arte contemporanea bosnia

Matthew Webber First Year Review

Matthew WebberFirst Year Review

The Instrumentalization of Contemporary Art in Bosnia-Herzegovina:A New Public Sphere?

Word count: 4992

1


Background and Research Aims

This research aims to explore how and why contemporary art is being instrumentalized to serve

political objectives in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH).

The arts have been given an important role in Bosnia’s post-conflict transition. Specifically, the arts

are often seen as a valuable part of Bosnia’s public sphere, contributing to democratic processes and

Bosnia’s emergence as a modern, European nation-state. However, the ways in which this support is

provided, its effect upon the social functioning of art, and the arts’ efficacy as a public arena have

received little analysis.

Thus, this research poses a series of key questions:

(A) How and why is contemporary art being instrumentalized in BiH?

(B) To what extent does the art sphere of BiH function as a public sphere?

(C) How effective is the art sphere as part of the public sphere?

The contemporary art of Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) is a beneficiary of funding and support from

political actors, including Bosnia's own regional and national governments, other European

countries, and supra-national organisations such as the European Union (EU) and UNESCO. It has

taken many forms, including funding provided to individual artists, help in convening art

exhibitions, as well as large projects such as a new national contemporary art museum, the Ars Aevi

Museum of Contemporary Art (see fig. 1).

This support forms of a broader international engagement with BiH's political, economic, social,

and cultural spheres. The justifications given for this involvement are varied. However, commonly

it is asserted that these funds can support the development of Bosnia's civil society, and its nascent

democratic processes, through providing arenas for free engagement with political discourses. This

support can be conceptualised as the creation and/or sponsorship of a ‘public sphere’, a ‘realm of

social life’ to which ‘access is guaranteed to all citizens’, free discussion is conducted, and which

ultimately is able to hold political actors to account (J Habermas 1974:49). The objects, actors, and

processes implicated in the production, dissemination, and reception of contemporary art may be

regarded as a sub-set of this public sphere: the ‘art sphere’. This art sphere may be regarded as a

microscopic representation of the macroscopic public sphere, and an investigation into the

2


instrumentalization, functioning and efficacy of the art sphere has potential relevance for

understanding the much larger public sphere.

Art is produced, distributed and received within a complex social system. Therefore, here it is

important to understand the social functioning of the art sphere, and the impact of external support

upon this. The current research builds upon the work of scholars who have sought to conceptualise

the way that the art sphere functions as a social system, and upon prior fieldwork conducted in

Bosnia’s capital city, Sarajevo. This ethnographic engagement followed art works through the art

sphere, and permitted a basic understanding of this to be presented as part of an MA thesis. The

present research seeks to greatly extend this work.

The research questions presented here address three broad categories: (A) the ways in which

political organisations have attempted to instrumentalize the art sphere, including the justifications

given for this and the effects of support upon the functioning of this sphere; (B) the internal

functioning of this sphere, and the extent to which it functions as a free, open public sphere; and (C)

its efficacy as a part of the public sphere, as assessed by its ability to strengthen Bosnia's democratic

processes by the production of prominent public comment.

3


Theoretical Background

The tripartite structure of the research questions above means the theoretical background to the

present research may be broken into three themes.

(A) How and why is contemporary art being instrumentalized in BiH?

Question (A) above – how and why contemporary art being instrumentalized in BiH – can be

broken into two questions, the first dealing with the justifications given for arts funding, and the

second on how this affects the art sphere.

An answer to the first of these questions is suggested by the literature produced by organisations

who fund art. In the words of the Office of the High Representative (OHR), an international

organisation which is the primary political authority in the country, this support is designed to

ensure that Bosnia ‘evolves into a peaceful and viable democracy on course for integration in[to]

Euro-Atlantic institutions’ (OHR 2014). A key term in this phrase is ‘democracy’, the strengthening

of which now appears to be the primary focus of international involvement in the country, and

which is envisaged as reliant upon the simultaneous development of a strong civil society. In the

words of Adam Fagan, ‘to suggest that civil society development is anything less than central to the

international community’s state building agenda would be an understatement’ (2005:406).

Identical concerns are visible in the mission statements of organisations funding the arts in Bosnia.

