Hans Haacke, the German conceptualartist permanently resident in New

York, has in nearly four decades of his workacquired the status of a “disrupting factor”in the world of contemporary art. Althoughartists don’t like being labeled, the labelmost often associated with Haacke is thatof a “political artist”. The definitions ofpolitical art and social-critical art are them-selves subject to change, and vary accord-ing to the social context and the time whenthey are created. In any case, Haacke’spolitical engagement has very little to dowith the “political art” of the East, and is inmany ways unique in the contemporary artof the West.

Regardless of the speed and rate ofchange in art trends at the end of the lastcentury, Haacke was one of the few artistswho lived up to their original premises. Tohim, autonomy of art is nothing but a mod-ernist dogma, and every artistic expressionis deeply immersed in an ideology. As hedidn’t fit into the postmodernist paradigmof the “constant change and incoherence”,Haacke was for some an example of ananachronistic modernist, while remainingfor others a paradigm of an incorruptibleavant-garde artist.

A fighter against formalism and the sta-tus quo, he often succeeded in stirring staleartistic waters, but also provoked numerousdiscussions outside the narrow art commu-nity. Paradoxically enough, the most fre-quent target of his criticism was the institu-tional system of art, or in other words, themuseums and galleries, which were thevery same institutions that made him a starand which, in spite of everything, keepinviting him to exhibit in their spaces. Heaccepts these invitations by simply explain-ing that “he has always been a part of thesystem and that he doesn’t see any otherway to work against the system if he is nota part of it.”

Born in Köln in 1936, he obtained hisdegree at the Art Academy in Kassel in1960. In 1960/61 he spent a year in Parisas a DAAD scholar in S.W.Hayter’s printstudio. He worked with the Group Zero inDusseldorf where he became interested inpresenting natural phenomena. In 1961 hewent to Philadelphia as a Fullbright schol-ar, and has been living in New York since1962. Fascinated with the laws of physicshe created the so-called CondensationCubes. He lived in Germany from 1963

Hans Haacke, njemaËki konceptualniumjetnik sa stalnim boravkom u New

Yorku, tijekom gotovo Ëetiri desetljeÊadjelovanja priskrbio je sebi status “remeti-laËkog faktora” u svijetu suvremene umjet-nosti. Premda umjetnici ne vole etikete, zaHaackea se najËeπÊe lijepi ona “politiËkogumjetnika”. Doduπe, i same su definicije po-litiËke umjetnosti, odnosno druπtveno-kri-tiËke umjetnosti, podloæne promjeni i vari-raju ovisno o druπtvenu kontekstu i vreme-nu u kojem nastaju. U svakom sluËaju,Haackeov umjetniËki angaæman ima malosliËnosti s “politiËkom umjetnoπÊu” na Isto-ku, a po mnogo Ëemu jedinstven je i u su-vremenoj umjetnosti Zapada.

Bez obzira kojom su se brzinom iuËestaloπÊu mijenjale umjetniËke mode nakraju proπlog stoljeÊa, Haacke je bio meurijetkim umjetnicima koji su ostali vjernisvojim poËetnim premisama: autonomijaumjetnosti tek je modernistiËka floskula, asvaki umjetniËki iskaz duboko je uronjen uideologiju. Ne uklapajuÊi se u postmodernuparadigmu “vjeËne promjene i nekoherent-nosti”, Haacke je za jedne bio primjeromanakronog modernista, dok je za drugeostao paradigmom nepotkupljivog avan-gardista.

Borac protiv formalizma i status quoa,Ëesto je uspijevao uzburkati ustajale umjet-niËke vode, ali i izazvati brojne polemikeizvan uskih umjetniËkih krugova. Paradoksje u tome πto je najËeπÊa meta njegove kri-tike institucionalni sustav umjetnosti, dru-gim rijeËima muzeji i galerije, one iste insti-tucije koje su ga naËinile “zvijezdom” i kojega, unatoË svemu, i dalje pozivaju da izlaæeu njihovim prostorima. On te pozive prih-vaÊa s jednostavnim obrazloæenjem “da jeoduvijek bio dio sistema i ne vidi naËina dadjeluje protiv sistema, ukoliko nije njegovdio”.

Roen u Kölnu 1936., diplomirao je naUmjetniËkoj akademiji u Kasselu 1960. g.Godine 1960./61. boravi u Parizu kao DAADstipendist u Hayterovu grafiËkom atelijeru.Surauje s grupom Zero u Düsseldorfu, gdjega zanima predstavljanje prirodnih pojava.Godine 1961. Fullbrightov je stipendist uPhiladelphiji, a od 1962. godine æivi u NewYorku. Fasciniran zakonima fizike konstruiratzv. kondenzirajuÊe kocke. Od 1963.-1965.æivi u NjemaËkoj. Akademske godine1966./67. predaje na nekoliko ameriËkihsveuËiliπta, a od 1967. predaje na jednoj odnajuglednijih ameriËkih umjetniËkih akade-mija, Cooper Union School. Sudjelovao je na

nada beroπ

hans haackeborac protiv podmiÊivanjapovijesti

a fighter against bribing history

18

sl.1: H. Haacke, Rad za izloæbu u Zagrebu / Work for

the exhibition in Zagreb, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti

/ Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, 1980.

t l

I N T E R V I E W

1

until 1965. In the academic year of1966/67 he lectured at a number ofAmerican universities, and since 1967 hehas been lecturing at one of the most pres-tigious American art schools, The CooperUnion. He participated in the DocumentaV, VII, VIII and X in Kassel, and represent-ed Germany at the Venice Biennale in1993.

