metropolis m

How would you describe your tenure at Melly in one word?

‘Intense. I think that I had never experienced so many challenges in such a concentrated period of time. Intense is not a value judgment, it’s not good or bad or challenging, difficult or easy. It is a kind of energy. It was also demanding, related to all the changes in the world happening around, and affecting everyone.Whether that was the #MeToo movement, or Covid with its lockdowns, the illness, was just around everywhere, the number of people who were passing away. And of course, Black Lives Matter really globalized the Black experience. I think that things were just on a very different scale. Suddenly, you’re not just dealing with a subject, suddenly the issue is embracing you all around.’

I guess that Black Lives Matter also intensified the name change process you were confronted with from the day you arrived in Rotterdam.

‘It had a huge impact. In more than one way. It became easier for people to accept the change whether they promoted the change or were vocal about it, all that just dissipated. And still today, I would say that many of the detractors or unsupportive people in the field or society might still be vocal about it, but they understand. They do understand the need for a renaming. And they do understand that the institution did not just work on a renaming, but that it really has been working on a repositioning.’

When did you decide it was not just about a name change but about a complete transformation of the institution?

‘Arriving here I already knew that a renaming would take time. I knew that because there were a lot of people to listen to and many sites to consider. Doing it quickly would have had perhaps a very immediate impact then, but whether the change or the renaming would carry itself into the future was doubtful.

The second thing is the process. I envisioned it being so much more than just finding a name, even including academic research, and experimentation, and so we did. I had already been quite interested in the changes in the renaming that had already taken place at, for example, universities, and had been very much following those. And for me, thinking through case studies was that we had to learn with others what to consider and how to make these changes. It wasn’t like these things just existed out of the blue, and you could go by a manual on how to do this. You can if it’s about branding or rebranding. But not necessarily when it pertains to these historical matters that are so deeply embedded in the psyche. On the one hand, as a kind of unconscious bias or a memory never to be had, because in fact you had never heard of it, meaning it’s just information that is not circulating, apart from of course the side of the families of those enslaved, the descendants of the enslaved, of which there are not just many written stories about, only in the last number of years. We also wanted to take into regard the social impact and economic impact that the histories of enslavement have had on society.

So I knew that we had to be studying and that we had to be following closely some of the changes that were happening around us in the world, certainly in the Netherlands. I had been genuinely interested in looking at the proposal to remove a statue of JP Coen here in the Netherlands in front of a museum, all these different ways of engaging the public.

The third thing was that I felt that if there was going to be a renaming, the most difficult challenge we would have was responding to the question, who is this renaming for? And to me, it was evident by just being here and by the critics of our institution that the institution still has a strong, amazing expert audience, but they had very little tentacles into a more general broader public. Also within the expertise of the arts, the field has significantly changed during the past six years, but if you look at the demographics of the audiences, you didn’t really find a lot of diversity. We had to build new stakeholders as part of a renaming process because if you wanted participation in a process that was meaningful in terms of who is prompting renaming, and who is prompting a different relationship to the city and communities, who are really advocating for anti-racism, then you have to involve a group of people that feel that and actually are part of a process from within. And for that to happen, you have to build trust, And trust generally takes time to develop.

So I knew that it was going to be from the get-go a slow process just because you had to listen, you had to build, you had to study. Slowly you begin to learn what kind of decisions will be necessary so that a renaming is held by a program and an audience that will carry it forward institutionally. Whether they consider the relevance of the renaming and of an institution to be part of their community or their reference is, I think, what was at stake in that debacle back in 2017, and discussions pretty much since I’ve been here.’

Which debacle you mean?

‘I  remember the opinion article Vincent van Velsen and you wrote in 2020 suggesting nothing had happened, while of course a lot of work had happened. It was just raising pressure, while if you had asked about the proceedings, we would have told you all that what had happened already by that time.’

How far are you in the transformation? Is it still continuing?

‘Actually it is, yes. And it will, I mean, I am closing now my chapter. I think that the institution has always been transforming. That’s part of like the changing of its director. It really allows for that, for change to happen. I believe that the transformation that has occurred in these last years during my tenure is on the one hand, the most obvious renaming. But I also feel that we have invested in creating a much more welcoming culture at our institution. And we’ve done that in many ways. For me, that’s what I’ve called tools for conviviality. Like, how can we make our institution ultimately more approachable which is part of the problem is that we are perceived, whether it’s true or not, as this hermetic institution for many years. And it’s not just because contemporary art is difficult, it’s also because of a kind of attitude, perhaps. I also feel that maybe we just need to work more on our communication, how we communicate, and what we value in communication. And for me, this space here [we are sitting in the recently refurbished space on the ground-floor, simply called MELLY -DR], was central. If this is a place where people can see our institution from the street, let them get in here, and hopefully, they’ll see the shows as well. But first, let it be free. Let it be lively. That’s the other thing. Let it be not just a space of a kind of traditional exhibition where there’s art to be observed, but that it’s a space that is an experience. You can see art here, but you can also have a conversation and sit down, you can also probably have coffee, see a book, study, eat, whatever. This means that our traditional relationship to visiting an art institution or seeing an exhibition did not necessarily have that Cartesian emphasis on what you observe. It had a multisensorial effect that you experience as an atmosphere, an environment, and that the environment is, I would say, beautiful.’

