Border Wall Aesthetics: Artworks in Border Spaces 9783839447772

Citation preview

Élisa Ganivet Border Wall Aesthetics

Image  | Volume 157

à mes parents et à ma fille à Alexandra à David

Élisa Ganivet (Dr. phil.), born 1982, is an art historian. Her research in aesthe­ tics explores the mechanisms of utopian practices and border concepts. Since 2003, she has organized exhibitions of modern and contemporary artists.

Élisa Ganivet

Border Wall Aesthetics Artworks in Border Spaces With a foreword by Élisabeth Vallet

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Na­ tionalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de © 2019 transcript Verlag, Bielefeld All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover layout: Kordula Röckenhaus, Bielefeld Cover illustration: Larissa Sansour, Bethlehem Bandolero, 2005 © Larissa San­ sour, Courtesy of the artist Translated by Diana Huet de Guerville Typeset by Mark-Sebastian Schneider, Bielefeld Printed by docupoint GmbH, Magdeburg Print-ISBN 978-3-8376-4777-8 PDF-ISBN 978-3-8394-4777-2 https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839447772

Content Preface  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7 Foreword  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11 Chapter 1: The history of border wall aesthetics  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19 1. Dogma....................................................................................... 19 2. Myth......................................................................................... 22 3. Defense..................................................................................... 28

PART 1: Aesthetics in the 20th century Chapter 2: The Berlin Wall  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 47 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

Geopolitical context...................................................................... 47 The 1961 solution.......................................................................... 51 Joseph Beuys as a landmark artist................................................... 58 Artistic context........................................................................... 61 4.1 Several differences.............................................................. 61 4.2 Ideology and power.............................................................. 62 Berlin Wall aesthetics................................................................... 65 5.1 Work on the infrastructure..................................................... 67 5.2 Playing with perceptions....................................................... 87 The Berlin Wall: metaphoric foundation?............................................ 99

PART 2: Aesthetics in the 21st century Chapter 3: The separation barrier between israel and palestine  � � � � � 105 1.

Geopolitical context..................................................................... 105

2. The 2002 Solution....................................................................... 110 3. Banksy as a landmark artist.......................................................... 115 4. Particular features of the territory.................................................. 122 4.1 Problem of the map............................................................. 122 4.2 Territorial fragmentation...................................................... 124 4.3 Omniscience of the wall........................................................ 126 5. Revealing the territory................................................................. 131 5.1 Journalism and representation.............................................. 131 5.2 Theatrics.......................................................................... 136 5.3 Embodiment of the territory.................................................. 139 6. Artistic engagement or pretext? .................................................... 150

Chapter 4: The secure border between Mexico and the United States  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 153 1. Geopolitical context..................................................................... 153 2. Solutions.................................................................................. 158 2.1 The 2006 border reinforcements ........................................... 158 2.2 Trumpian one-upmanship..................................................... 160 3. Frida Kahlo as a landmark artist..................................................... 163 4. An intractable trilogy................................................................... 165 4.1 Abusive labor practices........................................................ 166 4.2 Drug trafficking.................................................................. 168 4.3 Inexorable death................................................................. 171 5. Real and fantasized cartography.................................................... 174 5.1 Real object........................................................................ 175 5.2 Transcending the subject...................................................... 180 5.3 Chicana Transterritoriality.................................................... 185 6. Polysemy of the separation barrier?................................................ 196

Conclusion: Globalization? Beyond the walls � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 199 Bibliography  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 205 List of illustrations  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 235

Preface

When the Berlin wall came down, it seemed like the world had changed. Jubilant crowds danced at Brandenburg Gate, Germany was going to be reunited, and the world was emerging from the bleakness of the Cold War. The 90s began with a promise of lasting peace in a global village. The international community was promoting innovative values focused around new concepts, such as the right/duty to intervene, human security, the responsibility to protect, and the dividends of peace. The redefinition of international relations was meant to open an age of globalization in which States and sovereignty were to become obsolete, and borders irrelevant in a globalized world. But the 21st century foiled those dreams. September 11 sounded the death knell of those ambitions, locking States behind increasingly impervious shrines, and turning territories into sanctuaries. Borders are no longer meant to be f lexible and porous, but hard and aggressive. They are both sealed and pixelated, extending far from the demarcation line into the border zones and airports of other sovereign nations. Borders are fortified, increasingly fenced in, equipped with sharp barbed wire, watch paths, surveillance towers sensors, infrared cameras, and lighting systems. In this new global arrangement, the purpose of borders is no longer to channel f lows of people, but to block them. As a result, walls that were once erected to establish de facto boundaries, to freeze frontlines (as between North and South Korea, in Cyprus between the Turkish and Greek parts of the Island, or in India and Pakistan) have become rare. The purpose of “modern” walls is to prevent real or perceived threats: migration f lows, inbound terrorist groups, or drug and human trafficking. Border walls have become a way for States to act and react—almost a new form of international relations. As Élisa  Ganivet explains in this book, the wall “crystallizes an unease”, a

8

Border Wall Aesthetics

dyadic relationship marked by palpable anxiety. The wall has come to serve multiple purposes: in Saudi Arabia, to curtail the spread of the Islamic State; in Turkey, to prevent spillover from the Syrian rebellion; in the Baltic states and the Ukraine, to slow Russian imperialism; in Europe, to compensate for the failure of the Dublin convention. As a result, local issues that were previously considered low-intensity now fall under the purview of national security and are clearly sliding into the military domain, with armed forces increasingly patrolling borders despite the absence of conf lict. It is no coincidence that in the United States, veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars represent nearly 29% of Border Patrol agents thanks to a fastrack recruitment process. The same can be said about the deployment of troops to “guard” the US southern border in November 2018, when nothing indicated a security crisis. What was previously defined as simple border policing is increasingly considered national security and defense, led by military and “non-reconverted” military players. This shift applies not just to humans, but to infrastructure, which is also becoming militarized: border zones are increasingly fortified and high-tech, sites of experimentation in control, detention, and surveillance. And since these borders are more high-tech, they are also more and more expensive to build and maintain. This explains the prevalence of big security and defense consortiums in the global border market worth tens of billions of dollars. There is clearly a narrative shift linked to this change, ref lected in media such as Fox News, which refers to the border as a “third front” (after Iraq and Afghanistan), or the National Geographic Channel showing “border wars”. This vision of the border is correlated with increasing violence “that the concrete wall crystallizes”, as Élisa Ganivet words it. Accounts from the border (whether in the southern US, Morocco around Ceuta and Melilla, Greece, Hungary or Bulgaria) reveal that this violence is rooted in the creation of a space defined by arbitrary powers, derogatory law, or even lawlessness; it extends far beyond the borderline to include swaths of land of varying sizes on both sides of the wall. The violence at the border is also clearly the violence of the (walled) border, as the rapid spike in the number of deaths shows— either because migrants choose more dangerous paths (the sea, desert) or because border patrols use force. For example, the Hungarian parliament recently gave the military the right to shoot at migrants, and in 2018 the US

Preface

president suggested that military forces deployed at the southern border could shoot at rock throwers. Although the border wall is meant to restore state sovereignty over a territory, it redefines the border’s traditional meaning as an interface between two worlds. The consequence is quite striking: erecting a wall increases the insecurity of those who interact with it—whether they are crossing the line or living nearby. On the one hand, walls create bottlenecks that increase the time required for border crossings, reducing the f luidity of legal trade and often triggering the downfall of border cities due to higher unemployment rates, sluggish economies, and increased criminality. On the other hand, since walls cannot prevent these f lows, they simply divert them. Migrants resort to using smugglers, who may charge the exorbitant price of a first class ticket for the same journey. The most obvious counterproductive impact of these walls is therefore to boost the underground economy and organized crime, making border crossings even harder to control. The spread of the “walled solution” is thus paradoxical, especially since walls are not here to stay: they always end up falling, either physically or symbolically. And fortifying the border does not guarantee its impermeability, far from it. Why build walls, then? Because, as Wendy Brown (2014, p.73) puts it “the wall is a blank screen upon which people project their anxieties over the erosion of state sovereignty”: while globalization can’t be reined in nationally, politicians find it easier to offer a ready-to-build solution. Even though it inevitably drains the country’s finances, it shows the government is taking action, a vote-seeking strategy that can prove very effective in the short term. As Élisa Ganivet rightly states, “the wall tends to attract a great deal of media attention. It is the subject of fantasies […].”And current events bolster her claim. President Trump’s dramatization of the American border during the 2018 electoral cycle, and his theatrics around the borderline during budget negotiations in early 2019 are perfect example of this. In this work, Élisa Ganivet delves into the aesthetics of the wall and its “archaic materiality” that contrasts sharply with the very idea of our postmodern and high-tech world. By examining the works of Joseph Beuys in Berlin, Banksy along the separation barrier between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and Frida Kahlo on the Mexican-American border, she

9

10

Border Wall Aesthetics

depicts the tension between the hypermobility of a globalized world and the immobility sought by wall builders. She shows how a border wall stimulates artistic creation and nourishes aesthetic ref lection when artists play with the mobilities of this immobility by subverting it, whether they instrumentalize or immortalize the wall. She explains that “while mapping is originally a military tool, art can attempt to transcend it” and plays with the representations of space to reach beyond it. In the long term, walls are nothing but a temporary solution masking striking economic differences that have often triggered the instability that motivated their construction. In that sense, border walls are nothing but a vain response to unruly globalization and, according to Élisa Ganivet, “a type of outlet that pushes the schism of globalization into a zone that violates the universal values of human rights and dignity.” Élisa Ganivet understood the phenomenon way before the European Union started erecting walls, even before the southern border of the United States became the locus of tragic electoral and political theater. This “omniscient” and “mobile” border, which sometimes moves with us, inside us almost, is no longer located just on the demarcation line. The wall also reveals the impermeability of the border, it they is designed to address its very porosity. However, the border is not necessarily meant to be impervious. The wall, she writes, “is a symbol,” and in its founding relationship to globalization, it is the “new opium of the people”. In that sense, the border wall shrouds the lack of international commitment to solving problems whose roots sometimes lie well beyond borders and national reach. Even worse, border walls wound, disfigure, and denature the ecosystems they scar and dramatically affect those who attempt to cross it. Yet paradoxically, it is through aesthetics that border walls can be brought back to their fundamental nature, that of an ephemeral artifact. Élisabeth Vallet Associate Professor in the Geography Department Director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies – Raoul-Dandurand Chair Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Foreword

The relationship between arts and geopolitics is similar to the better-known relationship between art and politics. This relationship can be described in broad strokes. On the one hand, the connection to a people to be governed becomes aesthetic (Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, a population in a defined territory, the symbolism of national identity, civil-military parades, etc.). Walter Benjamin (2006, p. 270) even said, “Such is the aestheticizing of politics, as practiced by fascism”, referring to propaganda films that promoted the cult of personality. On the other hand, authoritarian governments tend to systematically control artistic production. After all, art has always served as the foremost communication tool and has been used to venerate divinities (statues of Venus, teachings of the life of Christ in church frescoes, etc.). In fact, art was originally directed by the elites (religious and political-imperial, royal, then seigniorial), those who had the means and every incentive to ensure their voices were heard and represented. By examining the iconographic history of the wall, we better understand its main characteristics, primarily for religious and military uses. There were even practices of border-related worship, like the divine protection of Egyptian stelae or belief in the Roman god Terminus. The wall narrates a key episode in a civilization’s history. Whether the wall was designed to develop trade (the Limes of the Roman Empire) or defend against invasion (the Great Wall of China), artistic interpretation of the wall varies considerably, from a venerated symbol to pure and simple rejection. For example, the architecture of fortress cities such as Constantinople tells the story of the Crusades, while the walls of Troy and Jericho inform myths. The wall is also depicted as a symbol to be destroyed, as during the French Revolution. The details

12

Border Wall Aesthetics

of these historic representations paved the path for the young discipline of geopolitics.1 Here, the examination of three particular walls (the generic term) is significant, in the sense that we address two historical ruptures. 1989 and 1991 correspond to the fall of the Berlin wall that lead to the collapse of the Soviet bloc and authoritarian regimes, the end of the Cold War, and a form of legitimacy for the Western Allies. The other rupture occurred on September 11, 2001, which resulted in the primacy of a securitarian paradigm. As we will see later, this context contributed to the emergence of the West Bank barrier and the US-Mexico border wall. Our initial analysis in 2009 identified the urgency of the situation, as the wall as border has become normalized by the democracies that build them. These barriers exist in the more general and paradoxical context of globalization, which is defined in varying ways depending on the discipline. UNESCO’s definition seems most useful here: Globalization is a multi-dimensional process characterized by: • The acceptance of a set of economic rules for the entire world designed to maximize profits and productivity by universalizing markets and production, and to obtain the support of the state with a view to making the national economy more productive and competitive; • technological innovation and organizational change centered on f lexibilization and adaptability; • the expansion of a specific form of social organization based on information as the main source of productivity and power; • the reduction of the welfare state, privatization of social services, f lexibilization of labor relations and weaker trade unions; • de facto transfer to trans-national organizations of the control of national economic policy instruments, such as monetary policy, interest rates and fiscal policy;

1 “Geopolitics is the teaching of the State as a geographical organism or as a spatial phenomenom: thus the State as country, territory, region or, at its most pronounced, as sovereign-state. As political science, it keeps constantly in view the unity of the state; while political geography studies the earth as the habitat for human existence in relation to the other characteristics of the earth” (Kjellen, 1911, p. 95)

Foreword

• the dissemination of common cultural values, but also the re-emergence of nationalism, cultural conf lict and social movements. (Urzua, 2000, p.421) Though the term became more common in the second half of the 20th century2, it is important to note that economic, technological, and cultural exchanges have occurred for millennia. Progress from point A to point B was simply slower before (via the silk, tea, and paper roads). The discovery of the New World marked a turning point in the history of humanity, calling old beliefs into question and gradually introducing new ones. Due to an imbalance in reciprocal interests (economic, technical, cultural), a balance of power emerged (through conquest, conf lict, war) culminating in domination based on a deep divide (colonialism, slavery). Thus the concept of globalization also entails a history of violence between nation-states.3 Today, the economic, political, cultural, and human interdependence between countries is only growing via technology, thereby altering mentalities and continuously redefining the roles of individuals and decision-makers. This book is founded on the idea of a new interpretation of the modern walls being built. In this work, the use of contemporary art as a communication tool is closely connected to geopolitics, facilitated by the expansion of closed borders, which have become increasingly common with the new populist governments. The Schengen area, whose external borders are secured by the Frontex agency, presents the image of a fortified Europe that cannot be dissociated from the collateral tragedies of illegal immigration. Yet, the wall, 2 The verb was introduced in France by Albert Thibaudet (1928, p. 682) “Here again the problem becomes Eureopeanized, globalized.” But the concept was developed by the theoretician and philosopher Marshall McLuhan (1962) who used the notion of a global village (planetary village). 3 “The nation-state ‘is one where the great majority are conscious of a common identity and share the same culture’. The nation-state is an area where the cultural boundaries match up with the political boundaries. The ideal of ‘nation-state’ is that the state incorporates people of a single ethnic stock and cultural traditions. However, most contemporary states are polyethnic. Thus, it can be argued that the nation-state ‘[…] would exist if nearly all the members of a single nation were organised in a single state, without any other national communities being present. Although the term is widely used, no such entities exist.’” www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/ glossary/nation-state/. Accessed April 1, 2019.

13

14

Border Wall Aesthetics

our focus here, clearly represents a new kind of border that does not necessarily correspond to modern Westphalian principles4 that assign the State’s authority to a defined territory in the strictest sense, with internal and external recognition of a government that has full control over its means of coercing a given population. Through these new separation barriers, recognition of and mutual respect between States is undermined. These “walls” are invested with an authority that appears to completely contradict the forces of globalization and its progressive, technical, and technological erasure of borders. Within the realm of border studies (limology), teichopolitics,5 a political strategy of closing borders for the protection purposes, has become a discipline in its own right. On the 248,000 kilometers of internationals border, there are now 70 to 75 walls extending over 40,000 km, a significant increase since 2010 (Vallet cited in Le Monde, February 2, 2018). In terms of hermetic separation, apartheid in South Africa or the peace lines in Northern Ireland first come to mind. While those cases are well known, these kinds of separation barriers have undergone significant changes. The barriers are different and technology is evolving to meet the new needs created by the governments that erect them. The specific reasons behind their construction are sometimes more or less openly admitted. Here is a list of countries with anti-immigration barriers: Uzbekistan-Afghanistan; United States-Mexico; United Arab Emirates-Oman; Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan; Greece-Turkey; Saudi Arabia-Yemen; South Africa-Mozambique; Israel-Sinai; India-Bangladesh; Ceuta-Melilla; China-North Korea; China-Hong Kong; Brunei-Limbang; Botswana-Zimbabwe; the Calais wall in France; the Ceuta barrier in Spain. Other justifications are also given to raise barriers: 1) anti-terrorism: Saudi Arabia-Iraq; Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt-Gaza; India-Burma; India-Kashmir; Israel-Palestine; United States-Mexico; Pakistan-Afghanistan 2) con4 The Peace of Westphalia, 1648. Text and translation (Acta Pacis Westphalicae. Electronic supplement, 1). “Frontières et murs frontaliers, une nouvelle ère? (In)sécurité, Symbolisme, Vulnérabilités” International colloquium organized by the Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, September 27–28, 2018, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Canada. 5 “In Greek, teichos doesn’t simply mean a wall, but rather the wall of a fortified city, or a wall, or a large fortified manor. In this form, the Greek or Ionic Greek teichos was similar at the end of the Middle Ages to the French bourg, meaning a fortified place of refuge.” (Pimouguet-Pedarros, 2000, p. 115)

Foreword

f lict zones: the Western Sahara Berm; Kuwait-Iraq; the Green Line in Cyprus; Uzbekistan-Kyrgyzstan; 3) demilitarized zones: North Korea-South Korea; 4) territorial control: Russia-Chechnya 5) the f low of “illicit” products (narcotics, arms, counterfeits) or even staple products (food and fuel): Egypt-Gaza; United States-Mexico; Kazakhstan- Uzbekistan; India-Burma; Iran-Pakistan. These reasons are often intertwined, thus increasing the need for a barrier. However, their proportions can be excessive. Here are two extreme examples: the anti-migration border between India and Bangladesh that extends over 3,300 km, the largest ever erected (Vallet and Gauthé, 2014); and the anti-smuggling barrier between Egypt and the Gaza Strip made up of an underground 11-km steel wall (at the Rafah tunnels), reaching depths of up to 20 meters. There are two walls here: one visible from the outside, and one underground. One of the major criticisms of these separation barriers is that they violate the principles of freedom of movement and the right to asylum and nationality promised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights6. Yet according to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the strength and the weakness of the great declarations of human rights has always been that, in proclaiming an ideal, they too often forget that man grows to man’s estate surrounded, not by humanity in the abstract, but by a traditional culture, where even the most revolutionary changes leave whole sectors quite unaltered. Such declarations can themselves be accounted for by the situation existing at a particular moment in time and in a particular space. (1952, p. 13) In its desire for universality, the Declaration forgets each culture’s specific characteristics. Though its intent seems generous, it cannot be divorced from the particular context of its signature following the end of World War 6 Article 13: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14:1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15: 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

15

16

Border Wall Aesthetics

II, when peace between nations was the priority. This decision ref lects the achievement of the victors, those who write History. Nevertheless, the wall does raise fundamental questions about a unilateralism that denies the ‘other-foreigner’ despite the fact that we still need the Other to exist, in a constant confrontation between Eros and Thanatos. It is precisely this complexity that we will examine in the book. In this geopolitical context, it is essential to mention Lévi-Strauss’ concept of ethnocentrism, the instinctive tendency to reject the mores and customs of those of who are not from our culture. In fact, “Humanity is confined to the borders of the tribe, the linguistic group, or even, in some instances, to the village” (LéviStrauss, 1952, p. 21). People conceive of their own humanity within their own group. If we examine historic representations of the wall, it served to show the power of the people governed and intimidate barbarians (under the Greek and Roman empires, they were anyone who did not speak Latin or Greek; the Great Wall of China was built to push back barbarian invasions from the north). Lévi-Strauss stated that “the barbarian is, first and foremost, the man who believes in barbarism” (1952, p. 19–20), meaning that a group loses its fundamental credibility in believing itself to be superior to another group. The problem of the wall is precisely its archaic materiality, used ever since humans have sought to protect themselves from external aggressors. This archaism contrasts with the image of a postmodern, technological world and reinforces the denial of the climatic reality. Though decision-making governments, whether democratically elected or not, may have varying motivations, they are ultimately returning to an ancestral rejection of the other-foreigner. The wall then becomes a geopolitical object-tool. We mentioned the use of art as a communication tool. However, this art is not the allegorical wall of Plato’s Cave, but rather the rock art of prehistoric caves, such as in Sulawesi in Indonesia (40,000 BCE), and Chauvet (30,000 BCE) and Lascaux (17,000 BCE) in France, part of a demonstrative tradition. Wall painting is a natural process in which the marking of a territory is conveyed through symbols that are specific to the identity that is invested in them and the sharing of information related to its resistance. The wall is therefore a traditional element that also encourages artistic expression. This object logically becomes a subject of and medium for aesthetic exploration through both its form and material. As early as the 15th century, in a mathematical re-appropriation of the mimesis of nature, Alberti (1992, p. 76) wrote, “First of all, on the surface on which I am going to paint, I draw a

Foreword

rectangle of whatever size I want, which I regard as an open window through which the subject to be painted is seen.” The frame focuses our attention, and the artist’s vision then extracts from Nature what he deems most remarkable. This f lat surface with right angles, like our wall, is an appropriate tool with which to examine history. Because of its visibility and potential to affront, the wall tends to attract a great deal of media attention. It is the subject of fantasies and provokes transgression. And yet the wall is no longer shameful. It is no longer a vile beast, because building a wall has become a worthwhile ambition, with some governments now defending this choice. This change is not just semiotic; it is also symbolically powerful. In a society of spectacle, journalistic, documentary, and artistic paths can easily become blurred. It is only on a case-by-case basis that we can determine the reasoning and ambition behind the images produced. The wall’s sensationalism evokes a new kind of world; it is literally a geopolitical event on display. The construction of these walls is an event in and of itself, because if one thing is certain, it is that all walls eventually come down. Berlin is the most obvious example. Society thought this wall had been destroyed forever, yet in the 21st century, the duty of memory and tourist curiosity has rendered it omnipresent. The wall is reborn like a Phoenix, reemerging in the form of many similar infrastructures. What is it that interests artists then, if the wall is f leeting? Is it its metamorphoses, or its spatiotemporal framework? Here again, even as globalization encourages the dissolution of borders, these same borders may also augment global artistic awareness. This book will address this question on a case-by-case basis, examining the specific choices and psychogeographic attachment to a given territory. Psychogeography is “the study of the precise laws and specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organized or not, on the emotions and behavior of individuals” (Debord, 1955, p. 120). Our comparison of three walls (in Berlin, Israel-Palestine, and Mexico-US) will allow us to uncover the commonalities and differences between them. A rigorous preliminary study of the geopolitical context, issues, and missions of each separation barrier will reveal the weaknesses and failures of ostensibly well-oiled systems. We will only examine these issues from an artistic angle, since we are not interested in controversy. We will therefore analyze the aesthetic development of each of these walls through landmark artists.

17

18

Border Wall Aesthetics

The wall is obviously first the work of an architect. More generally, it evokes the idea of the hearth, being at home and protected. But the notion of “within four walls” can also mean isolation, whether desired or not. We will refer to this carceral analysis throughout the book. Indeed, the concept of biopower is essential here, on several levels. According to Michel Foucault, we have gone from a disciplinary society (from the 18th to the beginning of the 19th century) to a control society. Knowledge, synonymous with power, is the basis for control. Any organization or institution, whether it depends directly or not on the State (family, school, hospital, factory, army, prison, etc.), uses this mechanism. Human beings and the integrity of their lives tend to become domesticated and serve as receptors of political instrumentalization. “Modern man is an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being in question” (Foucault, 1976a, p. 188). Though this model is in crisis, it still imposes its principles. This is what is affirmed through the imposition of these separation barriers, where the prison-like aspect is no longer hidden. The incarceration of the population is turned over to the penal institution, which can be viewed as a kind of social apparatus (Foucault, 1976–1988, 1977–1978, 1993; Deleuze, 1990). Lastly, by seeking to control the f low of people and products, whether legal or not, these governments reinforce their powers and strengthen the dialectic against illegality. The problem is power’s need to possess the illegalities, control these illegalities, and exert its power through these illegalities. Whether these illegalities are used through prisons or the ‘Gulag’, I think that in any case this is the issue: can there be power that doesn’t like illegality? (Foucault and Brodeur, 1993) In fact, closed borders can serve as a means to establish these principles: power is justified through the control of illegality and finds its corollary in the securitarian paradigm. The wall crystallizes an unease that we aim to elucidate through art.

Chapter 1 The history of border wall aesthetics

There has always been a dialogue between the idea of the border and that of the wall itself. Though each word has strict definitions, we will show how these ideas intertwine throughout history. A border can serve as a wall; a wall can define a border. Early iconography allows us to widen our perspective, all while considering the religious, political, and military values of the time. This makes a very valuable contribution, since geopolitics is a 20th-century discipline that is not directly applicable here. We will therefore provide an overview of iconographic depictions of the border wall across centuries and civilizations.

1. Dogma The belief in divinities was one of the first forms of border protection. Going back to ancient Egypt, it was under the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose I (1504– 1492 BCE) that the first boundary stele was installed to mark the territory (between the fourth and fifth cataract of the Nile). Other stelae were later implanted to identify Egypt’s boundaries with Sudan and at the Euphrates River (the stelae of Kurgus, Thutmose III, Senusret I). In the region now called Amarna, W.M. Flinders Petrie (1993) discovered 14 stelae in an area measuring around 25 km x 14 km. Each stele is sculpted in stone and depicts the god Aten, recognizable by a sun disk whose rays extend onto outreached hands (Ill. 1.1). He is surrounded by the royal family expressing their devotion, as well as prayer hieroglyphs. The stelae are arranged in such a way to announce the Pharaoh’s victory over a specific territory. It is not the border that is worshipped, but the divinity. This was how the territory was marked

20

Border Wall Aesthetics

and respected: worship of the divinity created the border. A border stone is to a boundary what the stele is to commemoration. Here, the border stone is to commemoration what the stele is to the boundary. Illustration 1.1 

The link between boundaries and the sacred can also be found Roman royalty, starting with Romulus’ establishment of Rome (753–717 BCE) and continuing with his successor Numa Pompilius (717–673 BCE). In the temple of Jupiter on Capitoline Hill in Rome, a sanctuary was originally dedicated to the God Terminus (Ill. 1.2), who was the protector of boundary stones (Dumezil, 1952; Gaffiot, 1934). He was worshipped and celebrated with offerings to maintain peace between peoples. Ovid praised him: “You set bounds to peoples, cities, great kingdoms: without you every field would be disputed. You curry no favor: you aren’t bribed with gold, guarding the land entrusted to you in good faith” (Nisard, 1850, p. 572573). The god embodied by the statue marks out the territory; its sacred value also forces respect. His motto, concedo nulli (I concede to no one), can be understood as granting no concessions, even to death. This adage was taken up by the humanist

The history of border wall aesthetics

theologian Erasmus (Mueller et al., 2006, p. 342) and by Holbein the Younger in his depiction of Terminus on a stained glass window (Ill. 1.2). Illustration 1.2

21

22

Border Wall Aesthetics

2. Myth Impenetrable cities have long been the subject of fantasies and myths. One striking example is the myth of Troy that Ovid recounted in the Metamorphoses. After being punished by Zeus, Poseidon and Apollo built a wall surrounding the legendary city. The beginning of the war is narrated in Homer’s Iliad (1975) and Virgil’s Aeneid (1991). If this war did indeed occur, it would’ve taken place in Hissarlik, at the southern entrance to the Dardanelles strait in Turkey. What is most interesting here is the way in which the iconography informs the myth. To better understand this, we will focus on three key episodes: the abduction of Helen, the war itself, and the horse’s entrance into the city. Illuminations from the Middle Ages are useful here in several regards. For example, a 1463 illumination by Maître François of Vincent of Beauvais’ Mirror of History simultaneously narrates the abduction of Helen and the Greeks’ landing in Troy (Ill. 1.3). The composition is an invitation to examine the work vertically, with a particular focus on the center. The entire work is symmetrical, and the colors are deeper than illuminations from the previous period. On the left-hand side, we can see the brown tips of the ships. In the foreground on the lower right-hand side we can see the back of a tightly packed squadron of Greek soldiers in shining armor. The central part shows Troy’s crenellated walls, behind which lie dwellings and the tower of an imagined castle. Troy is presented as compact and inaccessible. In the background, Helen can be seen kneeling in prayer at the entrance of the chapel. The perspective finally opens up, revealing a bit of blue sky. The Trojans hesitated for some time before letting in the wooden horse. Incidentally, one of their priests, Laocoön, was firmly opposed to this intrusion, and in response the gods strangled him with serpents. El Greco depicted this event in one of his paintings (Ill. 1.4). The main scene takes place in the foreground. We can see dense, grayish naked bodies, typical of the Spanish painter’s style. Laocoön (the bearded man on the rock) and one of his sons fight vigorously against the serpents. Through a circle formed by the arms of his son and the body of the reptile, we can see the walls of Troy in the middle ground. The city seems peaceful despite this tragic episode. The dark gray and greenish brown tones are set off by the f lat tint of lighter layers.

The history of border wall aesthetics

Illustration 1.3

23

24

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 1.4

The Trojan Horse’s progress was recounted by Benoît de Sainte-Maure in Le Roman de Troie between 1340 and 1350 (Ill. 1.5): The marvelous object that Epeius had built […] was mounted with the help of machines, ropes, and cables onto four enormous and very solid wheels. Then, all together, they attempted to move it forward. Everyone participated: they pulled, they pushed, and made a great effort. They had a great deal of difficulty driving forward this machine in the shape of a horse. (De Sainte-Maure, 1340–1350, 782 fol. 175v.)

The history of border wall aesthetics

Illustration 1.5

The ruse of the Homeric wooden horse appears in an illumination by Raoul Le Fèvre in his Recueil des histoires de Troie, in 1495 (Ill. 1.6). In the foreground, the horse is at the entrance to the city, between two demolished sections of the wall, with soldiers in its belly about to descend the ladder. The scene illustrates two episodes. The taking of Troy already occupies the entire the middle ground, with visible architecture covering much of the space, and a scattering of Greek troops in various densities to aid the perspective. Fortress cities under attack offer excellent iconographic scenes. Another example, which brings us closer to the Israeli-Palestinian territory examined later, is the holy city of Jericho. The city is located in what is now the West Bank. Its soil is very fertile thanks to its low altitude. Jericho was established around 9,000–8,000 BCE and is thought to be one of the oldest cities in the world (a proto-city). It was most likely built with the support of two walls encircling it. The first wall was to avoid invasion, and stood at 4 to 5 meters high and 1.5 meters thick. The second wall was 4 meters high and 2 meters thick (Negev and Gibson, 2005). Jericho was first mentioned in the Christian Old Testament in the Book of Joshua1, which narrates its conquest by the Israelites (Ark of the Covenant and seven priests). The taking of Jericho in Canaan, in the Promised Land, took place around 1493 BCE. The priests were said to have encircled the city and marched around the walls once a day for six days, blowing their shofars. 1 Book six in the Christian Old Testament; the first book in the Jewish tradition.

25

26

Border Wall Aesthetics

On the seventh day, they did this seven times. On the seventh turn, God brought down the walls of the city: “The people shouted and the trumpets blared. And at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city” (Joshua 6:20). Illustration 1.6

We will examine this episode more closely. As shown in the religious iconography of the Middle Ages, the city could only be reached through a cylindrical labyrinth. These works varied in their degree of complexity, depicting the

The history of border wall aesthetics

Israelites’ march around the city before it collapsed. The labyrinth thus refers to the seven towers that are often represented by seven successive circles or even seven walls. In the 19th century, this episode was shown from different angles. J.J. Tissot’s interpretation is both symbolic and delicate. Here, the march of the Israelites provides a perfect pictorial motif. The tones of his paintings, The Seven Trumpets of Jericho (Ill. 1.7) and Joshua and the Angel before Jericho, are in beige and brown tones, offering a soft and soothing setting. Meanwhile, Gustave Doré’s 1866 engraving, The Walls of Jericho Fall Down, is on an entirely different register (Ill. 1.8). Here the artist emphasizes the human drama. The collapsing stones are intermingled with bodies struggling and falling bodies. In the middle ground, in lighter tones, the procession blows its trumpets. Illustration 1.7

27

28

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 1.8

The imagery of the walls of Jericho perpetuates the myth, biblical consideration, and the symbolic function of saintliness. We will later examine the reality and visibility of other walls in the Israeli-Palestinian territory.

3. Defense Beyond the myth, the military reality of border walls was depicted when it was synonymous with victory, successful defense, or presented real pictorial interest. Boundaries such as the Maginot (1920–1930) and Siegfried (1930s) lines did not inspire artists.

The history of border wall aesthetics

It is therefore unsurprising that the Great Wall of China entered the collective imaginary as the supreme symbol of defense. However, there are real controversies surrounding its date of construction, erection, and even its use. The way it has been interpreted and received has f luctuated greatly. It continues to be respected today because of interest from the public and tourists. In a 1935 poem, Mao Zedong wrote “He who has not climbed the Great Wall is not a true man,” and the national anthem now refers to the architectural work as a collective act of war. But it was not always seen as a source of national pride. The sensationalism around the Great Wall has an impact on tourist propaganda. It is the succession of walls that creates confusion. The first wall in Erligang was thought to have been built during the Shang dynasty, in the 8th century BCE. The Long Wall dates from the Spring and Autumn period (722–481 BCE), and the erection of the square fortification wall in Chu state (684 BCE) led to a civil war and the division of the State into three parts. It was during the Warring States period (from the 5th century BCE to 221 BCE) that construction began on what would become the Great Wall. What we see today are vestiges from the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), and information about them is often quite vague. Depending on the discipline (geography, geology, astronomy, history, specialized tourism), and given of the lack of continuity in the construction of the Great Wall, information about its size must be considered carefully. Nevertheless, there is somewhat of a consensus. The average height of the walls is 7.62 meters, though they range from 4.57 to 9.57 meters, and the walls are large enough (from 2.7 to 3.7 meters) to allow for the passage of convoys. The watchtowers located every 60 meters range from 12.19 to 15.24 meters. As for its overall length, it is generally thought that it measures around 5,000 kilometers. However, the official Chinese version states that the wall extends over 6,259 kilometers (Waldron, 1990). The main criticism of the Great Wall relates to the number of lives lost during its construction. In ancient China, under the Han dynasty (206–220 BCE), the opera of Dame Zhaojun offered a critique of the political issues, and a song by Chen Li recounted the suffering of a soldier at the wall. Later on, under the Tang dynasty (618–690 and 705–907), the “Borders and Frontier Fortress Poets Groups” created the figure of the soldier as a warrior fighting along the Great Wall. There was enough freedom at the time to criticize it (Minford and Lau, 2000, p. 423–424).

29

30

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 1.9

Western perception of this architectural work (Ill. 1.9) and Chinese culture was formed through the eyes of Jesuit missionaries who mapped the territory in 1584 and then in 1667 (watchtowers and the ‘Red Wall’ in the northeast) by placing them in context (f lora and fauna, traditional costumes) (Ronan et al., 1988). The Great Wall has also fascinated contemporary artists. The performance by Marina Abramović and Ulay may be one of the best-known works

The history of border wall aesthetics

in the West. In 1979, the couple undertook the necessary procedures to travel to the wall and marry there. Nearly 10 years later, in 1988, their adventure took a different form. The wall served as the location for a spiritual rite of celebration to mark the end of their 12-year relationship. On March 30, 1988, Abramović began walking westward along the length of the Wall. She started at the dragon’s head, near the Yellow Sea, the water symbolizing femininity. Ulay walked eastward, starting in the Gobi desert at the tail of the dragon, symbolizing the fire element and masculinity. For 90 days, they each walked 2,500 kilometers on their own on the so-called body of the heraldic dragon2 (Ill. 1.10). Walking in unknown lands, on an iconic monument representing a mythical animal, was both an ordeal and a work of art that led to a total release. They met in the middle, strangers before one another, alone once again to take different paths. They walked to say goodbye and rediscover the f luidity of a new physical and mental energy. The contemporary Chinese artists who have worked with the Great Wall are driven by a cultural and visceral desire. We will offer three examples here. First, a 1990 work by Zheng Lianjie: The Wall, Commemorate for the German Reunification evokes the fall of the Berlin Wall and was done directly on the Great Wall of China (Ill. 1.11). In her performance, the artist and her assistants covered the Wall in large pieces of paper in strategic areas (tower, ground) and manually rubbed the paper with color to reveal the underlying structure. The Wall’s imprint appeared on the paper, symbolizing its presence as well as its evanescence. The artist referred to the Wall many times to explore the duty of memory and the desire for freedom. In 1998, the conceptual artist Ma-Liuming, who feminized his name to Fen Ma-Liuming, explored male-female ambiguity (Ill. 1.12). For his first performance, he walked along a section of the Great Wall near Beijing. His walk in a nude male body with feminine makeup on his face seems to completely humanize the wall. In the 17 black-and-white photos there is a stark contrast between the restrictive asperity of the monument and the gracefulness of his body. This panorama offers a utopian sense of a “whole” that is now possible thanks 2 Audioguide courtesy of Acoustiguide @MoMA. Abramović, Marina, The Great Wall Walk, 1988/2008. The initial journey was 90 days long on the Great Wall of China, 16 mm film (color, silent); transferred to two-channel video, 16:45 min. © 2010 Marina Abramović. Courtesy of Marina Abramović and Sean Kelly Gallery/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York (Norrested, C. and Thomsen, S., “The Lovers – The Great Wall Walk”, Marina Abramović Interview. TVF© Humlebæk, DK., Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, 1990–2011, 30 min.).

