Maria Eichhorn Aktiengesellschaft - by Sara

Maria Eichhorn Aktiengesellschaft - a work by Maria Eichhorn - 2002

The Maria Eichhorn Aktiengesellschaft is a joint-stock / public limited company, registered in Berlin under the German Law. 

WHAT IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY: the purest form of corporation.

Its capital is made of shares and the company assets alone are liable to claims by creditors. Peculiarities:

-limited liability of the shareholders;

-fixed initial capital;

-organization as a corporation: a legal person (a company or a group of people authorized to act a single legal person) with a subscribed capital (minimum 50,000, the value of the tied assets);

-the members are exempted from personal liability.

It is a production and trading undertaking. Its primary interest is to profit by increasing capital through its shares.

The Maria Eichhorn Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 2002, on occasion of Documenta11, borrowing from Documenta the initial 50.000 euros tied assets. 

The company’s statement or “object of the undertaking” is “to manage and preserve its own assets. The assets, which the company received in the form of capital contribution, shall remain unchanged. The assets shall not become part of the macro-economic circulation of money and accumulation of capital or to be used to create added value.”(Book p.51 Articles of Association)

To do so: the subscribed capital of 50.000 euros was divided into 50.000 shares of the nominal value of 1 euro each; the Supervisory Board (3 people) elected one member only to represent the Managing Board (Maria Eichhorn); all the shares were transferred to the company itself. 

In 2007 the Van Abbemuseum signs an Agreement by paying back Documenta’s money and loaning 50.000 euros to Maria Eichhorn. (Book p.234) “Preamble: The Artist is the author of the work, a presentation intended for display and a public limited company. The Artist transfers the work to the Museum.”

In this way the Van Abbe “acquired” the very specific artwork-version of the company, an “IMAGE”: the photographic reproduction of the company’s documents (the Foundation, the Agreement with the Van Abbe itself, the yearly tax return and the Decision of the Tax Office for Corporation) that are normally archived and consultable at the Commercial Register in Berlin; 2 benches and a lectern; 50.000 euros in cash, which are normally stored in a safe-deposit box in Berlin (Maria owns the only 2 keys), which CONSTITUTE THE COMPANY’S ONLY ASSETS; the publication that contains scans of all the documents, pictures of the exhibition, floor plan and technical drawings of the the exhibition’s forniture and spatial supports, introduction to the work and text of Maria Eichhorn on the history of the Joint Stock Market, which is all meant to be disseminated as knowledge of the economic system should be publicly shared. 

The Van Abbe MUST maintain the artwork. In the words of Christiane Barndes (curator of the exhibition and Head of the Collection department) “The duty of a museum is to take care of cultural heritage. Among others, this means that the museum takes care of the conservation of the artwork. In this case, conservation means to take care of the costs to keep the company alive.”

The Van Abbe, by agreement, MUST exhibit the Company (as artwork) 2 times at list. During the exhibition, the stack of 50.000 is showed in a back-lighted, walled box. 

So, the money, the assets, are literally out of circulation: visually, because secured and exhibited, virtually, because the shares (50.000 as well, of course) are not part of the stock market, not invested, they don’t create profit. The only profit is the metaphorical “value” of the company as artwork. 

A
Together we discussed how the “taking out of circulation” is more an IMAGE, a METAPHOR, rather than a real economic impact on the stock market:

the CASH, presented in the backlighted safe and literally taken off circulation, turns back to be pieces of paper, it loses its economic value. As well, 50.000 euros cash is not a great amount to take off the stock market, they don’t create any substantial difference on the market, even though the legal and bureaucratic apparatus needed to do so costs some maintenance and does make a difference for the art institution that takes care of it. The action then can be understood as metaphorically valuable, but economically poor. 

The work is emblematic of Eichhorn’s way to create anything good or bad, while making visible, creating an image, materializing a very specific economic subject. 

Following the research on Eichhorn’s practice, we ended up having mixed feelings about the meaning of her work. (note1)

Reading the documents from Building an Unowned Property, we perceived the work as partly foreign in the Athens’ context. It seems that the work was made for another place, perhaps Germany. We questioned then: was the work intended for Athens? Or for Documenta in general, which by sponsoring and supporting the legal and bureaucratic process it materialized Eichhorn’s idea to create an unowned property and physically take space off the real estate market? What is the meaning of this work in Athens and its very specific impact on the current housing and economic situation? 

As in the Maria Eichhorn Aktiengesellschaft, her action in Athens might be metaphorical, but might also be just an empty (out of context) metaphor. Differently, Eichhorn’s Rose Vallant Institute also address property, but actively works on the restitution of property. 

PROPERTY - OUT OF CIRCULATION - LOSS OF VALUE - RESTITUTION - METAPHOR - REAL IMPACT

B
Is the work in Athens something worth to replicate? If, in the case our feelings on the work are correct (if, the building, in its current conditions as “monument”, fits a different context than the Athenian one, or, simply, it is just a metaphor to make visible the crises and speculation of real estate, without enabling any further actions like, for example, using the building), do we want to continue to research of Eichhorn’s practice, or we would rather imagine all kinds of different possibilities on the future life of the building? 

-Did Maria Eichhorn work in Athens using the same parameters she previously used in countries like Germany and Switzerland? 

-How could the work had been done differently? 

-Who to discuss this last question with?

-IF the keywords of this work are expropriation, housing crises, space, heritage, monument (what else?) What are other examples of interventions done in the Greek art world, by Greek artists or creatives in general, on the same topics?

Note1): the mixed feelings we had about Eichhorn’s practice emerged in regards to the Building an Unowned Property, in relation to the previous work in Munster (Germany) 1997. In that work Eichhorn reacted to the gentrification process in Munster by making an artwork for public space, which in her style was taking public land and turning it into private property. Shortly, she purchased a piece of land owned by the City and presented it as sculpture. The fundings came from the exhibition budget and from the Landesmuseum, the institution sponsoring the exhibition (the final exhibition included all the legal documents as well). By agreement, the land (artwork) had to be resold in the end of the exhibition and she stipulated that the entire resale value would go to a local Tenant’s Association (founded by citizens in reaction to gentrification) rather than the joint-owners (Landesmuseum and herself). The sale of the small piece of public land created many discussions in the Municipality that were very aware of the attention the piece could attract of the current issues on real estate property. Today, the city owns the building (that was built on that land I suppose) and the Association acts as its tenant and administrator. 

So, in this case, her work and methodology totally fit the context, an ongoing struggle for gentrification, making a clear point and taking a political position.

(texts on this work in the Drop-box)