eastern conceptual art vvaa

7/29/2019 Eastern Conceptual Art VVAA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eastern-conceptual-art-vvaa 1/15

Zdenka Badovinac, Eda Čufer,Cristina Freire, Boris Groys,Charles Harrison, V’t Havr‡nek,Piotr Piotrowski, and BrankaStipančić

Conceptual Artand EasternEurope: Part I

While the discourse and study of conceptual art inthe West is supposedly well-formed, artists in

Eastern Europe have worked with a similar formalvocabulary for decades. Moderna Galerija inLjubljana, where I am director, was the firstinstitution in Europe to start systematically

collecting works by mostly Eastern Europeanneo-avant-garde artists since the 1990s. Sincethen, the collection Arteast 2000+ has steadily

grown, and yet for many highly complex reasonsthe history of conceptual art in the West has been

systematized, while we are almost without ahistory in the East.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn 2007 I began work on a project on EasternEuropean conceptualism to attempt tounderstand this problem. It began with a

conference involving Eda Č ufer, Cristina Freire,

Boris Groys, Charles Harrison, V’t Havr‡nek, Piotr Piotrowski, and Branka Stipanč i ć , where we

aimed to define what the term conceptual art

actually means in our part of the world by

analyzing the sociopolitical context that hasinformed it, but also by comparing the situation tothat of similar experiences shared with Russianand Latin American conceptual art. This required

that we first attempt to situate the termÒconceptual artÓ in the most fundamental senseÐ in terms of how it was defined in Western theory and how was it defined in other places. One of the

fundamental differences between the West andthe East during the Cold War was the differencebetween individualism and collectivism. Howcrucial are these differences in interpreting and perceiving conceptual art in the East, the West, in

Poland and Central Europe, in Latin America, butalso in the wider framework of the globalsituation. The 1960s and 1970s marked thecrucial starting point for conceptual art, but there

is also the question of how it changed in later periods.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThese were the questions with which webegan the first part of the conversation inLjubljana, published here in this issue of e-flux

journal, with the next parts following in later issues. The ultimate aim of the conference was toarrive at a methodology for understanding

Eastern European conceptual art, either by developing a discursive system or by articulatinga methodology for working around the need to. Itis a crucial question, closely tied to the very beginning of conceptual art, of how to negotiatedifferent identities without resorting to the notion

of universalism.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Ð Zdenka BadovinacÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊZdenka Badovinac: The first question isreally the basic question of the term ÒConceptual

art.Ó Boris, could I ask you to start the discussionabout this term? What does it mean? What are its

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 4 0

Ñ d

e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 Z d e n k a B a d o v i n a c ,

E d a Č u f e r , C r i s t i n a F r e i r e , B o r i s G r o y s , C h a r l e s H a r r i s o n , V ’ t H a v r ‡ n e k , P i o t r P i o t r o w s k i , a n d B r a n k a S t i p a n č i ć

C o n c e p t u a l A r t a n

d

E a s t e r n E u r o p e : P a r t I

0 1 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Zvono/Bell, Biljana Gavranović, Sadko Hadžihasanović, Sejo Čizmić, Narcis Kantardžić, Aleksandar Saša Bukvić, Kemal Hadžić, Sport and Art, 1986.

0 2 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Komar & Melamid, Olo, 1975-1977. From the portfolio A

Catalogue of Super Objects ÐSuper Comfort for Super People,1977. Cibachrome Print, 8 x 10inches. Collection NeubergerMuseum of Art.

main characteristics? How was it defined inWestern theory? And how was it defined in otherplaces?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBoris Groys: In Moscow some Russianartists in the 1970s self-identified with thisterm. I mean the term: Conceptualism, orConceptual Art. In fact, I wrote a text in 1978 onMoscow Romantic Conceptualism. It was afriendly critique of reception of Conceptualism,

of Conceptual art in Moscow Ð however, a certaincircle of artists actually committed themselvesto this term Ð and were praized or criticized bythe others as being ÒMoscow Coceptualists.Ó Theterm ÒconceptualismÓ already has its history andit doesnÕt make sense to ask if there are true orfalse conceptualists, like true Christians or falseChristians, or if the Soviet communism was orwas not actually communism. To a certaindegree, this is a kind of scholastic debate. Thus,we can speak of a specific Êconceptualist schoolin Moscow. After StalinÕs death, from the mid-

