We stand fully behind our choice of artists, curators and topics

What, How & for Whom/WHW, artistic directors Kunsthalle Wien (from left to right): Sabina Sabolović, Nataša Ilić und Ivet Ćurlin
Photo: Katarina Šoškić

We think that the questions of art discussed in Kunsthalle in this period – that drew their strength from feminist, anti-fascist and decolonising ideas – were and are needed in post-imperial Vienna.

WHW in conversation with Hildegund Amanshauser on 10 November 2022, edited on 20 December 2022

Hildegund Amanshauser: When we started this interview on 10 November, you were optimistic that your directorate will be renewed within the next months. Now, earlier than we thought it's clear that it won't. The jury said none of the applicants meet the criteria requested. Do you understand, why you don't meet them?

WHW: We were surprised and disappointed by the jury's decision, but most of all by the attitude of the City of Vienna, since we think jury decisions in such cases are always part of a wider cultural policy defined by the stakeholders. Before we comment further, we want to stress one thing. We want to make a clear distinction between the city administration [note: it will be referred to in here as the “City”] and the many communities and art professionals in Vienna that actively participated in our programs with enthusiasm and – we felt – saw Kunsthalle as a different kind of cultural public space in Vienna, with a clear position in favour of marginalized groups, and an international focus that went beyond the old West. We had a lot of positive feedback in this past period and that remains with us. Also, we want to stress that all we’ve done could not have been realized without the great and very dedicated team of Kunsthalle Wien. We were not only working together but we were also trying to think together.

Marina Naprushkina, Jetzt! Alles für Alle!, 2019, installation view ... of bread, wine, cars, security and peace, Kunsthalle Wien, 2020
Photo: Kunsthalle Wien, Courtesy: the artist

That feedback makes the City’s decision all the more disturbing and inexplicable to us. We find the reproach that we did not meet the criteria unclear and unfair. The vast majority of our directorship happened during the pandemic. In many cases elsewhere in the EU, directors’ contracts have been renewed precisely because this period was not seen as a reasonable test of performance. To go into detail, our first exhibition … of bread, wine, cars, security and peace opened only a few days before the first lockdown. That meant that we had little chance to change expectations and build up a new, committed public. On top of the pandemic, with a new business director Kunsthalle was going through major structural and managerial changes and later also the City decided to create a new business entity that together with Kunsthalle now also includes a new institution, Foto Wien, both of which took considerable interpersonal and political resources for us and the team to manage. Partly, it still continues with programmatic resources being under pressure due to inflation, rising energy costs, and lack of certainty in post-pandemic times. We think that in spite of this – together with many artists and other people working in culture – we made a remarkably rich, multilayered program. It seems to us that neither the jury nor the City took any of this into account when our work was evaluated. We wonder what the so-called progressive cultural policy of the City means in these circumstances. Are fairness and equity a serious interest for art and culture in Vienna? To us, the City’s decision also seems rather rash and unconsidered given that the lack of support for institutional directors is not a way to appeal to serious candidates for the job in the future. If you see that you can lose the City’s support after one mandate during a pandemic, then we can easily imagine that the wider circle of international professionals will think twice before they want to take the risk of moving to a new city for only a couple of years. Our experience in Vienna, and the response to our programs, has given us a clear sense that the institutional scene can benefit a lot from outside views but this attitude will not encourage that.

We also think that the rejection of our program is part of broader ideological consolidation that is happening across Europe as an extremely uncreative response to multiple crises we are experiencing. This constellation asks for a serious political commitment to support our attempt to unsettle Western canon and address Vienna as cosmopolitan and migrant city – which is what Vienna is, and that support we obviously did not have. We actually think that this is at the core of what has happened with our mandate and renewal of the contract, and all the other ‘reasons’ are a procedural and legislative smokescreen. The way the process has been handled and communicated shows elements of intersectional discrimination, which is actually nothing that we should be surprised at.

HC Playner, Turn a deaf ear to shoes for white people, 2017, Installation view ... of bread, wine, cars, security and peace, Kunsthalle Wien, 2020
Photo: Kunsthalle Wien, Courtesy: Burschenschaft Hysteria

HA: What do you answer, when people say the Kunsthalle doesn't have enough visibility and that people don’t go there?

