32

silvakalËiÊ

ulice su naπikistovi, trgovi naπepaletestreets are ourbrushes, squaresare our palettes

“What’s (that) gleaming white in a for-est green ? Is it snow, are that flocking

swans?…”. The Slavic antithesis, the intro-ductory part of Hasanaginica poem by ananonymous author, certainly without thatintention, but successfully describes theusual reaction of an audience to Public artprojects. The public art is leaving a gallery’sWhite Cube addressing to potentially newconsumers of contemporary art, demandingfrom an audience to observe or to take part(the audience as the other party in a dialog)and of course an indifference is always theundesired feedback of the audience - thatwas Heisenberg who contested the dogmaclaiming that an object is independent of asubject observing it (“Big Other”). In a casewhen contemporary art is placed into apublic space, Nada Beroπ considers that “it’s being addressed in that way to a largeraudience, a number of potential “consu-mers” increases and a work of art becomesmore accessible, although not necessarilymore available to the wide audience. The-refore the context of a public space is pret-ty often acting as a double edged sword,incurring damage to the audience as muchas to the work of art.”. At the time of post-scientism, or as Houellebecq would say“the third metaphysical mutation”, a visualaspect of perception is dominant, and aswell as the visible object is prior to a visu-al medium, the visual culture also takes“precedence” over a notion of “visual arts”(the limits and rules of (un)contaminatedvisual perception are comprised in a state-ment of J. Gagarin, the first man who ente-red the outer space: “I was watching andwatching, but I haven’t seen the God!”).

Being an expression of active relationof artists towards reality, the art, instead ofbeing conserved in traditional exhibitionareas, is rather confronted (to paraphraseMarina GræiniÊ’s statement) with its socialmilieu - albeit the attribute “social” is deno-unced for its bad reputation, often being“simplified and misused” in the past. Theart in public spaces abrogates entirely theboundary line between “high” and “popu-lar” art, but there is also a danger hidden init - art is exposed to an influence of indus-try of entertainment and art prints manu-facturing (“making concessions to the peo-ple”), and because a rejoicing in aestheticscould be merchandised, a “beauteousness”moves to the area of design, to supermar-kets and factories, as an inversion of War-hol’s statement that “to be good in busi-

“©ta se bijeli u gori zelenoj? Al’ je sni-jeg, al’ su labudovi?…” Slavenskom

antitezom s poËetka Hasanaginice anonimniautor svakako nije namjeravao, ali je uspioopisati uobiËajenu reakciju publike na pub-lic art projekte, umjetnost koja napuπta bi-jelu kocku galerije i obraÊa se novim pote-ncijalnim konzumentima suvremene umjet-nosti. Public art od publike zahtijeva opser-vaciju ili sudjelovanje (publika je drugastrana u dijalogu), a neæeljeni feedback pu-blike, naravno, uvijek je ravnoduπnost - joπje Heisenberg osporio dogmu da je objektneovisan o subjektu (“Big Other”) koji gapromatra. Kada je suvremena umjetnostsmjeπtena u javni prostor, “a time upuÊena ina veÊi broj promatraËa, uveÊavaju se po-tencijalni ‘korisnici’, djelo postaje dostupni-je πirokoj publici, premda ne nuæno i pristu-paËnije. Stoga je kontekst javnog prostoradvosjekli maË, Ëesto okrenut na πtetu i pub-like i djela”, promiπlja Nada Beroπ. U dobapostscijentizma, ili, kako to Houellebecq ka-æe, “treÊe metafiziËke mutacije” vizualnioblik percepcije dominira, a kao πto vidljiviobjekt dolazi prije vizualnog medija, tako jevizualna kultura pojam “nadreen” pojmu“likovne umjetnosti” (ograniËenja i zakoni-tosti (ne)kontaminirane vizualne percepcijesadræana su u izjavi J. Gagarina, prvog Ëo-vjeka u Svemiru: “Gledao sam i gledao, alinisam vidio Boga!”).

Kao izraz aktivnog odnosa umjetnikaprema stvarnosti umjetnost napuπta tradi-cionalne izloæbene prostore i umjesto da ta-mo bude konzervirana, ona biva konfronti-rana (da parafraziram Marinu GræiniÊ) sasocijalnim okruæenjem - iako svi zaziru odpridjeva “druπtveno”, jer je u proπlosti Ëestobio “simplificiran i zloupotrebljavan”. Umjet-nost u javnim prostorima u potpunosti do-kida separaciju “visoke” i “popularne” umjet-nosti, no tu leæi i opasnost - umjetnost je iz-loæena industriji zabave i umjetniËkih repro-dukcija (“radi ustupke narodu”), a buduÊida estetski uæitak moæe biti robom na træiπ-tu, “ljepotnost” se seli u podruËje dizajna, usupermarkete i tvornice, kao inverzija War-holove tvrdnje da je “biti dobar u biznisunajfascinantniji oblik umjetnosti”.

A mjesto materijalizma i ekstaze ko-munikacije je grad. “Priroda, vjeËni Ëovje-kov protivnik, bit Êe nadvladana modernomtehnologijom i natjerana da sluæi ËovjekovojsreÊi” (F. Fukuyama). Svakoga dana pros-jeËni stanovnik zapadnoga grada vidi,asimilira i prepoznaje oko 16000 logotipa.Public art uglavnom je vezan uz urbani pro-

l

sl.1: D. Martinis, Parken Verboten / No parking,Rosenheim, 2002.

t

1

ness is the most fascinating form of art”. And that place of materialism and

ecstatic communications is the city; “Natu-re, being everlasting opponent to a man, isgoing to be overpowered by means of mod-ern technology and compelled to serve to ahappiness of mankind” (F. Fukuyama). Anordinary citizen of a western city observes,assimilates and recognizes about 16000logotypes every day. The public art is main-ly related with an urban space and an ur-ban feeling (unlike land art); “Streets areour brushes, squares are our palettes!”,Majakovski has exclaimed that before.

