Evgeniia Dietner: Thank you so much for agreeing to this interview. I’d like to start with a broad and rather general question. How would you describe your artistic practice in relation to politics?

Baltensperger + Siepert (B+S): Most of our projects are born out of curiosity for the things we observe around us. Observation itself is a very subjective practice. It is very tempting and dangerous to get trapped in a closed framework that only deals with pre-existing thoughts, concepts, and experiences. As an artist duo, we appreciate the friction between the two of us. Sometimes it helps us to go beyond the boundaries of just meandering in our own thoughts. So, naturally, we are very interested in the concepts of poly-authorship. A good example for this expansion of our physical bodies is a project we did some time ago for the Ural Biennial in Ekaterinburg. We were confronted with the challenge to create an artwork that could resonate with a local audience. 

We realised that what we thought we knew about Russia was largely based on American mainstream cinema, which, of course, was shaped by the Cold War era, portraying Russia in a very stereotypical, negative manner. Trapped in this propagandistic logic, we decided to take a different approach. To unravel this obstacle, we placed a job offer to become Baltensperger + Siepert in local newspapers. We conducted job interviews and finally hired two women to become Baltensperger + Siepert and to create an artwork, using our specific methodology, and to represent us at the biennial.

We enjoy the friction that arises when different ideas collide—it’s the only way to create something new. This allows us to explore new ways of thinking. We enjoy pushing the boundaries of traditional art production. The idea of an artistic genius having spiritual epiphanies in the studio does not apply to us.

Evgeniia: Did your perception of Russia change after working on the project for the Ural Biennial, or was it as you had expected?

B+S: Yes. We made friends, with whom we are still in regular contact today. And, of course, we now have a more nuanced picture of the Ural region and of Russia. 

Evgeniia: Can you tell us something about the project/artwork that the “Russian” Baltensperger + Siepert made for the exhibition?

B+S: The Russian Baltensperger + Siepert: Anastasia and Anastasia were straight out of university. They were still rooted in the thought logic of academia. Our first task was to help them free themselves from the chains of academia. One Anastasia had a degree in sociology, and the other had a degree in international affairs, which she interestingly referred to as “conflictology.” We explained to them how we typically work. How we develop themes, find their core and how we function as a duo. We checked in with them on a daily basis and did our best to help them navigate the usual difficulties and obstacles that arise when developing an art project. They slowly came to understand that creating an artwork is about finding a moment of knowledge that perhaps cannot be put into words or explained with logic. The time frame was tough—only six weeks until the opening of the show. 

The topic they were most interested in was identity and how it is formed today. 

They explored the dilemma of their Russian identity, which they perceived with pride but also as a stigma, even in a time when identity is no longer defined by owning a specific passport alone. At some point, they came up with the somewhat silly but ingenious idea of tattooing the words “Made in Russia” onto visitors of the biennial. We encouraged this idea, and when the exhibition opened, Anastasia and Anastasi were ready to tattoo the visitors. Many visitors ended up getting a “Made in Russia” tattoo. This was in 2015. Now when we think back, it is shocking how much has changed in the last couple of years. Now when we look back to the project, it has even more layers than it had during the time of the tattooing.

Evgeniia: In your last major project No Real Body in 2020, you again disembodied Baltensperger + Siepert and collaborated with filmmakers from distant parts of the world. There were three teams—from Myanmar, Nigeria, and Gaza. Considering the current situation, do you think managing a project like that would be possible now?

B+S: Unfortunately, some members of the Gaza team have been killed in the meantime. Also, Myanmar suffers from repression due to the ongoing military dictatorship. This project probably would be very difficult to realise there today. We are very thankful that we hit a spot in time where it was possible to do such a close collaboration with creative minds who face a very different and catastrophic daily reality. 

Evgeniia: How do you personally cope with this aspect of the project? When I watched the videos, I was intrigued by the role of those locations and artists in the current context, which may have differed from the original intentions. 

B+S: Maybe we need to give a brief introduction to the project. No Real Body is based on a thought experiment—imagine who would we be, if we had been born elsewhere. Initially, this may seem like trivial questions. But upon closer examination, it becomes interesting. There are no definite answers, but continued contemplation reveals the complexity of the issue.

We chose Nigeria because it has the highest output of movies in the world (contrary to popular belief, it is not Bollywood or Hollywood). Myanmar was extremely interesting because it was completely closed until 2008 and then started to open up, allowing young filmmakers to express themselves freely. At least this was the case when we were planning and realising the project. And Gaza is a place that is talked about incredibly much, and yet we have no idea what the daily reality of its inhabitants might be like. 

