Društvena dezorganizacija i samoorganizovana kulturna produkcija u Beogradu – Uvećanje (2. deo)
>>> Please scroll down for the English version
Društvena dezorganizacija i samoorganizovana kulturna produkcija u Beogradu – Uvećanje (2. deo)
Anica Vučetić, Marija Radoš/Miroslav Karić, Umetnički kolektiv U10 i Mariela Cvetić su na veoma različite načine izvodili umetničke pozicije i prakse različitih umetničkih generacija.
Anica Vučetić se u „Inicijativama” fokusirala na uslove u kojima ona i njen krug kolega i prijatelja žive i rade, i posebno na načine da se uzajamno organizuju sa namerom da potenciraju pitanja pravnog statusa vizuelnih umetnika. Veoma prijatan izlet i ‘krkanlook’ u Grockoj bio je njen nepretenciozan i ujedno velikodušan gest, koji je postao nezaboravan, iako ekskluzivan, dan razmene razmišljanja o problemima sa kojima se umetnici ovde suočavaju u profesionalnom polju. Zanimljivo je da se jedino ovde u celom projektu FORMALNO NEFORMALNA pojavilo razmatranje umetničkog tržišta kao jednog od glavnih oslonaca umetničke produkcije. Performativno upotpunjujući sopstvene resurse u slučaju Vučetić značilo bi ne samo upotpunjavanje intelektualne razmene, već i društvene na nivou neposrednih kontakata.
Koristeći veoma različite metode, Ristić, Vučetić i Cvetković koristile su Aktopolis kao mogućnost da se vrate sopstvenoj ‘bazi’, da komuniciraju i daju glas svojim kolegama, i da potvrde veze koje suštinski sačinjavaju njihov neposredni umetnički i kulturni krug.
Marija Radoš i Miroslav Karić iz Nezavisne umetničke asocijacije Remont pozvali su četvoro umetnika koji se gotovo nikad ne viđaju u javnom prostoru, i koji bi u nekom smislu mogli da se nazovu marginalnim, da učestvuju u intimnoj i eksperimentalnoj pop-ap izložbi njihovih radova u stanu Aktopolisa. Ova vrsta duha deljenja je u samom srcu njihovih praksi. Ona takođe odražava tendenciju koja deluje mimo menjstrima, iako je ona prepoznatljiva, da se vrednuje i podrži marginalna umetnost u kulturnoj sredini u Srbiji[1]. Radoš i Karić izrazili su neke od gorećih političkih briga sa kojima se oni/mi ovde suočavamo:
„Ova […] situacija i bez dubljeg ulaženja u problematiku, već ukazuje na turbulentnost sredine koja utiče na centar za ravnotežu i održava konstantan osećaj slabosti i mučnine kod individua koje u njoj moraju da žive, rade, stvaraju, da se razvijaju. Da budu funkcionalne. Na taj način […] želeli smo da kao višegodišnji akteri frankenštajnski sklepanog prelaznog, kulturnog ne-sistema skrenemo pažnju na važnost individualnog, ličnog, intimnog iskustva. Takođe, želeli smo da ‘nemarnom’ postavkom izložbe […] ukažemo na nesvrsishodnost modela koje po inerciji primenjujemo i u izmenjenim uslovima kao i spremnost i nadu u radikalnija, hrabrija istraživanja novih situacija. Iskorak u nepoznato je bolan ali i izazovan.”[2]
Remont je grupa profesionalaca koji aktivno produkuju savremenu vizuelnu umetničku scenu. Oni vode galerijski prostor, produkuju izložbe i dugoročne projekte, tesno balansiraju između izvora prihoda, produkuju decenijske i generacijske preglede (što je posebno jedinstvena praksa u poslednjih petnaest godina), učestvuju u vođenju veoma važne nagrade za mlade umetnike Dimitrije Bašičević Mangelos[3] i produkuju vredne knjige. Oni sasvim jedinstveno uspevaju da uspostave odnos između različitih prošlosti od pre devedesetih do danas.
Moglo bi da se kaže da sve ovo naseljava marginu urbanog života – da li tako treba da bude? Moglo bi i da se završi dobro, budući da naseljavanje margine daje slobodu koja nije poznata kako centralnoj pozornici tako ni izopštenima. Ona oslobađa one koji se bave umetnošću da oglase ono što vide i da produkuju ono što smatraju da odgovara njihovim pozicijama. Štaviše, margina je, lako bi moglo da se ispostavi, jedina moguća pozicija iz koje danas može slobodno da se govori, koliko god rizikovala da se ne čuje, ili da se čuje prerano, ili da se ceni tek naknadno.
Veoma važnu poentu napravila je Mariela Cvetić u njenoj umetničkoj izjavi u odnosu na obrazovni sistem, kao sistem koji nas konačno uobličava u društvena bića. Umetnička knjiga i predavački performans „ GAUDEAMUS IGITUR: Samoorganizovani umetnik u stanju odomaćene agorafobije” bio je posvećen neograničenoj intelektualnoj i afektivnoj razmeni koja se nalazi u samoj srži akademije, koja je ipak danas sve češće podređena naplati. Njen vizuelni snimak podova brojnih obrazovnih ustanova kroz koje je ona prošla vodi nas na putovanje samoistraživanja uticaja koje institucije imaju nad nama, i načina na koje mi odlučujemo o našim putanjama i izborima, možda upravo uprkos tome što smo istovremeno internalizovali ograničenja koja nam se nameću. Cvetić razmišlja na temu ambivalentnih odnosa potrebe da se samoobrazujemo i uopšteno da se samoorganizujemo upravo dok smo deo institucije/društva.