The Soros Open Society Foundation, instrumental in setting up the Sarajevo Centre for

Contemporary Art in in 1996, describes its mission as building ‘vibrant and tolerant democracies

whose governments are accountable to their citizens’ (Open Society Foundations 2014). The

European Cultural Foundation states its core concern is to 're-invigorate European democracy

through cultural actions’ (European Cultural Foundation 2014). The Swiss Cultural Foundation, a

major funder of the arts in Bosnia until 2013, summarises its mission as contributing ‘to the

promotion of democracy and freedom of expression … through employment of cultural

instruments’ (Swiss Cultural Foundation 2014). In the present research, it is proposed that the ‘civil

society’ referred to in these documents can be usefully conceptualised as a public sphere, as

understood by Habermas (1989) and later extended by other scholars (e.g. Calhoun 1992; Fraser

1992).

4


The fact that the arts are invoked in this way – as potentially achieving something beyond the

‘mere’ production of art works – is here referred to as the ‘instrumentalization’ of contemporary art.

The use of this term entails an engagement with a number of scholars who have written on the ways

that art has been, or has failed to be, instrumentalized – notably Bourdieu (as summarised in

Crossley 2006), Adorno (1997) and Habermas (1970). It is important to note, in this context, that

running through this work is a normative view that contemporary art is autonomous, or at least

should be so.

This said, a provisional answer to the first half of research question (A) is suggested – that the

instrumentalization of art in Bosnia is an attempt to create and/or extend the public sphere of the

country. The answer to the second half – how this is being achieved – is more complex, as funding

may have complex effects upon Bosnia’s art sphere. Thus, structural transformations in the

operation of the art sphere must be traced.

(B) To what extent does the art sphere of BiH function as a public sphere?

Answering this question therefore requires investigation into the social operation of the art sphere,

as does question (B) above – to what extent does the art sphere of BiH function as a public sphere?

This question can also be broken into two portions; the first concerned with the functioning of the

Bosnian art sphere, and the second with how closely this approximates the operation of a public

sphere. The first sub-question entails an engagement with those scholars who have researched the

functioning of art spheres, including Dickie (1997) and Danto (1964), through Bourdieu (1984) and

Latour (2005), to Heinich (as summarised in Danko 2008; Heinich 2012) and van Maanen (2009).

The extent to which this system operates as a public sphere entails an engagement with those

scholars who have discussed contemporary art as part of the public sphere – particularly Mitchell

(1992), the journal Art and the Public Sphere (2011), and Barrett’sMuseums and the Public Sphere

(2012). A review of this work has permitted three important characteristics of idealised public

spheres to be identified – that they are (a) open to all, (b) arenas for free, undistorted discussion, and

(c) able to hold political actors to account. It is proposed that the extent to which the art sphere

approximates a public sphere may be measured by the extent to which (a) the art sphere is open to

all, and (b) permits free, undistorted discussion of public discourses. Both of these characteristics

have been previously investigated within other art spheres. Assessing the ‘openess’ of the art sphere

entails an engagement with scholars who have drawn attention to exclusionary public spheres

5


(Fraser 1992), the ‘bourgeois’ nature of contemporary art (esp. Bourdieu 1984), and also Bosnia’s

prominent discourse on multiculturalism (Hajdarpašić 2008). This aspect of the art sphere will be

assessed using the methodology described below.

Discourses and Systematic Distortion

Defining criteria for the assessment of the second characteristic – the ‘freeness’ of the art sphere – is

more complex. Whilst specific instances of overt censorship may occur, the art sphere may also

contain systemic biases which limit the range of discourse permitted within it; in the terms of

Habermas (1970), it may be ‘systematically distorted’. Following Crossley (2006), it is proposed

that the ways in which this distortion is caused and reproduced are usefully understood in terms of

Bourdieu – that the art sphere may not be entirely ‘autonomous’, but instead be distorted by

economic and political influence (Crossley 2006:98, summarising Bourdieu). To assess the degree

of this, the way in which four key discourses operate within the art sphere will be examined. These

are nation-building, reconciliation, multiculturalism, and Europeanisation. Significant work has

already been undertaken to understand the full range of approaches, techniques and opinions

deployed within these discourses. This work may be summarised as follows;

Nation-building is often stated to be the ultimate aim of the political organisations currently

involved with Bosnia. Whilst there exists a large literature on the process of nation-building,

it is clear that in BiH this process is not the same as that evident in the ‘classic era' of nation-

formation (typified by B Anderson 2006) because of a number of considerations: BiH's

religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity, its prior existence as a republic within the federal

Yugoslavia, and the externally imposed nature of this process. This discourse has been

discussed in the work of Anderson (2006; 1991), Smith (1986), Hobsbawm (1992), Roeder

(2007), Anastasakis (2005), Tali and Pierantoni (2011), and Massari (2005).