We are perceived, whether it’s true or not, as this hermetic institution for many years. And it’s not just because contemporary art is difficult, it’s also because of a kind of attitude

Does it work? 

‘For us, it worked incredibly well. And it worked, I would say, because of the street that we’re in. It’s a street that many people, when they arrive here in their neighborhood, they’re already curious about. So if they didn’t know us, they would be curious to get to know us. It also worked for us because the people who knew us from before saw it as a significant change. It was evident that the autonomy of the so-called modern exhibition had not been thrown away, but had been put to question. So for the experts, I think it was very evident. For the general public, I think that it incited curiosity. And the number of programs that we’ve done here in this space is incredible. And the type of engagement that has triggered is completely unique.’

Has the staff been changed too?

‘The staff changed, and the program is run by Jessy Koeiman, who’s our curator of collective learning. She runs CLIP, Collective Learning In Practice, which is a year-long program for which young people apply. When I look back to CLIP, I can say that the first two years were transformational, so how to name the space, its design from the tote bag to the typography to our letterhead to everything. Then Jessy said:  I want to make an exhibition. We also need to transform the gallery program. I said, but it has to be not a student exhibition. It has to be an exhibition of the caliber of the exhibitions that are here with research, with commissions that you look at various options, and you select and argue for what’s the best. So engage the participants in that. And they did. And they did an incredible project, a performance-based program. Some participants are now working for us. Simon, who participated in the fourth edition of CLIP — right now we’re in the fifth — has now been working with us for a year in accounting and finance. Another fellow, Stijn Kemper traveled with me to Toronto to do a talk with Ken Lum. Stijn is now working at Verhalenhuis Belvédère. Another example is Aqueene Wilson. She was a participant in the second edition. And throughout 2020 and 2021, she worked here. She developed about, I don’t know, like 50 programs as part of 84 STEPS. She was the one who proposed them, who was responsible for them, who led them, who hosted them, who conceptualized them.’

What would you do differently when you could start all over again?

‘I would do everything differently. The first thing I would have done differently is the website. We had a website, and we thought we were transparent, but clearly, that was not the case. We learned to look at it differently, from the perspective of the user, not only as a complete archive. Another thing I would have done differently was hire someone to do a lot of the work, like one of our peers at Bristol in Bristol Beacon, formerly known as Colston Hall. They renamed themselves in 2020 together with a renovation of the building. One of the things that they had done differently from us, and of course, their size is like, you know, mega size, like Rijksmuseum type of size also in terms of their budget, is hiring this company in London to help them. That company pretty much did all their community consultation, the creation of stakeholders, the stakeholder management. All the things we had to find out ourselves. And of course, you know, those companies are corporate companies and I know, they’re more about branding, but I feel that hiring an expert team or smaller company to help us would have made a difference. Here we had a working group and in that working group, the members rotated. We discussed everything before a decision was made. When the Colson Hall began sharing some of their experiences in documents, it helped us a lot at that time. At the same time, you now can say that the institution is completely involved. It’s holistic because we also wanted it to be holistic. And I also think that we’ve learned so much only because all of us were so involved.’

How did the process change the program? I read that you invest much more in the public program, that its budget now is almost equal to the exhibition’s budget.

‘I think the program changed a lot. And, I mean, the program has remained, as I said, with the high quality and standard that this institution has been recognized for in terms of identifying artists. At the right time, meaning we do original research and that research and commissions. And so I think that in terms of that contribution to the field, the institution remains at the forefront. But it changed too. I have raised a lot of the internal budget for what I call public engagement. It’s not a public program. It could be a concert or a theory talk or an online program or program by a fellow. The public engagement that we do here is essential. Even the bookshop has a curated selection of books. It’s changed over time in terms of who’s doing it. At the opening of the My Oma show, we are doing our third major collaboration with Amarte Foundation, which involves an open call for musicians from the Netherlands. So we’ve seen like 300 portfolios of musicians to select. The concert is a public program or a concert, but for me, that is public engagement too. Its not just that someone comes and plays a guitar here. Is that the person who is playing the guitar has been discussing how the work of Lucy Beech, whose exhibition just closed, is relevant to just bringing you the discussion?’

I love making exhibitions. I really love it. And by that, I mean, I dream about it. I’m a relational thinker.

How would you, in a more general sense, describe your contribution to this institution, and its programs compared to, for example, former directors? Where would you position yourself?

