It has been an uncanny year for contemporary artists and the arts in Iran. With the change in the leadership of the country, the policy towards the modern arts has also shifted. These changes were at first gradual and indefinite. Later, they were felt with more gusto. For the past century, the state\'s attitude towards the modern arts has been informed by a perplexing phenomenon called MODERNITY, which has transformed our perception and the way we set policy for them officially. I will limit my observation, however, to the post-revolutionary framework, trying to suggest a way for artists to come into grips with the situation they find themselves in today.

Tehran Museum of Contemporary Arts (TMCA) is credited for setting official policy for contemporary arts. It was established in 1976 to make the transition from traditional forms to modern arts possible and smooth. With the 1979 Revolution, anything modern became suspicious and the museum\'s objective was no longer clear. TMCA continued to exhibit works that were called \"modern\" but it did so within the revolutionary framework. It was only in early 1990s that it changed course and opened its doors to less politicized influences. The name of {Alireza Samiazar} is associated with this post-revolutionary change. He was museum head until 2004. Under his directorship, too, the museum hosted many exhibits of calligraphy, painting, and miniature, which are not necessarily \"modern,\" the way we have come to understand this term, but many exhibits of Conceptual Art, along with conferences and seminars on modern arts, had deep impact on the artistic community within the country. For the first time, new media like photo-art and installation appeared on the official calendar. These exhibits were responsible for bringing Iran out of its artistic isolation and opening the field for traditional arts to incorporate external influences.

Many criticized the museum during this period for the quality of its exhibits, for the number of counterfeit works put on display, and for driving works with socio-political themes underground. More realistically, however, the new management was able to introduce works that challenged conventional thinking. Before Samiazar, the museum space was dedicated to works of two groups of artists: Those committed to the ideals of the Revolution and the Holy Defense (the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-88) and those with purely aesthetic and ornamental concerns. The mere fact that TMCA designated budget for the execution of works whose content were different and for inviting renowned contemporary artists (like The British Sculptors) had huge impact on the art scene. That the Museum also devoted its space to several exhibits like Spiritual Art and Koranic Art, which were favorite themes representing art from Iran in international settings, was a welcomed price to pay for Iranian artists to participate in the VENICE as well as several other credited biennials. The representation of Iran outside of its borders was tied to the political interest of the state and, somewhat similar to what had been done for Iranian cinema, the visual arts also toed the line.

In these years, Western yearning for Eastern spices became the benchmark for the creation of works, so much so that in two major TMCA exhibits works of no other than renowned Iranian artist {Shirin Neshat}, who has come to hold up the Western gaze to Eastern art (caustically known among Iranian artists as \"Chador [Veil] Art\" or art that made the veil a central theme of works) were also shown. Still, the Samiazar years opened the way for curators, gallery owners, and organizers to come in and go out of the country. It is true that originally the contingent of western art establishment relied on ethnic and exotic arts that TMCA surrogated, but the fallout was an exchange between many independent Iranian artists and their international counterparts. The Museum supported private exhibits outside of the country, and it provided fringe benefits (like insuring works and expediting visas). With all the deserved criticism leveled at TMCA and the Center for Visual Arts, in these years it was a source of livelihood for artists; especially younger ones.

Following the change in management of TMCA after the new administration took office, a period of stagnation ensued, which affected both artists who belonged to the official current and those who were outside of it orbit (and who nonetheless benefited from the space that Museum opened). Soon, not only the financial supports ceased but new restrictions and \"supervisory measures\" were implemented. Artists who had previously boasted about their enfranchisement, especially during the Reform Period (1997-2005) and the irreversibility of reform measures, now realized how fragile those freedoms had been. The new administration proved that there was something reversible in every historical development. The power of artistic societies as policy setters of biennials was choked with ease and budget for exhibits such as Art of Resistance inflated. The walls of the most important museum in town were adorned with decorative works with no political overtone except those sanctioned by the state. A few months more of the same treatment and modern artists realized that they should look for no charity coming from the new administration, and as such should parted ways.

