Društvena dezorganizacija i samoorganizovana kulturna produkcija u Beogradu – Uvećanje (1. deo)
>>> Please scroll down for the English version
Društvena dezorganizacija i samoorganizovana kulturna produkcija u Beogradu – Uvećanje (1. deo)
1.
U nekom trenutku u oblačiću koji je iskakao kada se ukuca internet stranica projekta Aktopolis[1] stajalo je – ovaj projekat „istražuje Evropu u vremenu transformacije”. Stoga, bez predstave u šta se transformišemo, i pritom ne uviđajući istinski iz čega proizilazimo, teško je da se shvati gde trenutno stojimo.
Beogradsko izdanje Aktopolisa pod nazivom „FORMALNO NEFORMALNA. Beogradska samoorganizovana[2] kulturna produkcija” bilo je orijentisano prema preispitivanju okolnosti u kojima se danas nalazimo, dubinski sagledavajući prakse profesionalaca u kulturi, njihove uzajamne razlike i dostignuća, pokušavajući da se izbegne predstava da smo ujedinjeni i razumljivi jedni drugima. Zato što nismo. Štaviše, što je svako od nas posebniji i drugačiji – to je životnija i izazovnija kulturna produkcija.
Urbana kulturna sfera u Srbiji, posebno u Beogradu, drastično se promenila u proteklih dvadeset pet godina. Unutrašnje državno uređenje i spoljašnje okolnosti promenile su se zbog nestanka Jugoslavije (čiji je glavni grad bio Beograd), građanskih ratova, potpunih međunarodnih sankcija[3], ogromnih demografskih promena, građanskih protesta, bombardovanja, propasti jednog političkog režima i njegova zamena drugim, a zatim i trećim pa i četvrtim, teritorijalno rasparčavanje, opadanje životnih standarda, ekonomska nestabilnost… U međuvremenu konteksti širom Evropskog kontinenta su i sami bili zahvaćeni uskovitlanim procesima.
Ovde se protok vremena najčešće posmatra kao ‘pre’ i ‘posle’ devedesetih. Devedesete su preispitale sve civilizacijske okosnice, i svi su omanuli. Stvaranje umetnosti je tada bilo (u opštim crtama) nacionalističko i oportunističko, ili kritičko i subverzivno. Nacionalizam kao noseći diskurs „osvajanja slobode”, i sa tim branjenja i osvajanja novih starih geografija prethodno zajedničke države, u kulturnoj sferi je bio više nego dobrodošao da veliča prošlost i sadašnjost i prorekne svetlu budućnost[4] nacije, tj. nacionalne države. Ovakvi angažovani umetnički nastupi bili su pozdravljeni i nagrađivani od strane državne uprave i njenih institucija. U isto vreme, neki od onih koji se bave kulturom imali su kritičniji pristup sistemskom nasilju i njihov angažman u javnom životu bio je na razne načine potiskivan i ponekad direktno cenzurisan.
U sledećoj deceniji sa formalnom promenom političkih okolnosti (odlazak Miloševića, ustanovljenje prozapadnih demokrata) ove suprotnosti su se pomerile tako da je kritičko postalo oportunističko, a nacionalističko – subverzivno. Tako se desilo da je jedan broj pojedinaca koji su devedesetih zastupali kritičku umetnost sada bili pozdravljeni kako od strane nove domaće političke elite i njima dostupnih resursa, tako i od strane stranih fondova koji su ih podržavali do trenutka formalnih političkih promena, dok se danas njihova praksa može posmatrati i kao iscrpljivanje svih materijalnih i simboličkih resursa koji su u tom trenutku bili dostupni, ne ostavljajući mnogo toga drugima, posebno mlađim generacijama. S druge strane, zastupanje pozicije koja je isticala kvalitete kulture u Srbiji u najširem smislu postalo je koliko ismevano u okvirima novoustanovljenog dominantnog političkog režima, toliko i tretirano sa zazorom kao potencijalnog izvora kritike i preispitivanja, neprijatelj idealizovane budućnosti u kojoj je sam pojam kulture u Srbiji postalo nešto čega se treba stideti.
U deceniji u kojoj se nalazimo kao da je postalo jasno da laka i lepa budućnost neće brzo stići, te je subverzivno postalo oportunističko, a kritičko – nacionalističko. U praksi se neoliberalizacija odvija na svim nivoima države, od privatizacije zdravstva, obrazovanja i kulture do svih segmenta društvene imovine, industrije itd, uz istovremenu ekspanziju administracije. Ono što je moglo da bude nasleđe kritičke struje devedesetih u polju kulture sada ne uspeva da nađe novi stožer kritičkog modusa, te gubi kompas za svoju kritičku poziciju do mere koja postaje neproduktivna i samouništavajuća. S druge strane, naznaka bilo kakve druge pozicije osim eksplicitne moći (bilo realne, bilo samopripisane simboličke), kao i sama namera da se koncentracija uloži u rad na sadržaju, a ne formi, kontradiktorno se tumači kao izraz zaludnosti neprimerene današnjem trenutku. Različitost je neprihvatljiva, čak i kažnjiva u naizgled raznolikim društvenim i političkim krugovima, što samo pokazuje koliko su modusi funkcionisanja svih tih krugova zapravo slični. U nedostatku određenja drugosti (ukoliko je uopšte i percipirana), u aktuelnom trenutku ona se etiketira kao protagonista sa nepoželjnom identifikacijom sa nus-proizvodima nacionalnih država.
