Svetski arhipelazi – o kustoskim praksama: fragmenti kontinuiranog razgovora između Maje Ćirić i Biljane Ćirić
Decembar, 2013.
>>> Please scroll down for the English version
Maja Ćirić: Koji su konteksti tvojih (kustoskih) praksi?
Biljana Ćirić: Budući da živim u Šangaju i od 2008. godine radim kao nezavisna kustoskinja u okruženju u kome neprofitni sektor jedva da postoji i u kome tržište ima najjači uticaj na umetnički sistem u Kini, konstantno preispitujem sebe, svoju ulogu u sistemu i svoj kustoski doprinos sa pozicije koju Maria Lind opisuje kao “osetljivu na kontekst”. Iznova se preispitujem kada, gde i kome treba da se dogode izložbe na kojima radim. Ovakav način rada primorao me je da kreiram prostore za događanje/stvaranje različitih stvari koje bi inicirale preispitivanje rituala umetničkog sistema i načina na koji on funkcioniše, podsećajući nas da budemo obazrivi prema ulozi zabavljača u kulturi pre nego intelektualca. Izložba kao format, kao nešto što nastaje i nestaje u vremenu i prostoru i kao sklop odnosa koji otvara nove mogućnosti je moj primarni medij u kome radim i koji je povezan sa različitim istraživanjima u toku.
Kao što verovatno možete zamisliti, u Kini se svakoga dana dogodi stotine izložbi. Izložba je postala instrument tržišne razmene objekata, kao i zabave u kulturi, te se postavlja pitanje kako mi kao kustosi delujemo u datoj situaciji. Nekoliko poslednjih projekata koje sam predstavila u Kini, kao što su Taking The Stage OVER i Alternatives to Ritual, su dugoročne izložbe – izložbe koje traju godinu dana ili pola godine i čija unutarnja dinamika razvija novi niz relacija kroz duže delovanje pokušavajući da uspori konzumaciju i uspostavi odnose sa institucijama, umetnicima i sa mnom, a da istovremeno intenzivira ove susrete.
Ovakvo razmišljanje o proizvodnji novih modela delovanja me je približilo i saradnji sa internacionalnim umetnicima kao što je, na primer, Tino Sehgal čiji sam rad predstavila u Kini otvarajući diskusiju o izložbi kao konstruktu zapadnog demokratskog društva i načinu na koji se ovaj format prevodi u različite kulturne kontekste i značenjima koja se pri tome stvaraju u drugačijim društvenim i političkim okruženjima. Sa druge strane, predstavljati prakse koje su glavni akteri u proizvodnji znanja na lokalnom nivou je veliki izazov, ali one su jedva vidljive na internacionalnom nivou i to me je frustriralo dugo vremena jer takozvani mainstream umetnički sistem i mediji traže određene obrasce i okvire za posmatranje umetnosti iz ne-zapadnog konteksta koji još uvek postoje uprkos tome što živimo u takozvanom globalizovanom svetu.
Maja Ćirić: Kome se obraćaš kada kuriraš?
Biljana Ćirić: I dalje mislim da razgovaram i diskutujem sa umetnicima. Smatram da je važno da čujem njihov feedback u vezi sa pitanjima koje želim da razmatram kroz izložbu i njihovoj relevantnosti u aktuelnom trenutku. Ove diskusije su mi veoma dragocene kao uzajamni uticaji. Imala sam sreću da sam, kada sam počinjala da se bavim kustoskim radom, bila okružena grupom umetnika koji su veoma ozbiljno učestvovali u izložbi, tako da sam morala da se posebno potrudim kako bih ih ubedila u relevantnost onoga što želim da radim. Nažalost, sve je manje diskusija između umetnika i kustosa koje smatram veoma produktivnim. Za mene je to blisko povezano sa nekom vrstom radne etike u umetničkom sistemu od strane kustosa i umetnika.
Na drugom nivou, kada sam u fazi vizuelne prezentacije izložbe uvek razgovaram sa arhitektom Segolene Dubernet koja je sa mnom radila na postavci velikog broja izložbi uključujući Rejected Collection i retrospektivu Yoko Ono, kao i na mom najnovijem projektu One Step Forward, Two Steps Back – Us and Institution, Us as Institution, između ostalih. Ovo su delikatne i kritične tačke između izložbe i iskustva koje izložba pokušava da konstruiše. Rascep između teoretske i fizičke realizacije izložbe je odlučujući aspekt takozvanog neuspeha ili uspeha izložbe, tako da su fizička prezentacija i odnos između radova koje izložba želi da uspostavi ekstremno važni i želeli bismo da o njima iznova diskutujemo.
Maja Ćirić: Posmatrano sa pozicije iz Kine, da li i dalje možemo da govorimo o hegemoniji Zapadnog sveta umetnosti?
Biljana Ćirić: Nakon 1989. i poznate izložbe Les Magiciens de la Terre počelo je da se govori o globalnom svetu umetnosti koji Mladen Stilinović veoma lepo promišlja u jednoj rečenici: “Umetnik koji ne govori engleski nije umetnik.”, i to su uobičajeni procesi koji se događaju na različitim mestima sa različitim intenzitetom – Kina nije izuzetak.