1950s onward, a certain neo-modernist sceneemerged and came to be very influential in bigRussian cities. At that time, thousands of artistsbecame very much public figures and professeda certain kind of romantic belief in the power ofart, of the artistic individual and subjectivity Ðthrough a pretty much second-hand repetition of

Russian modern art or Western twentieth-century art. On the one hand, there was a gapbetween claim and fact; on the other, the neo-modernist claims themselves soundedsomewhat obsolete, at least to me. The Moscowconceptualist circle didnÕt seek so much acritical reflection of official art Ð official art wasalready passŽ and not even a topic of discussion.Rather, it investigated a kind of Van Gogh

complex: the figure of the paradigmatic artist asthe struggling, suffering individual. The decisiveinfluence came from French structuralism morethan from English linguistics (in the 1960s andthe beginning of the 1970s, everybody spoke ofLŽvi-Strauss, Jacobson, Foucault, and so on) andfrom Russian formalism, where everything was astatement, everything was language, a moveinside a system. Nothing was purely individual orsubjective. So people began to act according totheir own self-understanding of what it was to bea Conceptual artist. They began to criticize the

traditional neo-modernist, neo-romantic artisticclaim. There is an analogy to certain Westernmovements in the 1960s. One can speak ofconceptualism in terms of Art & LanguageÕswork. However, this is only true to a certainextent. Similarly, we speak of Broodthaers andHaacke as Conceptual artists, as the Òfirst

0 3 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



stagesÓ of institutional critique and the critiqueof subjectivity. I would say that they fit theparadigm only in a vague sense: in looking at artand social conventions in analogy to linguisticactivity; in using very critical, almost cynicalarguments; and in not using official ÒhighÓculture in their artistic practice. I would say thatsome Russian artists of the 1960s and 1970salso fit in this general paradigm and theoretical

framework, with their strategy of conceptual orsemi-Conceptual art. So, it is not illegitimate tospeak about this art as Conceptual, despite thecriticism received within these parameters ofcritique.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊEdaČufer: You mention that when this neo-modernist romantic claim appeared, someartists started to become known to the public. Ibelieve that one of the characteristics of theRussian scene was the limited access to thebroad public. This circle was pretty muchisolated.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: Well, yes and no. On the one hand,Solzhenitsyn was isolated, and yet as a resulteverybody read him, so censorship was a kind ofadvertisement. People also knew of ErnstNeizvestnyi and other artist-dissidents. Sure, thecircle of independent unofficial artists wasisolated, unable to publish, officially exhibit andso on. At the same time, the Moscow, St.Petersburg, (then Leningrad) public knew theartists very well. People bought their works andvisited their ateliers. For example, if you went toKabakovÕs studio, you could find the wholepolitical beau monde, the wives and daughters ofthe Politburo members included. If you wereinside the 1960s and Ê1970s inofficial art scene,you had the feeling that it was everywhere.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊEČ: One issue, if we are to speak abouthistoricizing, is critical reception. One of the veryimportant sources for reconstructing a historicalperiod is reading the reviews of a certain artevent. However, this period probably has limitedaccess to this form of reconstruction, since thedebate was censored, and in this respect criticalreception cannot be comparable to what wasgoing on in the West.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: Russian conceptualism was not verypublic, no question about that. Sociologicallyspeaking, it was more like those art movementsat the beginning of the twentieth century or the1920s. These movements were known, peoplewere aware that such terrible manifestations ofÒdecadentÓ idealism took place. They were innewspapers. However, no archives, extendedpublications, or systematic reviews exist.However, Russian conceptualism is in factdocumented Ð numerous conversations wererecorded by the KGB. All my lectures in official

spaces during the 1970s attended by 300 to 500people were presented to me by the KGB before I

left the country. They also exist in privatearchives, in the archives of art historians, and soon. There are huge photographic archives, as allthese exhibitions were photographed,documented Ð just never published.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊZB: But where are most of these archivesnow?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: Some of the archives came to ZimmerliMuseum, at Rutgers University some were

bought by Ònew RussianÓ collectors full of money.Even the Getty Museum has a lot of material thatwas never opened. The stuff is there but nobodycares about it. Russia in general is notfashionable. People donÕt see any potential forusing the material to write a PhD dissertation inRussia or the USA. But in the Soviet Union of the1970s everyone was there, the political andcultural elites and the public in big cities Ð allwere very much aware of it. Everybody readdissident writers and saw dissident exhibitions.Throw out the image you have of the romantic