The task for the production teams was to make a film as if it were made for a local audience. The films therefore differ strikingly in their visual appearance. In Nigeria, it looks for us like some soap-opera style; in Myanmar, we have an art-house feel, very slow and deliberate; Gaza has a very traditional style of shooting a tv series/show.

Many people commented about the Gaza film part, that they were almost disappointed not to see ruins only but, for example, a vibrant, well-groomed city garden. Today, we know that his garden is actually in ruins. This is exactly where worldviews collide. Our views are shaped by the media we consume, and the reality is that Gaza is not purely a place where Hamas resides but also where over two million people are (were) just trying to have a normal life. A life with ordinary streets, food trucks, advertisements, and public transport, etc. […] A life in which there are also galleries and exhibition spaces.

Different worlds are also colliding in terms of professionalism. In Myanmar, the production team members were students who had just finished their film studies and were eager to explore new ideas. Nigeria’s team was very professional and well equipped. It was a different story in Gaza. The Gaza team consisted of local journalists, who back then worked for the press, filming and documenting events and selling the footage to Reuters or BBC to make a living. However, they were also eager to make films.

No Real Body (Video stills/installation shot) 

The experimental set-up spawned three sixteen-minute films based on the same screenplay, yet shaped in the light of different cultural codes. The resulting artwork is a three-channel video installation. The three films were produced and overseen by local production teams, who aimed to produce a film addressed to a local audience. The films were produced in Yangon, Myanmar (directed and produced by Soe Arkar Htun and Sai Naw Kham; Kefka Film Productions), in Lagos, Nigeria (directed and produced by Victoria Akujobi and Bunmi Ajakaiye), and in Gaza (directed and produced by Rushdi Al-Sarraj and Ahmed Hassouna; Ain Media).

Evgeniia: What you said is interesting because all three films were made from the same script, where each team had to incorporate their own inputs, relying on their experiences (both personal and aesthetic) and their country’s context, to address topics that were personally significant to them. So, we see different worlds—landscapes, genders of actors in the movies, political realities. At the same time, partly due to the shared script and partly because the film teams interpreted and articulated the artists’ issues similarly, the artistic concepts discussed and the everyday challenges portrayed were very much alike in all three films. In my view, watching the films together creates a powerful, unified statement about contemporary art and the lives of artists due to the threefold repetition.

B+S: Let us tell you a bit about the creation process. For the script, which is the same for all three films, we decided to work with our friend Uwe Lützen, who is a brilliant screenwriter. As research for the screenplay, he spent time in our studio and observed us as we tried to source funding for the No Real Body project. Consequently, the script he wrote began the same way—two artists in their studio trying to make a project happen, facing the usual problems. The difference lies in the details. 

Screenplays are very interesting. Usually, most things are defined down to the detail. But in our case, we left many things empty. There is no definition for the gender, age, appearance or character of the protagonists. Even locations are defined only rudimentarily, with lots of room for interpretation. Some of the dialogue was scripted, other places were just blank. It was up to our partners to fill the gaps. 

For example, in some parts the script only said: “The artists talk about an important topic”—a black box to be completed by the local production collaborators. The team in Gaza chose to discuss the intersection of politics and religion; in Myanmar, they focused on the issue of military repression; and in Lagos, they addressed patriarchy and the role of young people in society. These questions were not pushed by us; we did not steer them in any specific direction.

It is only because these local production teams became part of Baltensperger + Siepert that we can talk about these topics.

Evgeniia: In this artwork, it seems to me that the actors articulate an important position for you regarding art and the everyday life of artists. I would like to focus on these positions in the next few questions. Some say that painting or depicting art is dead art. Do you agree that it’s dead?

B+S: We often ask ourselves what art can do and what kind of art can give what kind of contribution. The media is always part of the message. So, the short answer to your question is: no. Painting has its unique qualities and is not dead. Every time we work on a project, we choose the most suitable medium. For this project, the movie format was interesting to us. Film produces reality. It reflects our living reality, while being fiction at the same time. It even can be like machinery with a life of its own. You insert information, and then something magical happens. In the end there is a film.

Evgeniia: In the videos, it was mentioned that “our colours for the construction of reality are gender, ethnicity, social status, history,” said in the videos. So, what reality do you aim to construct or wish to create?