Mislim da, nebitno iz kog dela sveta posmatramo konstrukt i set odnosa u svetu umetnosti – od muzeja do tržišta ili do mreža, to je zapadni konstrukt. Ono o čemu bi trebalo da razgovaramo jeste na koji način novi, tek nastajući potencijal inicira promenu i utiče na dati niz odnosa, kao i koji se novi modeli pri tome mogu uspostaviti. Postoje izložbe iz ne-zapadnog sveta, iz Azije, Afrike, Latinske Amerike koje se mogu videti u Evropi, ali su veoma retko prisutni dijalozi, istraživanja između ovih delova sveta. Ja sam uradila izvestan broj izložbi koje pokušavaju da prikažu povezanost između Kine i različitih jugoistočnih azijskih država budući da ove zemlje imaju puno dodirnih tačaka u istorijskom smislu, kao i tokom razvoja avangarde koje nisu istražene. Kada sam započela istraživanje u regionu oko 2007. godine putujući po različitim zemljama sa starim jugoslovenskim pasošem bila sam egzotična, uvek čekajući na šalterima pasoške kontrole koji dokazuju da su ovi delovi sveta retko povezani.
Moja poslednja izložba One Step Forward, Two Steps Back – Us and Institution, Us as Institution pokušava da upostavi neke od ovih relacija i da ponudi moguća čitanja institucionalne kritike u takozvanom ne-zapadnom umetničkom sistemu u Kini, jugoistočnoj Aziji, Palestini, uspostavljajući vezu sa nekadašnjom istočnom Evropom kroz rad Mladena Stilinovića. Izložba počinje radovima Artists at Work i završava se sa Praise of Laziness za koje smatram da veoma dobro služe kao podsetnici da nam je potrebno više nego srećan završetak umetničke produkcije.
Mislim da je potrebno da se otvorimo procesima de-edukacije vezanim za modernost XX veka i da počnemo da govorimo o modernostima, podsećajući nas da ono što znamo ostaje dinamično.
Maja Ćirić: Gde se nalazi kritički kapacitet kuratorskog u azijskom/kineskom kontekstu?
Biljana Ćirić: Pravljenje izložbi u aktuelnom umetničkom sistemu Kine je zauzima statični format koji kultiviše uglavnom materijalne objekte, objekte koji simbolizuju akumulaciju bogatstva. Interes za drugačije aspekte stvaranja izložbi koje bi se odnosili na produkciju individualnosti kroz izložbeno iskustvo ili na mogućnost interpretacije umetničkih radova kroz odnose koje izložbeni kontekst proizvodi je retko uziman u obzir.
Dok izložbena produkcija predstavlja možda i najčešći način cirkulacije objekata, mi retko postavljamo pitanja o izložbenom diskursu. U kontekstu rastućeg ulaganja kapitala u savremenu umetnost, novi prostor, muzeji i visoki budžeti su proizveli ogroman broj izložbi koje se na dnevnom nivou odvijaju oko nas; svi ovi prostori moraju biti ispunjeni objektima.
Kriza u pravljenju izložbi tera nas da se vratimo fundamentalnom razumevanju kustoske prakse i njenim odnosima prema širim sistemima umetničke produkcije i izložbene kulture. Izložbena delatnost je u Kini retko razmatrana kao aktivni učesnik u proizvodnji diskursa zbog još uvek nedovoljno jasnog razumevanja toga šta znači “praviti izložbu”: veliki deo onoga što se naziva kustoskom delatnošću viđeno je kao jednostavna prezentacija objekata koja je iz umetničkog ateljea prenešena u izložbeni prostor dok je jedini doprinos kustosa u tome da napišu predgovor u izložbenom katalogu. Ovo rezultuje pojednostavljenim shvatanjem kustoske prakse, prakse koja je zapravo veoma povezana sa politikom sveta umetnosti.
Veliki broj skorašnjih izložbi u Kini, naročito retrospektiva starijih umetnika i njihove muzejske izložbe, ostavlja tužan utisak objekata rasutih u muzejskom prostoru bez ikakvog daljeg razmišljanja o njihovim odnosima. Da situacija bude gora, mnogi od ovih umetnika uživaju veliki ugled i poseduju snažan opus, ali nekada ovakav opus nije sam po sebi dovoljan za jaku izložbu koja zahteva teoretsku i fizičku realizaciju. Ovo nije samo zbog toga što je izložbi potreban kustos da bi se potpisao ispod naslova izložbe, već zato što izložba pruža mogućnost da umetnik i kustos otvore razgovor o njegovoj/njenoj umetničkoj praksi i ponude nove relacije između radova, kao i nove interpretacije ovih relacija. Izložba bi trebalo da omogući prostor za refleksiju o umetničkom i kurstoskom radu i o načinima na koji ove dve discipline sarađuju. Kroz iskustva u ovakvim procesima obično se kreće ka eksperimentisanju sa formatom izložbe koji donosi mogućnost neuspeha, ali takođe nudi i novi niz odnosa koji nisu važni samo za ulogu kustosa, već i za umetnika. Do sada se dogodilo malo izložbi u Kini koje funkcionišu na ovom nivou. Istraživanje i energija za proizvodnju izložbi na ovaj način traje dugo, a mnoge kustoske prakse instatno su realizovane i ne dozvoljavaju ovakvim relacijama da se ostvare. Malo je institucija koje se trude da naprave nešto drugačije kao što je Times Museum (Guangzhou, China) koji ima dobar kustoski program ali to je veoma redak i ne tako čest radni metod u institucijama.