Od dvehiljadite godine mnoge državne institucije su zatvorene, neke trajno, a neke privremeno – uključujući Narodni muzej, Muzej savremene umetnosti, godišnji Oktobarski salon; može da se primeti tendencija ka industriji događaja/festivalizaciji kulturne produkcije sa naglaskom na amaterskoj i folklornoj produkciji, pa stoga i nedostatku kontinuirane podrške profesionalnim produkcijama koje se zasnivaju na procesu. Zvanične kulturne politike daju prednost ‘kulturnim institucijama’ pred profesionalcima u kulturi koji nisu zaposleni u državnim institucijama, stvarajući atmosferu polarizacije – iako su zapravo svi jednako nepodržani.
Naznaka opštih okolnosti kulturne produkcije u Srbiji i Beogradu, kao i mnogo šire, pokazuje tzv. ‘društvenu dezorganizaciju’: stanje društva koje karakteriše slom efektivne društvene kontrole što ima za posledicu nedostatak funkcionalne integracije između grupa, sukobljenih društvenih stavova, i lična neprilagođenost[5]. Praksa samoorganizacije je u direktnom odnosu prema društvenoj dezorganizaciji iako samoorganizacija ovde najčešće deluje ‘strana’ i nakalemljena na nas – mada bih ja rekla da je njena praksa veoma ‘odomaćena’. U pokušaju da se bude u toku sa tendencijama u zapadnom društvu, posebno od dvehiljaditih naovamo, većina društvenih i političkih mogućnosti i koncepata u Srbiji deluju kao da su uveženi već ‘spremni za korišćenje’, kritički neprovereni i lokalno nebaždareni, sa čudnim osećajem ‘kolektivnog podbačaja mašte’[6].
Pitanje kojim ćemo se ovde baviti je: Kakva je urbana kultura preživela ovu ujdurmu i kakav sadržaj i značaj ona danas nosi?
Beogradsko izdanje projekta AKTOPOLIS (Actopolis) ulazi u ovaj konkretni urbani (umetnički) kontekst. Ono je koncentrisano na specifičnosti relevantne vaninstitucionalne kulturne produkcije koja se otelotvoruje u performativnom istraživanju. Program okuplja četrnaest umetnika, umetničkih grupa, aktivista i onih koji se bave kulturom veoma različitih usmerenja, koji su prelomili i sagledali svoju praksu u odnosu na pitanja šta, kako i za koga se kritička urbana kultura proizvodi u vremenu tekuće krize, prelomljena kroz samoorganizaovane metodologije. Šta označava ekonomiju kulturne nezavisnosti u Srbiji petnaest godina od početka veka i dvadeset pet godina od društvenog rastakanja? Šta je kritički potencijal samoorganizacije u kulturnim praksama? U kojoj meri samoorganizacija može da obezbedi autonomiju u razmišljanju i delanju u umetnosti? U kojoj je meri samoorganizacija alternativa nefunkcionalnim institucijama i kakvu ulogu u tome igra neoliberalizam?
2.
Gete-institut Beograd, kao koproducent Aktopolisa, istupio je sa dve produkcione putanje: s jedne strane Gradska Gerila/Goethe Gerila (GG) i Urbani inkubator (UI) – koje je majstorski koordinisala Zorica Milisavljević – i s druge strane izbor koji sam ja kurirala i koordinisala.
GG i UI je inicirao Gete-institut 2010, odnosno 2013. godine, i oni su u međuvremenu postali, manje ili više, nezavisni u smislu njihove organizacije i finansiranja. Koristeći različite metodologije obe inicijative podstiču praktično znanje u urbanim praksama koje su ukorenjene u Savamali – delu grada koji prolazi kroz proces džentrifikacije, otvarajući mladim ljudima veoma neophodno polje za učenje kroz eksperiment.
Njihovo učešće u FORMALNO NEFORMALNOJ bilo je usmereno na sagledavanje onoga što su do sada postigli i na perspektive njihove produkcije u budućnosti. GG je realizovao radionicu „Samoorganizacija i internet arhitektura” koju je vodila Jelena Vojvodić (arhivska radionica sa fokusom na pregledu onoga što je postignuto u prethodnih šest godina), dok su UI i GG zajedno realizovali radionicu „Kako organizovati organizaciju” koju su vodili Marijana Cvetković i Marko Pejović (modeli uspešne prakse, nove veštine samoorganizovanja). Ove radionice bile su dragoceni gestovi samorefleksije u razumevanju i sumiranju svega što je produkovano do tog trenutka i šta su perspektive daljeg rada sa stečenim znanjem, ili šta su mogućnosti saradnje i stvaralaštva u okviru sistema u koji su GG i UI upisani.
