http://www.kulturbox.de/christo/bundestg/brede01e.htm (Einblicke ins Internet, 10/1995)
Speaker Dr. Rita Süssmuth:
I will call up agenda item number 9:
Deliberation on the motion from the MPs Johannes Gerster (Mainz), Heribert Scharrenbroich, Peter Kittelmann, Dr. Peter Struck, Peter Conradi, Freimut Duve, Manfred Richter (Bremerhaven), Ina Albowitz, Uwe Lühr, Andrea Lederer, Werner Schulz (Berlin) and other MPs
Wrapped Reichstag, Project for Berlin, printed paper 12/6767
According to an interparty agreement, we have scheduled one hour for the debate , I do not see any opposition to this. It is thus resolved. I would like to point out that we will vote by roll-call on the motion after the debate. I am opening the debate. MP Peter Conradi has permission to speak.
Peter Conradi (SPD):
We are not voting on art. Adolf Arndt, the SPD star lawyer during the fifties and sixties, said in reference to this in his important speech "Democracy as Builder":
Not only is there no one in a democracy who can decide what art is, but also, because of democracy's very nature, there can be no one who would be allowed to presume this with validity for everyone on behalf of the state. Democracy is, according to Adolf Arndt, not only based on voting, "but above all fundamentally on agreeing on matters essentially removed from ma-jority votes; it is the agreement on the possibilites of exisiting together which is its basis and which separates the votable and makes it possible to exercise free choice."
There are the final matters; no parliament can decide by a majority on these final matters. There are the next to the last matters on which we decide by a binding majority for all. Art cannot be decided on by a majority; it belongs to the area of nonagreement.
We have been chosen here by our voters as their representatives in order to decide on taxes and streets, on weapons export and building, on refugee rights and unemployment and not on art. That honorable colleague makes this debate so difficult, because we are speaking about an artistic action which pleases one and not the other. I implore you all to carry out this debate not only with re-spect for one another but above all with respect for the artist and art.
Adolf Arndt recommends to the builder democracy, "to make sure of , as builder , the ripeness of the decision of the expert council of independent citizens prepared to take responsibility, which is not detachable from him". We thus consult independent experts and juries in the case of public municipal, state and federal structures. Sometimes the judges err; this is something that they have in common with us politicians. In the case of the Christo project, the experts, the artists and the art critics advise us with overwhelming majority , almost without exception , to permit Christo to wrap the Reichstag building, our future Federal Parliament headquarters.
Here are their arguments in favor of the project:
First. Christo's wrapping of the building with material gives the building a new, surprisingly aesthetic form. It offers us the chance to perceive this building differently in its originality. The temporary wrapping will sharpen our view , discovery by transformation.
Second. The wrapping with material is a major art theme. The Greeks wrap their statues with light garments. The garments of the Gothic madonnas are severe, the material play in the garments of the Three Holy Kings in the Baroque is opulent and magnificent. The material and its treatment always emphasize the costliness, the value of the wrapped object, just as a gift becomes more and not less precious by its wrapping.
Third. Christo's wrapping of the Reichstag building costs the taxpayer nothing. He pays for this project himself from the proceeds from his drawings, his lithographs, his books and posters. In a world where art is above all measured by its price, this art project which one cannot pay for, which one cannot buy, is a reminder that art is more than a commodity.
Fourth. Christo's wrapping brings the element of the temporal, the transitory into our conciousness. The project only lasts 14 days. But it will be retained in many pictures. It will appear on television, in newspapers around the world and will remain in the cultural memory of humanity like the Running Fence in California or the wrapped bridge in Paris.
Thus the arguments of the experts, the art critics and the artists. I want to add a political argument. There is the long, often years' long path from the idea to its realization is a component in all of Christo's projects. The public discussion of his work, its sense and meaning is an indispensable element of his artistic work. For 22 years Christo has spoken with countless politicians, journalists, artsits, critics and citizens about the wrapping of the Reichstag.
I am impressed by this tenacity,
the strength towards this vision, the one which appears impossible but is possible to achieve. It is a political, yes, a democractic art action, which does not stand elitely above people, but instead includes them. If we only had such visions, such tenacity, such long staying power and such campaigns in politics! My party has discussed the project twice. We have not voted. Some of us are supporters , I hope: many , and some of us are critics , I hope: few.
