DENIS MAKSIMOV

Paper, stone, scissors: from dialectical simulacra to reification of subjectivity

lecture-performance / lecture: Denis Maksimov / performance “Bird, stone, water” : Adrijana Gvozdenovic, costumes by Aurora Zachayuss / FAAP residency, open studio day, April 2016, Sao Paulo

The original ideas and dialectical method of thinking in politics, culture and social existence remains central in the societies. Some of them lived through political experiments, which we aimed on the materialization of the idea of the society a posteriori the period of class struggle. Communist and socialist regimes of the Eastern Europe possess bitter memory of failed attempts to imagine the society after overcoming the dialectics of master and slave. The scattered societies of former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are prime examples of this kind of failure. South America hasn’t experienced a bitter taste of false hopes for conceptual alternative to meta-ideology of market capitalism and institutionalized political and material inequality. The ideas and potentiality of fundamental change, disruption and tectonic shift from the currents of ‘everlasting present’ within the paradigm of liberal democracy and market capitalism are therefore strong.

In both cases meta-ideology of contemporary capitalistic form of structuring the society politically, economically and culturally are prevailing.

Representational democracy holds the status of the ideal and fair political order for redistribution of power.

Global market capitalism defines individual values, private property and material resources distribution, makes rich richer and thanks to technological progress soon almost immortal, while poor are increasing in proportional number.

Cultural industry embeds legitimacy of the order by creating complex intertwined multiplicity of simulacra for satisfaction of needs and demands for fairer alternative; turning as well art into the instrument of delusion and alienation.

All three are creepily widening the gap of inequality therefore continuously fertilizing the soil of potential for paradigmatic collapse of legitimacy of the whole system. It holds on fear of unknown complexity: if the system is indeed to collapse momentarily, the logical assumption of the consequences is to presume our return into the new Dark Ages. This institutionalized by cultural industry fear is increasing survivability of rotten, obviously unfair and ineffective system of operation of political, economic and cultural production.

The current meta-ideological order strive to mask itself as the final and the eternally better model of societal organization and above-mentioned weight of political history aids it in this task of presenting itself to increasing frustrated members of the society. Demystification of its status therefore is an urgent task for activation of the discussion about reification of fairer alternative. Instead of self-supporting structure of imaginary dialectics of contemporary capitalism, where representational democracy, global neoliberal capitalism and cultural industry work hand-in-hand, realization of all of them in group as one ‘thesis’ should trigger and accelerate formation of anti-thesis, that might provide the necessary synthesis for fairer form of the future. That is the loud moment that is necessary for attempting to escape the looping circles of dialectical thinking.

I are, (s)he am, they is.  

The gaze of the Other is always evil, as it inexplicably defines the subject of observation and therefore limits the freedom of our self-identification. Reification of subjectivity in social, political and cultural life means escaping from the position of searching finite dictations of meanings from the position of power. Fluidity and dynamics of self and other identification neutralizes possibility to mask individual desire to dominate behind public interests.

How do we get there? Starting from abandoning the language of ‘normal’ in relation to social life, ‘absolute’ in relation to political order and ‘superior’ in addressing the culture is a major step. Naming is the ultimate power: freeing the discourse from the act of ultimate definition conceptually is an example of how critical theory looks like in action. There is nothing beyond language: as soon as it defined by closed structures, dialectical forms such as man/woman, democracy/dictatorship, high culture/barbarity, which construct the backbone of how the mapping of visible is constructed, the reification of post-dialectical thinking is blocked.

the world as it’s seen by (the EU): a contextualisation of geopolitics from the certain perspective

lecture performance & installation was presented by Denis Maksimov in December 2015 in Marres House for Contemporary Culture (Maastricht, NL) and in February 2016 in de Brakke Grond Cultural Center (Amsterdam, NL)

The end of the Second World War (WWII) signified the beginning of the new era for the Europe and the world. Just over 60 years ago the continent was laying in ruins - material, ideological and moral. Our grandparents worked hard to rebuild the beauty of our cities. It was the age of profound reflection and outstanding, unprecedented changes in our societies. Slowly and steadily, we consciously decided to abandon the ‘realpolitik’ and nationalism in favour of multiculturalism and integration.