Exhibits such as Art of Resistance (currently on display at TMCA) further drove a wedge between the establishment and artists who refused to toe the line. I spoke of the uncanny past year for visual and performing artists, perhaps some of those who chose to work with the new management didn\'t want to evacuate the center, to make their presence known in official circles and in this way influence policy, to carve out their share of public funds available to artists. But then, when some of these artists showed their works alongside those of the currently head of the Museum, {Habibollah Sadeqi}, one can infer that something is amiss, that these artists are perhaps not as altruist as they may appear. Mind you, these are the same artists who benefited greatly from the Samiazar rule.

There is another group, the younger artists, who in recent years have been under the sway of the globalization fad, and who were shaken by the changes more severely. For a while, they tried to appeal to meta-narratives attacking globalization and defending the socially impoverished in lackluster exhibits attended only by their circle of friends and acquaintances. Connections that had been expedited by the Museum came to fruition and many exhibit organizers established contact with artists of the said three groups directly. Works of these artists found their way into galleries and exhibits abroad, but the younger generation, who were equipped with a new understanding of the contemporary arts and whose approach was never in line with the overall cultural policies of the country (whether under the previous management or now), took the limelight. In the past six months many of this generation went to a European countries for workshops and residencies. Naturally, the younger generation quickly lost hope of getting official recognition and support and turned its attention westward without having the privilege of experience. The new generation had no time to clarify its relationship with its audience and with its works.

***

In early spring, that is in the first few months of the new administration, {Tirdad Zolghadr} curated an exhibit in Tehran, which knowingly or not, took place at the right time. He touched upon one of the biggest issues that our contemporary artists have had to grapple with and he called it \"ethnic marketing.\" \"What is our relationship with the western art establishment,\" was the question that this exhibit raised. Those who understood Zolghadr\'s point realized that by appealing to the taste of western art curators, they may be unwittingly confining their vision to market imperatives and feeding the fire of western dominating gaze. The Ethnic Marketing event comprised workshops and exhibits, which tried to show how foreign curators came to the Iranian art market in search of that which they thought was the essence of art of the orient. Should the third group fails to understand what Zolghadr conceptualized, it will fall into the bigger trap of western market prerogatives.

What should the Iranian artist do? Should she knowingly ride on the wave Zolghadr warned against and try to be careful? Should he wait for a mentor who can bring him out of the slump he find himself in today? There is more insidious colonialism laying in wait here, one masterminded by western curators, who either appeal to the \"eastern art\" to say what western art is incapable of sensing or have the eastern artists say what the western connoisseur wants to hear. Before being introduced to the western art market and before the Iranian art establishment withdrew its support, the artist was, financially or psychologically, independent, although she was still imitating what the western canon prescribed. Now, she is forced to produce works for curators who will put her on display in flush museums and art galleries, and write whatever they want on the exhibit catalogue without much consultation. How subservient do we become when we go to the other side.

Lets see what options are available for the third group of artists. They can ride the current and become one-night kings and queens. Since the mainspring of this current is the ephemeral taste of western art curators, they will have to keep with the latest callings of the art establishment. I am not blaming artists that chose this path, of course; after all, they have no place to show their works and they, more than others, because they are young, have a desire to be seen. And, by making a name for themselves abroad, they may even find a place here at home. A second option is for artists to change their approach, to appeal to the requirements of the official Iranian art establishment, trying to change things from within. The way things are evolving, it seems that artists cannot hope for changes to take place very soon. The third option, however, is more challenging and time consuming. Artists can join together and carry the burden that officials of the previous administration tried to carry. We should break free of either the official support or the savior from abroad, and what better time to do it than now. The third option suggests that Iranian artists should take things into their own hands, think collectively, and introduce their works the way they want to, as this is a step that will bring them closer to arriving at their own form of expression.

This may seem somewhat idealistic and more a declaration rather than a suggestion. There are those who think artists should be busy doing what they do best and not meddle in the politics of representation. But just as today\'s artists don’t abide by imposed rules, and go beyond the call of tradition to find their form of expression, they must do what the times require of them to retain their independence and their voice. Iranian artists must think beyond small, personal victories and find a space where the artistic community can reside in.

As an artist from the third group I choose the third option.