artist-in-the-basement. They made some money,or at least much more than other people,because they sold their work in the privatemarket while everybody else got a salary. Theyhad ateliers and those were the social spaces atthat time. Who had big spaces that could hostparties? Only famous artists. So they wereunprivileged and privileged at the same time. Itwas a very ambiguous situation.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊZB: Charles, perhaps you would like tocomment on the term ÒConceptual artÓ and onwhat Boris has said. You mentioned thatConceptual art was a reaction to neo-modernism, a relation that was important in theWest, but in a very different manner. It would bevery interesting to hear what you think ofromantic conceptualism. In Slovenia, forexample, Tomaž Brejc came up with the termÒtranscendental conceptualismÓ in relation tothe OHO group.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCharles Harrison: For me, Conceptual arthas a fairly precise etymology. If you look theterm up in an art dictionary, the first mention youget is Henry FlyntÕs writing about Òconcept artÓ inLa Monte YoungÕs Anthology , published in 1963. I

think thatÕs rather irrelevant, because Flynt isreally talking about music and mathematics, andif you try to map it onto what Conceptual artactually came to mean, it doesnÕt quite fit. It wasa product of that rather loose, Fluxus-like scenein America in the early 1960s. I believe the mostimportant use of the term was first published inthe summer of 1967 in Sol LeWittÕs ÒParagraphson Conceptual Art.Ó The context in which thatappeared is quite important, as it was in theAmerican magazine Artforum, the mainmodernist bible. That 1967 summer issue looked

at the American minimalists: one of PaulMorrisonÕs notes on sculpture was published in

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 4 0

Ñ d




d


0 4 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Gyšrgy Jov‡novics, ConstructionPressing into the Ceiling.

Documentation photograph.

that issue, a piece by Robert Smithson, SolLeWittÕs ÒParagraphs on Conceptual Art.Ó Butcrucially, the issue also included Michael FriedÕsessay ÒArt and Objecthood.Ó I speak as somebodywho in 1967 was a provincial modernist inEngland trying to get a grip on what was going onin America and in New York, which for me wasthe metropolitan center of modernism. Thatparticular moment made it very clear that the

modernist mainstream, as it were, had split, andthat there was a significant controversy withinAmerican modernism. FriedÕs ÒArt andObjecthoodÓ was an attempt to stem what hesaw as the incoming tide of minimalism, orÒliteralismÓ as he called it, and to defend a kindof Greenbergian modernism Ð based on thenotion of quality, instantaneity, and experience Ðagainst art which took context intoconsideration.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThere was this feeling that something wasgiving way, that the old order was becoming

defensive and dogmatic in an effort to protect itsboundaries, and that modernism itself was atype of orthodoxy fraying at the edges. Iremember my colleague and friend MichaelBaldwin talking about that period. He was an artstudent in the mid-1960s. ÒModernism hadbecome like shifting ground,Ó he said. ÒYou put

your foot on it and it would float away from you.ÓThe system was breaking up. Sol LeWittÕsannouncement in 1967 was like the manifesto ofa movement. What mattered was not theappearance of the object, but the vitality of theidea, and that was its crucial, distinguishingcharacteristic. One sentence from his firstÒParagraphs on Conceptual ArtÓ says: ÒWhat thework of art looks like isnÕt too important.Ó That

was a powerful statement in opposition toorthodox modernistic statements, where theresult is a consequence of what something lookslike and what you feel about how it looks. Thiswhole system of aesthetics was being set aside.ThatÕs what the moment of Conceptual art meansto me: the realization of schism and collapse Ðnot of a cultural orthodoxy, but an aesthetic one.But of course when the latter gives way, thecultural order is also under threat.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe next significant moment comes with thefirst issue of Art-Language: The Journal of

Conceptual Art, published in the spring of 1969.This was a group of four young English artists ÐTerry Atkinson, David Bainbridge, MichaelBaldwin, and Harold Hurrell Ð identifying with anew avant-garde tendency that had been given aname in America. And the subtitle of the journaldisappeared immediately after the first issue,