It is not easy path in the geopolitical environment. Yalta agreements on the post-War world order were designed by the winners with the United Nations as the mediating institution in it’s centre. We hoped it will work much better than in did in the end. The Cold War turned Europe into ideological chessboard, the battlefield of capitalism and socialism. It’s hard to assess how much resources were wasted in this seemingly endless battle.

The collapse of the Soviet Union economic model brought us into the current age of the ultra-capitalism. The supremacy of the United States over the economic and cultural discourse brought us consumer-driven materialism, that we have never wanted to absolutise. But as Europe was rebuilt with American credits, we had no choice. Since then we have been trying to balance the cultural supremacy of Hollywood and financial domination of the Wall Street, offer alternatives for more balanced model of the global political order. We recognise: we were not that successful so far. Our decision was to lead by example: to demonstrate to the whole world, that economically driven process of comprehensive integration between so many and so different cultures, speaking dozens of languages countries is not only possible, but demonstrates the way forward. Not only for Europe - for the humanity, which faced difficult task of co-habitation. We have launched the most successful and outstanding project of multidimensional integration that humanity had ever seen: the European Union. We placed the principles of universalism and humanism in it’s core. So many wished we would fail, both internally and externally. So many still actively scheme and plot against our success, try to ridicule our achievements. They want us to feel alienated, ostracised and totally alone - but we are certain that our strategy of leading by example will crash all these doubts about us in light of our outstanding achievements, that first and foremost are driven by humane curiosity and desire to unveil our potential for self-realisation.

After the lessons of the the WWII, we pushed for diplomatic, conciliatory approach in every matter that requires collective decision. We have been called and insulted as ‘soft boners’, ’indecisive cowards’ (not only by ill- wishers, but by those who consider us their partners as well) for our conviction against any sort of aggression, that might have the slightest possibility of sparkling conflict. Maybe we are too slow, but we prefer to be rather accurate and avoid making mistakes with possibility of terrible consequences. We had survived through 1914-1918 and 1941-1945, we know what eagle-headedness and testosterone-driven emotions can cost to a society. 

We haven’t forgotten our history and faults. We fully recognise our colonial history, we feel ashamed for it and as anyone who did something nasty in the past naturally try to avoid talking too much about the subject. Don’t judge us too hard for this: we don’t avoid the subject, but you surely can imagine yourself the complexity of the issue in our memory. It is widely researched, analysed and discussed in our societies at all the levels: from popular media to academia. And it will be continued until we will come up with the certain plan of compensating the damage we did, as we have been trying with the humanitarian and development aid. 

It is not easy for us internally as well. We pay very high price for sticking to the core values of the Enlightenment and prepared to sacrifice even more if it’s needed. The barbarianism is not objectified or impersonated by someone specific - it actually exists in every one of us. ‘Jihad’ in Islam, despite what interpretation you might hear from Marine le Pen or Geert Wilders and similar individuals (who are entitled for their own opinion, but not for their own facts), doesn’t mean desire to kill ‘non-believers’. ‘Jihad’ means fighting your own demons and cleansing your mind and soul from disastrous darkness. This is something we might as well learn from the new cultures, that we are happy to accommodate in the extended family of based on the post-nationalist, multicultural values. 

We might end up being martyrs of the civilisational decay, like the late Rome or the Ancient Greece just before the Roman conquest. We still need to figure out what do with the crises of the concept of inheritance and private property, as inequality will only rise if we won’t do something about it on the very fundamental level. We still hope that Hegel wasn’t absolutely right about history always repeating itself in vicious circles. We are committed to do anything in our power to avoid the repetition of horrific mistakes (that we have ourselves made repeatedly before) by us and all the other actors on the geopolitical field.

the world as it’s seen by (Russia): a contextualisation of geopolitics from the certain perspective

lecture performance & installation was presented by Denis Maksimov in December 2015 in Marres House for Contemporary Culture (Maastricht, NL) and in February 2016 in de Brakke Grond Cultural Center (Amsterdam, NL)

The Soviet Union collapsed a quarter of a century ago. It marked the biggest geopolitical catastrophe in history: the balance of powers, that was driving progress ahead, was demolished. Since then we live in the world where only one, ultra-capitalistic superpower is dictating the way we consume food, entertainment, information, and everything else. The plurality of choice, which was assured before by the ideological dichotomy between socialism and capitalism, disappeared. This was the biggest geopolitical and ideological catastrophe of the 20 century and the consequences are still to manifest themselves in the upcoming horrors of uncertainly, instability and chaos of international relations.