GG i UI su takođe koristili privremeni prostor Aktopolisa da isprobaju njihove prakse u novom okruženju koje je drugačije od Savamale, gde su izveli seriju performansa, razgovora i predstavljanja tokom prve dve nedelje maja.
U okviru mog izbora projekata, pozvani su bili umetnici ili oni koji se bave kulturom sa njihovim dostignućima, mogućnostima i specifičnostima da razviju svoje pristupe, pre nego što su direktno bili pozivani sami projekti (jedini izuzetak bila je Marijana Cvetković kojoj je predloženo da uradi osvrt na istoriju Druge scene). Oni su namerno odabrani tako da se izrazito međusobno razlikuju i da unesu u okvir projekta različite mikropolitike kulturne produkcije, koja osvetljava beogradske raznovrsne kulturne prakse i njihov uticaj na aktuelne ekonomske, društvene i političke pozicije. Ovo mnoštvo je reflektovalo neverovatno bogatu produkciju, kojoj je danas uskraćeno javno i profesionalno priznanje, artikulacija i usmerenje u svim njenim segmentima. Da li uopšte može da se stekne pregled tekuće kulturne klime i njenih produkcija, ili će ona ostati samo maglovita i usitnjena slika jednog turbulentnog doba, koje je toliko trajno i iscrpljujuće kao što je ovo u kome živimo? Kako se nedostatak državne strategije u kulturi i (ne)društvena pozicija u umetnostima odražava u savremenoj urbanoj kulturi? Da li bi ovaj projekat mogao takođe da bude o zalaganju za ‘neplanirane’ i ‘neuredne’ umetnosti u savremenom utilitarnom neoliberalnom pritisku da se u striktnom poretku stvara i izvodi[7]?
Pre nego što je program javno predstavljen, učesnici i ja prošli smo kroz interni proces pregovaranja o našim sopstvenim pozicijama: koji su umetnički miljei iz kojih potičemo, šta želimo da postignemo u okviru Aktopolisa, kako ćemo to sprovesti. Neki učesnici se nisu međusobno znali, neki se nisu uzajamno cenili… U vazduhu je pre bilo nepoverenje i odbrambeni stav nego radoznalost. Samorefleksija umetničkih svakodnevnih praksi delovala je kao veoma strani koncept, iako je do kraja svako sproveo najbolje što je mogao. Tokom nekoliko meseci stvarali smo malo verovatna savezništva – namerna privremenost prostornog formata projekta odslikavala je privremenost grupe.
Umesto da koristimo već ustanovljena mesta za kulturu koja nose prepoznatljivu auru njihovih osnivača, menadžera, umetnika i publike, FORMALNO NEFORMALNA se u toku maja 2016. godine namerno odvijala (najviše) u iznajmljenom prizemnom stanu u urbanom kvartu Dorćola[8], koji trenutno prolazi kroz proces džentrifikacije.
Sam stan deo je kuće koja je izgrađena posle Prvog svetskog rata, čiji je ulaz sa unutrašnjih stepenica zazidan, a drugi je otvoren direktno ka ulici u poslednjih desetak godina, od kada je služio kao kafe-klub „Blow-Up” (Uvećanje) nekih godinu dana, a ostatak vremena je služio kao privatni radni prostor. Iako je hibridni prostor, on nikada ranije nije korišćen za kulturu i najverovatnije neće nikad više. To je bio neutralni prostor za sve prisutne, gde se ukrštala jedinstvena gomila učesnika projekta i publike. Isprobavali smo mogućnost komunikacije kroz zajedničko okupiranje[9] ovog privremenog prostora. Bilo je zanimljvo da se posmatra kako se izložbe, performansi i diskusije[10] naslojavaju i slivaju jedna pored druge, dan za danom, ne samo fizički u prostoru, već i značenjski.
Nekoliko programa odvijalo se van prostora stana, na javnim trgovima, alternativnim-andergraund kulturnim centrima kao što je Matrijaršija, do privatne kuće u Grockoj kao beogradskom predgrađu. Drugi nezavisni beogradski prostori koji su bili u direktnoj vezi sa projektom bili su Magacin u Kraljevića Marka (MKM8), Galerija Remont, Umetnički prostor U10, Oktobar, Kvaka 22, Kulturni centar Grad, Centar za kulturnu dekontaminaciju, koji su rasuti po celom gradu.
Projekat FORMALNO NEFORMALNA preispitivao je na koje načine se čovek nosi sa novozatečenim okolnostima u Evropi, ali i delom okolnosti koje se trpe preko dvadeset pet godina u Srbiji – upravo permanentne društvene i ekonomske krize. Sa kakvim nužnostima se individua suočava u okolnostima koje dovode u pitanje samu suštinu stvaralaštva, odnosno da li ove nove okolnosti upravo provociraju stvaralaštvo da ih pretekne, koliko god one bile izazovne?
