artists run practices around the world that share
maybe not the same conditions but same present
and futures. For example, BASSO / Berlin, Arrow
Factory / Beijing, Souzy Tros / Athens, IRA / Tokyo or
Woofer Teen from Hong Kong and many others.
All of them are involved in criticism of certain social
– political problems in everyday life, urban space.
Their spaces are hubs that people from different
practices can converge and produce together
temporarily. Different than a structured institution
(art institution, museum, biennial…), these places
6
can instantly reply to urgent social – political
issues. The flexibility of collective practices enables
to take an instant positioning and a public response.
Gift economy and flexible labour exchange are
forms and base of such practices. The “instituent”
practice is defined by the art theorist Gerald Raunig 2
as participating in processes of instituting and in
political practices that traverse the structure and
institution. As he analysis the relationship of the
constituent power and participation in such self-
organized practices: “The various arrangements of
self-organization promote broad participation in
instituting, because they newly compose themselves
as a constituent power again and again, always tying
into new local and global struggles…”; and he defines
the insistent practice of instituting in artists run
collectives: “…countless smaller and larger impulses
for collective insurrection and for the emergence
of constituent power, a series of events, in which
desiring is learned, a permanent new beginning,
an instituent practice that animates an astonishing
amount and is incredibly persistent at the same
time”. It is interesting so in his analysis the relation
between authoritarian power and collective desire.
Arrow Factory is situated in a local neighbourhood
in Beijing run by basically three curators / artists with
the help of the other artists. This artist run space, is
a site-located space rather than a site-specific one; an
ephemeral artistic practice that permeates everyday
7
\ Maija Kovari \
life and artistic production, rather
than an institutional urban practice;
an everyday practice in which the
audience and artist are dissolved in
each other, representing more than
a collaborative, socially engaged art
practice… These are the operative
aspirations of this artist-run-space,
situated in an area of the city currently
under pressure, revealing the multiple
stratifications of recent urban
conditions. How can such artistic
initiatives resist the proliferation
of neoliberal urban production,
while simultaneously remaining
independent? This is one of the
main issues when reflecting on the
emancipatory role of such spaces.
Arrow Factory signals the creation of a
new community, not only inside their
neighbourhood circle but also in a
trans-local circle. Local people, artists,
international visiting artists, other
artist-run spaces from different parts of
the world have found in Arrow Factory
perspective and ideas. Similar to Woofer
Teen in Hong Kong; an artist run space
in lower middle class neighbourhood
in Kowloon surrounded with urgent
8
urban issues of homeless, migration,
neoliberal urban gentrification and
over-regulation of public space. Woofer
Ten artists are involved with problems
of urban space in Hong Kong such as
homeless, control of public spaces,
community engagement and craft-
minded practices. By being involved
locally in Kowloon and everyday reality,
this non-profit art space has also a well
working artists residency that hosts
artists around the world. Woofer Ten
organizes talks, exhibitions, public
engagements and site-specific projects
and the basic maintenance supported
by governmental fund “Hong Kong Arts
Development Council”. They admit
that as the activists do not have a space
for gather and self-organization; they
provide collective support and the
space in order to act collectively. This
artist run space is networking with
designers, political activists and other
artists around the world. Like IRA
in the heart of Tokyo, which has a
similar structure, though they do not
prefer to be governmentally funded,
and so create their own exchange
economy. IRA (Irregular System A.)
9
is run by mainly 10–15 activists, artists, designers
and others. IRA shares their space as with networks
such as activists and food collective and musicians.
They present several difference research based or
relational art practices such as sewing workshops
or research done by artist on urgent urban / ecological
issues. In summary, these examples although they are
in the different geographical and cultural realities they
do present common practices as part of alternative
social and cultural production.