I take the objections to the project seriously and want to argue the point with you. It is said in this regard: economic crisis, national debt, right-wing violence, millions unemployed, fear of the future and resignation , and the Bundestag debates art. Don't you have anything more important to discuss, this is what we are asked.
I ask in response: Should art no longer be spoken about because there is fear and distress, because there is war and unemployment?
- Herr Mahlo, I pointed out at the beginning that we would not be deciding on art here. We were not chosen to be here to decide what art is. We are here to decide if the Reichstag will be permitted for this project.
In his Hamburg party convention speech, the Federal Chancellor said, of which the passages on the SPD I, naturally bound by duty, rebuff with indignation and disgust -
- If you would only wait a short moment; I want to now praise him, Mr. Rüttgers.
- Patience! Patience!
As party chairman, Mr. Kohl told in his speech the touching, beautiful story of Vernon Walters, who saw hope in the misery of the of the post war years when a family had a bowl of flowers on the table in a basement apartment. A beautiful picture.
At that time, in the misery of the post war period, art blossomed in Germany, theater, literature, painting and art bloomed. Everything was essential to life, essential to survival. The Ruhr Festival was not founded during the period of prosperity, instead in those days during the period of poverty.
What kind of poor argument is that, that in a time of distress, of crisis, that art must be the first thing to be dispensed with? The converse is true: Because there is war and unemployment, because there is fear and despondency, because there is resignation and lack of imagination, we want to create a postive sign with this project, a beautiful, luminous signal which engenders courage and hope and radiates confidence. Incidentally: the project creates jobs. The fabric must be woven, cut and sewn, construction workers, students and even alpinists will be employed.
And as in France where Chirac first wanted to dismiss the wrapping of the Pont Neuf as the whim of an elite minority, and then was always for it as hundreds of thousands, yes millions became enthusiastic about it, our critics of today will be enthusiastic about the strength and beauty of this project.
Others say: There is money for this, but you are saving on the unemployed and child care. Once again: Christo finances this project himself, without public funds. I have not heard, by the way, that anyone has demanded that we should close the opera and museums because of the unemployed. I understand that some of us are worried and afraid that the voters could misunderstand this project. But it is mainly our responsibility to explain this project to the voters,
in order to gain understanding, to make it clear to them that this wrapping neither insults German history nor the Reichstag building. Instead, the wrapping is an artistic sign of our new beginning in Berlin and all of this without taxpayers money.
Who here is afraid of the voters? Fear is not a good advisor, neither in art nor in politics. Courage is asked for here, not faintheartedness.
Again others see the dignity of the building as being endangered. Is this a fear of the unusual or the new? Why shouldn't we take a chance on a new experience for 14 days?
Are we not prepared as politicians to permit something new and unusual at the location where we will someday work? What is this fear for the dignity of the house, a dignity which is supposed to become damaged by the wrapping with fabric? I know of many other things that would more likely damage the dignity and reputation of parliament.
The dignity of our building is endangered, that was feared by several of us as we wanted to make a revue in the waterworks [temporary parliament in Bonn, formerly a pumping station on the Rhine] after having moved out. Without false modesty: I believe we "Water Workers" [group of MPs who sing and lampoon the Bundestag and its members] have done more for the reputation of the parliament with our easy-going talks and songs about the parliament than some dignitaries with their poisoned speeches.
Wolfgang Rainer asks in the "Stuttgarter Zeitung" how fragile must be what our democracy stands for if it could be damaged by the wrapping of the Reichstag building with material? It does not have to do with an "ironic relationship of the German people to their history" as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" gloomily fears. Christo's wrapping of the Reichstag building marks a new beginning, a new period in the history of this building which will thereafter become our national building, a new chapter in the history of German parliamentary democracy and that can become a sign of a self-confident, composed, tolerant parliament open for innovation, curious about the unusual, courageous in a time of widespread hopelessness.
It will be soft sign in a period which images are stamped with violence. When the images of the wrapped Reichstag building are shown on television around the world, these will be better, more peaceful images of Germany than those of violence from Rostock, Mölln, Solingen and Hoyerswerda.
I have been a member of this house for 22 years, as long as Christo has worked on this project.
- You do not decide this, the voters do. I consider the parliament a grand institution in which we debate and vote on the lives and ways of those people who have sent us here. I am certain that the wrapping of our future parliamentary building, the Reichstag building, on its way to becoming national building, will do the building, the German Parliament and German democracy good from within and without. For this reason, I am asking for your endorsement of this project.
Foto: Aleks Perkovic © Wolfgang Volz