At the beginning of the 60’s hisobjects, such as Condensation Cube(1963), added a new dimension to the tra-ditional concept of sculpture. In themHaacke was using almost scientific param-eters to question the reaction of an objectto its environment or how a change in theenvironment is affected by an object. Fromthe end of the 60’s until today Haacke’swork has been focused on the society andits power mechanisms, and the ways to

Documenti V, VII i X u Kasselu, a 1993.predstavljao je NjemaËku na Vene-cijanskom Biennalu.

PoËetkom πezdestih godina njegoviobjekti poput Condensation Cube (1963.)proπiruju tradicionalno poimanje skulpture.U njima Haacke gotovo znanstvenim para-metrima propituje kako objekt reagira naokolinu, odnosno kako objekt utjeËe napromjenu okoliπa. Od kraja πezdesetih go-dina pa sve do danas u fokusu Haackeovarada su druπtvo i njegovi mehanizmi moÊite naËini kako ih prokazati i destabilizirati.U seriji radova - fototekstova - oponaπajuÊikorporacijske reklame i njihove slogane,Haacke razotkriva kako su kljuËni ljudi tihkorporacija, Ëesto puta Ëlanovi poËasnihodbora muzeja, povezani s eksploatacijomTreÊeg svijeta, s desniËarima svih vrsta, sCIA-om... pokazujuÊi kako se umjetnost

20

sl.2: H. Haacke, Mobillization, 1975.

sl.3: H. Haacke, MoMA-Pool, 1970.

2

3

Ëesto sponzorira okrvavljenim dolarima. Upovijesti provokacija u suvremenoj umjet-nosti ostat Êe zabiljeæen njegov MoMA Polliz 1970., “glasovanje” o ne-povjerenjuguverneru Rockfelleru zbog podrπke Nixo-novoj politici u Indokini, inaËe Ëlanu PoËas-nog odbora Muzeja moderne umjetnosti uNew Yorku, u akciji odræanoj na izloæbiInformacija u dotiËnom muzeju; slijedi ot-kazivanje samostalne izloæbe u MuzejuGuggenheim 1971., u kojoj Haacke pedan-tno dokumentira vlasniπtvo tvrtke Sha-polsky nad nekretninama na Manhattanu,kao i niz radova u kojima britko kritizirapostulate na kojima poËivaju glasovitetvrtke i njihovi poæeljni proizvodi, poput Ja-guara, Tiffanyja, Chase Manhattan Bank,Philip Morris, Mobila, Allied Chemicala imnogi drugi.

Germania, goli zidovi i strojevimarazrovan mramorni pod πto pod koracimapublike ispuπta zastraπujuÊe zvukove, bezsumnje je jedan od najslavnijih Haackeovihradova u devedesetima. Tom instalacijomumjetnik tematizira ujedinjenje, rekonstruk-ciju i povijest NjemaËke. Realizirao ju je uNjemaËkom paviljonu na venecijanskomBijenalu 1993., i bio nagraen, zajedno sNam June Paikom, za najbolji nacionalnipaviljon.

Najnoviji “skandal” zbio se na proπlogo-diπnjem Whitney bijenalu u New Yorku, aizazvala ga je Haackeova instalacijaSanitation (»istoÊa), koja je “povrijedila”njujorπkog gradonaËelnika Giulianija.Haackeov rad izazvao je veÊu medijskupozornost nego cjelokupni Whitney bijenale2000. Prije samog otvorenja, da se Turcine dosjete, gradonaËelnik New Yorka,Rudolph Giuliani, poveo je kampanju protivHaackea, optuæujuÊi ga da je svojim radomtrivijalizirao holokaust.

A radilo se o tome da je Haacke u svo-joj instalaciji doveo u neposrednu vezuGuilianijeve izjave u povodu kontroverzneizloæbe Sensation u brooklynskom muzeju,usporeujuÊi ih s nacistiËkim tretmanommoderne umjetnosti kao “degenerirane”umjetnosti i kao smeÊa. U zamraËenoj sobiHaacke je postavio 12 crnih plastiËnihkanti za smeÊe iz kojih dopire zvukvojniËkog marπiranja. Na zidu su ameriËkezastave koje okruæuju citati Giuliania i tro-jice drugih konzervativnih politiËara,ispisani goticom, pismom koje je napoËetku bilo vrlo omiljeno pismo nacista.Na podu je, posebnim reflektorom osvijetl-jen faksimil teksta Prvog amandmana

reveal and destabilize them. In a series ofphototexts, which imitate corporate public-ity materials and their slogans, Haackereveals the involvement of the key people ofthese corporations, who are very oftenmembers of the Boards of Trustees ofmuseums, in the exploitation of the ThirdWorld, with right-winger movements, withthe CIA... thus demonstrating how art isvery often sponsored by “blood-money”.The history of contemporary art provocati-ons will remember his MoMA Poll from1970, a “vote of no-confidence” in the gov-ernor Rockefeller for his support of Nixon’spolitics in Indochina, in an action at theexhibition Information at the Museum ofModern Art in New York where Rockefellerwas also a member of the Honorary Board.This was followed by the cancellation of hisexhibition at the Guggenheim Museum in1971, in which Haacke meticulously docu-mented the ownership of the Shapolskygroup’s real estate properties in Manhattan.There is further a number of works in whichhe sharply criticized the postulates lying inthe foundation of many famous companiesand their desired products, such as Jaguar,Tiffany, Chase Manhattan Bank, PhillipMorris, Mobil, Allied Chemical and manyothers.