Dok je razgovarala sa Ristić, Cvetić je ukazala na neke od ključnih pitanja sa kojima se mi danas suočavamo – da li je u sistemu moguća subverzija? On se pita: „Da li je možda etička pozicija danas poslednja najmanje očekivana subverzivna putanja”?
Neki od tada najmlađih generacija umetnika okupili su se od 2012. godine u Umetničkom kolektivu U10 (Nina Ivanović, Lidija Delić, Nemanja Nikolić, Iva Kuzmanović, Marija Šević, Sava Knežević) da se suoče sa pitanjima samoorganizacije u njihovoj dnevnoj praksi vođenja galerije U10, počevši od nule. Diskusija nakon otvaranja izložbe u Aktopolis stanu, koja je uključivala radove U10, Irene Ristić, Mariele Cvetić i Nikole Radića Lucatija, zaključena je živim razgovorom o značenju i reperkusijama toga zašto je nezavisni prostor, kao što je U10, podržan od strane inostranog mecene. Zanimljivo je da je rasplet diskusije bio da su neki od iskusnijih kolega istupili sa samokritičnom pozicijom sopstvene zavisnosti o stranim fondovima.
U toku projekta pojavile su se uzbudljive kontradikcije – levo orijentisani umetnici su se borili za nejednako plaćanje; prekarni radnici su zagovarali korporativni sistem produkcije; javne diskusije koje nisu bile okrenute javnosti; kritika samo(ne)refleksivnosti koja je isključivala sopstvenu poziciju… A onda opet neke ambivalencije u projektu unete su namerno kao sredstvo preispitivanja granica polja istraživanja, kao što je nastanjivanje prostora privatnog stana u delu grada koji trenutno prolazi kroz džentrifikaciju, ili produkcija projekta o samoorganizaciji u kontekstu velike nacionalne institucije kao što je Gete-institut.
Bilo je zanimljivo da se vidi kako se mnogi od pozvanih učesnika pozivaju na jugoslovensku socijalističku prošlost kao uzorni državni, društveni, ekonomski ili filozofski model, bar u teoriji, bazirajući svoju estetiku i retoriku na njoj. U isto vreme, mnogi od njih su, svesno ili nesvesno, oblikovani menadžmentom projekata u kulturi i neki projekti bili su producirani u saglasnosti sa tekućim, zapravo liberalnim, modelima kulturne industrije. Čak i sama reč – projekat –tera nas da mislimo o projektovanju nečega (na nešto drugo), i ostavlja nas da se pitamo šta je to što projektujemo ili šta je to što je projektovano na nas?
Nebojša Milikić/Tadej Kurepa, KURS, i Vahida Ramujkić/Noa Treister promišljali su određena društvena pitanja iz njihove umetničko-aktivističke pozicije. Kako se ispostavilo, svi oni su zastupali grupno autorstvo.
U okviru preispitivanja (nasleđenog) društvenog sistema, Nebojša Milikić i Tadej Kurepa bavili su se dinamikama života najnižih društvenih klasa u perifernom kapitalizmu, za koji oni smatraju da se društvo u Srbiji nalazi. Inspirisani lokalnim uslovima, njihov projekat „Kamendinamike” proizveo je predlog za mural o klasnim odnosima, koji uključuje sve društvene slojeve, od porodica (uključujući Rome, izbeglice sa Kosova, itd.), od kojih neki dobijaju socijalnu pomoć, i koji svi žive u visoko-kontroverznim socijalnim stanovima novog beogradskog predgrađa Kamendina, sve do najviše pozicioniranih političara koji demonstriraju moć nad životnim situacijama ovih ljudi i zapravo svih nas. U pokušaju da se zaista proizvede mural u Kamendinu, Milikić i Kurepa su pregovarali o izvođenju murala praktično sa svima koji su simbolično uvršteni u njemu: od lokalnih stanovnika, nevladinih organizacija koji se bave ljudskim pravima, lokalnom upravom, agencijama za socijalni rad, do visokih državnih zvaničnika. Milikićeva i Kurepina teza jeste da bi vizuelizacija klasnih odnosa u javnom prostoru istinski oslobodila ljude koji tu žive od osećanja krivice koje im je nametnuto[4] i da bi ih mural obrazovao.
Za razliku od Kamendinamika, KURS (Mirjana Radovanović i Miloš Miletić) su se fokusirali na centralni deo grada – Savamalu, i posebno na ‘kulturnu klasu’[5] koja je uključena u proces džentrifikacije koji se tu odvija. U tekstu naslovljenom „Karneval među ruševinama” za novo izdanje KURSovih ‘Zidnih novina’, Iskra Krstić problematizuje kulturnu produkciju koja se proizvodi pod uticajem hijerarhija moći, posebno legitimizacije tamošnjih kreativnih industrija – i zauzvrat uticaja koji oni imaju na građane Beograda, zajedno sa krupnim privatnim kapitalom – da džentrifikuju širi krug Savamale.
Zanimljvo je da se od samog početka javnog dela Aktopolisa na ulicama Beograda dešavaju izuzetno veliki civilni protesti „Čiji grad?”, koji su provocirani nasilnom noćnom akcijom izbacivanja građana i uništenja njihovih kuća u Savamali. Ovi protesti su još jedan slučaj građanskih aktivnosti za urbani životni prostor nasuprot samovolji gradske uprave, bilo da se ona odnosi na Kamendin ili Savamalu.