31

32

Border Wall Aesthetics

to the new artistic avant-garde in China. In 2004–2005, the artist Gu Wenda offered a macabre appreciation of the construction. His work, entitled 10,000 km, looked at human tragedy. The 15-cm bricks he used to re-create a section of the wall on a reduced scale are actually conglomerates of human hair, a reference to all the lives lost building it (Gao et al., 2007; Maggio and Liuming, 2003). Illustration 1.10

The history of border wall aesthetics

Illustration 1.11 A-B

33

34

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 1.12

Through these examples, we can already see how interpretations of the Great Wall change over time depending on the era, culture, and history of each artist engaging with it. We will continue to examine these changes and other possible paradoxes in our examination of the other walls. Returning to Roman civilization, the construction of the Limes of the Republic, and then the Roman Empire, stretched over 5,000 km from the Atlantic coast of northern Britain, through Europe to the Black Sea, and from there to the Red Sea and across North Africa to the Atlantic coast. The remains of the Limes today consist of vestiges of built walls, ditches, forts, fortresses, watchtowers and civilian settlements.3 Of particular interest are the Limes of Germany covering 550 km, Hadrian’s Wall extending over 118 km in what is now the UK, and the 60-km-long Antonine Wall in Scotland. This infrastructure had several functions: borders to defend, routes for military convoys, and to develop trade (Luttwak, 2009).

3 www.whc.unesco.org/fr/list/430/. Accessed April 1, 2019.

The history of border wall aesthetics

Trajan’s column, built in 113 in honor of the Emperor in power during the height of the Roman Empire, is instructive here. Bas-reliefs attributed to sculptor Apollodorus of Damascus depict the battles between the Romans and Dacians (Ill. 1.13). The frieze begins with a scene located in Moesia Superior, which shows fences surrounding castella (turrets) with f laming torches at the top. Two soldiers armed with spears and shields encircle each of the two turrets. The imagery depicts a military force, synonymous with strategy and good organization. Further on, a number of battle scenes are shown along the Moesia Limes. The Roman army is first besieged by the Dacian troops, then German Auxilia confront Decebalus’ troops. The Limes are important in this regard, because they form an integral part of the Empire’s process of defense, alliances, and supremacy (Cichorius, 1990). Illustration 1.13 A-D

35

36

Border Wall Aesthetics

The history of border wall aesthetics

In order to counter his empire’s loss of power, Emperor Constantine I turned his attention away from Rome and focused instead on Byzantium, since it was conveniently located at the ideal crossroads between Europe and Asia. Constantinople, the “new Rome,” was officially established on May 11, 330. There is interesting iconography of this city, including an interpretation of its cadastral map and a description of its fall during the Crusades. The conquering emperor built a 2.8-km-long fortification, adding to the previous “walls of Septimius Severus”. As the city expanded, so did its walls. Starting in 408 CE, Emperor Theodosius II built a double wall measuring 5.7 km long, about 2 km to the west of the “Constantine Wall”. This was a major example of military architecture in Europe (Norwich, 2002). The Eastern Roman Empire4, based in Constantinople, prospered until 1204, thanks to international trade (particularly the silk Road) and its defense against invasions. Then came the Fourth Crusade led by the Venetians, which created a profound rift between the Greek orthodox and Latin Catholic churches and civilizations. The Empire brief ly returned to power in 1261, but the capture of Constantinople in 1453 by Sultan Mehmed II and his Ottoman troops marked the end of the Middle Ages in Europe. The map made by Italian monk Cristoforo Buondelmonti offers an interpretation of Constantinople’s cadastral map, complete with a fantasized image of the preponderant walls (Ill. 1.14). Buondelmonti probably created Liber Insularum Archipelagi (circa 1420) following his travels to Rhodes, Crete, 4 The Western Roman Empire had disappeared in 476 CE.

37

38

Border Wall Aesthetics

Cyprus, and Constantinople between 1414 and 1430. In his tempera and ink paintings, the walls surrounding the city and the main buildings are easily recognizable thanks to his annotations. Starting in the West, there is Hagia Sophia church, then the Justinian columns, other churches, monasteries, a forum, and finally the cisterns. The tower and walls of Pera (Galata) are also shown. This work became become a reference for urban and religious information about the city, and was copied many times. The 2nd Crusade of 1147 and 1148, led by Louis VII the Young and Emperor Conrad III of Germany, was chronicled by the knight and historian Geoffroy de Villehardouin from 1207 to 1213. This chronicle was republished around 1330 in a Venetian manuscript with an illumination of the taking of Constantinople in three scenes: to the left, the crusaders arrive by ship, recognizable by their armor and shields bearing the red and white effigies. In the middle is a dense triangle of architecture: crenellated walls, two churches, and a tower with two frightened soldiers at the top, their red f lag f lying above them. They are staring at the ship as the soldiers disembark to their right. Constantinople was caught between two threats, and the architectural structure of the walls, designed to protect the city, suddenly seemed useless.

The history of border wall aesthetics

Eugène Delacroix took inspiration from the 4th Crusade for a royal commission. In his 1841 painting, he depicted a historic scene called Entry of the Crusaders in Constantinople (April 12, 1204), or The Crusaders Entering Constantinople. Both titles are well known, but the first one was chosen when the painting was hung in the Palace of Versailles’ Crusades Room in the Gallery of Great Battles, under the reign of Louis-Philippe. Since Delacroix had never been to Constantinople, he recreated the city using maps. The walls are not very visible, since it is the conquering forces that occupy the center of the painting. They are riding on horseback, surrounded by carnage and victims of torture. This scene of conquest, commissioned with political intent, would contrast with the decay and then the end of the royal system in France. Illustration 1.14

39

40

Border Wall Aesthetics

In the Grandes chroniques de France, circa 1470–1480, Maître du Froissart de Philippe de Commynes produced a small illumination of the attack by Ottoman troops in 1453 (Ill. 1.15). The scene explicitly depicts the technical equipment used in the attack, along with the soldiers’ weapons and the city’s fortifications. The style is much more hieratic, typical of the Middle Ages, when the crusades favored imagery of the walls of fortress cities in danger. Illustration 1.15

Though we have just seen how fortress cities can be conquered by armed troops when the populace becomes soldiers, the power in place can just as easily give in. That is the message of the French Revolution, in which the walls surrounding Paris were a major source of conf lict. On January 23, 1785, Louis XVI ordered the construction of the Wall of the Farmers General, or toll collection wall. The project was entrusted to Claude-Nicolas Ledoux, and the controversies surrounding his work eventually led to his dismissal. The wall was around 3 meters high and 24 kilometers long, encircling the capital. Each wall was interspersed with a tollhouse. In total, 54 barriers were built in

The history of border wall aesthetics

the neoclassical style5 (Ill. 1.16). The architect’s blueprints offer a great deal of information about their general and singular features. These tollhouses were responsible for surveillance and controlled the entry of merchandise into the city. This helped prevent fraud, regulate the market, and bring in additional money to the State. But the population (particularly consumers, wine producers, and merchants) began to complain about these additional taxes. Illustration 1.16 

5 Roughly corresponding to metro lines 2 and 6: Étoile ↔ Nation (De Quincy, 1788–1825; Bachelter, 1862; Raval, 1945; Gagneux, 2012).

41

42

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 1.17

At the time, people said “Le mur murant Paris rend Paris murmurant” (a play on words meaning “The wall walling Paris keeps Paris murmuring”). At the entrance of the French capital, alongside the barriers, there were a number of guinguettes (open-air cafés) where patrons sang bawdy songs inspired by the wall. Here is an excerpt from Un jour de fête à la barrière by Louis Festeau: “The crowd is ready to burst from its walls. Stews, burn! Veals, brown! Barrels, f low! It’s time for a feast!” (Dumersan and Segur, 1866, p. 276–278). But as the burden of this fiscal encirclement increased, Paris became a large prison that served the interests of the Farmers General, a tax collection entity. Inf lation in the price of foodstuffs and reduced profits on merchandise destabilized the monarchy. On the night of July 12–13 1789, before the storming of the Bastille, around 40 barriers were targeted. The French Revolution began at the base of these toll walls, symbols of the State’s control through taxes and a hierarchical power that needed to be destroyed. The context of the French Revolution, which led to the breakdown of absolute monarchy based on divine right under Louis XVI, cannot be separated from the ideas of Enlightenment philosophers. Yet their interpreta-

The history of border wall aesthetics

tions of the event, as well as the reach of their ideas, can be completely called into question. As a reminder, Rousseau believed the problem was man’s passage from the state of nature to the civil state. In The Social Contract, he declares, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau, 1782, p. 3). He also claimed that when the Man endowed with reason makes use of his general will, he gains his “civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses” (p. 31) as a full and conscious citizen. The movement opposing the toll collection wall ref lects both a refusal of the monarchy’s abuse of authority, and the expression of civil and civic-minded hope. The historic iconography of the border wall originated with the belief in divinities and the desire for protection (Aten/Egypt, Terminus/Rome). The wall as object is a structure that supports myths (Troy, Jericho). It is also the symbol of civil-military defense and thus perfectly serves its role as an architectural work (China, Constantinople). With the Roman Limes, it also stimulated trade. And the destruction of the toll collection walls in Paris opens up the parable to civil liberty. In short, all these historical considerations have an impact on the contemporary geopolitical configuration. Why do governments present the wall as a solution? In what geopolitical context does it exist? What are the wall-object’s purposes? What is its surrounding architecture, and how does it function? How is the wall subverted? How does the wall inspire artists? In what context does this creation occur? Are there differences between the interpretations of local and diasporic artists, and those foreign to the phenomenon? These are the guiding questions that will allow us to discover possible geopolitical weaknesses, and potential artistic shortcomings. A landmark artist will allow us to introduce the main aesthetic issues of each wall.

43

PART 1 Aesthetics in the 20th century

Chapter 2 The Berlin Wall 1. Geopolitical context The historical iconography of border walls provides us with insight into the contemporary characteristics of closed borders. The Berlin wall is a completely unique example from the 20th century. It serves as a reference point and possible metaphor for other contemporary separation barriers. Where did it emerge from, and what was it made of? To fully understand the Berlin Wall, we must go back to the period following the end of World War II. Germany was being de-Nazified, and was under the control of the Allied powers (the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Soviet Union) until 19491 (Ill. 2.1). The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, or West Germany) was created on May 23, 1949, and the German Democratic Republic (GDR, or East Germany) was formed on October 7 of the same year (Ill. 2.2). The Cold War between the East (the USSR and allies) and West (the United States and allies) was already palpable by 1947, particularly once each country acquired nuclear weapons. This situation was referred to as the “balance of terror,” and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). American President Harry Truman developed a doctrine of containment, which helped normalize the idea of the “democratic West” versus the “totalitarian East” of popular democracies. In response, Andrei Zhdanov, Third Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, established the Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) to develop their own strategy (Zhdanov, 1947). Joseph Stalin, the General Secretary, created a territorial and ideological “buffer” by strengthening his allies (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia), 1 London Protocol (September 12, 1944); Yalta Conference (February 4–11, 1945); Potsdam Conference (July 17–August 2, 1945); France joined the power sharing agreement on July 26, 1945.

48

Border Wall Aesthetics

leaving Red Army troops in place, and preventing free elections—which was contrary to the Yalta agreement (Jeannesson, 2002; Elvert and Krüger, 2003; Sokolski, 2004; Edwards Spalding, 2006; Castin-Chaparro, 2002). Illustration 2.1

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.2

Stalin gradually disengaged from the London Six-Power Conference of 1948, eventually ordering a blockade of Berlin that restricted all road and river transportation between West Germany and East Berlin. The solution to this first Berlin crisis was an air corridor organized by American General Clay, which lasted until 1949 (London Six-Power Conference, 1948; Soutou, 2009; Shlaim, 1983). Following the creation of the two German States, Berlin became a strategic location. On the one hand, it was the capital of East Germany, and on the other it was an enclave of the West inside the East. Decisions that had previously been taken jointly began to be interpreted separately. East and West Germany had differing relationships to de-Nazification, though there were several similarities in their approaches to espionage and counterespionage,

49

50

Border Wall Aesthetics

of major importance during the Cold War. On the East German side, people were cleared out of the former Nazi concentration camp in Sachsenhausen that had been converted into a prison for Nazi officers, and there were major changes to key positions in the administration, the police, and the courts. On the West German side, former Nazi officers were re-educated, and even used for espionage (at the time the CIA was founded). The Stasi, East Germany’s Ministry for State Security, founded in February 1950, also used the skills of former Nazi officers (Hallmann, 2011). Both blocs established agreements to bolster their legitimacy. On the political side, the Brussels Treaty was signed in 1948, NATO was created in 1949 (West Germany joined in 1955), and the USSR and its allies signed the Warsaw Pact. On the financial side, the 1948–1952 Marshall Plan led to the creation of two currencies: the Deutsche Mark and the East German mark. Trade was facilitated in the West by the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) and in the East by the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). Nikita Khrushchev, who succeeded Stalin after his death on March 5, 1953, began a process of de-Stalinization. He condemned past crimes and launched a period of “peaceful coexistence”. Despite relative economic stability in the Soviet bloc, the new Secretary-General admitted in his memoirs that the population’s exodus from East to West was due to differences in salaries. Without that, he believed that very few people were disappointed in or hostile to his policies (Khrushchev, 2007, p. 309–314). Between 1949 and 1961, 2.6 to 3.6 million people (Germans, Czechs, Poles) migrated to the West. Until 1961, people could easily leave the East by simply taking the metro or train. These migrants were called “deserters from the republic” (Republikf lüchtlinge) or those who “vote with their feet” (Abstimmung mit den Füßen). This migration clearly undermined the GDR’s economic policy as well as its official political and social image (Roggenbuch, 2008, p. 363). Walter Ulbricht, the First Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands—SED2) sought to profoundly restructure the GDR in 1952. His policies (economic planning, investment in heavy industry, collectivization, increasing the pace of work, elimination of food cards, increases in taxes) led to social catastrophe the following year. Demonstrations broke out demanding German reunification, among other things. On 2 The GDR based its ideology on Marxism-Leninism.

The Berlin Wall

June 17 of that year, 600 companies and 400 farms went on strike, followed by riots involving more than 60,000 people. This insurrection put the government in a difficult position (Wagner, 2002; Grass, 1999, p. 182; Brecht, 1964, p. 29; Mälhert, 2003). In November 1958, Khrushchev declared that the Quadripartite status was obsolete, and gave the Western Allies an ultimatum: Berlin had to become a “free and demilitarized city” with no more military presence. During a press conference, he even announced that West Berlin was a “kind of cancerous tumor” that required a “surgical operation” (Fontaine, 1967, p. 473; Harrison, 2003). On December 31, 1958, the Western bloc, along with Willy Brandt, Mayor of West Berlin, and Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of West Germany, reaffirmed their right of residence and asserted that the Soviet Union was having its own internal crisis, for which the West bore no responsibility. Indeed, the Seven-Year plan for 1959–1965 was off to a bad start due to weak industrial production and food shortages stemming particularly from land collectivization. The East German population continued to f lee to the West in large numbers (200,000 in 1960) (Sapir, 1985, p. 737–779). Diplomatic tensions reached their peak during a meeting between Kennedy and Khrushchev in Vienna on June 3–4, 1961. The Western bloc, supported by NATO, promoted self-determination for Germany, while the Soviet leader announced the signature of a peace treaty with East Germany, imperiling the United States’ access to West Berlin. In response to this “German problem,” the two sides stuck to their positions, and a new phase began (Kempe, 2011; Ritter, 1966).

2. The 1961 solution In the following days, the idea of a wall was mentioned, followed by firm denials. On June 15, 1961, Walter Ulbricht, in his additional position as Chairman of GDR’s Council of State, replying to a question from West German journalists, stated, “Nobody has the intention of building a wall!”3 3 Interview by Annamarie Doher, Berlin correspondent for the Frankfurter Rundschau, June 15, 1961. Doherr, Frankfurter Rundschau: “Bedeutet die Bildung einer Freien Stadt Ihrer Meinung nach, dass die Staatsgrenze am Brandenburger Tor errichtet wird? Und sind Sie entschlossen, dieser Tatsache mit allen Konsequenzen Rechnung zu tragen?” Ulbrichts Antwort: “Ich verstehe Ihre Frage so, dass es in Westdeutschland Menschen gibt, die wün-

51

52

Border Wall Aesthetics

On June 16, Khrushchev gave an unequivocal speech on Russian television: “Either we recognize the current borders and we agree not to modify them by force, or we choose to modify them. And the only way to do this is through war, atomic war” (Le soir, 1961). The alarm had been sounded, and the two sides beefed up their military tactics in Berlin. From June to August 1961, 97,046 East German citizens chose to desert the country, passing through the West Berlin border. West Germany’s intelligence service (BND) was on high alert, without fully knowing the extent of the counteroffensive. The Soviet plan remained a secret. On August 12, 1961, the GDR’s Council of Ministers issued a decree giving the Armed Forces the power to occupy the border with West Berlin and erect a barrier there. The next day, all the leaders of Warsaw Pact countries supported the decision. Erich Honecker, Secretary of the SED’s Central Committee, took on the political and security-related responsibility for planning and building the wall4 (Rühle and Holzweissig, 1988, p. 154; Shell, 1965, p. 27; Hertle et al., 2002, p. 290; Walckoff, 1996). It was therefore in great secrecy, in the middle of the night of August 12–13, 1961, during the summer vacation period, that the beginnings of the wall emerged: 14,500 members of the Armed Forces began to install the first fences and barbed wires. They were placed in strategic locations: streets, railway tracks (the trains were blocked that night) and Western Ally checkpoints. As for the Western bloc’s reactions, it would take 20 hours for the military to appear at the border, 40 hours for a complaint to be sent to the Soviet command, and 72 hours for diplomatic letters to be sent5. The dialectics and schen, dass wir die Bauarbeiter der Hauptstadt der DDR dazu mobilisieren, eine Mauer aufzurichten. Mir ist nicht bekannt, dass eine solche Absicht besteht. Die Bauarbeiter unserer Hauptstadt beschäftigen sich hauptsächlich mit Wohnungsbau, und ihre Arbeitskraft wird dafür voll eingesetzt. Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten!” (Forschungsinstitut Schriften des Forschungsinstituts der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik e.V. Bonn, Senat von Berlin, Dokumente zur Berlin-Frage 1944–1966, Munich, Oldenbourg, 1987, p. 417–423). 4 From the SED conference held on August 11, 1961: “Die Lage des ständig steigenden Flüchtlingsstroms mache es erforderlich, die Abriegelung des Ostsektors von Berlin und der SBZ in den nächsten Tagen – ein genauer Tag wurde nicht angegeben – durchzuführen und nicht, wie eigentlich geplant, erst in 14 Tagen” (Wettig, 2006). 5 Declaration by Dean Rusk (August 13, 1961, Berlin) published by the State Department (August 25, 1961, Paris) and the United States Embassy (August 28, 1961, p. 30) under the title “August 13, 1961”, in Documents on Germany 1944–1985, Washington, United States

The Berlin Wall

counter-arguments of that time are fascinating, but we will share just several reactions here. Kennedy thought the wall was not a very nice solution, but was “a hell of a lot better than a war” (cited in Smyser, 2009, p.109). Then, in his famous 1963 speech, he declared, “Ich bin ein Berliner” (I am a Berliner).6 Criticism of the wall went even further with one of his successors, President Reagan, who in 1987 challenged his counterpart Gorbatchev to “tear down this wall!”7 The first generation wall consisted of a row of bricks or concrete blocks topped with barbed wire. For the GDR and its allies, it was an “Anti-Fascist Protective Rampart” (Antifaschistischer Schutzwall) that served as an excellent means of containing any western inf luence: liberal democracy, the capitalist economy, the powerful bourgeoisie, individual initiative, NATO, etc. As we mentioned previously, Khrushchev eventually acknowledged the economic motivations of the deserters. West Germany and its allies referred to the barrier as the “wall of shame” (Mauer der Schande). They highlighted the Soviet bloc’s weaknesses, the violation of the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin, and the obstruction of free travel. In September, around 200 people were still able to reach the West. The wall thus continued to feed the f lame of the Cold War. On October 27, 1961, American and Soviet troops faced off, each posting 10 tanks at Checkpoint Charlie (the border crossing for the allied occupation forces) (Wettig, 2006). The Iron Curtain, the term initially used by British politician Winston Churchill in 1946, referred to the border between East and West Germany. It stretched 1,393 kilometers from the Baltic Sea all the way to Czechoslovakia. In total, the wall itself measured 155 km, with 106 km of concrete segments. In Berlin, the wall was 43 kilometers long. The wall’s architecture would evolve according to its needs. There would actually be two walls: the more advanced and visible wall in the Western part of Berlin reached 3.60 meters Department of State, [s.d.], p. 776–777; (Macmillan, 1972, p. 395; Deutscher Bundestag und Bundesrat, 1961; Sonnefraud et al., p. 42–43). 6 Excerpts from the speech: “Remarks at the Rudolph Wilde Platz” by American President John F. Kennedy on June 26, 1963, in Berlin: “While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it. […] Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” 7 Excerpts from the speech “Remarks on East-West Relations at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin” by American President Ronald Reagan on June 12, 1987, in Berlin: “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev – Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

53

54

Border Wall Aesthetics

high in certain places. The wall dramatically altered the city’s topography, cutting through 193 main and side streets. In the Eastern sector, those who lived near the wall were evicted and their homes were walled up. There had initially been 81 passages between the two blocs, but by August 13, 1961, there were only 12. The following day, Brandenburg Gate, an important passageway in the city, was also walled. Public transport was reduced (eight urban train lines and four metro lines were closed) and North-South lines had “ghost” stations were the train did not stop.8 In order to develop an “in-depth protection system”, the wall went through four generations of construction. From August 1961 to November 1967, the wall was made of bricks and large concrete blocks with concrete beams and barbed wire. Between 1967 and 1975, the irregular barrier was replaced by a more massive construction: horizontal concrete slabs were installed between steel beams, with a concrete tube running along the top. In 1975, “Border Wall 75” (Grenzmauer 75) was made of 3-meter-high, L-shaped concrete slabs. They were topped with a concrete tube to prevent escape. The border strip was further extended (Ill. 2.3). In 1985, builders made use of high-tech Wall 2000 sensor technologies to prevent anyone from passing. These sensors continued to be installed until 1989 (Ritter and Lapp, 2009; Klausmeier and Schmidt, 2004; Flemming and Koch, 1999; Hildebrandt, 2001).

8 On January 28, 1985, the Church of Reconciliation on Bernauer Straße was even destroyed, because it impeded the view at a border crossing (Churchill, 1946; Knobloch et al., 2012).

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.3 A-B

55

56

Border Wall Aesthetics

The “death strip” that separated the two Germanys ranged from 30 to 500 meters in width. It was highly advanced and kept secret.9 Artist Hans Ticha drew a caricatural depiction of this infrastructure (Ill. 2.4). Between the wall and a fence, a group of soldiers basking in a triangle of light marches under the f lag of the regime. In the foreground, another soldier aims his gun at the spectator, accompanied by a ferocious-looking dog. Illustration 2.4

9 In brief, the death strip was composed of walls made of concrete slabs from 2 to 3.6 meters high, with or without capping; metal chain link fences; frequently raked control strips; light towers; anti-vehicle trenches; delimitation before the border crossing; a wall walk; guide cables for the guard dogs; signaling devices; watchtowers equipped with floodlights; cross-shaped anti-tank obstacles; chain link fencing with barbed wire and trip wires. There were also 20 bunkers. Every day around the death zone 2,300 guards were on patrol, and up to 300 additional guards could be called as backup if needed. There were seven regiments of border guards: 11,500 soldiers and 500 civil guards (Arnold et al., 2001, p. 16 – Band 7).

The Berlin Wall

In Berlin itself, unlike the border between the GDR and the FRG, automatic shooting devices and minefields were not installed. Nevertheless, regulations remained f lexible, since shots were allowed when border crossings were attempted.10 Starting in October 1973, Stasi agents infiltrated in border guard units received the order to fire: “Don’t hesitate to use your weapon, even if the border crossing is attempted by women and children, since this is a strategy often used by traitors” (Jacoby, 2011, p. 20; Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, 1973). The wall’s first victim, Ida Siekmann, died on August 22, 1961, after jumping from the window of her apartment on Bernauer Straße, which was about to be walled up. There are various estimates and disagreements about the total number of victims of the wall, ranging from 136 people (source: Arbeitsgemeinschaf t 13. August), 270 (source: Staatsanwaltschaf t), and 421 (source: Zentrale Ermittlungsgruppe für Regierungs- und Vereinigungskriminalität11) (Hertle and Nooke, 2009).12 There were checkpoints in Berlin and along the Iron Curtain. On the roads, there were a total of 25 checkpoints, and rest areas were specifically reserved for one population or another. Starting in the winter of 1963-1964, people could request exemptions to visit families in the East. When Erich Honecker became head of the GDR in1971, he opened up dialogue with the FRG, called “Ostpolitik”. This included the recognition of “permanent representatives,” easier trade between the FRG and West Berlin, and more travel permissions granted to the unemployed (Delius and Lapp, 2000; Ciesla, 2006, p. 174–182). The wall physically divided two ideologies, and therefore two social realities, for 28 years. East Germany had some of the best social and economic conditions of all the Soviet Bloc countries. Those who began their political engagement early on (through the Young Pioneers, a scouting organization that taught Marxism-Leninism through play and socialization) and were party members could have a decent standard of living. Ostalgie (contraction of Ost (east) + nostalgia) is currently a subject of debate. Each citizen could 10 Ministers für Nationale Verteidigung, Befehl, October 6, Berlin, Ministerium im Ministerrat der DDR, 1961 (Nr. 76/61). 11 Regarding remembrance of those killed attempting to cross the border, see the art project overseen by the Bundestag, www.mauer-mahnmal.de. Accessed April 1, 2019. 12 New data indicates that 1,684 people are suspected to have died along the Iron Curtain. www.welt.de/geschichte/article121690546/Deutlich-mehr-Opfer-am-Todesstreifen.html. Accessed April 1, 2019.

57

58

Border Wall Aesthetics

have access to housing (for 5% of one’s pay in a plattenbeau—a sort of public housing structure), a job in which salary equality was the norm, social security, easily available childcare spots, a car (Trabant or Wartburg), and so on. But the planned economy meant that waiting lists were extremely long (for example, 12 years on average for a car). The lack of variety in shops and frequent shortages were also a source of frustration. Additionally, the constant control (for a population of 16 million at the end of the regime, the Stasi employed 90,000 official agents and 180,000 informants), travel restrictions (except for athletes and official artists for visits to ‘brother’ countries), the lack of freedom, the constant pressure for fraternal cohesion, and awareness of what was happening in West Germany (radio waves have no borders) eventually defeated the regime. And in the 1908s, things were also evolving even within the Soviet bloc: new Perestroika economic reforms implemented by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev; the Polish labor union Solidarity; the inf luence of Václav Havel in Czechoslovakia; the beginning of the dismantling of the Iron Curtain in Hungary and Czechoslovakia; and so on. In June 1989, East Germany saw the beginning of regular silent demonstrations in Dresden and Leipzig. This was part of the so-called Peaceful Revolution (Friedliche Revolution), whose inf luence gradually spread. The Neues Forum (New Forum) resistance movement was founded in one of East Berlin’s Protestant churches. Then on October 18 of the same year, Erich Honecker resigned for health reasons. This marked a turning point: Die Wende (the Turnaround). Finally, during a press conference on November 9, Politbüro member Günter Shabowski, unprepared for a journalist’s question about the new travel regulations, declared that they would go into effect “ab sofort” (immediately). In response, citizens rushed to the border crossings (on Bornholmerstrasse in particular). The wall would soon be no more. We will now analyze the wall’s aesthetics over a 60-year period, from its infancy until today, with a focus on two main themes: infrastructure and perception.

3. Joseph Beuys as a landmark artist The landmark artist for the Berlin Wall is the German Joseph Beuys (1921– 1986). Though Beuys was involuntarily labeled a West German artist, he played around with that reputation and in the subtleties of his work, which

The Berlin Wall

was politically engaged and multidisciplinary (drawing, painting, performance, poetry, social sculpture, art theory and pedagogy, connected to Fluxus,13 etc.). Beuys single-handedly synthesized the problem of the barrier, its political context and the origins of its construction. Beuys thought the wall was completely absurd, and he mocked it with powerful irony, in several stages. First, in 1964: “Beuys recommends that the Berlin Wall be heightened by 5 cm (better proportions!)”14 He thought the initial height was ridiculous; it was neither credible nor aesthetic. If the wall were truly imposing, perhaps it would inspire respect. In his view, better proportions would neutralize it and make it possible to go beyond the physical wall to one that is more intellectual. Beuys stated, “The issue is not the physical wall, but the mental wall, and that is what is most important for solving the problem.”15 He thought the physical wall was a dead end, saying, “There are so many walls between you and me”, and it is precisely those walls that must be removed to recover a form of freedom (cited in Adriani et al., 1981, p. 125–134). Nevertheless, he believed that it was up to individuals to rid themselves of these physical, and mental walls, of their own volition. He saw this as non-negotiable (Adriani et al., 1981). His entire life, particularly through his speeches and “social sculptures,” Beuys would develop and preach the importance of self-determination, self-education, and the individual ability to become free through and thanks to Art. He stated, “I must say that the only true artistic act is the development of human consciousness” (cited in Oltmann, 1994, p. 11.). As Rudolf Steiner, one of his mentors, explained: Our lives are made up of actions that are free and actions that are not. But it is impossible to conceive of the human being as long as we do not insist on freedom of the spirit as the ultimate expression of our fulfillment. We are only truly human to the extent that we are free. (Steiner, 1923, p. 71; Zumdick, 2006, 2005; Kugler, 2007) 13 Even though Beuys claimed he was not part of any movement, Fluxus members generally refute that they are part of a movement. Several important references nonetheless: “Fluxus is not a moment in history, or an art movement. Fluxus is a way of doing things, a tradition, and a way of life and death” (Dick Higgins, cited in Friedman, 1998, p. VIII). 14 On July 20, 1964, during the Festival for New Art at the Audimax of the Technical University of Aachen, Germany (Oeller and Spiegel, 1995, p. 21; Adriani et al., 1981, p. 125–134; Vissaut, 2001, p. 36–47; Beuys, 2009). 15 On August 7, 1964, in response to questions from the Ministry of the Interior.

59

60

Border Wall Aesthetics

Art can help us access this freedom, this self-education that frees us from repression. For Beuys, art and education were linked. He believed that education had to be participatory, for it depended on artistic creation, and thus on life itself. We can think of it like this: art is life; life is art (Beuys, 1993; Von Brügge, 1984; Smith, 1998). Beuys sometimes played with his role as an artist who officially represented West Germany. He believed that an individual’s basic need for art, creativity, and education must be met. He saw art as the capital of society and life. ART = CAPITAL (Schellmann, 1997) refers to art that can inf luence society through the questions it asks. Beuys’ 1977 installation, Richtkräf te, einer neuen Gesellschaf t (Ill. 2.5), at the National Gallery in Berlin shone a light on capital as an economic and social tool. The artist focused directly on the confrontation between East and West: he laid 97 blackboards on the ground, and placed three on easels. The chalk text and diagrams represented fictional conversations with Rudolph Steiner. The result was an organic restructuring of each aspect of society (cultural, social, and economic life), reorganized according to the principles of freedom, equality, and solidarity. At the end of a written line, the words East and West appeared, with the following words at the center: Eurasia and Berlin Wall. This allowed for a visual restructuring of two mental spheres, as described by the artist himself: Western private capitalism (westlichen Privatkapitalismus) versus Eastern state capitalism (östlichen Staatskapitalismus) (Harlan, Rappmann and Shata, 1976, p. 10; Blume, 2003, p. 325–326). Though capitalism remained the common denominator, they are at opposite ends: one is private, the other centralized. A cane was suspended to one of the blackboards. On the opening night of the exhibit, Beuys served as a nomadic shepherd who guided “sheep” with the help of a stick, offering a critical political metaphor. This was a ref lection of current events in Germany, an ideological confrontation supported by the presence of the wall, but whose citizens were all guided just the same. Later on, the artist became more radical, as he stated that the two blocs built the wall together, like a work of art that predicted the future. He believed that the private capitalist system and the communist system both contributed to the creation of the wall. But after having been confronted with the obscene object for twenty years, he started to think of it as a sort of work of art, because the sensitive nature of the area between those two principles began to represent a sort of symbol of the possible future, a future social order (Tisdall and Swain, 1987). Here we find echoes of our initial critique

The Berlin Wall

of the increase in closed borders as part of a form of globalization that promotes certain interests at the expense of others. Illustration 2.5

4. Artistic context 4.1 Several differences Though Beuys thought art was the only political power that could free us from all repression, and the wall as it stood was not so important, because it wasn’t credible (Beuys, 1993), the question remains: how was the wall perceived in artistic terms, and what interest did it generate? Beuys was labeled a West German artist, but what does that really mean? West German artists were thought to be free to develop their art, sharing and creating innovative forms that were specific to Western art of this period: conceptualism, minimalism, figuration libre, videos, happenings, body art, etc. Meanwhile, East German artists were under State control and could only create figurative art. We will quickly examine the foundations of the GDR’s cultural policy. East Germany prohibited any depiction of the wall and its surrounding military infrastructure, making it impossible to use it as a material and illustrative medium. Yet journalists were able to photograph the wall. Though the artistically “exploitable” part was located on the Western side, creation

61

62

Border Wall Aesthetics

around the wall took place quite late (the 1980s), with several notable exceptions. The wall was a rich source of inspiration (drawing, painting, photography, performance, installation) that inspired artists on both sides of the wall in different ways. Over the course of 28 years, interest in the wall was not constant.16 Furthermore, in West Germany, representation of the wall was not necessarily advised, unless it depicted a positive struggle. Certain artists consciously avoided any illustration of the wall. This would have implied an engagement, an acceptance of their role. It could have been perceived as kitsch, counter-political, commercial, encouraging tourism, and involving a certain kind of perversion (Kuhrmann, 2009, p. 116–142). Neutral art, “without labels,” that promoted disengagement was seen a political solution. It is commonly accepted that in West Germany, the tone addressed the truncation of the city of Berlin, both physically and morally. In the East, contestation took place through artistic expression that was melancholy and evoked suffering. In any case, we will see that the wall generated subversion and alternative bubbles of survival.

4.2 Ideology and power In the GDR, art had to serve the country’s ideology. This idea goes back to the Russian post-revolutionary Proletkult movement (Munck, 2000; Gorsen and Knödler-Bunte, 1974; Vogeler, 1920). It was a form of proletarian culture, from 1920 to 1932, in which art excluded any bourgeois elements (such as the Bolshoi) and creative thinking was controlled (Solomon, 1979). On August 14, 1946, the Russian Central Committee proclaimed, “Anything that propagates the absence of ideology, apoliticism, or art for art’s sake is not part of Soviet culture and harms the interests of the Soviet people and State” (Arvon, 1970, p. 89–90). In communist ideology, art could only be strategic (Eagleton, 1976, p. 5). As Otto Grotewohl, the first Chairman of the GDR’s Council of Ministers, stated in 1951, “Art in the fight for the future of Germany: literature and visual arts are subordinate to politics. Ideas expressed in art must follow the direction of the political struggle” (Rohter, 2001, p. 31). In this context, there were official artists (such as those who assimilated and normalized the military apparatus, or received recognition and representation abroad), and 16 For example, the FRG was worried about the Red Army Faction (RAF – Rote Armee Fraktion).