His Germania, consisting of bare wallsand broken up marble floor which makes aterrifying noises under the feet of the view-er, is unquestionably the most famous ofHaacke’s works of the 90’s. The issue thathe is concerned with in this installation isthe reunification the reconstruction and thehistory of Germany. It was realized in theGerman pavilion at the Venice Biennale in1993 and was awarded, together withNam June Paik, the best national pavilion.

The latest “scandal” happened at lastyear’s Whitney Biennale in New York, andwas caused by Haacke’s installationSanitation, which “hurt” the feelings of NewYork’s Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. Haacke’swork attracted more media attention thanthe whole Whitney Biennale 2000 itself.Before the opening, the Mayor of New Yorkinitiated a campaign against Haacke accus-ing him of trivializing the Holocaust withhis work.

Controversy surrounded the fact that inhis installation Haacke quoted Giuliani’sstatements on the controversial exhibitionSensation at the Brooklyn museum, com-paring them with the Nazis’ treatment ofmodern, art as “degenerated” art and as

21

I N T E R V I E W

garbage. In a darkened room Haacke put12 black plastic garbage cans from whichthe sound of marching boots was coming.American flags on the wall were surround-ed by Giuliani’s quotations and the quota-tions from three other conservative politi-cians. These were written in the gothicscript that was at the beginning muchfavored by the Nazis. A spotlight was direc-ted on the floor where a facsimile of theFirst Amendment of the American Consti-tution granting the freedom of speech waslying. Haacke finished his installation at thevery last moment. It divided the membersof the Board of Trustees and the Whitneyfamily. Among the other absurd accusa-tions it was claimed that he didn’t belong inthe Whitney Biennale because he wasn’t anAmerican artist. He had never applied forAmerican citizenship, in spite of the factthat he had been living and working inAmerica for more than thirty years!

At about the same time discussions inGermany were taking place about Haacke’sinstallation for the northern interior court-yard of the Reichstag building in Berlin. Theinscription “To the German people” on thefaçade would be permanently faced in thecourtyard by Haacke’s neon sign proclaim-ing Der Bevölkerung (To the population),unquestionably criticizing German national-ism and xenophobia both in the past andpresent.

I talked to Haacke in his office, whichcan be hardly called a studio, at CooperUnion School. A modest working spacesuits very well the artist who rode to themeeting on a bicycle. The impression of aquiet, discreet person is in complete con-trast with the intensity of his work and thelabel of a “trouble-maker”, attributed to himby the American media. When asked whythe Cooper Union was the most prestigiousart school in America he, without any mys-tification, gave a laconic reply: “Because itis free!”

In an informal conversation proceedingthe ‘proper interview’, which we conductedin a coffee bar, close to the Cooper Union,he was very relaxed and fondly remem-bered his work exhibited at the Museum ofContemporary art in Zagreb in 1980.However, as soon as I switched on my“recording device”, I couldn’t help feelinguneasy about disturbing the peace and hos-pitality of the artist and thus unwillinglytaking the ‘other’, “enemy” side...

ameriËkog Ustava koji jamËi slobodu govo-ra... Haacke je instalaciju zavrπio u posljed-nji tren, iznenadivπi i samo osoblje Muzeja.Rad je podijelio i Ëlanove Upravnog odborai nasljednike obitelji Whitney. Meu ostalimapsurdnim optuæbama, tvrdilo se da njemunije mjesto na Whitney bijenalu jer on nijeameriËki umjetnik, buduÊi da nikad nije za-traæio ameriËko dræavljanstvo, unatoË Ëi-njenici da tridesetak godina æivi i radi uAmerici!

Istodobno, su u NjemaËkoj uslijedilepolemike o Haackeovoj instalaciji za sjever-no unutraπnje dvoriπte zgrade Reichstaga uBerlinu, sa svijetleÊim natpisom DerBevölkerung (Stanovniπtvu), koja Êe biti tra-jno suËeljena natpisu na proËelju s posve-tom “NjemaËkom narodu”, Ëija poruka ned-vojbeno kritizira njemaËki nacionalizam iksenofobiju, kako u proπlosti, tako i usadaπnjosti.

Razgovarala sam s Haackeom u njegov-oj radnoj sobi u Cooper Union School kojuje teπko nazvati umjetniËkim atelijerom.Skroman radni prostor odliËno pristajeumjetniku koji se na sastanak dovezao bi-ciklom. Dojam povuËenog, diskretnog Ëo-vjeka posve je u suprotnosti sa æestinomnjegovih radova i titulom “kovaËa skandala”koju mu pripisuju ameriËki mediji. Na pita-nje zaπto je Cooper Union najprestiænijaumjetniËka akademija u Americi, bez imalomistifikacije, lakonski je odgovorio: “Zatoπto je besplatna!”