WHW: We refuse to discuss this solely on the basis of visitor numbers since we believe that our core responsibility is to build committed relations with different communities over a longer period a time. We are interested in finding out who felt invited, who participated, who thought that Kunsthalle supported their struggles through the topics and experiences that our program has put in the public eye in last three years, what were the reactions of people who visited etc. The City subsidises culture in order to offer a wide range of possible entry points and activities for citizens of Vienna as well as tourists. We think it’s important to have a space dedicated to various experiences and topics, and that is experimental in its approach to art and aesthetics, within a central and prestigious site like the MuseumsQuartier. Only in this way, can you offer an alternative to the mainstream public and hopefully stretch their imagination a little. Such a program should not be confined only to off-spaces.

But also, since it is obviously hard to shake off this “no one is coming” image of Kunsthalle, we cannot avoid talking about the pandemic. As we said, we don’t feel we were given enough time and space to change the image of the Kunsthalle from the one we inherited. We needed more time to achieve that effectively. But going back to numbers, this characterisation that no one is coming is simply not true – at the moment, we've raised the numbers almost back to pre-pandemic levels, and with an audience for our digital programs, which are constantly increasing, our audience numbers twice as high than in the last pre-pandemic year. We therefore felt we were moving in the right direction and are proud of this achievement and grateful to our team who made a great effort. We wonder how many cultural directors in Vienna would survive if they were now all asked to justify their jobs based on visitor numbers of last three years.

HA: How do you see your bottom line of the first three years in Vienna? What went well, what could have been done better?

WHW: We are proud of what we achieved and stand fully behind our choice of artists, curators and topics. We think that the questions of art discussed in Kunsthalle in this period – that drew their strength from feminist, anti-fascist and decolonising ideas – were and are needed in post-imperial Vienna. We believe that migration, climate change, the condition of minority communities and the fraught relationship Austria has with its past will not go away. Indeed, they are crucial for making Vienna a better place to live and make art in the future.

Obviously, given the City’s decision, we do think we could have been smarter on political and networking level. But many networking opportunities were stopped during the pandemic, especially for us who just moved to the city a few months before the pandemic began. We don’t know how many new friends you made in the last three years, but we didn’t manage that in a way we had hoped before the lockdowns.

Installation view And if I devoted my life to one of its feathers? Kunsthalle Wien, 2021
Photo: www.kunst-dokumentation.com

What would have been our key topics for the future are mediation and research. We wanted to work more on focused engagement with Viennese citizens that are not represented in the city centre, bringing people to Kunsthalle who are not usual visitors or participants in our programs. We wanted to expand the network of organisations and initiatives we collaborate with in order to achieve that, and we also wanted to initiate programs where artists would have been invited to meet and work with this new public too.

Also, we very much wanted to use the stability of Austrian public funds to start long-term research projects and co-productions, where artists are offered multi-year support and there is an international network of people thinking together around the question of the value and significance of art in the context of the difficult times we are all experiencing. This research would have started through smaller events and led to exhibitions with an informed, different public. We think this is lacking in Vienna and that it would have been a precious space for a number of professionals for long term involvement with an institution. It is a moment, we feel, for going in depth and for slowness, and we will now bring that thinking to another city or event.

HA: What do you want to achieve in the near future? It’s still a long time that you will head the Kunsthalle.

WHW: We will be here for another 18 months and we are looking forward to realising the projects we have planned for that period. Developing the best possible program for the Kunsthalle, for Vienna and this particular moment will still be our priority. Obviously, we will not engage in the structural changes within the institution that we were planning. We will leave that to the new artistic director.

HA: Do you already know, if you will stay together as WHW or do more work individually?

WHW: We will continue collectively to run Gallery Nova and WHW Akademija in Zagreb and are already beginning to plan the next steps for WHW as curatorial collective. Working in a collective means accepting different circumstances and intensities of course and, while disappointing, the attitude of the City will not change our political and cultural orientation. We will discuss and negotiate what to do next and we are of course looking forward to new opportunities, both locally and internationally. The people we know here and the projects we realised will stay with us and we hope to work with Austrian artists in the future.

HA: In times of multiple crises, which role do exhibitions of contemporary art have, which role does the Kunsthalle Wien have?