0 5 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Douglas Davis, Komar & Melamid, Questions New York-Moscow-New York, 1977. Collection Getty Museum of Art.

which is significant. This group of people hadbeen talking together since 1965 and formedthemselves into a group as Art & Language in1968. Crucially, artists identified themselveswith Conceptual art, and these were artistswriting a type of theory. In my view, Conceptualart is the collapse of the boundary betweenartistic and theoretical practice, the idea thattheoretical practice might be a primary artistic

practice. There were two ways of looking at this:either theory had become a primary artisticpractice, or theory as art was a type of avant-garde idea. These two interpretationcorresponded to a split within Conceptual artitself and Art & LanguageÕs particular kind of art.Here, theory becomes a Duchampian readymadeand the competition is to play the next mostavant-garde idea as an artwork. I associate thatwith American Conceptual art, and particularlywith the position represented by Joseph Kosuth.Art & LanguageÕs position was not that of theory

as an artistic practice with a smart avant-gardemove; it was what you were forced into by thecollapse of modernism. If you could no longeridentify art with the production of clearlydefinable objects, as defined in structural termsby a certain physical integrity, but could onlydefine objects conservatively and institutionally,

then you didnÕt know where the edges ofartworks were anymore. Not knowing wherethese are, you push them, whether you like it ornot. You canÕt simply explore this by makingavant-garde objects. You have to work out whatyouÕre doing and if your practice is the practice ofart. Art & LanguageÕs position has always beenthat artistic practice needs to becomeessayistic, like writing, simply in order to get out

of the hole. But within the English Art &Language, that was always seen as a transition Ða specific contingent practice, forced by thecollapse of modernism and its manyauthenticating and authorizing systems. Toborrow an Art & Language slogan: ÒIf Conceptualart had a future, it was not Conceptual art.Ó Thisin the third moment, which for me lasts untilabout 1972, perhaps 1974. The previous momentspans very strictly from 1967 to after 1972. Bythe 1972 Documenta, it became clear that thismoment was over Ð in this big international

avant-garde salon, Conceptual art suddenlybecame a career move. The movementÕscontingency and temporary status no longercarried practical virtue. Furthermore, around thelate 1980s and early 1990s, the termÒConceptual artÓ started to be widely applied in

journalism and popular curatorship. As a label

0 6 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Laibach, Slovenian industrialrock group, 1983. Photo: Duan

Gerlica.

for anything that wasnÕt painting or sculpture, ithas increasingly become an umbrella term foralmost any avant-garde practice associated withcultural dissidents.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊNow, when we talk of Eastern Conceptualart, are we, as it were, retrospectively applying akind of avant-garde validation? Were thesepractices in the East part of an internationalbreakdown of modernism, which had a different

sense and practice than that of the West? Or arewe actually identifying a significant common setof strategies and problems? Is there really acommon ground, despite the huge political andcultural differences between the contexts? IÕminterested in what Boris said, which confirms mysuspicions that samizdat modernism wasnÕtabout samizdat, really. When modernism breaksdown, it does so in more or less the same wayeverywhere. ThatÕs to say that the aestheticallyauthorizing processes are giving way, leavingbehind whatever authority they may or may not

have. On the other hand, I think we have to bevery careful not to fall into the wider sense ofConceptual art as a means of ratifying anythingthat looks like avant-garde practice.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊZB: This is the crucial question.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: That is a really interesting point. In fact,this kind of shift from the form or image to a kind

of theoretical interpretation, which was crucial inthe 1960s in the work of Conceptual artists,could never have taken place in the Sovietcontext, where this pure visual form was nevertaken into consideration. That means that themost recognizable aspect of these Soviet artistsÕwork was primarily their ideological intention.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCH: Not that the idea of pure visuality is notideological É

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: It was ideological, but immediatelyrecognized and understood as such. That meansthe political attitude of an artist was the firstthing you identified when you saw the work, fromthe initial Russian avant-garde to the end of theentire period of Soviet art. If you saw somethinglike pure form, it probably meant that the artistwas anti-Soviet. The work was based on thepremise that ideological content andinterpretation were everything. As there was nomarket, no connoisseurship, the visual quality assuch was nothing. At the end of the 1960s and

the beginning of the 1970s people like Kabakov,Komar & Melamid, and others began to diversify,differentiate, and mix these ideologicalcontexts.They started to develop interpretationsthat were non-pro, non-con, non-anti. It was adeconstructivist practice, which in effectamounted to the same thing as the Western