U neformalnom razgovoru koji je pret-hodio “pravom interviewu” πto smo gavodili u kafeteriji u susjedstvu CooperUniona bio je vrlo opuπten, rado se pris-jeÊajuÊi svojeg rada na izloæbi u Muzejusuvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu, 1980.Meutim, od trenutka ukljuËivanja dikta-fona nije me napuπtala nelagoda kakougroæavam mir i gostoprimstvo umjetnika, inehoteÊi, pridruæujuÊi se “neprijateljskoj”strani... n n Vaπ se cjelokupni rad temelji na ideji

poticanja javne rasprave. Kad vaπe djelo ne

bi bilo u stanju provocirati snaæne reakcije

javnosti, pretpostavljam da bi ga se tada

moglo nazvati promaπajem. Vjerujem da

ste itekako bili svjesni kako Êe reakcije na

instalaciju »istoÊa, predstavljenu na

Whitney biennalu 2000, biti vrlo æestoke.

Zanima me, meutim, jeste li oËekivali da

Êe one biti lansirane s posve suprotnih

ideoloπkih pozicija, da Êe vas jedni, prim-

jerice, optuæivati za trivijalizaciju holokaus-

ta, a drugi za agit-prop?

22

sl.4: H. Haacke, Germania, 1993.

Ne, nisam oËekivao takve reakcije prijezavrπetka samog rada i prije njegova po-stavljanja. Nisam mislio da Êe on postatipredmet tako velike rasprave. A to se dogo-dilo zbog toga πto je iz Muzeja Whitneyprocurila prijevremena informacija koju jeiskoristio New York Times. BuduÊi da senalazimo usred izborne kampanje za Senat,gradonaËelnik Giuliani i Hilary Clinton na-tjeËu se za jedno od dva senatska mjesta uDræavi New York. GradonaËelnik Giuliani jebrzo reagirao, i moram reÊi lukavo, kako bi“otupio” moju kritiku njegova krπenjaUstava. GradonaËelnikovi ljudi naπli su iz-vjesnu osobu koja je “skuhala” optuæbu dasam trivijalizirao holokaust. (AbrahamFoxman, Ëlan Lige za obranu ugleda i Ëasti,u otvorenom pismu direktoru MuzejaWhitney, napisao je da taj rad “vrijeauspomenu na πest milijuna Æidova i drugihkoje su ubili nacisti”, op.a.).

I stoga πto rad joπ uvijek nije bioizloæen, morao sam se braniti. Tada su svishvatili koliko je ta optuæba smijeπna. Aliπteta je bila uËinjena.

l l Your entire work is based on the idea

of instigating public discourse. If it were

not able to provoke strong feelings among

the public I assume it could be easily con-

sidered as a failure. I believe you were

strongly aware that the reactions to your

installation Sanitation at the Whitney

Biennial 2000 would be fierce. However, I

am curious to know whether you expected

them to be launched from quite opposite

ideological stands - on the one hand you

were accused for trivializing the Holocaust,

on the other for the agit-prop...?

Well, I was not expecting that the workwould become the subject of a big debatebefore it had been completed and before Ihad installed it. This is due to the fact thatthe Museum leaked information whichreached the New York Times. Since we arein the middle of an election campaign forthe Senate, Mayor Giuliani and HilaryClinton are running for one of the twoSenate seats of the State of New York, hereacted very quickly, and I must say veryshrewdly, to deflect my criticism of his vio-lation of the constitution. The Mayor’s peo-ple found somebody who cooked up this

23

I N T E R V I E W

4

charge that I was trivializing the Holocaust.Because the work was not visible I was puton the defensive. Then everybody realizedthat this accusation was ridiculous. But thedamage was done.l l The accusation for trivializing the

Holocaust came before the opening of the

exhibition?

Yes. The quotes were chosen twoweeks before the opening. Nothing was inthe Museum. I had not started installing it.I was still completing the work. l l I know that you finished the work at

the last moment and, in a way, surprised

the Whitney staff too, so that it was too

late to change anything, but I didn’t know

that the accusations started before the

opening. I’ve read the director’s statement

on the Internet. Max Anderson stood up for

you but his statement seems to me a little

bit confusing and ambiguous. I had the im-

pression that he supported you as an artist

and defended artistic freedom in general but

did not stand up for the work itself. Have

you had problems inside the Museum too?

No. I appreciated that he did not go sofar as to say: “You can not show this!” I cangive him credit for that. It’s incredible thatone has to give credit to the Museum fornot censoring you, if you think about theimplications... I am disappointed that hefelt it necessary to disassociate himselffrom the work. That was uncalled for. l l But this is very American, I reckon.

It’s notorious that the private museums are

very dependent on Boards and Trustees.

They usually do not understand nor respect

contemporary art, especially if its criticism

is directed towards the society they repre-

sent. I’ve heard that Marylou Whitney, the

widow of Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney,

has withdrawn her support from the

Museum because it exhibited your installa-

tion at the Biennial?

In the process of that debate things gotvery mixed up. The people around theMayor apparently got in touch with MarylouWhitney and her daughter. Marylou Whitneyis a very conservative old lady and probablya sympathizer of the Republicans and in thiscase of Rudolph Giuliani. So, she said “I willwithdraw my support to the Whitney”.Marylou Whitney has given to the Museumevery year not more than 5000 dollars. Itdidn’t mean anything, really.

l l Why doesn’t anybody mention this

publicly?

n n Optuæba o trivijalizaciji holokausta

izreËena je prije samog otvorenja Biennala?

