Fragmenti kontinuiranaog razgovora između Biljane Ćirić i Maje Ćirić
>>> Please scroll down for the English version
Biljana Ćirić: Započinjem ovaj niz pitanja referišući na razgovor koji smo imale o zajedničkim frustracijama i sličnostima u vezi sa ulogama koje aktivno obavljamo i ulogama koje su nam zadate našim uslovima rada i kontekstima (geografskim i biološkim). Kako vidiš svoju poziciju kustosa i kritičara u lokalnom srpskom kontekstu? Kako pregovaraš tu ulogu u globalnom kontekstu sa vizijom koju imaš i koji su izazovi tih prevođenja?
Pre svega, kada govorimo o lokalnom kontekstu moramo da budemo svesni nekoliko različitih pozicija: post-jugoslovenske, pro-EU, balkanske i globalne. Dok su post-jugoslovenska, balakanska i pro-evropska, stimulisane kako iz ideoloških i praktičnih razloga vezanih za finansiranja projekata, globalna pozicija sa sobom nosi logiku novog kapitala. Globalna pozicija u kojoj je novac merilo svega, često dolazi sa nedostatkom stručnosti, a osnovana namera je da se generiše kakav-takav proizvod. Ovde navedene pozicije se često spajaju, pojavljuju se različiti hibridi u specifičnom, ali vrlo živom srpskom svetu umetnosti. Tu bi trebalo dodati još i razliku između paradigme likovne umetnosti i vizuelne umetnosti. Nikada nisam zastupala “hronično zakasneli, nedovoljno razvijeni, u suštini unazadjen istok”. Nikada nisam igrala na kartu geografije, ali do sad nikada nisam igrala ni na kartu brendiranja umetnosi ili izložbi. Dok ovde opisane pozicije dolaze sa priručnikom i predvidljivim mrežama, moj način da se suprotstavim bilo kakvoj hegemoniji, jeste rat na manevru (umesto rata na položaju), onako kako je Gramši opisao, a Boris Buden nas podsetio.[1] Dakle, ja vidim svoju praksu kao praksu koja je oličenje procepa, ne postoji kao frontalan niti stabilan položaj, već prilično individualan i nepredvidiv. Jedina stabilnost koju imam je moje znanje, nepredvidiva mreža, sveže informacije i mogućnosti koje se pojavljuju u vezi sa svim tim parametrima.
Biljana Ćirić: Ti operišeš i govoriš u terminima kustoske i izložbene prakse. To se veoma razlikuje od teorijskog diskursa istoričara umetnosti. Koji je aktuelan diskurs u vezi sa izložbenim praksama u Srbiji?
Maja Ćirić: Generalno gledano, veoma je važno da se razume razlika između akademije i praktičara, jer su ova dva sveta kulturno veoma različita, bez obzira na kontekst. Praksa naučnika je drugačija kada prave izložbe jer se bave već prepoznatim i priznatim vrednostima. Njihovo istraživanje zasniva se na činjenicama, dok kustosko istraživanje može biti eksperimentalno. Moram da priznam da operišem u oba sveta, a ambivalentan metod koji primenjujem često čini da sam agent provokator na akademskim konferencijama. Empirijska realnost uvek osporava teorijsku realnost. Dakle, čak i tamo delujem u procepu. Moj kustoski pristup je zasnovan na istraživanju, ali je orijentisan na umetnike i na savremenost i zato je nepredvidiv. U Srbiji je diskurs oko izlagačkih polilitka svestran: često se odnosi na post-jugoslovensko stanje i ponovno artikulisanje jugoslovenskih izložbi, ili je rukovođen ključnim rečima inostranog organa finansiranja. Zatim, u edukativnom smislu tu je jedan međunarodni kurs koji upoznaje mlade generacije o izložbenim i kustoskim praksama na Univerzitetu umetnosti u Beogradu, ali sam ljudi govore o tome tiho, tako da nemam tačan uvid u njihovu performativnost. Odnedavno predajem jedan predmet na privatnoj akademiji, a pored toga u okviru samoorganizovanih radionica prenosim svoje znanje studentkinjama sa odeljenja istorije umetnosti u okviru projekta Nova kolekcija. Postoji i prostor za teoriju kustoskih i izložbenih praksi u Časopisu za studije umetnosti i medija. Ali, kustoski diskurs, kao i bilo gde drugde, može biti manifestacija (ne)uspeha trans-disciplinarnosti. Tako da je uvek potrebno tražiti i ono što ispada iz mape.