Do danas su neke od najvažnijih izložbi sa kritičkim kapacitetom organizovali umetnici. Uloga umetnika i kustosa je snažna od sredine 2000-ih.
Ne bih pričala o Aziji na generalnom nivou budući da se radi o veoma kompleksnoj regiji, ali postoji knjiga Patrick-a Flores-a koja pokušava da mapira kustoske prakse u jugoistočnoj Aziji.
Maja Ćirić: Kakvi su tvoji utisci o svetu umetnosti u Srbiji?
Biljana Ćirić: Veoma mi je teško da pričam o utiscima. Pokušavam da se informišem preko onoga što mogu da pročitam i da vidim putujući svetom i vraćajući se u Srbiju jednom godišnje. Zajedno smo radili na malom projektu u Šangaju 2008. gde smo predstavili nekoliko srpskih umetnika ali, kao što sam navela, postoji veoma malo mogućnosti da se dublje iniciraju procesi između ova dva prostora, dok se veliki broj nekadašnjih zapadno-evropskih zemalja takmiči da predstavi izložbene projekte u Kini.
Ono što mogu reći iz svoje perspektive jeste da Srbija ima jedinstvenu poziciju koja nije iskorišćena kako bi se intenzivirala produkcija diskursa i veza u regionu i šire. Mislim to u pogledu proaktivnije uloge.
Čitala sam da se nedavno dogodila izložba kineske umetnosti u Beogradu, ali umetnici koji su na njoj predstavljeni nemaju kritičnu relevantnost u umetničkom sistemu u Kini, već su deo komercijalne spekulacije. Bilo je stotine izložbi kineske umetnosti u stotinama evropskih muzeja u poslednjih deset godina, zašto je sada ova izložba u Beogradu?
Sa druge strane, postoje sjajni umetnici koji stvaraju ovde i sjajni kustosi koji pokušavaju da naprave razliku, tako da je potrebno da se iznova pronađu načini zajedničkog rada i otvorenih procesa za saradnju koji bi doneli temeljnije istraživanje i razumevanje između kolega. Mislim da je Give More then You Take – Gift Exchange rezidencija, koju smo pokrenule i koja će uskoro biti promovisana, dobar primer u okviru koga će umetnik Vladimir Nikolić doći u Times Museum u Guangzhou tokom sledeće godine, a jedan kineski umetnik će imati priliku da dođe u Beograd. Mislim da ovakve mogućnosti stvaraju stvarne mreže i nadam se da će se one razviti u novi set odnosa unutar umetničkog sistema koji ne prate put globalnog kapitala, već teraju na razmišljanje, upoređivanje i razmenu.
Maja Ćirić: Kako posmatraš odnos između savremenih kustoskih praksi i istorijskih kustoskih praksi?
Biljana Ćirić: Ovo je veoma važno pitanje za mene. Budući da radim u Kini gde nema refleksije o istoriji i gde postoji samo kratkotrajna memorija, započela sam nekoliko procesa vezanih za istorijska ispitivanja i istraživanja koja predstavljaju deo moj procesa učenja, ali i izuzetno važno sredstvo za razmišljanje o aktuelnom kontekstu u kome radim i njegovoj vezi prema prošlosti.
Završavam arhiviranje istorije izložbi u Šangaju od 1979. do 2006., deo ove arhive obuhvata umetnike kao kustose. Ovaj arhiv će biti dostupan sledeće godine na sajtu Asia Art Archive, pratiće je i publikacija. Nadam se da će arhiv biti značanjan za obrazovanje mlađih kustosa i umetnika. O radu značajnih umetnika se puno zna kroz literaturu i istoriju umetnosti, ali ne zna se u kojim uslovima su ovi radovi producirani, što je izložba kao temporalna realnost.
Takođe, ove godine počela sam i istraživačku platformu pod naslovom History of Exhibitions towards Future of Exhibition Making koja se bavi istorijom izložbi i Kini, jugoistočnoj Aziji, Australiji i Novom Zelandu kroz nekoliko seminara. Pozivajući kustose i kritičare da predstave svoje radove stvaramo arhiv ovih izložbi nudeći istorijski kontekst o tome šta je pravljenje izložbi značilo i šta ono predstavlja danas u različitim lokalitetima, tretirajući izložbu kao predmet akademskog istraživanja. Ove inicijative su veoma važne i verujem da će komplikovati istorijski narativ o pravljenju izložbi u budućnosti, jer je do danas većina literature o izložbama pisano u zapadno-evropskom kontekstu.
Istorijsko istraživanje i njegova veza sa aktuelnim trenutkom nam pomaže da razumem naše sličnosti i razlike putem kojih redefinišemo sopstvenu poziciju i izbor da uvek iznova kritički reagujemo ili ne. Proces razumevanja ograničenja našeg znanja i percepcije je permanentan, kao i hrabrost da se deli, upoređuje i reflektuje o sopstvenoj poziciji, uvek i ponovo ispočetka.
Maja Ćirić: Radila si kao kustoskinja retrospektive Tina Sehgala iste godine kada je ovaj umetnik dobio Zlatnog lava u Veneciji. Sa kojim izazovima si susrela radeći na ovom projektu i koju je razliku kineski kontekst doneo u datom slučaju?