Post-conflict reconciliation has also been a major discourse within BiH, especially for

international political organisations. Important to this discourse is an attempt to ‘work

through’ cultural memories of the recent conflict, in order to arrive at an agreed

interpretation of the past. As such, the present research makes use of the work of Halbwachs

(1992), Dragović-Soso (2010), Assman (2010), Bougarel et al (2007), Nora (1989), Wood

(1994), and Young (2009).

Multiculturalism has been a prominent discourse in Bosnia since 1996. The constitution of

the country defines three ‘constituent peoples’ – Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs – and attempts

6


to give equal representation to all. This categorisation has been noted as problematic,

especially as it most commonly refers to religious difference, and appears to entrench ethnic

affiliations which were a major factor in the conflict of the 1990s. This discourse has been

explored by Hajdarpašić (2008), Triandafyllidou et al (2012), Bringa (1995),Pinson (1996),

Velikonja (2003), Džihić and Pertritsch (2010), and Duijzings (2007).

‘Europeanisation' denotes a process through which some of the countries of the former

Yugoslavia have stressed the fact that their culture is close (and in some cases

indistinguishable) from that of ‘Europe’. My exploration of this theme has drawn upon the

work of Anastasakis (2005), Massari (2005), Said (1979), Todorova (2009), Rivera (2008),

and Lorente (1998, 2011).

All of these discourses are complex and contested. This said, it is proposed here that long-term

ethnographic engagement in Bosnia will allow them to be analysed, and the way in which they

operate within the art sphere understood.

(C) How effective is the art sphere as part of the public sphere?

The third characteristic of idealised public spheres – that they are able to hold political actors to

account – is here referred to as the efficacy of this sphere, and is the subject of research question

(C). This characteristic of the sphere is key to its definition – in Habermas’ characterisation, the

public sphere is able to mediate between civil society and the state, even if he contends that the

initial ‘bourgeois’ public sphere only possessed this power for a short period (J Habermas 1989).

Defining an observable way to measure this function presents difficulties. A review of the literature

produced by the arts organisations mentioned above is telling – nowhere is there hypothesised a

mechanism by which the arts can hold politics to account. This said, each organisation has in place

processes for the assessment of the success of their interventions, and it is envisaged that in

answering question (C) these will be used. However, this will not be the primary focus of the

present study.

Instead, it is proposed the efficacy of the art sphere can be measured by the sphere’s production of

publicly visible comment on the discourses described above. That is, the ‘efficacy’ of the art sphere

may be regarded as the prominence of its contributions to the wider public sphere. The ways in

which this comment is made available to a wider public, and the process through which it will be

assessed, is detailed below.

7


8

Fig. 2 - Proposed model of the Art Sphere (after van Maanen 2009)

Fig. 1 – Architectural drawing of the future Ars Aevi Museum, by Renzo Piano


Methodology

Several key concerns have shaped the methodology employed here. Initially, a model for the

operation of the art sphere is required in order to facilitate its investigation. Thus defined, it is

argued that the microscopic nature of the processes occurring within this sphere necessitate close

ethnographic engagement.