In Josip RaËiÊ Studio in Zagreb, in May2002, the Slovakian artist Roman Ondákrealised Guided Tour, an “experiment” ofquestioning the mechanisms of collectivememory. The Studio is “emptied out” ofexhibits (the institution is incorporated inStella, the employee of the gallery), and vis-itors are being welcomed by a professionaltourist guide, who suddenly starts telling adry story on history of the exhibition spacein question - with its big, transparent win-dow panes in constant interpenetration wi-th outdoor space, the city’s central pedes-trian area (Cvjetni trg). Suddenly, the guideis leaving the exhibition space, inviting vis-itors to follow him for a walk around theSquare (the Square is rich with features ofinterest but it also contains “the memory ofthe city”, personal and communal stories,witnessing to constant coffee rituals; to anunsuccessful reconstruction in a first half ofthe nineties, to a double assassination in ayear 2000…) interviewing passers -by,women-florists (selling the flowers importedfrom Netherlands) and Boæo, the owner ofa baby roundabout. From the position of aforeigner watching the city with “innocent”eyes, the artist organizes a tourist trip forthe residents of the city (in this matter it’sprecisely the interaction among differentgroups of people that is interesting) tryingto provoke them to make a breakthrough ina way they approach to the everyday expe-rience, to make the invisible to become vis-ible, that means to restore their everydaylife to consciousness - the everyday lifewhich, for the majority of people, is like badweather conditions, “stop and wait for it tobe over”.

Transitional processes are throwing into doubt the quality of future life in com-munity. Ondák repeated Guided Tour at thepeak of tourist season on the Adriatic coast,as a part of manifestation Zadar Alive 2/Inter-

stor i osjeÊaj urbanosti (za razliku od landart-a). “Ulice su naπi kistovi, trgovi naπepalete!” eksklamirao je veÊ Majakovski.

U svibnju 2002. slovaËki umjetnikRoman Ondák realizirao je “pokus” propiti-vanja mehanizama kolektivnog pamÊenjapod nazivom Guided tour u zagrebaËkomStudiju Josip RaËiÊ. Studio je “prazan” odeksponata (galerijsku instituciju utjelovljujezaposlenica Stella), a posjetitelje doËekujeprofesionalni turistiËki vodiË koji zapoËinjesuhu priËu o povijesti tog izloæbenog pros-tora, velikim staklenim plohama u stalnomproæimanju s outdoor prostorom srediπnjepjeπaËke zone grada (Cvjetnog trga). Izne-nada, vodiË napuπta izloæbeni prostor i po-ziva posjetitelje u πetnju trgom (bogatimznamenitostima, ali i “memorijom grada”,osobnim i kolektivnim povijestima - konstant-nim ritualom ispijanja kava, neuspjeπnomrekonstrukcijom u prvoj polovici 90-ih, dvo-strukim atentatom u 2000. …) te na razgo-vor s prolaznicima, cvjeÊaricama (koje pro-daju cvijeÊe uvezno iz Nizozemske) i sBoæom, vlasnikom djeËjeg karusela. S pozi-cije stranca koji promatra grad “nevinim”oËima, umjetnik organizira turistiËku turuza njegove graane (pritom je zanimljivaupravo interakcija izmeu razliËitih skupinaljudi) pokuπavajuÊi ih natjerati na pomak urazmiπljanju o svakodnevnom iskustvu, uËi-niti nevidljivo vidljivim, odnosno osvijestitisvakodnevicu - koja je za veÊinu ljudi kaoruæno vrijeme, “staneπ i Ëekaπ da proe”.

34

2

Tranzicijski procesi dovode u sumnjukvalitetu buduÊeg æivota u zajednici; stogau okviru manifestacije Zadar uæivo 2/Inter-muros (prema rijeËima kustosice Rade IveJankoviÊ, cilj manifestacije je uspostavitikomunikaciju, “preskoËiti zid” meu diho-tomnim pojmovima privatno-javno, aka-demsko-alternativno, tradicionalno-suvre-meno…) Ondák ponavlja Guided tour navrhuncu turistiËke sezone na Jadranu. Me-utim, ovoga puta vodiË je dvanaestogo-diπnji djeËak koji govori o buduÊnosti kaonjezin “stvarni svjedok” (nisu li nas u pro-πlom sistemu zadojili devizom da su djecabuduÊnost zemlje?), ali i o svojoj viziji bu-duÊeg æivota u gradu o kojemu odrasli viπenemaju niti iluzija - a sve je zaËinjeno mag-ijskim realizmom na naËin juænoameriËkihpisaca.

Prethodne godine u okviru iste mani-festacije (Zadar uæivo 2001.) na glavnomgradskom trgu, tzv. Narodnom trgu, DarkoFritz postavlja site-specific close circuitvideo instalaciju, candid cameru proze sva-kodnevice - izravni beæiËni prijenos kretanjaljudi tim javnim prostorom (kao na pano-ramskim razglednicama javne televizije). Svrha kandelabra - urbanog namjeπtaja po-stavljenog nasred trga, sigurnosna kamera(lajt-motiv Fritzova rada) zahvaÊa sliku kojaistodobno biva emitirana na dvije lokacijena istom trgu, na renesansnoj gradskoj loæii suËeljenom joj baroknom tornju sa satomna kojem je ekran smjeπten iza transpa-rentne poleine sata bez kazaljki, uklonje-nih radi restauracije. Cilj projekta je osvje-πtavanje urbanog okoliπa i prostornih relaci-ja na trgu izravnim prijenosom - medijski po-sredovanom percepcijom “sadaπnjeg” tre-nutka. Naglaπena je interakcija eksterijera iarhitekture i fuzionirana sinkronijska i dija-kronijska dimenzija trga - stvarnost i meta-stvarnost.

Koliko ljudi æivi u mjestu u kojem suroeni? Darko Fritz (koji æivi u Zagrebu iAmsterdamu, a Æelimir KoπËeviÊ ga je 2001.proglasio u tom trenutku “najveÊim izvanin-stitucionalnim izvoznikom hrvatske kul-ture”) postavio je to pitanje u projektu Mi-grant Navigator, upravo na temu migracija,izmjeπtenosti, identiteta, nostalgije (s por-tugalskog neprevedivog saudade) te znaËe-nja i predodæbe doma kao relikta obiteljskei nacionalne zajednice u doba sveopÊe ato-mizacije druπtva. Migrant Navigator jework-in-progress, multi(hybrid)medijalni ipublic art projekt (koji podrazumijeva inter-net kao javni prostor) koji zapoËinje u travnju

muros (the objective of manifestation wasto establish the communication, “to jumpover the barrier” between dichotomic no-tions of private-public, academic-alterna-tive, traditional -contemporary…, in wordsof the curator Rada Iva JankoviÊ), this time,however, the guide was a twelve -year -oldboy, telling us about the future as its “trueeyewitness” (we have been imbued in a for-mer system that children are the future ofthe country, haven’t we?), his vision of afuture life in the city - on which adults evenhave no illusions - and all that is spiced bymagical realism after a fashion of South-American writers.