Biljana Ćirić: Posetila sam izložbu “Nema ničega između nas” u srpskom paviljonu na 55. Bijenalu u Veneciji. Primetila sam. a i ti si pomenula da ova izložba nema kustosa, a tvoja funkcija je komesaraska. Da li je to administrativna odluka ili odluka umetnika ? Koji su bili izazovi pri pravljenju te konkretne izložbe?
Maja Ćirić: Umetnici su smatrali da pošto su bili odabrani, imaju pravo da se bave postavkom, a bili smo ograničeni na mnogo načina. Administrativno, bila sam zadužena za nadziranje procesa, ali su praktične i produkcijse prepreke bile brojne.
Biljana Ćirić: S obzirom da si veoma aktivan međunarodni praktičar, kako bi opisala kulturnu politiku Srbije na zvaničnom nivou, kao i strategije tzv. alternativnih ili nezavisnih inicijativa u okviru šireg globalnog okvira. Da li još uvek govorimo o geopolitičkim uslovima kada govorimo o takozvanoj kulturnoj saradnji?
Maja Ćirić: Nema ništa novo u vezi sa tim da su izložbe instrumenti kulturne diplomatije. I često je srpska umetnost od spolja promovisana, ako ne kao iskrivljeno drugo onda kao neko ko zastupa razliku. Razlika od pre deset godina je da su partneri iz inostranstva bili višeg statusa, od onih koji su spremni da sarađuju sa srpskim kontekstom danas. Interes se pomerio sa malih zemalja u tranziciji, ka mnogo većim zemljama čije su ekonomije u porastu poput Brazila i Indije. S druge strane, na globalnom nivou, pogledajte izložbu o Istočnoj Evropi Report on a Construction of a Spaceship Modul. u New Museum u Njujorku, jedini umetnik koji je integrisan sa teritorije postjugoslovenskog prostora je pokojni Tom Gotavac. Ili uzmimo, na primer, izložbu The Empty Pedestal u Bolonji, Italija, takođe o istočno-evropskoj umetnosti. U katalogu izložbe bez srpskih umetnika Buden govori o East Side Story (2006-2008) Igora Grubića, o nemogućnosti održavanja Parade ponosa u Beogradu, uzimajući taj rad kao primer kulturnih razlika.
Iznutra gledano, najzanimljivije i najvredniji projekti su samo-organizovani i pripadaju nezavisnoj kulturnoj sceni, to su i ljudi i projekti koji imaju i međunarodan domet.
Ja se nikada nisam identifikovala sa istokom koji je “puka metafora za isključivanje i potčinjavanje”. Najefikasniji “spas” je afinitet ka kritičnosti, znanju i informacijama, ali performativnost svih tih karakteristika zavisi od nečije sposobnosti da se pronađe rupa u sistemu. Ja sam pokušala da se približim kulturnoj diplomatiji sa pozicije kritičnosti, da sagledam nove uglove i ne vidim sebe u bilo kojoj od propisanih kategorija. Ja ne znam da li sam uspela, ali ja sigurno nisam mislila o sebi kao o mejnstrimu.
Biljana Ćirić: Nedavno si pomenula istraživanja o kustoskim praksama koje je sprovedeno u SAD. Možeš li mi reći nešto više o tome i koji je mogući javni ishod?