Da, citati su bili izabrani dva tjednaprije otvorenja. U to vrijeme joπ uvijek niËegnije bilo u Muzeju. Joπ uvijek sam dovrπa-vao rad. n n Poznato mi je da ste u posljednji

trenutak zavrπili rad i na neki naËin poma-

lo iznenadili i osoblje Muzeja, ali nisam

znala da su optuæbe krenule prije samog

otvorenja. ProËitala sam na internetu izja-

vu direktora, Maxa Andersona, koji je “stao

iza vas”, ali mi se tekst Ëini pomalo dvos-

mislenim i zbunjujuÊim. Imala sam dojam

da on principijelno stoji iza vas kao umjet-

nika i brani slobodu umjetniËkog govora, ali

da zapravo ne podræava sâm rad. Jeste li

imali problema i u samom Muzeju?

Ne. Cijenim Ëinjenicu πto direktor nijeiπao tako daleko i kazao: “Vi ne moæeteizloæiti taj rad.” Mogu mu biti zahvalan natome. Ali, kad malo razmislite o implikaci-jama, æalosno je ako morate zahvaljivatiMuzeju zato πto vas nije cenzurirao.Meutim, ono zbog Ëega sam razoËaranËinjenica je da se direktor javno distanciraood djela. Nije bilo potrebe za tim. n n Meni se to Ëini jako “ameriËkim”.

Poznato je kako su direktori privatnih

muzeja ovisni o upravnim i poËasnim

odborima, sponzorima, koji ponajπeπÊe

nemaju previπe razumijevanja za suvre-

menu umjetnost, pogotovo ako je ona kri-

tiËna prema druπtvu koje oni reprezentira-

ju... »ula sam da je Marilou Whitney

povukla svoju potporu Muzeju zbog izla-

ganja vaπeg rada na Biennalu?

24

sl.5: H. Haacke, Sanitation, 2000.5

U tijeku te rasprave stvari su se jakozamrsile. OËito je kako su ljudi oko gradon-aËelnika stupili u kontakt s Marilou Whitneyi njezinom kÊeri. To je vrlo konzervativnaosamdesetogodiπnja gospoa koja , po svojprilici, simpatizira republikance; i u ovomsluËaju gradonaËelnika Giulianija. Dakle,ona je rekla: “PovlaËim svoju financijskupotporu Whitney muzeju.” MarylouWhitney daje Muzeju godiπnje ne viπe od5000 dolara! A ta svota uistinu niπta neznaËi.

n n Zaπto taj podatak nije poznat javnosti!?

ProËitao sam da Êe ona sada promije-niti svoju oporuku i darovat Êe svoj novacmuzeju u gradiÊu Cody, dræava Wyoming.Cody je grad u Stjenjaku u kojem je roenBuffalo Bill. Pretpostavljam kako je tomuzej kakve nalazimo na Zapadu, u kojemse sakupljaju predmeti iz proπlosti Zapada -tradicionalan, konzervativan... Puni je nazivtog muzeja Buffalo Bill Historical Center -on posjeduje Ëetiri zbirke meu kojima je iWhitney Gallery of Western Art, op.a..Vjerujem da nju posebno ne zanima ono πtoradi Muzej Whitney u New Yorku.

n n Sad je staroj gospoi skandal oko

vaπeg rada dobro doπao kao izlika za

preusmjeravanje novca, zar ne?

Vjerojatno. Meutim, dvije su drugeËlanice Whitney obitelji, majka i kÊi, koje suvrlo aktivne u Odboru, za razliku odMarylou Whitney koja nije ni ËlanicaOdbora, stale u obranu mojeg rada i zaloæilese da se on izloæi. Flora Miller Biddle bila jecitirana u tisku s rijeËima da sam ja vaæanumjetnik koji propituje socijalne teme...

n n Je li obitelj Whitney velika i moÊna?

Da, to je golema obitelj. Flora MillerBiddle joπ uvijek je vrlo aktivna u Odboru,kao i njezina kÊi. Pretpostavljam da suangaæirane u davanju i prikupljanju novcaza Muzej...

n n Uspjeli ste, dakle, stvoriti raskol u

obitelji Whitney!

Tu su se pojavili naslovi na prvimstranicama - Quitneys (neprevodiva igrarijeËi: quit - dokinuti, skonËati, otkazati -misli se na dokidanje financijske potporeMarylou Whitney) to se odnosilo naMarylou Whitney i njezinu kÊi; zatim slje-deÊi dan, opet preko cijele stranice naslov:Plemenska zavada u Whitney klanu.

n n PromatrajuÊi vaπu instalaciju Sanita-

tion (»istoÊa) pomislila sam na rad ameriË-

I’ve read that she will now change herwill, and she will give her money to a muse-um in Cody, Wyoming. Cody is the town inthe Rocky Mountains where Buffalo Billwas born and, well, I assume there ismuseum that collect objects of the OldWest - traditional, conservative... (Haackeis referring to the Buffalo Bill HistoricalCenter, “widely regarded as America’sfinest western museum featuring four col-lections under one roof, among them theWhitney Gallery of Western art”). I imaginethat she was not particularly interested inwhat the Whitney in New York was doing. l l Was the “scandal” about your work

just a good excuse for the old lady to

change the direction of her support?