The Berlin Wall

unofficial artists who generally provide more information about how the wall was received and interpreted. To channel creative activity, the GDR set up several tools of control, such as the Ministry of Culture; the Stasi, under the Ministry of State Security (Funder, 2011); the Cultural Fund of the GDR; and the GDR’s Association of Visual Artists. The SED, the ruling political party, also commissioned several works from artists. Additionally, for the security of the State, all works had to “comply with all the recommendations for confidentiality” (Kuhrmann, 2009, p. 116–142). Of course, images had to conform to GDR rules (Flügge, 1998) and face censorship. In order to ensure they complied with directives and had access to a studio, artists had to join the Fine Arts Association of the GDR (Marten, 2007). Before Honecker took power in 1971, when the cultural policy became slightly more f lexible, artists could theoretically exhibit their work freely in private spaces called living room-galleries (Wohnzimmer-Galerien) or go to “plein-air”17 spaces in the countryside for festive work meetings (Kaiser, 1997). After 1971, unofficial alternative galleries opened (such as Gallery Arkade in Berlin, Eigen & Art in Leipzig, Gallery Oben in Karl-Marx-Stadt) and temporary events were organized in public spaces (that were nevertheless unusual: cemeteries, landfills) (Lübbe, 1984). The GDR, much like the Soviet regime, expected artists to serve as the agents or representatives of a strong and glorious communism. Since the wall already showed the State’s weakness, the regime asked several art historians to create a theory of socialist realism to teach artists (Blume, 2003, p. 46; Jampol, 2014). Stalin summarized this current of though: “The artist ought to show life truthfully. And if he shows our life truthfully, he cannot fail to show it moving to socialism. This is and will be socialist realism” (Vaughan, 1973, p. 86). The force of this art was to come from the immanence of everyday reality, with a focus on figurative representation. But if “realism in art is the mode of representation that claims to simply transcribe what is actually real and what we consider to be real” (Heidegger, 2006, p. 219), this realism cannot refute reality since it is subject to perceptions and thus serves an ideological truth. Art can be used a demagogic tool. This can be seen in the monumental sculptures of political emissaries, the redundant iconography of important figures (Marx, Engels, Lenin) that bolstered the cult of personality, the messages of 17 In French in the text.

63

64

Border Wall Aesthetics

social cohesion expressed in commissioned works of art, the enthusiastic and vigorous energy of the workers represented, and so on. Architecture may also have been used as a perfect communication tool. This is most obvious in the Mitte area, with its Fernseheturm television tower dominating Alexander Platz as a showcase for communism, extending onto the Palace of the Republic (the parliament), which replaced the former Prussian palace (Ill. 2.6). Illustration 2.6

Dissident artists were quickly revealed: in addition to the pressure they faced, their rejection of the system could lead to public critiques that fed back on themselves (the Bitterfeld conferences in 1959 and 1964), resignations from the party (Wolfgang Mattheuer in 1988), threats of resignations (Werner Tübke in 1968), confiscations of works by Stasi (Roger Loewig in 196518), and voluntary and involuntary exile in the West (Wolf Biermann in 1976), sparking movements of resistance and indignation19 (Bonnke, 2007, p. 308–318; Blume and Maerz, 2003; Schultz and Wagener, 2007, p. 281; Honecker, 1965; Schubbe, 1972, p. 1076). 18 Dorgerloh et al., 2011, p. 89; Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, “Die durch den Beschuldigten Loewig gefertigten Gemälde, Zeichnungen, Gedichte und Prosaschriften sind durch ihre Inhalt und ihre Form von besonderer Gefährlichkeit”, Anklageschrift, August 5, 1964. 19 Biermann, like Stefan Heym and Robert Havemann were considered “a brochette of bourgeois who behave anarchically,[…] are arrogant,[…] skeptical, and cynical” (Schubbe, 1972, p. 1076).

The Berlin Wall

5. Berlin Wall aesthetics It was therefore much more difficult in East Germany than West Germany to depict the wall in artistic representations and interpretations. What happened when the wall first appeared? Initial representations were that of observation, of noticing the change. First, it was the landscape that was disrupted, as shown in Stadtlandschaf t, a 1961 oil painting by Peter Herrmann, who lived in Dresden (Ill. 2.7). In the foreground, concrete blocks show the construction underway. In the middle ground we can see the city surrounded by fencing and a wall topped with barbed wire in the background. The plane and the parachutist confer a military atmosphere. The style is very naïve, but the explicit content has a significant impact (Nentwig and Bartmann, 2009). Illustration 2.7

65

66

Border Wall Aesthetics

Another East German artist, Robert Rehfeldt, clearly shows the military changes resulting from the presence of the wall in a 1962 engraving entitled Grenzsoldat und Mauerkrone (Ill. 2.8). The strokes are rough but expressive, as if to signify the urgency of the situation. In the foreground, a soldier faces the viewer wearing a helmet, a gas mask, and a gun. His shadow follows him like a future clone. We can identify the wall, left in white, because of the barbed wire on top. Illustration 2.8

The Berlin Wall

The last fundamental change, which lasted 28 years, was the separation of families. Horst Strempel, an artist who went to the West, depicted this human drama in his 1962 engraving Frau an der Mauer. A woman has her hands on her face, and seems to be crying. Behind her, the wall separates her from her loved ones. The landscape, which had become military in nature, separated families. This may have been the first artistic observation made starting in 1961. There was a sense of powerlessness. Berlin Wall aesthetics were thus organized around two key areas: infrastructure and perception. Artistic expression essentially took place in the West.

5.1 Work on the infrastructure Regarding infrastructure, the wall can be viewed as a documentary subject, with photography as the most effective medium. A world-famous photo captured a GDR soldier jumping over barbed wire to reach the West on August 15, 1961.20 This photo served as a symbolic act of resistance to the regime. Journalists also showed the construction of the wall, the walled up buildings, people running with their luggage, families saying their goodbyes on both sides of the barrier, and so on. The beginning of photojournalism had found its ideal subject in the wall. We were not transported into battlefields (Robert Capa, reporters in Vietnam, etc.), since this was a so-called Cold War. Rather, as in the photos taken by Robert Häusser (2009), the main subject is the infrastructure of the wall itself, which is more important than the people who simply serve the composition (Ill. 2.9). On the other hand, Raymond Depardon (2014) and Henri Cartier-Bresson (1998) insisted on incorporating the wall into its human environment: children discovering a new play area, adults climbing as high as possible to see the other side (Ill. 2.10). This 1960s photojournalism still inspires artists today. One example is a photo taken by Gerd Schütz showing Brandenburg Gate after the border was closed in West Berlin (Ill. 2.11), in which we can see two border guards through loops of barbed wire. In 2008, artists Takahiro Suzuki and Yukihiro Taguchi created a video installation based on that photograph, using a closer shot to amplify 20 In Peter Leibing’s photograph we can see the GDR soldier, Conrad Schumann (Kempe 2011, p. 429–468).

67

68

Border Wall Aesthetics

the role of the barbed wire and military. They then played the role of happy and relaxed tourists posing in front of the monument. Their clothing bears the word ‘piece,’ and their fingers in the peace sign play ironically with the notion of peace. This spatiotemporal shift questions the trivialization and understanding of the historical event, as well as the massive tourism that contributes to it. Illustration 2.9 A-B

The Berlin Wall

69

70

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.10

Illustration 2.11

The Berlin Wall

Can photojournalism ref lect reality? Though the idea is seductive, it is clear that any photograph is taken subjectively. With more recent projects, there is an obvious obsession with reconstructing the wall. The recurring question focusing on this past reality is: where was the wall? Several initiatives have attempted to provide answers. In 2009, in The Invisible Wall, Stephan Kaluza conscientiously retraced the structure’s absence by taking 20,000 photographs along 43 km of the intra-Berlin border. It is this new architectural space that rekindles our collective memory. Vestiges of the L-shaped wall, the third generation from 1975, can still be spotted in various places (not just in Berlin). It is this version of the wall that has marked spirits the most. A 1981 etching by Manfred Butzmann entitled Grenzmauer deepens the bleak and steep depth of the wall (Ill. 2.12). His work captures both a material and psychological realism. Despite the wall’s harshness, it is boring to look at. Illustration 2.12

71

72

Border Wall Aesthetics

Architecture creates the psychogeography of a place, meaning how the environment (in this case urban) can create the paradigm of lived daily experience. Though the wall disrupted people’s bearings at first, it now arouses curiosity about its lived reality. The T+T collective, made up of Teresa Reuter, an architect, and Tamiko Thiel, an artist specialized in virtual reality, created a 3D reconstruction of one part of the wall using augmented reality (Ill. 2.13). Visitors could stand before a projection with a joystick, immersed in the visual and acoustic environment of the wall. They could walk all around it and experience going through a prohibited area or being asked for their papers (“Ausweis bitte!”). In this case, 3D was used after the fact for aesthetic and pedagogical purposes. Illustration 2.13 A-C

The Berlin Wall

The wall is the architect’s first construction, the centerpiece that configures the space in which we move around. This architectural infrastructure is designed for its time. However, there are certain sporadic, though notorious examples of different conceptions. In 1970, Allan Kaprow (1976) another artist connected to Fluxus, created a collective performance entitled Sweet Wall involving the construction of a wall that was more than one meter high and 30 meters long (Ill. 2.14). The cinder block mortar was made of strawberry jelly spread on slices of bread. Sugar, representing the sweetness of life, and bread, a staple food, were restricted, as a metaphor of daily life and East-West relations. What’s more, the action and the location became more political than expected. In addition to the fact that feminist socialist dissident Rosa Luxembourg was tortured in that spot in 1919, on the eve of the performance an East German citizen was killed by guards while attempting to escape by swimming across the Spree River. Kaprow and gallery owner René Block had a hard time explaining that the performance was a work of art and not a political denunciation.

73

74

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.14

Other less dramatic works focus on the factual nature of the wall. The location of the wall, as well as the accompanying discourse sometimes seemed arbitrary or unjustified. In 1972, acclaimed artist Wolf Vostell also offered his interpretation of the space. He added two three-dimensional segments to a photograph of the Berlin Wall and Brandenburg Gate (Ill. 2.15), representing f laws in the new territory and highlighting a different kind of spatialization.

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.15

In 1987, the artistic duo p.t.t.red (Paint the Town Red) created a new topography of the city with an installation in the urban space (Stadtrauminstallation) entitled Goldener Schnitt, which divided the map of Berlin diagonally. In place, they painted five steel structures in gold to create a line separating the two new cities (Ill. 2.16). Then in their 1989 work Rotverschiebung, they placed 11 red spots in a straight line on more than 22,50 km of the Alexanderplatz-Schäferberg axis, giving the artists’ new arbitrary decisions a resolutely aesthetic function (Ill. 2.17).

75

76

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.16

The wall is also fascinating in its immobility, with artists creating movement around it to generate an aesthetic conversation. Several transitory movements, since necessarily temporary, punctuated these creative works later on. First of all frontality: confronting the wall by facing up to it directly. This is what Ewa Partum, a Polish artist, did in her 1984 performance (Nentwig and Bartmann, 2009, p. 69; Macel, 2010). In it she stood naked, in heels, her back to the wall, facing the audience. Her arms were stretched out, in the position of a body search, as if she were beyond reproach, with nothing to hide. With her right hand, she took a picture. She thus literally exposed (herself) and took responsibility for her own denunciation (Ill. 2.18).

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.17

Illustration 2.18

Movement along the wall is possible. We can see the importance of linearity through the Der weiße Strich action, which began on November 3, 1986. The collective composed of Wolfram Hasch, Jürgen Onisseit, Thomas Onisseit, Frank Schuster, and Frank Willmann decided to trace a horizontal white line in the middle of the wall along the intra-Berlin length on the Western side. They planned to walk along the wall with paint cans and masks. How-

77

78

Border Wall Aesthetics

ever, on the second day, Wolfram Hasch, the project initiator, was arrested. It turned out that one member of the group was actually an unofficial Stasi agent (Hahn and Willmann, 2011). Infiltration by agents remained the most effective way of foiling dissident initiatives. At the end of the 1980s, spies could be found in the meetings of dissidents organized in churches, which were supposedly neutral; in punk groups (Boehkle et Gerikte, 2010); and in circles of poets in the Prenzlauer-Berg area. The most well known use of the wall’s linearity came from the 1980s graffiti artists who adorned the wall with their work. Though this occurred relatively late, the initiative was very popular. Several graffiti artists who frequently painted the wall include Thierry Noir and his colorful heads (Ill. 2.19); Christophe Bouchet’s animals; Idiano’s stylized heads; Rudolf Schlichter’s couples; and Kiddy Citny’s heart-shaped heads (Kuzdas, 2006; Gründer, 2007). Illustration 2.19 A-B

The Berlin Wall

However the most widely remembered event is certainly Keith Haring’s visit in October 1986 (Ill. 2.20). The pop artist had been asked to create a mural, a yellow frieze featuring his trademark black and red figures. However, not everyone was happy about his presence. The wall had paradoxically become the preserve of the artists who had been using it as the ideal canvas on which to practice their art, without any concern for denouncing the political situation. When the wall came down, at the end of 1989 and in 1990, some pieces were left standing for commemorative purposes. The East-Side Gallery opened and invited 118 artists from 21 countries to paint something connected to the wall in some way, on a length of 1.30 km (Ill. 2.21). 21 The wall was then turned into a collective work, with each artist or social organization covering a piece of it. The result showcased disparate aesthetics that combined peaceful aspirations, derision, and critiques of the former GDR regime. It certainly marked history. However, the East-Side Gallery was unable to withstand pressure from property developers. Investors bought part of the land, despite its symbolic, positive, and highly touristic function.

21 www.eastsidegallery-berlin.com. Accessed on April 1, 2019.

79

80

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.20 A-B

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.21 A-C

81

82

Border Wall Aesthetics

The Berlin Wall

When the Berlin border opened on November 9, 1989, both journalists and regular people took photographs of those who had climbed on top of the wall to express their joy (Ill. 2.22). A wide variety of media covered the event. Celebrating in front of often frazzled-looking border guards, crowds gathered close to the wall, some sitting, some standing, many with bottles of alcohol to mark the occasion. These festivities are a reminder of a performance that took place throughout 1986. John Runnings, a 64-year-old American peace activist, was able to climb on the concrete tube that topped the wall from the West, armed with a hammer to damage it (Ill. 2.23). Even after being arrested by the police, his correspondence with his wife showed how tenacious he was (Running, 1986–1987). Until 1989, he created a number of performances relating to the wall, utterly convinced of its absurdity until the end. The absurdity of creating an artificial impasse between two worlds is precisely what artist Christo and Jeanne-Claude sought to evoke. On the night of June 27, 1962, they installed a wall of colorful oil barrels on Rue Visconti in Paris, blocking the passage.22 There were multiple reasons behind this action. Christo is of Bulgarian origin, and his family suffered directly under that communist regime. So he felt personally affected by the erection of the Iron Curtain.23 This piece was also created in the context of the Algerian War, in which a week of barricades had left their mark.24 Many years later, during the 2012 Berlin Biennial, under the theme art and politics, Macedonian artist Nada Prlja installed a wall on a street near Checkpoint Charlie (Ill. 2.24). Her intention to separate the rich, commercial part of the street from the section occupied by immigrants was met with a great deal of resistance (Oddonne, 2012). Indignation came from a denial of differences, or resistance to noticing them, a loss in sales, the memory of the Cold War, and so on. In short, her wall was controversial.

22 www.christojeanneclaude.net/projects/wall-of-oil-barrels---the-iron-curtain. Accessed on April 1, 2019. 23 Request to the prefecture submitted in October 1961, before the Berlin Wall was erected. 24 This could extend to the Algerian War in general with the demonstrations by the FLN and their supporters, followed by the October 17, 1961 massacre in Paris.

83

84

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.22 A-B

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.23

85

86

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.24 A-B

However, people could get around her wall. And there are always other material and psychological possibilities. In 1982, Artist Stephan Elsner showed that he could replace the wall’s concrete with art that he named as such (Nentwig and Bartmann, 2009, p. 57). He first created a transparent sheet that he covered in red, black, and white tones. He then went to the wall where he carefully replaced a section of the wall with his own work bearing an explicit name: Grenzverletzung (border violation). The artist was only caught

The Berlin Wall

once by British authorities. Attempts to pass through the wall can also be seen in mail art, with Rehfeldt as the most well known representative (Marten, 2007). A resident of the East, he maintained extensive correspondence with other artists. The practice was formulated as contact + art = contart.25 In addition to sharing poetry and drawings, there was the desire and need to avoid detection. Since the regular mail was short-circuited by the Stasi, which opened 90,000 letters per day, prudence was required. However, creativity could not be prevented from circulating. We have examined the infrastructure of the wall through different media in order to understand its essence, from when it first appeared to the ways it evolved as part of the landscape. It remained the ideal medium for artists to work with. The ones we mentioned here never seemed to get used to its presence, and did whatever they could to transgress it. In the next section, we will examine how the wall’s absence reminds us of the duty to understand and remember.

5.2 Playing with perceptions We started with the wall as a physical object, taken as such. Now will examine the ways in which the wall is subverted through perception of the wall’s characteristics: its shape, size, and the space it occupied. According to Kant, subjects already know the truth of an object thanks to pure intuition, without prior experience (Kant, 2006). Nevertheless, there is movement, a spatio-temporal lag. This means that we, as subjects, are already no longer the same once we understand what we are looking at. This movement is just a succession of instants, of lives and deaths in a given space. This is what human perception is based on. It is not innate, but something that is experienced and shifting. The perception of the object is pre-judged; its unity is accepted in strata. It is in this interval that the artist can assimilate and interpret the object, the wall. The wall is not necessarily perceived in tragic ways, as we have already seen through the somewhat transgressive methods used. It can also serve as the subject of narration rather than just a concrete medium in which only the raw material matters.

25 With Wolf Vostell, Joseph Beuys, György Galántai, Anna Banana, Endre Tót, Paulo Bruscky, Egardo Antonio Vigo, and Clemente Padín (Winnes, 1994; Dittert, 2010; Staeck et al., 2013).

87

88

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.25

The Berlin Wall

The wall can give rise to fantasy. Since our field of vision is limited, we wonder who or what is on the other side. In 1989, artist Klaus Killisch, who lived in East Berlin, painted Mann vor Mauer. The date, as well as the diagonal structure, suggests the wall was there. Red, black, and white tones predominate (Ill. 2.25). The man wears a hat and looks like he is waiting, conveying a climate of conspiracy (Kaiser and Petzold, 1997). Rainer Fetting, who lived in West Berlin, produced post-expressionist perceptions of the world starting in 1975 (Berlinische Galerie, 2011). In 1980, he painted his view of the wall from the window of his studio in the Kreuzberg area, simply calling it Mauer. There is a plunging perspective, and the slanted wall snakes it way towards the far right corner of the painting. Here too, the colors are original: blue-lavender and lime green predominate, showing that the wall can be an object like any other (Ill. 2.26). Illustration 2.26

89

90

Border Wall Aesthetics

But the wall can also provoke radical acts, since it can be perceived as the perfect item against which to revolt. We will look at two examples. In 1984, activist Kain Karawahn set fire to a section of the wall on Potsdamer Platz (Mueller, 2013). This performance can be called anarchic for its extreme symbolism. Was setting fire to the wall a desire to end the forced separation once and for all? Was it suggesting a vision of hell? Or was it just a simple aesthetic game? (Ill. 2.27). Comic book artist Enki Bilal was familiar with the stagecraft of communist regimes thanks to his Yugoslav parents. In his 1982 work Die Berliner Mauer, he drew characters and animals, almost mutants, that circulated around the closed border, offering a completely chaotic vision. The 1984 Naturenkatastrophen-konzert (Natural disaster Concerts) by West Berlin experimental punk group the Tödliche Doris also offered a singular response to the geopolitical situation.26 In a wasteland generated by the presence of the wall, a woman spits fire when the f lames of the microphone on a stand start attacking her. The concert then begins: a man emerges playing the violin, or rather pretending to play, since he doesn’t know how (or he pretends not to know). Another person emerges and plays the accordion just as uncertainly. The pointed ends of tacks are stuck to the keys of the instrument, injuring the players’ fingers. The trio then comes back together and continues the performance with choreography and percussion objects. The microphone falls to the ground, burnt and spent. The concert continues. Catastrophe is combined with the absurd in a powerful visual experiment.

26 See also the pioneering musical groups in the FRG: industrial scene, punk, post-punk, new wave (Einstürzende Neubauten, DAF, Cabaret Voltaire, etc.), psychedelic rock (Can, etc.), and electronic music (Kraftwerk, etc). And of course the visits of David Bowie, Lou Reed, Brian Eno, Nick Cave, Pink Floyd, and so on.

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.27

The wall engenders in turn denunciation (revealing something unpleasant) and transgression (surpassing the given limits). An additional step can be taken if we examine the concept of escape—meaning that which is no longer subject to the law. Here we are referring to an absolute deviation from rules and codes, thus creating a new perspective. American artist Gordon Matta-Clark made use of his American nationality in his performance The Wall: In 1976, as part of the Akademie der Kunst and Berliner Festwochen exhibition ‘Soho in Berlin,’ Gordon Matta-Clark went to Germany with the intention of blowing up a section of the Berlin Wall. Dissuaded by friends from such a suicidal action, the result was the following performance.27 After having his papers checked and receiving an official warning from the police, the artist glued posters of typical West German products on different sections of the wall (Quark curd cheese, Milka chocolate, Wienerwald rotisserie, Schultheiss beer) and provided his own twist on the content. A beer brand was ironically called From USSR mit love (from the USSR with 27 Matta-Clark, G., The Wall, 1976–2007, 15:04 min, color, sound, 16 mm video transfer © Estate of Gordon Matta-Clark, Electronic Arts Intermix.

91

92

Border Wall Aesthetics

love), while other posters entitled Made in America depicted a red f lag superimposed with a stencil that combined the American f lag and the Soviet hammer and sickle (Ill. 2.28). This dissonance, this forced cohabitation of supposedly conf licting symbols provokes and suggests a total escape from norms. Illustration 2.28 A-B

The Berlin Wall

In a 1961 watercolor, Günter Grass illustrates the passage of those attempting to escape through a tunnel, a deceitful object through its very infrastructure (Ill. 2.29). We can tell that the opening is headed towards the West based on the direction the people face and the position of the barbed wire on the wall. Grass, who was himself a smuggler, narrates this time of his life: One of the escape routes, which went from the city center to Kreuzberg, we called Glockengasse 4711, like on the cologne bottles, because we were all, smugglers and refugees, walking in shit up to our knees. Later on, I was the ‘lid’. As soon as people were on their way, I would replace the lid to the entrance, since the last fugitives were so panicked they forgot to close it. (Grass, 1999, p. 208–209) This was indeed the escape, the exile required to attain liberation. Illustration 2.29

Starting on November 9, 1989, travel between East and West was finally allowed. However, the wall was not fully dismantled until November 1991. Citizens, then tourists, rushed to destroy the wall with hammers, hatchets, and even rocks. During this period, Marcus Kaiser placed a camera obscura in ruts in the wall, in holes that had been hammered out. Photography is a necessary form of voyeurism (Kaiser, 2009). Yet the escape offered by

93

94

Border Wall Aesthetics

Mauerblicke Wall Views is fictional, since the wall had already been opened up. Instead, it suggests a passage between the past, present, and future (Ill. 2.30). A series of photographs by Barbara Noculak, like the precise unrolling of a film reel, reveals the dismantling of the wall to be a long and laborious process. Illustration 2.30 A-B

The Berlin Wall

These events were perceived in different ways. The end of the Cold War and defeat of the Soviet bloc legitimized the Western bloc. It had become clear that the West was economically and socially more powerful than the East.28 It was therefore up to the East (the Ossies), the “losers” to adapt to the West (the Wessies), the “winners” (Flanagan and Taberner, 2000). New elections did not take place until four months after the wall fell (Jarausch, 1994). In the German context, is it possible to think about political reunification as a cultural reconnection (Probst, 1999)? Though the wall may have become a

28 German reunification is estimated to have cost 250 billion euros (Novosseloff and Neisse, 2007).

95

96

Border Wall Aesthetics

relic in the collective memory, what about the wall that persisted in people’s minds? And what of this oft-cited Ostalgie?29 November 1989, a painting by Gerhard Richter (Probst, 1999, p. 355), references the opening of the wall. The composition contains f lat tints of black, gray, and white that leave us with major questions: is this a purely technical work, or a somber vision of the implications of the wall’s destruction (Babias, 2006)? In another work, footprints represent the trace of an external force on a particular medium. In November 1989, Barbara Brandhorst installed a 10-meter roll of paper on Heinrich-Heine-Strasse in West Berlin, precisely on the line that separated the city from the East. She then wrote the word ROT (Red) on The Red Carpet of Freedom (Nentwig and Bartmann, 2009, p. 10). The symbols are thus ambivalent. The red of the communists is combined with the prestigious red welcome carpet (Ill. 2.31). The footprints left on this work are now indelible. In 1990, several checkpoints still remained. Photographer Michael Wesely captured this particular moment, in which the border guard at Brandenburg Gate is a ghostly figure (Ill. 2.32). We can recognize him, but the long exposure time suggests his job will soon be obsolete. Between 1994 and 1998, Frank Thiel conceived of a work that questions the historical experience at Checkpoint Charlie, the control area between the two Germanys in the Berlin enclave (Ill. 2.33). His installation of a light box in the form of a billboard is striking. On one side there is a photo of an American military officer, and on the other side a Soviet officer. The history of the Cold War is effectively summarized in this iconic location.

29 Based on informal questions we asked around 20 people, in both East and West Germany, between 2009 and 2012.

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.31

97

98

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.32

The Berlin Wall

Illustration 2.33

6. The Berlin Wall: metaphoric foundation? In conclusion, it is worth repeating that West Berlin was an enclave within the GDR that followed the rhythm of the Western bloc. Meanwhile, for everyday citizens of the GDR, the Iron Curtain was another enclave, since their movements were controlled. Aristotle’s concept of “political animal” is therefore relevant here. Human-citizens found themselves more than ever in a state of spatial and political captivity, requiring them to rethink their self-definition as sentient beings, since this supposed a freedom they were being denied. Though the humanist tradition limited itself to “de-bestializing” and “de-savaging” humanity’s natural state, the wall challenged this

99

100

Border Wall Aesthetics

domestication. Is it easier to take humans as a “material to work on” when power holds all the knowledge. According to Foucault’s philosophy, the wall was a perfect immanence of biopower. Through mechanisms of control, it entrenched itself in a strategic geographic and military space (Foucault, 1976). The dual enclave created by the GDR evokes the metaphor of the shepherd mentioned by Plato (Aristotle, 1874), Hobbes (2000, p. 480), Sloterdijk (2000), and revisited by Beuys. The politicians who govern are the shepherds. They are the ones who guide, who lead, who keep their f locks alive and use them for sustenance. It is obviously smarter to surround these f locks to better control them. The Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain were precisely these pens. According to Sloterdijk, human-herds already maintain their own docility by creating parks around themselves. He goes on to say: Plato’s dangerous sense for dangerous ideas lies within the blind spot of all high-culture pedagogues and politicos—in particular, his admission of the actual inequality of people before the knowledge that power gives. In the logical form of a grotesque search for definitions the dialogue develops the preamble of a political anthropotechnology. It is not just a matter of pacifically directing the herd which has already tamed itself; it is a question of systematically generating new, idealized, exemplary individuals. (Sloterdijk, 2009) The end result is simply the maintenance of the power in place. The wall ref lects an ostentatious unease between two ideologies, between two codifications. It removes the ability of a civilian population in a precise area to engage in aggression by convincing it of the role and truth of a large, unified family. The characteristics of the wall are seen in its intention to include–exclude. It is a tool to negate the other, and even the violent aspects within oneself. Even though we need others to exist and develop, here are they excluded to promote peaceful community life. According to Freud (2010), people are shaped by a balance between life and death instincts. Individuals need both of these releases to be satisfied. If we remove an excuse for aggressiveness, this weakens individuals. Autarky occurs and places decision-makers at the top of the ladder. The masses must simply submit or accept it. The violence comes from this authoritarian transfer, the impossibility of freedom. The lack of individual freedom facilitates the existence of the wall. Individual freedom cannot belong to anyone else. According to

The Berlin Wall

Rousseau: “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society” (Rousseau, 1973, p. 84). Even while claiming to encourage collective property, the GDR asserted the very principle of civil society by erecting a wall and encircling two populations. A circumscribed territory was ultimately easier to control. It protected the GDR’s ideology and enshrined a form of unilateral power. However, illusion is the watchword here, since there are of course contradictions within systems. Even worse, enclosures do not prevent transgressions, whether from populations or governments. While the erection of the wall may have been one of the culminations of the Cold War, it was not able to eliminate an inter-zone economic system that began in 1950. The Swing-Regelung (Swing control) regulated the internal market and promoted trade between the two States. “Money has no smell,”30 as the saying goes. Or as Der Spiegel asked in 1974: “Forced by the Swing? The federal government wants to maintain the GDR’s current overdraft—but will not exert any political pressure for economic reasons.”31 We will see later that any supposedly bilateral, or even multilateral, conf lict can raise cross-sectional economic issues that go well beyond a simple binary ideological confrontation. In that sense, the wall seems rather anecdotal. Furthermore, when the GDR’s economy weakened, it increased its number of prisoners that it would “sell” back to the FRG at very attractive prices (Rehlinger, 2011). As for the population, their transgressions were not theoretical. In addition to the tunnels and illegal border crossings, those who wanted to migrate to the West were often quite ingenious.32 The shifting space created by the wall generated psychogeographical possibilities before and after its presence. In the socio-cultural realm, a wide ranges of responses occurred. For example, the squat movement became an unsuspected presence in East Germany. 30 If artist Mark Lombardi had studied this case, he would certainly have highlighted the theoretically contradictory, and thus exemplary connections (Hanak, 1969, p. 24, cited in Leptin, 1974, p. 113). 31 www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-41651510.html. Accessed April 1, 2019. 32 Suitcases, boxes, cars cut low to the ground, car trunks, cable cars, homemade microlights, hot air balloons. There was even a mini-submarine. The GDR sometimes had to move its boundaries to bypass water access points. But the aquatic boundaries were always closely monitored. Meanwhile, the FRG placed buoys to indicate the sector borders (Sektorengrenze) on its waterways (Kleindienst, 2009).

101

102

Border Wall Aesthetics

Starting in the 1970s, with the construction of new modern developments, the GDR let young people move into empty buildings (Grashoff, 2011, p. 43). In West Germany, this practice (often tied to the autonomist movement) became common with the Bürgerinitiativ S036 and cultural initiatives such as Künstlerhaus Bethanien GmbH, Kuckuck, Kerngehäuse Kulturzentrum (Suttner, 2011, p. 121–130). Later, on land that had become neutral, Tacheles (the most well known example) brought together artists and artisans from various backgrounds in a utopian commune. In response to ‘too much future’, punks in the GDR rose up as the ideal antithesis to the system (Teipel, 2001; Boehkle and Gerikte, 2010). Artistic interpretations of the Berlin wall show that its topography and temporal relationship to the city are major tools used to create this art. Yet artists perceived the wall differently depending on their socio-cultural origins, which determined their engagement and forms of derision. Using the wall as infrastructure, artists acted according to the physical and geopolitical reality they experienced. They shaped the wall’s matter as a canvas for their art. Out of all the artistic formats mentioned, photography made it easier to analyze the infrastructure, performance offered a dialectic on the wall’s visibility, as did graffiti by allowing artists to claim the space. Meanwhile, censorship prompted ingenious circumventions of the conf lict (Kunst-postale). When the wall turned into an object of perception, its substance was subject to an even more subjective narration. Painting made it fanciful, while performance exacerbated the restrictions it caused. Its disappearance, taken from a German artistic perspective, conjures the trace it will leave and the common future to be redrawn. The wall has become a work of art even as it encourages ref lections about daily life, the temporal relationship (experience-memory), its absurdity, and its possible transgressions in this divided world. The next two barriers we examine will show the ways in which artists directly perceived and assimilated this phenomenon.

PART 2 Aesthetics in the 21st century

Chapter 3 The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Historical distance has facilitated our analysis of the aesthetic and geopolitical issues relating to the Berlin Wall. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conf lict, it has been covered extensively enough for readers to form their own opinions. We will also leave contemporary geopolitical analysis to the experts. Instead, we will focus on the reasons underlying the construction of the separation barrier to help us understand the resulting artistic expression.

1. Geopolitical context The region begins at the Mediterranean Sea in the west, and is bordered by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The State of Israel controls 78% (22,072 km²) of the territory, while the remaining 22% are part of the proto-state of Palestine (6,020 km²) and Israel.1 The foundations of the conf lict are based here, within the contested area designated as either “occupied” or “disputed” territories. Agricultural activity in the area began in 8,000–7,000 BCE. Between 1,800–1,600 BCE, all or some of the Hebrew people left Mesopotamia to invade the so-called Holy Land. Biblical accounts provided some of the arguments for requisitioning these lands (see Jericho, Land of Canaan). The Kingdom of Israel, which King David founded in around 1,000 BCE, maintained Jerusalem as its center of

1  Source: United Nations Data.

106

Border Wall Aesthetics

sovereignty and Jewish worship until 133.2 Jesus was said to have been born in Bethlehem during the Roman era, which began around 61 BCE. From 70 to 132, the Jewish population progressively declined, and some went into exile (2nd diaspora). In 135, the Roman Empire named the region Palestine. Christian dominance declined following Caliph Omar’s conquest in 638. Nevertheless, the three monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) were able to coexist in the area. In Jerusalem, the site of Temple Mount (or Noble Sanctuary for Muslims) and its Western Wall (known as the Wailing Wall, Kotel, or Buraq Wall, depending on the religion) is sacred in more ways than one (Montefiore Sebag, 2011). This wall is the most important holy site for Jews because of its proximity to the Debir, the innermost part of the temple that housed the Ark of the Covenant. For the Arab-Muslim World, it was in the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and the Dome of the Rock that Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey is said to taken place. For Christians, it was in this precise spot that many of the events in Jesus’ life took place (Noll, 2002). At the end of the 19th century, a succession of conquests3 in the territory altered the balance of power, with the region becoming the center of all attention. In 1840, Rabbi Alcalay had already evoked the idea of recovering these lands to create a homeland. Yet around 1880, the Ottoman Empire in power sought to reduce Jewish immigration and prohibit Jews from buying land.4 In 1897, Theodor Herzl organized the first Zionist gathering Basel, Switzerland. Participants formed a plan to collectivize land to ensure the viability of a Jewish homeland. His pamphlet Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) presented a secular rather than a fundamentally religious argument. It encouraged European Jews to buy land in Palestine and go into exile there (Herzl, 2011). At the beginning of World War I, the Ottomans opposed the Allies and part of the Jewish population was forced into exile once again. In 1916, following the defeat of the Ottomans, the Sykes-Picot agreement partitioned the area between the Allies. Libya and Syria were awarded to France, while 2 The Empire withstood a number of attacks: conquest by the Assyrians around 722 BCE; destruction of Solomon’s Temple around 586 BCE, which confined the first Jewish diaspora to Babylon; Alexander the Great’s division of the Empire in 331 BCE; and the conquest by Antiochus IV. 3 By the Seljuk Turks (1071); Fatimid Egyptians (1098); the Christian Crusades (1099) that massacred Jews and barred them from Jerusalem; the Ottoman Empire (1291 to 1917); and an incursion by Napoleon’s troops in 1798; among others. 4 The Jewish population numbered 24,000 out of a total of 400,000 inhabitants at the time.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

part of Palestine went to the United Kingdom. In November 1917, the Zionist Dr. Chaim Weismann drafted the initial Balfour Declaration, which expressed Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish homeland that would not affect the freedom of non-Jewish communities living on Palestinian soil. Following the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, Jews (represented by Dr. Weismann) and Arabs (represented by Emir Faisal) expressed their disagreement on the topic. The British Mandate for Palestine, which began in 1920, sought support from the United States to implement the Balfour Declaration. In response, the outraged Arab population also requested US support, so the government set up the King-Crane commission to study the issue. At the beginning of the British mandate, Palestine was much larger, extending east of the Jordan River, and including Transjordan. In 1920, following the failed invasion by the troops of King Hussein of Hejaz (Saudi Arabia), the boundaries were located in the Eastern part of Jordan. The Jewish and Arab entities disagreed about the boundary lines proposed by Great Britain. Riots began as a result, with the re-organization of the holy sites (Western Wall, Temple Mount, Al-Aqsa Mosque). At the same time, immigration increased the Jewish population. In 1930, the British sought to limit this immigration (through the Passfield White Paper) to reassure the Arab population. The Zionist Dr. Weismann strongly opposed these measures, and negotiated more f lexible agreements, which revived tensions. In 1936, the Grand Mufti led an Arab revolt against Britain (Stein, 1987; Weizmann, 1974). In 1939, a second White Paper regulating Jewish immigration provided a temporary appeasement. This inter-war period and the time right before World War II broke have strongly inf luenced the Israeli-Palestinian conf lict, already revealing the respective viewpoints and interests regarding the area. Restricting Jewish immigration became a delicate matter in the context of Nazi Germany and its anti-Jewish policies (the Holocaust wasn’t discovered until later) (Aronso, 2004). In 1945, the British government turned over its mandate to the United Nations. Two years later, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended the Partition Plan for Palestine with an Arab state and a Jewish State, and an international regime governing Jerusalem (Ill. 3.1). Arab representatives rejected this plan. War broke out after the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel, signed by Ben-Gourion on May 14, 1948. The Arab people lost territory as a result of this war, which they called the Nakba (Catastrophe): 400 villages were destroyed and 726,000 Arab refugees were sent to neighboring coun-

107

108

Border Wall Aesthetics

tries. Jerusalem was divided by barriers and barbed wires between Jordan and Israel. In 1948–1949, the UN drafted Armistice Agreements (the “Green Line”) giving Israel 48% of historic Palestine (Schlöch, 1983). Illustration 3.1

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

By the end of 1964, the Palestinian Fatah movement led by Yasser Arafat, and the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) emerged to oppose Israel’s territorial ambitions and its plan to pump irrigation water from the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias). Violence continued to escalate, driven in part by terrorist acts against Israel. This led to the Six-Day War in 1967, during which Arabs lost a significant amount of territory (East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, Sinai, the West Bank, and Golan). The second Green Line was created despite the intervention of the United Nations (Resolution 242), which called for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conf lict.”5 A succession of events prolonged the conf lict even further.6 Between 1987 and 1991, the First Intifada began as the Palestinian population rose up against the Israeli occupiers. The Oslo Accords signed in 1993 and 1995 occurred in a calmer international environment, offering a more stable foundation for negotiations (Said, 2001; Chomsky, 2004). Shimon Peres,7 the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time, wrote, “We need soft borders, not rigid, impermeable ones. Borders are not walls. We need not close ourselves off with a wall, which in any case would not strengthen the national sovereignty of either side” (Peres, 1993, p. 170–171). Reciprocal sovereignty rights were recognized and the retreat from occupied zones was negotiated (Foundation for Middle East Peace, 1994). Nevertheless, in 1994, barbed wire barriers combined with a smaller electric fence circled the entire Gaza Strip over a length of 45 kilometers. The doubling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank also angered Palestinians, leading to a new escalation of violence and the eventual failure of the Oslo accords. In 1999, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak planned for future peace negotiations, all while pursuing a policy to build new Jewish settlements. He suggested building a wall in the West Bank, which was rejected by right-wing opposition in 2000 (Brom and Shapir, 2002). The peace parameters that Bill Clinton offered to Yasser Arafat and Ehud Bara in late 2000 and early 2011 5 Source: United Nations Security Council. 6 War of attrition between Egypt and Israel in 1969–1970; the taking of hostages and assassinations of Jews abroad (plane hijackings, the Munich Olympics) from 1969 to 1976; the Yom Kippur War pitting Egypt and Syria against Israel in 1973; the oil embargo of 1973; the Lebanon War in 1982; the Israeli air raid on Tunis in 1985, etc). 7 In 1994, Shimon Peres received the Nobel Peace Prize alongside Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.