Following the Art Work

The design of the following methodology has been influenced by the forms of ethnography

reviewed in Marcus' (1995) Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited

Ethnography. Here, Marcus notes the theoretical background to the emergence of this form of

ethnography, notably the work of Deleuze & Guattari (2004) and Latour's writing on Actor-Network

Theory (2005). Further, Marcus notes that one focus has been on micro-level phenomena as

reflections of macro-level movements and systems (1995:96), itself similar to Latour's conception

of ‘oligoptic' spaces (Harrison 2014:228; Latour 2005:181), which underpins the proposal that art

spheres may be studied as microscopic representations of macroscopic public spheres. More

practically, Marcus notes a variety of ‘chains, paths, threads, conjunctions, or juxtapositions'

(1995:105) which may be used to link sites. In the present study, the ‘chain’ connecting sites is the

movement of art works. This is an approach that mirrors much recent work, including Marcus and

Myers’ edited volume The Traffic in Art and Culture: New Approaches to a Critical Anthropology

of Art (1995), Myer's article on the production of discourse(s) on Aboriginal contemporary art

(1991), and Steiner's (1994) African Art in Transit.

A Proposed Model of the Art Sphere

It is proposed that the art sphere may be modelled as per fig. 2. It is not proposed that this model is

able to capture all of the complexities of the art sphere; instead, it has been designed to facilitate

ethnographic engagement with it by identifying and isolating individual actors. In defining this

model, I have drawn upon a succession of scholars who have attempted to elucidate the structure of

art systems, as mentioned above. Further, I am heavily indebted to the work of van Maanen

(2009) for a concise summary of the similarities and differences between their proposals, and for

the origin of the proposed model. The movement of art works through this model is key to its

constitution – referring to fig. 2, it may be seen that the art work moves from conception in the

bottom-left to critical appraisal in the top-right. In designing the method outlined below, I have

drawn upon both this model and previous fieldwork.

9


Participant-observation

It is proposed that long-term ethnographic fieldwork within the art sphere of Sarajevo be

undertaken, with participant-observation as the primary mode of research employed. Several

aspects of the current study necessitate such an approach. The broad scope of the questions above,

and the paucity of published material on them, necessitates a long-term study. First-hand

engagement is necessary due to the microscopic nature of the processes identified by the model

used; the ‘sites’ emergent from this model contain actions unlikely to be discernible by anything

other than a personal engagement with them.

There are several more specific reasons why participant-observation is required. In terms of

‘observation’, the focus of the present project is on public/art spheres, arenas defined as an

extremely broad range of processes, agents and actions, very few of which are visible outside the

spaces in which they occur. One theme of the present research are the way in which products of the

art sphere move from private spaces to public, and another is the ‘openness’ of the art sphere to new

agents. Both these themes necessitate that agents and objects be investigated before the point of

public visibility, which is extremely difficult to achieve without being physically present.

‘Participation’ is required because some processes – applying for grants, selecting artists for

exhibition, responding to art works – require a reflexive approach which can best be facilitated by a

participatory method. Further, aspects of the processes under investigation may not be visible

except from an engaged perspective; notably, the elucidation of the ‘openess’ of the art sphere is

best ascertained from an attempt to become an artist in it, as described in the following section.

Prior Fieldwork

This methodology, and the types of participation described below, have been informed by prior

fieldwork in Sarajevo. Three months of fieldwork were completed in 2013, as part of an MA thesis

which focused on the operation of two of the discourses mentioned above – multiculturalism and

nation-building. During this period, I worked as an artist and writer, producing visual art alongside

artists permanently based in the city, and journalism focusing on the art shows that occurred during

this period. Interviews were conducted with key actors within the sphere, and a similar form of

participant-observation to that proposed here was conducted. During this fieldwork, I engaged with

several organisations prominent within the art sphere, notably Sarajevo Culture Bureau, Crvena and

Collegium Artisticum, engagements which (as below) will continue in the present research. The

10


results of this fieldwork have directly affected the current proposal in two ways. Firstly, this

fieldwork has allowed many actors within the art sphere of Sarajevo to be identified (see fig. 3), and

has provided guidance in the design of the model above. Secondly, and beyond those considerations

given above, the fact that this prior fieldwork was participatory facilitated a closer engagement with

the art sphere than would otherwise have been the case, a fact which has informed the decision to

deploy participant-observation as the primary research method in the present research.