Pod zajedničkim nazivom „nedeljiva neotuđiva”[6], Vahida Ramujkić i Noa Treister usmerile su se na prakse samoorganizacije u polju sticanja znanja i radnih prava. One su uključile brojne značajne učesnike iz različitih gradova po Srbiji koji dolaze i iz različitih profesionalnih polja, u duge javne diskusije. Obe diskusije su se dogodile u javnom prostoru na otvorenom: diskusija posvećena odnosu između institucionalne, akademske i aktivističke produkcije znanja dogodila se na centralnom Akademskom platou, a diskusija posvećena radu kao svojini odvijala se u centru Konjarnika (pošta, pijaca, biblioteka). One su radile ka prepoznavanju aktivnog društva koje se samoorganizuje za opšte dobro (u manjim ili većim krugovima) kroz platforme posvećene konkretnim pitanjima kao što su životni uslovi, društvena borba, prava radnika i žena, pravo na obrazovanje i znanje… Ove diskusije odvijale su se u javnom prostoru kao zajedničkom prostoru, ne samo fizičkom, i one su pokrenule pitanja vlasništva na najeksplicitniji način.
Takođe, Sandra Stojanović, kao jedna iz najmlađe generacije beogradskih vizuelnih umetnica, napisala je seriju kritičkih blogova o programu beogradskog Aktopolisa koji možete da pročitate na sajtu projekta.
3.
FORMALNO NEFORMALNA bila je napor vaninstitucionalnih individua, uglavnom profesionalaca u kulturi i aktivista koji ne dobijaju zadovoljenje radeći u (okvirima) sistema[7] u kome se nalaze, da artikulišu neodložnost da se komunicira kroz kulturu i umetnost, orijentisanu ka javnosti, odozdo na gore. Moglo bi da se kaže da ovi odnosi svakodnevno produkuju nekomercijalnu kulturnu klimu samoosnaživanja.
U okviru projekta pojam samoorganizacije bio je veoma podsticajan i on nikoga nije ostavio ravnodušnim: od mrštenja, suprotstavljanja i negiranja na početku, vremenom je postajao razumljiviji, ali se kretao i ka manje ili više nekritičkoj asimilaciji pojma. Rezultati namerne otvorenosti projekta su često bili tretirani kao slučajnost. Na ovaj način deo učesnika izveo je sopstvenu cenzuru formata koji je uokvirio njihove radove i projekte, sličnu onoj kojoj je njihova nezavisna/samoorganizovana kulturna produkcija do sada bila izložena od strane instanci moći, prenebregavajući značajan doprinos koji oni daju kulturnoj sceni.
Nasuprot ovome sa sasvim neočekivanih strana[8] postojala je vredna podrška u razumevanju teme.
Jedna od najvećih raspuća na koje smo naišli u pokušaju da se približimo razumevanju prakse samoorganizovanja bila je da li nas samoorganizovanje osnažuje da budemo proaktivni umetnički, ili ona takođe može da označava unutrašnju moć da se suočimo sa nepovoljnim okolnostima u manje pretencioznim okvirima nego što su ‘projekti’? Samoorganizacija svakako nije recept za samodovoljni sistem, odnosno ona pre nudi određeno nepoverenje u mogućnosti koje mu nude država ili korporacije (u poslednje vreme postaje sve teže da se oni razluče) – zrnce našeg sopstvenog cinizma kao protivotrov narastajućem cinizmu i nepoverenju koje nas okružuje na svakom mogućem nivou, uključujući propagiranu masovnu samoorganizaciju, koja deluje prekarno samoeksploatatorski.
Pojam ‘samoorganizacije’ se često prepoznaje kao neoliberalan pojam otuđenja od države blagostanja i put ka brutalističkoj jednosmernoj komercijalizaciji umetnosti. Da li bi on mogao da se promišlja sasvim drugačije – kao dnevna praksa individua (ili još bolje – ‘mnoštva jedinstvenosti’[9]) otpora prema tekućim procesima monopolizacije umetnosti i kulture? Da li bi samoorganizacija u ovakvim slučajevima mogla da znači osamostaljivanje nasuprot gubitku pojedinačnog glasa zbog prikrivanja u masi? Dilema sa kojom se suočavamo definitivno ne sme da bude: da li ću ja da eksploatišem sebe ili da li neko drugi to treba da radi? Na ovaj način samoorganizovana kulturna produkcija završava sa iznuđenom metodologijom otpora okolnostima.
Za razliku od pojma ‘nezavisnih’ aktera u kulturi, koji često oslikavaju finansijsku i strukturalnu zavisnost, koja se otkrila vremenom kroz praksu nekih nevladinih organizacija[10] još od početka devedesetih, pažljivo i kritičko bavljenje pojmom samoorganizacije može da se sagleda kao individualna aspiracija ka ustanovljenju aktivnog odnosa prema okolnostima produkcije u drugoj deceniji XXI veka: kakva je ekonomija današnjih stvaralačkih, kritičkih i intelektualnih potreba i njihovih uslova produkcije?
Da li postoji način da se pravi ‘buka’ u uglađenom i podređenom predstavljanju lokalne umetničke/kulturne produkcije? Pod ‘bukom’ se podrazumevaju smetnje u ustanovljenim normativima, koja postavlja teška pitanja i otvara prostor da se dogodi nešto uznemirujuće, što bi u beogradskom slučaju moglo da uznemiri masivni prekid kulturne produkcije? (Istorijski, ovakve ‘buke’ imaju običaj da se tek naknadno cene kao avangardni pokreti.)
