Director Ann Demeester wants to lead debates

Art is “sex for the brain,” she says, and she’s not afraid of discussions: Ann Demeester, the new director of the Kunsthaus Zürich, is actively pursuing provenance research and hopes that there will soon be a national commission for looted art in Switzerland.

The new Kunsthaus director Ann Demeester in the middle of Pipilotti Rist’s 2021 installation «Pixelwald Turicum» (video system, LEDs in crystal shells, control devices 15′ 0” loop) in the Chipperfield extension of the Kunsthaus Zürich.

Franca Candrian, Kunsthaus Zurich / © Pro Litteris

Ms. Demeester, what comes to mind when you think of Zurich?

Last week, the Financial Times published a report about Zurich that said the city was traditional, down-to-earth, a financial center and therefore had the reputation of being boring. However, the report emphasized that Zurich is more than just cool. That’s how I’ve always perceived the city from the outside: on the one hand a bit conservative, but on the other hand with a creative subculture. I think of the past with Dada and the Cabaret Voltaire, but also of Johann Heinrich Füssli and his bizarre works. I find this Janus-faced thing about Zurich with two contradictory sides fascinating.

Do you also see such contradictions in the Kunsthaus collection?

Yes, the Kunsthaus collection is very diverse and extremely adventurous. In addition to the masterpieces by Giacometti, Munch, and Chagall, there are medieval sculptures or the Swiss painter Albert Welti and contemporary positions.

So does the Kunsthaus collection have sex appeal?

A lot even. There are always surprising things to discover.

You once said that art is sex for the brain. What do you mean by that?

Sex is a necessity if humanity is to continue to exist. But sex is also fun, it’s not just a job to be done. Art is often viewed as a duty to be accomplished. But art is also fun.

You come from literary studies and have put on exhibitions with titles that sound like literature, such as “The Art of Laughter”. Do you tell stories with artworks?

Yes, I think that’s our job as a museum. Today it is no longer enough, as it was in the 19th century, to simply show what you have. Museums are machines that produce meaning through art. You can admire a Félix Vallotton, but today you have to do much more in a museum than telling the history of art.

The new building by David Chipperfield now offers the most attractive rooms in the Kunsthaus. Only a lot of space is needed for three “Family Showrooms”. How will you work with the rigid blocks from the Looser, Merzbacher and Bührle collections?

That’s a fact, we have these three collections of incredible artistic quality on loan. And it is a challenge to convey such collections in a lively way. Nevertheless, they fit very well with the Kunsthaus. In the old building, too, we have islands with the Ruzicka or Koetser collections. They show the zeitgeist of their creation, the taste of the collectors, and also a certain attitude towards their own era. Koetser collected completely differently than Merzbacher, Bührle differently than Looser. These collections give the Kunsthaus its identity. Museums are shaped by people, including their directors and curators. I too have a certain taste, I’m not only the head of this institution and not a robot, but also an individual with a certain biography, with my own interests and preferences.

So will people also feel you personally as director of the Kunsthaus?

Yes, of course. But it’s not primarily about my personal signature, but about not ignoring the fact that museums are always shaped by individuals, be they curators, collectors or artists. I work with a team and how this team spirit will affect the design of the museum remains to be seen. We are at the very beginning.

Can you name a keyword?

One of my principles is that art should not be imprisoned in its time. One should create references between today and the past. At the Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem, which I previously ran, we called it ‘transhistorical’. It’s about connecting different works, ideas and ages.

One collection will occupy you in particular: the Bührle Collection. You are not inheriting an easy legacy with her. A poisoned one?

I don’t think it’s poisoned, but it’s a complicated legacy. For me, as an optimist, there are no unsolvable problems. And the problems surrounding the Bührle Collection are not solely related to this collection or the Kunsthaus. They also have to do with the zeitgeist, which is determined by the will to come to terms with one’s own history.

What do you mean?

The necessary provenance research is now being carried out everywhere in Switzerland. It’s not just about how to do it right, but also about what you’re doing it for in the first place. The aim of such efforts is not just facts, but you have to find fair and just solutions based on the facts. The problems surrounding the Bührle Collection also lead to the question of where the flow of money for art is coming from. This is also a topic that interests our time, if you think, for example, of the discussions in America about the donations from the Sackler family of patrons involved in the opioid scandal. But the reappraisal of the history of Switzerland during the Second World War also has something to do with Bührle. I think Bührle will raise many more discussions.