0 7 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Conceptual art. It was a different kind of shift,from a very strictly ordered ideological system ofinterpretation to a free-floating, ironical, anddeconstructive interpretation. And to invent thistype of interpretation, to undermine this strictorder of ideology, was the main goal of the artistsinside the circle. So, Western and EasternEuropean practices are comparable on this level,but very different on the other level. There was

the market, connoisseurship, and concentrationon pure form in the West, while in the East therewas a very rigid ideological context with a veryrigid system of interpretation.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCH: ItÕs easy to fall into the assumption thatall the politics is in the East, and in the West weonly have a very political modernism. However,itÕs important to remember that part of themotivation behind the split that was going on inAmerica Ð to a certain extent mirrored in EnglandÐ was one between the Left and the Right at thetime of the Vietnam War. Those who identified

with postmodernism and Conceptual art inAmerica were often members of the Art WorkersÕCoalition, opponents of the American strategy inVietnam, the invasion of Cambodia, and so on.They were picketing museums with placardssaying ÒAgainst War, Racism, and Oppression,Óand had a strong contingent of feminists. Hard-line modernists, post-painterly abstractionists,were mostly defenders of the American policy inVietnam. I remember Greenberg saying at theend of an interview, when he was off themicrophone, ÒI know what we shouldÕve done: weshouldÕve sent in another 20,000 troops and heldthem off the Vietnamese coast.Ó Artists like KenNoland were putting up American flags outsidetheir lofts. There were ideological divisions there,not unrelated to what was going on in the East,although the connections were very hard totrace, just as the politics were hard to trace inCold War conditions.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: I remember this very well, in regard topeople coming from the West in the 1960s. Wefelt ourselves close to them aesthetically but notalways politically. We were deconstructionistsand didnÕt want to be politically engaged, since

this could somehow be a trap, when people tookprecisely the positions power wanted them totake Ð even if it is a dissident position. So wetried to escape this kind of framework Ð not tofind a place within it as dissidents, but toquestion it, to escape the entire ideologicalframework. And friends who came from the Westunderstood this, although it took them a while.They were very politically motivated at the timeand it was difficult for them to understand ourattitude, the type of play with the language ofpower.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊZB: I think we agree then that for bothsides, the deconstruction of modernism was a

very important issue. What Boris said applies toEastern European countries as well: the questionof pure form actually didnÕt exist in our spaceseither. This leads to another important question:How different were our Eastern modernisms?And furthermore, do you think we can maintainthe relevance of the other two issues Ð thedematerialization of the object and institutionalcritique?

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCH: One thing that slightly worries me inyour representation of Western histories is thatthere can be an impression that there is anagreed upon narrative. ItÕs not like that at all.ThereÕs October Õs Conceptual art and BenjaminBuchlohÕs History of Conceptual Art, in which themajor figures are Broothaers, Buren, Graham,Haacke. And there is the importance ofConceptual art in the inclusion of institutionalcritique. Finally, thereÕs the Art & Language senseof Conceptual art, an almost philosophicalpractice that doesnÕt know whether itÕs

philosophy or art. To quote Michael Baldwinagain: ÒItÕs art in case itÕs philosophy, and itÕsphilosophy in case itÕs art.Ó It is really addressedto a very specific set of problems. Theseproblems may, incidentally, be institutionallycritical, but Conceptual art canÕt help being so Ðit tends to see institutional critique as somethingthat desperately needs the institutions which itpurports to be critiquing and is underwritten by arather na•ve politics. In this sense, there are atleast two very different histories of Conceptualart, perhaps more than two, but these are notusually reconciled. From the point of view ofOctober , the kind of Conceptual art that Art &Language represents is modernist, because it isstill concerned with issues of internality, with thequestion ÒIs this any good?ÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊZB: I think itÕs important to find or decidewhich history from the West we are using.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCH: To put the problem in larger terms, oneof the things that hangs over our discussion isthe question of what art filters for us, whatcomes up for the count. Do things come up forthe count in response to the question ÒIs thisradical?Ó Or do they instead come up for the

count in response to the question ÒIs this anygood?Ó Are they actually the same question? Arethings good because theyÕre radical, or are theyradical because theyÕre good? Why are we pickingout some things and calling them Conceptualart?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: I think there are very definitive criteriaof difference between conceptual and non-conceptual approaches. On one end, whatever anartist produces is considered a manifestation ofhis or her subjectivity. On the opposite end, art isunderstood as being shaped by certain linguistic,

social, political, ideological, and interpretativeconditions. I would say that the term Conceptual