We tried to integrate into this new reality. We accepted our defeat in the Cold War. We wholeheartedly offered cooperation - converted our political system into West-oriented democracy, allowed capitalism to take over the planned economy, welcomed Western-led international community to enjoy the riches of Russia.

What did we get back?

Neo-colonialist political and economic notations. Expanding NATO, despite your promises to keep it within the same borders. Selfish support of local corruption practices for the sake of short-term revenues by your ‘transnational’ corporations. Instead of helping us to grow new generation of responsible leaders, you have contributed and nurtured oligarchs and cronies, with whom you enjoy nowadays making selfies at couture shows, ‘Art Basel’s and Biennales.

Russia assumed on it’s shoulders sovereign debt of the whole Soviet Union, for the infrastructure that was built in all the corners of the vast territory during more than half a century. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine and other newly established ‘nations’ left the Union ‘clean’ of financial obligations and debts because of it. They got their ‘golden tickets’ out, while Russia assumed all the blame and responsibility for economic mismanagement of the Union, which was a common enterprise.

We were promised that NATO will slowly transform into something else than instrument of providing nationalistic, missionary, neo-colonial agenda of the United States. That it will become international organisation focused on peace keeping. Instead of it, already for 20 years we see construction of new military bases around our borders and on the territory of former parts of the Soviet Union and Russian Empire. Instead of peace-keeping, we perceive walling us off. It all happens quietly, with your firm European smile - the same ‘good manners’ were used by you during the centuries of slavery and colonisation of the other parts of our planet. Your snobbism makes us sick. We are shamed by the West for our model of democracy. But think for a second - does your Western model of democracy, as universal as you think about it, works anywhere, even in your hemisphere? Africa is a complete mess precisely because you brought there institutions that are alien to everything that existed there before. France supported dictators in Gabon, Belgium murdered Patrice Lumumba, the UK systemically messed up the Middle East turning it into the geopolitical hellhole. The list is very, very long. 

Your own youths are sick of inequality in capital and power redistribution. They are sick of your usurping elites, hopelessness for the future and postmodern disorientation in moral and ideological values. Our goal is not to replicate your ‘democracy’, but to build solid infrastructure of survival and further development of our own civilisation, not a cheap copy of your failed project. 

We were cornered by you and left with no choice but to play the card of ‘national revival’, to build retrograde walls, because the partnership game you played with us appeared no more than a trick of coloniser, analogy of ‘beads’ provided to indigenous population for lands in America and Africa for their rich lands. And this is your ‘thank you’ for tens of millions of lives we’ve sacrificed to stop advancement of Napoleon and later Hitler? 

Take the issue of the war in Ukraine. It was very corrupt place from the beginning: political infrastructure there is just rotten from the bottom to the very top. Instead of being focused on how to help it to develop and climb out of the systemic crisis, you are focused on taking it out of the ‘Russian sphere of influence’. For years, you actively supported antagonisation of the Ukrainian society towards Russia. When we offered three-partial integration of the economies of Russia, Ukraine and the EU - it was you who declined three-party negotiations prospects, saying that you will deal with each of the partners ‘individually’, therefore disrespecting decades of economic ties that were built between Russia and Ukraine at the times when we shared the same borders. 

You say it’s we are who are reviving the geopolitics and act in the methods of 19th century ‘realpolitik’? But ask yourself, who was muddling cultural ties between Russia and it’s immediate neighbours, which we share with centuries long common history? If you were so keen on and open for cooperation with Russia in the first place, what made you so motivated to develop strategy of weakening strategic positioning of Russia in the Eurasian region? 