A previous year as a part of the samemanifestation (Zadar Alive 2001) DarkoFritz installed a site-specific close circuitvideo installation on the main city square(Narodni trg). A key part of it was a candidcamera capturing the prose of everyday life- a direct wireless live coverage of a move-ment of the people in that public area (in amanner of public television’s panoramicsnapshots). From the top of a candelabrum-the urban furniture, erected in the middleof a square, the safety camera (light-motiveof Darko Fritz’s work) was taking pictures,broadcasted simultaneously on two loca-tions on the square, on the RenaissanceMunicipal Loggia and on the opposite Baro-que tower clock, where a screen was pla-ced behind a transparent back of the clock,hands of which had been removed forrestoration. The intention of the project wasto bring round the urban environment andspatial relations on the square by mean oflive coverage - media mediated perceptionof an “actual” moment. An interaction ofthe exterior and architecture was stronglymanifested, and both, synchronic and dia-chronic dimensions of the square, realityand meta-reality - became fused.

How many people live in their place ofbirth? Darko Fritz (resident in Zagreb and inAmsterdam, in 2001 by Æelimir KoπËeviÊproclaimed to be “the greatest non-institu-tional exporter of Croatian culture” at themoment) posed that question in his projectMigrant Navigator, dealing precisely withmigrations, repositioning, identity, nostalgia(in a sense of saudade, an untranslatablePortuguese word) and a conception and sig-nificance of home as a relict of familial andnational community in a period of all-perva-sive atomisation of society. Migrant Naviga-tor is a work-in-progress, the multi(hybrid)--media - and public art (implicating Web as

3

sl.2: R. Ondák, Guided Tour (Follow me),Zadar, 2002.sl.3: D. Fritz, The Future of Nostalgia, Linz,2002.

35

a public space) project that started in Aprilwith a “mis.informing” Web page, decorat-ed with a frieze of Home icons (of arenowned internet provider) introducing youto its content. The second phase of the pro-ject was off-line: from June to October of2002 as a part of the project Talking theCity (at the so called cyber art festival ArsElectronica), in the public area next to therailway station in Linz , was planted a hor-ticultural installation entitled The Future ofNostalgia. From the grassy area a piece,9x9 meters in size, “was taken”, and a pic-togram of a house was made by carefullyarranged flowers, or more precisely the sa-me Home icon of the Web browser wastranslated in to the floral arrangement. Therailway station was thoughtfully chosenlocation for planting - as a place of transitsand a check-in post for emigrants, the pointof a warping and a distortion of space, whe-re passengers can eat, sleep, make tran-sactions, shop, pray... Such spaces Augédenominates as non-places (non-lieux),with no identities and relations. Even theinstallation itself goes through transitions -climatic, organic, changes of local munici-pal authorities what might result in a stop-ping of weeding and watering of beds offlowers (or the seasonal replacement of flo-wers), and it is even exposed to a possibleanonymous act of vandalism… The thirdphase of Migrant Navigator was realised inNovember as a part of a Motel Jeæevo pro-ject. A poster measuring 2x2 m in size, ma-de in silk screen technique with a replica ofHome icon, blown up and computer proce-ssed, with a cyber-aestheticized, cold, ele-gantly bright-silver background was placedon central part of existing advertising scre-ens (of a standard, aggresive, billboard for-mat) on both sides of Croato-Slovenian bor-der. The poster does not contain any furtherinformations except the pictorial one, in-ducing a series of associations in thoseones crossing the border and at very best itcould inspire them on rethinking the identi-ty - a national one (as a socio-cultural con-struct) and a personal one (as its biologicalsubstratum). In the age of civilisation of co-mmunicating, the Web reduced the globeon to an attainable size, while, at the sametime, in the real world border formalitiesdrastically decelerate our movement, evencalling it into question... Borders are theplaces with their own “psychopathology”;the border crossing between Croatia andSlovenia (almost an unnoticeable borderline

“dez.informativnom” internet stranicom uËiji vas sadræaj uvodi friz Home ikona poz-natog internet pretraæivaËa. Druga faza pro-jekta je off-line: od lipnja do listopada2002. pored æeljezniËkog kolodvora uLinzu, u okviru projekta Talking the City (natzv. cyber art festivalu Ars Electronica), po-saena je hortikulturna instalacija pod na-zivom The Future of Nostalgia. Od travnatepovrπine “uzet je komad” dimenzija 9x9metara, na kojem je paæljivo aranæiranimcvijeÊem razliËitih boja naslikan piktogramkuÊe; toËnije, prevedena je u cvjetni aran-æman ista Home ikona internet pretraæi-vaËa. Kolodvor je paæljivo izabrano mjestoza sadnju - mjesto tranzita i check-in posta-ja za osobe u emigraciji, mjesto svijanja/iskrivljenja i distorzije prostora, mjesto nakojem putnici mogu jesti, spavati, obavljatitransakcije, kupovati, moliti... Augé takveprostore naziva ne-mjestima (non-lieux), bezidentiteta i odnosa. I sama instalacija pro-lazi kroz tranzicije - klimatske, organske,lokalnih organa vlasti koji Êe moæda obus-taviti plijevidbu i zalijevanje nasada (i se-zonsku zamjenu cvijeÊa). Uz to, instalacijaje izloæena i moguÊnosti anonimnog vandali-zma…TreÊi dio Migrant Navigator-a ostva-ren je u studenom u okviru projekta MotelJeæevo. S obje strane hrvatsko-slovenskegranice, na postojeÊim oglasnim mjestimastandardnog (nametljivog) billboard forma-ta, centralno je postavljen plakat formata2x2 m izraen u tehnici sitotiska sa slikom-

4

sl.4: D. Fritz, Home (Migrant Navigator), hrvatsko-slovenska granica / The Border between Croatia andSlovenia, 2002.sl.5: T. SaviÊ-Gecan, Common Ground, Utrecht-Zagreb, 2001.