Na primer, politički potencijal zatvorenih institucija je ogroman. Stvaralaštvo je jedna stvar, ali blokiranje ustanovljenih savremenih umetničkih kanala je neograničeni potencijal vlastodržja. Nakon određenog perioda situacija se menja, tako da se umetnici, kustosi, teoretičari mobilišu stvarajući svoje kanale komunikacije, koji nepovratno isključuju instituciju iz lanca vrednovanja. Institucija postaje latentni i prolazni medijum, ali da li će ona ikada ponovo da bude nosilac kritičkog potencijala?
Delimično zato što su ključne beogradske institucije kulture privremeno ili trajno zatvorene, delimično zbog manjka fondova za kulturu, a delimično zato što su kriterijumi za rad u državnim institucijama preusmereni od kompetentnosti ka nepotizmu – kulturna produkcija kakvu smo znali je posustala u kontinuitetu, što je prouzrokovalo fragmentaciju. Ipak, fragmentacija koju je među ostalim izazvala impotencija institucija, može da otvori džepove slobode i otvorenog prostora za kritičko i formalno eksperimentisanje. S manje povoljne strane, fragmentacija prekida veze koje gledano unazad proizvode osećaj vremena i smisla, učesnici gube kontinuitet u svom radu, i oni uzajamno nemaju mogućnost da uspostave odnos, da se porede i debatuju. Uopšteno, fragmentacija na ovaj način postaje teror diskontinuiteta.
Projekat FORMALNO NEFORMALNA nije razvijan kao neka vrsta plana konsolidacije ili još manje akcionog plana za savremenu kulturnu scenu. Suštinski, projekat FORMALNO NEFORMALNA otvorio je polje za refleksiju koje je inače teško naći. Mnoštvo pristupa otvorili su pitanja relevantna za kulturu u vremenu zastarelosti modernističkih modela, a suprotstavljena sa aktuelnim veoma upitnim neoliberalnim modelom. Projekat je preispitivao na koje načine može da se umetničkim ili aktivističkim sredstvima nosi sa novoutemeljenim okolnostima koje dovode u pitanje celokupni okvir koji potiskuje / deluje veoma nepovoljan za spororazvijajuću (što nije samo po sebi loše) kulturnu produkciju suštinski modernističkog nasleđa. Sa kojim urbanim hitnostima se suočavamo u okolnostima koje dovode u pitanje samu suštinu stvaralaštva, odnosno da li ove nove okolnosti upravo provociraju novo stvaralaštvo koje bi je prevazišlo?
Ovaj projekat je doveo u pitanje i uobičajenu projektnu produkciju. Veliki broj profesionalaca savremene umetnosti i kulture i aktivista suočavali su se sa prezasićenjem ideološkim pitanjima, dok su istovremeno opterećeni praktičnim pitanjima kako profesionalnog tako i privatnog upravljanja preživljavanja. Ipak, ovaj put smo naširoko razgovarali o ovome na brojnim diskusijama, dok su učesnici proizveli vredne radove koji su se bavili neuralgičnim tačkama.
Konačno, ime kafea koji je bio u prostoru stana – Uvećanje, po Antonionijevom filmu, bio je znak. Šta je to na šta smo ovde naišli, šta smo uveličali? Šta je to što smo uhvatili, samo da bi nam umaklo?
[1] Na primer, pogledajte Muzej naivne i marginalne umetnosti u Jagodini, www.naiveart.rs, ili Galeriju naivne umetnosti u Kovačici, www.naivnaumetnost.com.
[2] Karić Miroslav, Radoš Marija, Actopolis Belgrade / Studija Individualnog slučaja.
[3] Incidentno, otac Dimitrija Bašičevića – Ilija Bosilj Bašičević – bio je vanredni umetnik ‘naivne ili autsajderske umetnosti’.
[4] Upravo da su siromašni ljudi sami kirivi zato što su siromašni, da su nesposobni, neobrazovani i lenji.
[5] Rosler, Martha, Culture Class: Art, Creativity, Urbanism (Part I, Part II, Part III), e-flux, Journal #21 (12/2010), Journal #23 (03/2011), Journal #25, (05/2011).
[6] ‘Nedeljiva i neotuđiva’ jeste definicija društvene svojine u vreme socijalizma.
[7] Definisanje ‘sistema’ bio bi zaista izazovan zadatak, ali moglo bi se reći da su upravo ova difuznost i nekonzistencija ‘sistema’ ono na čemu se on danas zasniva…
[8] Vredni su pomena umetnici i kustosi Rene Tarner (Renée Turner), Simon Kentgens i Džejson Bouman (Jason E. Bowman), i novinarka Snežana Stamenković. Žao mi je što se nije ostvarila mogućnost da u okviru projekta ugostimo pisce i kustose Jana Fervorta (Verwoert) i Federiku Bueti (Federica Bueti), čiji bi doprinosi bili značajni u opštoj diskusiji.
[9] Među ostalim, ova razmišljanja dobijaju inspiraciju iz konceptualnih praksi sedamdesetih ili ‘umetnika u prvom licu’, koje nose ranjivost i izloženost koje se poistovećuje sa jedinstvenostima – kao što je Agambenova ‘kakvogod jedinstvenost’.
[10] Nevladine organizacije mogu da se ovako definišu: „Nagli razvoj nevladinog sektora pojavio se u zapadnim zemljama kao rezultat procesa restrukturisanja države blagostanja. Dalja globalizacija tog procesa odvijala se nakon pada komunističkog sistema.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization#History).