‘I think that first to say, I love making exhibitions. I really love it. And by that, I mean, I dream about it. I’m a relational thinker. And when I’m in the studio of an artist, I can imagine how certain works can be in dialogue, like I can position them or place them, also even in a city, by the way. So I’m thinking about exhibitions all the time. So I feel that I would like to say that my biggest contribution was the types of exhibitions that I’ve brought to this institution. But I realize that the emphasis on public engagement might be considered the most relevant from my tenure because it was what was most needed. I also feel that my tenure suffered from something that no one else has had, which was the fact that during COVID-19, we were closed for a long time. And even if the exhibitions were open, I don’t know, a week at a time, I feel that they were quite relevant for us. And so, for example, the exhibition of what we call here the Blue Delft of the blue and white ceramics — it was called the blue and white ceramics. That exhibition opened in January 2020, knowing that we would be strongly involved in the public aspects of our renaming process. For me, it was relevant to use blue and white ceramics to say: look at what the Dutch souvenir is. It is specifically a cosmopolitan object. It is an object that has a history that you could say is of pirates or experts. And this is what the Netherlands has used to identify itself with its citizens and with the world. And it’s even on the KLM flights. The push of that, the staging of that within an exhibition that involved artists from all over the world. It showed how blue and white ceramics were being used in their countries, in their cultures, prior to, or before, the contact with the Dutch colonial period. It was something that I felt politically and intellectually relevant to be up during our renaming process. Furthermore, it showed the immigration of form was very much, making evident the amount of contact that different cultures have had and how that contact is valued in societies in one way or the other. And very much because the exhibition explored how the 19th century was the central time of the birth of nationalism and the rise of the art of blue and white ceramics in the Netherlands. After it had crashed and been obsolete for more than a century, meaning it was famous in the 17th, over the 18th it disappeared. The British became better at China and the porcelain and this, failed, but then there was a rise of nationalism, and you know, the Delft Porceleine Fles was bought by an entrepreneur. Politically, so many things happened. All the statues and the streets that you see were named just about around that time. I actually didn’t realize it was such a key show in that sense. But no one saw it because it was closed.’

Let’s just say that when you have an experience as an immigrant, you have learned that you have to adapt to survive. For me adaptation is essential. And I can adapt effortlessly

What do you consider to be the greatest challenges for Melly?

’You already said it yourself, how does the experience, idea, or reality of internationalization work during this time? I think that the greatest challenge is how Melly will handle this because it doesn’t have it now. That’s the challenge not only of this institution but also of society, of being open to difference.

How was it actually for you arriving here in the Netherlands. It was also an institution that has been quite challenged, you can say, by local populist politics. So I guess it must have been confrontational for coming from New York to see these complex political discourses that you somehow had to find your way through. Did you always feel supported?

‘Let’s just say that when you have an experience as an immigrant, you have learned that you have to adapt to survive. For me adaptation is essential. And I can adapt effortlessly. Let’s just say that it was a little more difficult to adapt here. And that it took a while. But I think that under the circumstances that I arrived, that was just, I mean, the Netherlands has been going through a reckoning, with its colonial past that it’s you know, quite historic. I mean, come on, I’ve been here, and it’s the prime minister and the king and there are apologies. I wouldn’t, you wouldn’t, you know, have dreamed that things like that happen when you were in the process of a name change.

But, you know, at that time we were mostly alone. Yeah, that’s true. So I feel that, yeah, adapting was just, under the circumstances, was just much, yeah, it was just very different. And I feel that too many things to its work culture. It’s a very structured society. And I had come,  I’ve come from a place in which fluidity is the norm. So I think part of that also was quite a kind of culture shock.’

Did you feel welcome here?

‘ I feel that things have changed. I have a very good number of friends here in Rotterdam. I’m a total Rotterdamer. I wear my Rotterdam clothing. I know my designers. I have my parties at home. I am a total Rotterdamer in that sense. So I have a group of friends, and I admire the city very much. And yeah, I think it’s the coolest place in the Netherlands.’

Did you feel understood in the art scene?

‘I don’t know if I ever seek to be understood. During the first couple of years, my exposure to the art field was very limited. I had spent most of my time making relations here in Rotterdam for the first two years. And then I was grounded here because of COVID-19 for the following two years. So my experience that I’ve had in the Netherlands is rich, I would say. I mean, Rotterdam has a huge art scene and sort of all Rotterdam South is filled with artists and art spaces that they run. Piet Zwart Institute is just here. The students were just here last Friday. I’ve tried to integrate also Dutch artists into the program very fluidly, not as a statement, but as like, the people that, I think, should be seen by our international circuits. I also worked with Jennifer Tee and Iris Kensmil. Recently with Falke Pisano too in a number of commissioned projects with artists.

And by the way, talking about doing things differently, if I could change anything, it would be that I learned Dutch.’

What will you miss most when you leave?

‘I don’t know if I’m going to leave the Netherlands. I will take a leave. I’m going back to Mexico because I need to rest, to sleep for many months. I will just miss the team. And I’ll miss the street, the environment is super, it’s an environment of superb spirit, like a good energy vibe. I will miss the Saoto Soup at Warung Mini because I had it almost every day.’