36

citatom uveÊane i grafiËki obraene Homeikone na hladno-elegantno-sjajnoj srebrnojpozadini, cyber-estetike. Osim slikovne,plakat ne sadræi daljnje informacije i izazvatÊe u onoga koji prelazi granicu niz asoci-jacija, a u najboljem Êe ga sluËaju potaknu-ti na promiπljanje o identitetu - nacional-nom (kao sociokulturnom konstruktu) iosobnom (kao njegovom bioloπkom sup-stratu). Internet je saæeo globus na dohvat-ljivu veliËinu u doba civilizacije komunicira-nja, dok istodobno u stvarnom svijetu gra-niËne formalnosti drastiËno usporavaju na-πe kretanje i Ëak ga dovode u pitanje... Gra-nice su mjesta s vlastitom “psihopatologi-jom”; tako je graniËni prijelaz Hrvatske i Slo-venije (do poËetka 90-ih mea bez graniËnihzgrada, a ubrzo potom istoËna Schengenskagranica) “crna” toËka intenzivnog traffickin-ga, πverca drogom i oruæjem…

Plakati s Home ikonom “virulentno” suse proπirili i Zagrebom, postavljeni na rek-lamnim stupovima na Trgu bana JelaËiÊa iGlavnom æeljezniËkom kolodvoru te reklam-nom panou na Savskoj cesti - namijenjenipogledu pjeπaka i commuter-a. U odnosuvidljivog objekta i vizualnog medija (bill-board - strateπko mjesto marketinπkih kam-panja) Darko Fritz naizgled pomirbeno ba-rata mehanizmima funkcioniranja potroπaË-kog druπtva, potiËuÊi u promatraËa “wishfulthinking”; usvajanje marketinπkih strategijaoËito je i kroz koncepciju izloæbe kao proi-zvoda - ona, naime, ima svoj znak i svoj“logo”.

U javnom prostoru Zagreba intervenirai Tomo SaviÊ-Gecan kojega posloviËno nezanima materijalizacija objet d’art-a, veÊ gazanimaju prostorna izmjeπtanja, manipu-lacija i “besmislena” interaktivnost - ovogaputa meusobno vrlo udaljenih skupinaljudi koji nemaju niπta zajedniËko i vjerojat-no se nikada fiziËki neÊe sresti. Umjetnikposeæe za kinestetiËkim efektima uspora-vanja tehnoloπke brzine civilizacije. Naime,kretanje posjetitelja galerijskim prostorom uUtrechtu (u Begene Grond Centru za suvre-menu umjetnost tijekom izloæbe CommonGround; umjetnik i æivi u Nizozemskoj od1997. godine) uzrokovalo je zaustavljanjepomiËnih stuba u shopping centru Kaptol uZagrebu (2001.). Dok u zapadnim zemlja-ma dostupnost informacije postaje vaæni-jom od posjedovanja stvari - jer se do njihrelativno lako dolazi (“Naπe doba prireujepravu rasprodaju, ne samo u svijetu trgo-vine, nego takoer i u svijetu ideja…”, za-kljuËuje Kierkegaard pod pseudonimom

without any official structures until 1991,in a little while becoming the eastern “Schen-genian” border) is a critical point of inten-sive trafficking, drugs&arms smugglings…

The posters with Home icons havespread out “virulently” to Zagreb, posted onthe advertisement pillars of the Ban JelaËiÊSquare and next to the Main railway sta-tion, on the billboard in Savska street, in-tended for the view of pedestrians and com-muters. In a relation between the visibleobject and the visual medium (billboard -strategic place of advertising campaigns),Darko Fritz in a conciliatory way handlewith a functioning mechanisms of consu-merist society, inspiring beholders to a“wishful thinking”; the appropriation of mar-keting strategies is evident also through theconcept of an exhibition as a product - na-mely, it has its own sign and “logo”.

Tomo SaviÊ Gecan also intervenes inthe public space of Zagreb, but he’s beco-me byword for not being interested in mate-rialisation of objet d’art, but in space-trans-fers, manipulation and “absurd” interactiv-ity - this time of groups of people being veryfar apart, having nothing in common andwith a negligible chance to physically evermeet each other. The artist uses kinaesthe-tic effects - of deceleration of civilisation’stechnological rate. That is to say, the move-ment of visitors in the gallery space in Utre-cht (BegeneGrond Centre of contemporaryart in course of Common Ground exhibition;

37

5

the artist resides in Netherlands, as well,since 1997) caused a halting of the esca-lators in Kaptol shopping centre in Zagreb(in 2001). While, in Western countries, theaccessibility of informations becomes moreimportant than actually possessing things -because goods could relatively easily beacquired (“Our time makes arrangementsfor a veritable sale, not only in a world oftrade, but also in a world of ideas…”, wasa conclusion of Kierkegaard under a pseu-donym of Johannes de Silentio), in transi-tion countries people are fascinated by con-sumption (which is partly a consequence ofa fact that man is not owning the product ofhis work, but only the product he bought),so whole families go to an excursion to con-sumerist oasises - to shopping centres.SaviÊ Gecan’s work is almost “nonexistent”,explainable by principles of causality andprobabilism - this world is a complex ofpossibilities according to the theory ofdeterministic chaos - allowing a chancethat a flap of butterfly’s wings in Hong Kongcould cause a tornado in Kansas.

“Radoslav Putar”, the newly estab-lished “national” award to a young artistwas given to Tanja Dabo for her work enti-tled Sanitation - a documentation of actionperformed in National museum in Zadar asa part of manifestation Zadar Alive 2/Inter-muros. The artist has undertaken the actionof polishing of the Museum’s floor, and anintegral part of her work was a transfer ofvehicles and equipment, as well as person-nel of a city municipal services in to theMuseum’s tract. For five days Tanja wasunlocking the doors of the Museum, show-ing the workers in and out (and waxing thefloor in a meantime). The workers werestarting their daily job - the cleaning of thecity, from the Museum instead from theirformer repositories in the city walls (wherea part of the festival’s programme was to beheld - that is a reason why the municipalservices consented to move out for a while).By their act of relocation in to the newspace, their equipment and comings&goings to work became the artist’s mobileinstallation. At the same time the workers,while maintaining the city, on their overallswore the emblem of the Museum, with itssign and title. In this way they became theemployees of the Museum, and the Mu-seum spread its activity on to - literally - thewhole city of Zadar, city-museum - thatwas visually emphasized by outdoor set-upof a poster with a joint photograph of the

Johannes de Silentio), u tranzicijskim zem-ljama ljudi su fascinirani potroπnjom (πto jedjelomiËno posljedica Ëinjenice da Ëovjeknije vlasnik onoga πto proizvodi, nego samoonoga πto kupuje). Cijele obitelji odlaze naizlet u potroπaËke oaze - shopping centre.SaviÊ-Gecanov rad gotovo je “nepostojeÊi”,objaπnjiv naËelom uzroËnosti i vjerojatnosti- svijet je, prema teoriji deterministiËkogkaosa, kompleks moguÊnosti kojima je do-puπteno da jedan zamah leptirovih krila uHong Kongu uzrokuje tornado u Kansasu.