Brojni strani fondovi, od Šoroša do Prohelvecije i stranih nacionalnih fondova, udružili su snage ranih devedesetih da podrže brojne pojedince i nevladine organizacije širom bivše Jugoslavije, i tako su osnažili i suprodstavili civilno društvo državi sa namerom da se osnaži ‘nezavisna kultura’. Sve ovo se odvijalo u vreme izrazite civilne neposlušnosti i protivljenja vlasti. Dvadesetak godina kasnije, kako je opšta situacija delovala stabilnije, fondovi su se povukli. ‘Nezavisna’ kulturna produkcija bila je pokrenuta, gladna za bilo koje izvore podrške i često su to postali EU fondovi.
Dalja literatura:
Dokumentarni video o beogradskom izdanju projekta Actopolis: duža verzija: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edRm1UYAnx4; kraća verzija: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YO6H-xdre0
Blagojević, Jelisaveta, Politike nemislivog, Uvod u ne-fašistički život, Centar za medije i komunikacije, FMK, Univerzitet Singidunum, Beograd, 2014.
Bojm, Svetlana, Budućnost nostalgije, Geopoetika, 2005.
Ćurčić, Branka, Autonomous Spaces of Deregulation and Critique, Is a Cooperation with Neoliberal Art Institutions Possible?, http://eipcp.net/transversal/0407/curcic/sr (pristupljeno 10. 6. 2016.) Videti takođe komentar Borisa Budena!
Denegri, Ješa, Opstanak umetnosti u vremenu krize, Cicero, Beograd, 2004.
Herbert S. i Karlsen A.S. (Eds.) Self-organised. London, UK. Bergen, Norway: Open editions. Hordaland Arts Center, 2013.
Hubeli, Ernst, City-culture versus City of Culture?, M City, European Cityscapes, Kunsthaus Graz, 2006.
Jakšić, Jasna et al (Ed.), From Consideration To Commitment: Art In Critical Confrontation To Society (Belgrade, Ljubljana, Skopje, Zagreb: 1990–2010), SEEcult.org in cooperation with: Forum Skopje; Kurziv – Platform for Matters of Culture, Media and Society; SCCA, Center for Contemporary Arts – Ljubljana / Artservis; The Association of NGOs Cluture.
Karić, Miroslav i Radoš, Marija, Actopolis Belgrade / Studija Individualnog slučaja, 2016.
Mickov, Biljana, Kulturna transformacija grada, Zavod za kulturu Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 2015.
Montman, Nina (Ed.), Art and its institutions. Current conflicts, critique and collaborations, Black Dog Publishing, NIFCA, London, 2006.
Phelan, Peggy, Unmarked, the politics of performance, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
Ristić Irena, Ka novim vidovima samoorganizacije: superstrukcija i modelovanje lokalne kulturne scene, 2016.
Rosler, Martha, Culture Class: Art, Creativity, Urbanism (Part I, Part II, Part III), www.e-flux.com, Journal #21 (12/2010), Journal #23 (03/2011), Journal #25, (05/2011).
Stamenković Snežana, Aktopolis Beograd, 2016.
Stanković, Maja, Fluidni kontekst, Kontekstualne prakse u savremenoj umetnosti, FMK, Univerzitet Singidunum, Beograd, 2015.
Steyerl, Hito, Art as Occupation-Claims for Autonomy of Life, www.e-flux.com, Journal #30, 12/2011.
Steyerl, Hito, Freedom from Everything: Freelancers and Mercenaries, www.e-flux.com, Journal #41, 01/2013.
______________
SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION AND SELF-ORGANIZED CULTURAL PRODUCTION IN BELGRADE – BLOW-UP (Part Two)
Mirjana Boba Stojadinović
Anica Vučetić, Marija Radoš/Miroslav Karić, Art Collective U10 and Mariela Cvetić in different ways performed different generations’ artistic positions and practices.
Anica Vučetić in “Initiatives” focussed on the conditions in which she and her peers live and work in, and particularly the ways to organize among themselves in order to prevail in issues regarding the legal status of a visual artist. The highly-enjoyable cottage picnic in the suburbs of Belgrade was her unpretentious yet generous gesture, that resulted in a memorable, though exclusive, day of summing up the problems artists are facing in the professional field here. It is interesting that only here in the entire FORMALLY INFORMAL project the considerations of the market appeared as one of the key foundation of art production. Performatively recharging own resources in Vučetić’s case would mean not just recharging intellectual exchange, but also social on the level of immediate contacts.
Using very different methods, Ristić, Vučetić and Cvetković used Actopolis as an opportunity to ‘touch base’, to communicate and give voice to their peers, and re-confirm the bonds that essentially constitute their immediate artistic and cultural circles.
Marija Radoš and Miroslav Karić of Independent Art Association Remont invited four artists one could almost never see in public space, one could in a way call marginal, to a pop-up intimate and experimental exhibition of their works in the Actopolis apartment. This kind of spirit of sharing is at the heart of their practices. It also reflects the off-mainstream, yet recognizable tendency to value and support marginal art in the cultural environment in Serbia[1]. Radoš and Karić expressed some of the burning political concerns they/we face here:
“This […] situation without any further analysis draws attention to a turbulent environment which preserves imbalance and constant feelings of weakness and nausea in individuals who have to live, work, create, evolve and stay functional in it. In that sense, […] we, as perennial participants of this Frankensteinian, transitional non-system of culture, wanted to point out to the importance of an individual, personal experience. With this ‘careless’ exhibition […] we also wanted to highlight the impracticality of models we still inertly apply in these altered cultural landscape, but also the willingness and hope for a more radical, brave conquest for a solution.”[2]
Remont is a group of professionals who actively produce a contemporary visual art scene. Running a gallery space, producing exhibitions and long-term projects, tightly balancing between sources of income, producing decade and generational overviews (which is quite a unique practice in the last fifteen years), co-hosting a very important Dimitrije Bašičević Mangelos[3] award for young artists, and producing valuable books, they uniquely manage to relate different pasts from before the 1990s to this day.