Maja Ćirić: Pored okruglog stola sa inspiratinvim pojedincima koji smo David Ayala Alfonso i ja prošle godine organizovali u ICI Curatorial Hub u oktobru u okviru Dedalus / ICI nezavisne nagrade za istraživanje Unclaimed Territories: Post-conceptual Curating in USA, čiji sadržaj je transkribovan, napisali smo i tekst, koji uskoro treba da bude objavljen, a planiramo da objavimo knjižicu.
Biljana Ćirić: Moje poslednje pitanje odnosi se na početak saradnje između vas i studenata Likovne akademije u Beogradu, gde si takođe organizovala moj razgovor. Izgleda da postoji urgentnost sa vaše strane ka uključivanju studenata koji bi preuzeli aktivniju ulogu u okviru sistema umetnosti?
Maja Ćirić:: Budući da sam često u nepredvidivoj poziciji, naučila sam važnost radikalizacije svog postojanja, sa vremena na vreme. Baš kao u filmu Dune morate da promenite ritam ako želite da pobegnte od crva. U aprilu prošle godine, tokom razgovora koji je usledio na poziv Nine Mihaljinac na FLU, rekla sam im da ako ne radikalizuju svoje postojanje upravo sada, dok su još na Univerzitetu, većina njih će napustiti profesiju u budućnosti. Studenti su već bili svesni toga, jer ono što je usledilo bio poziv da delujem kao mentor za kustose na njihovom projektu Nova kolekcija. Taj projekat je oblik institucionalne kritike. Bavi se uslovima u kojima se nalazi kulturno nasleđe i preciznije zatvorenom zgradom Muzeja savremene umetnosti u Beogradu. Pošto nije zatvorena samo zgrada, već su i kolekcije Muzeja savremene umetnosti vrlo rekto otvorene i vidljive, oni su odlučili da budu inspirisani onim što se može naći u knjigama i arhivima i nakon jednog semestra radionica, napraviće izložbu u različitim prostorima širom Beograda u oktobru. Uostalom, Muzej nije samo zgrada već i agentura, tj. participativni subjekat u izgradnji stvarnosti.
Pitanja od Hu Juna:
Hu Jun: Da li se slažeš sa tim su umetnici iz Srbije više spremni da budu priznati izvan Srbije, hoću reći, da ljudi biraju da deluju spolja?
Maja Ćirić: Različiti ljudi, različiti ishodi. To sve zavisi od polja u kojem se nalazite. Šta vas motiviše je takođe važno. Ako biti nezavisan znači da su vaša logika selekcije i etiketiranja drugačiji od glavnog toka, možda ćete biti zarobljeni u egzistencijalnoj borbi. Ako napravite dogovor sa kolekcijom banke na primer, vi ste umešani i zarobljeni u ideološkom smislu. U takvom poretku, dobro je imati spolja kao alternativu. Ali, upravo ta pozicija spolja može biti mesto potencijalne upletenosti.
Hu Juna: Šta mislite o ljudima koji kažu: jednom kada izađeš, nikad se nećeš vratiti?
Maja Ćirić: Čak i kada si izvan, možeš biti unutra ili čak i kada je neko unutra, može biti van. To sve zavisi od percepcije statusa kustosa u zadatim okolnostima i načinima za izgradnju značenja u kontekstu. Da li biti unutra .znači podržavanje bilo kakav hegemonije? Onda sam ja uvek napolju. Ja komuniciram sa umetnicima pre svakoga ko želi da napravi bilo kakav fizički ili simbolički kapital. To je neka vrsta kratkog perioda nevinosti i nesigurnosti.
Hu Jun je umetnik koji živi i radi u Šangaju, a trenutno je na rezidencijalnom boravku IASPIS u Štokholmu. Srbiju posećuje barem jednom godišnje.