Sa Tinom sam počela da radim pre tri godine kada sam prikazala njegov rad u okviru nekoliko grupnih izložbi u Kini. Planirali smo da probamo nešto manje i nakon nekolikog godina radimo njegovu veliku izložbu. Izložba koja se nedavno završila u UCCA-u u Pekingu ne bih opisala kao restrospektivu budući da nikada nismo upotrebili taj termin. Od početka je ideja iz moje i umetnikove perspektive bila prikazati značajne radove Tina Segala koji su relevantni u kineskom društvenom kontekstu. Probali smo veliki broj opcija i broja radova, te smo na kraju odlučili da prikažemo samo dva rada: This Progress i This Variation. Izlagažući Sehgalove radove tokom prethodnih godina u Kini, bila sam ubeđena u važnost predstavljanja radova kao što su This Progress u kome svaki posetilac ima veoma aktivnu ulogu u radu i u kome postoji značajna razmena za svakoga ko uđe u izložbeni prostor.
Govoreći o izazovima, mislim da postoji dosta izazova na različitim nivoima. Pre tri godine izazov je predstavljao ubediti institucije da prikažu Segalov rad i objasniti njegovu umetničku praksu, kao i specifičan način njegovog rada. Tu je takođe i stalni izazov u nalaženju pravih ljudi da izvedu delo, to je najvažniji deo rada koji određuje njegov kvalitet. Za rad This Progress, na primer, imali smo oko 80 ljudi iz različitih starosnih grupa, od dece do ljudi preko 60 godina. Ovi sjajni ljudi, koji su posvetili svoje vreme da izvedu rad, su njegov najvažniji deo uz Tinovu strukturu, tako da sam sa njegova sva asistenta provela zaista veoma dugo vremena pokušavajući da nađem zanimljive ljude koji bi učestvovali.
Mislim da je još uvek izazov zaista otvoriti diskusiju o muzejskoj tradiciji i izložbi kao ritualu, kao i priznati značaj ovog rituala u odnosima prema Tinovom radu. Većina diskusija vrti se oko izvođačkog aspekta situacija koje on konstruiše, uslovima prodaje njegovih umentičkih radova itd. Međutim, ja čvrsto verujem da važnost njegove prakse leži u razmišljanju o muzejskoj linearno-hronološkoj prezentaciji koja je, primera radi, veoma prisuta u radu This progress. Dakle, pitanja kao što su kako njegova praksa iznova oblikuje ritual izlaganja i na koji način individualno aktiviranje u njegovom radu predlaže svakom posetiocu da iskusi njegov rad – ovakve diskusije su, verujem, izuzetno važne. Kontekst muzejske kulture, njena veza sa zapadnim demokratskim društvom, kao i individualno iskustvo koje omogućava izložbeni okvir i način na koji su oni projektovani u lokalni kontekst, u ovom slučaju Kinu, u kome izložba očigledno predstavlja konstrukt kolonijalnog perioda, itd. Za mene je ovo i malo frustrirajuće budući da smatram da je u aktuelnom momentu u Kini, sa usponom muzeja i konzumacije izložbi, ovo veoma važno pitanje koje zahteva više vremena da bi se otvorila diskusija. UCCA je nakon otvaranja izložbe organizovao razgovor između Tina Sehgala i kineskog filozofa koji nije uspeo, budući da je bio izveden u kontekstu performansa, dok su neki mišljenja da Tinov pokušaj da uvede aktuelnost u ovu konverzaciju nije naišla na odgovor. Pitanje o tome kako izložba reflektuje strukturu društva i na koji način prilazimo izložbi kao mediju nije rezervisano samo za umetnike, već za sve nas u ovom polju. Sećam se kako je pre dve godine Tino Sehgal izveo rad u beogradskom Gete institutu gde osećam da takođe nije uspeo da otvori diskusiju koja bi se odnosila na lokalni umetnički kontekst.
__________________
Maja Ćirić je nezavisna kustoskinja i kritičarka umetnosti čija praksa ne može biti definisana u strukturama dominante geopolitke i njenih uticaja na svet umetnosti. Ona o umetnosti razmišlja drugačije, u okvirima kritičnosti i post-globalizma. Doktorirala je teoriju umetnosti na Univerzitetu umetnosti u Beogradu sa tezom na temu Institucionalna kritika i kustoska praksa. Dobitnica je nagrade Lazar Trifunović za umetničku kritiku (Beograd), nagrade CEC ArtsLink Independent Projects (Njujork), kustoske nagrade ISCP (Njujork) i nagrade za kustosko istraživanje ICI/Dedalus (Njujork). Bila je kustoskinja Paviljona Srbije na 52. Međunarodnoj izložbi na Bijenalu u Veneciji i komesar Paviljona Srbije na 55. Međunarodnoj izložbi na Bijenalu u Veneciji. Bavi se temama koje obuhvataju polja od kustoske prakse kao institucionalne kritike do istraživanja metodologije kustoskih praksi i internacionalne i transnacionalne cirkulacije ideja i kustoskih praksi. Član je Internacionalne asocijacije kritičara umetnosti AICA, Internacionalne asocijacije kustosa savremene umetnosti IKT, mreže ICI (Independent Curators International) i redovna je učesnica konferencija na temu kustoskih praksi.