Probably. However, another member ofthe Whitney family and her daughter who ison the Board - Marylou Whitney is not onthe Board - came out very strongly in favorof exhibiting my work. Flora Miller Biddle,the mother and a former Board memberherself was quoted in the press saying thatI am an important artist addressing criticalsocial issues... l l Is Whitney family a big one?

Yes, this is a very big family. FloraMiller Biddle is still very active and so ihher daughter on the Board. I assumed theyare involved in giving and raising funds forthe Museum. l l So, you managed to divide the

Whitneys too?

Actually there were headlines on thefront pages, “The Quitneys” - refering toMarylou Whitney and her daughter - andthe next day, again a full page announcing:Feud in the Whitney clan. l l While looking at your installation

Sanitation, I thought of the work by Mierle

Laderman Ukeles, who has been dealing

with waste for years. In her probably the

best known performance from 1979/8,

which was entitled Touch Sanitation, she

shook hands with every single man from

NY Sanitation Department, 8500 people

altogether. She found them on their work-

ing sites and while shaking their hands she

pronounced the sentence: Thank you for

keeping New York City alive. She tries to

make waste and our attitude towards

waste, visible while in your installation

garbage stays in a dimly lit room…

She deals with material garbage while Iam dealing with a word used by the politi-cians in Washington and by Mayor Giuliani.

25

I N T E R V I E W

It can be traced back to the Nazis who werecalling art they did not like - garbage. Thatis the term that is used again today. And Itook it literally.

l l So you literally visualized this meta-

phoric expression?

Mayor Giuliani often says: “This is sick,this is garbage…” The implication is thatsomething unhealthy, dirty, garbage isendangering the public. It must be takenaway. As a matter of fact in one of hisquotes Giuliani said: “Civilization has beenabout trying to find the right place to putexcrement, not on the walls of museums.”

l l Your show, scheduled for the Gu-

ggenheim Museum back in 1971, critical-

ly focused on real estate ownership in

Manhattan, but was cancelled at the last

moment while the curator, who stood up

for you, was fired. You have a long “trou-

ble-maker” career, if one considers the

opinion of some of the most prominent

American museums and their boards, like

this one now in Whitney.

My New York friends told me that you

had more mentions in the American press

than the whole Whitney show and that

reporters were queuing up to get your

statement…

That’s right. It got a lot of coverage.Most of it was factually wrong or unin-formed, and I am not happy for that. Therewas always the question whether I triviali-zed the Holocaust or not. I wanted to focuson the violation of the First Amendment ofthe Constitution by the Mayor. In effect,this became a side issue or was totallyignored.

l l It didn’t help that you focused a light

onto the floor with a wooden plaque and

the quotation of the First Amendment…

The reception was preconditioned bythe debate before the work could be exam-ined.

l l Knowing the fact that your wife and

consequently your sons are Jews, I assume

that of all the accusations you were faced

with, the most painful was the one that you

trivialized the Holocaust…

Until then, neither my wife nor I everthought of talking about our background inpublic. This is the sick part of the wholestory. Do I have to be connected to Jewishcauses, either through my work or personalrelations to recognize parallels between the

ke umjetnice Mierle Ukeles Laderman koja

se godinama bavi smeÊem. Nakon velikog

snjeænog nevremena koje je zahvatilo New

York 1979. ona se, u performansu koji je

trajao gotovo godinu dana, pod nazivom

Touch Sanitation (Dodirni ËistoÊu, odnos-

no ËistaËe), rukovala sa svim njujorπkim

ËistaËima, njih 8.500, koji su u kratkom

roku oËistili grad, potraæivπi ih na njihovu

radnom mjestu, zahvalivπi im rijeËi-

ma:“Hvala πto New York odræavate na æiv-

otu.” SmeÊe, i naπ odnos prema smeÊu

ona nastoji uËiniti vidljivim, dok je u vaπoj

instalaciji smeÊe u mraËnoj, tamnoj pros-

toriji...

Ona se bavi stvarnim smeÊem, dokmene zanima rijeË kojom se koriste poli-tiËari u Washingtonu i gradonaËelnikGuiliani. Korijeni joj se mogu naÊi uproπlosti, kod nacista koji su nazivali sme-Êem umjetnost koja im se nije sviala. Toje termin koji se danas ponovno upotrebl-java. I ja taj pojam sada doslovno rabim.

n n Vi ste, dakle, metaforiËan izraz vizu-

alizirali doslovno?

GradonaËelnik Guiliani Ëesto kaæe: “Toje bolesno, ovo je smeÊe…” Takvi izraziupuÊuju na to da neπto nezdravo, prljavo,nekakvo smeÊe… ugroæava javnost. SmeÊetreba negdje izolirati. U jednom od citatakoje navodim u svojoj instalaciji Guilianikaæe: “Civilizacija je pokuπaj traæenjapravog mjesta na kojem se odlaæe izmet, ato nisu zidovi muzeja.”

n n Vaπa izloæba koja se trebala odræati u

Muzeju Guggenheim davne 1971. godine,

u kojoj ste kritiËki progovorili o vlasniπtvu

nad nekretninama na Manhattanu, bila je

otkazana u posljednji tren, a kustos koji

vas je podræao dobio je otkaz. Dakle, pos-

toji duga povijest “neprilika” koje radite

etabliranim muzejima i njihovim odbori-

ma, kao πto je i ova sada, u Whitneyu.