Do you see the Bührle Collection as an opportunity to relaunch the discussion about the history of Switzerland?

Yes – indirectly. This is inevitable. These are uncomfortable but important issues that we in Europe have to face anyway.

But is Zurich ready to continue dealing with Bührle?

I don’t know it. I haven’t been there long. But I sense that there are two opposing forces. Some say now is the right time to face this story. The others think that this chapter should finally be closed now. I can’t judge yet which power is stronger.

On the one hand there are the works, on the other the collector: the arms dealer Emil Bührle, with whom it is not easy to identify in Zurich today. Can you separate that?

One cannot ignore Emil Bührle, he was part of Zurich society, part of the Kunsthaus, he is part of Zurich’s history. You can’t just ignore that, we have to deal with it. Incidentally, it is interesting to see how the attitude towards the arms business has changed somewhat since the war in Ukraine. Whether and how Zurich wants to deal with Bührle remains to be seen. He won’t go away.

Many people say they would like to be able to look at Renoir’s portrait of «Irène de Cahen d’Anvers» in the Bührle collection again without having to think about the Nazis.

This is almost impossible, especially with the «Irène». Almost the entire history of the persecution of the Jews in World War II is contained in the portrait of this angelic girl. It’s not about freeing works of art from their history.

The Kunsthaus recently became responsible for provenance research on the Bührle Collection. A round table has just been convened to review the work done so far. The work proceeds on different levels. What does that mean for you specifically?

A museum has to carry out provenance research in relation to its own collection anyway. This does not only apply to the Bührle Collection. The task of the round table is to review the Bührle Foundation’s provenance research methodology. There will be random checks at individual plants to ensure that everything is done correctly and in a timely manner according to international standards. But we don’t wait until the round table has done its work, we continue to research and are in contact with museums in Basel and Bern.

So you want to lead the discussion actively and openly.

Yes, but provenance research is not done in public, but behind the curtain, and negotiations with potential heirs are not made public either. There is a national Restitutions Committee in the Netherlands and I really hope that there will be something similar in Switzerland soon. This allows museums to rely on the recommendation of such a body at national level, which simplifies discussions.

You also have the task of recontextualizing the Bührle Collection.

I think how we show the Bührle Collection is an endless learning process. At the end of 2023, after a symposium, we will present them again as an exhibition with the historical background. This presentation will also be criticized. But we also have to protect the works of art so that they themselves become visible again. They cannot be taken out of their historical context, but neither are they just pieces of evidence in a criminal trial.

You don’t just have Bührle, you have a huge house that has almost doubled in size due to the expansion. How do you intend to bring the public into the museum?

The question of audience numbers and finances shows the dilemma of every museum. The Kunsthaus is a hybrid, on the one hand a private museum, on the other hand it has a public mission. This means that we are dependent on subsidies and third-party funds. With the recession, it is not getting any easier to get third-party funds. We are working on a new fundraising strategy. The Kunsthaus has a large fan community, the Kunstgesellschaft has 25,000 members, and the building has 380,000 visitors a year. We should be able to keep this up in the future – that may be optimistic, but not unrealistic.

Are museums “in”?

Yes, but we have to think about who we want to reach, just the existing clientele or also new groups of visitors? On the one hand, this is a quantitative question, but on the other hand it is also a qualitative one. We now have the new Chipperfield building and the controversial Bührle collection. A lot of people want to see both. But you can’t rely on these “wow effects” forever.

The Kunsthaus is right next to the Schauspielhaus? Do you see potential for a collaboration?

Yes, I don’t believe in separatism. There is a lot to gain from working together, not financially, but culturally. We plan to work with the theater spectacle, maybe also with the state museum. With the Literaturhaus there is already a concrete project this year. I believe that competition is not worth it. Cooperation is inspiring for everyone, and ultimately you do it for the audience.

You are the first woman to manage the Kunsthaus. Will you feel that?

I belong to a generation for which gender equality is a matter of course. Half of the world’s population are women. More than half of the artists worldwide are women. And that will certainly be reflected in the Kunsthaus. We can’t buy works by pop artists, for example, because that’s too expensive. Historical inequality cannot be leveled, but we can change the future. And that means that from now on there can be equality or even dominance by women. This is an awareness that the Kunsthaus is already following with the exhibitions on Yoko Ono and Niki de Saint Phalle.

source site-111