Biljana Ćirić je završila master studije istorije umetnosti na East China Normal University u Šangaju. Bila je upravnica kustoskog odeljenja šangajskog Duolun Muzeja moderne umetnosti od 2004. do 2007. i kustoskinja kineskog predstavnika na Bijenalu u Singapuru 2006. godine. Projekat na kome trenutno radi Migration Addicts je predstavljen na 52. Bijenalu u Veneciji 2007. i u okviru Shenzhen/Hong Kong Bi-city Bijenala urbanizma i arhitekture. Autorka je izložbenih projekata: Strategies from Within Contemporary Art Practices in Vietnam and Cambodia (Ke Center of Contemporary Arts) i belike retrospective Yoko Ono (Ke Center for Contemporary Art, Guangdong Museum of Art). Bila je kustoskinja umetničkog projekta u javnom prostoru intrude 366(Zendai MoMA) 2008. godine i izložbe History in Making: Shanghai 1979-2009, 30 Years Retrospective of Shanghai Contemporary Culture 2009. godine. Njeni recentni projekti su Contemporaneity – Contemporary Art of Indonesia predstavljen u Shanghai MoCA i Body as a Museum predstavljen u Tensta Konsthall u Štokholmu. Ćirićeva je inicirala projekat Taking the Stage OVER, jednogodišnje istraživanje performativnih aspekata umetnosti u okviru koga radove predstavili Bestue Vives, Tino Sehgal, Antti Laitinen i drugi. Bila je ko-kustoskinja Azijskog Trijenala u Mančesteru (2011). Tokom 2013. realizovala je izložbe: Tino Sehgal u UCCA, Peking i and One Step Forward, Two Steps Back- Us and Institution, Us as Institution u Times Museum i započela platformu From History of Exhibitions towards Future of Exhibitions Making. Redovno piše za Broadsheet, Yi Shu Journal, Flash Art, Independent Critic i druge publikacije. Autorka je knjiga Playing by the Rules: Alternative Thinking/Alternative spaces izdavača Apexart NY, kao i serije publikacija o savremenoj umetnosti u Šangaju 1979-2009. Prvu knjiga u ovoj seriji History in Making: Shanghai 1979-2009 Artists Interviews and Work Archive izdao je Shanghai Peoples Fine Arts Publishing House 2010. Trenutno priprema publikacije: Shanghai 1979-2009:History of Exhibitions, kao i Institution for the Future koju uređuje u saradnji sa Sally Lai koji će izdati Chinese Art Centre. Nominovana je za nagradu ICI Independent Vision Curatorial 2012. Član je žirija nedavno osnovane nagrade Hugo Boss Asia Art Award. Trenutno radi kao nezavisna kustoskinja u Šangaju.
An ongoing conversation between Maja Ćirić and Biljana Ćirić
December 2013
Maja Ciric: What are the contexts in which you work?
Biljana Ciric: Currently based in Shanghai and working as an independent curator here since 2008⎯in an environment where non-profit organizations barely exist and where the market is the main force driving the art world in China⎯I have been and continue to question my place and my role within this system, as well as my contribution to this system as a “context-sensitive” curator, as Maria Lind has described it. I ask myself over and over again: when, where and for whom do the exhibitions that I work on take place? Working in this way has forced me to create spaces for different things to happen that underline my interest in questioning the ritualized nature of the art world and to continue to remind ourselves to remain cautious of the role of the cultural entertainer as opposed to the intellectual. This is further elaborated in the exhibition formats I develop⎯entities with spatial and temporal limitations⎯and in the design of the inherent sets of relationships within such that open up new possibilities through the very process of creation. Briefly, this is my primary working medium, the exhibition, which become intersections and links to my research.
As you probably can imagine, hundreds of exhibitions take place in China on any given day and so the exhibition format has become a tool of the market in the exchange of objects, as well as for cultural entertainment. This has led me to conisder how we as curators deal with this situation in productive, generative terms. In the last few projects/exhibitions that I presented in China ⎯ such as Taking The Stage OVER and Alternatives to Ritual ⎯ were longer term exhibitions of a year or half a year, with the idea that the internal dynamics of this prolonged engagement would create new sets of relationships and negotiations thereof, all the while trying to slow down the processes of consumption and establish relationships between the institutions, artists and myself that intensify these encounters.
This thinking about the production of new operating models also led me to work with a number of international artists (such as Tino Sehgal, for example), introducing their work to the Chinese context, and engaging in discussion with them about the how the notion of an exhibition as a construct of Western democratic society has been translated into other cultural contexts and what it means to do so with consideration of the different social and political environments.
On the other hand, there is the challenge of presenting the practices of artists who are often the main contributors to knowledge production on a local level, yet are barely visible internationally. This has been a major frustration of mine for a long time, as the so-called mainstream art system and media seek out certain patterns and packages for interpreting art from non-Western contexts, which I think still exists despite the globalized world we live in today.
Maja Ciric: To whom do you speak while curating?