One could say that all this inhabits a margin of urban life – but is that awry? It could turn out for the best, as inhabiting the margin gives freedom unknown both to the central stage or the outcast, it liberates art practitioners to voice what they observe and to produce what they find corresponding to their stances. So much so, that the margin could easily turn out to be the only possible position today to speak freely from, as much as it risks being unheard or overheard, or appreciated only posterior.
Very important point was made by Mariela Cvetić in her artistic statement to the educational system, as a system that ultimately shapes us into communal beings. Cvetić’s artist book and lecture-performance “GAUDEAMUS IGITUR: Self-Organized Artist in the State of Domestic Agoraphobia” reasoned at the unlimited intellectual and affective exchange that is at the essence of academia, yet today ever more often subject to remuneration. Her visual record of the floors of numerous educational institutions she went through takes us on a voyage of self-exploration of the influences institutions have on us, and the ways we negotiate our paths and choices, perhaps precisely in spite of the fact we have simultaneously internalized the limitations that have been imposed on us. Cvetić meditates on the ambivalent relation of the need to self-educate and generally self-organize all the while being part of the institution/society.
While talking to Ristić for her project, Cvetić pointed to some of the crucial questions we face today – whether subversion is possible in the system? She wonders whether “the ethical position is the least expected subversive path of today”?
Since 2012 some of the youngest generations of artists back then gathered in the Art Collective U10 (Nina Ivanović, Lidija Delić, Nemanja Nikolić, Iva Kuzmanović, Marija Šević, Sava Knežević) to confront the issues of self-organization in their daily practice of running the gallery U10, building it from a scratch. The discussion after opening the exhibition in the Actopolis apartment, including works by U10, Irena Ristić, Mariela Cvetić and Nikola Radić Lucati, concluded with an animated discussion on the meaning and repercussions of an idependent space such as U10 being funded by foreign benefactor. Curiously, at the outcome of the discussion some of the more experienced cultural practicioners came forth with a self-critical position of their dependency on foreign funds.
Throughout the project revealing contradictions occurred – leftist artists arguing for unequal payment; precarious workers pledging for corporate system of production; public discussions not facing the public; critique of self-(un)reflexivity excluding own position… Then again, some of the ambivalences in the project were brought intentionally as means of questioning the boundaries of the researched field, like inhabiting a private apartment space in an area that is currently undergoing gentrification, or producing a project on self-organization in the context of a large-scale national institution such as Goethe-Institut.
It was interesting to see how many of the invited participants are referencing the Yugoslav socialist past as a examplary state, social, economical or philosophical model, at least in theory, basing their aesthetics and rhetorics on it. At the same time, many of them are, consciously or not, shaped by cultural project management and few of the projects have been produced in a complicit manner with the ongoing, in fact liberal, models of cultural industry. Even the word itself – project – makes one think of projecting something (onto something else), leaving us wondering what is it that we are projecting or what is projected onto us?
Nebojša Milikić/Tadej Kurepa, KURS, and Vahida Ramujkić/Noa Treister each negotiated particular social issues from their artist-activist position. As it happened, all of them claimed group authorship.
In terms of questioning in the (inherited) social system, Nebojša Milikić and Tadej Kurepa inquired in the dynamics of living of the lowest social classes in periphery capitalism, they consider Serbian society finds itself embedded in. Inspired by the local conditions, their project “Kamendynamics” produced a proposal for a mural of class relations, that includes all social strata, from families (including Roma, refugees from Kosovo, etc.) some of whom receive social help, and all of whom live in a highly-controversial state-supported social living apartments in a new Belgrade suburb Kamendin, all the way to the top politicians who exert power over these people’s living situation and in fact all of us. In an effort to actually produce this mural in Kamendin, Milikić and Kurepa negotiated the execution of the mural practically with everyone symbolically depicted in it: from local inhabitants, human-rights non-government organizations, local government, agencies for social work, to higher government officials. Milikić’s and Kurepa’s thesis is that visualizing the class relations in public space would actually liberate people living there of the feeling of guilt imposed on them[4] and educate them.
Unlike Kamendynamics, KURS (Mirjana Radovanović and Miloš Miletić) focussed on the very central city area Savamala, and in particular the ‘culture class’[5] engaged in the process of gentrification ongoing there. In a text titled “Carnival Amidst Ruins” Iskra Krstić wrote for the new issue of KURS’ Wall Newspaper, she problematized the cultural production that is made under the influence of the hierarchies of power, particularly the legitimatization of creative industries there and in return, the influence they exert on Belgrade citizens, along with large private capital, to gentrify the broader area of Savamala.
Remarkably, from the onset of the public part of Actopolis large civil protests “Whose City?” were happening in the streets of Belgrade, prompted by a violent night-action of eviction of citizens and the distruction of their houses in Savamala area. These protests are one more case of citizen’s activities for the urban living space against the self-will of the city government, whether it be in Kamendin or Savamala.