»ula sam od njujorπkih znanaca da je bilo

viπe osvrta na vaπ rad nego na cijeli

Whitney biennale te da su redovi novinara

i snimatelja strpljivo Ëekali vaπu izjavu...

ToËno. Bilo je mnogo osvrta, ali ve-Êinom su to bili pogreπni ili neupuÊeni pri-kazi. I nisam zbog toga sretan. Uvijek sepostavljalo jedno te isto pitanje - jesam litrivijalizirao holokaust ili nisam. A ja sam

26

svoj rad htio usredotoËiti na krπenje Usta-va, odnosno njegova Prvog amandmana odstrane gradonaËelnika Guilianija. A sada jeto, kao praktiËna posljedica, postalo nevaæ-no pitanje ili je bilo posve ignorirano.

n n Nije pomoglo ni to πto ste u toj

mraËnoj prostoriji svjetlo usmjerili upravo

na pod, na dasku na kojoj je navod Prvog

amandmana?

Recepcija djela bila je unaprijed uvje-tovana kroz rasprave koje su zapoËele prijenego je rad uopÊe bilo moguÊe vidjeti.

n n Vjerujem da je od svih “kritika” za

vas najmuËnija baπ ta da ste trivijalizirali

holokaust, znajuÊi da su vaπa supruga, a

prema tome i vaπi sinovi, Æidovi?

Sve do sada ni moja supruga ni ja, nis-mo nikada pomiπljali da je potrebno izjaπ-njavati se javno o svojim korijenima. Bo-lesno u cijeloj toj priËi je ovo: Moram li jauistinu biti povezan sa “æidovskim pita-njem”, bilo kroz umjetniËki rad ili osobne,obiteljske veze, da prepoznam paraleleizmeu krπenja slobode govora u nacis-

violations of Freedom of Speech in NaziGermany and the violation of the Consti-tution here? That logic I find absolutely rep-rehensible.

l l These days your proposed installation

for the Reichstag in Berlin caused many

discussions in Germany. Could you please

explain the core of that discussion and the

controversies about it?

In my project I made reference to theinscription on the façade of the Reichstagbuilding that was installed there in 1916 bythe Kaiser Wilhelm I. It is a dedication “Tothe German People”. The Kaiser neededenthusiasm for the war, and he needed theParliament to sign off on war credits tocarry on. It was the bribe, so to speak.

In the thirties, during the Nazi period,113 members of the German Parliament, ofthe Reichstag, were stripped of German cit-izenship…

l l Because of their Jewish origin, I sup-

pose?

Many of them were Jewish but not all ofthem. 75 died in prison, or concentrationcamps and 8 committed suicide. They were

27

sl.6: H. Haacke, projekt Der Bevölkerung za sjeverno

predvorje zgrade Reichstaga / Der Bevölkerung pro-

ject for the northern hall of Reichstag, Berlin,

1999. Foto i simulacija / Photo and simulation: B.

Hesse

sl.7: H. Haacke, projekt Der Bevölkerung za sjeverno

predvorje zgrade Reichstaga / Der Bevölkerung pro-

ject for the northern hall of Reichstag, Berlin,

1999. Foto / Photo: U. Hesse

7

6

I N T E R V I E W

no longer considered Germans. So, thisinscription has a horrific historical baggage.For many, the word “Volk” had a life threat-ening meaning during the Nazi period. Itwas used as justification for wholesale “eth-nic cleansing.” The East German regimeusurped it once again: everything wascalled Volk. The People’s Army, the Peo-ple’s Police etc. So, two ideologically ratheropposed regimes have burdened thisinscription. Even today you read in thenewspapers almost every week that peopleare assaulted in Germany by neo-Nazisbecause they don’t look sufficiently Germanto them. Houses are burnt down where for-eigners live, synagogues…

l l Your Holocaust monument, installed

in Graz in 1988, was destroyed by neo-

nazis. Do you find that neo-nazism, rearing

its ugly head again, shows a pertinent

increase nowadays?

It is more visible today than before. Thedefinition of who belongs and who does notbelong to the German people is still a hotissue, and consequently, my proposal toadd another dedication has caused a bigdebate. Indeed, some of the parliamentari-ans who participated in the debate, report-ed that they received lots of letters of astrictly nationalist tenor and full of xeno-phobia.

l l What is the present situation with

your installation? Did the parliamentarians

start to bring the earth from their counties

already?

It’s too early for that. Once the physicalframe is built - the box, the letters - thenthe next stage is the process of gettingeverybody to participate. I’ve heard that alot of parliamentarians are already beenthinking about where the earth shouldcome from. Many discuss the locationswith their constituents. It’s not only aboutthe participation of the parliamentariansbut also about the participation of the peo-ple in their election district.

l l Right now your position in American

art and culture is questioned by the fact

that you’ve never applied for American cit-

izenship and consequently you have never

become an American citizen, although you

have been living and working in the States

for more than thirty years. I must confess

that the arguments that some of the critics

employed to expel you from the Whitney

tiËkoj NjemaËkoj i krπenja Ustava ovdje?Takvu logiku smatram apsolutno neprih-vatljivom.

n n Ovih dana prozivaju vas i u NjemaËkoj

zbog instalacije koja Êe biti postavljena u

Berlinu, u zgradi Reichstaga. Moæete li

objasniti o Ëemu se tu radi i zbog Ëega kon-

troverze oko tog rada?