Biljana Ciric: I always speak and discuss with artists. I think it is important to hear their feedback on issues that I want to discuss through exhibition-making and their perspective on its relevance to the current moment. So I treasure these discussions very much as they are mutually influential. I was lucky enough that when I was beginning my curatorial career I was surrounded by a group of artists who were taking their participation in exhibitions very seriously. So, in order to convince them of the relevance of the thing I wanted to do, I had to really make a concerted effort to convey the importance of my ideas and perspective. Unfortunately we see less and less of these discussions between artists and curators at such a productive level. This for me is very closely connected with a kind of working ethic within the art world between the roles of the curator and artist.
Then there is also the conversations that take place at the stage of the actual presentation of the exhibition, and here I always talk with architect Segolene Dubernet, who I worked with on staging many exhibitions, including Rejected Collection and Yoko Ono, as well as my recent exhibition One Step Forward, Two Steps Back⎯Us and Institution, Us as Institution, among others. There is a delicate and critical balance between the exhibition and its experience that these conversations help to construct. In my mind, the gap between the theoretical approach and actual, physical realization of an exhibition is a primary deciding factor of the failure or success of an exhibition. Thus, the physical presentation and relationship between the works that exhibition provides is extremely important, and this is something Dubernet and I would discuss over and over again..
Maja Ciric: Looking at if from China, can we still talk about the hegemony of the Western art world?
Biljana Ciric: After 1989, and the famous Magiciens de la Terre exhibition, we started to talk about the global art world, which artist Mladen Stilinovic beautifully captured when he said: “The artist who does not speak English is no artist.” These are common processes that happen in different places with different intensities, and China is no exception.
I think no matter from which part of the world we are looking at the construct and set of relationships that compose the art world⎯from museums to the market, to networked cultures⎯it is a Western construct. What we should discuss, and perhaps is more interesting, is how new emerging potential art centers change and affect this set of relationships, and what new models grow forth from this situation. There are many significant exhibitions from the non-Western world (from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, for example), but very rarely do we see dialogues, research analysis or deep exchanges between these parts of the world. This is something that I have tried to counteract, having done a number of exhibitions, for example, trying to bridge the connection between China and different Southeast Asian countries, which share many common historical pathways and in their development of avant-garde movements that are rarely mined or discussed. When I began my research in the region around 2007, traveling to many countries with my former Yugoslavian passport, being based in China meant that I was the “other,” and it seemed I was always made to wait at the end of the passport control counters, further evincing that these parts of the world are far apart despite their geographical location.
In my last exhibition, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back⎯Us and Institution, Us as Institution, I tried to further draw out some of these connections by making visible the different possible readings of institutional critique from different so-called non-Western art systems as China, Southeast Asia, and Palestine, while also establishing a link with former Eastern Europe through the work of Mladen Stilinovic’s practice. The exhibition was produced in phases, with the first stage being Artists at Work, and ending in Stilinovic’s Praise of Laziness, which I think beautifully serves as a reminder that what we need is more than just a happy-ending.
In many ways, I think we need to open ourselves to de-learning processes related to 20th modernity and to start talking about modernities, reminding us that what we think we know is always in dynamic flux.
Maja Ciric: Where does the critical capacity of curating lie within the Asian/Chinese context?
Biljana Ciric: Exhibition-making within China’s current art system is something of a dead format in that its goal is often to only cultivate the desire for material objects, objects which symbolize the accumulation of wealth. Interest in other aspects of exhibition-making, such as the production of individuality through the exhibition experience or the possibility of interpretation of artists’ works through the relationships that an exhibition context produces, have rarely been taken into account.
While exhibitions have perhaps been the most common method for the circulation of objects, questions as to the development of an exhibitionary discourse are not raised. In the context of growing capital investment in contemporary art, new spaces, museums and big budgets have produced an enormous range of exhibitions that take place on a daily basis all around us, and all these spaces need to be filled with objects.
This crisis of exhibition-making urges us to return to a fundamental understanding of curatorial practice and its relationship to the wider systems of art production and exhibition culture. Exhibition-making in China has rarely been taken into account as an active participant in the production of discourse, due to what is still a relatively incomprehensive understanding of what exhibition-making actually means: much of the so-called curating has been seen as the simple presentation of objects, moved from studios to white cube spaces, while the writing of interepretive texts is usually the only thing that most curators contribute. This results in an over-simplified understanding of curatorial practice, a practice which is in fact very much connected to the politics of the art world. .
A number of recent exhibitions in China, particularly those billed as retrospectives of established artists and their museums shows, gives a very sad impression of objects scattered across a space without any further thinking about their relationship to each other or beyond. To make the situation worse, many of these artists are actually artists of great stature and possess a strong body of work, but sometimes a strong body of work alone is not sufficient for a strong exhibition. This is not only because an exhibition simply needs a curatial perspective, or a curator to sign their name under the exhibition title, but exhibitions provide the possibility for artists and curators to open up a discussion about his/her own practice and to propose new relationships between the works on display, as well as to develop new interpretations of these relationships. An exhibition should provide the opportunity for self-reflection on both artistic and curatorial work and the ways in which the two disciplines work together. Experiencing these processes usually leads to experimentation within the exhibition format, which consequently brings about the possibility for failure, but also proposes a new set of relationshipa that are not only important for the role of the curator but for that of the artist as well.