Your irresponsible, unwise and selfish actions are the reason why we now look at Asia with a glimpse of hope of building constructive relations, based on mutual interests, benefit and honesty. 

You perfectly know, that like in cosmology there is a dichotomy between Universe and Multiverse, in politics, which is to some extent is cosmology of human mind, also can be seen from multidimensional perspective. Look at ‘democratic’ India and complete devastating mess in there. If you allow Burma’s voters now to exercise their right to freely vote about the rights of Muslim minority, they will massacre all of them. Singapore wouldn’t have been that success story if it followed your ‘democratic patterns’. You own societies are falling into the orbit of almost fascist political groups - Marine le Pen in France, Donald Trump in the United States, and that’s only the beginning. Your short-term oriented, materialistic ’ochlocracy’ is still to unveil all the devastating consequences for your society. Maybe there is still time to re-evaluate your short-sighted, universalist, colonial approach to the world? Maybe you will finally understand, that we don’t live anymore in the world of totalitarian monopoly of your picture of the world and finally will demonstrate some respect to diversity of opinions? 

We don’t fundamentally argue against your concept of the Enlightenment, but we ask for moderation and respect of other cultures. Your snobbish, non- constructive pretence drives our society towards ultra-conservatism as the only alternative, that is strong enough to battle your creepy monopoly over cultural discourse. Do you really think we enjoy it ourselves? 

We still call you ‘partners’. We are open for dialogue. We are not part of the barbaric tribes that undermine ‘the light’ you bring in the world, as you media actively depicts us. We understand, that cooperation (even if not already desirable), is inevitable and vital for both of us in the light of current political changes. But if you continue to act like your position and understanding of the world around us is the only one possible interpretation of reality, we are afraid our orbits will continue to dangerously drift away.

Recontextualisation is upcycling

a guided tour through the political peculiarities of the architectural memory by Denis Maksimov - presented at Marres Currents #3 in Maastricht in 2015

The architecture is the most political form of artistic manifestation. The architect’s function is comparable to the one that is assigned to deities in religion: masterminding the experience of a space. Enormous Gothic cathedrals had communicated the power of the divine, while lavish royal estates and palaces highlighted the invisible, but uncrossable line between commoner and aristocrat. In the epoch of modernism, advancement of industrial revolution and liberal capitalism, the proportion of utilitarianism in design and architecture suppressed aesthetic concerns. Le Corbusier introduced to the world the idea of clean-slate practicality in response to the process of democratisation and sharp increase in demand for the spaces. The political role of architecture was meant to be forgotten, just like the representational role in painting was to be abandoned in the eyes of Kasimir Malevich in radical Russian Suprematism. However the strategy of negation, and that is true for both art and architecture, created new ideology rather than anti-ideology. Herostratus burned the Temple of Artemis in search for eternal fame, and prohibition of mentioning his deed and name immortalised his destructive role even without major efforts from media - just like Islamic State fighters attacks of Palmyra.

Ideology of ever-penetrating utilitarianism, the totalitarian control of ‘logos’ (rationalism) over ‘pathos’ (intuition), makes such acts incomprehensible for the public consciousness. Moreover, arrival of modernism twisted time-space perception to the contemporary phenomenon of ‘ever-lasting present’ - the buildings in architecture, as they are constructed for particular function, automatically presupposed to serve this function eternally ‘as of now’, unconsciously presuming their relevance in the period when history as the process of changing epochs has finished.

The dichotomy between the potential that architecture possesses and out-timed practical relevance is evident in the building you find yourself inside at the moment, former Opel garage, that has been ambitiously re-appropriated as ‘Marres aan de Maas’.

Memory is a peculiar thing. Conversion of the former bastion of advancing culture of ever-penetrating consumer capitalism into the institution of contemporary art signifies an important process of transition from modernist society to the next formation of common living. Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, which still defines the way we approach the overall majority of the aspects of our existence, is incredibly strong. It is an example of meta-ideology, which frames thinking on the level of unconsciousness - the hardest level to reach for any educator. Notions of ‘work’, ‘product’, ‘service’ and so on define the very matrix of our ’reality’.