U svom projektu referiram na natpis naproËelju zgrade. Taj je natpis postavljen1916. godine, postavio ga je car WilhelmII. On je posveta “njemaËkom narodu”.Potrebno je znati neπto o povijesnom kon-tekstu u kojem je nastao taj natpis. Car jemorao pobuditi entuzijastiËne osjeÊajespram rata i privoljeti parlament da potpiπeizdvajanje novca koji mu je bio potreban zanastavak rata. Natpis je bio zahvala parla-mentu kojeg je trebao. Bila je to neka vrstmita, da tako kaæem... Ne znam je li to biloprvo podmiÊivanje parlamenta, jer povijestmalo govori o tome. U tridesetim godina-ma, u vrijeme nacizma, njemaËko dræav-ljanstvo bilo je oduzeto sto i trinaestoricizastupnika.

n n Zbog njihova æidovskog porijekla,

pretpostavljam?

Mnogi su bili Æidovi, ali ne svi.Sedamdeset petero je umrlo u zatvorima ilikoncentracijskim logorima, osam je poËi-nilo samoubojstvo... Oni viπe nisu smatraniNijemcima. Tako da taj natpis nosi na sebistraπan povijesni teret. Za mnoge, u raz-doblju nacizma, rijeË VOLK imala je poæivot opasno znaËenje. Koriπtena je zaopravdanje totalnog etniËkog ËiπÊenja.IstoËnonjemaËki reæim joπ jednom je uzur-pirao tu rijeË: sve je bilo narodno - narod-na vojska, narodna policija... Tako su dvapriliËno suprotstavljena reæima opteretilataj natpis. »ak i danas moæemo Ëitati unovinama, gotovo svakog tjedna, kakoneonacisti u NjemaËkoj napadaju ljude naulicama jer im oni ne izgledaju dovoljnonjemaËki kako pale kuÊe u kojima æivestranci, sinagoge...

n n Poznato mi je da su vaπ spomenik u

znak sjeÊanja na holokaust, podignut u

Grazu 1988., uniπtili neonacisti. »ini li

vam se da je neonacizam u porastu?

Danas je to vidljivije nego ranije.Definicija tko pripada, a tko ne pripada

28

sl.8: H. Haacke, John Weber Gallery Visitors’

Profile 1, 1972.

njemaËkom narodu, joπ uvijek je vruÊatema. A to, dakako, dovodi u pitanje mojprijedlog da se doda druga posveta i stogaje on prouzroËio tako æestoke rasprave.Doista, neki zastupnici koji su sudjelovali uraspravi izvijestili su o tome da su dobilihrpe i hrpe pisama koja su vrlo naciona-listiËka, neonacionalistiËka, prepuna kse-nofobije.

n n U kojoj je fazi sada taj vaπ rad? Jesu

li zastupnici veÊ poËeli donositi zemlju iz

svojih okruga za vaπu instalaciju?

Joπ je rano za to. Kada budu stvorenifiziËki uvjeti, sanduk i slova, tada je sljede-Êi korak pridobivanje sviju za sudjelovanje.»uo sam da su mnogi od njih veÊ poËelirazmiπljati o tome iz kojeg kraja treba uzetizemlju. Mnogi raspravljaju o moguÊim lo-kacijama sa svojim biraËima. Dakle, neradi se samo o ukljuËivanju zastupnika,nego i o ukljuËivanju ljudi koje oni zastu-paju.

n n Upravo se i sami sada nalazite usred

diskusije o tome kojem narodu, odnosno

umjetnosti, pripadate, jer unatoË Ëinjenici

πto viπe od trideset godina æivite i radite u

Sjedinjenim Dræavama nikada niste zatra-

æili ameriËko dræavljanstvo. Moram priznati

da su argumenti nekih vaπih kritiËara koji

su tvrdili kako vama nema mjesta na

Whitney biennalu, koji je posveÊen ameriË-

koj umjetnosti, u najmanju ruku Ëudni.

Da, doista iznenaujuÊe. To se pitanjeranije nije postavljalo. Ono zapravo razot-kriva ljude koji postavljaju pitanje o momedræavljanstvu. Ujedno, ono implicira kakoUstav nije univerzalno primjenjiv, premdase Ustav zapravo odnosi na sve ljude kojiæive u Sjedinjenim Dræavama - Ëak ga se igradonaËelnik Giuliani mora pridræavati. t

Biennial “dedicated solely to the American

art and artists” were, to say the least, very

strange for me…

Yes, they were surprising. It has neverbeen an issue before. To question me whet-her I am a citizen sheds light on the personwho raises that question. It implies thatthis Constitution is not generally applica-ble, although the Constitution covers in facteveryone who lives in the United States -even Mayor Giuliani must uphold it. l

prijevod / translation: Branka ÆajaNada Beroπ

≥ Nada Beroπ - povjesniËarka umjetnosti ilikovna kritiËarka. Kustosica u Muzeju su-vremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu.Nada Beroπ - art historian and critic. Curatorat Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb.

29

8

I N T E R V I E W