I would like focus more on the model of a
factory, a working space as an exhibition, which is a
format of a social production that in my opinion refers
to an indefinable “surplus value” in the framework of
community economy. What do I mean here as a social
production? Is it in a discursive context or economical
context? Do artists produce such work, which has a
certain economical value or is this whole collective inter-
subjectivity based on the distributed social surplus
value that makes possible of such a format? What is the
relation between collective art practices between “the
existing flows of surplus value”?3. In trying to construct
a local ethics of distribution of social production and
building a community economy Gibson - Graham
asks: “How might non-producers of social surplus
have a say in how surplus is generated, appropriated,
distributed, and those to which it will not?”4. Before
reaching to this question, the social surplus value here
(in this exhibition) has been produced not only as an
10
outcome of production of the artist who establishes
and creates the events, seminars, archive, library
based on certain discursive statements but also by
the contribution of participants, who actually might
have diverse practices in their own studios. According
to this, generally, the model needs a “community” in
order not only to create the environment, discursive
space but also the surplus value that is a redundant
production in several forms that takes place in the
a free working art space or such an process based
multiple model. The value created during the events,
workshops and socially engaged exhibitions that also
stems from the discursive relation of the site, city,
institution that contains an open-ended risk.
Examples of artist run spaces such as
BASSO / Berlin or Souzy Tros / Athens present such
alternative instant “communities”. BASSO initiated
by Yusuf Etiman who also produces a magazine with
artists, designers and other groups. As well as Souzy
Trost initiated by artist Maria Papadimitrou with
artists, designers and people from an immigrant
NGOs. Both places are run by self-minor economy
that stems from its own co-existing communities.
In the past BASSO organized film, performance
screening, exhibitions and public talks. It also rents
out few artists office / studios in order to cover the
general rent. However, with Suzy Trost the space is
in a neglected area of the city periphery of Athens.
It is a small former warehouse/factory that is family
11
property and which the artist have
transformed into a common space
for sewing, cooking and gathering
together. As other spaces, this
space organizes food exchange
and sewing practices as a socially
art engaged practices in order to
deal with the current economical
crisis. The question of autonomy
in such spaces and practices push
forward and creates the practices of
Commons.
In conclusion, it is sure that
according to a trans-local review of
such artist run spaces signifies a
future alternative institution and
a counter-culture social production
(against the general mainstream
institutional production). As we
experience in such practices,
there is a transparence becoming
with / within everyday life realities,
collective curating, a locally
engaged rhizomatic network and
a possible “instituent” practice
against institutionalism.
\ Kaisa Luukkonen \
12
13
1 Cornelius Cotariadis, The Imaginary Institution of Society,
Trans. by K.Blamey, The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Original book 1975).
2 Gerald Raunig, Instituent Practices, No.2: Institutional
Critique, Constituent Power, and the Persistence of Instituting,
Discourse, Muhtelif Contemporary Art Magazine, Spring 2008,
No.3 (co-editor Pelin Tan).
3 In their article, Özçelik and Madra define surplus value
and its distribution that at the end of their argument they question
the who and how reclaiming it could be a counter-hegemonic nodal:
“For us, a relation to class is enacted whenever there is an effect
stemming from the extent to or the form in which surplus-labor is
produced, appropriated, and distributed. Hence, there are continuous
attempts to institute class relations at sites as diverse as households,
universities, neighbourhoods, highways, and unions, as well as within
transnational corporations. Similarly, class relations are shaped by
a variety of discourses ( gender, political, legal, religious, ecological,
as well as economic) that interrupt and re-channel the existing
flows of surplus-labour or attend the production of qualitatively new
ones. In turn, relations to class processes sustain certain political
identifications and cultural claims at the expense of others, which
are restricted from or completely deprived of accessing the flows of
surplus labour…”, p.82, Özçelik/Madra. Further: “…In the absence of a
counter hegemonic nodal point, these disparate ‘‘acts of reclaiming’’
could indeed easily be co-opted by the capitalist-all. We believe that
the axiom of communism could serve as a useful counter-hegemonic
nodal point that would impart a ‘‘surplus’’ meaning to each and every
act of reclaiming…”.p.94
4 Gibson - Graham
— References —
14
What are the differences between Rajataide and gallery? What makes Rajataide an artist run space?
Rajataide organization works
according to the common Finnish
association model. The board of 8
persons is selected in the meeting of
the members for a one-year span at a
time. The activity of the association
is organized by its active members:
part of the members run the gallery,
part are taking care of the association
and economy of the both. In addition,
there are varying working groups
producing alternative projects under
the umbrella of the association.