11


12


Fig. 4 - Publicity for an exhibition at Collegium Artisticum, showing gallery space

13

Fig. 5 - Front page of the Sarajevo Culture Bureau website, showing typical content


Method

The primary research method employed will therefore be participant-observation. Starting from the

model of the art sphere reproduced above, in which this sphere is divided into three functions (the

production, distribution and reception of art works), three primary forms of participation will be

undertaken. I will work in three roles – as an artist, as an intern in a gallery, and as an art critic. In

addition, two areas will be explored less intensively – I will conduct interviews with those funding

art in order to elucidate their reasons for doing so, and will observe the broader public sphere of

Bosnia in order to ascertain the prominence of the art sphere within it. All of these lines of research

will be undertaken in parallel, beginning in September 2014 and continuing until September 2015,

after which I will return to London to analyse and write-up my findings.

The geographic scope of this fieldwork will be limited to Bosnia’s capital city, Sarajevo. This has

been motivated by a number of considerations, but primarily by the contention that a year's

fieldwork will be adequate to survey the art system of one city, and not more than one. Given this,

Sarajevo, as Bosnia's capital and historic centre, is the obvious choice for a number of reasons.

Previous fieldwork suggests that almost all of the contemporary art produced and/or displayed in

Bosnia is concentrated in Sarajevo, and that it possesses by far the largest art sphere of any city in

Bosnia. Further, as the location of the national government of Bosnia, almost all of the international

delegations to the country, and all of the country’s national newspapers and museums, it is pre-

eminent in the production and circulation of public discourse.

Participation

The three participatory roles will therefore be based in Sarajevo. The first will involve working as a

visual artist in the city, producing work and applying for funding to do so. This role will be

undertaken alongside artists and groups already identified in the city, particularly Crvena (see

http://crvenared.wordpress.com/) who will provide a professional network and support. This group

is a loose collective of 30 artists and writers who acquired a studio and exhibition space whilst I was

conducting my previous fieldwork. I will be working in this studio, participating both in the

production of art works and observing colleagues doing the same.

14

http://crvenared.wordpress.com/


The second role will be as an intern in one of Sarajevo’s galleries, the Collegium Artisticum (see

http://collegium.omnitask.me/). This is a relatively small gallery, set up in the 1930s by a group of

then-prominent Sarajevan artists, and located in the iconic Skenderija shopping centre (fig. 4). It

organises exhibitions throughout the year, and hence it is envisaged that in the course of fieldwork I

will be involved in most of the tasks undertaken by an art gallery – selecting art for exhibition,

talking to artists, designing and disseminating promotional material, etc. In addition to this formal

role, I will continue to work with Ars Aevi as they prepare to open the Ars Aevi Museum of

Contemporary Art.

The third role undertaken will be working as an arts journalist, initially for Sarajevo Culture Bureau

(see http://sarajlijacult.com/), an English-language arts and culture website (fig. 5). This role will

involve visiting art shows, writing about them, and helping with the website’s publicity. Following

this initial engagement, it is envisaged that I will write similar articles for further websites,

magazines and newspapers on a freelance basis. All three of these roles have already been arranged.

In addition to these three major roles, two less intensive engagements will be undertaken. The first

will be with individuals working for organisations who fund art in Sarajevo, with whom interviews

will be arranged. The second will be with the broader public sphere of Bosnia. This second

engagement will not seek to elucidate the structure of the public sphere in the way done for the art

sphere, but will instead assess the prominence of the art sphere within the broader public sphere.

Prominence, in this sense, means the level of publicity given to, or public debate generated by, the

art sphere. As such, newspapers, magazines and websites will be checked on an ongoing basis for

content generated or inspired by the art sphere, and the conversations of those not directly involved

in the art sphere will be participated in, observed, and assessed against the same criteria.

As broad a range of actors as possible will be observed. These will be identified by ‘following the

artwork’ in the way described above – tracking paintings, etc., from artists to galleries to newspaper

articles. However, one component of the present research entails assessing the ease of entry into the

art sphere of new actors. As such, it is important to identify those actors who have not gained

visibility even within the art sphere, and by definition this cannot be done ‘backwards’ from

newspaper articles, etc. I will therefore continue to engage with the staff at the Arts Academy of

Sarajevo to identify students who have recently finished education, and are therefore unlikely to

have a large amount of public visibility.