Fragments of an ongoing conversation between Biljana Ćirić and Maja Ćirić
Biljana Ćirić: I am starting this set of questions back to you with some of the references to conversations that we had about common frustrations and similarities in roles that we are taking actively and roles that are given to us framed by our working conditions and contexts (geographical and biological). How do you see your position as a curator and critic within the local art context in Serbia. How do you negotiate your role within the global context with vision that you have and what are the challenges in these translations?
Maja Ćirić: First of all, talking about the local context one has to be aware of different positions: post-Yugoslav, pro-EU, Balkan and global. While the post-Yugoslav and pro-EU condition is stimulated both for ideological and practical reasons and funding concerns, the global comes in with the logic of new capital. The third position, money being the measure of it all, often comes with the lack of expertise, with a sole intention to generate a whatever product. As it happens, this positions are sometimes merged, so many different hybrids are emerging in a very specific, but very vivid Serbian art world. I never represented the trope of “chronically belated, under-developed, essentially backward East”[1]. I never played on the geographical card, but so far I never played on the card of branding art nor exhibitions. While all described positions come with a manual of instructions and predictable networks, my way to counter any hegemony by what Gramsci described, and Boris Buden recalled, is the war on maneuver (rather than the war on position) when the opportunity arises. So, I see my practice as a practice that is an embodiment of a gap, it does not exists as a frontal nor a stable position, it is rather individual and unpredictable. The only stability I have is my knowledge, unpredictable network, fresh information and the opportunities that emerge from there.
Biljana Ćirić: You define and talk about your practice as a curatorial and related to exhibition making. That is very different from theoretical discourse and art historian perspective. What is discourse around exhibition making in the current scene in Serbia?
Maja Ćirić: Generally speaking, it is very important to understand the line between academia and practitioners, because these two worlds are culturally very different, no matter what the context is. The practice of the academics is different when they practice exhibition making. It is often already embedded and recognized. Their research is treating the facts, while curators are allowed to deal with experiments. I must admit that I have legs in both worlds, and an ambivalent method which makes me often an agent provocateur at the academic conferences. The empirical reality always challenges the theoretical reality. So, even there I act in a gap. My curatorial approach is based on a research, but it is also project and artist driven, and it is unpredictable since it deals with contemporaneity. In Serbia specifically, the discourse around exhibition making is versatile: it is often related to the post-Yugoslav condition and the re-articulation of Yugoslav exhibitions, or it is driven by the key words of a foreign funding bodies. Then there is one international course that introduces younger generations to the general theory of curating at the University of Arts, but I have only heard people talking about it quietly, so I am not sure about the method they are using. I’ve started recently teaching one course at the private academy, as well as to work within self-organized workshops with a few students from the Art History department. There is some space for the theory of curating in the International Journal for Art and Media Studies. But, the curatorial discourse, as anywhere else, can be a manifestation of a failure of trans-disciplinarity. So, it’s always important to look at what falls out of the map.
Biljana Ćirić: I have seen the Serbian Pavilion exhibition titled “Nothing Between Us” at the 55th Venice Biennale. I noticed and you mentioned that this exhibition doesn’t have a curator but your role is rather of a commissioner. Was that an administrative decision or decision by the artists? What were the challenges of making that specific exhibition?
Maja Ćirić: Artists thought they were the ones who were selected, and that they have the right to deal with the exhibition display plus we were limited in so many ways. Administratively, I was in charge of surveiling the process, but the practical obstacles were numerous.
Biljana Ćirić:Being very active as individual practitioner internationally how would you frame cultural politics of Serbia on the official level as well as a strategy of so called alternative or independent initiatives within the larger global framework. Do we still talk about geopolitical terms when we talk about the so called cultural collaborations?