Rajataide (which in Finnish
means “border art”) is association,
which manages Gallery Rajatila
(“border space”). Many of the members
I n D i a l o g u e
w i t h M e m b e r s o f
R a j a t a i d e A s s o c i a t i o n
— Interview by Pelin Tan —
15
are and have been visual artists but
there are also people interested in
other fields for example comics or
experimental music. For Rajataide
artist-run has meant offering
exhibition space and possibilities to
participate in versatile projects for
young artists who have not so much
exhibition opportunities.
There is a need of addressing
the question of what is the relationship
between the gallery and the association
since most of the artists exhibiting are
not members nor are the exhibitions
curated by the members solely. The
space is therefore more an opportunity
to exhibit - organized by Rajataide
association. That is logical related
to the local situation of a small town
of Tampere where spaces to exhibit
contemporary art are scarce.
Is artist-run activity just that
– creating possibilities to present
artworks and projects? From the
outlook it seems that the gallery
program is at the very essence of the
association’s practice but with a
closer observation the involvement
of the members of Rajataide is also
connected in maintaining the local
art scene, sustaining the grass-root-
level activity and keeping alive the
community of artists.
Is economically Rajataide dependent on membership fees? Do you generate this network in a productive artistic form? Are you planning that or is it already happening?
Rajataide association is not reliant
on membership fees. Rajataide is
funded through grants (main funders
being the estate and the city) as well
as the rents collected from artists
exhibiting in Rajatila gallery. Rajataide
association works as a platform that
enables the working groups (consisting
of the members) to apply funding for
projects and happenings. In this sense
the activity can be fruitful and sensible
for the more active members.
The problem in running the
16
\ Arttu Merimaa \
\ Saara Vallineva \
\ Timo Bredenberg \
17
\ Karoliina Paappa \
\ Jaana Laakkonen \
\ Jussi Koitela \
18
\ Sanni Seppä \
\ Johanna Havimäki \
\ Jenni Lahtinen \
19
\ Antti Pussinen \
\ Juhani Tuomi \
\ Hanna-Mari Matikainen \
\ Laura Rytkönen \
20
organization, and the gallery, is that
the association does not have a hired
employee. This creates a problem
concerning long-term development
and sustaining the gathered know-
how since part-time working staff
and volunteers have to learn things
anew every year.
When thinking about the
Rajatila Gallery and as a more general
issue a question rises; do artist-run
galleries benefit the livelihood and
practice of artists that exhibit there?
In Finland the artist-run galleries
aren’t actively selling the works of the
artists exhibited. In addition to that,
some artists want to keep the prices
of the works “under the counter”.
It seems that in Finland there is a
twofold attitude towards selling.
On one hand artists want to sell,
and on the other hand it is considered
shameful to market one’s own art.
One would assume that it would be in
the realm of interest of the artist-run
gallery associations to consider the
livelihood of artists. What is causing
this distortion?
In the current situation, the
gain for an artist paying to present
his /hers art is left to minimum. One
could ask if galleries run by volunteers
have the time or the will to really think
what is the benefit for the exhibitor.
Then again what does it mean if the
artist-run galleries are turning from
organizations offering alternative
spaces more towards imitations of
the commercial galleries?
It seems that the relatively
passive gallery spaces paid by the
exhibiting artists have become
somewhat of a conventional model in
Finland. It is possible that at least for
some of the artist-run galleries the
exhibiting itself has become some
kind of a secondary activity, and that
people are more interested in different
kinds of projects and other activities,
which the gallery program and the
association can enable.
21
What is Rajataide’s opinion on cultural policy in Finland?
The Rajataide association is a
fragmented entity of opinions.
Rajataide has over 80 members, and
various different working groups.
It aims to be democratic in decision-
making. A formulated opinion is a
paradox in this kind of a situation.
In the association there is a will
to become a more substantive actor
at least in the local art scene.
One of the associations working
groups is the 1/2 Art magazine, which
already is a prominent agent as a voice
for opinions for both people involved
in Rajataide and as well as to others.
One of the reasons Rajataide
association hasn’t formed a mediated
and discussed opinion on cultural
policy in Finland is because the group
of active members in Rajataide change
pretty often and there hasn’t been a
system formed that would carry a
formulated common opinion through
this changing. But it does not mean
Rajataide association doesn’t have
opinions. There are many big
changes going on in cultural politics:
shift to creative economy and the
reorganization of the Arts Council
of Finland. Like many artist-run
associations and groups Rajataide
is aspiring to comment on these
developments and figure out new
ways of operating.
