Global Protests Through Art - collaboration, co-creation, interconnectedness

by Işıl Eğrikavuk, Missy Weimer (Editor), Ayşe Tuzlak (Editor)

How does a PhD thesis written by an artist look like? How is it presented and read? How do artists contribute to academic literature by conducting scientific research, yet not without giving up their artistic input? This book is about bringing the worlds of artistic and academic endeavours together.

Işıl Eğrikavuk’s book, which is a reworked rendition of her 2021 PhD thesis, was sparked by the Gezi Protests that started in Istanbul in 2013 and spread in many different cities. It points to certain intersections between the protests and her ongoing research of community arts through an artistic research project. The book offers the reader to look into the intersections between the Gezi protests and community arts (socially engaged, dialogue-based art practices) as well as a hands-on collaborative arts project, which Eğrikavuk realized by working with six different arts and ecology collectives from Turkey.

108 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2024

Reviews

[Jan Vržina]

I've read good academic works and bad ones, but this is the first time I've read some theory that's so bad it's good. Not in the sense that the underlying thesis or methodology make a full circle into actually being true – most of what's written here wouldn't pass as an assignment in my master's programme, let alone an actual PhD – but in the sense that once you start reading between the lines and the full extent of the failure that is this thesis comes to light, it becomes hilarious.

Let's start with the merits, that is,why I didn't rate this 1 star: it's informative about the Turkish social and political order, there are a few truly interesting and inspiring connections the author makes in their theoretical framework, it documents some fun though not too out of the ordinary, artworks. That's about it.

The rest of the book reads like an art student trying to do philosophy or sociology, which it effectively is. So many references are Wikipedia articles; the argumentation doesn't build towards anything but instead lays out quotes it tries to unconvincingly connect; the entire thing is very forcefully wrapped up... "Key findings" such as "artist collectives also enjoy hanging out" are mind-boggling; they read like a parody of actual humanities research. The methodology section makes a decent point in saying academia needs to open up to different epistemologies and methods of inquiry, then falls face first over that point since it tries proving it by laying out a few art pieces and saying, "This can mean this; this can mean that." Like, seriously, there are way better art historical analyses that actually expand human knowledge; just because you are in part the author of the exhibition you are analysing does not make it novel, nor does it expand upon academic epistemology. In its essence, this book is an exhibition monography, and not even that good of an exhibition at that, that styles itself to be a serious theoretical work, and in this it fails on both fronts. The "research conclusions" speak for themselves. The author obviously wanted to get to the results that working with artistic collectives in this "Gezi" way can open them to participatory practices and strengthen their identity, blah blah, but even if we forget about the fact that only 6 groups were involved, the results show only 3 consolidated their identity through the exhibition and 4 said the "exhibition helped them open up". Am I crazy?? These results mean nothing, it's just a documentation of an art project, there's no rigour here, no way to apply it to anything, and even the points the author is desperately trying to make are absolutely obvious, so it doesn't even have an anecdotal quality.

My favourite parts of the book are the political ones, because they go waaaay off the rails. Early on, the author equates fascism and actually existing socialism which is always a red flag, because whatever you think about AES, equating to fascism to it is just disingenuous and plainly wrong, but I brushed it off, thinking the author might just be an anarchist that hasn't read a lot of political theory. Turns out I was wrong, and the entirety of the author's political and social programme is vibe-based, like, "Let's create art and be good to each other." I mean, that's great and all, we need people like that, but to criticise actual material resistance, as the author does near the end, because, literally, the vibes are off and people are angry, is wild. The image of the resistance the artist wants is precisely the image the ruling class wants – a toothless, hipster protestor who will go demonstrate but will fail to do anything to actually materially challenge capital. The author does remark she thinks protests should draw in people from all walks of life, but it is apparent through their discourse there are lines they think the people shouldn't cross, and these are exactly the liberal lines that stop us from actually making a positive change (no talks of strikes or organizing, just be kind and open) In that sense, Eĝrikacuk didn't lie, she is mostly interested in "performativity".

I thought long and hard about writing this review since the author seems like a nice person that means well, but the sociological analysis in a book called "Global protests through art" being so weak and so in line with ruling class interests irked me the wrong way. I wish all the best to Eĝrikacuk and hope to one day see their art, but do hope they stay away from subjects like this