Under the common title “indivisible unalienable”[6], Vahida Ramujkić and Noa Treister looked at practices of self-organization in the field of knowledge acquisition and labour rights. They engaged a number of notable participants from different cities in Serbia and coming from different professional fields, in long public discussions. Each discussion took place in public space in the open: the one dedicated to the relation among the institutional, academic and activist production of knowledge had happened on the central Academic Plateau, and the one dedicated to work as property took place in Konjarnik neighbourhood central zone (post-office, green market, library). They made the effort to recognize an active society who self-organize for everyone’s benefit (in smaller or larger spheres) through platforms dedicated to particular questions such as living conditions, social struggle, workers’ and women’s rights, the right to education and knowledge… These discussions were happening in public space as a common space, not only physically, and they tackled the concept of property in most explicit way.
Also, Sandra Stojanović, as one of the youngest generations of Belgrade visual artists, produced a series of critical blogs on Actopolis Belgrade programme you can read on the project website.
3.
FORMALLY INFORMAL was an effort by non-institutional individuals, most often professionals in culture and activists who do not receive any satisfaction from (the outline of) the system[7] one finds oneself immersed in, to articulate the urgency to communicate through culture and art, oriented towards the public, bottom-up. One could say these relations daily produce non-commercial cultural climate of self-empowerment.
Within the project, the notion of self-organization itself was highly stimulating leaving noone indifferent: from scornings, oppositions and denials on the onset, in time it grew more understandable, but also it was going towards more or less uncritical assimilation of the notion. The outcomes of the highly intentional openness of the project were often treated as a coincidence. In this way part of the participants performed in their own turn the censorship of the framework that hosted their works and projects, similar to the censorship their independent/self-organized cultural production had been subjected to by the instances in power in the past, overseeing the significant contribution they give to the cultural scene.
Having said that, there was an invaluable support in understanding of the topic from most unexpected sides[8].
One of the biggest crossroads we came across when trying to approach the understanding of the practice of self-organization is whether self-organizing empowers one to be proactive artistically, or can it also denote internal power to face unwelcoming circumstances in less pretentious than project-like schemes? Self-organization is definately not a recipee for a self-sufficient system. Rather, it offers a certain distrust into options offered to us by the state or the corporations (lately it is ever more difficult to separate those) – a speckle of our own cynicism as an antivenom against growing cynicism and mistrust surrounding us in every possible level, including propagated mass self-organization, which is appears precariously self-exploatative.
The term ‘self-organization’ is often identified as a neo-liberal term of alienation from welfare state and a path of brutish one-way commercialization of arts. Yet, could it be re-thought of as a daily practice of individuals’ (or even better – multitude of singularities’[9]) resistance to ongoing processes of monopolization of arts and culture? Could self-organization in such a case become means of autonomy, opposed to a loss of individual voice due to concealment in/by the masses? The dilemma we face definitely shouldn’t be: should I exploit myself or should somebody else do it? Thus the self-organized cultural production results as an extorted methodology of resisting the circumstances.
Unlike the notion of the ‘independent’ practitioners in culture, who often depict financial and structural dependence, which in time revealed itself in the practice of some of the non-government organizations[10] since the 1990s, carefully and critically taking up the notion of self-organization can be perceived as an individual aspiration towards establishing an active relation towards the circumstances of production in the second decade of XXI century: What is the economy of creative, critical and intellectual needs of today and their conditions of production?
Is there a way of producing ‘noise’ in the polished and subdued presentation of local art/cultural production? By ‘noise’ one could understand a disruption of established normatives, raising difficult questions, opening space for something agitating to happen, that in Belgrade case might disrupt back the vast disruption of cultural production? (Historically, such ‘noises’ have a tendency to be appreciated as avant-guard movements only posterior.)
For example, political potential of a closed-off institution is huge. Creativity is one thing, but blocking an established contemporary art canal is an unlimited potential of power-holding. After a certain period of time the situation is changing, so artists, curators, theoreticians mobilise by creating their own canals of communication, which irreversibly exclude the institution from the chain of evaluation. The institution becomes a latent medium in passing, but will it ever again be a bearer of critical potential?
Partly because key Belgrade cultural institutions were temporarily or otherwise closed, partly due to underfunding, and partly because the criteria for working in state institutions was re-directed from competence to nepotism – the cultural production we knew has lapsed in continuity, prompting fragmentation. However, fragmentation which is caused among other things by the impotence of the institutions, can spark pockets of freedom and open space for critical and formal experimentation. On the down side, fragmentation brakes the links that in retrospect produce a sense of time and meaning, the partakers lose the continuity of their work, and they mutually don’t have the opportunity to relate, to compare, to debate. In general, fragmentation thus becomes the terror of discontinuity.
FORMALLY INFORMAL was not developed as some kind of consolidation plan or even less a plan of action for the contemporary cultural scene. Essentially, FORMALLY INFORMAL opened space of reflection that is otherwise difficult to find. The multitude of approaches opened issues of relevance for culture in times of obsoleteness of Modernist models and confronted with pressing highly questionable model of neoliberalism. The project was questioning in what ways does one in artistic and activist agency deal with newly found circumstances which question the overall frame that subdues /appears highly unfavorable to the slowly developing (not bad per se) cultural production of essentially Modernist heritage. What urban urgencies does one face in circumstances that question the very essence of creativity, or do these newfound circumstances provoke new creativity to surpass them?
This project questioned the constraints of habitual project production. Large amounts of the contemporary arts and culture professionals and activists were facing oversaturation with ideological questions, simultaneously being burdened with practical questions of both professional and personal survival management. However, this time we did talk at length about it in numerous in-depth discussions, while participants produced valuable works dealing with neuralgic points.
