Between Foreigner Culture and Cultural Policy

Text: Anujah Fernando, Translation: Melody Makeda Ledwon

Berlin’s 750th anniversary was meant to be celebrated on a grand scale in 1987. Extensive planning had already begun in the early 1980s. In a divided city, the anniversary offered both East and West Berlin a welcome opportunity to stage their political systems in all their splendor. Amid these preparations, the Academy of the Arts proposed including a contribution by artists and cultural workers of Turkish origin1 living in West Berlin. With substantial funding from the Berlin Senate, the Academy of the Arts and artists and cultural workers of Turkish origin began a three-year process of jointly curating exhibitions and festivals. The collaboration ended in failure in 1986.

From today’s perspective, this case is revealing. Meeting records from the time show how politicians, established cultural institutions, and artists of Turkish origin in West Berlin understood themselves and each other. The Senate addressed these cultural workers in the language of foreigner policy, while the Academy of the Arts adopted a supportive—at times paternalistic—role. The marginalized artists, however, increasingly tied their participation to cultural policy demands and voiced frustration over the Academy of the Arts’ lack of recognition for their artistic autonomy. When they ended the collaboration with the Academy in 1986, the Senate was forced to work directly with the artists to develop the exhibition and festival program in a very short time—an outcome that must be understood within the context of many of these artists well established networks both within Berlin and across Germany.

Kreuzberg: Organizing artists of Turkish origin

From the 1970s onward, artists and cultural workers of Turkish origin—especially in West Berlin’s Kreuzberg district—began to organize and gain visibility with broader audiences. The founding of the Turkish Association of Academics and Artists (Türkischer Akademiker- und Künstlerverein) in 1972 marked an important step toward the professionalization of these Kreuzberg artists in the visual arts. Founded by the sculptor Mehmet Aksoy, the association advocated for the self-representation of its members. At the same time, this self-organization enabled cooperation with local and district cultural institutions, such as the Kunstamt Kreuzberg. One result of such collaboration was the bilingual exhibition „Mehmet Berlin’de — Mehmet kam aus Anatolien“ (Mehmet Berlin’de — Mehmet Came from Anatolia) in 1975 at Bethanien. It was organized by the Kunstamt Kreuzberg and led by Krista Tebbe, who collaborated with artists from the association. The exhibition explored Turkish life and experiences in West Germany, addressing themes such as everyday life, leisure, and working conditions; it also examined economic conditions and political realities in Turkey before migration to West-Germany. A focus on sociopolitical dimensions became visible through artworks by artists such as sculptor Mehmet Aksoy, ceramic artist Mehmet Çağlayan, and the painter Hanefi Yeter. Around 20,000 people visited the exhibition. It received national recognition and was later shown in Bonn, Munich, Frankfurt am Main, and Bochum.

This successful collaboration between the Kunstamt Kreuzberg and the artists associated with the Turkish Association of Academics and Artists was followed by further exhibitions and events, whose thematic focus was determined by the artists. In 1977, for example, an extensive program of events marked the 75th birthday of the communist poet and playwright Nâzım Hikmet. As part of this program, his poems were translated into German for the first time—an effort to make his work accessible to a West German audience. At the same time, it should be noted that these and similar projects were funded exclusively at the district level.

The Senate: Funding “Foreigner Cultural Work.”

It was not until 1981 that the Berlin Senate introduced funding for what it termed “foreigner cultural work.” This funding primarily aimed to support cultural production by non-German artists and cultural workers in Berlin, often with a folkloristic focus that emphasized ethnic difference.2 This approach is also reflected in Berlin’s 750th anniversary program overview for projects by non-German artists and cultural workers presented to the public in 1984 by Senator for Cultural Affairs Volker Hassemer. Across the ten proposed cultural projects, the diversity of artistic formats stands out. In addition to exhibitions, there were research projects, slide-and-sound presentations, video films, concerts, and sculpture. Based on the names of the applying organizations, they appear to have included Turkish, Kurdish, Greek, and Yugoslav associations. Even if these names do not immediately suggest a focus on art or culture, the formats of the submitted projects indicate that they were grounded in artistic practice. In the 1980s, immigrant artists in West Berlin created structures through self-organization—or established connections—that enabled them to apply for funding.