B+S: For us personally, a project comes alive through collaboration, discussion, and everything that surrounds it. The part you just quoted was written by Uwe Lützen, our screenwriter friend. After seeing us work and discuss in the studio, this was his conclusion about our understanding of art. 

Evgeniia: If time changes and topics evolve, wouldn’t that make artwork obsolete and less relevant? 

B+S: Art is always a product of its time. You can create art that speaks to a specific issue clearly.

For example, our work Ways to Escape One’s Former Country reflects the current era of migration, but it also delves into the broader theme of migration—which will remain relevant in the future. It also has historical significance. The key questions it raises about migration and its impact on society will persist, despite changing political landscapes. This is where art diverges from activism, which is more focused on immediate political concerns. From our perspective, they serve different purposes.

The topic of migration has been important to us for a long time. For us, the important question is—what kind of contribution can art make to a discussion? 

For example, now there is this war between Russia and Ukraine (and all other parties attached to this war). As somebody working in the field of art, we do not feel that it is mandatory to comment on this war. Everybody talks about it already […] but it could be of interest to use art as a way not to forget, keeping it in mind, especially when media slows down reporting on it. When everybody starts to forget what is happening. When mainstream media moves on—then it starts to become more interesting to work on such issues and the underlying structures.

With our project Ways to Escape One’s Former Country, we had an experience like that. With the Syrian civil war, the topic of migration suddenly became very “hot”—a lot of personal, touching stories were shared/published on a daily basis. We realised that more and more we became dull. Some kind of apathy kicked in. But then you remind yourself that it is an important topic, and that we must find ways to keep talking about it. 

Based on this discussion, we developed the project Ways to Escape One’s Former Country, a handbook for an uncertain migration. A collection of eighteen ways to reach Switzerland/Europe, based on interviews with refugees. It is a second-person narration that puts the reader in the position of experiencing the journey him/herself.

Ways to Escape One’s Former Country is a handbook based on eighteen in-depth interviews with refugees that create a first-person narrative about different scenarios of leaving one’s own country.

Evgeniia: This one and many of your artworks are aimed at changing and shaping the social environment. Have you seen the results of your projects?

B+S: (Laughing) Sometimes we have the feeling that art is very powerful. Then we think that it has the power to change things, but at the same time, we sometimes doubt that it can have any noticeable impact on the big picture. But one thing is for sure: art can have a big impact on a personal level. For example, more than 20,000 copies of Ways to Escape One’s Former Country have already been distributed, but we will probably never know where they went and whether and how they influenced or changed readers’ thoughts and actions.

Evgeniia: In many of your artworks on the theme of migration, you have chosen the road as the main theme. Why? This was evident in the book Ways to Escape One’s Former Country and in your artwork for the exhibition Re-Orientations at Kunsthaus Zürich. The focus was on migrant pathways, and you conducted many interviews, leaving only roads as the outcome. Why the road?

B+S: You have your personality and a whole life, then, after the journey/migration, you continue your life in a different place. However, the time between leaving and arriving defines a new identity—migrant. This journey can take years, a few days, or even just a few hours, yet this time on the road is crucial to the concept of the migrant. The road symbolises this common identity that is imposed from the outside.

Evgeniia: You have also created a project about different types of migrants. One Way Home focuses on the return journey to the Balkans. That’s a special kind of migration.

B+S: Our studio is located right next to Zurich’s long-distance bus station. Especially before public holidays, people gather and wait for the buses to take them home. You can feel the longing for an idealised Homeland that they are about to visit. Of course, this is a fiction, and for most of them it is not even their own, but merely their parents’Homeland. This idealisation of Heimat is a mythical practice that is passed from first-generation migrants on to the next generation. We have found that we enjoy indulging in this special atmosphere. And sometimes we even have the feeling that people are not only travelling to a different place, but also to a different time—some kind of time-traveling magic. The absurd thing is that many of the travellers here are identified as migrants here, and when they travel “home,” they are also identified as migrants there—suddenly they are seen as Swiss. It’s an oxymoron—and we like it.

Project One Way Home is a fictitious journey to explore the longing that lies behind the nostalgic fiction of past and belonging through dialogue.

Evgeniia: I understand it very much. One important fear among migrant-receiving countries and migrants themselves is the loss of their identity as discussed in No Real Body.