Up until today, very few exhibitions that take place in China operate on this level. Research and the energy required for producing exhibitions in this manner takes time, but much of the curatorial work in this context has been produced instantly and thus doesn’t allow these relationships to take root within the very few institutions that try to make difference, like the Times Museum in Guangzhou, for instance, which has a very strong curatorial program but one that is very rare and generally considered an uncommon way of working within an institution.
Furthermore, still to this day some of the most important exhibitions that involved some level of critical capacity were actually organized by artists themselves, and during a time when the role of the artist and the curator was very strongly connected, through til about the middle of the year 2000.
As to the continent of Asia, I wouldn’t speak about it in such general terms as it is a very complex region, but there is a decent book by Patrick Flores that tries to map curatorial practices in Southeast Asia, in particular.
Maja Ciric: What are your impressions on the art world in Serbia?
Biljana Ciric: It is very difficult to talk about my impressions. I try to stay informed through what I can read and see while traveling around the world, and I return to Serbia at least once a year. In 2008 we did a small project together in Shanghai, presenting a few Serbian artists, but as I mentioned before there are very few opportunities to create deeper connections between the two, especially while many of the Western European countries compete to present exhibitions or projects in China.
What I can say is that, from my perspective, Serbia occupies a unique position that hasn’t really yet been used to intensify its own production of discourse, nor in developing connections within the region and beyond. I mean, in terms of playing a more proactive role such.
I was reading that there was an exhibition of Chinese art recently in Belgrade, but the Chinese artists presented there are artists who don’t have any critical relevance to the art system in China. Rather, they are a part of the commercial speculation that continues in China. Again, there have been hundreds of Chinese exhibitions in hundreds of European museums over the last 10 years, so why this show in Belgrade now?
On the other hand, there are great artists producing work here in Serbia and great curators who are trying to make a difference, so we just need to reinvent our ways or working together and to open up space for processes of collaboration, which are going to bring more indepth research and understanding of our counterparts. I think the Give More then You Take⎯Gift Exchange residency is a great example of this, through which the artist Vladimir Nikolic will come to the Times Museum in Guangzhou for a residency next year and one Chinese artist will take residence in Belgrade. I think these possibilities create real networks and hopefully will develop into new sets of relationships within the art world, which, importantly, are not following the path of global capital but instead urge practitioners to reflect, compare and share.
Maja Ciric: How do you perceive the relation between contemporary curating and the history of the practice?
Biljana Ciric: This is a very important question to me. Based in China as I am, where there is little time for historical reflection and where we all have very short-term memory, I initiated a number of processes related to historical examinations, research projects that are part of my own learning process but which also serve as very important tools for reflection on the current context where I am working and how it connects to the past.
Currently, I am finishing an archive called History of Exhibitions in Shanghai from 1979-2006, and part of that archive looks at the role of artists as curators. This archive will be online next year on the Asia Art Archive website, and will also become a publication. This archive I hope will be an important learning tool for younger curators and artists as well. We know about many important artists works through reading and art history but we don’t know much about the conditions under which these works were produced, which relates back to the notion of the exhibition as a temporal reality.
Also this year I initiated a research-based platform titled From the History of Exhibitions Towards the Future of Exhibition Making, looking at the history of exhibitions in China, South East Asia, Australia and New Zealand through number of seminars. By inviting curators and critics to present papers, we are creating an archive of these exhibitions in order to proivde a historical context for what exhibition-making meant and means today in different localities. Thus, we are treating the idea of an exhibition as an academic subject. These initiatives are extremely important as I believe they will complicate dominant historical narratives around exhibition-making practices in the future, since still today most of the literature related to exhibition-making has been written in the context of Western art historical circles.
Historical research and it’s link to the current moment will only help us to better understand our similarities and differences through which we will be able to redefine our own position, and our choice to act or not act as a form of critique. It is a never-ending process, that is, understanding the limitation of our own knowledge and perception, while being brave enough to share, compare and reflect upon ourselves and our individual and shared work, again and again.
Maja Ciric: You’ve curated Tino Seghal’s retrospective in the year when he has one the Golden Lion in Venice, what were the challanges on working on this project and what was the difference that the Chinese context brought to it?
Biljana Ciric: I started to work with Tino three years ago showing his work within some of the group exhibitions that I curated in China. We had a plan that we try to do something smaller and after few years his big exhibition. Exhibition that recently ended in UCCA in Beijing I wouldn’t describe as retrospective as we never discussed it in that term. The idea since beginning from my perspective and artist’s is to show pieces that are relevant to China’s social context but also are important work for Tino’s practice. We went through many options and number of the works so we decided at the end to show only two works This Progress and This Variation. Presenting number of his works in China in recent years I was convince in importance showing pieces such as This Progress where each visitor has a very active part in the piece and there is in depth exchange for everyone that enters exhibition.
Speaking of challenges I think they are number on many different levels. Three years ago was challenge convincing institutions to show his work and explaining his practice as well as very specific way he works. Also there is constant challenge finding right people to do the piece, that is most important part of the piece which determines the quality of the work. For the piece This Progress for example we had around 80 people from different age groups from kids to wizards( elderly people over 60 years old). These great people who devoted their time to do the piece are most important part of the work besides Tino’s structure so myself and his two assistants spent really a lot o time trying to find interesting people to become part of it.