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 4 0

Ñ d




d


0 8 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Lygia Clark, Nostalgia do corpo Ðobjetos relacionais (Nostalgia of

the Body Ð Relational Objects),1968-88. Photo: SŽrgio Zalis.

art was applied by many artists andtheoreticians in Eastern Europe to mean thissecond way of looking at things: this critical self-reflection, a certain disbelief in the guiding roleof subjectivity, in the possibility of making artoutside the system of linguistic and otherconventions. Could we say this use of the word isso historically entrenched that we should rejectit? I believe this would be unwise. People draw

these distinctions for themselves. That is howthey experience them. Why should we criticizethat?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊZB: For us it is important to maintain theproblematic nature of the term. I propose wecontinue to use the term, because it has beenused for decades.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCH: For instance, Boris is drawing adistinction between, on one hand, a positionbased on subjectivity, and on the other, aposition based on the sense of determination bylanguage and semiological structures. I canÕt

conceive a notion of subjectivity which isnÕtentirely ringed by linguistic and semiologicalconsiderations. WeÕre then left with a bold claimon authenticity, what indeed has driven a lot ofavant-garde art for me.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: I believe this is the real limit and thereal divide, one between people who see ÒI,Ó

subjectivity, and so on as a linguistic function,and people who believe in a certain authenticityof art beyond language and its conventions. It isa type of ideological, historical, artistic divide,and this divide was articulated in the termÒConceptual art.ÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊPiotr Piotrowski: I would also propose thatwe keep this term in the exhibition, even if itÕsunclear in terms of Eastern Europe. This is a

methodological question dealing with the historyof art in Eastern Europe, not only relating toConceptual art, but also to the classical avant-garde. For example, Cubism or Futurism meansomething different in Russia, Poland, andHungary than in countries like France or Italy.This syncretism of art historical terminology,applied to Eastern or Central Europe, is crucial tounderstanding the whole history of art in thisregion. The same applies to Conceptual art. I amvery interested in defining Conceptual art inCentral Europe itself, even if the geographical

boundaries of Central Europe are unclear. Ibelieve we can define Central Europe, which is abit different from Russia, in geographical terms,and connect it to this dynamic surroundingartistic terms. This means Poland,Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania Ð even if onlyin the south Ð and East Germany as well. So,

0 9 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Valery Cherkasov, I Want To Eat , 1964. Mixed media, spoons on table.

1 0 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Conceptual art worked as something like asubversive approach to political realities. Thepoint of departure for defining political realitiesis the dominance of Socialist Realism,understood as a political means, as propaganda.Importantly, the term ÒpoliticalÓ wassynonymous with a propaganda approach toreality. However, artists answered verydifferently to this point of departure. In some

countries that were relatively free, like Polandafter 1956, artists were against Socialist Realismas a propaganda formula, but they did not wantto deconstruct the notion of the political. Rather,they wanted to adopt a subversive approach bymaintaining the autonomy of art in relation topolitics. In Poland, even if Conceptual artistsperceived themselves as subversive artists, asanti-totalitarian artists, they still wanted tomaintain some things that were connected to theWest and to a bourgeois approach to reality, likethe autonomy of art. There was a kind of

dialectics of modernity in Poland.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBy contrast, in Hungary, for example, therewas a different experience. Among Conceptualartists, Hungarian neo-avant-garde artists werethe only ones to react as a group to the PragueSpring in 1968. They produced something thatwas directly critical of politics, as Szentjobi did.In the Hungarian media, Conceptual artists orneo-avant-garde artists were more deeplyinvolved in politics than Polish artists. Theyelaborated political issues in a direct way, incontrast to Polish artists. In Czechoslovakiaartists did not address politics directly,particularly after 1968. After everything wasseized by the post-1968 Ònormalization,Óespecially in Slovakia, artists just left the publicsphere and turned to nature. Nature wasinterpreted as a free space, in contrast to thepublic space of the cities and public institutions.On the other hand, Kn’ž‡k was not a Conceptualartist, although he produced body art andpossibly introduced Fluxus to Czechoslovakia.He was doing a sort of critique of painting assuch, both Socialist Realist painting andabstract painting. To him, painting was