B+S: Identity describes the distinguishing between oneself and “the other.” This demarcation creates stereotypes that are the cause of many problems. When we think about what makes us different, people often also think about what makes them better. For example, most people believe that they are good people. Many people also believe that others are not as good-hearted as they are, that others for example tend to cheat and deceive. When this distinction is made between “us” and “them,” it often leads to the assumption that “they” are the bad ones. This way of thinking is deeply rooted in the history of identity, nation-states, modernism, and colonial history.

If you focus on what makes you different, it quickly becomes unproductive. We are more interested in what we have in common, and this is where the project No Real Body comes in.

Evgeniia: Which process do you believe is more significant for society: globalisation with the widespread influence of mass, predominantly American, culture or the influx of migrants bringing emerging cultures? Stuart Hall, in his article “The Local and the Global: Globalization and Ethnicity,” discusses how identity evolves over time: on the one hand, globalisation and mass culture act as agents of change in identity. On the other hand, there is a movement towards localisation and decolonisation, giving minorities a voice. There are simultaneous movements in different directions shaping identity. The question is: which direction, in your opinion, is more important? 

B+S: It’s interesting to discuss the idea of the “most American culture and stuff” because lately, we’ve come to realise that our perception of American culture as highly influential is largely a product of our imagination. While it certainly holds sway in Europe and other parts of the world, there is a significant portion of the global population for whom American culture is irrelevant and uninteresting. Additionally, we believe that voices outside of American culture are becoming more prominent thanks to technology, the Internet, and social media. But the question that arises is—from which perspective are we answering this question? 

Evgeniia: From the perspective of Western culture. We have an idea of the situation here in Europe, and it is likely that European artists, if they are able to have an impact, do so primarily on local political issues.

B+S: When examining these migration issues, which we should actually better refer to as migration processes, we find that people in urban areas have a different opinion than people in rural areas. Those who experience migration directly tend to have a more positive view than those who only read about it in the papers. Much of the discourse on migration is fear-based and constructed rather than based on reality. It is important to acknowledge that Switzerland is not only an urban country, but also a very rural one. Even though there is a strong anti-immigrant and right-wing sentiment in general reporting, it does not necessarily reflect the interactions between migrants and the local population in the cities. The negative perception is often fuelled by people discussing migrants and their ‘potential’ impact, rather than migrants themselves.

In reality, many of the challenges faced by migrants are systemic. For example, the asylum process, which can take years, is often linked to living in camps and the experience of ghettoisation. This can lead to various problems such as social isolation, substance abuse, and financial difficulties. These problems are not rooted in the individual but are the product of the existing systems. It is more productive to consider the systemic factors than to focus only on the individuals concerned.

Evgeniia: Can art and artwork help with that?

B+S: Yes, it can. There are different tools to explore what we call the world. Media, newspapers, political debates... Art can be a tool for exploring underlying patterns of problems. Our project Desti-Nation can serve as an example here.

When it comes to migration to Europe, the Mediterranean is often portrayed in the media as a major problem. The focus of reporting is on drowning migrants. However, the real problem lies in the fact that people can only apply for asylum in the countries on the ground. This forces people to use illegal means, such as crossing by boat. With Desti-Nation, we have developed a technical solution to this problem in the form of a buoy that guides people to the nearest European coast. This work of art serves as a thinking machine to propose a theoretical solution. If politics really wanted to protect people, it could simply send them a boat or let them travel by plane. The core problem in the Mediterranean is a result of political decisions. Art has the power to remove obstacles and help us get to the root of the problem. Art serves as a tool for critical thinking.

Desti-Nation is the prototype of a guiding buoy, promising to provide a safe crossing of the Mediterranean Sea. The buoy works autonomously; through a website, it can be called to any desired location on the North African coast. From there, the buoy uses its built-in GPS to lead the refugees in their boats safely to Europe.

Evgeniia: Do you think that the immigration politics of Switzerland and Europe lean towards right-wing ideologies, and what’s your stance on this issue?

B+S: The issue of migration is a significant topic that has roots in globalisation and industrialisation. With the global movement of products came the global movement of people. It’s a huge topic that is not related to right-wing or left-wing ideologies. The division between right-wing and left-wing thinking can sometimes be problematic because people stop listening to each other and view the other side as enemy. When different cultures clash, it often leads to problems that cannot be solved through polemic arguments or by simply avoiding the issue. The current situation is not solely caused by right-wing or left-wing beliefs, but rather by a systemic issue deeply ingrained in our culture. 