Odgovor pojedinačnih umetnika i aktivista bio je u opštoj temi FORMALNO NEFORMALNE veoma različit, što je i bila početna ideja. Neki učesnici su pokušavali da ukažu na sredstva koja koristimo u suočavanju sa diskontinuitetom kulture kakvu znamo (Ristić, Radić, Cvetković, Sekulić/Đorđević, Nikolić), drugi su izvodili svoje prakse (Vučetić, Radoš/Karić, U10, Cvetić), a treći su se aktivističkim sredstvima suočili sa odnosima koji se ustanovljavaju na spoljnim granicama polja kulture (Milikić/Kurepa, KURS, Ramujkić/Treister).
Irena Ristić je propitivala suštinu pojma ‘samoorganizacije’ sa kojim je projekat FORMALNO NEFORMALNA uokviren, tako što je razgovarala sa deset umetnika i aktivista. Ristić je uobličila svoje istraživanje oko ‘samoorganizovane kulturne scene’[11], što po sebi obuhvata grupu odnosa koje znamo iz prošlosti, i kao fraza može da se tumači kao utopija. Ona je produkovala višekanalnu zvučnu[12] instalaciju „PROBA. Superstrukcija i modelovanje lokalne kulturne scene”, putem koje je propitivala potencijal prakse kolektiviteta, zajedništva i zajedničke kulturne produkcije, nasuprot pojedinačnosti. Putem izvedenog javnog rezimea ona je došla do dve ključne tačke kojima bi samoorganizovana scena mogla da se definiše u uzročno-posledičnim odnosima: ideologija i izvor finansiranja.
Nikola Radić Lucati i Marijana Cvetković propitivali su uslove koji su omogućili da se pojave prakse koje mi danas nazivamo ‘samoorganizovanim’ od početka devedesetih do sredine dvehiljaditih. Aleksandra Sekulić/Ivica Đorđević istakli su jedan od zanimljivijih fenomena proisteklih iz ovih okolnosti, dok je Aleksandar Nikolić proizveo današnju mapu beogradskih umetničkih prostora i njihovih programa, na kojoj nema razlike između prostora čiji je osnivač vlada na bilo kom nivou (lokalna, državna ili strana) i alternativnih, marginalnih i eksperimentalnih, najčešće privremenih prostora.
Aleksandar Nikolić je počeo da radi na mapi mesečnih galerijskih programa od nule i potpuno sam, eksperimentišući i uspostavljajući kontakte gotovo godinu dana. FORMALNO NEFORMALNA je imala sreće da mu da konačni podsticaj da pokrene objavljivanje mape, koja se sada štampa mesečno i distribuira se besplatno.
Po Nikoli Radiću Lucatiju krhka istorijska vremena, kao što su bili ratovi u bivšoj Jugoslaviji, odigrala su odlučujuću ulogu u oblikovanju onoga što će postati nezvanična/nezavisna kulturna scena. U njegovom dokumentarno-analitičnom umetničkom radu „Datum isteka. Nestajanje kulturne institucije kao funkcija investicionog ciklusa” on se bavio strateškim sklanjanjem vrednih artefakata iz muzejskih kolekcija i crkava iz Hrvatske i njihovim trajnim smeštanjem u institucije u Srbiji u toku rata prve polovine devedesetih. Uprkos činjenici da je u to vreme ovo uglavnom nije bilo izneto u javnosti, on smatra da je retrospektivno gledano upravo ovaj momenat postupanja ‘u naše ime’ zvaničnih kulturnih i državnih institucija izazvala jaku civilnu reakciju suprotstavljanja ovim institucijama i njihovim uglavnom nacionalističkim postavkama kao mejnstrim kulturnoj retorici u vremenu i obliku koji Radić naziva drugim[13], trećim itd. scenama.
Neke od najupadljivijih inicijativa koje su proistekle iz ove potrage za tadašnjim alternativnim i novim, koja je bila najdalje moguće od zvaničnih institucija i njihovih programa, bio je festival i video produkcija „Low–Fi Video” (1997–2002). Aleksandra Sekulić i Ivica Đorđević kao aktivni učesnici originalnih festivala „Revitalizovali su arhiv mikrosinema”, projektovali su nagrađene filmove u toku dvodnevnog događaja i evocirali su kontinuitet radikalnog amaterizma u Jugoslaviji u okviru današnjih alternativnih prostora kao što su Centar za urbanu kulturu Imago i Matrijaršija. Nekadašnje niskobudžetne produkcije okupljale su uglavnom mlade entuzijaste oko filma, videa, muzike i stripa, i odgajile su do izvanrednosti neke od najboljih profesionalaca u ovim oblastima današnjice, održavajući bliske kontakte sa umetnicima iz drugih bivših jugoslovenskih republika.
