Any exhibition is based on mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. By virtue of that fact alone, exhibitions practice a particular kind of politics, as the preface to the first issue of TZK on the topic, “Ausstellungspolitik” (1996), emphasizes. The questions of which artistic positions are shown and what that visibility produces are discussed in many of the reviews that TZK publishes. Our authors often also analyze the ways in which the visual regimes manifested within the exhibition space are connected to the realities of postcolonial, patriarchal societies. However, the ­negotiations that take place in preparation for a specific ­exhibition project typically remain opaque and are rarely addressed. Yet it is in these exchanges that consensus on artistic-political stances is reached and the balance of power among artists, institution staff, and financial backers, through which they assert themselves, is determined (Eric Golo Stone).

With this second TZK issue on the theme of “Exhibition Politics,” we hope to shine a spotlight on these processes of negotiation and the ­antagonistic interests that are currently colliding in the world of exhibition-making. A particular focus is on public institutions, which are targeted by austerity programs and right-wing culture-war tactics alike, with the attendant synergistic ­effects. These spaces also find themselves continuously challenged by a left-wing critique of power. ­Exhibiting institutions respond to the ­difficulties of navigating this intensifying situation with symbolic and realpolitik measures, sometimes merely paying lip service, sometimes taking concrete action. Such a discrepancy between political aspirations and structural conditions is of course not new in the art world; in some ways, it is a constitutive feature. Still, the question remains: How far can ­ideological convictions be ­carried? How will exhibition politics change when many venues’ coffers are drained, when ­Germany’s designated ­Commissioner of the ­Federal ­Government for Culture and the Media trots out racist culture-war tropes, or when Donald Trump’s autocratic policies brutally curtail ­cultural ­participation, while leftist cultural workers in both countries are failing to remain in dialogue irrespective of their often different responses to the violence in Israel-Palestine and are thus incapable of impactful action?

Owing to the prevailing funding models in the US, where exhibiting institutions mainly rely on private donors, the direct influence that Trump can exert over these institutions may be more limited than it would be in countries where culture is primarily supported by the public purse. Still, he exercises whatever power he has to the fullest (Nikki Columbus), doubling down on a rhetoric of historical ­revisionism that, in educational policy, has already been enshrined in law with the ­passage of bans on critical race theory in many US states (Fredi Fischli and Niels Olsen). When institutions are subject to such government-imposed ­restrictions, they can fight them in court ­wherever the restrictions cross into illegality. When artistic freedom is limited in more implicit ways, however, the problem becomes much harder to litigate.

At least since the Bundestag’s adoption of a resolution on BDS in 2019, and especially since the debate over the 2022 Documenta, the art world has been wrestling with the question of how to express solidarity with Palestinians and articulate criticism of the Israeli government, parts of which are right-wing extremist, within its institutions. Since October 7, 2023, an agreement on how to engage with aspects of this conflict in the exhibition space has been ­virtually impossible to achieve. From an institutional perspective, the dominant concern is any unintentional association with antisemitic positions; invited artists worry that they might be censored for their political views or have a “one-sidedness” ascribed to their work. Although institutions ­continue to see themselves as spaces of a democratic and thus at times vigorous culture of debate, many steer clear of this particular issue (­Martina Genetti with Rabbya Naseer and with Stella ­Rollig). Finding themselves under ­pressure from various sides, exhibiting institutions ­sidestep the challenge by relegating discourses with high potential for conflict into small and semi-­public spaces (Carsten Probst).

As these various developments illustrate: Exhibition politics must be rethought. To this end, the precariousness of the institution needs to be understood as a fundamental effect of the capitalist system in which it operates. That effect extends to external parties that approach the exhibiting institutions with their critique. But the growing economic vulnerability and internal discord of critical voices make it harder for them to articulate their concerns even as it underscores the urgent need for their critique. Answers to the question of what pervasive structural changes would need to look like can be found, on the one hand, outside the epistemological framework of the institution (Manuel Borja-Villel and Marcelo Rezende). On the other hand, institutionally organized cultural labor continues to facilitate representation in the best sense of the word by making visible historic and contemporary forms of discrimination (Burcu Dogramaci with Timea Junghaus). Rejection and recognition of ­exhibition structures need not be incompatible with each other: One can stay true to political ­ideals without adopting an absolute attitude vis-à-vis the institution, as is illustrated by artistic practices that act independently relative to existing criteria and defy expectations or meet them differently. Moreover, such experimental approaches offer guidance to curatorial practices (Antonia Kölbl and Felix Vogel with Zasha Colah, Ghislaine Leung, and Eric Golo Stone). With the roles that the art world provides, be it in the context of exhibitions or in this magazine, compliance and refusal are, similarly, not the only available options: One can stage them prismatically, or subject them to strategic reinterpretation (Juan Francisco Vera with Sára Dorottya Röth).

For the contributions to this issue, it was especially important to us to include pieces of cultural journalism. Three case studies from Oslo, Tbilisi, and Vienna to be published online starting in June, in conjunction with the printed issue, will explore how regional cultural policy and social contexts impact the abovementioned political negotiations around as well as inside various exhibition spaces. We would like to thank all contributors for their surprising, challenging, and honest responses to our invitations, which are published in the following pages, and for the trusting collaborative processes that took place across differences. Our special gratitude goes to Fredi Fischli, Niels Olsen, and Felix Vogel, who offered vital advice in the planning of this issue.

Leonie Huber, Antonia Kölbl, and Anna Sinofzik

Translation: Gerrit Jackson