15

http://sarajlijacult.com/

http://collegium.omnitask.me/


Observation

The observations to be made during this fieldwork are aligned with the research questions above. In

answering question (A) – How and why is contemporary art being instrumentalized in BiH? – it is

hypothesised, as above, that the ‘why’ of this question may be because of the arts’ role in the

creation of a public sphere. This portion of the question will continue to be investigated through a

review of the relevant literature, and also through interviews with individuals involved in arts

funding. An example finding from this portion of the research may be that those involved in arts

funding have a broader range of objectives than those suggested by the literature produced by the

organisations they work for.

The ‘how’ portion of this question relies partially on the answer to question (B), in that the effects

of instrumentalization will be explored through the ongoing structural transformations of the art

sphere. In all three primary roles I will observe instances of support being given to the art scene,

and note these. Then, in order to understand the effects of this support, the structural changes it

causes upon the art sphere will be observed. It is hypothesised that particular deployments of

funding within the art sphere may have broad-ranging effects upon its operation. For instance, the

opening of the Ars Aevi Museum of Contemporary Art is due to occur during my fieldwork period.

This project has been facilitated by international funding, will add a new and highly prominent actor

to the art sphere, and thus is expected to both affect the movement of art works within Sarajevo and

dramatically increase the prominence of the art sphere.

As above, question (B) – To what extent does the art sphere of BiH function as a public sphere? –

may also be split into two sub-questions. The first – how the art sphere functions – will be answered

by material emerging from all three major roles. The model above will initially be used as a

template to aid in understanding the way the art sphere functions, and observations made as to the

nature of interactions between agents. An example of a preliminary finding of this line of research is

that artists within Sarajevo tend to work within semi-formalised ‘collectives’ rather than as lone

actors, potentially increasing the extent to which the art sphere acts as a public sphere.

The second sub-question – how closely the art sphere approximates a public sphere – will be

assessed by two criteria; how ‘open’ the sphere is to new actors, and how ‘freely’ discourses can be

discussed within it. How open the art sphere is will primarily be addressed by my engagement as an

16


artist, and my observation of students attempting to enter the art sphere. My own ease of entry into

the art sphere will also produce much material useful in answering this question, as will observation

of how and why particular artists or art works are included or excluded from progressing through

the sphere. For example, the literature review undertaken suggests that the post-conflict codification

of ethnic difference into three religious categories (Serb, Croat, Bosniak) potentially limits the

ability of artists with other ethnicities (Jewish and Atheist, in particular) to enter the art sphere. The

extent to which this is the case will be one of the outcomes of this line of observation.

The ‘freeness’ of the art sphere will be assessed by assessing whether any of the discourses

described above are distorted within the art sphere. The ways in which these discourses operate in

the art sphere will be observed across all sites of engagement, and compared both to the

characterisation of them given above, and also to observations made through my engagement with

the broader public sphere. For example, previous fieldwork suggests the same tripartite codification

of ethnic difference mentioned has been replicated within funding provided to the art sphere,

predisposing the art sphere to reproduce this particular interpretation of multiculturalism, and

setting it at odds with some other commentators. This is the type of contention to be tested through

this line of observation, which will ultimately seek to assess the degree to which, and in which

directions, the art sphere is distorted.

Question (C) – How effective is the art sphere as part of the public sphere? – will be assessed

primarily by my engagement as an arts journalist, but also by my less intensive engagement with

the public sphere. The third column on the model of the art sphere above, ‘reception’, may be

regarded as the structures and processes required for aspects of the art sphere to cross into the

public sphere. This function is here used as a way of measuring the efficacy of the sphere. Through

engagement as a journalist, I will observe the ways in which these structures and processes are

constituted and operate. Through my engagement with the public sphere, I will observe how

prominent the art sphere is within the wider pubic sphere. This will be done through an assessment

of the level of publicity achieved by actors in the art sphere, but also by the level to which this is

discussed in broader society. For example, previous fieldwork suggests that there in 2013 the arts

had little prominence within the public sphere of Bosnia, with little coverage by national magazines

and newspapers. If this is still the case, it it hypothesised that this situation severely limits the

efficacy of the art sphere to ‘hold politicians to account’, although further observation may disprove

this conjecture.

17


Thus, the three participatory roles proposed here each address one or more of the three research

questions described above, and will allow a detailed understanding of the structure of the art sphere

of Bosnia to be achieved. Ultimately, the present research will produce an understanding of the

extent to which contemporary art in Bosnia has been instrumentalized by political actors, the effects

of this on the art sphere of the country, and whether it is legitimate to talk of contemporary art in

Bosnia as a new public sphere.