So here comes contemporary, post-conceptual art. Impractical, hard to grasp, annoying curious. ‘The art market’, ‘art impact’ and expanded field are outlining the space of employment of aesthetics as the tool for achieving specific goals of design. The second half of 20 century is the epoch of advancing ultra-capitalism, where everything had become a ‘product’ of ‘labour’ - even the life itself, as it was brilliantly demonstrated by Michel Foucault.

But in our time, we might be heading towards the world where the very notion of ‘work’ might pass into the history. The concept of unconditional income has the potential to change the way we approach the essence of what does it mean to be human in fundamental sense of the word.
Following this, ‘the art world’ won’t be seen anymore in the light of utilitarianism. Art as a tool of education and emancipation in left-oriented thinking or as mere aesthetic design for packaging of the consumer products both represent the mode of rapprochement of the artistic activity as a specific tool within utilitarian model of society as a machine. But deep thinking about art as a pure language of culture is missing in public debates.

The robotic labour, artificial intelligence and automatisation of utilitarian functions can bring two outcomes.
The first option is a total war caused by increasing gap of inequality between rich (who will be getting even richer) and poor (who will become more numerous and poorer), in case the current, ultra- capitalist model of inheritance and succession would not be challenged by structural reformation.

The second option is ‘recontextualisation’ of utilitarianism through artistic activity and triggering the liberation of artistic geniuses in every one of us. Which one is to choose - depends on the choices we make as political animals. Intuition, fantasy and pathos is something machine cannot imitate. Systematisation and automatisation of humanism leads to the cornered and horrific dangers of approaching intuitive ‘pathos’ of human nature as an animalistic sickness.

As you see in case of Marres aan de Maas, this monument to the process of ‘upcycling’, modernisation and re-appropriation of the utilitarian architecture, there is no need to destroy the old world in order to build the new one. Contemporary post-conceptual art can play the role of interlocutor, Charon, who has capacity to peacefully guide crossing the waters of poisonous postmodern Styx. The waters of multiple crises, desperation and sense of lostness in the world of multiple realities, where one is claiming not only the opinion, but the facts as well. Demystification of political claims is hard to achieve in the flux of postmodern manipulations with the media - however attention to culture as an ultimate centrepiece of constituting ‘human’ have potential to provide an alternative.

Strategies of ‘upcycling’ and ‘recontextualisation’ by the means of artistic interventions are meant to reduce the tension of ‘uselessness’, assigned to history and anything that does not fit into closed systemic views, which are dictated by the narrative of contemporary utilitarianism. The space, that once was selling cars, is currently offering possibilities for (self)reflection and thinking beyond the certain borders of design. The complexity of it’s memory and initial utilitarian function are not meant to be forgotten. It should be analysed on the level of it’s unconscious formation - to rethink ideology, one need to look into the elements of it’s initial constitution: the architecture and functionality of public spaces being the perfect example.

If the Opel garage can be reimagined into the ‘museum at the sea’, why couldn’t the nation state be ‘upcycled’ into the form of common living, that will not have egocentric, inevitably ‘game-over-winner- takes-it-all’ resulting nature?

Diminishing marginal utility and arts

Maurizio Cattelan, “All” (2011), courtesy of the Guggenheim Museum 

‘Austerity’ in European governance has become as popular and exposed meme as ‘selfie’ in popular use.

In the end of the last year new Belgian government announced new budget cuts, of which the arts  and education turned out to be one of the main victims. Culture and education are even more pushed into the field of so-called ‘creative economy’ and ‘creative entrepreneurship’. Cutting these concept down to the baseline, it’s about marketing and commoditisation of everything as much as possible in order to make it self-sufficient and self-supplied. The trend is suggesting to get rid off ‘art for art’s sake’ and rather focus on ‘art as design’.

The consequences of such approach could turn out to be dreadful. Creativity, when it is ‘directed’ out of practical concerns, hardly has chances of flourishing - on the contrary, it creates parasitism and domination of those, who abuse the hierarchies.

On the other hand, it’s pretty clear that the economic situation and scarcity of resources increases pressure and dictates necessity for such actions from the public budget. Cultural funds distribution is rarely praised.