Finally, the name of the café that used to be in the space of the apartment – Blow-up, after Antonioni’s movie, was an omen. What is it that we have tapped into here, what is it that we have enlarged? What is it that we have captured, only to elude us?
[1] For example, see Museum of Naïve and Marginal Art, www.naiveart.rs, or Gallery of Naive Art, www.naivnaumetnost.com.
[2] Karić Miroslav, Radoš Marija, Actopolis Belgrade / Study of on Individual Case.
[3] Coincidently, Dimitrije Bašičević’s father – Ilija Bosilj Bašičević – was a prominent artist of ‘Naive or Outsider Art’.
[4] Nemely, that poor people are guilty of being poor, that they are incompetent, uneducated and lazy.
[5] Rosler, Martha, Culture Class: Art, Creativity, Urbanism (Part I, Part II, Part III), e-flux, Journal #21 (12/2010), Journal #23 (03/2011), Journal #25, (05/2011).
[6] ‘Indivisible and unalienable’ is the definition of socialist ‘public property'(društvena svojina).
[7] Pinning down ‘the system’ is indeed a treacherous task, but one could say that precisely this difussion and inconsistency of ‘the system’ is what the system is based on these days…
[8] Not least by artists and curators Renée Turner, Simon Kentgens and Jason E. Bowman, and journalist Snežana Stamenković. I regret in the end not having the possibility to host writers and curators Jan Verwoert and Federica Bueti in the project, whose contributions would have been vital in the general discussion.
[9] Among other, these thoughts are drawing inspiration from the conceptual practices from the 1970s of ‘artist in first person’, conveying vulnerability and exposure that stands for singularities – rather like Agamben’s whatever singularities.
[10] The Non-government organizations can be defined as: “Rapid development of the non-governmental sector occurred in western countries as a result of the processes of restructuring of the welfare state. Further globalization of that process occurred after the fall of the communist system.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization#History).
Numerous foreign funds, from Soros to ProHelvetia and national funds, joined forces as of early 1990s by supporting numerous individuals and non-government organizations throughout ex-Yugoslavia, and thus strengthening and opposing the civil society to the state in order to strengthen the ‘independent culture’. All this was happening in times of strong civil disobedience and opposition to the government. Around twenty years later, as the general situation seemed to be calming down, the funders withdrew. An ‘independent’ cultural production has been set in motion, hungry for any source of support, and often that became the EU funds.
Further readings:
Documentary video on Actopolis Belgrade: longer version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edRm1UYAnx4; shorter version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YO6H-xdre0
Blagojević, Jelisaveta, Politike nemislivog, Uvod u ne-fašistički život, Centar za medije i komunikacije, FMK, Univerzitet Singidunum, Beograd, 2014 .
Boym, Svetlana, The Future of Nostalgia, Basic Books, 2001.
Ćurčić, Branka, Autonomous Spaces of Deregulation and Critique, Is a Cooperation with Neoliberal Art Institutions Possible?, http://eipcp.net/transversal/0407/curcic/en (accessed 10. 6. 2016). See also Boris Buden’s commentary!
Denegri, Ješa, Opstanak umetnosti u vremenu krize, Cicero, Beograd, 2004.
Herbert S. & Karlsen A.S. (Eds.) Self-organised. London, UK. Bergen, Norway: Open editions. Hordaland Arts Center, 2013.
Hubeli, Ernst, City-culture versus City of Culture?, M City, European Cityscapes, Kunsthaus Graz, 2006.
Jakšić, Jasna et al (Ed.), From Consideration To Commitment: Art In Critical Confrontation To Society (Belgrade, Ljubljana, Skopje, Zagreb: 1990–2010), SEEcult.org in cooperation with: Forum Skopje; Kurziv – Platform for Matters of Culture, Media and Society; SCCA, Center for Contemporary Arts – Ljubljana / Artservis; The Association of NGOs Cluture.
Karić Miroslav, Radoš Marija, Actopolis Belgrade / A Study of an Individual Case, 2016.
Mickov, Biljana, Kulturna transformacija grada, Zavod za kulturu Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 2015.
Montman, Nina (Ed.), Art and its institutions. Current conflicts, critique and collaborations, Black Dog Publishing, NIFCA, London, 2006.
Phelan, Peggy, Unmarked, the politics of performance, Routledge, London & New York, 1996.
Ristić Irena, Ka novim vidovima samoorganizacije: superstrukcija i modelovanje lokalne kulturne scene, 2016.
Rosler, Martha, Culture Class: Art, Creativity, Urbanism (Part I, Part II, Part III), www.e-flux.com, Journal #21 (12/2010), Journal #23 (03/2011), Journal #25, (05/2011) (accessed 10. 6. 2016).
Stamenković Snežana, Actopolis Beograd, 2016.
Stanković, Maja, Fluidni kontekst, Kontekstualne prakse u savremenoj umetnosti, FMK, Univerzitet Singidunum, Beograd, 2015.
Steyerl, Hito, Art as Occupation-Claims for Autonomy of Life, www.e-flux.com, Journal #30, 12/2011 (accessed 10. 6. 2016).
Steyerl, Hito, Freedom from Everything: Freelancers and Mercenaries, www.e-flux.com, Journal #41, 01/2013 (accessed 10. 6. 2016).
Anica Vučetić, Marija Radoš/Miroslav Karić, Umetnički ko){kind=link}