connected to the establishment. It washierarchical. Central European artists, with theexception of the Gorgona Group, had a veryunique approach. As the Hungarians understoodit, art was divided into Socialist Realist paintingon the one hand, and abstract painting on theother. The latter was an expression of freedomand liberty; it was a political approach to art.This sort of attitude continued in most countriesuntil the end of the 1960s and the beginning ofthe 1970s, except in Hungary.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn short, what was interesting was the

recognition of this subversive approach topolitical reality, although this subversiveness

was defined very differently in many countries.ItÕs hard to give an umbrella definition of CentralEuropean art. Sometimes there was very littleexchange between small countries, and somecountries wanted Ð for psychological reasons Ðto be compared to the West. The West functionedas a pattern for Conceptual art, and this patternwent from West to East. This produced a diverseand heterogeneous picture of the region.

Sometimes we even communicated with peoplefrom the other countries via the West. Forinstance, we spoke English with Czechs insteadof our own language, which is very similar to theCzech language. So the West worked as a sort ofmirror. This was probably less true in the SovietUnion, where the intellectual and artistic milieuswere more autonomous and powerful. Theyperceived themselves as stronger than smallergroups of artists in countries like, for example,Romania or Hungary. How did Conceptual artwork subversively in political reality? The answer

is very different in different countries. Also: Howdid the West work as a mirror or a point ofdeparture for different approaches to differentrealities?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊZB: I think this is one of the crucialquestions Ð whether the West can serve as ameasure for us. Maybe thatÕs not a very positiveview.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCristina Freire: In Latin America today, allthe structures and stories about Conceptual artcome from the West, the official ones we weretalking about Ð Fried, Art & Language, Sol LeWitt,and so on. Institutions tell this story as theofficial history of Conceptual art. But it doesnÕtreally apply to Latin America, where there wasmore of a political reaction and context. Withoutthis political context, we canÕt understand whatcomes after the 1960s, especially 1964. Brazil,Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and other LatinAmerican countries didnÕt have the same artisticstanding as Europe and the US in this period. Youcan find some similar strategies, but LatinAmerican artists didnÕt recognize themselves asConceptual artists.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊPP: ThatÕs also true for Central Europeans.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCH: The problem I have as an art historian ishow to define Conceptual art. I can use the widersense, which is what weÕre generally using here.In this case, what I understand as Conceptual artbecomes one very small component Ð perhapscentral, but just one component among many.Starting in the late 1950s, the breakdown of a setof protocols of art-making, of art and politics, artand ideology, notions about autonomy, whetherart is indeed a socially autonomous practice ornot Ð all seemed to be suddenly disputed, up forgrabs in practice and theory. Conceptual art can

almost be a footnote to that larger movement. Inthat sense, you can understand why Latin

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 4 0

Ñ d




d


1 1 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



American artists donÕt want to be calledconceptualists. Then thereÕs the second sense, inwhich Conceptual art is identified historicallywith the strange connection betweenphilosophical-aesthetic critique and dissidenceand subversion, holding onto the philosophical-aesthetic problem at the heart of politicaldissidence. That is partly what gets seized uponin the East. Identification with Conceptual art in

the East is quite important because the sense ofideological critique built into aesthetic critique iscrucial, whereas it is not in Latin America. ThatÕsa very important difference.

Natalia LL/Lach-Lackowicz, Consumer Art, 1972. Muzeum Sztuki Lodz.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCF: I also feel this sense of urgency. Here,we know what happened: the KGB, the secretpolice in Hungary, they went to exhibitions, tookphotographs, and made reports. However, inBrazil and Argentina, people were killed ordisappeared under military dictatorships.Institutions were not places to use; you had to go

to a public space to be anonymous. The idea wasnot to be an artist but to have others with you.This idea of participation, which HŽlio Oiticicawas really into, meant that it was very importantto not be an artist. The idea of an autonomouswork of art really didnÕt matter at all. We cannotdirectly compare Latin America to Europe andthe US, but we can find zones of contact.Although in Brazil we had a right-wing militarydictatorship, and here it was a communistdictatorship, you can see similar strategies ofinformation circulation and how they created