Is it possible to meet these two opposing dimensions somewhere? Be economical, assess impact and at the same time provide the freedom of creativity and artistic innovation with necessary resources, omitting overcomplicating bureaucracy, corruption, nepotism and systemically ill hierarchies?

We believe there is a middle way and it requires participation of all sectors of the society. Government and public sector shouldn’t be held solemnly responsible for artistic innovation. This ‘socialistic’ view on the cultural sector is out of touch with the reality we are living in now.

Mike Kelley, “Mobile Homestead” (2011), courtesy of the artist 

Jeremy Bentham widely elaborated idea of diminishing marginal utility (which was introduced by mathematician Daniel Bernoulli before him) in his comprehensive concept of classical utilitarianism. A short reminder of it’s essence - the more utility of some kind we get, the less we value it. It concerns ‘public goods’ as well, which for the sake of all have to be distributed by the state as it’s the only feasible institutions to do it beyond selfishness of the individual. But is it really applicable to art in the same way as it’s applicable to military, defence, water cleansing, etc.? Can we say that art is the only one ‘product’ of human activity, that isn’t utilitarian per se?

Our answer is definite ‘yes’. Art is the dimension, that makes us human and provides us with the essence of the difference between ‘existing’ and ‘living’. You can certainly ‘exist’ with good provision of water, electricity, defence and other ‘common utilities’. But when can you say you ‘live’ a full, exciting and rich life? ‘To live is the rarest thing in the world, most people exist - that’s all’ - said Oscar Wilde in the end of 19 century.

Art provides democratic and accessible to everyone platform for reflection, motivation, self-development, inspiration, innovation and creativity - all that we need for moving forward. Jacques Derrida famously spoke about two types of future - ‘planned future’ and ‘real future’. Our calendar of next week meetings and events, expectable key performance indicators in the business, strategic plans with deliverables in policy management is ‘planned future’ - something we design. But there is another type of future - unknown to our plans and unrelated to them. ‘Design’ as the manner of resolving specific problems deals with ‘planned future’, while ‘art’ - with the ‘real’ one, opening more unknown doors of opportunities for innovation, leaps forward in the development of our society. It’s vital to keep it flourishing, without ‘art’ as such society looks more like a mummified body without ‘real future’.

Jon Rafman, “9 Eyes of Google Street View” (2009), courtesy of the artist

To weight all responsibility for artistic development on the shoulders of government is incorrect due to many reasons. First of all, we are all beneficiaries of art, but we rather treat is a something given to us by default. Secondly, many don’t realise potentiality of impact of art on their life if only the artistic production would be used by them in more comprehensive manner. Aesthetics inspire us, give us motivation, ideas, provide for for thought and enticing discussions in spaces. It’s not enough to have it only in spaces of public museums - it should surround us all in multiple environments.

Art in your office, for example, can make employees think of it from many more different perspectives than us a place where they have to spend time from 9 to 18 according to the contract. Art in the office (of course if selected and curated wisely) establish affinity of staff with the company values, connect them with the company as a team of like-minded people doing what they do for a bigger purpose as well.

It is just one example of engagement with arts from corporate perspective - there are so many more ways to boost team efficiency, connection of employees to the company values, finally speak of them not in the terms of dead ‘mission’ statement, that often is not even read by the staff.

Superflex, “Bankrupt Banks”, courtesy of the artists

This impact on companies, as well as similar benefits for institutions, organisations, from our perspective, is the answer on the question of how to proceed with support of art in current economic environment. Business has to step in - not with the charitable intentions - but think of investment in art from perspective of possible and accessible impact on their activities. ‘Art’ is not ‘decoration’ - it’s a unique societal product of human creativity, that hold immense potential. It’s time to unveil it to the fullest.

by Denis Maksimov and Harlan Levey (originally published in The Brussels Times Magazine, Dec-Jan 2015) 

Harlan Levey and Denis Maksimov are working together as a curatorial team to help companies, political institutions and expert organisations work out their strategy of activities via contemporary art, including visualisation of values, collecting and management of the collection. Harlan Levey Projects was selected as the only Belgian participate to the First Call curated category of Art Brussels 2014. He has consulted for the United Nations, The European Commission, and the City of Brussels as well as a number of corporate clients including Levi’s, MTV, and private collections in Europe and the United States.