109

110

Border Wall Aesthetics

were doomed to failure.8 In September 2000, right-wing Likud party leader Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount and Noble Sanctuary was seen as provocation meant to undermine the peace talks. The Second Intifada began the day. In January 2001, Sharon was elected prime mister in a climate of continuous violence. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States did nothing to assuage tensions (Tshirgi, 2007). In March 2002, the United Nations called for the creation of a Palestinian State alongside the Israeli State (Resolution 1397). The Israeli government responded with the “Defensive Shield” Operation to stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and suicide bombs.9

2. The 2002 Solution In June 2002, Sharon revived the wall initiative that had been rejected under Ehud Barak, modifying its route. “I told them don’t build fences around your settlements. If you put up a fence you put  a limit to your expansion...we should place the fences around the Palestinians and not around our places” (Gordon, 2008, p. 116). What is this “wall” made of? It corresponds to what Sharon said, meaning the annexation of the Palestinian population. This wall project, stemming from a unilateral decision, is a barrier that will extend over 708 km,10 with each kilometer costing 2 million dollars.11 In certain areas, the wall is made of concrete up to 8 meters high (in Ramallah, Qalqilya, Tulkarm and of course in Jerusalem [Ill.3.2]). The structure also includes barbed wire, sensors, barriers, ditches, sand strips, cameras, towers, and 500 IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers.12 The barrier route encroaches 10 to 20 km inside the West Bank. Only 15% of it is built on the 1949 Green Line and in Israel.

8 Mitchell Committee and Report, Peace talks in Paris, the Taba Summit. 9 This resulted in the evacuation of refugee camps; new regulation of zones; demolition of economic and social infrastructure; assassinations of any suspected terrorists. 10 Around 450 km have already been built. The number of kilometers varies according to the source. We used the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). 11 Contract held by the Israeli company Elbit Systems. 12 Testimonials from former IDF soldiers, www.breakingthesilence.org.il, Accessed April 1, 2019.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

249,000 Palestinians will eventually be encircled between the 1967 Green Line and the barrier (Seam Zone) (Ill. 3.3). Access to the colonies (settlements) is easy for Israelis, while travel for Palestinians is severely restricted (25,000 are already restricted). There are quotas in place, and Palestinians must show their (ethnic) passport at each checkpoint or prove their right of residence or ownership of agricultural land.13 Arbitrary decisions, increased confiscation of land from the Palestinians,14 and increasing numbers of refugees (estimated at 5 million15) have become widespread as part of the construction of the wall and the settlements, resulting in a need for humanitarian aid. For many observers, including the United States16 and the International Court of Justice, the barrier route is “contrary to international law”.17 Yet the Israeli government insists that it is needed to prevent attacks, claiming that terrorist acts, which are obviously reprehensible, have gone down by 95%.18 However, this argument is just one more in a constant war of words.19 Pro-Israelis use the term anti-terrorist fence or security fence as a euphemism for 13 Situation in 2018: All the 140 checkpoints include permanent infrastructure but only 64 of them are permanently staffed with security forces, including 32 located along the Barrier or on roads leading to Israel […]. The other 76 (partial) checkpoints are either occasionally staffed or have security personnel located in a tower rather than on the ground. Excluded from these figures are eight checkpoints located on the Green (1949 Armistice) Line (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [OCHA]). www.ochaopt.org/content/over700-road-obstacles-control-palestinian-movement-within-west-bank, Accessed April 1, 2019. 14 Sources: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; Amnesty International. 15 Refugees and direct descendants, in 2018 (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees). www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees. Accessed April 1, 2019. 16 President George W. Bush said during a summit at the White House on July 25, 2003: “I think the wall is a problem. And I discussed this with Ariel Sharon. It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank.” 17 International Court of Justice, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions, and Order of the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, July 9, 2004. 18 Israeli Ministry of Defense, Anti-terrorist fence project (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). 19 Other examples: the Wailing Wall, Kotel, OR Buraq Wall, which is the vertical component of the Noble Sanctuary OR Temple Mount. Different terms are used depending on the perspective: the colonies OR the settlements, in the occupied territory OR disputed territory, in the West Bank OR Judea-Samaria, resulting from Nakba or the Israeli indepen-

111

112

Border Wall Aesthetics

what pro-Palestinians denounce as a separation wall, apartheid wall, or the wall of shame. The line that marks whether someone belongs in a territory seems to depend more on the feeling of identity that develops within a national and religious (cultural) spectrum. The wall as a geopolitical object is connected to and must be understood in relation to the recurring problems brief ly mentioned here: the occupied (disputed) territories and the colonies (settlements), refugees, the water supply, Jerusalem and the monotheistic religions, security, and terrorist acts. It also underpins international diplomatic efforts as well as boycott movements.20 Illustration 3.2  (see also next page)

In this context of conf lict, what kind of artistic expressions have emerged? For the decision-making government, the barrier wall is a practical and visible tool marking a clear division in a territory that has been controversial for decades and even centuries. However, its anti-terrorist justification

dence, against which terrorists OR activists fight, viewed as either resistance fighters OR militants. 20 BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions); PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel).

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

is undermined by the observation that the wall’s route actually annexes the Palestinian population. Our intent here is not to stir controversy; we are simply interested in examining the presence of this barrier wall and identifying the resulting artistic expression. The fundamental question is that of artistic engagement in a situation of such current political importance. Though artists serve as the potential captors and developers of a sensory field that provides access to an imaginary world, the geopolitical issues in this area are so difficult that detachment seems inconceivable. By focusing on the specific characteristics and uncovering the territory, we will analyze the key issues arising from this wall to extract its aesthetics.

113

114

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.3

We will first examine the work of graffiti artist Banksy to introduce our main questions about artistic practices at the wall.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

3. Banksy as a landmark artist Banksy is a graffiti artist who has chosen to remain anonymous, though he is most likely from the United Kingdom and was probably born in 1974. He is our landmark artist for the Israeli-Palestinian conf lict, as he single-handedly brings together many aesthetic issues. In 2005, Banksy began working on portions of the wall on the Palestinian side (between Jerusalem and the West Bank). The context and the medium he used represent a peak of illegality that plays with the relationship between denunciation and resistance (Hardt, 2008; Brassai, 2002). It seems like wherever political conf lict occurs, graffiti21 emerges where it can be most visible. Graffiti as we know it was born in New York in the 1970s, as part of hip-hop culture. It expressed a style and membership in a particular group (street, neighborhood) (Fondation Cartier, 2009). Graffiti’s primary objective is to be free (format, often illegal use of a surface, outside of institutional and commercial channels). However, its use can be ambivalent and detached from its initial context (potential marketing, conversion of a graffiti artist into a recognized artist, participation in conventional exhibitions-sales) (Hoban, 2004). Furthermore, graffiti asks a fundamental question about institutional recognition of various art forms, making the hierarchy between artistic practices even more explicit. Each context creates a boundary between the arts. During the first Intifada in 1987, Hama trained the best graffiti artist-calligraphers in Gaza. The calligraphic technique and the form and content of the message were critical for raising awareness among the local population, as in Alfred Gell’s concept of how a group recognizes a work (Gell, 2009). The message may be political, religious, patriotic, or even identity-specific, with recurring elements of resistance: the Palestinian f lag; the colors green, red, white, and black; a dove; an olive tree; a keffiyeh; a Koran; a map of the territory; weapons, etc. (Gondrhal, 2009) (Ill. 3.4). It is also not unusual for local graffiti artists or taggers to be part of activist groups (i.e. Stop the wall,

21 As a form of simple communication, graffiti was born in the Pompeii of the Roman Empire © 2012 CNRTL. As a form of political condemnation, the 20th century was a turning point: May 1968 in France, and movements for autonomy in Northern Ireland, Basque Country, Catalonia, South Africa, etc.

115

116

Border Wall Aesthetics

Anarchists against the wall, Ta’ayush, Gush-Shalom, Pengon, etc.). NGOs may also use graffiti and murals for educational purposes or art therapy. Illustration 3.4 A-B

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Since graffiti has become a global practice, can it be considered a form of ‘glocalization’22 in the Israeli-Palestinian territories? When Banksy began his work in Palestine, graffiti was already being used, admittedly to a lesser degree. But it was as part of a direct and identifiable system of local relationships. The English artist initiated a change in paradigm that we will examine here. Banksy played directly with a double form of illegality: the use of graffiti, as well as the situation in Palestine. “The wall is illegal under international law and essentially turns Palestine into the world’s largest open prison” (Parry, 2010, p. 9). His message echoes Chomsky’s, for they both see Palestine as the largest prison in the world.23 Nevertheless, in terms of his artistic practice, Banksy provocatively declared that the Palestinian territory would be: “the ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers” (Banksy, 2005, p. 142). He was clearly being mischievous, but the contradiction is glaring and seems to eliminate any credibility regarding his engagement in open condemnation. The following conversation was said to have occurred as he worked: Old man: Banksy: Old man:

You paint the wall, you make it look beautiful. Thanks. We don’t want it to be beautiful. We hate this wall, go home.

There is a clash between two perceptions here. The old man combines acquiescence (beauty of the wall, admiration) with refusal (hatred of the wall, rejection, the artist must leave). Why make the wall “beautiful”, give it an aura, as with any work of art, if this is exactly what bothers people, if this intrudes into their social and political environment? The wall may not be democratic, but art should democratize it. Banksy has two aesthetic priorities, one relating to evasion, the other to the irony of the territory. Through his graffiti, the wall is no longer just a barrier, but facilitates exile by depicting a demolition, a f lap or crease in the wall, the dotted lines of a cut-out, a window, a ladder, balloons, and so on (Ill. 22 © 2012 Oxford University Press. “Definition of glocalization (also glocalisation): [mass noun] the practice of conducting business according to both local and global considerations.” 23 www.chomsky.info/20121104/. Accessed April 1, 2019.

117

118

Border Wall Aesthetics

3.5). The idyllic landscape on the other side features the beach, the mountains, or the forest—scenes that don’t necessarily correspond to the experiences of Palestinians, both because the Israeli government is annexing their territory, and because Banksy’s ideal projection is not necessarily what the local population wants. Illustration 3.5 A-E

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

119

120

Border Wall Aesthetics

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

As for irony relating to the territory, the inscription “CTRL+ALT+DELETE” suggests the law should be erased. The metaphoric illusion to Palestinians is the silhouette of a young girl f lying away with a bunch of balloons, or a girl patting down an IDF soldier.24 Another somewhat confusing scene, since it is too close to a frustrating daily experience, is an image of an unaccompanied mule facing an IDF soldier at a checkpoint. And a journalist picking a f lower, as if to find comfort in beauty that is disappearing. Glocalization may have come up against its limits here. There is certainly a local consideration (the wall) that is subject to a global practice (graffiti). But what is the significance and extent of the cultural appropriation by an artist in a territory in conf lict? Does the mixing of cultures generate deeper misunderstanding when it occurs in the middle of a conf lict? Can art that is driven by illegality open up uninhibited avenues for ref lection? 24 In another project with 20 other graffiti artists, Banksy covered walls in Bethlehem, Beit Sahour, and the Dheisheh refugee camp. In 2015, Banksy went to the Gaza Strip and produced more graffiti and the video: Make this the year YOU discover a new Destination.

121

122

Border Wall Aesthetics

Banksy’s presence prompted a new dialectic around the wall. Since his arrival, the wall has openly become a surface for free expression. These projects may be approved and supervised (or not) by local graffiti artists-calligraphers and encourage short-term visits from other graffiti artists (BLU, JR & Marco, etc.), creating a form of tourism. In 2017, Banksy opened the Walled Off Hotel 25 in Bethlehem, where custom-designed rooms offer impressive views of the concrete wall. While the messages expressed in Banksy’s graffiti don’t seem completely relevant (glocal dissonance), his hotel directly engages with the wall, synthesizing the geopolitical malaise and going beyond simple provocation. It is by marketing the hotel’s concept that his engagement becomes sustainable. The hotel is self-financing, generating revenue in the area. Banksy’s evolution expresses the problem with the wall as an artistic subject and object in a contemporary geopolitical conf lict. Onsite creation encourages condemnation and the spread of messages, but media projection also creates an ambivalence in which the identification of artists who are unfamiliar with the lived experience of the wall creates a gap in understanding. We will now examine the wall in the context of its geographic territory. What possible interpretations can local, diasporic, and foreign artists make? Can these three different perspectives provide a more comprehensive understanding of a controversial object?

4. Particular features of the territory 4.1 Problem of the map Geopolitics analyzes the demarcations required to possess a space. This space then becomes a territory. It is recognized as such through coordination with neighboring areas to establish borders. Territory is therefore inherent in the concept of borders. However, it is important to remember that there are no natural borders within civil society,26 since they depend 25 www.walledoffhotel.com/index.html. Accessed April 1, 2019. 26 “Whatever they do, humans never completely escape their geographic environment. That being said, depending on who they are, they make use of geographical circumstances to

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

on the geographic area and specific power relations. It is also important to remember that mapping has always been closely aligned with military objectives. A 2009-2010 work by pop artist Richard Hamilton called Maps of Palestine sheds light on how the Israeli-Palestinian territory has changed (Ill. 3.6). The title already reveals a certain bias, but what remains when we remove it? Four maps. The first, Palestine prior to partition, is mostly red (98%). This is the color used for Palestine. The remaining blue represents Israeli territories. The second map, 1947 UN partition plan, shows an equal distribution of colors and thus territories. The third map shows the context following the Rhodes Armistice Agreements, which put an end to the 1948–1949 war: 1949 Rhodes Armistice lines. It has 10% less red than the previous map. The fourth and final map, 1967–2008 Israel incursions, shows changes in the division of these territories, which are still in place today. Hamilton’s tracing of these historic maps27 uses a didactic approach to reveal a remarkable cartographic change. The shrinking of the Palestinian territory is obvious. It is interesting to note how a pop artist, who of fers free access to his work, makes use of the cartographic characteristics. A geopolitical conf lict, in this case the Israeli-Palestinian conf lict, is clearly revealed through a presentation of these historic maps. The information is straightforward. It is an example of pop culture aligning itself with postmodern discourse, where everything is equally valid.

varying degrees, and take greater or lesser advantage of geographic possibilities” (Febvre, 1949, p. 352–373; Bonnemaison, Cambrézy and Quinty-Bourgeois, 1995; Bagrow and Skelton, 2009). 27 Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Jerusalem (PASSIA); Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs – The State of Israel; Institute for Middle East Understanding; MidEastWeb for Coexistence; American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE); United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian Territory; Foundation for Middle East Peace.

123

124

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.6

4.2 Territorial fragmentation The changes in these maps show the movement of the two green armistice lines (of 1949 and 1967) and the Seam Zone, revealing the fragmentation of the Palestinian territory. One artist has examined this issue in particular. Francis Alÿs references the 1949 line in a performance in which he makes the following claim: “Sometimes doing something poetic can become political and sometimes doing something political can become poetic” (Godfrey and Biesenback, 2010, p. 39; Alÿs et al., 2007). The ambivalence of the political and poetic act can engender a qualitative change in the dialectics. During two days, on June 4 and 5, 2004, Alÿs walked across Jerusalem from south to north for 24 kilometers. He walked nonchalantly, holding out a bucket of green paint with a hole in it. Using 58 liters of paint, he retraced the armistice line claimed by Palestinians (Ill. 3.7). The artist went through border crossings, under the watchful and often incredulous gaze of the military. It is impossible to know if the soldiers understood the importance of this political gesture. Even Alÿs himself denied that he was making a political statement.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Illustration 3.7 A-B

125

126

Border Wall Aesthetics

He continued his ref lection: Can an artistic intervention truly bring about an unforeseen way of thinking? Can an absurd act provoke a transgression that makes you abandon the standard assumptions on the sources of conflict? Can those kinds of artistic acts bring about the possibility of change? (Godfrey and Biesenback, 2010, p. 39) Through his simple presence, his work reveals a geopolitical phenomenon without explaining it. In general, there seems to have been an increase in politically minded artistic production after 2001. But politics cannot justify art, and in turn, art cannot justify politics. The act of artistic creation can be political in itself, for it entails movement, which can be a form of engagement. A phenomenon like the wall, which inherently disturbs civil society, and is further amplified by the media and social networks, can provoke reactions. Art can be one of these reactions. But if art that is too politicized (because too obvious) is generally devalued, how do we evaluate it? Of course, artistic interventions can change how people think. But what is the true objective of such a breakthrough? For what new form of awareness, what questions, what meaning? Since Palestinians have been demanding recognition of this 1949 demarcation line from the moment the State of Israel was created, what right do foreigners have to address this issue? Does art make the conf lict universal? What is the purpose of producing art in this territory if it is not useful, at first glance, for those who live there? Are good intentions enough? Does this art run the risk of being easily misinterpreted, or even incomprehensible? In an extremely delicate geopolitical environment, what is the role of artistic insight? Who is this work for?

4.3 Omniscience of the wall When we examine the defining features of the territory in which the wall is located, a constant feature is the omniscience of other walls. First, there is the Western Wall, which is a major draw for the monotheistic religions and is considered the most important holy site for the Jewish religion. Next, the relationship between the occupiers and the occupied evokes the materiality of the wall as a separation barrier. This includes both the inhabited part (the settlements) and that which is no longer (the destruction of Pales-

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

tinian homes, the refugee tents). Thirdly, this disputed territory fosters the emergence of “traditional” prison walls. We will quickly examine how artists interpret the perseverance of these three kinds of walls. The Western Wall bears a symbolic weight that combines religion, territory, and resistance. At the end of the 19th century, engravings were found during the first archaeological excavations led by Edward Robinson and Eli Smith in 1838 (2005). They illustrated typical scenes of prayer with worshipers seen from the back. In 1968, Dali paid homage to the 20th anniversary of the Jewish people’s return to their land. In a series of 25 lithographs entitled Aliyah Suite, he depicted the Wailing Wall in ocher-sand colors with a focus on the large exposed stones. The work features many worshipers that appear to be inserted between the two walls, with little attention paid to the solemnity of the moment. We see them from the point of view of an external observer, from the top left. Dali offers an entirely different perspective in another lithograph from 1975. Here the artist voluntarily paints the wall from an oblique angle. The composition of the scene is in harmony with the faith that is expressed. The Wailing Wall bears Hebrew words on the top, and believers lean against it, reciting prayers. Dali uses warm colors for the wall and the people. On the top left, a blue-green sky filled with enormous clouds diffuses light onto the wall and ground. The cooler colors offer physical and spiritual symbiosis. The Nakba period synthesizes the fundamental upheaval in the territory being “colonized”, or “re-appropriated”. Artist Emily Jacir alludes to this controversial area by emphasizing the duty of memory. One of her installations is a white tent covered in the names of the 418 Palestinian villages that were destroyed in 1948 (Ill. 3.8). The forced depopulation of the territory is a contemporary recurrence resulting from the construction of the wall. The symbolic force of the tent can be understood in parallel to the current situation. It has become this immanence created by the territory. The growth of the colonies (settlements), which resemble these new fortresses called ‘gated communities,’ appear to preclude any kind of future cohabitation.

127

128

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.8

It is tempting to make a surely simplistic, but still troubling connection with the wall’s omniscience in Jewish history. How can we not connect contemporary Palestinian history to the tragedy of the Holocaust and the Jewish ghettos? While there are clear differences, the objectives underlying the creation of the Nazi regime can be compared to those leading to the creation of Israel, even if the resulting mortality is clearly more complex. In Israel/Palestine, the main conf lict is founded on two peoples fighting over territory, and we cannot ignore the captive, penitentiary nature of the situation. Palestine is widely seen as an open-air prison. As Chomsky stated after his visit to Gaza on November 4, 2012: Even a single night in jail is enough to give a taste of what it means to be under the total control of some external force. And it hardly takes more than a day in Gaza to begin to appreciate what it must be like to try to survive in the world’s largest open-air prison, where a million and a half people, in the most densely populated area of the world, are constantly subject to random and often savage terror and arbitrary punishment, with no purpose other than

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

to humiliate and degrade, and with the further goal of ensuring that Palestinian hopes for a decent future will be crushed and that the overwhelming global support for a diplomatic settlement that will grant these rights will be nullified.28 Chomsky’s dramatic tone evokes the carceral reality of punishment and control. The primary function of prisons29 also ties into to the fragmentation of space and isolation of the body (Foucault, 1993; 2001; 2004; Agamben, 2007; Deleuze, 1990). By putting prisoners out of reach, alone to face their complete solitude and inactivity, their bodies are in a void and thus more malleable, neutral. At least that is the intention. But despite a doubly carceral environment in Israel-Palestine (with actual prisons and the territory as an open-air prison), nothing can prevent art from blooming. For example, it was in Ashkelan prison in Israel that Zuhdi Al Adawi and Mohammad Rakouie taught themselves how to create art (Ill. 3.9).30 In their works, the Palestinian f lag is integrated into a range of symbolism, including candles, tree roots, raised arms, swallows, keffiyehs, walls, barbed wire, etc., each with a strong signification.31 Furthermore, any Palestinian artistic practice can boycott products made in Israel. Artists are increasingly creating art with what they find around them, using typical products such as cacti, lemons, dirt, natural pigments, etc.32 Production, form, and content thereby become ultimate examples of resistance and identity.

28 www.chomsky.info/20121104/. Accessed April 1, 2019. 29 For example, at the end of February 2019, there were 5,248 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons (B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories). www.btselem.org/statistics/detainees_and_prisoners. Accessed April 1, 2019. 30 It is also worth mentioning that the spaces for arts education, as well as the location of museums and libraries in the Israeli-Palestinian territories are largely in Israel’s favor. Palestinians must therefore find their art education elsewhere. According to research on the topic, local Palestinians are more likely to be self-taught. 31 “Cracked and Shrinking Maps: An Interview with Palestinian Artist Suleiman Mansour,” www.aaron.resist.ca/cracked-and-shrinking-maps-an-interview-with-palestinian-artist-suleiman-mansour. Accessed April 1, 2019. 32 See the works of Rana Bishara and Jumana Emil Abboud.

129

130

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.9 A-B

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Artists unfamiliar with the phenomenon of the wall can extract specific features starting with observations of its cartography and the fragmentation of the territory. Hamilton and Alÿs examined the conf lict by emphasizing its geopolitical failures. In relation to the omniscience of the wall, local artists or those closest to the cause (Dali’s wife was Jewish) serve as dedicated psychogeographers who express their feelings through their art.

5. Revealing the territory 5.1 Journalism and representation The Israeli-Palestinian conf lict has been widely covered by international media. The image that is projected, which is entering collective consciousness, is the one that foreign artists perceive. The concrete wall appears frequently, due to its impressive physical reality (it is 8 meters high). This concrete object, which may appear quite simple, seems to single-handedly concentrate all the reasons behind the conf lict. Its materiality increases its visibility, which could lead to greater awareness. Yet it is only 30 km long,

131

132

Border Wall Aesthetics

just 5%33 of the total 708 kilometers of barrier.34 This means that only 5% of the wall is made of solid concrete, while the rest is made up of fencing with barbed wire, reinforced by the presence of soldiers, watchtowers, metal detectors, armored cars, tanks, etc.: a design that is entirely orchestrated to ensure security. Much like the Berlin wall gradually became a tourist attraction during and after its disappearance, the Israeli-Palestinian barrier has become an object of geopolitical curiosity. The concrete sensationalizes the barrier, explicitly revealing how its encroachment into Palestinian territory fundamentally betrays the Westphalian principle of border demarcation. Nevertheless, its hypervisibility may also prevent a full understanding of the reasons behind the conf lict. How then do artists contemplate the object’s materiality? Here journalism can be an asset or a potential danger. In any case, the concrete wall is easy to spot. Some artistic output has a direct journalistic connotation. First, we examine photography. German photographer Kai Wiedenhöfer (2019) documented between 2003 and 2018 the parallels between the Israeli-Palestinian barrier and the Berlin Wall (Ill. 3.10). Here, the concrete is a key component of the picture, its brutality attenuated by the use of color (yellow-ocher, blue-gray, and pink). Wiedenhöfer’s photos sometimes convert the wall into a romantic element. The composition even ‘zoomorphize’ the wall, whereby it emerges from a softened landscape like an enormous sleeping reptile.

33 The 5% figure comes from various sources: Al-Haq Organization in Ramallah; the Israeli government; Harvard University; Israel Ministry of Defense; Palestine Monitor. 34 United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees; Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territories.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Illustration 3.10 A-B

Palestinian artist Rula Halawani takes a much more transgressive perspective. Confessing that the wall scares her (Wahbeh, 2006), she approaches it at night to avoid trouble, making the viewer complicit in her act. Her perspective is essentially diagonal (Ill. 3.11). Its nocturnal aspect is reinforced by the real rough patches and heightened by the black-and-white format. The wall seems to go on forever, suggesting future continuity.

133

134

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.11 A-B

The structure of the wall would be nothing without its watchtowers, which were the focus of a series of black-and-white photos by Palestinian artist Taysir Batjini (Ill. 3.12). Each one is photographed individually in its original context. The subtle repetition of shapes and content also suggests excessive accumulation (Marx, 2008), an obsession that reigns over and perpetuates

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

protocol-heavy security systems. The fear of being apprehended also offers a photographic rigor from which a certain kind of beauty emerges. Batjini’s series is similar to the photos of industrial buildings taken by Bernd and Hilla Becher, founders of the Düsseldorf School. Illustration 3.12

In 2009, South African painter Marlene Dumas sought to depict the Israeli-Palestinian conf lict. In her series Against the Wall, she reveals the materiality of the object directly, basing her work on photojournalist images.35 Her message is clear: an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, which uses walls as a solution to the ongoing conf lict. Dumas draws parallels between her own experience of apartheid, in which the Bible was used to justify segregation (Dumas, 2010). In her exhibition catalogue, she uses the words 35 Marlene Dumas, “contra o muro”, July 2, 2010.

135

136

Border Wall Aesthetics

of various protagonists or thinkers of the conf lict (Rabbi Menachem Froman, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, pacifist politician Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwich) not to justify her pacifist position, but to provide readers with the tools to form their own opinions. Her large oil paintings (1.80 m x 3 m) are arranged in a photographic frame, conferring a deliberate journalistic effect (Smerling, 2012). The color palette oscillates between beige, brown, gray, and pink tones, with the concrete taking up most of the composition. In a series of paintings from 2009, the wall is portrayed in different ways. It stands alone in the landscape in Under Construction, is accompanied by a frail silhouette of a woman in Figure in Landscape, a group of Jewish worshipers in The Wall, a group of Palestinians with their arms raised against the wall in Wall Weeping, and another group of Palestinians being inspected by soldiers in Wall Wailing. The figures are impersonal (they are seen from the back, or with faces barely drawn in), providing a general idea of the conf lict, where humiliating scenes of arrest coexist with the collective memory of the Holocaust. The different value systems and references make the concrete wall the main player in its environment of conf lict. The two art forms we have examined are effective in their messaging and their similarity to the journalistic format: specific processing of the image (for Kai Wiedenhöfer); the circumstances in which the photos are taken (at night for Rula Halawani); the principle of a documentary series (for Taysir Batjini); and wide-angle composition (for Marlene Dumas). In these works, the concrete surges with all its force.

5.2 Theatrics Even though the concrete part of the wall only represents 5% of its total length, there is monumentality to it, a sensationalist image relayed by journalists that gives it a theatrical emphasis. Its 8-meter height clearly reveals the rigidly hermetic separation between the two populations, concretizing the conf lict visually. However, through this proliferation of images we run the risk of succumbing to the society of the spectacle decried by Debord (1996). The concrete wall cannot express all aspects of the problem. It is an epiphenomenon within the phenomenon, which contributed neither to the emergence nor the development of an already established conf lict. The perception of this 5% is just the tip of the iceberg, proffering visual reinforcement that is comfortable, but insufficient. As a result, engaged artists who focus on just the most visible

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

aspect of the barrier reproduce just a fragment of the reality. This very limited representation of a geopolitical event raises questions about its aesthetics.36 When connecting politics and aesthetics, can the artist’s sensory values not allow them to engage in new forms of ref lection (Rancière, 2000)? The fragmentation of the territory, caused at least in part by the wall’s route, impedes the free movement of Palestinians. In addition to the obvious denial of alterity, this physical concrete wall creates a ghettoization that increases suspicion and demonizes the other. Its excessive media exposure turns it into theatrical device that elicits emotion, fascination, and horror. But who benefits from the wall? Who truly benefits from this theatricality and excess visibility? The Israeli government, which uses it to express its territorial ambitions? The Palestinian government, which points a finger at the injustices inf licted by Israel? Public opinion, which uses excessive media coverage of the concrete wall to highlight a troubling Manicheism? International political entities, which seek to demonstrate their authority? Beyond the journalistic lens, local artists have also used the concrete wall as their main backdrop. Israeli artist Yoav Weiss decided he would sell the wall. His now-defunct project, Buy the Wall, was based on the simple idea that the wall is ephemeral in nature (Ill. 3.13). Since pieces (or pseudo-pieces) of the Berlin wall were sold after it came down, he copied the idea, but ahead of its dismantling. In four specific areas (Abu Dis, Rachel’s Tomb, Tul Qarem, Al-Eizariya), the artist outlined numbered sections of the wall for purchase. Buying your piece is very simple: 1. Click on the pictures below to choose the area from which you would like your piece. 2. Choose the specific piece you would like to buy and click on it. 3. Click on “buy this piece” 4. Pay for your piece. 5. Wait for peace. The irony of “5. Wait for peace” is reinforced by the cynical attitude that would be required to make money off this wall. The cynicism may be a provocative 36 See Plato, Introduction, “The aesthetic dimension in political practice,” in Allegory of the Cave.

137

138

Border Wall Aesthetics

defense that reveals a form of disillusionment. For €15, it was possible to own a piece of the wall. The artist’s attempt to take ownership of the wall emerges in part from a historic observation. Because of its ephemeral nature, it is a good investment that carries the hope of a final peace. The Israeli duo Yossi & Itamar use humor to condemn the wall. We will examine two filmed performances in particular. In Volleyball in the Separation Wall, from 2006, we see a team warming up and then playing alongside the 8-meter barrier. They play until the ball disappears, simulating a f light above the wall, in a game with no right of return. The other video, also from 2006, is called Wall / Wall Cowboy. Here the focus is on parody and the ridiculousness of the wall. One of the artists, dressed as a cowboy, touts the advantages of the wall and its variants (mini-wall, danger wall, xxxl wall). An off-camera voice adds to the earnestness and the importance of procuring the object. The performers accentuate the absurdity of the situation by pushing it every further. Here dramatization of the concrete wall helps artists get around its very essence and meaning. When local artists engage with the wall, a cultural and ontological shift may occur, since they are denouncing it from its cultural roots as a way to destabilize the government building it. Israeli artists are the ones who are in the best position to criticize their own government. The concrete that is the most visible manifestation of the barrier’s violence can be counterbalanced by mockery: “Always rather humiliating for the one against whom it is directed, laughter is, really and truly, a kind of social ‘ragging’” (Bergson, 1980, p. 148). This humor is a form of resistance through which artists, the protectors of a cultural identity, can sound the alarm.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Illustration 3.13 A-B

5.3 Embodiment of the territory The space that has become territory is embodied by the symbolic value it generates. This embodiment of the entire territory has been stigmatized by constant conf lict. It is the f lesh of Palestinians and Israelis informed by daily events. The wall produces a scenography of passage in which artists reveal rites and wounds, which we will examine here. This passage takes the form of checkpoints that have both structural and procedural purposes, as we have seen. This rite of passage is depicted in a

139

140

Border Wall Aesthetics

number of works, though we will focus on videos since this art form most easily captures the movements and urgency of the situation. Palestinian artist Sharif Waked mocks the fallacious process of border controls. In his 2003 video entitled Chic Point: Fashion for Israeli Checkpoints, male models are dressed for the checkpoints (Ill. 3.14). Their clothes have openings in the stomach to provide them with easier access to the other side of the border. Fashion is used to poke fun at a topic that is not at all amusing. Rula Halawani, for her part, presents this rite more soberly. In a 2004 series of 12 photographs entitled Intimacy, she focuses on the main components of these inspections: a sweater lifted above the belt, a block of stone, the hands of a soldier holding someone’s papers (Ill. 3.15). We can immediately tell who is doing what. The stone, which reveals forced intimacy, accomplishes its material and symbolic function. In her 2001 filmed performance The Gate, Razan Akramawy imposes restrictions on the public (Ill. 3.16). The action takes place in Jerusalem, a sacred and litigious city. Female performers dressed in black play the role of gates, deciding who to let through (tourists, citizens, and soldiers). Theses blocked passages provoke a mechanical response in the body. There are a variety of reactions, from surprise, to uncomfortable smiles, to annoyance. The freshness and insolence of this artistic act reinvigorates the desire to end the perceived injustice that annihilates any sense of freedom, either mental or physical. The pedestrians will almost certainly think about the gesture imposed by the artist. A video by Larissa Sansour uses the soundtrack of the American sitcom Happy Days to capture all the irony and superficiality of the situation (Ill. 3.17). The jovial tone downplays the severity of the checkpoints, while still providing the key information: the need to constantly show one’s identification to soldiers in an occupied territory.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Illustration 3.14 A-B

141

142

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.15

Illustration 3.16 A-B

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Many international observers have reported on the humiliation that occurs at checkpoints, but even the surrounding infrastructure is restrictive. There are ways to bypass the main road, but this does nothing to alleviate the daily frustrations. Local artists engage in visual or lexical narration that expresses their reality. Emily Jacir elucidates these daily restrictions in her work Crossing Surda. Since she wasn’t allowed to film as she passed through the Surda checkpoint to go to work, she decided to hide the camera in her bag. She filmed her daily commute for eight days. With expressive poetry, she reveals how authorizations are dependent on the whims of IDF soldiers, highlighting a clear injustice. The resulting video seems more like an explorer’s expedition or the account of a journalist in wartime. Emily Jacir not only rebels, but makes us complicit in her resistance.

143

144

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.17

As we have seen before, tunnels can also be used to get around checkpoints. Artist Khaled Jarrar, a former Palestinian soldier, created a series of annotated photos that describe his experience on a second Friday of Ramadan near Kalandia, heading towards Jerusalem (Ill. 3.18). In addition to the feeling of individual danger, we see an entire group of anonymous people who prefer walking through filth rather than going through checkpoints. The artist states that even though going through the tunnel was traumatizing, it was also a spiritual experience that required physical and mental perseverance. The wounds inf licted by the territory initially come from the presence of the barrier. The barbed wire it is composed of also reappears where the territory is reclaimed by the colonies (settlements). This clearly hostile intention prevents all movement.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Artists often depict barbed wire either before or following a declaration of war, generally to illustrate repression.37 Illustration 3.18  A-B

37 For example, James Rosenquist created Tumbleweed, 1963–1996 (collection of Virginia and Bagley Wright) in the middle of the Vietnam War. It consists of a ball of barbed wire wrapped around a rusted iron cross through which a seemingly flexible tube of sky blue neon is inserted. For a more traditional representation of barbed wire, there is the woodcut by Félix Vallotton called Fils de fer barbelé de 1916 (Barbed Wire of 1916) (Museum of Modern Art, New York); an etching by Otto Dix, Leiche im Drahtverhau – Flandern Der Krieg (Corpse in Barbed Wire—Flanders), #16, 1924 (National Gallery of Australia, Canberra). We can also find barbed wire in depictions of concentration camps (the Holocaust, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib). For example, Gone Gitmo by Nonny de la Peña in 2007, offers a virtual reality immersion in the Guantanamo detention camp; a series of 80 paintings and drawings by Colombian artist Francisco Botero between 2005 and 2007 on the Abu Ghraib concentration camp in Iraq presents explicitly figurative scenes of torture that are inflicted on his trademark figures (Ebony, 2006).