18


Work Completed and Planned

May – July 2013

Fieldwork in Sarajevo for MA Thesis Throughout: Study of Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian language (conversational fluency achieved)

August 2013

MA Thesis completed;Art of the Epoch: National Discourse and Contemporary Art in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina(14725 words)

November 2013

Paper #1 completed;Non-alignment, Open Borders, Federalisation: The Effect of Yugoslavian Foreign and Domestic Policy on its Art and Museums(5541 words)

December 2014

Paper #2 completed;The Role of Collective Memory in Reconciliation and Nation-building in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH)(4025 words)

February 2014

Paper #3 completed;MSU and Ars Aevi:Ex-Yugoslav Politics and National Contemporary Art Museums(9935 words)

March 2014 Paper#4 completed;Mapping the Art System: Methodological Proposals(4458 words)

May 2014 Paper#5 to be completed;Contemporary Art and the Public Sphere

Current Research Overview completedPreparation for 1st Year Review

June - September 2014

Completion of further papers,With topics TBC with Supervisor

September 2014

Begin fieldworkAll types of participant-observation described above will be undertaken in parallel for a period of one year. During this period I will therefore be:

- Working as an artist alongside Crvena, - Working as an intern in Collegium Artisticum, - Writing articles for Sarjevo Culture Bureau, - Arranging and conducting interviews with those involved in arts funding, - Undertaking more general observations of the public sphere of Bosnia.

September 2015

Finish fieldworkReturn to London to analyse and write-up results.

19


Bibliography

Adorno, T. W. and Horkheimer, M. 1997. Dialectic of Enlightenment, Verso.

Anastasakis, O. 2005. The Europeanization of the Balkans. Brown Journal of World Affairs 12/1, 77–88.

Anderson, B. 1991. Census , Map , Museum.

Anderson, B. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso.

Assman, A. 2010. From Collective Violence to a Common Future: Four Models for Dealing with a Traumatic Past. In: H. Gonçalves da Silva (ed.), Conflict, Memory Transfers and the Reshaping of Europe, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Barrett, J. 2012. Museums and the Public Sphere, Wiley.

Bougarel, X. Helms, E. and Duijzings, G. 2007. The New Bosnian Mosaic: Identities, Memories and Moral Claims in a Post-war Society, Ashgate.

Bourdieu, P. 1984. Outline of a Sociological Theory of Art Perception. In: The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, Columbia University Press, 1–27.

Bringa, T. 1995. Being Muslim the Bosnian Way: Identity and Community in a Central Bosnian Village, Princeton University Press.

Calhoun, C. J. 1992. Habermas and the Public Sphere, MIT Press.

Crossley, N. 2006. On Systematically Distorted Communication: Bourdieu and the Socio-analysis of Publics. In: N. Crossley and J. M. Roberts (eds.), After Habermas, Oxford: Blackwell, 88–112.

Danko, D. 2008. Nathalie Heinich’s Sociology of Art -- and Sociology from Art. Cultural Sociology 2/2, 242–256.

Danto, A. 1964. The Artworld. The Journal of Philosophy 61/19, 571–584.

Deleuze, G. Guattari, F. and Massumi, B. 2004. EPZ Thousand Plateaus, Bloomsbury Academic.

Dickie, G. 1997. The Art Circle: A Theory of Art, CHICAGO SPECTRUM Press(KY).

Dragović-Soso, J. 2010. Conflict, Memory, Accountability: What Does Coming to Terms with the Past Mean? In: V. Džihić and W. Pertritsch (eds.), Conflict and Memory: Bridging Past and Future in [South East] Europe, Nomos.

Duijzings, G. 2007. Commemorating Srebrenica: Histories of Violence and the Politics of Memory in Eastern Bosnia. In: X. Bougarel (ed.), The New Bosnian Mosiac: Identities, Memories and Moral Claims in a Post-War Society, Ashgate.

Džihić, V. and Pertritsch, W. 2010. Introduction. In: V. Džihić and W. Pertritsch (eds.), Conflict and Memory: Bridging Past and Future in [South East] Europe, Nomos.