WHW: The situation in the past two years was really difficult and extreme, because beside all of the restrictions, there was also fear of other people, and this was one of the hardest things for everybody. Now luckily we are getting back to being happy to be in a crowd again, or happy to be in a community of larger people. Institutions like Kunsthalle are here to provide a space of coming together of both ideas and people, space of discussion and exploration of burning topics in contemporary society. And, of course, they are here to support art and artists. The position of Kunsthalle is specific in this respect, because on one hand due to its size and budget provided by the City of Vienna, it is expected of it to be rather mainstream and to appeal to a popular taste. On the other hand it should be experimental and at the forefront of a new development in art. There are lot of expectations on its international reputation but it should also fully support the local artistic community. We were aware of all these tensions and we felt we were addressing them in our program, as we said already – not afraid of popularity but not confusing it with populism.

Bartolina Xixa, Ramita Seca, La Colonialidad Permanente [Trockener Zweig, Die permanente Kolonialität], 2019, Filmstill, exhibition And if I devoted my life to one of its feathers?
Courtesy: Maximiliano Mamani/Bartolina Xixa

We feel that nowadays we also witness a shift concerning relation regarding contemporary art in general. The line between art and capital is more blurred than ever, while at the same time critical and explicitly political art has become a central tendency of contemporary art and a major part of the mainstream art world grown within and alongside the commercial art market. Nowadays advancing progressive values on the terrain of highly commodified culture is a contradiction faced by every cultural institution that has an ambition to contribute to the reflection and formulation of public sphere(s), and this contradiction does not make it easy for people to trust contemporary art, which is often seen as inauthentic or as branding and PR operation. To build the trust in art is a slow process in which many factors need to be re-examined, and this cannot happen fast, probably also not on the level of one institution, it involves the whole field.

People are still keen to come, to explore art in a physical setting and to see new things in the social space of an institution. The Kunsthalle and the program that we are doing puts together social issues with the esthetic and sensual experience of art, maybe even a bit of entertainment of art, and that gives it an important role in Vienna today. We also think we have to develop ways to bring in especially young adults. As we see in many elections these days – they are the ones who can really influence the shape of the future, despite all the heavy legacy.

HA: It seems to me that directing the Kunsthalle is a very difficult job. You have to satisfy the Viennese politics. You have to satisfy the art scene. Not only the artists, but also the gallerists and the media. This is not an easy task in my perception, and not only in mine.

WHW: We are aware that we can satisfy some people and not all of them. We got a lot of great feedback from many members of the artistic community. Not from all, of course. Things have changed and some prefer the old ways. In general, we could say, men of a certain age don’t feel in the center of attention. And they are a bit angry about it, but there’s nothing we can do. It’s true we are not so well liked by certain media, but for some of the shows that we did, it was to be expected. We would be surprised if there were a different reaction.

But, as mentioned before, there has also been phantastic feedback from the artistic community – both local and international. Now when we started traveling again, we hear from people that they really follow and appreciate our program. People travel to Vienna to see our shows, that’s really encouraging. We have really great collaborations with many of Vienna’s institutions of different sizes, from the ones like Brunnenpassage or Brut to Wiener Festwochen.

Nilbar Güreş, Breasts by Rose, 2020, exhibition And if I devoted my life to one of its feathers?
Photo: Reha Arcan, Courtesy: the artist and GALERIST, Istanbul

HA: I would like to come to your curatorial approach. This series of interviews I do have to do with global/planetary curating. I have interviewed curators and directors of institutions who have some kind of global planetary approach to the art scene and artwork and show exhibitions from all over the world. I find exactly this in your program: you started with this symposium, the White West III, automating apartheid. Your first exhibition … of bread, wine, cars, security and peace was with artists from all over the world. Then the exhibition you already mentioned of Miguel A. Lopéz And if I devoted my life to one of its feathers? and recently In the meantime, midday comes around is also an exhibition which deals with global issues. How do you research the global art scene? And did that change during the crisis? How do you get to your topics?

WHW: We discuss the topics together and they come from two different directions. Sometimes they come directly from the art, from looking at art and seeing that certain topics and approaches coalesce in the artistic practices of the time. And sometimes the topic comes from reading, and looking at the world around us. And especially for Vienna, from being here and talking to people and trying to figure out what is really important for the city and the artistic scene. Not only in terms of the group exhibitions, but also in terms of who are the artists that are invited to do their solo exhibitions at Kunsthalle.

HA: Could you give an example for an exhibition which comes from the art or another from literature?