145

146

Border Wall Aesthetics

In 2000, Israeli artist Sigalit Landau created a video performance entitled Barbed Hula featuring a completely novel use of barbed wire. In a three-quarter shot that hides her ace, her naked body is filmed on a beach south of Tel Aviv, “where fishermen and old people come to start their day and exercise.” She wears a ring of barbed wire around her waist that she uses to hula hoop (Ill. 3.19). As the spikes gradually damage her skin, there is an explicitly reference to f lagellation, as well as to the Israeli-Palestinian political context, which was already tense at the time. The barbs also signify a rupture, a separation between the populations. She is standing, facing the camera. Though her face can’t be seen, her naked body fills the frame and arouses curiosity. The framing also forces us to witness the pain inf licted, while freeing us from any sense of voyeurism. The pleasing background of a beach, and the erotic suggestion of the hula hoop contrast sharply with the suffering it inf licts. Her f louting of codes offers a somber and violent metaphor of the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Illustration 3.19

Another work that is as decisive as it is delicate is Mona Hatoum’s Impenetrable (Ill. 3.20). The barbed wires are arranged in the shape of a cube, making even the idea of going through them impossible. All we can do is observe the object, a ref lection of the repetitive nature of our attitude towards the Israeli-Palestinian conf lict. The artist’s personal experience with war is translated into an ambivalent work in which violence is deliberately rendered aesthetic. Lastly, Sophie Ristelhueber’s WB project (2012) displays the marks and scars on the wounded West Bank landscape (Ill. 3.21). It is an environment scarred by craters, filled with holes and mounds, revealing its irregularity. Thanks to meticulous framing that showcases the dignity of the territory, we bear witness to its strength as well as its weakness. Though these images spare us the journalistic photos of dismembered bodies, we can immediately understand the pain of a territory that is constantly linked to humans and the implied presence of the wall’s route.

147

148

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.20

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

Illustration 3.21 A-C

149

150

Border Wall Aesthetics

6. Artistic engagement or pretext? Teichopolitics, the strategy of closed borders, supports the violence that is crystallized by the concrete wall. It is the practical tool that renders visible any denunciatory creation. Graffiti is perhaps the easiest form, as it was with the Berlin wall, but later on and more incidentally. The 5% of concrete is the focus of all attention, and the place where artists express their viewpoints. (Excessive) media coverage spurs creation on the visible part of the iceberg, particularly from foreign artists, who are usually just temporary visitors. This is especially true when it comes to graffiti, since this often-illegal practice must be completed quickly. Yet its very rapidity may actually hinder specific and general understanding of the geopolitical conf lict. Given the versatility of the separation barrier, its geopolitical and artistic functions are intertwined. We have been able to see the kind of reality its abstraction can elicit, and the kind of abstraction its reality can lead to, particularly from diasporic artists. The question of aesthetics becomes trapped

The separation barrier between Israel and Palestine

in a vise that is typical of the conf lict in which the Israeli government’s walled solution is couched in ethical and cultural terms. The theory of Orientalism, the way the East is perceived through a Western lens, is useful here (Said, 1980). After all, the conf lict zone is perceived through the intermediary of the media, which projects a certain image of the wall. This image deforms the perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conf lict in its entirety, and is related to the informative tradition that was based on travel notebooks, literature, painting, etc. Though that framework was explicitly elitist, information is now accessible to anyone. This means that foreign artists who base their works on journalistic accounts run the risk of expressing a form of Orientalism. If we look at a similar mechanism, such as Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’ painting of odalisques, or Eugène Delacroix’s The Death of Sardanapalus, the pretext given to depict nude ‘Oriental’ bodies is convincing. However, this vision does not correspond to what local artists perceived. Ingres took inspiration from the letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (Montagu, 1784), while Delacroix referred to the works of dandy poet Lord Byron (Byron, 1863, p. 176–269). Their inspiration thus came from a third party. Today, this disconnect can be accentuated by a short amount of time in place. Foreign artists only get a superficial glimpse into the territory that is inevitably marked by their own identity, culture, and imagination. While media coverage in no way diminishes the gravity of the situation, there is the risk that, much like the Orientalism of 19th century paintings, it masks a reality that is much more complex than it appears. These depictions are not reality, but fictions that provide fodder for a given rhetoric. The barrier is intended to hide the problems that it certainly helps increase or divert. It disrupts the relationship with the Other, weakening communication and therefore any possible understanding. Though fences and barbed wire serve the same purpose as the wall, their more abstract tangibility may be less visible or attractive to certain artists, particularly foreigners who are naturally more attracted to the tangible concrete wall. The medieval iconography of the fortress city of Jerusalem (Ill. 3.22) has been transferred onto an image of ultra-high security. The violence inherent in this situation makes it urgent for us to seek out the sensibilities expressed by artists to help us think about the situation in new ways. Yet it is important to remember that the denunciations these artists produce ref lect their own cultural codes. Though art is universal, its application to a particular con-

151

152

Border Wall Aesthetics

f lict can reveal major biases in interpretations and depictions. The resulting artistic engagement is thus codified and temporalized. The aesthetic application to this barrier is far from just a pretext to create art, but feeds into a more general dynamic in which the proliferation of images offers a response, however meager, to the urgency and violence. Illustration 3.22

Chapter 4 The secure border between Mexico and the United States 1. Geopolitical context Our historical approach, followed by a geopolitical analysis, help us understand the specific features of each wall. With the secure border between Mexico and the United States, it is important to examine the history of migration in the area,1 since it has had a profound impact on the geopolitical relationship between the two countries including the new “wall” currently under debate. Here is a reminder are some the main terms used: 1. ‘emigrate’, ‘emigration’, ‘emigrant’ If you emigrate, you leave your own country and go to live permanently in another country. People who emigrate are called emigrants. The act of emigrating is called emigration. However, these words are less frequent than immigrant and immigration. 2. ‘immigrate’, ‘immigration’, ‘immigrant’ If you immigrate to a country, you go to live in that country permanently.

1 Artist JR made two huge scaffoldings revealing the current migration policy. Just after President Trump’s announcement that he is halting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protected undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation, two actions were performed: On September 7, 2017, a huge image of Kikito, a one year old boy, looks playfully over the border wall. Him and his family cannot cross the border and even see the artwork from the ideal vantage point. On October 8, 2017, for the last day of a two eyes paper installation across Tecate, JR organized a Gigantic Picnic at the US-Mexico Border Fence, www.jr-art.net/ Accessed April 1, 2019

154

Border Wall Aesthetics

However, it is more common to say that someone emigrates from a country than to say that someone immigrates to a country. People that leave their own country to live in another country are called immigrants. The process by which people come to live in a country is called immigration. 3. ‘migrate’, ‘migration’, ‘migrant’ When people migrate, they temporarily move to another place, usually a city or another country, in order to find work. This process is called migration. People who migrate are called migrants or migrant workers. (Collins COBUILD English Usage © HarperCollins Publishers 1992, 2004, 2011, 2012) Baudrillard (1986, p. 76) states that the “United States is a realized utopia” based on the founding myth of the American Dream that Historian James Truslow Adams described in 1931. It is the idea that anyone can experience a better life as part of a modern social order. Starting from this point, immigration (from Europe, to be clear) became the foundation of the United States, with its resultant melting pot. In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis introduced the notion of freedom at the border as part of the conquest of the West and the settlement of European immigrants on these lands. In The Winning of the West (1889–1896), future president Theodore Roosevelt described the exploration of Western lands as natural to Americans, along with aggressiveness towards Native Americans and the French and Spanish colonists. He believed that these confrontations forged the “American race.” Mexico also has its founding myths, such as Colonel Elder Rafael Guerrero’s myth of Atzlán. It is the original site of the Aztecs (Mexicas) that prophesied a migratory return: “In each Chicano and Mexican lives the myth of the lost territorial treasure. North Americans call this return to the homeland the silent invasion” (Anzaldúa, 1987, p. 33). Chicano. noun (plural Chicanos) (in North America) a person, especially male, of Mexican origin or descent. Chicana. noun (in North America) a girl or woman of Mexican origin or descent. (Oxford University Press, 2012).

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

Illustration 4.1

Christopher Columbus’ arrival in North America in 1492 marked a bloody turning point in this history. It is worth repeating that the dominant discourse ref lects the viewpoint of the victors. Here Lévi-Strauss’ notions of ethnocentrism and barbarism seem to have reached their apogee. From 1519 to 1521, the troops of Spaniard Hernan Cortés conquered Aztec Mesoamerica. The New Spain that emerged on October 12, 1525 included what is now Mexico, the southern United States, and Central America. In 1776, The United States signed its Declaration of Independence from the English with the motto E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one). In the 19th century, these territories became contested. The US declared war with Mexico in 1846, signing

155

156

Border Wall Aesthetics

the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo two years later. The 276 border monuments erected as a result have now become obsolete.2 (Ill. 4.2) Illustration 4.2

Under this treaty, Mexico (which won its independence from Spain in 1824) lost California, Nevada, Arizona, southern Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. As indicated by a 2002 vindictive corridor—a narrative song with combative origins—by the Tigres del Norte, called “Somos Más Americanos” (We Are More American): “Yo no cruce la frontera, la frontera me cruzo” (I didn’t cross the border, the border crossed me). This lost territory, combined with the gold rush in California, contributed to this migratory history (Ill. 4.1). 2 Treaty of Adams-Onís in 1819. See the DeLIMITations project from artists David Taylor and ERRE from 2014; They used 47 steel border monuments to mark out the now-obsolete 1821 border, which is visible on Google Earth. delimitationsblog.tumblr.com/ Accessed April 1, 2019. In 1850, following the Treaty of Guadalupe, the monuments bore the inscriptions: “The destruction or displacement of this monument is a misdemeanor punishable by the United States or Mexico.”

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

At the end of the 19th century, the United States created a migration strategy to support its infrastructural and economic development (installation of railway lines, operation of copper, silver, zinc, and salt mines, etc.). However, border controls tightened in the wake of the 1910 Mexican revolution. And in 1924, the first law on immigration set entry quotas (89,000 Mexican workers immigrated that year) that were in force until World War II. From that point on, simple fences were replaced by fences made out of concrete pillars (with lighting in Nogales, for example) in sensitive border zones. From 1942 to 1964, the bracero program provided Mexicans with temporary agricultural jobs. In 1954, during the postwar period in which the workforce was saturated, the US immigration service introduced Operation Wetback, which forcibly deported 3.8 million Mexican immigrants. In 1964, the creation of maquiladoras, assembly plants located on Mexico’s northern border, provided access to cheaper Mexican labor and slowed the inf lux of illegal migrants. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 set additional regulations for illegal crossings. Meanwhile, barbed wire began to appear at the border. Starting in the 1970s, the INS (the Department of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Service) implemented a series of measures: sentences against traffickers, sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants, amnesty for political refugees, etc. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) gave amnesty to 2.7 million illegal workers.3 That same decade, while Mexico was in the throes of a profound economic crisis, the number of maquiladoras increased and the INS was reinforced. In 1990, under President George H.W. Bush, the Immigration Act of 1990 was passed, reinforcing border patrols. A 106-kilometer long network of barriers was erected along the southern California border (Task Force Grizzly-Border Road Project). In 1994, the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 further bolstered security measures in administrative terms (expulsions, updated sanctions) and at the border. Operations Gatekeeper in California,4 Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Safeguard in Arizona also reinforced technology and surveillance on the border. During that time, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was establishing a 3 In 1986: 1,767,400 people entered the country illegally; in 1987, this figure was estimated at 1,190,488 (Federation for American Immigration Reform). 4 In Yuma, a 10-meter-high sheet steel barrier was extended by 73 miles, with secondary barriers along 52 miles, and a triple barrier from the Pacific Ocean to the Otay Mountain (Cantlupe, 2001).

157

158

Border Wall Aesthetics

new economic relationship between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. And in 1996, with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, any foreign criminal could be imprisoned for up to two years before being permanently deported. Illegal immigration was one of the main themes of Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign. He would later claim, “Since 1992, we have increased our Border Patrol by over 35 percent; deployed underground sensors, infrared night scopes, and encrypted radios; built miles of new fences; and installed massive amounts of new lighting” (Clinton, 1996, p. 134). On the eve of September 11, 2001, 8,460,000 people had entered the US illegally, 55% of whom were Mexicans citizens. The maquiladora system was in decline because of Chinese competition. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the global approach to security changed considerably, and the United States, the first affected, was quick to inf late its budget in that realm. The passage of the USA Patriot Act made it easier to detain any person suspected of terrorism. In 2003, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) completely reorganized the country’s security measures and brought about various reforms.

2. Solutions 2.1 The 2006 border reinforcements On October 26, 2006, George W. Bush stated that the border needed to be strengthened. The Secure Fence Act (H.R. 6061), which had a 1.2 billion dollar budget5 at the time, was designed to protect the 3,100 km border as effectively as possible. Cutting-edge technology was deployed on a good third of the border, around 1,078 kilometers6 (Ill. 4.3). “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an import-

5 In December 2006, the Congressional Research Service estimated the total budget at 49 billion dollars. 6 To secure the area around this border, permanent tools were used: general and operational service units, checkpoints, along with infrastructure such as barriers and roads with advanced technology (lighting systems, video cameras, radars, sensors, satellites, etc.) as well as mobile forces (Border Patrol, vehicles, drones, and so on).

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

ant step towards immigration reform.”7 Two objectives were set: reform the immigration system and strengthen border controls. The DHS was drastically restructured, and its budget and staff levels gradually increased.8 The Tactical Infrastructure / Border Fence program clearly announced its goals: • Establishing a substantial probability of apprehending terrorists seeking entry into the United States • Disrupting and restricting the smuggling of narcotics and humans • Preventing violence against border residents and illegal immigrants • Promoting better environmental health along the Southwest Border • Restricting potentially harmful diseases (both human and agricultural) from crossing the border9 (DHS, 2006) Illustration 4.3 A-B

7 The White House, U.S. 8 President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2007: $42.7 billion; 2014: $59.9 billion; 2019 Budget Request of $47.5 billion providing $1.6 billion for the construction of a 65-mile border wall system; the FY 2018 appropriation for DHS provided $445 million for 25 new miles of pedestrian fencing in the Rio Grande Valley, as well as additional resources for 14 miles of secondary fencing in San Diego and about 45 miles of replacement fencing along the southwest border. www. dhs.gov/dhs-budget. Accessed April 1, 2019. 9 In March 2016, the Tactical Infrastructure/ Border Fence Program was transferred from the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Finance, Facilities Management, and Engineering (FM&E).

159

160

Border Wall Aesthetics

Two types of barriers were put in place to ensure the success of these missions: a pedestrian fence spread out over 350 miles, and a vehicle fence over 299 miles. These policies continued under Obama’s presidency.

2.2 Trumpian one-upmanship “I would build a great wall—and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me—and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” Declaration by Donald J. Trump, US presidential candidate, during his campaign launch on June 15, 2015. Donald Trump’s emergence on the international political stage disrupted its fragile equilibrium. We will once again leave analysis of this topic to the specialists. However, from our phenomenological and aesthetic perspective, we can point out two notable inconsistencies. On January 25, 2017, Trump’s signature of Executive Order 13767, entitled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, officially authorized construction of the wall along the border between the United States and Mexico. 25 billion dollars were requested for this construction.10 During the presidential cam10 www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-border-security-immigration-enforcement-improvements/www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/presi​ dent-donald-j-trumps-administration-working-build-stronger-borders/. Accessed April 1, 2019.

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

paign, Trump made outrageous generalizations: “A nation without borders is no nation at all. We must build a wall.”11 (Ill. 4.4) While borders do strengthen the recognition and mutual identity of nations (see Foreword), walls cannot be seen as legitimate boundaries because these constructions dehumanize us. They deny the neighboring alterity by destroying natural historic, socioeconomic, and environmental interconnections. But new populist governments choose to take these dangerous shortcuts to manipulate people’s fears. The wall is actually the sign of great weakness. It doesn’t resolve anything, quite the opposite. Illustration 4.4 A-B 

11 From July 14, 2015: “A nation without borders is no nation at all. We must build a wall. Let’s Make America Great Again!” twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta​tus/​620​9509​550​733​8​8​ 544?lang=fr. Accessed April 1, 2019. From July 28, 2015: “A nation WITHOUT BORDERS is not a nation at all. We must have a wall.” twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta​tus/​626​1403​151​ 1​6830721. Accessed April 1, 2019.

161

162

Border Wall Aesthetics

The second inconsistency we noted is directly tied to our discussion of aesthetics. Trump’s construction of eight wall prototypes stirred up quite a sordid controversy. Here we will examine the most iconic artistic project to respond to Trump’s single-minded focus on building a border wall. Swiss-Icelandic artist Christophe Büchel, under the name of a collective called MAGA (from Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again”), launched a petition to register the wall prototypes as national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906.12 This legislation is designed to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features on federal land. The artist’s provocation brings up two issues. On the one hand, these prototypes mark a specific space-time in history in which democracies are voluntary incarcerating themselves. On the other hand, by claiming that Trump is a conceptual artist in the Land Art tradition, Büchel f louts and then eradicates all the values and codes associated both with the history of art and with politics. The MAGA collective also raises doubts about its intentions by organizing paying guided tours of the

12 www.borderwallprototypes.org/. Accessed November 22, 2018

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

prototypes on the Mexican side. Time will tell if this obscene provocation is accepted, and at what price. And yet, the aesthetics of the border, as a wall, go beyond this hysteric catharsis. How have long-standing visionary and discontented artists developed their border wall aesthetics? After our quick overview of the history of the border and the objectives of the Border Fence program, we will now examine how artists interpret the wall itself. First, we will attempt to understand whether the wall’s Manichean appearance hides another reality: a sort of violent and sordid trilogy of abusive labor practices, trafficking, and death that is completely intractable. We will then outline how the aesthetics of this border (which the US wants to close) faces its history through its antagonisms with cartography.

3. Frida Kahlo as a landmark artist First we will examine the iconic figure of Frida Kahlo, a Mexican painter (1907–1954) who was known around the world for her expressive style. One of her works in particular reveals her ambivalence about this border: Autorretrato en la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos (Self-portrait on the Borderline Between Mexico and the United States). She painted it in 1932 when she was living in the United States with her husband, muralist painter Diego Rivera, who was working of a commission for the Detroit Institute of Arts. In it Kahlo stands on a makeshift pedestal with the inscription Carmen Rivera pintó su retrato el año 1932 (Carmen Rivera painted her portrait in 1932). She is wearing a classic Western-style pink dress (Bilek, 2012, p. 13–30), and is the fulcrum of the painting, which is split in two (Ill. 4.5). On the left is a Mexican landscape, and the United States is on the right. Both sides include items that clearly identify them. From top to bottom, the f lag of the United States emerges from a cloud of smoke produced by the chimneys of the Ford factory, which appears in the middle ground. In addition to its industrial appearance, inf luenced by Detroit, tall buildings border the painting on the top right. There are small electric appliances at Kahlo’s feet. We can see cables shooting under the ground like roots, in contrast with the real roots of plants and f lowers planted on the Mexican side. The middle ground on the left side contains pre-Columbian sculptures and a skull. Pride of place is given to brown dirt topped with a wall of stones. The Mexican landscape

163

164

Border Wall Aesthetics

is completed by an Aztec monument with the moon and sun above it. A bolt of lightning hits the monument, generating energy. Though Kahlo occupies the central position, signifying a real dichotomy, the direction she looks in and the placement of her right hand indicate her territorial preference. She is holding a small Mexican f lag, her favorite. On the left-hand Mexican side, she makes cultural references by presenting elements of heritage and nature, which contrast with the manufactured items on the US side. The figure of Kahlo herself makes a sharp vertical cut in the painting, offering an image of the border and the territory. The artist is there, without really being there, suggesting a borderline identity that vacillates between the economic reality of the United States and a corporeal and symbolic attachment to the Mexican territory. Illustration 4.5

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

4. An intractable trilogy Though illegal crossings rely on the use of a variety of intermediaries (heads of the line, smugglers, transporters, pointers, receptionists, guides) corruption also plays an important role.13 In 2000, 1.6 million Mexicans were arrested at the border. Yet since 2015, the number of border arrests has been dropping. In 2017, the border patrol arrested fewer Mexicans (130,454 people) than non-Mexicans (180,077 people, mainly from Central America). The Mexican population living illegally in the United States represents about 45% of the 12 million in total. This figure is decreasing because of expulsions, restrictions, and voluntary departures.14 Yet efforts to prevent these crossings have proven ineffective: Before 1986, 98% of immigrants from Jalisco state in Mexico who tried to cross the border did finally enter the United States, while 97% were also able to cross the border between 2002 and 2009. Overall, researchers from the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) recorded a final success rate of 92% or more in various surveys conducted between 2005 and 2009.15 The presence and purpose of this barrier seem to be in vain. Nevertheless, the works presented hereafter are able to express the realities of the difficulties along the border generated by an official and unofficial economy. We will analyze this economic cynicism the artists address by placing it in a geopolitical context.

13 From FY 2016 to FY 2017, more than 500 employees of the United States’ primary border security agency were charged with drug trafficking, accepting bribes and a range of other crimes over a two-year period www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Oct/CBP-FY16-17-Public-Discipline-Report-508.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2018. 14 Sources: US Customs and Border Protection, US Census Bureau Data, Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/03/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/. Accessed November 22, 2018 15 Congressional Research Service, Baltimore; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

165

166

Border Wall Aesthetics

4.1 Abusive labor practices Swiss videographer Ursula Biemann was particularly interested in the relationship between female bodies and mass production in the Free Zone of Ciudad Juárez. Her 1999 video essay, Performing the Border, is a field investigation (Ill. 4.6). The maquiladoras, economic engines for both countries, produce electronics, micro-technology, medical supplies, optical goods, military equipment, etc. Elamex, one of the biggest companies, proudly advertises pay of “1 dollar per hour.” Biemann shows how this cross-border space exacerbates patriarchal and post-colonial mentalities. After all, it is very young women (starting at age 16) who work in these factories, where precision and dexterity are required. This labor is limited in time, because after 8 years their eyes are too tired for them to continue. The caricature is pushed to its extreme, with a white business owner who goes as far as to control the menstrual cycle of the young women (providing contraception). This framework encourages docility and leads to exhaustion. The factories are on the outskirts of the city, which limits access to entertainment. Though the maquiladoras are in decline, they are still profitable for the United States. On the Mexican side, they create precarious and sometimes perverse situations, since workers (who may seem privileged to their families) have no access to unions and may even turn to prostitution to make ends meet. This “sexualization of the territory” must be understood alongside the murders resulting from domestic violence and organized crime.16

16 Ciudad Juárez was recognized as the city with the highest number of homicides in the world. In 2010, there was a sad record of 2,980 people killed (including 320 women) out of a population of 1,332,131 (Cravey, 1998; Colegio Frontera del Norte, Mexico; Amnesty International; Observatorio de Seguridad y Convivencia Ciudadanas. Ciudad Juárez, Mexico).

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

Illustration 4.6 A-B

167

168

Border Wall Aesthetics

Biemann summarizes the situation in this way: Structurally speaking, a young woman in Juárez has three options: either she becomes an assembly worker; if she is not accepted at the factory because of insufficient education, she can become a domestica and work as a maid in a private house; but if she can’t produce a recommendation for such a position, her only option is prostitution. (2004, p. 84) These three choices for the women working on the border mirror the options open to Chicana women. According to feminist activist writer Gloria Anzaldúa, In part, the true identity of all three has been subverted. Guadalupe to make us docile and enduring, la Chingada to make us ashamed of our Indian side, and la Llorona to make us long-suffering people. This obscuring has encouraged the virgen/puta (whore) dichotomy. (Anzaldúa, 1987, p. 53) The Virgin of Guadalupe is the protective mother who never gives up. She emerged in 1531 and has become a major Catholic figure. La Chingada (the prostitute), or Malinche, is the raped mother who has abandoned her children. She is also the one who speaks several languages (in reference to Hernan Cortés, for whom she was an interpreter, serving as an intermediary between the native populations and the conquering Spanish). La Llorona (the weeping woman) is the one who has lost her children and is a combination of the first two (Sandoval, 2008; Villegas, 1994, p. 67-87). Starting in the 1980s, the complexity of the role of Chicanas in this border area was tackled head on by a bi-national collective called Las Comadres. These female artists have taken inspiration from writers such as Anzaldúa, who has made major contributions to the development of Chicana cultural theory and queer theory.

4.2 Drug trafficking This barrier has contributed to a global increase in violence, to which artists can be particularly receptive. This is the case for Mexican artist Teresa Margolles, who has been working on the theme of death for more than 20 years. She has shifted from an explo-

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

ration of morgues,17 in which she created work on human and animal cadavers, to a more peripheral concept of the body. Margolles was part of the collective SEMEFO, which was inf luenced by Death and Thrash Metal, Viennese Actionism, La Fura del Baus, the iconography of Peter Witkin and Bacon, and the work of Antonin Artaud and Georges Bataille. She now addresses social issues more explicitly, as if disgust and morbidity have joined together in a lively conversation. Violence and subsequent death, which are quite visible in certain Mexican cities, are the focus of her attention. Margolles’ works, Muro Baleado I / Shot-Up Wall I from 2008 and Muro Ciudad Juárez from 2010, use real walls that she removed from their context and transported to Europe for exhibition (Ill. 4.7). While they are not the separation barriers we are examining, strictly speaking, these shot-up walls provide information about the consequences of drug trafficking and the explosion of violence along the border and across the country. Margolles reveals an ironic consequence of the system, for in addition to preventing illegal immigration, this closed border is also supposed to prevent the passage of drugs. And yet, figures show that the United States is among the largest consumers of illegal drugs in the world: cocaine, heroin, opioids, ecstasy, amphetamines, and marijuana. Mexico serves as the hub (with Colombia as the origin) and the largest supplier (95% of cocaine, for example). The gap between supply and demand is filled by a network that is becoming more complex thanks to the Darknet, a supposed effect of a form of globalization.18

17 Mariana (2010), co-founder of the SEMEFO collective (1990-1999). Acronym for Servicio médico forense del distrito federal de México (Forensic Medicine Department of the Federal District of Mexico City). 18 The 2013 survey on drug abuse shows that one in 10 people in the United States consumed illicit drugs in the previous month (compared to a global average of 5%) (Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC]; Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA]).

169

170

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 4.7

Another example is La Línea, a 1997 installation by Colombian artist Fernando Arias. It consists of two attached consecutive panels measuring 16 meters long and 3 meters high (Ill. 4.8). A metal laminate panel is attached to the corrugated iron panel. The initial intention of isolation for security purposes is broken by the gap between the ground and the panels. In this gap lies a line of white powder, a metaphor for drug trafficking. The artist’s creative gesture implies the coexistence of these two materials at the border. During his performance La Mula (The Mule)—a person who smuggles drugs across the border—Arias stood before visitors with an endoscopic device coming out of his anus and made the following announcement: “I am carrying no drug-filled condoms.” By drawing attention to the scathing symbolism of mutual coexistence, the artist played with clichés about Colombians who travel to the United States. Illustration 4.8 A-B

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

These artists shed a light on drug trafficking and the violence it generates, showing that the barrier that was installed is just a masquerade. Another objective of the Tactical Infrastructure / Border Fence program, the prevention of arms trafficking, is a complete failure: 70 to 90% of the weapons used by drug cartels (Los Zetas, from Tijuana, El Golfo, Juárez, etc.) come from the United States.19 The arms are first purchased in the United States and then sent illegally to Mexico. The official economy exists in parallel with the unofficial one. The interaction between these two countries appears to be based on mutual withdrawals.

4.3 Inexorable death By inexorable death, we are referring to the intentional homicides resulting from increased violence: In Mexico, there were 10,737 homicides in 2000 compared to 31,174 in 2017. Death is also inherent in the barrier, which has been fortified and pushed into even more isolated areas. There are now more than 300 to 400 deaths per year during border crossings.20 The photos Tomás Castelazo took at the border between Tijuana and San Diego serve as testaments to these deaths (Ill. 4.9). Ten small coffins, painted with bright patterns and colors and bearing dates from 1996 to 2004, are attached to blue corrugated iron that blends in with the sky. The number of deaths is indicated for each year. It is a reminder of the celebration of the Day of the Dead (Día de los Muertos), during which the figure of La Catrina (or La Calavera Garbancera) is widely used. These anthropomorphic skulls are an integral part of Mexican culture. In this photo, the festive use of colors is a reminder of offerings (the painted coffins) and memories (the numbers of dead). In other photographs, Castelazo depicts death at the border through white Catholic crosses stuck on and straddling the corrugated iron (Ill. 4.10), or the installation of cloth figures attached to the structure. Their volume and movement suggest ascension, but skulls face the camera instead of heads. The installation contains no trace of folklore, con-

19 Data from 2007–2011, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Embassy Mexico City; U.S. Justice Department; Inegi; EFE; Alpers and Wilson, 2013; Census Bureau, USA. 20 That is 7,200 deaths since 1998.

171

172

Border Wall Aesthetics

siderably darkening the message. It symbolically denotes both a commemoration and a warning of the daily danger incurred. Chilean artist Alfredo Jaar pays homage to those who died trying to cross the border. On October 14, 2000, he staged a double performance of The Cloud at Valle Del Matador in Tijuana, near San Diego (Ill. 4.11). During this event, an enormous net containing white balloons, attached to both sides of the wall, f loated above the corrugated iron fence. In the video, the parents of the victims convey the emotional depth of the performance. For 45 minutes, on both sides of the border, musicians played and poetry was recited. During a moment of silence, the balloons were released from the net and the wind guided them towards Mexico, like a peaceful return to the source. Through his poetry, this trailblazing artist offered solidarity and solemn compassion to mourn these deaths.21 Illustration 4.9

21 Note similarities with celebrations of the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. On November 9, 2014, 7,000 white balloons lined up on 15 km corresponding to the wall’s route were symbolically released during the night.

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

Illustration 4.10

As we can see, the weaknesses originating in the socioeconomic interdependence between the two countries jeopardize and will continue to challenge the declared purpose of the wall. The immigration reform has had no effect, with a 92% rate of successful border crossings. And control of the border is corrupted first from within, and then in terms of what it generates. The wall fosters a lawless zone where violence, in connection to economic f lows, is ramified. This border zone is drained both by official economic interests (NAFTA via the maquiladoras and their cheap labor) and unofficial interests (trafficking of drugs, weapons, and humans, with women as the main victims22), fostering a form of perversion. The multiple forms of illegality offer special privileges that are constantly reinforced.

22 United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking.

173

174

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 4.11 A-B

5. Real and fantasized cartography Though mapping was initially a military tool, art can attempt to transcend it. The territory is part of a reality as much as an imagined vision, since the border wall obstructs our view. The paper map provides a starting point for

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

any crossing. But the actual journey must be experienced and involves a particular artistic perception. The map of a territory shifts from the status of an object to that of subject through the charade of the wall.

5.1 Real object Dominican photographer Alejandro Cartagena offers an unusual vision of the crossing towards territoriality, meaning tri-dimensional system of society-space-time (Raffestin, 1986). In his 2011–2012 photography project Carpoolers, he took pictures from a bridge on a highway in Nuevo Laredo showing pickup trucks with open cargo beds. The trucks transport a range of cargo, including Mexican workers heading towards Laredo, in the United States (Ill. 4.12). The workers are often sleeping during this early morning journey. By using a 90° angle, Cartagena offers a dual perspective: that of a pragmatic reality, the daily commute of workers, and that of an aesthetic composition expressed by the lines of the road, the cars, the people, and their tools. The image includes varying repetitions as a fragment of a particular territoriality that makes up the networks and f lows in this border zone. She named the shoe Brinco, from the verb brincar (to jump). It is mostly green, red, and black. The Mexican eagle is on the heel, while the front of the shoe features the eagle that is on the American 25 cent coin. The territorial parable is abundantly clear: from the departure point to the arrival. The shoes are designed to aid in this journey by offering a compass, a f lashlight, Tylenol painkillers, and a map of the area on the insoles. Werthein distributed the shoes in two parts. On the Mexican side, in Tijuana, she gave 500 pairs of shoes to people who wanted to cross the border. On the US side, in San Diego, she sold the remaining 500 pairs as a limited edition. The proceeds were then given to Casa del Migrante, a migrant shelter in Tijuana that offers food and housing to immigrants mid-way through their journey. The shoes’ low production costs ($17/ unit) and the fact that they were made in China was not incidental. The inner label of the shoe reads: “$42 per month for 12 hours of work a day, seven days a week.”23 The artist uses the existing system to condemn the Chinese working conditions, which occur in parallel to exploitation along the US border. 23 The shoes were sold for $215 a pair, Casa del Migrante network. Another collaborative example: the placing of water tanks in the desert.

175

176

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 4.12 A-C 

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

177

178

Border Wall Aesthetics

In another form of provocation, Mexican artist Pedro Lasch redrew the map of the American continent (Ill. 4.13). He wrote “Latino/a”, in the North, and “America” in the South, re-codifying the territoriality while also invoking the linguistic and sometimes cultural changes that are gradually occurring. Lasch began his Guías de Ruta project in 2003. The series featured several destinations (New York in 2006, North Carolina in 2008, Los Angeles in 2011). The artist gave two maps to each of the prospective immigrants he

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

knew. Once they arrived at their destination, they sent back one of the maps and kept the other. The returned maps were transformed, having aged prematurely during the exhausting journey. The red tint of the two continents was sometimes faded, the paper darkened, crinkled by the sweat and tears it had absorbed. The map thus became a shroud and a precise testimonial in which excerpts from the life of the former owner remain. Illustration 4.13

In contrast to the two preceding works, examining the crossing of this border in pragmatic terms can reveal its contradictions. In 2010, artist Minerva Cuevas went to one of the sections of the Rio Bravo with plans to build a bridge there. After realizing that her goal was too ambitious, and that she could cross the river however she wanted, she decided to do something else

179

180

Border Wall Aesthetics

on site. In her performance Rio Bravo Crossing, she took a can of white paint and painted a line on the rocks heading towards US soil, changing the paradigm of what we initially think of as immutable. Here too, a new demarcation was possible, and the border patrols couldn’t do anything about it. By crossing precisely where illegal immigrants are prohibited, the artistic act revealed the geopolitical invalidity of the border.

5.2 Transcending the subject Performance is an ideal format for expressing the concept that cartography is tangible, that it is experienced literally. Human beings create maps, but they can also subvert their initial purpose. The map shifts from the status of object to that of transcendent subject, with new possibilities. Crossing could mean the pure and simple eradication of this border. And though this is not truly possible, artists can imagine it. In 2011, Mexican artist Ana Teresa Fernandez did precisely this with Borrando la Frontera (Erasing the Border) (Ill. 4.14). This performance, or social sculpture, took place on the beach in Tijuana, across from San Diego. The barrier’s steel columns are close together and extend into the ocean (an image seen frequently in the media). The action took place on one piece of the barrier. She climbed on a ladder wearing high heels and an evening dress, and painted the barrier sky blue, leaving a troubling impression. From a distance, just for an instant, it looked like a piece of the structure had disappeared, since it was painted to look like the sky. The crossing then seemed possible. Fernandez could not eliminate the border, but she gave an illusion of its disappearance. Her performance was clever both in terms of her appearance in an evening gown and the action itself. In 2005, Venezuelan artist Javier Téllez pushed the limits of irony with his performance One Flew Over the Void (Bala Perdida), which was a form of spectacle (Figure 4.15). On the same section of beach that Fernandez used, clowns (actually psychiatric patients with whom Téllez had worked) held signs bearing clear messages: Los enfermos mentales también tenemos derecho (mental patients have rights too) and Vivir con drogas no es vivir (Living on drugs is not really living). David “Cannonball” Smith Sr., the world-record holding human cannonball, was hired to be shot 5 meters in the air over a distance of 35 meters, landing on the beach in San Diego, USA. This particular crossing, which was possible because it was paid for, was staged

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

and enlivened with confetti, disrupting the much less glamorous reality of human tragedies on the border. Illustration 4.14 A-B

181

182

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 4.15 A-B

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

This surprising passage is juxtaposed with other daily crossings. Drug traffickers and smugglers invent elaborate systems to get around the obstacle, using catapults, air guns, and rail cars. After all, a regulated border can also provoke the desire to break through it. In 2005, when Janet Napolitano was Governor of Arizona, she stated: “You show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That’s the way the border works.”24 Francis Alÿs, here again, explored the negotiation associated with his refusal to simply cross the US-Mexico border. In his performance Loop, for the inSite contemporary art festival, he travelled around the world over 35 days from June 1 to July 5, 1997. Since the festival was bi-national, with events in Tijuana and San Diego, Alÿs created another form of territoriality by showcasing his own mobility. Starting in Tijuana, he f lew to San Diego via a loose but real cross-national loop of 15 f lights that brought him to Mexico City, Panama City, Santiago, Tahiti, Auckland, Sydney, Singapore, Bangkok, Rangoon, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Seoul, Anchorage, Vancouver, and Los Angeles, ending at his final destination just several kilometers from where 24 Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013, www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/ us/20border.html?_r=0. Accessed April 1, 2019.