Radoslav Putar, novoustanovljena “na-cionalna” nagrada mladom umjetniku dodi-jeljena je Tanji Dabo za rad pod nazivom»istoÊa. RijeË je o dokumentaciji akcije iz-vedene u Narodnom muzeju u Zadru u okvi-ru manifestacije Zadar uæivo 2/Intermuros.Umjetnica je izvela akciju laπtenja podaMuzeja, a integralni dio rada je preseljenjevozila i opreme, kao i djelatnika gradskogkomunalnog poduzeÊa, u muzejski prostor.Tanja je pet dana otkljuËavala vrata Muze-ja, ispraÊala i doËekivala (u meuvremenubi ulaπtila pod) radnike koji na svoj svakod-nevni posao, ËiπÊenje grada, kreÊu iz Mu-zeja umjesto iz svojih dotadaπnjih spre-miπta u gradskim zidinama (u kojima se ta-da odvijao dio programa Zadar uæivo, azbog Ëega ih je komunalno poduzeÊe prista-lo privremeno isprazniti). Preseljenjem unovi prostor, njihova oprema i njihovo dola-æenje i odlaæenje na posao postaju umjetni-Ëina pokretna instalacija. Istodobno, radnici

38

6

komunalnog poduzeÊa za vrijeme svog radana odræavanju grada na radnim odijelimanose amblem sa znakom i nazivom Muzeja.Time oni postaju djelatnicima Muzeja, aMuzej svoju djelatnost doslovno proπirujena cijeli grad Zadar, grad-muzej - πto je vi-zualno potkrijepljeno outdoor postavomplakata sa skupnom fotografijom zaposleni-ka Narodnog muzeja i »istoÊe, u privreme-nom odnosu poslovnih kolega (iako inaËeobavljaju druπtveno razliËito vrednovan po-sao). Fotografija je snimljena iz gornjeg ra-kursa, πto je uobiËajeni naËin sugeriranjakorporativnog optimizma.

Laπtenje (prema stereotipu æenskiposao, rutinski i podcijenjen rad) zahtijevafiziËki napor, a posljedica rada je gotovo ne-vidljiva, besmislena i bespotrebna - nakonnjega ostaje samo obiËan sjaj, a ponekad iopasno sklizak pod. Laπtenje kao umjetniË-ki je Ëin svojevrsna kritika ideologije vid-ljivog (“Laπtenje je fascinantno!” kliËeÆeljko Jerman). Laπtenje poda izloæbenogprostora Tanja Dabo objaπnjava potrebomza smanjenjem distance institucija-umjet-nik; buduÊi da umjetnica tijekom laπtenjakleËi, netko bi je mogao iπËitati kao ironiËnuvizualizaciju potrebe institucija za podvrga-vanjem i posluhom.

Urbani festival joπ je jedan zanimljivpokuπaj infiltracije suvremene umjetniËkedjelatnosti u urbano tkivo - ovoga puta Za-greba, Ëija infrastrukturna mreæa i kvalita-tivni sadræaji “kolabiraju” svakoga ljeta.Festival je radi izbjegavanja revijalnih kono-tacija tog naziva, podijeljen u tri faze, tzv.“smjene”, od srpnja do rujna; uz to je ilokacijski “razsrediπten”. Kristina Leko je uokviru Urbanog festivala organizirala akcijuMlijeko 2002./03. na srediπnjoj gradskojtrænici Dolac. Tri su mljekarice jednostavnodijelile sir i vrhnje sluËajnim prolaznicima(koji su odmah formirali red!), ne bi li seskrenula paænja javnosti na odumiranje tra-dicionalnih djelatnosti, koje moæda nisu uskladu s propisima WTO-a, ali pridonosekulturnom identitetu grada i simboliËnompovezivanju Zagreba i njegove ruralne okoli-ce (tradicija jednako je memorija; gradovebez memorije Bogdan BogdanoviÊ izjedna-Ëava s ljudima bez podsvijesti). Problema-tiËna je Ëinjenica da je u mlijeku malih pro-izvoaËa previπe mikroorganizama i somat-skih stanica, no istodobno se na primjerukravljeg ludila pokazalo da niti uzgoj krava- ne viπe kao domaÊih, nego kao industrij-skih æivotinja - ne donosi veliku radost nikravama, niti ljudima. Akcija je dokumenti-

employees of the Museum and the workersof the municipal services, which were tem-porarily in a relation of fellow-employees(albeit they otherwise perform jobs whichare differently estimated on a social scale).The photo was made from the upper cam-era angle - an usual way of expressing acorporative optimism.

Widely recognized to be a woman’swork, a nitty-gritty and underestimated cho-res, the act of polishing requests physicaleffort, the result of it being almost invisible,pointless and unnecessary - just an ordinaryshine and sometimes dangerously slipperyfloor. Polishing as an act of art implies apeculiar critique of an ideology of visible(“Polishing is fascinating!”, cheers ÆeljkoJerman), the reason for floor-waxing of theexhibition space Tanja Dabo finds in the ne-ed for diminution of a distance between in-stitution and the artist. It could be under-stood as a wry visualisation of the institu-tions’ call for submission and obediencesince, while polishing, the artist was kneel-ing down on the floor.