The primary goal of political parties is to secure votes with little regard for anything else. Every political party will do whatever it takes to win votes. The underlying issue here is that people are fearful of the future. We tend to remember the good things from the past and forget about the bad, leading us to believe that the past was always better than the future. This fear of the unknown, such as new arrivals like migrants, becomes the focus of our anxieties and creates an “enemy” out of them. 

It’s very easy to trigger these basic fears and use them to manipulate people. Not always, but these fears are sometimes real. Often left-wing politics behave as if these fears do not exist, which is unhelpful because they are real. When things change, we must find a way to consider how they have changed, what comes next, and discuss and reconsider. For politics, this is a lengthy process. Politics demands immediate action, today, maybe tomorrow, but not the day after tomorrow. The political system is struggling to sustain itself. Another issue is climate change. Undoubtedly, it is happening, but no party is as radical as they should be, as that might render them unelectable, leading to a loss of votes and self-destruction. If you tell people they need to install a new heating system in their homes, it will be costly, and they may not vote for your party, even if it is the right thing to do. But that is politics.

Evgeniia: I will refer again to the previously mentioned article by Stuart Hall. Hall writes that, “Face-to-face with a culture, an economy, and a set of histories […] the subjects of the local, of the margin, can only come into representation by recovering their own hidden histories.” Thus, he refers to culture as one of the instruments of identity construction. What is your position on this issue?

B+S: That’s also about occupying a space. If you have a museum, you can include pictures of flowers and people will love it, but also you can include artworks that address political issues. It would result in a completely different outcome.

This also applies to the influence of flowers. It’s embedded in a certain time, and you must understand the concepts behind it. If you comprehend the concept within the time it was created, it may become very political, even flowers. If you just display it as nice images, then it’s like a cat video in a museum. 

You know, American abstract art was supported by the American government and showcased in museums, because as long as abstract American art was displayed, there was no room for the political in the museums. 

Evgeniia: In No Real Body, the character mentioned that it is important for them to witness the moment of knowledge. What’s the difference between this moment of knowledge in art versus knowledge produced in educational projects?

B+S: Art is a diverse realm where answers can be found that are difficult to articulate in words. It can also raise questions without seeking answers, or simply aim to provoke thought. This contrasts with science, which is often results-driven and struggles with ambiguity or abstract feelings. Ambivalence as a result is a problem for science. Or just a feeling as a result is a problem for science as well.

In our work, we explore the human experience. For example, in Ways to Escape One’s Former Country, readers confront the high cost of fleeing one’s homeland. Or it’s pressure: your uncle sold his farm, sometimes all your relatives sold everything that could be sold so that you could escape. The pressure to succeed after such sacrifices is a common theme.

Evgeniia: After reading your book, it becomes clear: to escape you need to have an uncle!

B+S: Very important, yes.

Evgeniia: Over time, you moved from visual art to narrative art. Narrative has played an increasingly important role even in recent visual works. Has this shift made it easier to convey political messages through storytelling?

B+S: We have found that books are a great medium for us. Books have a lasting impact, as readers invest more time compared to a brief exhibition visit. Artwork displayed in exhibitions must capture attention quickly, often within seconds. One minute is already a long time. Unless it’s a video, then you have a bit more time. Three minutes is good, five minutes is long, and ten minutes is too long in exhibitions. However, books allow for a slower exploration and development of ideas. 

In the art world, there is often a focus on consumption, with visitors treating exhibitions as social events. Some people are going into an exhibition to take a selfie and use artwork as a background. The “instagrammable”/“tiktokable” moment really is a thing! In contrast, reading requires active engagement and imagination, making the audience a part of the creative process.

Also in our upcoming project, we use the book as a medium. We struggle to understand the world. We struggle a lot, every day with everything. We would love to understand things that we don’t, and through this love for trying to understand things, we start to produce our small vehicles and machinery that produce new ways to see things, how we haven’t seen them yet. Mostly, we don’t succeed. But then again, this is the starting point for the next project.

This interview has been edited for length.

Stefan Baltensperger and David Siepert are Swiss-based artists who have been collaborating since 2007. Their work centres on political matters and the comprehension of cultural and social frameworks. Baltensperger + Siepert address pressing political issues in various ways, touching on complex political matters and incorporating the challenges faced by different countries into the discourse.

Evgeniia Dietner-Kostinskaia, PhD in Economics, is a Switzerland-based curator with a background in literature. She was studying CAS in Curating at ZHdK.