„Druga scena” neformalno je osnovana 2005. godine kao jedna od prvih platformi koja je okupila neke od ključnih profesionalaca i organizacija savremene umetnosti tog trenutka iz Beograda. Kao jedna od osnivača, Marijana Cvetković kroz svoj štampani tekst „Druga scena. Samoorganizovana beogradska scena” razmatrala je ideološku smenu u Srbiji od Miloševićeve vlade devedesetih do nove vlade početkom dvehiljaditih sa liberalnom orijentacijom i uticaj koji je ovo imalo na gradsku politiku, posebno u oblasti kulture. S druge strane unutrašnje dinamike Druge scene su se profilisale u jasnu levu poziciju koja je insistirala na politizaciji umetnosti i kulture i odlučni odnos prema aktivizmu. Cvetković je dalje istraživala raspad Druge scene 2012. godine, kao i to da je današnja sve veća nezavisna scena zapustila sećanje na Drugu scenu kao kulturnu istoriju koja je, među ostalim, uspela da stekne prostor Magacina u Kraljevića Marka već 2006. godine, koji je ostao jedini prostor namenjen nezavisnoj kulturi u Beogradu.
[1] Projekat „Actopolis–The Art of Action” je transnacionalna laboratorija koja se odvija u sedam gradova koproducirana od strane Gete-instituta (Goethe-Institut) i Urbane umetnosti Rurske oblasti (Urbane Künste Ruhr). (www.actopolis.net)
[2] Iako je pojam ‘samoorganizacije’ ambivalentan, on se ovde koristi kako bi održao jezičku konzistenciju trogodišnjeg projekta, u okvirima određene lepeze značenja, nekih afirmativnih, nekih kritičkih. Ukoliko bi u nekom trenutku nakon završetka projekta značenje koje trenutno podrazumevamo pod ‘samoorganizovanim’ našlo bolji termin, termin ‘samoorganizovano’ bi svakako trebalo da se promeni.
[3] Uključujući sport, kulturu, obrazovanje i medicinsku opremu i lekove.
[4] Bojm, Svetlana, Budućnost nostalgije, Geopoetika, 2005.
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20disorganization
[6] Rosler, Martha, Culture Class: Art, Creativity, Urbanism, Part II, e-flux, Journal #23 (03/2011)
[7] Ovom argumentu je potrebno poduže pojašnjenje za koje ovom prilikom nemamo mesta u ovom tekstu.
[8] Naziv ovog dela grada dolazi od turskih reči ‘dört’ (četiri) and ‘yol’ (put), što znači „presecanje (četiri puta)”, „raskrsnica”. Tokom otomanske okupacije Beograda (XVI–XVIII vek) Dorćol je bio poznat kao trgovački centar, sa mnogim pijacama i trgovcima različitih nacionalnosti, među njima i Jevrejske zajednice (i Aškenazi i Sefarda), koji su tu ostali do Drugog svetskog rata. Tokom austrijske okupacije severne Srbije 1717–1739, Donji Dorćol bio je sedište dvora princa Eugena Savojskog.
[9] Videti: Hito Steyerl, Art as Occupation-Claims for Autonomy of Life, http://www.e-flux.com/journal/art-as-occupation-claims-for-an-autonomy-of-life-12/
[10] Snimci svih diskusija mogu ovde da se preslužaju: https://www.mixcloud.com/actopolis2016/
[11] Opšti vodeći pojam projekta FORMALNO NEFORMALNA bio je ‘samoorganizovana kulturna produkcija’.
[12] Zasebni intervjui ovde mogu da se preslušaju u celini: https://www.mixcloud.com/probaneformalno/
[13] Ovo je referenca na Drugu scenu, videti više o njoj u projektu Marijane Cvetković.
________________
SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION AND SELF-ORGANIZED CULTURAL PRODUCTION IN BELGRADE – BLOW-UP (Part One)
Mirjana Boba Stojadinović
1.
At some point in time a pop-up of the ACTOPOLIS[1] website link said – this projects is “exploring Europe in times of transformation”. Henceforth, without an idea what we are transforming into, and not really apprehending what we are transitioning from, it is hard to grasp where we are standing right now.
Belgrade edition of ACTOPOLIS titled “FORMALLY INFORMAL. Belgrade Self-Organized[2] Cultural Production” was oriented towards questioning the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, looking deeply into the practice of professionals in culture, their mutual differences and achievements, trying to avoid imagining we are united and understandable to each other. Because we are not. Moreover, the more particular and specific each of us is – the more challenging and vital the cultural production is.
The urban cultural sphere in Serbia, particularly in Belgrade, has drastically changed over the past twenty five years. The internal and external state circumstances have changed due to the demise of Yugoslavia (Belgrade was the capital), civil wars, full international sanctions[3], monetary inflation, huge demographic changes, civil protests, bombing, decay of one political regime and its replacement with another, and another, and another again, territorial fragmentation, decrease of life standards, economic instability… In the meanwhile the contexts throughout European continent have themselves been engulfed in turbulent processes.