WHW: If I devoted my life to one of its feathers? was the exhibition that came from observing what is going on in the artistic practices. We invited Miguel A. Lopéz to curate the exhibition that would start from the indigenous epistemologies. The show was connected to environmental issues. Of course, these topics are very important in our everyday discussions.

Installation view In the meantime, midday comes around, Kunsthalle Wien, 2022
Photo: Iris Ranzinger

The exhibition In the meantime, midday comes around currently shown at KHW space at Karlsplatz comes from observing the situation of changing working conditions during Covid, and then also reading Marienthal study (Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal by Marie Jahoda, Paul Felix Lazarsfeld and Hans Zeisel, 1933) as a cornerstone of a certain understanding of work that has been crucially shaped within the socialist experiment of the so-called “Red Vienna”. Red Vienna instituted universal suffrage in 1919, as well as a number of labour laws and organisations to regulate collective relations between employers and workers, including unemployment insurance and sick pay, restrictions on women’s and children’s labour, the eight-hour workday, paid vacation, and so on. Many of these institutions continue to regulate labour relations today. But along with protection of workers, this approach, which in post-war decades became a norm of the welfare state, instituted the figure of the male bread winner and generally work as a center of socialisation. This erases the work of reproduction typically performed by women, as well as all the other types of work not regulated by contracts and wages, as generations of feminist critics of the welfare state have argued. Our initial fascination with the Marienthal Study’s methodology and findings, especially in relation to how the structure of life collapses when a lack of work emerges, prompted us to look more closely at changes within the whole field of labor and relations to work, including work that falls outside wage labour, which is often racialised and gendered. With more and more people employed in precarious forms of low-wage, part-time, informal, and insecure forms of work, and as the feminisation and racialisation of work remains a norm, the capitalist categories of employment and unemployment increasingly fail to cover the scope of all those who simply have to work for a living.

HA: Why didn’t you curate the show like Feathers yourself?

WHW: It is programmatic for us to invite guest curators, to acknowledge their long-term engagement with topics and artists we also care about, and to not institutionally appropriate their knowledge, which often happens. Inviting guest curators gives a platform to a different plurality of voices. Each person brings a different approach of putting together exhibitions and different aesthetics into the institution, which opens up new perspectives. Now, for example, Sanja Iveković was curated by Zdenka Badovinac, Katrina Daschner was curated by Övül Ö. Durmuşoğlu, Defiant Muses were curated by Nataša Petrešin-Bachelez and Giovanna Zapperi… We think we managed to create many of these really beautiful and meaningful collaborations. And putting the program together is of course also curating.

Sanja Iveković, Novi Zagreb (Ljudi iza prozora) [New Zagreb (People behind the Windows)], 1979/2006
Courtesy: the artist

HA: How do you work in the team? It could also be that between three people so many things need to be discussed that you have less time in the end.

WHW: Sometimes this is true. But as a result of this directorship we have become even better at that, although we had always been good at dividing tasks. We discuss the overall program together, the exhibitions and the artists, and then we divide. We have always been very efficient.

HA: And for the managing tasks, do you also divide, for example, that one of you is responsible for personnel and the other for finances?

WHW: No, we do it on a weekly or monthly basis. Sometimes one would follow a certain department more closely for a while, so that there is a continuity of discussion about topics and then another one of us will take over. This means that, yes, we do divide in a way, so that it’s not always all three of us coming to all meetings. But we still have one e-mail address, so everybody is always informed of everything that is going on.

HA: Do you still draw a lot of inspiration from the fact that you are a group and do you still have fun working together?

WHW: We’ve been together for 22 years, so we had better times and less good times – just like in any relationship. Right now we are very much embedded in our collectivity. Maybe also because we live in difficult times again. We support each other. But we also believe in collectivity as a small but immensely important possibility to do things differently and in many ways oppose and hopefully influence the power structures for the better.

Installation view Sanja Iveković. Works of Heart (1974–2022), Kunsthalle Wien, 2022
Photo: Boris Cvjetanović

HA: You have a huge focus on mediation. No other contemporary art institution in Vienna has this strong a focus on mediation as well as on connecting with the city of Vienna. You constantly are working on creating new publics.