183

184

Border Wall Aesthetics

he started. He sent his exhibition curator poetic emails throughout his journey that combined impressions, excitement, and weariness towards the end. He accentuated the aberration of this border and mocked established relationships between these two neighboring cities through a complex mise en abyme. What may seem simple—crossing a border—is not always so. Illustration 4.16

Cartography becomes the subject of fantasy, and a utopian desire emerges. Manifestos can be persuasive to this end. In 2003, Chicano artists Victor Payan and Perry Vasquez wrote a manifesto called Keep on Crossin’25 in which 25 “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to cross borders of political, social, linguistic, cultural, economic and technological construction […] we will cross. For

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

their positive transgressive desire simplifies the crossing (Ill. 4.16). To create their caricatural Mexican character conspicuously crossing the US border, they used the sympathetic traits typical of illustrator Crumb. The resulting message is even clearer: the right to cross is non-negotiable. The manifesto glorifies mobility, which is the primary movement that legitimizes individual and collective freedom. Whatever the circumstances, no matter what happens, crossing the border is an act of solidarity that increases our understanding of alterity. When we cross the border, we can become emancipated.

5.3 Chicana Transterritoriality Speaking of emancipation… Society constantly modifies the codes of coexistence as a means of coercion. To do so it must mark people, for they are at the “interception and the cutting of f lows” (cited in Deleuze and Guattari, 1972). The candidate for exile is literally what Deleuze and Guattari mean when they refer to the body as a desiring machine, the body without organs that “f lows” towards another territoriality at all costs (1972).26 In human geography, Raffestin states that territoriality is “all the relations that a society maintains not only with itself but with exteriority and alterity, with the help of mediators, to satisfy its need to acquire the greatest possible autonomy given the resources of the system” (Raffestin, 1997, p. 165). In the case of the United States and Mexico, we have just seen that this autonomy is relative, because the two countries are clearly interdependent. A form of capitalism animates the enactment of this territorialization, particularly since migrants are potential workers and economic drivers. If the wall is no longer a physical obstacle, if it is actually malleable, then it becomes a symbol to overcome. It is a symbol whose limits have been pushed back even further, for both of these territorialities are unstable. Their interdependence is the transterritoriality that generates re-codification and re-territorialization. The schism between these f lows, this exterior boundary, is pushed to its limits and engenders a third entity. long before there were borders, there were crossers. We are the proud sons and daughters of these crossers, and we hold that crossing is a basic human right. Furthermore, we hold this right to be in-illegal alienable.” www.perryvasquez.com/keep-on-crossin//. Accessed April 1, 2019. 26 See: Deleuze, Cours Vincennes, 16/11/1971; 14/12/1971

185

186

Border Wall Aesthetics

Transterritoriality as the third entity refers to the development of a Chicano/a consciousness in the community of Mexican descendants that experiences US territoriality. The ancestral depths of collective memory may have given rise to the Chicano/a awakening of the 20th century. And several elements seem to have amplified it: uprisings by Mexican heroes (Cuauhtémoc, Miguel Hidalgo, Benito Juárez, Zapata, Pancho Villa, etc.); territorial schizophrenia; the natural imbrication and forced dichotomy following the Treaty of Guadalupe; the symbolic quest for Aztlán; and successive work programs (campesinos, bracero, maquiladoras, etc.). All of this in response to American frontier mentality, which has come back to the fore among those who aggressively defend the US border. Post-colonialism and imperialism were counterbalanced by the tenacious idea of the American Dream, a melting pot that would allow everyone to reach their potential (Turner et al., 2010; Olson, Olson Beal, 2010; Takaki, 2008). The development of Chicano/a identity emerged in the 1960s and drew strength from labor and civil disobedience movements (National Farm Workers Association [NFWA] then the United Farm Workers [UFW]27) led by the pacifist César Chávez. Chicano/a identity took root in the demand for political, agricultural, and educational equity via the Chicano/a Civil Rights Movement28 and pockets of labor and political activism (Raza Unida party), and student and anti-war groups (La Mecha29). It is in this wellspring of resistance that Chicano/a identity was forged. Its aesthetics developed alongside the evolution of the tangible and cultural border. Here are several key examples. If we just look at the written format, one of the foundations of Chicano/a consciousness is the 1967 poem “I am Joaquin” by Rodolfo Corky Gonzales (1972).30 The poet declares how his physical territoriality contradicts that 27 The Symbolic production of an Aztec eagle on the flag of the labor union may have given them courage, even if they were not all Chicano/as (Conord, 1994). 28 As a continuation of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement that started in the 1940s (Rosales, 1997). 29 We can point to graphic design that showed the estimated abuses of the economic and immigration policy. Examples include artists Malaquías Montoya and Rupert García, who in 1973 created the powerful image “Cesen deportación” (Stop the deportation) on a red background with black barbed wire (Gómez Quinones, 2004; Abruch Linder, 1979). 30 Excerpt: I am Joaquín. The odds are great But my spirit is strong,

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

of his spirit, generating both vulnerability and strength. Gonzales prefers fighting, alone and with his community, rather than enduring discrimination. He uses the term raza, in reference to José Vasconcelos’ concept of raza cósmica (cosmic race), which was to determine the future “fifth nation” based on the American cultural intermingling that become obvious in the 1920s.31 In 1970, the Centro Cultural de la Raza in San Diego was founded to promote artistic and cultural exchanges with Tijuana. And lastly, there was the 1973 play La Frontera, created and staged by Teatro Campesino, based in California. Its current day relevance is troubling, as it describes the obstacles faced by a Mexican seeking to reach the United States (García Acevedo, 1999; Maciel et al., 1988). Muralism also plays an important role in Chicano/a aesthetic expression. It is like a natural process (see the prehistoric cave paintings) serves as an extension of a communicative tradition. Territorial marking is conveyed through symbols that are specific to the identity that is invested in them and the sharing of information related to its resistance. In the beginning of the 20th century, in a revolutionary and post-revolutionary context, this tradition was embodied by three world-famous Mexican painters mainly known for their social realism: Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Rafael Siqueiros, and José Clemente Orozco (Gorodezki, 1993). Starting in 1970, during the beginnings of the Chicano/a movement, protests against the destruction of a park in San Diego gradually became the heart of Chicano/a muralist expression. In the area now known as Chicano Park, paintings depict symbols from Mexican-American history, Aztec origins, religious references (the Virgin of Guadeloupe), Mexican heroes (Zapata, Chávez, etc.) and even South American heroes (Che Guevara, etc.) (Jackson, 2009, p. 78–80) (Ill. 4.17).

My faith unbreakable, My blood is pure. I am Aztec prince and Christian Christ. I SHALL ENDURE! I WILL ENDURE! Source: www.latinamericanstudies.org/latinos/joaquin.htm. Accessed March 30, 2019. 31 Vasconselos’ idea is that the combination of all the races could lead to a new civilization, “Universópolis” (Vasconselos, 1948, p. 47–51).

187

188

Border Wall Aesthetics

In 1974, artist Judy Baca began working on an 800-meter mural project in California, in the San Fernando Valley near Los Angeles.32 In a colorful figurative style, she painted the history of the state in sequences, from prehistoric times to the 1960s.33 Chicano/a mural art in United States is a critical form of resistance that also provides cultural affirmation. For example, when director Agnès Varda filmed Mur Murs in Los Angeles in 1980, it became obvious that barriology, the study of the barrio, the neighborhood, was a fully consequential practice of territorial occupation (Herzog, 2004; Selz et Landauer, 2006). These paintings inform a kind of conscious psychogeography. Illustration 4.17 A-C

32 400 people worked on this project for five consecutive summers, as part of a social action. Baca also surrounded herself with more than 35 artists, historians, ethnologists, and students. 33 The Social and Public Art Resource Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

189

190

Border Wall Aesthetics

These palpable and vernacular expressions (poetry, song, theater, murals) have established Chicano/a identity as a third entity in a more global context of protest. The specificity of Chicano/a hybridity is also claimed as a force. As with Frida Kahlo’s self-portrait, in which she is “there without being there,” there is the assumption of a physical presence on one side and a mental presence on the other. The entangling of these spaces creates a territoriality that is constantly being crossed: a transterritoriality. This combination of American and Mexican roots gives rise to a wave of contradictions. But can the body not liberate itself through its very contradictions? The border wall is permeable because of its common history, Chicano/a identity, and its inability to prevent people from crossing it. In the end, it represents possibility. Chicano/a artists find inspiration in its very f laws. The boundary lines for identities and bodies lies elsewhere. As Anzaldúa states, the essence of the Chicano/a is that of a hybrid being that is constantly confronted with multiple territories and borders: Una lucha de fronteras / A struggle of Borders Because I, a mestiza continually walk out of one culture and into another; because I am in all cultures at the same time, alma entre dos mundos, tres, cuatro, me zumba la cabeza con lo contradictorio.

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

Estoy norteada por todas las voces que me hablan Simultáneamente (Anzaldúa, 1987, p. 99) Gloria Anzaldúa, like many Chicano artists and thinkers, uses Spanglish, a combination of Spanish and English. Heidegger would say, “Language is the house of being. In its home human beings dwell. Those who think and those who create with words are the guardians of this home” (Heidegger, 1978, p. 239). I dwell in my language: Chicano/as can attest to being shaped by this ambivalence. Borders are paradoxically liberated through implosion and conf lict. In aesthetics, performance reveals the literally limited body. The artist Guillermo Gómez-Peña provides a nice example of this that expresses several clear hopes. In the early 1980s, Gómez-Peña’s work already gravitated around the border. His charismatic approach has evolved over time, and he has perfected it both individually and collectively. His vast body of work includes essays, “theories,” performance scripts, radio plays, photos, and so on. In 1984, he founded 34 The Border Arts Workshop/Taller de Arte Fronterizo (BAW/TAF) in San Diego (Kanjo, 1993). This experimental laboratory uses an aesthetic, social, and bi-national perspective to critique the border zone while dreaming of a utopia in which geopolitical barriers have fallen, since the continent is made up of people and not countries. Gómez-Peña describes his view of geopolitical and organic borders in this way: “I make art about the misunderstandings that take place at the border zone. But for me, the border is no longer located at any fixed geopolitical site. I carry the border with me, and I find new borders wherever I go” (Gómez-Peña, 2001, p. 6). The border is omniscient, mobile. In a deliberately paradoxical approach, the artist embodies the border, for this is how he creates meaning at a given point in time.35 As he claims, “I am a border Sisyphus.”36 His absurd actions are simply the ref lection of all the situations at the border. 34 With other members: Isaac Artenstein, David Avalos, Sara-Jo Berman, Jude Ederhart, Víctor Ochoa, Michael Schnorr. 35 Other examples of poems: “I don’t know what to think of your country, 15 ways of relating across the border” (Gómez-Peña and Colectivo La Pocha Nostra, Estados Unidos, 2005, p. 12–13). 36 Ibid., p. 48 and foreword.

191

192

Border Wall Aesthetics

Here we will examine just a small sample of Gómez-Peña’s dense body of work. He created the character Border Brujo (border wizard) in 1988, based on a personal experience (Ill. 4.18). After being denied authorization to leave the country several times, he and his colleagues began to dress like mariachis. This allowed them to project an image of sympathetic Mexicans who didn’t seem dangerous. For the next few decades, he played around with standards and clichés in the evolution of the Border Brujo. He turned into a multicultural Aztec shaman and used different languages, including Spanglish. In performing this character, Gómez-Peña often placed himself in an ultra-baroque setting (candles, small statues, warm colors). His clothing helped produce a symbolic overload: he wore a Panama hat that was made in China and had California written on it, or a mariachi sombrero, or a feather headdress. He wore a profusion of badges, large earrings in the shape of skeletons, grotesque necklaces, bracelets, and studded leather mittens. The figure he portrayed was expressive and grandiloquent. His big mustache and heavily made-up eyes remain one of his trademarks. He slipped into different characters that symbolized the border crossing (north/south, English speaker/ Latino, legal/illegal, life/death, etc.). He used incantation to transcend the diaspora. He played around with the fears and profound desires of a physical and mental border crossing.

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

Illustration 4.18

Gómez-Peña made extensive use of irony, even if it was not always understood. During his 1994 performance of the Cruci-Fiction Project in Rodeo Beach, across from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, Gómez-Peña and his acolyte Roberto Sifuentes each remained “crucified” for three hours on a 5-meter-tall wooden cross (Ill. 4.19). The performance was in response to Pete Wilson’s Proposition 187 ballot initiative, which sought to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing social and medical services and public education. That year, the artist wrote, “illegal aliens are a category of criminal, not a category of ethnic group” (Gómez-Peña, 2001, p. 65). Evoking this stigmatization, the message was clear and provocative: the undesirables are being crucified. The performers produced a highly political gesture that prompted

193

194

Border Wall Aesthetics

a range of spontaneous reactions, from solidarity and offers of assistance to exclamations such as “Let them die!” (p. 94–95). Illustration 4.19

1994 was also the year that NAFTA went into effect, inspiring the performance The New World Border, Prophecies for the End of the Century. The artist and his colleagues wove between plays on words: NAFTA became the Free Raid Agreement or Zona de Libre Cogercio (from the verb coger, which means to take, both literally and sexually). Several crude realities emerged: in order to defend commercial interests, the Tortilla Curtain has replaced the Berlin Wall, which has itself become a tourist attraction. It is clear that cultural bor-

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

ders no longer exist, since there is a homogenization between the “first” and “third” worlds, even as clichés of colonialist discourse remain. Though NAFTA has resulted in an economic invasion that benefits the northern countries, the cultural invasion is coming from the south. A final example of Gómez-Peña’s work is the “Pocha Nostra” collective. It was launched in 1996 and provides the artist with an open platform (Ill. 4.20). Pocho refers to the “bastardization” of Castilian Spanish under the inf luence of English.37 The group is impossible to define, featuring a Chicano/a-cyberpunk-art, robo-baroque, ethno-techno-cannibal aesthetic. Their evolving manifesto states, If there is a common denominator, it is our desire to cross and erase dangerous borders including those between art and politics, art practice and theory, artist and spectator – ultimately to dissolve borders and myths of purity whether they be specific to culture, ethnicity, gender, language or metier.38 The collective erases all borders: well known art is mixed with folk art; permanent and guest artists come from around the world; languages are fused and invented; an alliance is formed between genders; the public is invited to participate, to touch the bodies of performers, and so on. The artists take a very transgressive approach to their artistic practice as well as their identity-based and sexual culture, and seek the same liberation for their audience. The energy generated by the unmasking of taboos and the total immersion in new codes elicits a possible “revelation.” However, these artists clearly don’t take themselves too seriously. Their intensity is situational and serves as a playground for the concept of the border. Their goal is to de-colonize the body and mind to attain this new form of territoriality.

37 “Pocho is an anglicized Mexican or American of Mexican origin who speaks Spanish with an accent characteristic of North Americans and who distorts and reconstructs the language according to the influence of English” (Anzaldúa, 1987, p. 78). 38 www.pochanostra.com/. Accessed April 1, 2019.

195

196

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 4.20

6. Polysemy of the separation barrier? The Immigration Act of 1924 included a quota system, and barriers on the US southern border were fortified after the appearance of official temporary work programs. These instruments of control went hand-in-hand with the beginnings of the Chicano/a movement in the 1960s, which raised awareness about the community’s economic, social, political, and labor responsibilities. The first wall was erected around 1991-1992, and security systems were

The secure border between Mexico and the United States

radically reinforced following September 11, 2001 (including the USA Patriot Act). The area between Mexico and the United States is viscerally related to the phenomenon of globalization. Widespread access to advanced communication such as the Internet can arouse fears (terrorism, criminality), and governments use these barriers as the concrete proof they need to reassure their citizens and potential electorate.39 A clear form of violence is expressed through official economic measures (NAFTA, maquiladoras, work agreements, etc.) that raise ethical questions, as well as through unofficial systems (weapons, drugs, human trafficking) inherent in bilateral corruption. In 2006, the draconian reinforcement of this border enshrined the principle of control and securitarian values. The border wall has been a major issue in Donald Trump’s presidency, reviving the frontier myth and the aggressiveness of the ‘Winning of the West’ mentality. The danger in the creation of this utopia of white territoriality is that it disregards the United States’ own history. The intention of this wall already contributes to amnesia. The promise of building a wall on the entire southern border (which is unlikely given the steep topography in certain areas) stokes socioeconomic and diplomatic tensions. However, the physical visibility of the wall, aided by the media and political machinations, is just a smokescreen. Even though this barrier pushes the limits of what is viable, it is not very effective in stopping prospective immigrants. Transterritoriality is the penetration into a shifting territory that this barrier has come to symbolically represent. The common history between Mexico and the United States is founded in a territory that has been won and lost in turns, resulting in official and unofficial economic interdependence. For example, Mexico provided illegal alcohol during prohibition; it now provides illegal drugs. This interdependence, whether desired or not, is relatively obvious, both from a social and aesthetic perspective. Starting in the 1970s, when the Chicano/a movement brought together writers, artists, and musicians, they already foresaw a “wall” and sought to discuss and experiment with this border zone. The basic overview we have provided here describes an awakening to and by means of the border, which this hybrid community has developed a specific awareness of. On the one hand, the development of Chicano/a art, particularly mural art in California, reveals a specific identity, a third entity. On the other hand, bi-national 39 The author’s first analysis dates from 2009. Recent events have confirmed this.

197

198

Border Wall Aesthetics

initiatives such as the Comadres collective, the Centro Cultural de la Raza, the BAW/TAF border art laboratory, and the inSite art festival between San Diego and Tijuana that began in 1997 all highlight the defining features of the territory and a natural interconnection between the protagonists. Performance remains an ideal form of expression in this case, since the border is experienced. Local artists, as well as those foreign to the phenomenon of the wall, are particularly sensitive to the trilogy of abusive labor practices, trafficking, and death that is exacerbated along this border and even spreading to the rest of Mexico. Through this form of social violence, ethics are trampled upon, in direct relation to the northern neighbor. Cartography is literally experienced as a pragmatic object by artists who are committed to showing a reality of the border: carpoolers, suffering (or not) during the crossing, and Latino cultural inf luence on the north. It is also the source of fantasies and becomes an absurd subject that is circumvented and even disappears.

Conclusion Globalization? Beyond the walls

The apparent contradiction between the increasing construction of new barriers in a supposedly globalized world required us to consider the history of colonialism, imperialism, conquests, and so on. In short, their association with a form of violence we thought was relegated to history. These new walls (the generic term) go beyond the State’s legitimate efforts to mark its territory through its borderlines. The walls are now part of a protectionist political strategy: teichopolitics. To fully understand this phenomenon, we first reviewed limology throughout history to identify the original religious and military characteristics of the border as a wall. Artistic representation of the border initially expressed perceptions of dogma, myth, and defense. The replication of these themes in contemporary times is troubling, for these non-democratic walls convey an archaic image of impermeability to Barbarian invasions, a reassuring concept that we don’t seem ready to let go of. Lévi-Strauss’ notion of ethnocentrism has exploded, resulting in an insularity that leaves no room for alterity. Obviously, nothing is simple. This is why we turned to artists to explore their ability to capture sensory values. We wondered how native and diasporic artists, and those foreign to the phenomenon of wall, would respond to this excess artificiality. Would they denounce the imbalance the walls have engendered? Would they have insights to share? Could their experiences help create a psychogeography of the territory and offer responses? If so, what kind? The Berlin Wall sets the standard, based as it is in postmodern society and the idea of the wall as “Phoenix” that dies only to be reborn out of its ashes (or its cinder blocks!). The years 1989 and 1991 indicate its official fall and the resulting defeat of communism, paired with the ascendancy of lib-

200

Border Wall Aesthetics

eralism (though the Chinese paradox obviously provides a counter to that narrative). The fall of the Berlin Wall provides a metaphoric foundation for the two 21st-century walls we selected: between Israel and Palestine, and between Mexico and the United States. Our historic and geopolitical overview has allowed us to ignore the prevailing discourse and return to the reasons these walls were built. This was critical to understanding the very essence and meaning of each of the walls, which were presented as solutions to a particular problem. In Berlin, the wall was erected by a weak government that enforced a political ideology of twofold incarceration (of the undesirable liberals on the outside, and the nation’s own citizens). This is not the case for these 21st century walls we examined, which were built by economically powerful, democratic governments to fight against terrorism, criminality, and illegal immigration. In both countries, divisive tactics were already invoked in the 20th century: military repercussions in Israel (1948) and economic repercussions in the United States (1924). Starting in the 1990s, the idea of replacing barbed wire with a wall was already being suggested in Israel by the left-wing government. In the United States, successive sections of the wall were already being built by right-wing and then left-wing governments during this same period. Post-9/11 trauma led to fortification of the existing infrastructure. Then 2010 saw an acceleration in the emergence of border walls around the world, further compounded by the inf luence of Trump’s isolationist ambitions. As part of a process of perception-reaction-interaction-action, artistic creations have become true ontological expressions of the complexity of this object. While they certainly examine the universal principles of ethics and alterity, they also ask fundamental questions about artistic engagement: who is able to do this kind of art (dependent on whether or not they are seeking institutional or market recognition), why, and through which process? Since the wall is not completely hermetic (tunnels, smuggling, spying), there are contradictory consequences, geopolitical failures that are not necessarily ref lected in the associated aesthetic expression (for example, artists don’t depict smuggling). Through their creations, they nevertheless have some impact and can circumvent the situation. Certain artists are able to insinuate themselves into these transgressive cracks (or not). The wall offers an original breach that artists engage with.

Conclusion

In the context of the Cold War, economic regulation (swing-Regelung) in East Germany revealed a kind of laxity outside of any political ideology. In social and cultural terms, the occupation of buildings (squats) and the punk movement infused fresh air into apparently well-oiled systems. From the time the wall went up to the current post-wall period, artists in Berlin have created the most visible and prolific amounts of work in the country’s history. Beuys, who wanted to raise the wall by five centimeters, insisted on either rethinking the object or ignoring it, saying, “Don’t talk about the wall so much!”1 He believed the truth could be found elsewhere, through simple introspection on art and life. Between Israel and Palestine, the hyper-reality of the wall reveals the paradox of the message of peace contained in the monotheistic religions. The reality of the 5% of 8-meter-high concrete is impressive and thus at greater risk of being falsely perceived by the outside world. The inf luence of the society of spectacle runs parallel to the diplomatic challenges faced by NGOs and the media. This epiphenomenon, which has become a phenomenon in itself, has a strong impact on foreign artists, in contrast to local and diasporic artists whose messages of resistance are more visceral, more subtle. The consistency across time (Kotel, the Wailing Wall, settlements, prisons, etc.) in this territory makes clear that the wall is both an object and subject of biopower. In the case of Mexico and the United States, the infrastructure does not prevent migrants from crossing the border illegally. The history of the territory and its resulting migration policy shows the interdependence (via transterritoriality) between the two countries and beyond, in which the official and unofficial economies go hand-in-hand. The ban on carrying guns in Mexico benefits unofficial criminal organizations that get most of their weapons from the US. The border zone is a breeding ground for criminal behavior (from bilateral corruption to organized crime), becoming a violent area where lawlessness is the norm. Frida Kahlo’s self-portrait, which shows her split between two worlds, both physically and mentally, may ref lect the experience of migrants in general and Chicano/as in particular. In art, hybridity becomes a strength used to defy a territory full of contradictions. The wall, as a visible practical tool, is a response to unease around the border. It underpins a form of violence, which in a context of globalization, 1 “Quintessenz: die Mauer als solche ist völlig unwichtig. Reden Sie nicht soviel von der Mauer!” (Adriani et al., 1981, p. 125-134).

201

202

Border Wall Aesthetics

is no longer legitimized by governments. Rather it is commercialized by private companies such as the Israeli firm Elbit Systems, which is involved in securing both of the contemporary walls we examined. The border protection market, which has been growing exponentially around the world, is highly lucrative. The philosophic metaphor of the “shepherd and the pen” applies here. The shepherd, the decision-making government on whom the survival of the people depends, provides a pen: the wall. Thus confined, citizens are under the illusion they are protected from any kind of exterior threat. Fear mongering effectively undermines the validity of universal values, or at least – for the terminology may correspond to our “Western” perspective – the principles of empathy and respect for individual dignity. The wall, the new opium of the people, offers reassurance and reprises its initial function of providing shelter. We return here to the endless question of the role of universality in the context of globalization. This type of wall concretizes Baudrillard’s thinking: Globalization involves technologies, the market, tourism, information. Universality involves values, human rights, freedom, culture, and democracy […]. Globalization seems irreversible, while the universal appears endangered […]. As a matter of fact, the universal perishes under globalization. The universal as a form of transcendence, as the ideal, as a utopia, stops existing as such when it is realized. The globalization of exchanges eliminates the universality of values. It is the triumph of a single mindset. (Baudrillard, 1996, p. 7.) Widespread support for a single mindset, which is quickly forged and serves only for the exchange of interests, annihilates the long process of a universal mindset, that of exchanging values and concepts. This globalization generates a loss, an elimination of universality to which these walls stand in opposition. After all, it is democracies founded on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are building these walls, and paradoxically closing in on themselves because they fear for their security. The concept of universal values has therefore become nothing but a distant utopia, as border walls prevent the exchange of values between countries. As a reminder, Lévi-Strauss has already stated that this postwar universal ideal was culturally specific, as it was created by a consortium of Western countries. Despite the promise that globalization would eliminate borders, it would appear that these new separation barriers are actually the consequence of

Conclusion

the globalization of interests. It is this very globalization that creates the walls. What we had already sensed has now been confirmed: democracies that have been weakened by rising nationalism are becoming seduced by an illusion of complete autarky. The wall is the logical and mean-spirited extension of this idea. In conclusion, we want to point out that rapid technological advances stemming from globalization, such as the Internet, also provide new means of resistance to those who have the ability and desire to do so. The Arab Spring and activist movements such as Anonymous, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Me Too, Refugees Welcome, and Je suis Charlie (or its opposite, Je ne suis pas Charlie) foment opposition at a specific point in time in areas where underlying social issues disrupt the established order. Groups representing all kinds of ideologies organize and wage battle on social media, even engaging in cyberwars. In response to the wall, the artists we have mentioned have identified geopolitical and contradictions through their sensibility, thereby shedding light on this form of globalization. By extension, the current migration crisis had drawn renewed attention to an issue that has long interested many international artists. The wall is above all a physical and symbolic structure. It requires and is shaped by negotiations and easy violence, which are both persistent and mobile. The wall serves as an outlet that pushes the schism created by globalization into a zone that violates the universal values of human rights and dignity.

203

Bibliography Reference works Geopolitical context AMILHAT-SZARY A.L., Qu’est-ce qu’une frontière aujourd’hui ? Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2015 AMILHAT-SZARY A.L., FOURNY M.C. (Eds.), Les frontières, avec la frontière: Nouvelles dynamiques transfrontalières en Europe. La Tour d’Aigues: Éd. de l’Aube, 2006 ANCEL J., Géographie des frontières. Paris: Nouvelle Revue Française, 1938 ANDERSON M., “Les frontières: un débat contemporain, Contrôles: frontières, identités. Les enjeux autour de l’immigration et de l’asile”. In Cultures & Conf lits, 1997 (n° 26-27) ARISTOTE, La politique. Forward J. Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire. Paris: Ladrange, 1874 BADIE B., LACOSTE Y., Territoire, lien ou frontière ? Encore et toujours des territoires. Paris: Université de Paris IV, 2-4 octobre 1995 BAKOUNINE, Dieu et lʼÉtat. Trans. J. Gayraud. Paris: Mille et une nuits, 2000 BALLIF F., ROSIERE S., “Le défi des “ teichopolitiques. Analyser la fermeture contemporaine des Territoires”. In Espace géographique. Paris: Belin, 2009 (N°3) BALLIF F., ROSIERE S., Teichopolitique: un nouveau concept pour décrire la fermeture des territoires, communication présentée au colloque international de Géographie politique, L’espace politique: concepts et échelles, Reims: Université de Reims, 2-4 avril 2008 BARTH F., Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1969

206

Border Wall Aesthetics

BAYLIS J., SMITH S., The Globalization of World Politics, An Introduction to International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999 BOURDIEU P., Sur l’État: Cours au Collège de France (1989-1992). Paris: Seuil, 2012 BROWN W., Walled States, Waning Sovereignty. New York: Zone Books, 2014 BRUNET JAILLY E., Border Disputes: A Global Encyclopedia [3 volumes]. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2015 BRUNET R., FERRAS. R., THERY H., Les mots de la géographie, Dictionnaire critique. Paris: La documentation française, 2005 (Dynamiques du territoire) DEBORD G., “Introduction à une critique de la géographie urbaine”. In Les lèvres nues. Bruxelles: Marcel Mariën (Ed.), 1955 (n°6) DELEUZE G., “Post-scriptum sur les sociétés de contrôle”. In Pourparlers. Paris: Éd. de Minuit, 1990 DEVETAK R., HUGHES C.W., The globalization of political violence: Globalization’s shadow. New York: Routledge, 2008 FEBVRE L., La terre et l’évolution humaine. Introduction géographique à l’histoire. Paris: Albin Michel, 1949 (L’évolution de l’humanité, synthèse collective) FOUCAULT M., “Entretien avec Michel Foucault”. In Hérodote, n° 1, Paris, 1976 FOUCAULT J.M., La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1976 FOUCAULT M., BRODEUR J.P., “Alternatives à la prison. Diffusion ou décroissance du contrôle social, une conférence-entrevue à Michel Foucault, 15 mars 1976”. In Criminologie. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1993 (vol. 26, N.1) FOUCAULT M., Dits et écrits II, 1976-1988. Paris: Gallimard, 2001 (Quarto) FOUCAULT M., Sécurité, Territoire, Population. Cours au Collège de France. 19771978. Paris: Gallimard/Seuil, 2004 FOUCAULT M., Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard, 1993 (Tel) FOUCHER M., Le retour des frontières. Paris: CNRS, 2016 (Débats) FOUCHER M., L’Obsession des frontières. Paris: Perrin, 2007 FOUCHER M., L’invention des frontières. Paris: Fondation pour les Études de Défense Nationale, 1986 FUKUYAMA F., The End of History and the Last Man. Washington: Free Press, 1992 GOTTMANN, J., “Les frontières et les marches. Cloisonnement et dynamique du monde”. In Geography and Its Boundaries. In Memory of Hans Boesch.

Bibliography

Berne: H. Kishimoto, 1980 Groupe Frontière, “La frontière, un objet spatial en mutation”, EspacesTemps.net, Travaux, 29.10.2004 HARDT M., NEGRI A., Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001 HOBBES T., Léviathan: 1ère partie: De l’homme. Trans. G. Mairet. Paris: Gallimard, 2000 (Folio) HUNTINGTON S., The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order. London: Free Press, 2002 JONES R., Border Walls, Security and the War on Terror in the United States, India, and Israel. London: Zed Books, 2012 KJELLEN R., Stormakterna. Konturer kring samtidens storpolitik, första delen. Stockholm: Hugo Gebers förlag, 1911 KUMAR RAJARAM P., GRUNDY-WARR C., Borderscapes: Hidden Geographies and Politics at Territory’s Edge. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, 2007 LACOSTE Y., Géopolitique. La longue histoire d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Larousse, 2006 LACOSTE, “Élisée Reclus, une très large conception de la géographicité et une bienveillante géopolitique”. In Hérodote, 2nd Semestre 2005 (N°117) LASK T., “Grenze/frontière: le sens de la frontière”. In Quaderni. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, Automne 1995 (N°27) LEFEBVRE H., La production de l’espace. Paris: Economica, 2000 MAC LUHAN M., The Gutenberg Galaxy: the making of typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962 MEZZADRA S., NEILSON B., Border as Method, or, the Multiplication of Labor. Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2013 MIGNOLO W. D., Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012 (Princeton Studies in Culture/Power/History) MILLER T., Storming the wall, Climate Change, Migration, and Homeland Security. San Francisco: City Lights, 2017 MONTESQUIEU, De l’esprit des lois: lois, dans le rapport qu’elles ont avec la force défensive. Comment les républiques pourvoient à leur sûreté. Paris: Billois, 1805 NOVOSSELOFF A., Des murs entre les hommes. Paris: La Documentation Française, 2008 OHMAE K., The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Global Marketplace. London: HarperCollins, 1992

207

208

Border Wall Aesthetics

QUÉTEL H., Histoire des murs. Paris: Tempus Perrin, 2014 RAFFESTIN C., Éléments pour une théorie de la frontière. Paris: Diogène, 1986 (n° 134) RAFFESTIN C., Pour une géographie du pouvoir. Paris: Libraires techniques, 1980 RATZEL F., Erdenmacht und Völkerschicksal. Eine Auswahl aus seinen Werken. Kröner: Stuttgart: Hg. & Einl. Karl Haushofer, 1940 RECLUS É., Nouvelle Géographie universelle. Paris: Hachette, 1876-1894 ROSIERE S., Dictionnaire de l’espace politique. Géographie politique et géopolitique. Paris: A. Colin, 2008 SADDIKI S., World of Walls: The Structure, Roles and Ef fectiveness of Separation Barriers, Cambridge: Open Book Publshers, 2018 SASSEN S., Territory, Authority, Rights. From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008 SOJA E.W., Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. New York: Verso Books, 2011 (Radical Thinkers) TERTAIS B., PAPIN B., L’atlas des frontières. Paris: Les arènes, 2016 THIBAUDETIN A., La Nouvelle Revue Française. Paris: Gallimard, mai 1928 (N° 176) URZUA,R., International Social Science, September 2000, Vol. 165. Blackwell Publishers/UNESCO VALLET E., “Les murs dans le monde, en réponse aux nouvelles peurs”, in Le Monde, 02 février 2018 VALLET E., “Le monde se referme: la carte des murs aux frontières”, in France Culture, 30 mai 2016 VALLET E., GAUTHE T., “Un monde de Murs”. In Courrier International, N°1253, 6 novembre 2014 VALLET E. (Ed.), Borders, Fences and Walls: State of Insecurity? Burlington: Ashgate Pub Co, 2014 WALLERSTEIN I., Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the changing world-System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001 WEIBEL P., ZIZEK S., Inklusion/Exklusion: probleme des postkolonialismus und der globalen migration. Vienna: Vienna Passagen Verlag, 1997 WESTPHAL B., La Géocritique. Réel, fiction, espace. Paris: Éd. De Minuit, 2007 WILSON T.M., A Companion to Border Studies. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012

Bibliography

Aesthetics references ADORNO T.W., Théorie esthétique. Trans. M. Jimenez. Paris: Klincksieck, 2004 AGAMBEN G., Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif ? Trans. M. Rueff. Paris: Rivage Poche, 2007 (Petite bibliothèque) ALBERTI L.B., De la peinture. De pictura. Trans. J.L. Schefer. Paris: Macula-Dédale, 1992 (2nd ed. 1993) ALLIEZ E., OSBORNE P., Spheres of Action: Art and Politics. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2013 APPADURAI A., Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996 ARENDT H., La crise de la culture. Trans. P. Levy. Paris: Gallimard, 1989 (Folio Essais) BACHELARD G., La Poétique de l’espace. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004 (Quadrige – Grands textes) BAL M., HERNANDEZ-NAVARRO M. (Eds.), Art and Visibility in Migratory Culture: Conf lict, Resistance, and Agency. Leiden: Brill, Rodopi, 2015 BAUDELAIRE C., Curiosités esthétiques. Le peintre de la vie moderne. Paris: Garnier, 1986 BAUDRILLARD J., Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Galilée, 1981 BAUME N., Ai Weiwei: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019 BELTING H., BUDDENSIEG A., WEIBEL P., The Global Contemporary and the Rise of New Art Worlds. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2013 BENJAMIN W., “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Mechanical Reproducibility”. In Selected Writings. H. Eiland, M. Jennings (Eds). Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2006 (Vol. 4, 1938-40) BENJAMIN W., Œuvres 1. & 2., Trans. M. de Gandillac et. al., Paris: Folio, 2000 (Folio Essais) BERGSON H., Le rire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2000 (Quadrige) BERGSON H., “Laughter”. In Comedy, Wylie Sypher (Ed.) (1956). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980 BERGSON H., Matière et Mémoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1939