Here the time flow is usually referred to as ‘before’ and ‘after’ the 1990s. The 1990s tested all points of civilization, and everyone has failed. Doing art back then was either (in generalized terms) nationalist and opportunist, or critical and subversive. Nationalism, as a bearing discourse of “conquering freedom” and with it defending and occupying new old geographies of the formerly common Yugoslav state, was in the cultural sphere more than welcome to glory the past and the present moment and prophet the bright future[4] of the nation, i.e. the nation-state. Such engaged art appearances were welcomed and awarded by the state administration and its institutions. Simultaneously some of the engaged in culture have had a more critical approach to the systematic violence, and their engagement in the public sphere was suppressed in many ways and occasionally directly censured.
In the next decade with the formal change in politics (departure of Milošević, establishment of pro-Western democrats) this polarity shifted so that critical became opportunist, and nationalist – subversive. So it happened that a certain number of individuals who stood by critical art in the 1990s were now greeted as much by the new political elite along with the resources they had at their disposal, as by the foreign funds who supported them till the political changes, while their practice today can be seen as an exhaustion of all material and symbolic resources available at the time, not leaving much to others, particularly the younger generations. On the other hand, interpreting a position which shed light on the qualities of culture in Serbia in the widest sense became as much ridiculed within the frameworks of the newly established dominant political regime, as it was treated with detachment of a potential source of critique and examination, an enemy to the future in which the notion of culture in Serbia became something to be ashamed of.
The decade we find ourselves in today as if it became clear that the bright and pretty future will not arrive swiftly, so subversive became opportunist, and critical – nationalist. In reality the neoliberalization is ongoing in all state levels, from privatization of health system, education and culture to all segments of social ownership, industry etc, with a simultaneous expansion of administration. What could have been a heritage of the critical stream from the 1990s in the cultural field now fails to find a new axle of the critical mode, thus losing a compass for its critical position up to a point of nonproductivity and self-effacing. On the other hand, an indication of any other position apart of the one of explicit power (whether real or self-acclaimed symbolic one), as well as the very intention to invest concentration in the work on the content rather than the form, inconsistently is interpreted as an expression of otioseness inappropriate for today’s moment. Otherness is unacceptable, even punishable within seemingly diverse social and political circles, which only shows how much the moduses of functioning of all these circles in fact look alike. In an absence of definition of otherness (if perceived at all), in the current moment it is being labeled as a protagonist with undesirable identification with by-products of nation-states.
Since 2000 many state institutions have been closed down, some permanently, some temporarily – including the National Museum, the Museum of Contemporary Art, the annual October Salon; one can observe a tendency of event industry/festivalization of cultural production with an emphasis on amateur and folklore productions, hence a lack of continual support of process-based professional productions. The official cultural politics voice preference to the ‘cultural institutions’ over professionals in culture who are not employed in state institutions, creating an atmosphere of polarization – though in fact all are undersupported.
Outlining the general circumstances of the cultural production in Serbia and Belgrade, but also much wider, is revealing the so called ‘social disorganization’: a state of society characterized by the breakdown of effective social control resulting in a lack of functional integration between groups, conflicting social attitudes, and personal maladjustment[5]. The practice of self-organization is in direct relation to the social disorganization, although here self-organization most often feels ‘foreign’ and grafted onto us – though I’d say that essentially its practice is very much ‘at home’. Trying to keep up with the tendencies of the Western society, particularly since 2000, most of the social and political options and concepts in Serbia seem to have been imported as ready-to-use, critically unchecked and locally uncalibrated, with a canny feeling of a ‘collective failure of imagination’[6].
The question we are going to tackle here is: What kind of urban culture survived this escapade and what substance and significance does it convey today?
Belgrade edition of the Actopolis project lands in this particular urban (art) context. It is focused on the specificities of the relevant non-institutional cultural production materialized in a performative research. The programme gathers 14 artists, art groups, activists and cultural practitioners of very different orientations, who resonated their practices in relation to the questions of what, how and for whom the critical urban culture is being produced in times of ongoing crisis, refracted through self-organized methodologies. What marks the economy of cultural independence in Serbia fifteen years since the beginning of the century and twenty five years since the social meltdown? What is the critical potential of self-organization in cultural practices? To what extent can self-organization secure an autonomy in thinking and acting in arts? To what extent is self-organization an alternative to non-functional institutions and what role neo-liberalism plays in this?
2.
Goethe-Institut Belgrad, as the co-producer of Actopolis, came forth with two lines of production: on the one hand City Guerilla (Gradska Gerila)/Goethe Guerilla (GG) and Urban Incubator (UI) – both masterfully coordinated by Zorica Milisavljević – and on the other a selection I curated and coordinated.
GG and UI have been initiated by Goethe-Institut in 2010 and 2013 respectively, who in the meanwhile have become more or less independent in terms of their organization and finances. Though using different methodologies, both initiatives foster hand-on knowledge in urban practices rooted in Savamala – an area undergoing gentrification, opening for the young people the much needed field for learning through experimentation.