WHW: Yes, it’s really important for us to see the Kunsthalle as a place of introducing new topics, questioning the relationship between art and society, and addressing different people. And you can’t do that without really strong mediation and without trying to reach out to your audience. When we wrote the proposal, and we put together the exhibition program, we felt that no major institutions in Vienna are addressing the fact that more than half of Vienna’s population is of immigrant origin. According to the official statistics, it’s 42%, but we think that in fact unofficially this percentage is higher. This was one of our goals – to open up to the people that are here, and that would not necessarily come to the Kunsthalle.

Our dear colleague Jurij Meden, chief curator in Film Museum, with which we had numerous good collaborations, wrote a very interesting text about challenges to build an audience in Vienna that would be interested in art that they don’t already know. We very much agree this is an interesting issue to think about.

Installation view Defiant Muses. Delphine Seyrig and the Feminist Video Collectives of 1970s and 1980s France, Kunsthalle Wien, 2022
Photo: Markus Wörgötter

Building new relations is not an easy task. It’s not that one can say, we are an open institution, and suddenly everybody comes in. No, this is actually a really, really difficult and slow process, and it requires hard work and mediation. And this is why we are also thankful that many institutions were really open to collaborating with us. And all our teams are really making big efforts – curatorial, communication, publishing, education ...

We introduced booklets for each exhibition that are for free, that are a major effort on behalf of our publication department. They are in two languages, with a description of each work, and all that in time for each opening. We believe that they are really important for providing the contextualizing information for the art that Kunsthalle shows, and we got a lot of positive feedback for them. We think they are an expression of institutional generosity and responsibility. In general, we think that generosity is something that institutions need to practice more, to care less about their own image and status and share more of their resources and power with artistic and other communities. This is one principle that we have hoped to work on further, which is again a slow process of institutional unlearning and active listening, which we have only started in the last three years dominated by the pandemic.

HA: Do you also build audiences in ex Yugoslavian communities? They perhaps know that you are from Croatia.

WHW: All Yugo communities together are the biggest diasporic group in Vienna. They were of course one of our first allies since one of the important red threads in more than 20 years of our work was rethinking art and art history through joint experiences and across national borders. When there was the Želimir Žilnik’s exhibition Shadow Citizens, a large portion of the audience was from the ex-Yugoslavian community, same for Sanja Iveković's show. We think this community has a very significant contribution to important public discussions around migrant issues, guest worker histories, anti-fascism and also other issues reaching further back into the past. We like the urban legend that Gavrilo Princip wrote in his prison cell before his death: “Our shadows will walk through Vienna, wandering the court, frightening the lords.” We think that the rethinking of the Austrian imperial past from Yugoslav perspective should be considered very precious here.

Installation view Želimir Žilnik. Shadow Citizens, Kunsthalle Wien, 2020
Photo: © eSeL.at - Lorenz Seidler

HA: I was asking myself for the Želimir Žilnik Shadow Citizens and the Defiant Muses, these were exhibitions specifically about film.

WHW: Želimir Žilnik was about film, Defiant Muses was about putting together video and activism and this really strong gesture about feminism. It was about the struggle of women 40 years ago. And how in some respects nothing has changed.

HA: Well, I was kind of part of this movement in the 70s. And it was very important, I suppose. But I think that a lot has changed.

WHW: Yes, a lot has changed, on the one hand. On the other, during Defiant Muses exhibition, Americans had the overturn of the abortion rights. So for us it was also very much about how little has changed, sadly, since the 1980s.

HA: What role would you say have video and film within the exhibition context? Why did you do a show with a film maker?

WHW: We did, because we do not see Žilnik as only a filmmaker, though film is his medium, but as a central figure who importantly influenced many contemporary artists. His question is: how do you use art? And his art is really amazing. The way in which Žilnik developed his docu-fiction form and the strange Brechtian but also really beautiful way he deals with the media of film was always interesting for us. We had shown some of his films before, some shorter works, in several exhibitions. We were then approached by Edith-Russ-Haus für Medienkunst which is directed by Edit Molnár and Marcel Schwierin, who invited us to curate Žilnik’s show. This is where the first iteration of the exhibition happened for which we did a lot of what is called excerpts. They are like the short cuts of the films that function more like video works or artist’s works. This was all done by us, as curators. Žilnik just gave us material and said: “I have complete trust in you. Do whatever you want.”

HA: You did the excerpts from his films?