Creating Shared Value: contemporary art, corporate culture and the future of Corporate Social Responsibility

Courtesy of Progressive Art Collection 

Michael Porter, the head of Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, recently discussed an updated version of CSR (corporate social responsibility) based on a ‘shared value’ - an approach to business strategy in the post-capitalism framework.

It’s an idea that tries to realign productivity and financial aims with civil contributions by creating common positions that will nourish the intersection between social value and fiscal performance. ‘Shared value’ is essential to any corporate mission statement, yet embedding it into change management strategies or highlighting its role in defining corporate culture, are not necessarily easy things to do in a convincing way. If done well however, illustrating and communicating your values both internally and externally may shift the perception of your endeavors from those of an enterprise to those of an institution while contributing to the development of your company culture. This is a transition that provides several competitive advantages. Not the least of which is that as company and industry landscapes change, the visualization of these shared values draws a line that provides legacy; stable ground for future growth and positive recognition. How can this be done?

For an increasing number of companies, the visualization of this transformation of ‘shared value’ and institutional identity is created through the collection and presentation of contemporary art. Art patronage, education and inclusion (in business strategy and branding) are the next phase of innovative CSR.

Courtesy of Bank of America collection 

The inclusion of art in the workplace is not a decorative gesture. It is not the same as buying some new plants. On the contrary, it can have several positive impacts and play an important role in your business. According to studies by BOSTI Associates (NY) and ICM (London), 73% of employees stated that art in the work place both motivated and inspired them. These studies also showed that art expresses success, combats stress, encourages creativity and diversity appreciation, while directly impacting not only the attitudes of employees, but also of visiting clients.

Art in the work place can encourage employees to think creatively. It can create conversations amongst them while actively constructing an image of corporate culture, values and ambitions. It can also create revenue and diversify the company portfolio. Though art acquisition can also provide great financial return, this is risky for market newcomers, and acquisition in this context should be seen as a cultural, as opposed to a financial, investment. It is no coincidence however, that banks like ING, UBS, The Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and others boast some of the largest and most prominent collections in the world. As Liz Christensen, curator for Deutsche Bank put it: “We’re not buying for investment, but we’re not buying for not investment.” In other words, they don’t think about resale value when acquiring a work, but do the diligence before spending money. Kristin Rogers of the Progressive Collection (one of the most interesting corporate art stories in the US) approaches her position from a slightly different angle, sayings that art is an investment in the people who work for the company: a catalyst for conversation and creative exchange.

courtesy of Microsoft art collection 

While Deutsche Bank and Progressive are amongst those who have built museum quality collections, smaller firms and NGO’s should not be afraid to begin with a smaller investment. Visualizing values and collecting outstanding works of contemporary art does not demand hundreds of thousands of euro in investment. It is important to find a strategy and define goals that achieve the aims, while respecting the means of your organization. When Brussels based lobby association Digital Europe sought to transform their offices, they were not thinking long term about a collection, but rather looking for a first range of works, which deal with individual empowerment – a core issue at the heart of the company’s mission and day-to-day activities.

To put it bluntly, involving a company in the contemporary art market adds sex appeal, and reflects broader social changes that see increasing museum attendance and interest in contemporary art over the last decade. It is a social obligation that provides more benefits than appear on the surface, in the same way a great work of art provides more information than you can receive the first time you encounter it.

by Denis Maksimov and Harlan Levey (originally published in The Brussels Times Magazine) 

Harlan Levey and Denis Maksimov are working together as a curatorial team to help companies, political institutions and expert organisations work out their strategy of activities via contemporary art, including visualisation of values, collecting and management of the collection. Harlan Levey Projects was selected as the only Belgian participate to the First Call curated category of Art Brussels 2014. He has consulted for the United Nations, The European Commission, and the City of Brussels as well as a number of corporate clients including Levi’s, MTV, and private collections in Europe and the United States.

Images: courtesy of Forbes,  Bank of America, Microsoft, Progressive Art Collection and UBS