As part of the overall program for the 750th anniversary, the Senate organized the contributions of non-German groups under the heading “Foreigners, especially Turks in Berlin” and recommended that program should implemented by the Academy of the Arts. At the same time, in a press release dated July 19, 1984, the Senate stated that it aimed to “integrate projects by foreigners living in Berlin into this broader context […] in order to avoid fragmentation. The Foreigners Commissioner will be consulted in this process.”3 In this way, migrant cultural productions were bundled together—regardless of theme, format, or origin—and condensed under the label of “foreigner culture.

Working with the Academy of the Arts

In May 1984, the Academy of the Arts was presented with a completed exhibition concept under the working title “Turkish Weeks.” Developed by the German political scientist Jochen Blaschke, it outlined a cultural-historical exhibition on Germany’s relationship with Turkey. Alongside this historical focus, the exhibition was also intended to include aspects of everyday life, as well as socio-economic and religious contexts. A larger section was intended to present visual artworks, bringing together pieces by artists of Turkish origin and German artists on an equal footing, all addressing themes related to German-Turkish history. With this proposal, Jochen Blaschke was also a scholarly advisor. He further suggested establishing an advisory board at an early stage, composed equally of German artists and artists of Turkish origin across the disciplines represented in the Academy of the Arts. The Academy, then under the presidency of Günter Grass, responded enthusiastically and forwarded the concept to the Senate to secure funding, likely in spring 1984. The proposal stated:

“The advisory board should meet at irregular intervals, but with sufficient frequency to ensure that it cannot in any way be claimed that the Academy regards itself as the final authority on foreign artistic and cultural expressions.”4

The concept was well received by the Senate, which approved 1.5 million DM for planning and implementation under the new working title “Turks in Berlin.” The advisory board began its work—chaired by Günter Grass and, at the Senate’s suggestion, with the participation of the Foreigners Commissioner Barbara John. However, by October of the same year, its work had already begun to stall. The advisory board members of Turkish origin, many of them connected to the Turkish Association of Academics and Artists—including the cultural worker Niyazi Turgay, the sculptor Mehmet Aksoy, the painter Hanefi Yeter, the sculptor Azade Köker, and the composer Tahsin Incirci—voiced their discontent.5 Their criticism focused primarily on the limited scope they had to shape the exhibition concept. In their view, Blaschke did not engage sufficiently with presenting Turkish-origin artistic positions as truly equal to German ones. Over the following two years, these criticisms were repeatedly raised, without any visible willingness on the part of the Academy to change course.

Alongside this criticism, debates within the advisory board were dominated—on the Academy’s side—by questions of appropriate representation. Regarding the exhibition concept, the Academy proposed that one section should focus on women’s perspectives and also suggested including Kurdish viewpoints. To implement the latter, the Academy actively sought to recruit Kurdish members to the advisory board, as documented in letters sent to Kurdish civil society organizations in Berlin.6 The invited Kurdish representatives responded cautiously and called for a revision of the title “Turks in Berlin,” as they did not see themselves reflected in it. Under the revised working title “The Culture of Immigrants in Germany, especially from Turkey” proposed by the Academy, Kurdish representatives joined the advisory board from March 1985 onward. Their further involvement in shaping the exhibition concept cannot be reconstructed from the available records.

The contributions of the artists associated with the Turkish Association of Academics and Artists are documented in the records. In the months that followed, their frustration over the content intensified to such a degree that in May 1985 Mehmet Aksoy, Azade Köker, Hanefi Yeter, Aras Ören, Tahsin Incirci, and Niyazi Turgay addressed an open letter to the president of the Academy and ended their cooperation with the institution. 

They argued: “[…] that the process of developing the concept was structurally flawed. Reducing the number of those who work on the project in a binding and responsible way corresponds to the needs of creative artistic work.”7

They further stated that they saw no basis for continued collaboration with the Academy’s academic advisor. Instead, they proposed developing a coherent overall concept in cooperation with Krista Tebbe, head of Kunstamt Kreuzberg.

