Major international events: a battlefield of cultures

Anyone who followed the dispute over Documenta 15 this summer is unlikely to experience the current debates about the World Cup without moments of déjà vu.

So in both cases you are dealing with similar fronts. While on the one hand particular political relevance is proclaimed for the respective major event and this is judged according to the extent to which it corresponds to one’s own agenda, but above all there are protests if it doesn’t do so, on the other hand any politicization is considered inappropriate and encroaching felt one complains that in this way art is being neglected and the beautiful sport is being sidelined.

And maybe it will be added that such a monopoly of art and sport happens when people are given responsibility who have no idea about these traditions, which are mainly European in character. Curators from Indonesia, far removed from the Western art world – what can come of that? And what’s the point of a World Cup in a small desert country without its own football history?

question of meaning and legitimacy

How autonomous art and how pure football really ever was, yes, whether a lot is not also idealized and glorified here, would offer material for long discussions. On the other hand, it should be undisputed that art and football have never been overlaid and shaped by political issues in such a polyphonic way as at the two major events this year.

Apparently, it is no longer enough to judge the works and projects shown according to aesthetic criteria and to concentrate primarily on the tactical or physical performance of the individual teams. Rather, attention is repeatedly drawn to aspects beyond art and sport, and quite a few even question the sense and legitimacy of a major event in general, criticizing it as a playground for powerful (western, male) elites who are ignorant of the needs of so many people and turn a blind eye to pressing problems.

The most heated arguments this year resulted from the fact that anti-Semitism is not equally outlawed all over the world.

Or isn’t there still far too little being done to protect minorities? And aren’t we often dealing with structures that are openly or covertly racist or that encourage forms of exploitation and oppression? Couldn’t, yes, shouldn’t a Documenta or a World Cup be planned in a much more ecological, even sustainable way? And what about the financing? Don’t the funds without which a major event can’t be held often come from dubious sources?

The moment such questions gain dominance, arguments are inevitable. Because, of course, assessments and answers differ widely, and interests that are as strong as they are incompatible become apparent. Above all, however, it becomes explosive that events such as a Documenta or a World Cup are global. Not only do the views of protagonists of different political persuasions clash, but suddenly it becomes even more of a problem that different cultures each have their own standards and priorities.

The hottest arguments this year have come from the fact that antisemitism is not universally outlawed around the world (indeed, there is even disagreement as to where it begins), and that issues of sexual orientation flow from religion to religion, from worldview to worldview are treated very differently.

The insight that can be drawn from the Documenta and the World Cup this year is that such major events are becoming increasingly difficult to calculate and may no longer be controllable as soon as they become the stage for potentially all political discourses.

In the future, it is likely to become the norm that it will no longer even be possible to agree on what the events are actually about. The fact that new topics always become controversial, but there are always sharp controversies, not only shifts the focus of attention further away from art and sport, but also reduces the status symbolic and representative qualities of the major events.

It might be too risky for some sponsors to put money into something that generates mostly negative headlines or is associated with issues that don’t fit their image. And for politicians, every visit to a Documenta or World Cup becomes a delicate undertaking and a diplomatic tightrope act. You then look for symbolic gestures, which usually only add to the irritated atmosphere, as they are interpreted either as a confession or as a provocation.

Heated atmosphere of debate

It cannot therefore be ruled out that major events such as a Documenta or the World Cup will lose their importance in the medium term and will at some point be associated with too much disappointment for almost everyone involved. The voices of those who want to go back to events that were largely content with celebrating individual artists and football stars and enjoying spectacular works and exciting games will certainly be all the louder. But it seems hard to imagine that such “pure” events will ever happen again. And not just because there should still be enough forces that do not allow politics to be kept out of art and sport.

No, even the proponents of pure football and art that rises above daily politics are already so used to the heated climate of debate that they would probably perceive it as a strange void, even as a strange silence and thus also as a loss of relevance if a Documenta or World Cup were to suddenly come without it discourse noise off. Many of them have also become politicized themselves; they indulge in defensive struggles and proclamations of freedom – and in doing so have partly forgotten that it was actually only about art or football for them.

So if there is no return to large, non-political events in the foreseeable future, then perhaps one should begin to judge their unpredictability, and indeed the threat of destabilization through calls for boycotts, exclusions or escalating debates, not only negatively.

Can’t it also be an advantage that it is not possible to foresee in advance which dynamics a certain topic will develop, where majorities will form or how individual opinions will be combined? Aren’t such major events all the more important because discourses can be re-formed at them? Because opposing opinions clash in constellations that would otherwise not exist, which also requires different negotiation strategies and additional arguments?

So shouldn’t it be seen as an opportunity, indeed as the meaning and purpose of major events that there are arguments about them and that various parties and actors promote what is particularly important to them and what they consider to be underexposed, overestimated, dangerous or scandalous?

So it is already foreseeable that in retrospect, Documenta 15 will be judged much more positively than during its run. After all, the extensive controversy surrounding anti-Semitic works and positions has meant that many people can now distinguish between different forms of anti-Semitism more precisely than before, but also have a better understanding of how they relate to racism or colonialism. Such a differentiation sharpens the view for other phenomena.

If the appeal of major international events – world exhibitions, Olympic Games, biennials – has always been to celebrate competition and measure strength, it need not be any different in the future. The competition only takes place at other levels. It is less ritualized, indeed the topics about which and the criteria according to which the argument is being fought are not necessarily certain in advance, but only emerge (at least in part) during the argument itself.

This is certainly never without frustration, but above all it is exhausting for everyone involved. Of course, it must not be too strenuous, and above all not too aggressive. Rather, it should be noted in all disputes that the reason for this is an art or sporting event – something in which productions take place for a large stage, yes, where form and play are always at stake.

Like a performance or improvisation

If art and football in particular have repeatedly served as media of diplomacy, where standpoints can be sounded out in discussions and approaches can be tried out without obligation, perhaps only metaphorically at first, this would ideally apply even more to disputes that are or sporting event take place. Instead of potentially escalating into violent conflicts, they would be carried out more playfully, or at least in a manner similar to a performance or an improvisation. Arguing in front of a global audience allows those involved to maintain form.

But maybe that’s an overly optimistic scenario and the disputes won’t be contained. Then some will remember all the more sentimentally how nice it was when it was all about art, just about football. And the others will only be able to recognize a complacent, comfortable, discourse-lazy attitude and throw themselves all the more energetically into the next conflict.

Either way, however, the fact that major events dedicated to them repeatedly cause great controversy can be interpreted as a sign of the great importance, indeed the central role played by art and football in society. What has been said so often in the past, namely that art is only luxury and football only entertainment, will finally no longer be believed.

Wolfgang Ullrich lives in Leipzig as a freelance cultural scientist. Wagenbach recently published: “Art after the end of its autonomy” (2022).