209

210

Border Wall Aesthetics

BORGES J.L., “Suárez Miranda, Viajes de varones prudentes, Lérida, 1658”. In Del rigor en la ciencia. El Hacedor: Buenos Aires: Emecé, 1960 BOURRIAUD N., Radicant: Pour une esthétique de la globalisation. Paris: Editions Denoël, 2010 CAMUS A., Le Mythe de Sisyphe. Paris: Gallimard, 1942 (Folio Essais) CARBONE M., BROGGI P., TURARBEK L., La géophilosophie de Gilles Deleuze. Entre esthétiques et politiques. Paris: Mimesis, 2012 CAUTIER DE, L. (Ed.), Art & Activism in the Age of Globalization: Ref lect No. 8, Rotterdam: nai010 publishers, 2011 DACOSTAS T., Toward a Geography of Art. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2004 DEBORD G., La société du spectacle. Paris: Gallimard, 1996 (Folio) DELEUZE G., GUATTARI F., Mille Plateaux, Capitalisme et schizophrénie. Paris: Éd. de Minuit, 1972 DELEUZE, Image-mouvement. Paris: Éd. De Minuit, 1983 DIDI-HUBERMANN G., Devant lʼimage. Question posée aux fins dʼune histoire de lʼart. Paris: Éd. De Minuit, 1990 Die Westfälischen Friedensverträge vom 24. Oktober 1648. Texte und Übersetzungen (Acta Pacis Westphalicae. Supplementa electronica, 1). DOGRAMACI B. (Ed.), Migration und künstlerische Produktion. Aktuelle Perspektiven. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2013 DOGRAMACI B., MERSMANN B. (Eds.), Handbook of Art and Global Migration, Theories, Practices, and Challenges. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019 DOWNEY A., Art and Politics Now. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2014 DURANT S., LORD C. M. (Eds.), Essays in Migratory Aesthetics. Cultural Practices Between Migration and Art-making. Leiden: Brill, Rodopi, 2015 ELKINS J., VALIAVICHARSKA Z., KIM A. et al., Art and Globalization. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press, 2011 (The Stone Art Theory Institutes) ENWEZOR O., BOUTELOUP M. (Eds.), Intense proximité: Une anthologie du proche et du lointain. Paris: Editions ArtLys, 2012 FANON F., Oeuvres, Paris: La Découverte, 2011 (Cahiers Libres) FREUD S., Malaise dans la civilisation, 1929. Paris: Payot, 2010 GADAMER H.G., Vérité et méthode. Trans. P. Fruchon et al., Paris: Seuil, 1996 (Lʼordre philosophique) GELL A., L’art et ses agents – Une théorie anthropologique. Trans. O. Renaut, S. Renaut. Dijon: Les presses du réel, 2009

Bibliography

GILROY P., Postcolonial melancholia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006 (Wellek Library Series) HARMON K., CLEMANS G., The Map as Art: Contemporary Artists Explore Cartography. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010 HARRIS J., Globalization and Contemporary Art. Berlin: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011 HEGEL G.W.F., Esthétique, Leçons sur l’esthétique (1820- 1829). Trans. C. Bernard. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954 HEGEL G.W.F., Phénoménologie de l’esprit. Trans. G. Jarczyk, P.J. Labarrière. Paris: Gallimard, 2002 (Folio) HEIDEGGER M., L’origine de l’œuvre d’art, conférence de 1935. Trans. N. Rialland, Paris: Éd. bilingue Authentica, 1987 HEIDEGGER M., Les problèmes fondamentaux de la phénoménologie. Trans. J.F. Courtine. Paris: Gallimard, 1985 (Bibliothèque de philosophie) HEIDEGGER M., Qu’est-ce qu’une chose? Trans. J. Reboul, J. Taminiaux. Paris: Gallimard, 2006 (Tel.) HEIDEGGER M., Letter on Humanism in Pathmarks. Trans. F. A. Capuzzi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998 HUSSERL E., Idées directrices pour une phénoménologie. Trans. P. Ricoeur. Paris: Gallimard, 2008 (Tel.) JAMESON F., Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 2008 JIMENEZ M., Quʼest-ce que lʼesthétique ? Paris: Gallimard, 1997 KANT E., Critique de la raison pure. Trans. A. Renaut. Paris: Flammarion, 2006 (GF) KLANTER R. et al., Art & Agenda: Political Art and Activism. Berlin: Gestalten Verlag, 2011 LE LANNOU, J-M., La puissance sans fin: essai sur la dissolution du monde. Paris: Hermann, 2005 LEVI-STRAUSS C., Race and History. In The Race question in modern science. Paris: Unesco, 1952 LYOTARD, J.F., La condition postmoderne. Paris: Éd. De Minuit, 1979 LYOTARD, J.F., La phénoménologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954 MARTIN J.H. (Ed.), Magiciens de la terre. Paris: Éd. Du Centre Pompidou, 1989 MERLEAU-PONTY M., Lʼœil et lʼesprit. Paris: Gallimard, 1985 (Folio Essais) MERLEAU-PONTY M., La Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard, 1945 (nrf)

211

212

Border Wall Aesthetics

MESCH C., Art and Politics: A Small History of Art for Social Change Since 1945. New York: I. B. Tauris, 2013 MONSAINGEON G., Mappamundi: Art et cartographie. Marseille: Parenthèses Editions, 2013 MORE T., Lʼutopie. Trans. J. Le Blond. Paris: Folio, 2012 MOUFFE C., “Artistic Activism and Agnostic Spaces”. In Art & Research: A Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods, Vol. 1, N° 2, Summer 2007 NIETZCHE F. La volonté de puissance. Trans. G. Bianquis. Paris: Gallimard, 1995 (Tel) PLATON, Œuvres complètes. Trans. L. Robin. Paris: La pléiade, 1940 QUIROS K., IMHOFF A. (Eds.), Géoesthétique. Paris: B42, 2014 RANCIERE J., Le partage du sensible: esthétique et politique. Paris: La Fabrique, 2000 RANCIERE J., Malaise dans lʼesthétique. Paris: Galilée, 2004 RAUNIG G., Art and Revolution. Transversal Activism in the Long Twentieth Century. Los Angeles ; New York: Semiotext(e) ; MIT Press, 2007 RICOEUR P., Soi-même comme un autre. Paris: Seuil, 2015 (Points Essais) RING PETERSEN A., Migration into Art: Transcultural identities and art-making in a globalised world. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017 ROCKHILL G., CHARDEL P.-A. (Eds.), Technologies de contrôle dans la mondialisation: enjeux politiques, éthiques et esthétiques. Paris: Editions Kimé, 2009 ROUSSEAU J.J., Contrat social ou principes du droit politique. London: s.n., 1782 ROUSSEAU J.J., Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes, 1754. Paris: Le livre de Poche, 2008 (Classiques de la philosophie) ROUSSEAU J.J., Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, in Social Contract and Other Discourses. Trans. G. D. H. Cole. London: J.M. Dent, 1973 ROUSSEAU J.J., Émile ou de lʼéducation. Paris: Gallimard, 1995 SARTRE J.P., Huis clos. Paris: Gallimard, 2000 SARTRE J.P., Lʼêtre et le néant. Paris: Gallimard, 1976 (Tel) SARTRE J.P., Lʼimaginaire: psychologie phénoménologique de lʼimagination. Paris: Gallimard, 1940 SCHOPENHAUER A., Le monde comme volonté et comme représentation. Trans. A. Burdeau. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004 SHOLETTE G., Dark Matter. Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture. London: Pluto Press, 2011

Bibliography

SLOTERDIJK P., “Rules for the Human Zoo, A Response to the Letter on Humanism”. Trans. M.V. Rorty. In Environment and Planning D Society and Space, (27, p.12-28) February 2009 SOPHOCLE, Antigone. Paris: J’ai lu, 2005 (Librio Théâtre) TELLO V., Counter-Memorial Aesthetics: Refugee Histories and the Politics of Contemporary Art. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016 ZIZEK S., Violence: Six sideways ref lections (Big Ideas). London: Profile Books; First Paperback Edition, 2009 ZOLA É., “J’accuse”. In Paris: L’Aurore, 13 janvier 1898

History of Border Wall Aesthetics BACHELTER T. (Ed.), Dictionnaire général des lettres, des beaux-arts et des sciences morales et politiques. Paris: Dezobry Tandou et Cie Editeurs, 1862 (Vol.2) BUTOR M., Dialogue avec Delacroix sur l’entrée des croisés à Constantinople. Besançon: Virgile, 2008 CICHORIUS C., Die Reliefs der Traianssäule nach Conrad Cichorius. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1900 Classical Chinese Literature: An Anthology of Translations, From Antiquity to the Tang Dynasty. New York: Columbia University Press (Vol.1) DEBRAY R., Éloge des frontières. Paris: Gallimard, 2010 (nrf) DESTREMAU N., Trois Journées pour détruire la Monarchie. Paris: Nouvelles Éd. Latines, 1988 DUMERSAN, SEGUR N., Chansons nationales et populaires de France: accompagnées de notes historiques et littéraires. Paris: Garnier Frères, 1866 (Vol.1) DUMEZIL G., Les Dieux des Indo-européens. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1952 ETLIN R.A., Symbolic Space: French Enlightenment Architecture and Its Legacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994 FLINDERS PETRIE W.M., Tell el-Amarna, Cambridge University Press, réed. 2013 (Cambridge Library Collection-Egyptology) GAFFIOT F., Dictionnaire illustré latin français. Paris: Hachette, 1934 GAGNEUX R., Sur les traces des enceintes de Paris: Promenades au long des murs disparus. Paris: Parigramme, 2012

213

214

Border Wall Aesthetics

GAO MINGLU, Ub Art Galleries, The Wall: Reshaping Contemporary Chinese Art. New York: Buffalo Fine Arts Academy, 2007 HEUCH ALLEN S., Finding the Walls of Troy: Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlik. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999 HOMERE, Iliade. Trans. P. Mazon. Paris: Gallimard, 1975 (Folio) HOMERE, Odyssée. Trans. P. Jaccottet. Paris: Livre de poche, 2000 (Classique) KAUFMANN J.E., JURGA R.M., The Medieval Fortress: Castles, Forts and Walled Cities of the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2004 KENYON K. M., HOLLAND T.A., Excavations at Jericho: The architecture and stratigraphy of the Tell: plates. London: British School of Archaeology, 1981 L’Astronomie. Paris: Société Astronomique de France, 1997 (Vol. 111) LINDESAY W, The Great Wall. The genius of China: a close-up guide. New York: W W Norton & Company Incorporated, 1999 LUTTWAK E., La Grande Stratégie de l’Empire romain. Paris: Économica, 2009 (Bibliothèque stratégique) MAGGIO M., LIUMING M., Ma-Liuming performer. Montreuil: Éd. de l’œil, 2003 MINFORD J., LAU J.S.M. (Ed.), Classical Chinese Literature: An Anthology of Translations, From Antiquity to the Tang Dynasty, tome 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000 MUELLER C., KEMPERDICK S., AINSWORTH M. et al., Hans Holbein the Younger: The Basel Years, 1515–1532. München: Prestel, 2006 MURNANE W.J., SICLEN C.C., The Boundary Stelae of Akhenaten. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1993. NEGEV A., GIBSON S., Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005 NEILL J.O’, The Great Wall of China. North Mankato: Abdo Publishing, 2009 NORWICH J.J., Histoire de Byzance. Paris: Perrin, 2002 OVIDE, Métamorphoses, Amorce des légendes troyennes: Laomédon – Pélée – Céyx (11, 194-409), Laomédon le parjure et sa fille Hésioné (11, 194-217a). Trans. J. Poucet, J. Boxus. Bruxelles: Bibliotheca Classica Selecta, 2008 (Book XI) OVIDE, NISARD M. (Ed.), Œuvres complètes, Les fastes. Trans. P. Fleutelot. Paris: Garnier Frères, 1850 (Book II) PIMOUGUET-PEDARROS I., Archéologie de la défense, “Histoire des fortifications antiques de Carie”. Besançon: Presses universitaires franc-comtoises, 2000

Bibliography

QUINCY (de) Q., Encyclopédie méthodique, Dictionnaire d’architecture. Paris: Panckoucke, 1788-1825 RAVAL M (Ed.), Claude-Nicolas Ledoux Architecte du Roi 1736-1806. Paris: Arts et Métiers Graphiques, 1945 Réimpression de l’ancien moniteur, mai 1789-novembre 1799, Gazette nationale ou le Moniteur universel, 2ème année de la Liberté, 1er mai 1791 (n°121). Paris: A. René & cie (Vol.8) RONAN C.E. et al., Oh, East meets west, The Jesuits in China, 1582-1773. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1988 SAINTE-MAURE B. (de), BAUMGARTNER E., Roman de Troie. Venise ou Padoue (?), vers 1340-1350 SCARPARI M., Ancient China: Chinese civilization from the origins to the Tang Dynasty. S.L.: Barnes & Noble, 2006 STEWART MONROE J., WICANDER R., The changing Earth: exploring geology and evolution. Belmont: Brooks Coles, 2006 VASARI G., Lives of the Most Eminent Painters Sculptors and Architects. London: Philip Lee Warner, publisher to the Medici Society, 1912-1914 (Vol 2, Berna to Michelozzo Michelozzi) VIELLEHARDOUIN (DE) G., La Conquête de Constantinople. Paris: Flammarion, 2004 VIRGILE, Enéide. Trans. J. Perret. Paris: Gallimard, 1991 (Folio) WAHL J-B., Il était une fois la ligne Maginot: Nord, Lorraine, Alsace: historique et guide de la célèbre ligne fortifiée. Colmar: Jérôme Do. Bentzinger Éditeur, 1999 WALDRON A., The Great Wall of China: From History to Myth. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990 WELLS WILLIAMS S., The Middle kingdom: a survey of the ... Chinese empire and its inhabitants ... Volume 1 of the Middle kingdom: a survey of the geography, government, social life, arts, religion etc., of the Chinese empire and its inhabitants. Wiley & Putman, 1848 WOOD B.G., The Walls of Jericho. Akron: Bible and Spade, 1999

215

216

Border Wall Aesthetics

The Berlin Wall Historical and geopolitical context ARNOLD K.J. et al., Was war die Mauer, Die Errichtung der Innerfeutschen Grenzanlagen durch das SED-Regime und ihre Folgen, Handreichung zu Politischen Bildung. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. Bornheim: Druckerei Franz Paffenholz GmbH, 2001 (Band 7) August 1961. Stenographische Berichte. Hrsg. Bonn: Deutscher Bundestag und Bundesrat, 1961 (Nr. 49) August. Die Mauer von Berlin. Köln: Bundesministeriums für Vertriebene, Flüchtlinge und Kriegsgeschädigte, 1988 BRÜGGE P., “Die Mysterien finden im Hauptbahnoff statt”. In Der Spiegel, 04.06.1984 (N°23) CASTIN-CHAPARRO L., Puissance de l’URSS, misères de l’Allemagne. Staline et la question allemande, 1941-1955. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002 CHURCHILL W.S., Sinews of Peace, Iron Curtain Speech, au Westminster College à Fulton, Missouri, États-Unis, 5 mars 1946 CIESLA B., Als der Osten durch den Westen fuhr: Die Geschichte der Deutschen Reichsbahn in Westberlin. Köln: Böhlau, 2006 DELIUS F.C., LAPP P.J., Transit Westberlin. Erlebnisse im Zwischenraum. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag, 2000 Deutscher Bundestag und Bundesrat, Verhandlungen des deutschen Bundestages. 3. Wahlperiode. 167. Sitzung vom 18. August 1961. Stenographische Berichte. Hrsg. Bonn: Deutscher Bundestag und Bundesrat, 1961 (Nr. 49) Deutschland Archiv. Köln: Kiepenhauser and Witsch, 2006 (Vol. 39, N° 3 & 4) Dienstanweisung an Angehörige der Spezialeinheit des MfS innerhalb der Grenztruppen der DDR (Schießbefehl), Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, MfS., 1/10/1973. Berlin: MfS. DJANOV A., Rapport Djanov présenté lors de la conférence d’information des partis communistes Rapport sur la situation internationale présenté à la conférence de l’information des neuf partis Communistes qui s’est tenue à Szklarska Poreba, Pologne, le 22 septembre 1947 Dokumente zur Berlin-Frage 1944-1966. München: Oldenbourg: 1987

Bibliography

EDWARDS SPALDING E., The First Cold Warrior: Harry Truman, Containment, and the Remaking of Liberal Internationalism. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2006 ELVERT J., KRÜGER J., Deutschland 1949–1989. Von der Zweistaatlichkeit zur Einheit. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003 Emanzipation und staatliche Repression im Zuge der Deutsch-Deutschen Annäherungs-und, Abrgrenzungspolitik. Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau, 2007 FLEMMING T., KOCH H., Die Berliner Mauer, Geschichte eines politischen Bauwerks. Berlin: Bebra, 1999 FONTAINE A., Histoire de la guerre froide. Paris: Fayard, 1967 (Vol.2) Forschungsinstitut Schrif ten des Forschungsinstituts der Deutschen Gesellschaf t für Auswärtige Politik e.V. Bonn, Senat von Berlin, Dokumente zur Berlin-Frage 1944-1966. München: Oldenbourg: 1987 FUNDER A., Stasiland: Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall. New York: Harper Perennial, 2011 HARRISON H.M., Driving the Soviets Up The Wall. Soviet-East German Relations, 1953-1961. Princeton: Princeton University Players, 2003 HERTLE H.H. et al., Mauerbau und Mauerfall. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag, 2002 HERTLE H.H., NOOKE M., Die Todesopfer an der Berliner Mauer 1961-1989. Ein biographisches Handbuch. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag, 2009 HILDEBRANDT A., Die Mauer--Zahlen, Daten. Berlin: Verlag Haus am Checkpoint Charlie, 2001 JACOBY G., 1989/90: Die Friedliche Revolution in der DDR: Die Geschichte der Deutschen. Berlin: Epubli GmbH, 2011 JARAUSCH K.H., The Rush to German Unity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994 JEANNESSON S., La guerre froide. Paris: La Découverte, 2002 (Repères) KAISER M., Machtwechsel von Ulbricht zu Honecker, Zeithistorische Studien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997 KEMPE F., Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Chruschtschow und der gefährlichste Ort der Welt – Das Jahr, in dem die Mauer gebaut wurde. München: Siedler Verlag, 2011 KHROUCHTCHEV S. (Ed.), Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Statesman 19531964. Biglerville, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007 KLAUSMEIER A., SCHMIDT L., Wall Remnants – Wall Traces, The Comprehensive Guide to the Berlin Wall. Berlin ; Bonn: Westkreuz-Verlag, 2004

217

218

Border Wall Aesthetics

KLEINDIENST J., Mauer-Passagen. Taschenbuch: Grenzgänge, Fluchten und Reisen 1961-1989. Berlin: Zeitgut, 2009 KNOBLOCH H. et al., Geisterbahnhöfe: Westlinien unter Ostberlin. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag, 2012 La Conférence de Londres: documents relatifs à l’Allemagne, émanant du Conseil des ministres des af faires étrangères, 26 novembre – 13 décembre 1947. Paris: La Documentation française, 1948 (Vol. 868 de Notes et études documentaires) Le soir, “L’enjeu de la “crise de Berlin””. Bruxelles: S.A. Rossel. 08/08/1961 LEPTIN G., Die Rolle der DDR in Osteuropa. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1974 MACMILLAN H., Pointing the way, 1959-1961. New York: Harper & Row, 1972 (part 1) MÄLHERT U., Der 17. Juni 1953: ein Aufstand für Einheit, Recht und Freiheit. Bonn: Dietz, 2003 MARCOU L., Le Kominform: le communisme de guerre froide. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, 1977 MARCUSE E., Vers la libération. Trans. J.B. Grasset. Paris: Denoël Gonthier, 1972 Mieterberatung SO36, 3 Jahre eigentümerunabhängige. Berlin: Mieterberatung des Vereins SO36, 1983 Ministers für Nationale Verteidigung, Befehl: 6.10.1961. Berlin: Ministerium im Ministerrat der DDR. 1961 (Nr. 76/61) MUNCK R., Late Marxism perspectives. New York: St. Martin Press, 2000 NENTWIG F., BARTMANN D., Fallmauerfall Grenzüberschreitungen und Grenzerfahrungen im Spiegel der Kunst, Stiftung Stadtmuseum. Berlin: G+H Verlag, 2009 PROBST L., Dif ferenz in der Einheit. Berlin: Links, 1999 REHLINGER L.A., Freikauf – Die Geschäf te der DDR mit politisch Verfolgten. Halle: Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 2011 RITTER G., Das deutsche Problem. München: Oldenbourg, 1966 RITTER J., LAPP P.J., Die Grenze: Ein deutsches Bauwerk. Berlin: Links Christoph Verlag, 2009 ROGGENBUCH F., Das Berliner Grenzgängerproblem. Verf lechtung und Systemkonkurrenz vor dem Mauerbau. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008 RÜHLE J., HOLZWEISSIG G., Monatsmeldungen des Bundesministeriums für Vertriebene, Flüchtlinge und Kriegsgeschädigte, Der 13. August. Die Mauer

Bibliography

von Berlin. Köln: Bundesministeriums für Vertriebene, Flüchtlinge und Kriegsgeschädigte, 1988 SAPIR J., “Conf lits sociaux et f luctuations économiques en URSS: l’exemple de la période 1950-1965”. In Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 1985, N°4 SCHMELZ A., Migration und Politik im geteilten Deutschland während des kalten Krieges: die West-Ost-Migration in die DDR in den 1950er und 1960er Jahren. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2002 SCHNEILIN G., La mise en œuvre de l’unification allemande. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne Nouvelle, 1998 Sélection de déclarations, notes et communiqués. 28.07.1972-04.08.1972. Paris: La Documentation française (n° 135-136) SHELL K.L., Bedrohung und Bewährung. Schrif ten des Instituts für Politische Wissenschaf t. Opladen: Westdeutsche Verlag, 1965 (Vol.19) SHLAIM A., The United States and the Berlin Blockade, 1948-1949: A Study in Crisis Decision-Making. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983 SMYSER W.R., Kennedy and the Berlin Wall: “A Hell of a Lot Better Than a War”. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009 SOKOLSKI H. D., Getting MAD: Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction: Its Origins and Practice, Carlisle: Ed. Henry D. Sokolski, 2004 (Strategic Studies Institutes; United States Army War College) SONNEFRAUD A. et al., Problèmes politiques et sociaux: Articles et documents d’actualité mondiale: Berlin 1944-1972 SOUTOU G.-H. (Ed.), Ministère des Af faires étrangères et européennes, Commission des Archives diplomatiques – Direction des Archives, Documents diplomatiques français, 1947, Bruxelles: Peter Lang, 2009 (Tome II; 1er juillet – 31 décembre 1947; Vol.9; Coll. Documents diplomatiques français – 19441954) TAYLOR F., Le mur de Berlin: 13 août 1961 – 9 novembre 1989. Trans. P. Bonnet et S. Boulongne. Paris: Perrin, 2011 WAGNER A., Walter Ulbricht und die geheime Sicherheitspolitik der SED. Berlin: Links Christoph, 2002 WALCKOFF D.A., Dreizehnte August 1961 in der Traditionsarbeit der Grenztruppen der DDR. Hamburg: LIT, 1996 (Osteuropa: Geschichte, Wirtschaft, Politik) WETTIG G., Chruschtschows Berlin-Krise 1958 bis 1963, Drohpolitik und Mauerbau. Institut für Zeitgeschichte; Oldenbourg: München, 2006

219

220

Border Wall Aesthetics

Aesthetics references ADRIANI G. et al., Joseph Beuys: Leben und Werk. Köln: Dumont, 1981 Ambiente Berlin. XLIV Esposizione Internazionale d’Arte, La Biennale di Venezia. Venedig, 27.5. - 30.9.1990. Milano: Verlag Gruppo, 1990 ARVON H., L’esthétique marxiste. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970 (Vol. 89, Initiation philosophique, Coll. SUP) BABIAS M., Die Spur der Revolte, Kunstentwicklung und Geschichtspolitik im neuen Berlin. Köln: Walther König, 2006 BARRON S. et al., Kunst und kalter Krieg: deutsche Positionen 1945-89. Köln: Dumont, 2009 BEAUMONT M. et al., As Radical as Reality Itself: Essays on Marxism and Art for the 21st Century. Bern: Peter Lang, 2007 Berlinische Galerie, Rainer Fetting. Berlin. 15.4. - 12.9.2011. München: Hirmer Verlag, 2011 BEUYS J., ENDE M., Kunst und Politik, Freie Volkshochschule Argental. Wangel: FIU Verlag, 1989 BILAL E., Die Berliner Mauer. Paris: Futuropolis, 1982 BLUME E. (Ed.), Beuys: die Revolution sind wir. Joseph Beuys. Berlin: Nationalgalerie im Hamburger Bahnhof, Museum für Gegenwart/ Steidl, 2008 BLUME E., MAERZ R., Kunst in der DDR – Eine Retrospektive der Nationalgalerie. Berlin: G+H Verlag, 2003 BOEHKLE M., GERIKTE H., Too much future. Paris: Allia, 2010 BONNKE M., Kunst in Produktion. Bildende Kunst und volkseigene Wirtschaf t in der SBZ/DDR. Köln; Weimar;Wien: Böhlau, 2007 BRADLEY L., LEEDER K., Brecht and the GDR: Politics, Culture, Posterity. Rochester: Camden House Inc, 2011 BRECHT B., Gedichte im Exil. Buckower Elegien. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1964 CALLE S., Souvenirs de Berlin-Est. Paris: Actes Sud, 1999 CARTIER-BRESSON H., Henri Cartier-Bresson, “Mur de Berlin, RFA, 1962”. Paris: Télérama, 1998 DEPARDON R., Berlin, Fragments d’une histoire allemande. Paris: Seuil, 2014 (Beaux Livres) DITTERT F., Mail Art in der DDR: Eine intermediale Subkultur im Kontext der Avantgarde. Berlin: Logos, 2010

Bibliography

DORGERLOH A. et al., Die Berliner Mauer in der Kunst: Bildende Kunst, Literatur und Film. Berlin: Ch. Links, 2011 DURHT W. et al., Architektur und Städtebau der DDR: Die frühen Jahre. Berlin: Jovis, 2007 EAGLETON T., Marxism and Literary Criticism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976 (Literature and History) FASSBENDER G., STAHLHUT H., Berlin 89/90 Kunst zwischen Spurensuche und Utopie, Berlinische Galerie, Landesmuseum für modern Kunst, Fotografie und architecture. Köln: Dumont, 2009 FLANAGAN C., TABERNER S., 1949/1989: Cultural Perspectives on Division and Unity in East and West (German Monitor). Amsterdam ; Atlanta: Rodopi B.V., 2000 FLÜGGE M., “The changing arts situation in Eastern Germany since 1990”. In Cultures in Conf lict: Visual Arts in Eastern Germany since 1990. Washington: George Mason University, Harry & Helen Gray, 1998 (Humanities Program Series ; American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, Vol.4) FRIEDMAN K., The Fluxus Reader. Chichester: Wiley-Academy, 1998 FROMMHOLD E., IX. Kunstausstellung der DDR, Ministerium für Kultur. Berlin: Verband Bildender Künstler der DDR, 1982 GILLEN E., FEIST G., Kunstkombinat DDR: Daten und Zitate zur Kunst und Kunstpolitik der DDR 1945-1990. Berlin: D. Nishen, 1993 GILLEN E., HAARMANN R., Kunst in der DDR. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1990 GOESCHEN U., Vom sozialistischen Realismus zur Kunst im Sozialismus: die Rezeption der Moderne in Kunst und Kunstwissenschaf t der DDR. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001 (Vol.8 Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungen) GORSEN P., KNÖDLER-BUNTE E., Proletkult. Eine Dokumentation zur Proletarischen Kulturrevolution in Rußland. Stuttgart: Problemata, Frommann-Holzboog, 1974 GRASHOFF U., Schwarzwohnen: Die Unterwanderung der staatlichen Wohnraumlenkung in der DDR (Berichte Und Studien). Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2011 GRASS G., Mon siècle. Trans. C. Porcell et B. Lortholary. Paris: Seuil, 1999 (Points) GRÜNDER R., Berliner Mauerkunst, eine Dokumentation. Köln;Weimar;Wien: Böhlau, 2007

221

222

Border Wall Aesthetics

HAHN A., WILLMANN F., Der weiße Strich: Vorgeschichte und Folgen einer Kunstaktion an der Berliner Mauer. Berlin: Ch. Links, 2011 HALLMANN T., Die Umerziehung der Deutschen: US–Kulturpolitik 1945 – 1949: Neuorientierung. München: GRIN Verlag, 2011 HARLAN V., RAPPMANN R., SHATA P., Soziale Plastik. Materialien zu Joseph Beuys. Achberg: Achberger Verlagsanstalt, 1976 HÄUSSER R., Die Berliner Mauer: Fotografien und Zitate. Berlin: Edition Braus, 2009 HENKE K.D. (Ed.), Die Mauer: Errichtung, Überwindung, Erinnerung. München: Dtv Deutscher Taschenbuch, 2011 HONECKER E., “Bericht des Politbüro an die 11. Tagung des ZK der SED”. In Neues Deutschland, 16 Dezember 1965 JAMPOL J., Beyond the Wall: Art and artifacts from the GDR, Cologne: Taschen, 2014 KAISER M., Mauerblicke. Berlin: Extra-Verlag, 2009 KAISER P., PETZOLD C., Boheme und Diktatur in der DDR: Gruppen, Konf likte, Quartiere 1970-1989. Berlin: Fannei & Walz, 1997 KALUZA S., Die unsichtbare Mauer (Das Mauer-Projekt, complexe 16). Köln: Dumont Buchverlag, 2009 KAPROW A., Sweet Wall. Berlin: Ed. Block, 1976 KUGLER W., Joseph Beuys – Rudolf Steiner. Zeichnungen – Entwürfe – Skizzen. Dornach: Pforte Verlag. 2007 KUHRMANN A., Die “Berliner Mauer”: Vom Sperrwall zum Denkmal, Grenzzsituationen – Die “Berliner Mauer” in der Kunst. Bonn: Deutsches Nationalkomitee für Denkmalschutz, Bonn, 2009 (Band 76/1) Kunstwerke e.V, Mauer im Kopf, Ausstellung. Berlin: Kunst Werke, 1990 KUONI C., Energy plan for the Western man – Joseph Beuys in America. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1993 KUZDAS H.J., Berliner Mauer Kunst, mit East Side Gallery. Berlin: Espresso, 2006 LEEDER K., Breaking Boundaries: A New Generation of Poets in the Gdr. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press, 1996 LINDNER B. et al., Mauersprünge / Klopfzeichen – Kunst und Kultur der 80er Jahre in Deutschland. Leipzig: Faber und Faber, 2002 LÜBBE P., Dokumente zur Kunst-, Literatur- und Kulturpolitik der SED 1975-1980. Stuttgart: Seewald, 1984

Bibliography

MACEL C., Les promesses du passé: Une histoire discontinue de l’art dans l’ex-Europe de l’Est. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou Service Commercial, 2010 MARTEN C., Conceptual Art in East Germany – Robert Rehfeldt and his network of artists, Workshop. Stuttgart: Vivid [Radical] Memory, 2007 MATTHIEU T., La trilogie Bowie-Eno, inf luence de l’Allemagne et de Brian Eno sur les albums de David Bowie de 1976 à 1979. Rosières en Haye: Éd. Camion blanc, 2011 MUELLER W., Subkultur Westberlin 1979-1989. Freizeit. Hamburg: Philo Fine Arts, 2013 MYTZE A.W., Über Wolf Biermann. Berlin: Verlag Europäische Ideen, 1977 NISBET P., Twelve Artists from the German Democratic Republic. Cambridge: Harvard University Art Museums, 1989 ODDONNE E., Artist builds “Berlin wall” dividing rich and poor, 9 mai 2012, Berlin: AFP Report OELLER A. C., SPIEGEL S., “Wollt ihr das totale Leben?”: Fluxus und Agit-Pop der 60er Jahre in Aachen. Aachen: Neuer Aachener Kunstverein, 1995 OLTMANN A., Der Weltstof f letztendlich ist... neu zu bilden. Joseph Beuys für und wider die Moderne. Ostfildern: Edition Tertium, 1994 OSTKREUZ Agentur der Fotografen, Die Stadt. Vom Werden und Vergehen. Stuttgart: Hatje Cantz, 2010 PALUTZKI J., Architektur in der DDR. Berlin: Reimer, 2000 POPPE B., Freizeit und Privatleben in der Malerei der DDR: Formen und Funktionen neuer Motive der Leipziger Schule nach 1970. Frankfurt/M.; Berlin ; Bern ; Bruxelles ; New York ; Oxford ; Wien: Peter Lang, 2000 ROHTER U., Kunsterziehung in der DDR: Inhalte und Entwicklungstendenzen, nachgewiesen an Beiträgen der Fachzeitschrif t “Kunsterziehung”. Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften, 2001 RUNNING J.J., Facing down the military – a test of ef ficacy of Gandhian political techniques applied to militarily imposed divisions. Éd.numérique, 1986-1987 SCHELLMANN J. et al., Joseph Beuys, multiples. Minneapolis: Walker Art Center, 1997 SCHUBBE E., Dokumente zur Kunst-, Literatur- und Kulturpolitik der SED. Stuttgart: Seewald, 1972 SCHULTZ H., WAGENER H.-J., Die DDR im Rückblick Politik, Wirtschaf t, Gesellschaf t, Kultur. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag, 2007

223

224

Border Wall Aesthetics

Sediment #16 Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Kunsthandels, Joseph Beuys – Wir betreten den Kunstmarkt. Nürnberg: Verlag für moderne Kunst; Zentralarchiv des internationalen Kunsthandels; ZADIK, nouvelle Éd. 2009 SMITH O. F., Fluxus: The History of an Attitude. San Diego: San Diego State University Press, 1998 SOLOMON M., Marxism and art: essays classic and contemporary. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979 [166] STAECK K. et al., Arte Postale. Bilderbriefe, Künstlerpostkarten, Mail Art: Bilderbriefe, Künstlerpostkarten, Mail Art aus der Akademie der Künste und der Sammlung Staeck. Berlin: Akademie der Künste, 2013 STEINER R., Philosophie de la liberté. Trans. G. Clareti. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1923 SUTTNER A., “Beton brennt”: Hausbesetzer und Selbstverwaltung im Berlin, Wien und Zürich der 80er. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2011 TEIPEL J., Dilapide ta jeunesse. Paris: Allia, 2010 THOMAS K., “Die Rezeption der Kunst aus der DDR in der Bundesrepublik bis 1989”. In Deutschland Archiv, 2009 (42. Jg., H.4) VAUGHAN J., Soviet Socialist Realism, Origins and Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973 VISSAUT M., Qui a provoqué le scandale… La tactique du happening selon Beuys et Fluxus: Festival der Kunst, Aix-la Chapelle, 20 juillet 1964 et alentours. Montréal: Revue de l’Art Actuel ETC, été 2001 VOGELER H., Proletkult: Kunst und Kultur in der kommunistischen Gesellschaf t. Hannover: P.Steegeman, 1920 WINNES F., Mail Art Szene DDR 1975-1990. Berlin: Haude & Spener, 1994 ZUMDICK W., Der Tod hält mich wach. Joseph Beuys – Rudolf Steiner, Grundzüge ihres Denkens. Basel: Futurum, 2006

The separation Border between Israel and Palestine Historical and geopolitical context ABURISH S. K., Arafat: From Defender to Dictator. New York, 2009 AMIRAV M., Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City. Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press, 2009

Bibliography

Amnesty International, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israel must release Palestinian detained for organising peaceful protests against expanding Israeli settlement. London: Amnesty International, March 2012 ARONSO S., Hitler, the Allies, and the Jews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004 ARONSON G., Israel, Palestinians, and the Intifada: Creating Facts on the West Bank. London: Kegan Paul International, 1990 BAGAEEN S., UDUKU O., Gated Communities: Social Sustainability in Contemporary and Historical Gated Developments. New York: Routledge, 2010 BAGROW L., SKELTON R.A., History of Cartography. Edison: Transaction Publishers, 2009 BALFOUR A., Solomon’s Temple: Myth, Conf lict, and Faith. San Francisco: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012 BEN-ZE’EV.E., Remembering Palestine in 1948: Beyond National Narratives (Studies in the Social and Cultural History of Modern Warfare). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011 BORNSTEIN S.A., Crossing the Green Line Between the West Bank and Israel. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002 BOURDON J., Le récit impossible: le conf lit israélo-palestinien et les médias. Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2009 Breaking the silence, Our Harsh Logic: Israeli Soldiers’ Testimonies from the Occupied Territories, 2000-2010. New York: Metropolitan Book, 2012 BROM S., SHAPIR Y.S., Erecting a Separation Fence. Tel Aviv University: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, 2002 BURGE G.M., Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology. Ada: Baker Academic, 2010 CAPLAN N., The Israel-Palestine Conf lict: Contested Histories (Contesting the Past). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009 CHOMSKY N., Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance. London: Hamish Hamilton, 2012 CHOMSKY N., Middle East Illusions: Including Peace in the Middle East? Ref lections on Justice and Nationhood. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, 2004 CHOMSKY N., PAPPE I., Gaza in Crisis: Ref lections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2010 CROMER G., A War of Words: Political Violence and Public Debate in Israel. New York: Routledge, 2004