22
F e a t u r e d
A r t i s t s
23
Timo Bredenberg, still from Sparta, 2011.
Digital video; 9.08 minutes
www.timobredenberg.com
Johanna Havimäki, Mr. Red, 2012.
Various materials
www.johannahavimaki.com
Miina Hujala, Replaced Acts, 2010. HD Video
www.miinahujala.fi
Jussi Koitela, Safe Play, 2011. Installation view,
Safe Play Event, Korjaamo Gallery, Helsinki
www.jussikoitela.com
Maija Kovari, Bench, 2011. Wall painting
www.kovari.fi
Jaana Laakkonen, Drapes, 2012. Acrylic
and water-soluble oil on MDF, 94,2 × 87 cm
www.jaanalaakkonen.com
Jenni Lahtinen, Ojaneva, 2010.
Watercolour on paper, 18 × 26 cm
www.jennilahtinen.blogspot.fi
Kaisa Luukkonen, Keep on Dreaming, 2012.
500 balloons, 500 needles, helium, tent,
24 days. Photograph by Karoliina Paappa.
kirppukaruselli.wordpress.com
Hanna-Mari Matikainen, Black Animal, 2010.
Digital print, 78 × 110 cm
sites.google.com/site/hannamarim
Arttu Merimaa, Of Simulation and Dissimulation,
2012. Videoinstallation
www.arttumerimaa.net
Karoliina Paappa, Series: Die-Cut, Young Girl in
the Children’s Room, 2011. Digital photograph
www.karoliinapaappa.fi
Antti Pussinen, My First Killer Laser Robot, 2012.
Aluminium, electronics, hunting scope, wireless
security camera, laser pointer, wood, acrylic,
Controller unit: joystick, television, electronics,
110 × 110 × 130 cm
www.anttipussinen.net
Laura Rytkönen, The Cold Bloods, 2012.
Video; 11 minutes
www.laurarytkonen.com
Sanni Seppä, I Love Animals, part 2: Gezeichnet in
Finland, 2011. Coloured pencil on paper
and kapa board, 2,3 × 3,2 m
Photograph by Jyri Pitkänen.
www.sanniseppa.com
Juhani Tuomi, A Dead Poet, 2008.
Oil on canvas, 70 × 50 cm
Saara Vallineva, Trash Plants, 2012.
Grocery net bags, iron wire
Photograph by Brittany Mahood.
www.saaravallineva.blogspot.fi
Publisher: Rajataide ry, Tampere, 2012
Editorial work: Karoliina Paappa
Essay: Pelin Tan
Writers, Rajataide ry : Johanna Havimäki, Miina Hujala,
Jussi Koitela, Arttu Merimaa, Karoliina Paappa
English corrections: Kaisa Luukkonen
Graphic design: Marion Robinson
Paper: Edixion offset 140 g, Cover: Edixion offset 300 g
Printed by: Aldus Ltd., Lahti, 2012
This publication has generously been supported by:
Arts Council of Finland
FRAME Foundation
Pelin Tan is an academic, writer, and curator
based in Istanbul involved in research-based
artistic and architectural projects that focus
on urban conflict and territorial politics, gift
economy, the condition of labour, and mixed
methods in research.
She was a research / curatorial resident at
IASPIS (Stockholm) and GeoAir (Tbilisi) and
has worked as a guest curator at Witte de With
(Rotterdam). Tan has curated Knut Asdam and
Radical Aesthetics at DEPO (Istanbul), Innocent
Act, and StudyoKAHEM, an architectural research
project at the 10th Istanbul Biennial. She was
also a co-curator of 1st Istanbul Design Biennale.
After receiving her PhD in Art History,
Tan worked on her postdoc on the methodology
of artistic research with Ute Meta Bauer at the
MIT Program in Art, Culture and Technology.
She has contributed to and edited numerous
publications and is Editor of Muhtelif magazine
and Advisory Editor of ArtMargin (MIT Press)
and NOON, the Journal of Contemporary Art
and Visual Culture of the Gwangju Biennial
Foundation. She is currently an Assistant
Professor in the New Media department
at Kadir Has University in Istanbul, and The
Japan Foundation Fellow, researching artist
run practices in Japan.