Urban festival is another interestingattempt of infiltration of contemporary artis-tic activities in to the urban structure - thistime of Zagreb, the infrastructure and cul-ture related activities of which”collapse”every summer. A festival, in order to beavoided any connotation of revue, was splitin three phases, so called “shifts” from Julyto September, on dispersed locations (to be“decentralised”). In a framework of Urbanfestival Kristina Leko organised an actionentitled Milk 2002/2003, that took placeon Dolac, the central city market; threemilkmaids, as simple as it can be, were dis-tributing a cottage cheese and a cream toaccidental passers-by (who immediatelyformed a queue!), in order to attract atten-tion of the public with the issue of dyingaway of traditional (tradition is a memory,cities deprived of memory Bogdan Bogda-noviÊ put on a level with people with nosubconciousness) activities which, per-haps, are not in conformity with WTO regu-lations, but which contributes firmly to acultural identity of the city and to a sym-bolical integration of Zagreb to its ruralenvironment. The problem is in the fact thatthe milk produced on small farms (by sub-sistence farmers), contains to many micro-organisms and somatic cells. But, at thesame time, a case of a mad cow diseasehas indicated in a very clear way that acow-breeding in industrial terms does not

39

7

sl.6: T. Dabo, »istoÊa / Sanitation, Zadar, 2002.sl.7: K. Leko, Mljekarice / Milkwomen, 2002./03.,trænica Dolac / Dolac Market, Zagreb, 2002.

please too much neither cows, nor humans.The action was documented (archived andmedia presented) together with video por-traits of about two hundred milkmaids inKristina Leko’s auteur work, but it will getan interesting epilogue if the artist with herlobbyng contributes to a putting under pro-tection one traditional way of life, as a spe-cific cultural and ethnological asset (what isinteresting, the strategy of Arcadian nostal-gia is very frequently used by corporationsin their marketing campaigns, let’s just men-tion a marmot, wrapping up the product).

The third shift of Urban festival 2002presents Kata MijatoviÊ’s Chosen Dreams,this time instead of fixation and visualisa-tion of her own dreams, functioning as atime-machine or commutating each intoanother, the artist collects dreams donatedby her friends, mainly artists and curators.The dreams are retold (psychical structureof a subject can be id, ego and super-ego)and written down in white letters on a blackbackground (with a surreal night-day,dream-reality impact), and then installed in“the most public” of public spaces - tramstops (the spaces of virtual reality in asense of tension between expectation andabsence), in parks and shop-windows (whi-ch are incorporations of attractive power ofconsumerism)… in that way being trans-ferred from reality to another, “meta” levelof reality. Inspiration from dreams is a light-motive, almost banal item in a history ofarts, for example surrealistic works of artare the attempt of live coverage of dreams,with no impact of consciousness, when apiece of art literally in a mimetic way pre-sents a dream so to uncover the uncon-sciencious, analogue to telling a dream.Psychoanalysis, according to Lacan, dis-covers a linguistic structure in an uncon-scious mind, i.e. the unconscious is struc-tured as a language. Kata MijatoviÊ is inter-ested in reality and a dream as two contra-positions of the person; for a curiosity of thething, some “donors” disagreed to havetheir dreams, transplanted from the priva-cy in to a public space, signed with theirfull name and surname.

In late nineties, Dalibor Martinis(Kreπimir Rogina calls him “Mr. No1 ofCroatian contemporary art” who “under-stands regularities of space as well as archi-tectural medium”) started producing Binaryseries, a series of works in which he uses acrypto language, sophisticated system ofsigns (binary information encoded into a

rana (arhivirana i medijski prezentirana)zajedno s video portretima dvjestotinjakmljekarica u autorskom radu Kristine Leko,a dobit Êe svoj zanimljiv epilog u trenutkukada umjetnica svojim lobiranjem uËini dajedan naËin tradicionalnog naËina æivotabude stavljen pod zaπtitu kao specifiËnakulturna i etnoloπka vrijednost (zanimljivoje primijetiti da korporacije u svojim kam-panjama koriste strategiju arkadijske nos-talgije; spomenimo svisca koji zamotavaproizvod).

Druga smjena Urbanog festivala 2002.prezentira Snove Kate MijatoviÊ. Ovoga pu-ta umjesto fiksacije i vizualizacije vlastitihsnova koji funkcioniraju kao vremenski strojili komutiraju jedan u drugi, umjetnica pri-kuplja donirane snove svojih prijatelja, ve-Êinom umjetnika i kustosa koji su, prepri-Ëani (psihiËka struktura subjekta moæe bitiono (id), ja (ego) i nad-ja (super-ego) izapisani bijelim slovima na crnoj podlozi(nadrealnog noÊno-dnevno, san-java efekta)te postavljeni kao instalacija u “najjavnijim”od javnih prostora - na tramvajskim sta-jaliπtima (prostorima virtualne stvarnosti usmislu napetosti oËekivanje-odsustvo), uparkovima i izlozima trgovina (utjelovljenji-ma privlaËne snage konzumerizma)…, πtoih izmijeπta iz stvarnosti u drugu, “meta”razinu realiteta. NadahnuÊe snovima je lajt-motiv, gotovo banalno mjesto unutar povi-jesti umjetnosti. Primjerice, nadrealistiËkadjela su pokuπaj neposrednog prijenosa(live coverage) snova bez upliva svijesti; pritome umjetniËko djelo doslovno mimetiËkiprikazuje san, tako da se u njemu vidi uËi-nak nesvjesnog, analogno pripovijedanjusna. Psihoanaliza, prema Lacanu, otkriva unesvjesnom strukturu jezika, tj. nesvjesnoje strukturirano kao jezik. Katu MijatoviÊzanimaju stvarnost i san kao dvije kontra-pozicije iste osobe; zanimljivo je da neki“donatori” snova nisu pristali da san trans-plantiran iz podruËja privatnosti u javniprostor bude potpisan njihovim punim ime-nom i prezimenom.