What becomes clear is, on the one hand, the trust built through years of collaboration between the artists and the Kunstamt Kreuzberg. On the other hand, a strong sense of artistic self-confidence is evident: the artists sought to be included as equal partners in the conceptual process. This stood in stark contrast to the approach of the Academy of the Arts, whose academic advisor remained firmly committed to the core ideas of “his exhibition.” In this light, the proposal to establish a parity-based advisory board appears less as a mechanism for shared decision-making and more as a gesture directed at the public, without substantial consequences for the collaborative development of the project’s content. The Senate, for its part, was interested in bringing together different “foreigner cultures” within the project “Turks in Berlin” in a synergistic way.

Following the failed attempt at collaboration with the Academy of the Arts, a pragmatic—and from the perspective of the Kreuzberg artists involved, successful—implementation phase ensued. The Academy was forced to return the funding to the Senate, which then developed an extensive exhibition and festival program over the course of eighteen months. Chaired by Cultural Senator Volker Hassemer, the roughly one-month program was carried out in the summer of 1987 as part of the 750th anniversary celebrations, together with the aforementioned artists and their collaborators from Kreuzberg and other Berlin partnerships. The program included orchestral and theater performances, an art- and cultural-historical exhibition, a reading series, and a fair titled “Stations of Turkish Life.” The Academy of the Arts contributed only the exhibition spaces and was consulted occasionally in an advisory capacity.

The case of the failed collaboration between artists of Turkish origin and the Academy highlights the challenges faced by immigrant perspectives in carving out spaces for visibility within national narratives. While the macro-narrative of the 750th anniversary focused primarily on reactivating a national storyline, the Academy of the Arts sought to intervene by telling Turkish history in connection with German history. While participation and inclusion of the Turkish-origin artists was intended, the Academy lacked the institutional flexibility to engage in a genuinely participatory process. Without accounting for historically entrenched power imbalances and processes of erasure, the Senate sought to incorporate Kurdish perspectives, as well as Greek and Yugoslav ones, into the program—entirely in line with its conception of “foreigner culture.”8 Within this complex entanglement, the artists around Mehmet Aksoy9, drawing on their experience since the 1970s, prior collaborations, and established networks, were able to preserve a degree of relative autonomy.

About the Author

Anujah Fernando is a cultural studies scholar and curator. Her work spans research-based exhibitions, writing, and documentary film projects, focusing on migration and colonialism. She is particularly interested in counter-narratives from marginalized perspectives and their interaction with broader societal discourse. Most recently, she co-curated the exhibition “Trotz Allem: Migration in die Kolonialmetropole Berlin” at the FHXB Museum.

• 1

  In this article, the term “of Turkish origin” is used to refer to people with roots in Turkey. The term also highlights that individuals from Turkey identify in a wide range of different ways and do not necessarily see themselves—or wish to be seen—as “Turkish” (see Gülşah Stapel, Recht auf Erbe in der Migrationsgesellschaft, Berlin: urbanophil, 2023). The article further addresses the discrepancy between the terms “Turkish” and “of Turkish origin” within the context of cultural policy.

• 2

  Vgl. Manfred Brauneck, Ausländertheater in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und in West-Berlin. 1. Arbeitsbericht zum Forschungsbericht “Populäre Theaterkultur” (Hamburg: Hamburg University, 1983), 70.

• 3

  Landesarchiv Berlin B Rep. 017 Nr. 118.

• 4

  Akademie der Künste (West), Berlin, Akademiebestand, Interdisziplinärprojekte, Nr. 1106.

• 5

  Akademie der Künste (West), Berlin, Akademiebestand, Nr. 1105-01/4.

• 6

  Akademie der Künste (West), Berlin, Akademiebestand, Interdisziplinärprojekte Nr. 1106.

• 7

  Akademie der Künste (West), Berlin, Interdisziplinärprojekte Nr. 1106.

• 8

  For the 750th anniversary exhibition, a separate Yugoslav and Greek contribution was realized and announced in the Senate’s press release in summer 1986. The Künstlerhaus Bethanien worked with representatives of the respective communities to implement cultural programs (see Landesarchiv B Rep. 017 Nr. 111). 

• 9

  Aksoy’s concept for “Menschenlandschaft,” a sculptural work exhibited in a public space in Kreuzberg reflected the district’s diverse migration was also part of the 750th anniversary programming.