European Cultural Foundation. 2014. European Cultural Foundation Grants Overview.

Fagan, A. 2005. Civil society in Bosnia ten years after Dayton. International Peacekeeping 12/3, 406–419.

Fraser, N. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In: C. Caulhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, MIT Press, 109–142.

Habermas, J. 1970. On systematically distorted communication. Inquiry 13/1-4, 205–218.

Habermas, J. 1974. The Public Sphere : An Encyclopedia Article by Jurgen Habermas.   New German Critique 3/3, 49–55.

Habermas, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Polity Press.

20


Hajdarpašić, E. 2008. Museums, Mulitculturalism, and the Remaking of Postwar Sarajevo. In: R. Ostow (ed.), (Re)visualizing National History: Museums and National Identities in Europe in the New Millennium, University of Toronto Press, 109–138.

Halbwachs, M. 1992. On Collective Memory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Harrison, R. 2014. Observing, Collecting and Governing “Ourselves” and “Others”: Mass-Observation’s Fieldwork Agencements. History and Anthropology 25/2, 227–245.

Heinich, N. 2012. Mapping intermediaries in contemporary art according to pragmatic sociology. European Journal of Cultural Studies 15/6, 695–702.

Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. O. 1992. The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press.

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. Política y Sociedad, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lorente, J. P. 1998. Cathedrals of urban modernity: the first museums of contemporary art, 1800-1930, Ashgate.

Lorente, J. P. 2011. The Museums of Contemporary Art: Notion and Development, Ashgate Pub.

Marcus, G. E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24, 95–117.

Marcus, G. E. and Myers, F. R. 1995. The Traffic in Culture: Refiguring Art and Anthropology, University of California Press.

Massari, M. 2005. Do All Roads Lead to Brussels? Analysis of the Different Trajectories of Croatia, Serbia-Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 18/2, 259–273.

Mitchell, W. J. T. 1992. Art and the Public Sphere, University of Chicago Press.

Myers, F. R. 1991. Representing Culture: The Production of Discourse(s) for Aboriginal Acrylic Paintings. Cultural Anthropology 6/1, 26–62.

Nora, P. 1989. Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire. Representations 26, 7–24.

OHR. 2014. OHR - General Information.

Open Society Foundations. 2014. Open Society Foundations.

Pinson, M. 1996. The Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina: Their Historic Development from the Middle Ages to the Dissolution of Yugoslavia, Center for Middle Eastern Studies of Harvard University.

Rivera, L. A. 2008. Managing “Spoiled” National Identity : War, Tourism and Memory in Croatia.   American Sociological Review 73/4, 613–634.

Roeder, P. 2007. Where Nation-States Come From: Institutional Change In The Age Of Nationalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Said, E. W. 1979. Orientalism, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Smith, A. D. 1986. State-Making and Nation-Building. In: States in History, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 228–263.

Steiner, C. B. 1994. African Art in Transit, Cambridge University Press.

Swiss Cultural Foundation. 2014. About Us.

Tali, M. and Pierantoni, L. 2011. New art museums in Central and Eastern Europe and the ideologies of urban space production. Cultural Trends 20/2, 167–182.

Todorova, M. 2009. Imagining the Balkans, Oxford University Press, USA.

Triandafyllidou, A. Modood, T. and Meer, N. 2012. European Multiculturalisms: Cultural, Religious and Ethnic Challenges, Edinburgh University Press.

21


Van Maanen, H. 2009. How to Study Art Worlds: On the Societal Functioning of Aesthetic Values, Amsterdam University Press.

Various. 2011. Art & the Public Sphere, Intellect.

Velikonja, M. 2003. Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Texas A&M University Press.

Wood, N. 1994. Memory’s Remains: Les lieux de mémoire. History and Memory 6/1, 123–149.

Young, K. 2009. Auschwitz-Birkenau: the challenge of heritage management following the Cold War. In: W. Logan and K. Reeves (eds.), Places of pain and shame: dealing with “difficult” heritage, Routledge.

22

arte contemporanea bosnia

Documents

art sphere functions

bosnias public sphere

art sphere of bih function

art works

social functioning of

new public sphere

reception of contemporary

macroscopic public sphere