225

226

Border Wall Aesthetics

CROSSAN J.D., REED J.L., Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. New York: HarperCollins, 2002 DEVER G.W., The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel: When Archaeology and the Bible Intersect. Cubao: Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012 Foundation for Middle East Peace, Settlement Report, Gaza Settlers Adjust To Palestinian Autonomy. Washington: Foundation for Middle East Peace, Sept.-Oct. 1994 (Vol. 4 N. 5) FREEDMAN R.O., The Middle East and the Peace Process: The Impact of the Oslo Accords. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998 GELBER M.H., LISKA V., Theodor Herzl: From Europe to Zion (Conditio Judaica). Tübigen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2007 GOLAN G., Israel and Palestine: Peace Plans and Proposals from Oslo to Disengagement. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishing Inc, 2005 GORDON N., Israel’s Occupation. Berkeley: University of California, 2008 GUTMANN S., The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy. New York: Encounter Books, 2005 HERZL T., The Jewish State. North Charleston: CreateSpace, 2011 LAQUEUR W., A History of Zionism. New York: Schocken Books, 2003 MASALHA N., Catastrophe Remembered: Palestine, Israel And the Internal Refugees. London: Zed Books Ltd, 2005 MENARGUES A., Le Mur de Sharon. Paris: Éd. Presses de la Renaissance, 2004 MONTEFIORE SEBAG S., Jerusalem: The Biography. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011 MORRIS B., The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989 NEWMAN D., Boundaries in Flux: The ‘Green Line’ Boundary Between Israel and the West. Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, 1995 (Vol.1, N°7) NOLL K.L., Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, 2002 (Biblical Seminar) NORMAN J.M., The Second Palestinian Intifada: Civil Resistance. New York: Routledge, 2011 OCHA, “The Impact of Israel’s Separation Barrier on Affected West Bank Communities: Follow-Up Report on Access Issues”. In Stage A Localities, November, 30 2003 PERES S., The new Middle East. New York: Henry Holt & Co, 1993

Bibliography

RAZAC O.,  Histoire politique du barbelé. Paris: Flammarion, 2009 (Champs essais) ROBINSON E., SMITH E., Biblical researches in Palestine, 1838-52: A journal of travels in the year 1838, E. Robinson and E. Smith. Drawn up from the original diaries, with historical illustrations, by Edward Robinson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2005 ROY S., Failing Peace: Gaza And the Palestinian-israeli Conf lict. London: Pluto Press, 2006 SA’DI A. H., ABU LUGHOD L., Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007 SAID E.W., The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and Af ter. New York: Vintage books, 2001 SANDERS R., The High Walls of Jerusalem: A History of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine. Austin: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1984 SCHLÖCH A., Palestinians over the Green Line: studies on the relations between Palestinians on both sides of the 1949 armistice line since 1967. New York: Ithaca Press, 1983 SMITH C.D., Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conf lict: A History with Documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martin, 2009 STEIN K.W., The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939. Chapell Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1987 TRIMBUR D., AHARONSON R., Balfour à Ben Gourion: les puissances européennes et la Palestine, 1917-1948. Paris: CNRS, 2008 TSHIRGI D., Turning Point: The Arab World’s Marginalization and International Security Af ter 9/11. Wesport: Praeger Publishers Inc, 2007 WALKER P., In the Steps of Jesus: An Illustrated Guide to the Places of the Holy Land. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007 WEIZMAN E., SEGAL R. (Eds.), Une occupation civile: La Politique de l’architecture israélienne. Besançon: Éd. de l’Imprimeur, 2004 (Tranches de villes) WEIZMAN E., Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. London: Verso Books, 2007 WEIZMANN C., Chaim Weizmann: statesman of the Jewish renaissance: the Chaim Weizmann centenary, 1874-1974. Sl.: Zionist Library, 1974 ZEITON M., Power and Water in the Middle East: The Hidden Politics of the Palestinian-Israeli Water Conf lict. London: I.B.Tauris, 2008 (Library of Modern Middle East Studies)

227

228

Border Wall Aesthetics

ZORGBIBE C., Theodor Herzl: l’aventurier de la terre promise. Paris: Tallandier, 2000

Aesthetics references ALYS F. et al., Francis Alÿs. New York: Phaïdon, 2007 BANKSY, Wall and Piece. London: Cornerstone, 2005 BRASSAI, Graf fiti. Paris: Flammarion, 2002 BYRON G., Œuvre complète de Lord Byron, Sardanapale, tragédie en cinq actes. Paris: Hachette, 1863 CAVALIER O. (Ed.), DE DELACROIX A KANDINSKY L’Orientalisme en Europe. Paris: Hazan, 2010 DELPECHIN D., DIEDEREN R. et al., L’Orientalisme en Europe: De Delacroix à Matisse. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 2011 DUMAS M., Catalogue of solo exhibition Against the Wall at David Zwirner, New York. New York: David Zwirner; Santa Fe: Radius Books, 2010 EBONY D., Botero Abu Ghraib. New York: Prestel, 2006 FONDATION CARTIER, Né dans la rue – Graf fiti, Catalogue dʼexposition, 7 Juillet 2009 - 10 Janvier 2010. London: Thames & Hudson, 2009 GODFREY M., BIESENBACK K., Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010 GONDRHAL M., Gaza Graf fiti: Messages of Love and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009 GUILLEMINOT M.A., ABSALON, Absalon – Cellules: [28 janvier - 14 mars 1993]. Paris: Musée de la Ville de Paris, 1993 HARDT H., Des murs éloquents: Une rhétorique visuelle du politique (Pouvoirs De Persuasion). Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2008 HOBAN P., Basquiat: A Quick Killing in Art. London: Penguin Books, 2004 JAMET C., Delacroix – Images de l’Orient. Paris: Éditions Herscher, 1995 JR, BERREBI M., Face 2 Face. Paris: Éditions Alternatives, 2007 LEWISOHN C., Street Art, The graf fiti revolution. London: Tate Modern, 2008 MARX K., Le capital. Paris: Gallimard, 2008 (Folio) MONTAGU M.W., Letters of the Right Honourable Lady M—y W—y M—e, 17171725, Kindle Edition PARRY W., Against the wall: the art of resistance in Palestine. London: Pluto Press, 2010 PFEFFER S., Absalon. Cologne: Walther König, 2011

Bibliography

RISTELHUEBER S., “Un regard sur la destruction. Débat: Comment l’art peut-il représenter la crise ?” In Le Monde,19.07.2012 RISTELHUEBER S., West Bank. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2005 ROSENBLUM R., Ingres. Paris: Cercle d’art, 1968 SAID W. E., Lʼorientalisme, L’Orient créé par l’Occident. Paris: Seuil, 1980 SMERLING P. (Ed.), Art and Press, Kunst. Wahrheit. Wirklichkeit, Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau Berlin, 23. März bis 24. Juni 2012. Cologne: Wienand, 2012 THOREAU H.D., Walden. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012 TOUSSAINT H., Le Bain turc d’Ingres, catalogue d’exposition. Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1971 WAHBEH I., "The Wall and the Check Points, Exhibitions by Palestinian artists, February-April 2006". In Khalil Shoman Foundation, Darat al-Funun, Amman, Jordanie. Amam: The Jordan Times, February 9, 2006 WIEDENHOFER K., Kai Wiedenhofer: Wall and Peace. Göttingen: Steidl, 2019

The Secure Border between Mexico and the United-States Historical and geopolitical context ABRAHAM I, SCHENDEL W., Illicit f lows and criminal things: States, borders, and the other side of globalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005 ABRUCH LINDER M., Movimiento chicano: Demandas materiales, nacionalismo y tácticas. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional de México, 1979. ALPERS P., WILSON M., 2013. Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, January 2013 ANDERSON M., Frontiers: Territory and State in the Modern World. Cambridge: Polity, 1996 ASPINWALL M., Side ef fects: Mexican Governance under NAFTAʼs Labor and Environmental Agreements. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013 BILEK S., Great Female Artists of Detroit. Charleston: History Press, 2012 BRADY DOROTHY S. (Ed.), Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States af ter 1800. Massachussets: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1966

229

230

Border Wall Aesthetics

BRIGGS VERNAN M., Immigration Policy and the America Labor Force. Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984 CANTLUPE J., “Arrests up since 1994 crackdown at border: County effort fails to deter illegal f low”. In San Diego Union-Tribune, February 20, 2001 CLINTON W.J., Between hope and history: meeting America’s challenges for the 21st century. New York: Random House, 1996 COHEN D., Braceros: Migrant Citizens and Transnational Subjects in the Postwar United States and Mexico. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011 COLÓN C., ARRANZ MÁRQUEZ L., Diario de a Bordo 1492-1493. Madrid: Dastin, 2003 CONORD B.W., César Chávez/Union Leader. New York: Chelsea House, 1994 COOPER M.A., Moving to the United States of America and Immigration. New Dehavan: Infinity Publishing, 2008 CORTÉS H., HERNÁNDEZ SÁNCHEZ-BARBA M., Cartas de relación 15181526. Madrid: Dastin, 2003 CRAVEY A.J., Women and work in Mexicoʼs maquiladoras. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998 DÍAS DEL CASTILLO B., Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 2005 EWING A.B., The USA Patriot Act. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc, 2002 GJERDE J., Major Problems in American Immigration and Ethnic History. Indianapolis: Houghton Miff lin Company, 1998 GOMEZ QUINONES J., Politica Chicana: Realidad Y Promesa,1940-1990 / Chicana Politics: The Reality And The Promise. Mexico D.F.: Siglo Xxi Ediciones, 2004 GRISWOLD DEL CASTILLO R., The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conf lict. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990 GUTIÉRREZ D.G., Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995 HENDERSON T.J., Beyond Borders: A History of Mexican Migration to the United States. Malden: WileyBlackwell, 2011 HINOJOSA V.J., Domestic Politics and International Narcotics Control: U.S. Relations With Mexico and Colombia, 1989-2000. New York: Routledge, 2005 HUSSAIN I., Reevaluating Naf ta: Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012

Bibliography

JACKSON TURNER F., The Frontier in American History, New York: Digireads. com 2010 LOW S., Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. New York: Routledge, 2004 LOWERY CONTRERAS R., A Hispanic View: American Politics and the Politics of Immigration. Lincoln: IUniverse, 2002 MACIEL D. et al., Al Norte de la Frontera: El Pueblo Chicano. Juárez: Consejo Nacional de Población, 1988 MARIANA D. M., SEMEFO 1990-1999. De la morgue al museo. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, 2011 MIZE R.L., SWORDS A.C.S., Consuming Mexican Labor: From the Bracero Program to Naf ta. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2010 OCTAVIO PAZ, LABERINTO DE GARCÍA ACEVEDO M.R., Cultura al otro lado de la frontera: inmigración mexicana y cultura popular. Mexico D.F.: Siglo Xxi Ediciones, 1999 OLSON J.S., OLSON BEAL H., The Ethnic Dimension in American History. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010 ONG HING B., Ethical Borders: NAFTA, Globalization, and Mexican Migration. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, U.S., 2010 OSUNA J.P., Understanding the 1996 immigration Act. Washington: Federal Publication, 1997 PETER A., Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide. New York: Cornell University Press, 2001 RAFFESTIN C., “Réinventer l’hospitalité”. In Communications, Université de Genève, 1997, n°65 ROMERO F., LAR, Hyperborder: The Contemporary U.S.-Mexico Border and Its Future. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009 ROOSEVELT T., The winning of the West. Amn Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2010 ROSALES F.A., Chicano!: The History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement. Houston: University of Houston, 1997 ROSALES F.A., Dictionary of Latino Civil Rights History. Houston: Arte Publico Press, 2006 SLACK J. et.al., The Shadow of the Wall, Violence and Migration on the U.S.-Mexico Border. Chicago: The University of Arizona Press, 2018 SLOTKIN R., Gunfighter Nation: Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998

231

232

Border Wall Aesthetics

TAKAKI R., A Dif ferent Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. Boston: Back Bay Books, 2008 TUNKU SHAMSUL B., THONG LEE B., Vanishing Borders: The New International Order of the 21st Century. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1998 TURNER J.H. et al., American Ethnicity: The Dynamics and Consequences of Discrimination. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, 2010 URREA L.A., Across the Wire: Life and Hard Times on the Mexican Border. Arpswell: Anchor, 1993 VASCONCELOS J., Breve Historia de México. Guadalajara: Editorial Trillas, 1939

Aesthetics references ABRAMSON P.L. et al, Champlitte Jicaltepec/San Rafael. Dijon: Les presses du Réel, 2016 ANZALDÚA G., Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987 ANZALDÚA G., This bridge we call home: radical visions for transformation. New York: Routledge, 2002 BAUDRILLARD J., Amérique. Paris: Livre de Poche, 1986 (Biblio essais) CÁNDIDA SMITH R., The Modern Moves West: California Artists and Democratic Culture in the Twentieth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009 CHAVOYA C.O., et al., ASCO: Elite of the Obscure: A Retrospective 1972-1987. Stuttgart: Hatje Cantz, 2011 CRAVEN D., Art and Revolution in Latin America, 1910-1990. New Have: Yale University Press, 2006 FUENTES C., La frontera de cristal. Una novela en nueve cuentos. Madrid: Santillana, 1995 GARCÍA ACEVEDO M.R., Cultura al otro lado de la frontera: inmigración mexicana y cultura popular. Mexico D.F.: Siglo Xxi Ediciones, 1999 GOMEZ PEÑA G., “Interview, En defensa del Art del Performance, Guillermo Gómez-Peña; Colectivo La Pocha Nostra – Estados Unidos Somos”. In Horizontes Antropológicos, Porto Alegre año 11, jul. /dec. 2005 GOMEZ PEÑA G., The New World Border: Prophecies, Poems, and Loqueras for the End of the Century. San Francisco: City Lights Publishers, 2001

Bibliography

GONZALES R., I am Joaquín: Yo soy Joaquín; an epic poem. With a chronology of people and events in Mexican and Mexican American history. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1972 GORODEZKI S. (Ed.), Arte Chicano Como Cultura De Protesta / Chicano Art as a Cultural Protest. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, 1993 GRISWOLD DEL CASTILLO R. et al., Chicano Art. Resistance and Af firmation, 1965-1985. Los Angeles: Wright Gallery, UCLA, 1991 HERZOG L., In Globalization of the Barrio: Transformation of the Latino Cultural, Hispanic Spaces, Latino Places Community and Cultural Diversity in Contemporary America. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004 HURTADO A.L., Intimate Frontiers: Sex, Gender, and Culture in Old California (Histories of the American Frontier). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1999 JACKSON C.F., Chicana and Chicano Art: ProtestArte. Tucson: University Arizona Press, 2009 KANJO K. (Ed.), La Frontera/The Border: Art About the Mexico/United States Experience. San Diego: Centro Cultural La Raza ; Museum of Contemporary Art of San Diego, 1993 MARGOLLES T. et al., Frontera. Köln: Walther König, 2012 MONÀRREZ FRAGOSO J.E. et al., Violencia contra las mujeres e inseguridad ciudadana en Ciudad Juárez. Tijuana: Colegio de la Frontera Norte, 2010 RAEL R., Borderwall as Architecture. Oakland: University of California Press, 2017 ROCHFORT D., Mexican Muralists: Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1998 SANDOVAL A.M., Toward a Latina Feminism of the Americas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2008 SELZ P., LANDAUER S., Art of Engagement: Visual Politics in California And Beyond. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006 SOLDATENKO M., Chicano Studies: The Genesis of a Discipline. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009 VALENZUELA ARCE J.M., Entre la magia y la historia. Tradiciones mitos y leyendas de la frontera. Mexico D.F.: Plaza y Valdés, 1992 VASCONSELOS J., La raza cósmica. Mexico D.F.: Espasa Calpe, S.A., 1948 VILLEGAS J. (Ed.), Negotiating Performance: Gender, Sexuality, and Theatricality in Latin/O America. Durham: Duke University Press, 1994

233

234

Border Wall Aesthetics

WOOD A.G., On the border: society and culture between the United States and Mexico. Lanham: SR Books, 2004

List of illustrations

Illustration 1.1: Top part of Stela S, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part V. Smaller Tombs and Boundary Stelae. Pl. XXVI (drawings) after Davies 1908 © Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society Illustration 1.2: Hans Holbein the Younger, Design for a Stained Glass Window with Terminus (drawing) 1525 © Kunstmuseum, Basel, Kupferstichkabinett. Photo: Kunstmuseum Basel, Martin P.Bühler Illustration 1.3: Vincent de Beauvais (writing), Maître François (illumination), Historical Mirror (Speculum historiale), Abduction of Helen, Disembarkation of the Greeks in Troy, 1463 © BnF, Manuscrits, Français 50 fol. 72 Illustration 1.4: Le Greco, Laocoön (painting) 1604-1614 © National Gallery of Art Washington, D.C. Illustration 1.5: Benoît de Sainte-Maure, Roman Troy, The Trojan Horse, Venice or Padua, circa 1340-1350 © BnF, Manuscrits, français 782 fol. 175v Illustration 1.6: Raoul Le Fèvre, From the Homeric wooden horse to the medieval bronze horse, collection of stories of Troy. Flanders, 1495 © BnF, Manuscrits, français 22552 fol. 277v Illustration 1.7: Jacques- Joseph Tissot, The seven trumpets of Jericho (painting) circa 1896-1902 © JewishMuseum.NYC Illustration 1.8: Gustave Doré, The Walls of Jericho Fall Down (etching) 1866 © Public domain

236

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 1.9: Athanasius Kircher, China monumentis, qua sacris qua profanis, nec non variis Naturae et artis spectaculis, aliarumque rerum memorabilium argumentis illustrata (frontispiece) Amsterdam 1667, Titelblatt « China illustrata 1667  » Publisher: Amsteldomai, Joannes Janssoius à Waesberge & Elizeus Weyerstraet, 1667 pf Typ 632.67.487 © Houghton Library, Harvard University Illustration 1.10: Marina Abramović /Ulay, The Lovers - The Great Wall of China (performance 90 days) March-June, 1988 © Marina Abramovic and Ulay. Courtesy of the Marina Abramović Archives, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 1.11: A: Zheng Lianjie, The Wall--Commemorate for the German Reunification, (performance, drawing, photograph) 1990 © Zheng Lianjie. Courtesy of the artist, B: Zheng Lianjie, The Wall--Commemorate for the German Reunification, (performance, drawing, photograph) 1990 © Zheng Lianjie. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 1.12: Fen Ma-Liuming, Fen-Ma Liuming walks the Great Wall (performance, photograph) 1998 © Fen Ma-Liuming. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 1.13: Trajan’s Column, Roma (bas-reliefs) circa 107-113 AD. Source: CICHORIUS C., Die Reliefs der Traianssäule. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1900 © Public domain A: Plate IV: The watch on the Danube (Szene I) B: Plate V: The watch on the Danube (Szene I) C: Plate XXIV: Assault on a Roman fort (Szene XXXII) D: Plate XXVII: Forced march of light troops (Szene XXXVI) Illustration 1.14: Cristoforo Buondelmonti, Liber Insularum Archipelagi, f 37 = Pera civitas. Constantinopolis civitas, 1422 © BnF, ms. col., 42 ff.+ 5 ff papier Illustration 1.15: Chartier J. (writing), Maître du froissart de philippe de commyne (illumination), Great chronicles of France, Comment morbesan turcq lieutenant du grant empereur duoganes assiega et prist la cite de constantinoble, siège de constantinople (1453), Belgique-Bruges, Folio CCXLVIv, circa 1470-1480 © Bnf. cote doc.: français 2691

List of illustrations

Illustration 1.16: A: Jean-Louis le Jeune Prieur (designer), Pierre Gabriel Berthault (engraver), Burning of the Barriere de la Conference, July 12, 1789 © Bnf B: Rotonde de la Villette, Paris, 1784-1788 cc Photo: Elisa Ganivet, 2015 Illustration 2.1: Four occupation Zones in Germany (map) 1945–1949 © PantherMedia / Benjamin Merbeth Illustration 2.2: Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), German Democratic Republic (GDR) (maps) 1949–1990 © Wikimedia Commons, Дмитрий-5-Аверин Illustration 2.3: A: Occupation Zones of Berlin (map) 1949-1990 © PantherMedia / Benjamin Merbeth B: Schematic layout of the reinforced wall (graphic printing) circa 1983 © Bundesarchiv, Akte Barch DVH 32/112249, Bl. 205 Illustration 2.4: Hans Ticha, Mauer – Wall (sketch for painting) 1979 © VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.5: Joseph Beuys, Richtkräf te, einer neuen Gesellschaf t - Directional Forces, for a new society (installation) 1974-1977 © bpk / Nationalgalerie im Hamburger Bahnof, SMB / Jens Ziehe, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.6: Marcela Moraga, Cuando las ideas desaparecen en los monumentos - When ideas disappear in monuments (video) 2007 © Marcela Moraga. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 2.7: Peter Herrmann, Stadtlandschaf t – Urban landscape (oil painting) 1961 © Peter Herrmann. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 2.8: Robert Rehfeldt, Grenzsoldat und Mauerkrone - Border guard and top of the wall (monotype) 1962 © Robert Rehfeldt, Stadtmuseum Berlin, Reproduktion: Michael Setzpfandt, Berlin, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019

237

238

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.9: A: Robert Häusser, Berliner Mauer – Berlin Wall (photograph) 1961 © Robert Häusser – Robert-Häusser-Archiv, Curt-Engelhorn-Stiftung für die Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen, Mannheim B: Robert Häusser, Berliner Mauer – Berlin Wall (photograph) 1961 © Robert Häusser – Robert-Häusser-Archiv, Curt-Engelhorn-Stiftung für die Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen, Mannheim Illustration 2.10: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Vue de Berlin Ouest - View from West Berlin (photograph) 1961© Henri Cartier-Bresson/Magnum Photos, VG BildKunst Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.11: Gerd Schütz, Blick auf das Brandenburger Tor, nach der Schließung der Grenzen zu West-Berlin - View of the Brandenburg Gate, af ter the closure of the borders with West Berlin (photograph) 31. Oktober 1961 © Gerd Schütz, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, B 145 Bild00019604 Illustration 2.12: Manfred Butzmann, Grenzmauer - Border Wall (etching) 1981 © Manfred Butzmann, Stadtmuseum Berlin, VG Bild-Kunst Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.13: A: T+T, Tamiko Thiel, Teresa Reuter, Virtuelle Mauer/ReConstructing the Wall (3D interactive installation) 2008 © Tamiko Thiel, Teresa Reuter. Courtesy of the artists B: T+T, Tamiko Thiel, Teresa Reuter, Virtuelle Mauer/ReConstructing the Wall (3D interactive installation) 2008 © Tamiko Thiel, Teresa Reuter. Courtesy of the artists C: T+T, Tamiko Thiel, Teresa Reuter, Virtuelle Mauer/ReConstructing the Wall (3D interactive installation) 2008 © Tamiko Thiel, Teresa Reuter. Courtesy of the artists Illustration 2.14: Allan Kaprow, Sweet Wall (performance) 1970 © The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, Photo: Dick Higgins. Courtesy Hannah Higgins

List of illustrations

Illustration 2.15: Wolf Vostell, Berliner Mauer und Brandenburger Tor – Berlin Wall and Brandenburg Gate (concrete, photograph, plexiglass) 1972 © Wolf Vostell, Stadtmuseum Berlin, Reproduktion: Michael Setzpfandt, Berlin, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.16: p.t.t.red, Johann Winkler, Stefan Micheel, Goldener schnitt – Golden Cut (installation, performance, graphic printing) 1987 © p.t.t.red. Courtesy of the artists, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.17: p.t.t.red, Johann Winkler, Stefan Micheel, Rotverschiebung - Redshif t (installation, performance, graphic printing) 1989-1990 © p.t.t.red. Courtesy of the artists, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.18: Ewa Partum, Ost-West-Schatten - East-West shadow (performance, photograph) 1984 © Ewa Partum. Courtesy of the artist, VG BildKunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.19: A: Thierry  No) 1986 © Thierry  Noir. Courtesy of the artist, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.20: A: Vladimir Sichov, Keith Haring (photograph) 1986 © Vladimir Sichov. Courtesy of the artist B: Vladimir Sichov, Keith Haring (photograph) 1986 © Vladimir Sichov. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 2.21: A: Thierry Noir, East-Side Gallery (mural) 1990-2009 © Thierry Noir, photo: Justin Ganivet, 2015, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 B: César Olhagaray, East-Side Gallery (mural)1990-2009 © César Olhagaray, photo: Justin Ganivet, 2015, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 C: Dmitri Vrubel, East-Side Gallery (mural) 1990-2009 © Dmitri Vrubel, photo: Justin Ganivet, 2015, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019

239

240

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 2.22: A: People atop the Berlin Wall near the Brandenburg Gate (photograph) circa 10 November 1989 © Sue Ream, Wikimedia Commons B: Raymond Depardon, 11 novembre 1989 (photograph) © Raymond Depardon/ Magnum Photos Illustration 2.23: John Runnings on August 7, 1986 balancing on the Berlin Wall (performance) © Roland Holschneider/dpa Illustration 2.24: A: Nada Prlja, Peace Wall in der Friedrichstraße in Berlin (installation) 2012 © Nada Prlja. Courtesy of the artist B: Nada Prlja, Peace Wall in der Friedrichstraße in Berlin (installation) 2012 © Nada Prlja. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 2.25: Klaus Killisch, Mann vor Mauer - Man in Front of the Wall (painting) 1988-1989 © Klaus Killisch, Stadtmuseum Berlin, Reproduktion: Michael Setzpfandt, Berlin, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.26: Rainer Fetting, Mauer - Wall (painting) 1980 © Rainer Fetting, Stadtmuseum Berlin, Reproduktion: Hans-Joachim Bartsch, Berlin Illustration 2.27: Kain Karawahn, 1000 Berlin brennt, Feueraktion am Potsdamer Platz - 1000 Berlin burns, fire action at Potsdamer Platz (performance) 1984 © Kain Karawahn, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.28: A: Gordon Matta-Clark, The Wall (performance, photograph) 1976-2007 © Gordon Matta Clark estate, Electronic Arts Intermix, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 B: Gordon Matta-Clark, The Wall (performance, photograph) 1976-2007 © Gordon Matta Clark estate, Electronic Arts Intermix, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.29: Günter Grass, Mein Jahrhundert – My Century (watercolor) circa 1961 © Günter Grass, Steidl Verlag, Göttigen 1999

List of illustrations

Illustration 2.30: A: Marcus Kaiser, Mauerblicke Wall Views (photograph) 1989 © Marcus Kaiser. Courtesy of the artist, Stadtmuseum Berlin, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 B: Marcus Kaiser, Mauerblicke Wall Views (photograph) 1989 © Marcus Kaiser. Courtesy of the artist, Stadtmuseum Berlin, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.31: Barbara Brandhorst, Der rote Teppich in die Freiheit- The red carpet to freedom (installation) 1989 © Barbara Brandhorst. Courtesy of the artist, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.32: Michael Wesely, Brandenburger Tor, Berlin (14.25-14.35 Uhr, 12.5.1990) (photograph) 1990 © Michael Wesely. Courtesy of the artist, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 2.33: Frank Thiel, Checkpoint Charlie (installation, photograph) 1994-1996 © Frank Thiel. Courtesy of the artist, Sean Kelly Gallery, New York, Blain Southern Gallery, London/Berlin, Krinzinger Gallery, Vienna and Galeria Leme, São Paulo, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 3.1: UNGA Partition Plan, 1947 ; Armistice Line, 1949 (map) © PASSIA Illustration 3.2: Kader Attia, Le Vide, Le Plein, 2008 (Diptych, colour photograph each, Detail view: Le Vide) © Kader Attia. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.3: Revised route of the israeli separation barrier, 2006 (map) © PASSIA, OCHA-OPT (adaptation) Illustration 3.4: A: Helga Tawil-Souri, Palestinian Graf fiti (photograph) 2003 cc Helga Tawil-Souri. Courtesy of the artist B: Helga Tawil-Souri, Palestinian Graf fiti (photograph) 2003 cc Helga Tawil-Souri. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.5: A-E: Banksy, Palestinian Graf fiti (graffiti) 2005 © www.banksy.co.uk

241

242

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.6: Richard Hamilton, Maps of Palestine (graphic printing on canvas) 2009-2010 © R. Hamilton. All Rights Reserved, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 3.7: A: Francis Alÿs, The Green Line (In collaboration with Julien Devaux) Jerusalem, 2004 (video documentation of an action) © Francis Alÿs. Courtesy of the artist and David Zwirner B: Francis Alÿs, The Green Line (In collaboration with Julien Devaux) Jerusalem, 2004 (video documentation of an action) © Francis Alÿs. Courtesy of the artist and David Zwirner Illustration 3.8: Emily Jacir, Memorial to 418 Palestinian Villages which were Destroyed, Depopulated and Occupied by Israel in 1948 (installation) 2001 © Emily Jacir. Courtesy of the artist and Alexander and Bonin, New York Illustration 3.9: A: Mohammad Rakouie, s.t. (drawing) 198  ? © Mohammad Rakouie. Courtesy of the Farhart Art Museum B: Mohammad Rakouie, s.t. (drawing) 198  ? © Mohammad Rakouie. Courtesy of the Farhart Art Museum Illustration 3.10: A: Kai Wiedenhöfer, The wall in Abu Dis/Jerusalem (photograph) 2018 © Kai Wiedenhöfer. Courtesy of the artist B: Kai Wiedenhöfer, The wall in Abu Dis/Jerusalem (photograph) 2004 © Kai Wiedenhöfer. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.11: A: Rula Halawani, The Wall at Night (photograph) 2004 © Rula Halawani. Courtesy of the artist and Ayyam Gallery B: Rula Halawani, The Wall at Night (photograph) 2004 © Rula Halawani. Courtesy of the artist and Ayyam Gallery Illustration 3.12: Taysir Batniji, Watchtowers, West/Bank (photographie) 2008 © Taysir Batniji. Courtesy of the artist, photo: Dieter Kik, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019

List of illustrations

Illustration 3.13: A: Yoav Weiss, Buy the wall (intervention, website down) 2010 © Yoav Weiss. Courtesy of the artist B: Yoav Weiss, Buy the wall (intervention, website down) 2010 © Yoav Weiss. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.14: A: Sharif Waked, Chic Point Fashion for Israeli Checkpoints (performance, video) 2003 © Sharif Waked. Courtesy of the artist B: Sharif Waked, Chic Point Fashion for Israeli Checkpoints (performance, video) 2003 © Sharif Waked. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.15: Rula Halawani, Intimacy (photograph) 2004 © Rula Halawani. Courtesy of the artist and Ayyam Gallery Illustration 3.16: A: Razan Akramawy, The Gate (performance, video) 2011 © Razan Akramawy. Courtesy of the artist B: Razan Akramawy, The Gate (performance, video) 2011 © Razan Akramawy. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.17: Larissa Sansour, Happy Days (performance, video) 2006 © Larissa Sansour. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.18:  A: Khaled Jarrar, Passage # 3 (photograph) 2008 © Khaled Jarrar. Courtesy of the artist B: Khaled Jarrar, Passage # 1 (photograph) 2008 © Khaled Jarrar. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.19: Sigalit Landau, Barbed Hula (performance, video) 2000 © Sigalit Landau. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 3.20: Mona Hatoum, Impenetrable (sculpture, installation) 2009 © Mona Hatoum. Courtesy of Alexander and Bonin, New York

243

244

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 3.21: A: Sophie Ristelhueber, WB (photograph) 2005 © Sophie Ristelhueber. Courtesy of the artist, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 B: Sophie Ristelhueber, WB (photograph) 2005 © Sophie Ristelhueber. Courtesy of the artist, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 C: Sophie Ristelhueber, WB (photograph) 2005 © Sophie Ristelhueber. Courtesy of the artist, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019 Illustration 3.22: Richard of Haldingham & Lafford, Hereford Mappa Mundi (vellum) circa 1285 © Public domain Illustration 4.1: Bishop William Henry, Frontiers of Mexico, in Old Mexico and her lost provinces, 1883 (map) © Brown University Library, boston.archive.org, Publisher: New York, Harper & brothers Illustration 4.2: Tomás Castelazo, View of Tijuana - Mexico, Border Monument (photograph) 2006 © Tomás Castelazo. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 4.3: A: Tomás Castelazo, View of Tijuana - Mexico, border with San Diego - United States (photograph) 2006 © Tomás Castelazo. Courtesy of the artist B: Tomás Castelazo, View of Tecate - Mexico, border with the United States (photograph) 2014 © Tomás Castelazo. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 4.4: A: Ground views of dif ferent Border Wall Prototypes, Otay Mesa Port of Entry, California (official photo) 21 October 2017 © Mani Albrecht, U.S. Customs and Border Protection B: President Donald Trump reviewing U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s wall prototypes on the border in Otay Mesa, California (official photo) 13 March 2018 © U.S. Customs and Border Protection Illustration 4.5: Frida Kahlo, Self-portrait on the Borderline between Mexico and the United States (painting) 1932 © Banco de México Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo Museums Trust, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019

List of illustrations

Illustration 4.6: A: Ursula Biemann, Performing the Border (video) 1999 © Ursula Biemann. Courtesy of the artist B: Ursula Biemann, Performing the Border (video) 1999 © Ursula Biemann. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 4.7: Teresa Margolles, Muro Ciudad Juárez (installation) 2010 © Teresa Margolles. Courtesy of the artist and Galerie Peter Kilchmann, Zurich, photo: Elisa Ganivet Illustration 4.8: Fernando Arias, La Línea (installation) 1997 © Fernando Arias. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 4.9: Tomás Castelazo, View of Tijuana, painted cof fins (photograph) 2006 © Tomás Castelazo. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 4.10: Tomás Castelazo, View of Tijuana, migrant (photograph) 2006 © Tomás Castelazo. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 4.11: A: Alfredo Jaar, The Cloud (public intervention, Valle del Matador, Tijuana – San Diego, US-Mexican) 2000 © Alfredo Jaar. Courtesy Galerie Lelong, New York B: Alfredo Jaar, The Cloud (public intervention, Valle del Matador, Tijuana – San Diego, US-Mexican) 2000 © Alfredo Jaar. Courtesy Galerie Lelong, New York Illustration 4.12: A: Alejandro Cartagena, Car poolers (photograph) 2011-2012 © Alejandro Cartagena. Courtesy of the artist B: Alejandro Cartagena, Car poolers (photograph) 2011-2012 © Alejandro Cartagena. Courtesy of the artist C: Alejandro Cartagena, Car poolers (photograph) 2011-2012 © Alejandro Cartagena. Courtesy of the artist Illustration 4.13: Pedro Lasch, Guías de Ruta (maps) 2003-2011 © Pedro Lasch. Courtesy of the artist

245

246

Border Wall Aesthetics

Illustration 4.14: A: Ana Teresa Fernandez, Borrando la Frontera (Erasing the Border) (performance documentation at Tijuana/San Diego Border) 2011 © Ana Teresa Fernandez. Courtesy of the artist and Gallery Wendi Norris B: Ana Teresa Fernandez, Borrando la Frontera (Erasing the Border) (performance documentation at Tijuana/San Diego Border) 2011 © Ana Teresa Fernandez. Courtesy of the artist and Gallery Wendi Norris Illustration 4.15: A: Javier Téllez, One Flew Over the Void (Bala perdida) (performance, video) 2005 © Javier Téllez. Courtesy of the artist and Galerie Peter  Kilchmann, Zurich B: Javier Téllez, One Flew Over the Void (Bala perdida) (performance, video) 2005 © Javier Téllez. Courtesy of the artist and Galerie Peter  Kilchmann, Zurich Illustration 4.16: Victor Payan, Perry Vasquez, Keep on crossin´ (manifesto) 2003 © Victor Payan, Perry Vasquez. Courtesy of the artists Illustration 4.17: A: Felipe Adame, Chicano Park, R43, Cuauhtemoc (AztecWarrior) (mural) 1978 © Felipe Adame. Courtesy of the Chicano Park Steering Committee B: Michael Schnorr, Chicano Park, H46, Voz Libre, P.H Gonzalez (mural) 1984 © Michael Schnorr. Courtesy of the Chicano Park Steering Committee C: Salvador Barajas, Chicano Park, T About, Historical Mural (mural) 1973 © Salvador Barajas. Courtesy of the Chicano Park Steering Committee Illustration 4.18: Guillermo Gómez Peña, Border Brujo,Sushi, San Diego/ Tijuana (performance) 1988 © Guillermo Gómez Peña. Courtesy of the artist, Photo: Becky Cohen Illustration 4.19: Guillermo Gómez Peña, Protesting immigration policy: GP during The Cruci/Fiction Project, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco (performance) 1994 © Guillermo Gómez Peña. Courtesy of the artist, photo: Cinthia Wallis Illustration 4.20: La Pocha nostra, Guillermo Gómez Peña, Saul Garcia Lopez, Robo-Proletarian warriors, Gómez-Peña & Saul Garcia Lopez pose for photogra-

List of illustrations

pher Wolfgang Silveri right before the international premiere of Corpo Insurrecto, La Pocha Nostra’s newest performance. Steirischer Herbst Festival, Austria (performance) 2012 © La Pocha nostra, Guillermo Gómez Peña, Saul Garcia Lopez. Courtesy of the artists, photo: Wolfgang Silveri

247