Maja Ćirić: There’s nothing new about exhibitions being instruments of cultural diplomacy. And often the Serbian art has been promoted as a distorted other, looking from the outside. The difference from ten years ago is that the partners from abroad were of a higher status, then those collaborating with the Serbian context today. The interest has shifted from small countries in transition towards the countries whose economies are growing like Brasil or India. On the other hand and on the global scale look at the exhibition Report on a Construction of a Spaceship Module, at the New Museum, New York – the only artist being integrated from the post-Yugoslav territory is the late Tom Gotovac. Or take, for example, the exhibition The Empty Pedestal in Bologna, Italy, which is about Eastern European art. In the catalogue with no Serbian artists involved Buden talks about the impossibility of the pride parade in Belgrade, as an excessive context in, Igor Grubić’s East Side Story(2006-2008) taking it as an example of cultural differences. I never belonged to the distorted over-identification with the East that has become “a mere trope of exclusion and submission”. The most effective rescue is an affinity to criticality, knowledge and information, but the performativity of that too depends of one’s capability to find and operate in the gap in the system. By the means that I have, I have tried to approach cultural diplomacy from the position of criticality, to see new angles and not see myself falling in any of the prescribed categories. I do not know if I have succeeded, but I certainly never thought of myself as of a main-stream.
Biljana Ćirić: Recently you mentioned research to curatorial research conducted in USA that is also related to curating. Can you tell me more about about it and it’s possible public outcome?
Maja Ćirić: Beside the Round table session with inspiring individuals that we David Ayala Alfonso and myself have organized at the ICI Curatorial Hub in October last year in the frame of Dedalus/ICI Independent Research Award for the research (Un)Claimed Territories: Post-conceptual Curating in USA, whose content is about to be transcribed, we have wrote a text, soon to be published, and we plan to publish a booklet.
Biljana Ćirić: My last question is the last series would be related to start of collaboration between you and students of the Fine Art’s department in Belgrade where you also organized my talk. Seems that there is also urgency from your side to get involved with the students asking from them to take on a more proactive role within the art system.
Maja Ćirić: Being in an unpredictable position, I have learned the importance of radicalizing my existence every now and then. Just like in the movie Dune, you have to change the rhythm if you want to escape from the worm. In April last year, during the conversation that followed the invitation by Nina Mihaljinac, I told to the students that if they do not radicalize their existence right now, while they are still studying, most of them will abandon the profession in the future. They were already aware of that, because what followed was the invitation to act as a curatorial mentor for their project New Collection, a form of institutional critique to the conditions of the cultural legacy and more specifically the conditions around the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade that is closed for renovation. Since not only the building but also the collections of the Museum of Contemporary Art are most often closed and invisible, they decided to be inspired by what can be found in the books and archives and after one semester of workshops, they will make an exhibition in various spaces across Belgrade in October. After all, Museum is not only a building but an agency, a participatory subject in the construction of reality.
Question from Hu Yun:
Hu Yun: Do you agree with that actually art practitioners in Serbia are more willing to be recognized outside of Serbia, I mean, people choose to be outsiders?
Maja Ćirić: Different people, different outcomes. It all depends on the field you find yourself in. What is driving you is also important. If being independent means your logics of selection and labeling are different than the main stream, you might be trapped in an existential struggle. If you make a deal with a collection of a bank, for example, you are implicated and trapped in the ideological sense. In that kind of constellation it is good to have the outside as an alternative.
Hu Yun: What do you think about people saying: once you get out, you never come back.
Maja Ćirić: Even when one is out, one can be in, or even when one is in, one can be out. It all depends on the perception of the status of a curator within the current circumstances and the construction of the meaning within the context. Does being in, mean supporting any kind of hegemony? Then I am always out. What I understand as being in is communicating with the artists before anyone who wants to make any kind of material or symbolic capital.This is a sort of a short period of innocence and insecurity.
Hu Yun is an artist based in Shanghai and he is currently IASPIS residence in Stockholm. He makes visits to Serbia at least once a year.
[1] Boris Buden, Nothing to Complete: Something to Start in the catalogue of The Empty Pedestal, Ghosts from Eastern Europe.