Their participation in FORMALLY INFORMAL was focussed on exploration of what they achieved so-far and the perspectives of their production in the future. GG did a workshop “Self-Organization and Internet Architecture” lead by Jelena Vojvodić (an archival workshop with a focus on the overview of what was achieved in the previous six years), and UI with GG did a workshop “How to organize an organization” lead by Marijana Cvetković and Marko Pejović (best practice models, new self-organizational skills). The workshops were valuable self-reflective gestures of comprehending and summing up what was produced up to that moment and what are the perspectives to work with the acquired knowledge, or what are the possibilities of collaboration and creation within the system that GG and UI are inscribed in.
GG and UI also used the Actopolis temporary venue to test their practices in a new environment other than Savamala and did a number of performances, talks, and presentations during the first two weeks of May.
Regarding my selection of projects, it was the artists or cultural practitioners with their accomplishments, capacities, and idiosyncrasies, who were invited to develop their approach, rather than directly inviting projects (the only exception was Marijana Cvetković who was suggested to revisit the history of the Other Scene). They were intentionally chosen so as to strongly differ from each other, and to bring into the scope of the project different micro-politics of cultural production, that casts a light on Belgrade heterogeneous cultural practices and its impact on current economical, social and political stands. This multitude reflected the incredibly bountiful production which, however, is withheld today from public and professional recognition, articulation and direction in all its segments: Will it ever be possible to attain an overview of current cultural climate and its production, or is it to remain just a vague and fragmented image of another turbulent era, as lasting and trying as this one is? How does the lack of state policy in culture and (un)social position of arts reflect in contemporary urban culture? Could this project also be about arguing for the value of ‘unplanned’ and ‘messy’ art in current utilitarian neo-liberal pressure to orderly produce and perform[7]?
Before the programme was publicly presented, the participants and I went through an internal process of negotiations of our individual positions: what artistic backgrounds we come from, what we want to achieve within Actopolis, how do we do it. Some participants didn’t know each other, others didn’t appreciate each other… Mistrust and defensiveness was in the air rather than curiosity. Self-reflection on artistic everyday practices just seemed like a completely foreign concept, though in the end each did their best at consummating it. Over several months we were fostering unlikely alliances – intentional temporality of the spatial format of the project reflected the temporality of the group.
Instead of using the already established venues or spaces for culture that bear a distinct aura of their founders, managers, artists and audiences, FORMALLY INFORMAL purposefully took place (mainly) in a rented ground-floor apartment space in historical urban neighbourhood Dorćol[8], currently undergoing gentrification, throughout May 2016, when the majority of the programmes had happened.
The apartment itself is part of a post-WWI house, that had its stairway entrance door bricked up and another one opened directly to the street in the last decade or so, since serving as a cafe-club “Blow-Up” for about a year and the rest of the time accommodating a private working space. Though a hybrid space, it was never before used for culture and most likely it never will again. It was a neutral ground for everyone, where a unique bunch of project participants and audiences intercepted each other. We were trying out a possibility of communication through occupying[9] this temporary space together. It was curious that all the exhibits, performances and discussions[10] were carefully layered and amalgamated one with the other, day after day, and not least physically in the space.
Few programmes had happened outside the apartment, in public squares, alternative-underground cultural centres like Matrijaršija, up to a private house in far Belgrade suburbs. Other Belgrade independent venues that directly relate to the project are Magacin u Kraljevića Marka (MKM8), Remont Gallery, Art Space U10, Oktobar, Kvaka 22, Cultural Centre Grad, Center for Cultural Decontamination, scattered all over the city.
The FORMALLY INFORMAL project was questioning in what ways does one deal with newly found circumstances in Europe, which are in part the circumstances one pertains for over twenty five years in Serbia – namely, of permanent social and economic crysis. What urgencies does one face in circumstances that question the very essence of creativity, or do these newfound circumstances exactly provoke new creativity to surpass them, as trying as they be?
The response the individual artists and activists gave to the overall theme of FORMALLY INFORMAL was very different, in accordance was the initial idea. Some of the participants were trying to pinpoint the agency we use in facing discontinuation of culture as we know it (Ristić, Radić, Cvetković, Sekulić/Đorđević, Nikolić), others were performing their practices (Vučetić, Radoš/Karić, U10 and Cvetić), while third were with activist means facing the relations established on the outer border of the cultural field (Milikić/Kurepa, KURS, and Ramujkić/ Treister).
Irena Ristić questioned the essence of the notion of ‘self-organization’ FORMALLY INFORMAL project was framed with, by talking to ten artists and activists. Ristić shaped her research around ‘self-organized cultural scene’[11], which in itself encompasses a set of relations known from the past, and as a phrase it can be interpreted as utopia. She produced a multi-channel sound[12] installation “REHEARSAL. Superstructure and Modelling of Self-Organized Scene in Belgrade”, through which she questioned the cultural production’s potential of the practice of collectivity, togetherness and commons versus singularity. Through her performed public resume she arrived at two key points that self-organization could be defined in cause-effect relations: ideology and financial resources.