Krajem devedesetih Dalibor Martinis(Kreπimir Rogina naziva ga “Mr. No1 naπesuvremene umjetnosti” koji “razumije za-konitosti prostora i arhitektonskoga medi-ja”) zapoËinje producirati Binarni niz, ciklusradova u kojima koristi kripto jezik, viso-kosofisticirani sustav znakova (binarnu in-formaciju koja je prevedena u numeriËki niznula i jedinica) koji “prevodi” u low-techmedije zvoneÊi o srednjovjekovna zvona (vi-πi zvuk manjeg zvona oznaËava jedinicu, a

40

8

sl.8: K. MijatoviÊ, Snovi / Dreams, 2002.sl.9: D. Martinis, S.O.S. - S.B., Slavonski Brod,2002.

niæi zvuk veÊeg zvona oznaËava nulu), ili ujavnom prostoru slaæe divovske “kompozici-je” (poput kompozicija vlaka) od starog ma-terijala (hard-core estetika); primjerice, odisluæenih bicikala nikada podignutih s odje-la za naene stvari slavonskobrodske polici-je (2002.), ili od novoga - pomoÊu pedese-tak crnih i bijelih Volkswagen golfova (sim-bola pouzdanosti germanske tehnologije,pravog “narodnog auta”) u njemaËkom gra-du Rosenheimu 2000. godine oblikujeurbanscape klavijaturu. Predmetima kojimaje osnovna funkcija pokret, prevaljivanjeudaljenosti, Martinis stvara nepomiËnubranu koja onemoguÊuje prolaznike u usta-ljenim smjerovima kretanja. SubverzirajuÊipoznati red stvari VW-ima ispisuje “Zabra-njeno parkiranje - Ponekad je lijepo” - nala-zeÊi posebnu, urbanu estetiku i u parkira-nim automobilima (tzv. umjetnost kontek-sta - “meaning is use”, prema Wittgenstei-nu). U Slavonskom Brodu umjetnik prona-lazi odumrle, “neuralgiËne” toËke, mjestasocijalne amnezije i permanentne nestabil-nosti grada Ëiji se Korzo poput piste otvaraprema miniranoj Savi kojom prolazi dræav-na granica. Martinis u tri stalka uspravno“usauje” trinaest bicikala, ispisujuÊi njima(njihovim rasporedom i razmacima) binar-nim kodom poziv u pomoÊ (01010011-01001111-01010011; dok se sustavomtoËki i crta Morseove abecede S.O.S. ispisu-je kao tri toËke - tri crte - tri toËke). Kao πtoprimatelj kodirane poruke treba imati teh-niËko predznanje da bi je mogao iπËitati, je-dnako tako konzument suvremene umjet-nosti mora poznavati njezin informacijskisustav i razumjeti razlog za stvaranje (Kunst-wollen, kako ga je artikulirao Alois Riegl)suvremenih umjetnika.

Na izloæbi Neprilagoeni u Berlinu(Kreuzbergu) u prostoru bivπe bolnice Kun-straum Bethanien (u okviru Tjedna hrvatskekulture) Dalibor Martinis instalira u stablujavnog parka audioinstalaciju - prolaznici Êeje smatrati poetiËnom i (pre)ljupkom, jer jeono πto Ëuju ptiËji pjev, no opet se radi o joπjednoj “auditivnoj anamorfozi”, “kamuflira-nom” binarnom kodu koji se otkriva samo“izobraæenu” uhu - ptica, naime, gadno psu-je (naziv instalacije je Vrt najprostijih psov-ki; ako postoji “tijelo” balkanskog identite-ta, onda je to soËna psovka). Martinisov radpodsjeÊa na staru alice-in-the-wonderlan-dovsku istinu da niπta nije onakvo kakvimse Ëini te da estetika ne mora imati nikakveveze s etikom, tj. da estetika i etika nisu nuæ-no povezane u kroËeovskom smislu. Naime,

numerical series of digits zero and one)“translated” into low-tech media such as -banging medieval bells (the higher tone ofthe smaller bell corresponds to a numberone and lower tone of the bigger one - to azero), or in a public space the artist assem-bles huge compositions” (resembling trainmakeup) made of old, with hard-core aes-thetics - of used bicycles never picked upfrom a Lost & Found Office in police depart-ment of Slavonski Brod (2002); or of new -about fifty black and white Volkswagen Golfcars (the incarnation of reliability of Germa-nic technology, the real “folks’ car”) com-posing an urbanscape keyboard in a Ger-man city of Rosenheim (in 2000). Usingobjects the main function of which is move-ment, covering the distance, Martinis crea-tes a motionless dam, that way frustratingpassers-by in their habitual, well-estab-lished passages. Subverting well estab-lished order of things, he has used VW carsto write out “No Parking-Sometimes isnice.” - finding out a special, urban aesthe-tics even in the sight of parked cars (so cal-led art of context - “meaning is use” accord-ing to Wittgenstein). In Slavonski Brod theartist finds out withered, “neuralgic” points,the places of social amnesia and permanentinstability in the city, the Corso of which islike a runway, opening towards a mined ri-ver of Sava, corresponding to a state bor-der. Martinis “implants” uprightly thirteenbicycles into three stands, using their

41

9

arrangements and interspaces to write out acall for help, in a binary code (01010011-01001111-01010011; while in a dot-dash system of the Morse code S.O.S. iswritten out as three dots - three dashes -three dots). As the recipient of the encodedmessage should have technical foreknowl-edge in order to be able to read it out, in asame way the consumer of contemporaryart must be acquainted with its informationsystem to understand a reason for creation(Kunstwollen, as it was articulated by AloisRiegl) of contemporary artists, as well.

At the Misfits exhibition in Berlin(Kreuzberg) laid out in the former hospitalKunstraum Bethanien (within a frameworkof Croatian Cultural Week) Martinis in-stalled an audio installation into a tree of apublic park - passers-by would consider itas poetic and even (over)charming, for thatwhat had been heard they thought to be achant of a song-bird, but it ‘s again, anoth-er more “audio-anamorphosis”, a “camou-flaged” binary code revealing itself only to a“trained” ear - the bird, namely, swears likea trooper (the installation’s title is A gardenof the most obscure curses; if there were a“body” of a Balkanic identity, it should bean inventive, succulent curse, indeed).Martinis’s work revokes the old Alice-In-The-Wonderland truth that nothing is like itseems to be, and aesthetics is not neces-sarily (in a Croceanistic manner) connectedwith ethics. In other words, in contempo-rary art the ethical and ideological issues(even “aesthetic violence”, conflict in aplace of pleasure) are taking precedenceover the aesthetic issues of presentationand form. The curse is a symbolic abstrac-tion recommended already by Cicero, whosaid “Once having done with arguments,insult the opponent”!