What I think still stay the challenge is really opening discussion related to museum tradition, and exhibition as a ritual and acknowledging importance of this ritual in relations to Tino’s work. Most of discussion stays around live based aspect of his constructed situations and the way his work is sold etc.. But I strongly believe that importance of his practice is in reflecting on museums linear time presentation, strongly present in This progress work for example. So how his practices reconfigures rituals of exhibiting and what kind of individual activation his work proposes to each visitor that experiences his work. This discussions I believe are of great importance. Context of museum culture, it’s connection to western democratic society as well as individual experience that exhibition framework provides and how this is projected on local context in this case China where exhibition is obviously construct of colonial times etc… This stays as a bit frustration for me as I think this is very important question to current moment in China with raise of museums and consumption of exhibition that I think we need more time to open up this discussion. UCCA after opening organized talk between Sehgal and chinese philosopher that clearly showed conversation between the two really failed as was carried in context of performance and some of thinking that Tino tried to bring actually didn’t find resonance. So how ritual of exhibiting mirrors structure of our society and how we approach to exhibition as a medium is not only question for artist but all of us in the field. I remember two years ago Tino Sehgal had a piece presented in Belgrade’s Goethe Institut that feels to me also failed to bring any discussion that reflects on local art community.
__________________
Maja Ciric is an independent curator and art critic whose logic of practice cannot be defined by the dominant geopolitical structures and their impact on the art world; rather she thinks about the art world differently, in terms of criticality and post-globalism. She has a PhD in art theory from the University of Arts in Belgrade, her thesis is entitled Institutional Critique and Curating. She is a recipient of the Lazar Trifunovic Award for Art Criticism (Belgrade), the CEC ArtsLink Independent Projects Award (New York), the ISCP Curator Award (New York) and ICI/Dedalus Curatorial Research Award(New York). She was a curator of the Serbian Pavilion at the 52. International Exhibition, La Biennale di Venezia and a commissioner of the Serbian Pavilion at the 55. International Art Exhibition, La Biennale di Venezia. Her areas of concern span from curating as institutional critique through to the research of methodology of curating, and to the international and transnational circulation of ideas and curating. She is a member of AICA (International Association of Art Critics), IKT (International association of curators of contemporary art) and IC I(Independent Curators International) and a regular contributor to the conferences related to curating and the curatorial.
Biljana Ciric graduated from East China Normal University in Shanghai with an M.A in Art history. She was the director of the Curatorial Department at the Shanghai Duolun Museum of Modern Art from 2004 to 2007 and the China networking curator for the 2006 Singapore Biennale. Her ambitious ongoing project Migration Addicts was presented at the 52nd Venice Biennale in the 2007, Collateral Events and in the Shenzhen/Hong Kong Bi-city Biennale of Urbanism and Architecture. Her exhibition projects include Strategies from Within – Contemporary Art Practices in Vietnam and Cambodia (Ke Center of Contemporary Arts) and a major retrospective of Yoko Ono (Ke Center for Contemporary Art, Guangdong Museum of Art). Ciric was the curator of the public art project intrude 366(Zendai MoMA) in 2008 and curated History in Making: Shanghai 1979-2009, 30 Years Retrospective of Shanghai Contemporary Culture in 2009. Her recent projects are Contemporaneity – Contemporary Art of Indonesia presented at Shanghai MoCA and Body as a Museum at Tensta Konsthall in Stockholm. Ciric initiated the Taking the Stage OVER project, a one year ongoing investigation related to performative aspects of art, presenting works of Bestue Vives, Tino Sehgal, Antti Laitinen among others. She was co-curator of Asia Triennale Manchester 2011. Her exhibitions in 2013 include Tino Sehgal solo exhibition at UCCA Beijing and an exhibition hosted by Times Museum titled One Step Forward, Two Steps Back- Us and Institution, Us as Institution. In 2013 Ciric initiated From History of Exhibitions towards Future of Exhibitions Making, an ongoing seminar platform that proposes to revisit the importance of exhibition making, that beyond art work itself, is one of the key factors in the arts’ relevance in a social context. This seminar platform will be looking specifically at the history of exhibitions in China, South East Asia, Australia and New Zealand. She is a regular contributor for Broadsheet, Yi Shu Journal, Flash Art, Independent Critic and other art publications. Her recent book contributions include Playing by the Rules: Alternative Thinking/Alternative spaces published by Apexart NY, as well a series of publications related to Shanghai Contemporary Art from 1979-2009. The first book in the series, History in Making: Shanghai 1979-2009 Artists Interviews and Work Archive was published by Shanghai Peoples Fine Arts Publishing House in 2010. Upcoming publication is Shanghai 1979-2009:History of Exhibitions in English as well as Institution for the Future, publication co-edited in collaboration with Sally Lai and published by Chinese Art Centre with contributions from Tino Sehgal, Dorothea Von Hantellamann, Joao Ribas, Jens Hoffmann among others. Ciric has been nominated for 2012 ICI Independent Vision Curatorial Award. And she is on Jury for recently established Hugo Boss Asia Art Award. Currently she is working as an independent curator based in Shanghai.
__________________
Photos: courtesy of Biljana Ćirić
Special thanks to Amara Antilla and Steven L. Bridges for proof reading
 praksi?
Biljana Ćirić: Budući da živim u Šangaju i od 2008. godine radim kao nezavi){kind=link}