Nikola Radić Lucati and Marijana Cvetković questioned the conditions that made possible for the appearance of practices we call today ‘self-organized’ from the onset of the 1990s to mid-2000s. Aleksandra Sekulić/Ivica Đorđević brought forth one of the curious phenomena coming out of these circumstances, where as Aleksandar Nikolić produced current map of Belgrade visual art venues and their programmes, where there is no division between the ones founded by any government (local, state or foreign) and the alternative, marginal and experimental ones, most often temporary.
Aleksandar Nikolić started working on a map of monthly gallery programmes from a scratch and on his own, experimenting and establishing contacts for about a year. FORMALLY INFORMAL was fortunate to have given him the final push to launch the map, which is now published monthly and distributed for free.
According to Nikola Radić Lucati, fragile historical times such as the wars in former Yugoslavia, played a decisive role in the shaping of what would become non-official/independent cultural scene. In his documentary-analytical artwork “Expiration date. Disappearance of cultural institution as a function of investment cycle” he dealt with a strategic removal of valuable artefacts from museum collections and churches from Croatia and their temporary housing in institutions in Serbia during the war throughout the first half of 1990s. In spite of the fact that at the time this was mainly hidden from the public, he finds that in retrospect precisely this moment of ‘in our name’ action of the official cultural and state institutions would produce a strong civil reflex to oppose these institutions and their mainly nationalistic exhibits as a mainstream cultural rhetoric at the time and form what Radić called the second[13], third, etc. scenes.
Some of the most prominent initiatives that came out of this search for alternative and new back then, which was as far as possible from official institutions and their programmes, was “Low–Fi Video” festival and video production (1997–2002). Aleksandra Sekulić and Ivica Đorđević, as the active participants of the original festivals, “Revived the Archive of a Microcinema”, screened the awarded films in a two-day event and evoked the continuity of radical amateurism in SFR Yugoslavia within the frames of currently alternative spaces like Centre of Urban Culture Imago and Matrijaršija. The low-key productions back then gathered mainly young enthusiasts around film, video, music and commix, and nurtured to proficiency some of the best professionals in these fields today, keeping a close collaboration with fellow artists from other ex-Yugoslav republics.
Druga scena, translated as the Other Scene (but also meaning ‘the second scene’), was informally established in 2005 as one of the first platforms gathering some of the key contemporary art professionals and organizations from Belgrade at that time. As one of the founders, Marijana Cvetković through her printed text “The Other Scene. Self-Organized Belgrade Scene” considered the ideology shift in Serbia from Milošević’s government in the 1990s to the new government with liberal orientation in the early 2000s and the influence this has had on city politics, particularly in culture. On the other hand the internal dynamics of the Other Scene profiled itself in clear left position that insists on the politization of art and culture and a decided relation to activism. Cvetković examined the dissolution of the Other Scene in 2012, and the neglect of the ever growing independent scene today to keep the memory of the Other Scene as a cultural history, not least as the one that acquired the space of Magain in Kraljevića Marka already in 2006, that remains the only space designated for independent culture in Belgrade.
[1] Actopolis–The Art of Action is a seven-city transnational lab co-produced by Goethe-Institut and Urbane Künste Ruhr. (www.actopolis.net)
[2] Even though the term ‘self-organization’ is ambivalent, it is used it here to keep the consistency of the language of a three-year project, within a specific spectrum of meanings, some affirmative, some critical. Should at some point after the completion of the project the meaning we currently understand as ‘self-organized’ find a better term, the term ‘self-organization’ should defenately be changed.
[3] Including sport, culture, education and medical supplies.
[4] Boym, Svetlana, The Future of Nostalgia, Basic Books, 2001
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20disorganization
[6] Rosler, Martha, Culture Class: Art, Creativity, Urbanism, Part II, e-flux, Journal #23 (03/2011)
[7] This argument needs a lengthy explanation for which we don’t have the space to do in this text.
[8] The name of the neighbourhood comes from Turkish words ‘dört’ (four) and ‘yol’ (road), meaning “an intersection (of four roads)”, “a crossroad”. During the Ottoman occupation of Belgrade (XVI–XVIII century), Dorćol was a well known trading centre, with many markets and traders of different nationalities, among others it was a centre of Belgrade’s Jewish community (both Ashkenazi and Sephardic), who remained till WWII. During the Austrian occupation of northern Serbia 1717–1739, Lower Dorćol was the seat of the Prince Eugene of Savoy’s court.
[9] See: Hito Steyerl, Art as Occupation-Claims for Autonomy of Life, http://www.e-flux.com/journal/art-as-occupation-claims-for-an-autonomy-of-life-12/
[10] The recordings of all discussions (*in Serbian) can be listened here: https://www.mixcloud.com/actopolis2016/
[11] The overhead guiding notion of the project FORMALLY INFORMAL was ‘self-organized cultural production’.
[12] The separate interviews can in its entirety be listened here (*in Serbian): https://www.mixcloud.com/probaneformalno/
[13] This is a refference to the Second or the Other Scene; see more about it in Marijana Cvetković’s project.
1.
U nekom trenutku u oblačiću koji je iskakao kada se u){kind=link}