By placing a pair of loudspeakers ontoa façade of House of Croatian Associationof Artists, repeating the ezan, Islamic callfor a prayer enduring three minutes, twice aday, Igor GrubiÊ with his ecumenical workWhenever I hear… (36th Zagreb Salon,December 2001 - January 2002) dealswith one of historical stratums of Meπtro-viÊ’s edifice which, as it is well known, wasredesigned into a mosque during theSecond World War, with three round mi-narets (torn down in 1948) annexed - ÆivkoKustiÊ in a Morning sermon in “Jutarnji list”daily newspapers stated “that three veryelegant verticals on a proper distance fromMeπtroviÊ’s pavilion did not reduce the

u suvremenoj umjetnosti etiËka i ideoloπkapitanja (pa Ëak i “estetsko nasilje”, konfliktumjesto uæitka) preuzimaju srediπnje mjestood estetskih pitanja prezentacije i forme.Psovka je simboliËka apstrakcija koju pre-poruËuje veÊ Ciceron, rijeËima: “Kad osta-neπ bez argumenata, vrijeaj protivnika!”

Postavom para zvuËnika na proËeljeDoma HDLU-a iz kojih je dvaput dnevnoreproduciran ezan, islamski poziv na moli-tvu u trajanju od tri minute, Igor GrubiÊ svo-jim ekumenskim radom Kad Ëujem… (na36. zagrebaËkom salonu, prosinac 2001.-sijeËanj 2002.) tematizira jedan od povijes-nih slojeva MeπtroviÊeva objekta koji je tije-kom Drugog svjetskog rata, poznato je, pre-namijenjen u dæamiju dobivπi tri okruglaminareta (sruπena 1948. godine) za kojeÆivko KustiÊ u Jutarnjoj propovijedi u Jutar-njem listu konstatira “da tri vrlo elegantnevertikale na pristojnoj udaljenosti od Me-πtroviÊeva paviljona nisu trg Ëinile manjelijepim”. Jutarnji poziv na molitvu s minare-ta, isto kao i prodorna zvonjava s krπÊan-skog zvonika, poziva, naprotiv, na unutar-nju tiπinu i introspekciju, “koncentraciju navlastito unutarnje biÊe”, no “nije li Ëudno dase ljudi tako rado bore za vjeru, a tako nera-do æive po njezinim zakonima” (Lichten-berg). GrubiÊeva je audioinstalacija - glasandeus-ex-machinalan zvuk ezana koji se πiritrgom - uπavπi u svakodnevicu stanara okol-nih zgrada, nakon pet izloæbenih dana in-terventnim postupkom iskljuËen, da bi se

42

10

nekoliko dana prije kraja izloæbe opet mo-gao Ëuti, ali sasvim tiho, i samo u neposred-noj blizini “Dæamije”.

Ako je publika nekad dolazila konzu-mirati umjetnost u izloæbenim prostorima,“zabranima” umjetnosti, suvremena umjet-nost izlazi u javni prostor posredno (u za-padnim zemljama oglaπavana plakatima,boomerang razglednicama… prema “sve-tom trojstvu” umjetnosti, træiπta i publike) ilineposredno konfrontirana s ne-galerijskompublikom koja nema svijest o tome da jeono πto “konzumira” umjetniËko djelo (sdruge strane, nedavno su samoubojstvoskokom s krova galerije u Berlinu sluËajniprolaznici protumaËili kao joπ jedan suvre-meni umjetniËki Ëin). Public art rehabilitirafigurativnu umjetnost i portretni æanr - takoAndreja KulunËiÊ postavlja na city-lightsoglasna mjesta triËetvrtinske portrete (ka-kve u povijest likovnosti uvodi Leonardo daVinci naslikavπi Giocondu s rukama pre-kriæenim u krilu) u projektima Nama -1908zaposlenika, 15 robnih kuÊa i Artist from…,snaænima upravo zbog implementiranosti udnevnu socijalnu tematiku. UmjetniËki pro-jekti u javnom prostoru su, s jedne strane,interdisciplinarni ili su kombinacija raznihumjetnosti (a umjetnik ima ulogu “me-dijskog kuhara”); s druge strane medij dobi-va dignitetno znaËenje teme. Tako maar-ski umjetnik Sugár János jednostavno ispi-suje na billboard-u: “Razumjet Êete ovu re-Ëenicu kad veÊ bude prekasno.” t

beauty of the square”. Morning call for theprayer from minaret, as well as penetratingringing the bell from a Christian church-tower, rather the contrary exhorts on aninternal silence and introspection, “a focus-ing attention on one’s own internal being”,but “isn’t it strange how people fight sogladly for their faith, and at the same timeso reluctantly live in accordance to its lows”(Lichtenberg). GrubiÊ’s audio instalation, aloud, “deus-ex-machina” sound of ezanspreading across the square, once havingentered everyday life of the people living inneighbourhood, was switched off after fivedays of exhibition, thanks to a quick inter-vention, and then a few days before the clo-sure of the exhibition it could be heardagain, but very quietly and only right infront of the “Mosque”.

If an audience formerly used to cometo consume arts in exhibition places - “en-closures” of art - contemporary art “stepsout” into a public space indirectly (in west-ern countries advertised by posters, bo-omerang postcards… according to “hollytrinity” of art, market and audience), or di-rectly confronted with non-gallery public,not being aware of actually “consuming” awork of art (on the other hand, a suicidecommitted recently by jumping from theroof of a gallery in Berlin was interpreted,by accidental passers-by, as just anotheract of contemporary art). Public art rehabil-itates figurative art and a portrait genre -consequently, Andreja KulunËiÊ sets upthree-quarter portraits (introduced to a his-tory of fine arts by Da Vinci, when havingpainted Gioconda with her hands folded)onto the city-lights ad posts in her projectsNama -1908 employees, 15 departmentstores and Artist from…, afecting the audi-ence strongly just precisely for being imple-mented into daily social preoccupations.Artistic projects in public space are, on onehand, interdisciplinary or a combination ofdifferent kinds of art (and an artist has arole of “media cook”), on the other handmedium is gaining a dignity of an item - soHungarian artist Sugár János simply writesout on a billboard: “You will understandthis sentence when it is already too late”. l

prijevod / translation: Silva KalËiÊ

43

≥ Silva KalËiÊ - povjesniËarka umjet-nosti i likovna kritiËarka. Æivi i radi uZagrebu.Silva KalËiÊ - art historian and critic.Lives and works in Zagreb.

11

sl.10: D. Martinis, Vrt najprostijih psovki /Garden of Most Obscene Curses, Berlin, 2002.sl.11: A. KulunËiÊ, Artist from..., Manifesta 4,Frankfurt, 2002.