Various »turns« have long been discussed in the world of culture. Many fields ring with optimistic announcements of new paradigms and modes of observation, whether we think of »cultural«, »translational«, »participatory« or »educational« turns. It is often not clear here whether the proclaimed innovations actually are conceptual or indeed systemic turns as well, or whether areas that have been neglected or insufficiently explored to date are now simply being dragged into the limelight. Whilst realpolitik discourse taking a retrospective look at the turning point in 1989 can draw on an absolutely endless reservoir of resources, proclamations of various different cultural turns are often little more than a rhetorical ploy.
That in itself is reason enough to look more closely at these turns so often cited nowadays. In the interview with cultural studies scholar Doris Bachmann-Medick, who has drawn up an inventory of »cultural turns«, she explains that the concept remains viable. Although she also admits that the notion tends to be excessively belaboured, she advocates methodical use of the term, moving towards a constantly recalibrating »translational science« – mediating between discourses and different social spheres and cultures. Suzana Milevska asks what was really achieved by that political turning point 20 years ago, and flags up concrete social symptoms – obdurate racism, despite all the awareness campaigns and greater economic openness (and indeed material prosperity). Whilst some improvements can be identified on that front, old-style racism has grown even perhaps more perfidious – or is the old form now simply appearing in a succession of new guises?
That brings us on to the second key term, namely »return«, which appears to be closely, albeit often subtly, related to the aforementioned turns. As a rhetorical motif, this term – referring either to the return of the real, of the political or something else that has purportedly been repressed – long occupied precisely the prominent position subsequently assumed by the idea of »turns«. Looking at contemporary art through this prism, the two intellectual models can be seen to intermesh in this field too. On the one hand, contemporary art is working its way through historical issues to a much greater extent than in the past, while on the other hand new turns and shifts in focus are constantly proclaimed. Return strategies range from reappropriations and »re-enactments« to simply borrowing or recombining retro elements; the spectrum of new angles pursued extends from repoliticisation right through to all kinds of newly conceived structures for participation.
In his essay Süreyyya Evren turns his gaze on the new anarchism and the associated trend towards activism in art, and in the course of his examination stumbles across a gaping void. Evren examines the genealogy of anarchism throughout history, and how it acquired a resonant force that permeated the most distinct areas; nevertheless anarchism’s current transposition into the realm of art seems to suffer because there is no real audience and hence no scope to amplify the message. In contrast, that does not apply at all in the world of pop, for the flourishing retro boom here, which shows no signs of ending (and perhaps simply cannot), is characterised by a highly flexible approach to history. Klaus Walter digs out traces of all that is lost in the move to historicising and immortalising oneself in something akin to a museum display. Essays like this are complemented by an inventory of recent developments in the Syrian art world (Charlotte Bank) and the status quo in the Moscow scene, which has experienced more than one turn since 1989 (Herwig G. Höller).
In all these contexts we find ourselves having to consider to what extent the two conceptual motifs – a turn towards the new and the return of newly contextualised older material – are interlinked. Are the two perhaps different aspects of the same set of symptoms? Or does the current extensive proliferation of these motifs actually hint that rifts are opening up in contemporary culture and will not be easy to overcome in the foreseeable future?