Installation view, Želimir Žilnik. Shadow Citizens, Kunsthalle Wien, 2020
Photo: © eSeL.at - Lorenz Seidler

WHW: Yes. We watched all the material and then we told him what we would like to take out short parts of the films for the exhibition and why, and in which groups we would put them. We wanted to see how to turn this huge amount of film into an exhibition experience. It was great that Žilnik was very open and he was like, “you’ve been doing your job for many years. I’m sure you’re gonna do fine”. And then, when we asked him, which projector to use in the show, he said: “My films are not about that. Show it on whatever you want.” He was very generous and non-protective of his material. It was a beautiful collaboration, we are always inspired by his political clarity.

His films are aesthetically amazing and also politically really important. Especially many of the early films, when you watch them today, you see how they’re like prophecies for Yugoslavia, for Europe. He was also one of the first artists to deal with the question of immigration. So in his Fortress Europe cycles he was dealing with many, many issues that later on became important in art. Žilnik is a great example how these borders between film and contemporary art are actually arbitrary.

HA: I liked the show a lot, and I sat there for hours and hours, and I could have come back even more often than I did, but there were people who were completely overwhelmed and said, I cannot look at this exhibition. Are you working with this issue of overwhelming the audience? Is this part of your curating method?

WHW: Not really. We wanted to create this overwhelming experience maybe at the first sight, but we also wanted to make the show accessible, and we invested a lot of effort into that. There was a huge variety of topics, a huge number of films. We developed a set-up that we thought worked visually nice in the exhibition. But in terms of making it easier for visitors to watch, we actually created a lot of text and mediation material, that was making it easier for people to understand what are they watching. We also had a really nice offer with a free entrance for the cost of one ticket, in case people wanted to come back and spend more time on watching films. And we think that exhibitions can affect and do their work with different levels of viewers’ engagement, which is not only about engaging with individual works.

HA: One last question. When you do your curatorial programming, how do you imagine your visitors?

WHW: In the first instance, we always think of our own circles that are either from the arts or that come from the circle of extended friends and political allies. But we are aware that this is educated middle class. We ask ourselves how do we get out of this circle? But the question is also, is there a more educated middle class that is also not coming to Kunsthalle? Are we attracting a wide circle of people that would be interested in going to places like ours? Or are we really trying to attract a completely different type of audience? We remember a taxi driver who told us, “Oh, I’m very proud that you, someone from our region, is a director. That’s great.” But then when we asked him, “Will you come to the exhibition?” “Oh, no, I work a lot and on the weekend I like to go to the park.”

So how do you approach this type of audience? We are trying, as we said, through different meditation processes, through collaborations with schools, through sometimes different marketing campaigns. Sometimes we succeed, but sometimes we don’t.

HA: But I could again refer to Arbeitslose von Marienthal where there’s the question, what is of importance for people in certain situations. Can it really be important for them what you do?

WHW: Well, this is a million dollar question. It is really difficult to say what is of importance for all. But we do believe that art has a significant role to play in rethinking and reshaping how society is experienced, conceptualised, and organised. It is true that artistic forms alone cannot ensure positive social changes, but it is equally true that they can instigate the imaginative capacities of humans without which another world will never be possible. We think that art institutions could and should be public places where links with non-artistic communities and political and social activists could be forged and mediated, through exhibitions obviously but also through all other levels of institutional work, both internal and external.

So, obviously, for us art is important, but many people don’t want to do anything so-called important in their free time. And this is also maybe something that we should accept.

HA: For others it might be more important to go to the park, right? To sit in the sun. My theory would be contemporary art is not important or not relevant for one hundred percent of the population.

WHW: Yes. But nothing is important for one hundred percent of citizens. Still, we should try to get out of our bubble, for sure. There are ways, and we manage to attract different audiences. And all three of us like art so much that we think it’s important for people and they should see it. Art really can make you see the world differently. Art can make one’s life more beautiful. Art can make one’s life more meaningful. It’s worth getting it to people and getting people to it.

HA: We are coming to an end. What’s good about staying and working in Vienna only for another 18 months and not longer?

WHW: Well, we get to develop the program unburdened by expectations of the politicians, since we clearly didn’t fulfill these. Hopefully Kunsthalle’s great team produces a few more exhibitions and books that people will care about. And for us personally – we get to further build many great relations that we have established with artists and colleagues here, which is something that we will certainly carry into the future.

HA: Thanks a lot.