public space despite the political situation. Sowe need other criteria, not the ones we get from

hegemonic history.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCH: ThereÕs a really important text onprovincial art by Luis Camnitzer from 1969. ItÕsabout the problem of making art under theregime of modernism. He presents threealternatives: one, you can be a provincialmodernist; two, you can try and be independentand produce a kind of folklorish art; or three, youcan submit to literature and politics. In a way, he

identifies with the third possibility. He says thatradical practice must now be either purelydocumentary, or guerilla activity. Again, both ofthose involve anonymity, as you say.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCF: In fact, this guerrilla activity was part ofLatin American artistic theory. We have a theoryof guerrilla art from 1966 onward, I think.Nineteen sixty-eight is an important year too Ð inBrazil the dictatorship worsened from 1968 until1983. ThatÕs the general context. As artinstitutions in the East and the West wrote thehegemonic history and actively proliferated it, all

the museums of modern art in Brazil andArgentina, which were created during the ColdWar, adopted this offical history. Consequently,we know much more about Sol LeWitt than we doabout Latin American artists who were makingart at the time but have no publications, nocatalogues, nothing written about them. WhenLatin American artists from this period arediscussed in the West, they are assimilated intoWestern art history. To give you a small example:they have now renovated the Museum of ModernArt, where official narrative comes from. Theyhave put up some works by Lygia Clark andOiticica, the best-known Brazilian artists in theWest. Not coincidentally, they are both dead. Inmy view, placing them in this gallery togetherwith Eva Hesse and Robert Smithson assimilatesthese Brazilian artists into what was going on atthat time in the West. ThereÕs no way out of this:the history is spoken and written in English. IfweÕre talking about modernism of the 1920s and1930s, the priority of Brazilian modern artistswas to promote the identity of their country. Theyrepresented its exoticism, how it was mixed-raceÐ the stereotypes of what it means to be

Brazilian. When this changed, it wasnÕt followedby the idea of representation. We lackrepresentations of what exactly happened duringthe military dictatorship. ItÕs not by chance thatwe donÕt have archives of visual art from thisperiod. Many artists from this period are poorlydocumented. Only now are we starting to reviseour official memory, because twenty years or soare missing from the historical record.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊPP: It is important to mention how the West,and particularly South America, was perceived inEastern Europe. Eastern European artists did not

understand the political tensions in the West,because these tensions were connected with the

1 2 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Left, and the Left was associated with theCommunist regime. Their perception of theWestern neo-avant-garde was a bit narrow,because they did not really buy their politicalattitudes against the capitalist world, andagainst the sometimes very bloody dictatorshipsin Latin America that were fighting communists.This was a paradox that Eastern European artistsdid not understand. The West worked as a mirror

for the East, but it worked as a curved mirror.Eastern European artists wanted to rejectpolitical interpretation and attitudes againstpolitical institutions and people who werefighting with communism. This is very importantand very painful: the lack of leftist critique of theso-called left governments Ð the communistgovernments Ð which were actually not leftist.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊCH: In Europe, particularly in France, theintellectual ferment that led to May 1968 waspart of a long process meant to de-StalinizeMarxism. The artistic Left in Europe was a sort of

Trotskyite situationist Left, anti-Stalinist in asense. I remember very clearly the defeat of thestudent movement in 1968. In England, theprotest was identified particularly with the artschools, in opposition to a kind of authoritarian,provincial modernist schooling. There was aconnection between the critique of modernist arteducation and a situationist political activityinvolving occupations. However, this verymovement helped to produce the long right-wingreaction, particularly in England and America Ðthat is to say, it really worried the authorities.They mistook these student protests for genuineproto-revolutionary action, and made sure theywould never happen again. Educational reformsthat are still underway, including in theinstitution where I work, are long-term parts ofthe process of de-radicalizing education. TheyÕvehad very deep consequences. New forms ofartistic radicalism are perhaps partly a reactionagainst them, although a rather impotent one.What we see from 1968 onward is increasingly adefeat of the Left and a surge of the Right. In thatrespect, 1968 is a crucial moment.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBG: Perhaps a remark to the relationship

between the political and nonpolitical spheres. Iremember the reaction to 1968Ð69 in theconceptual circle in Moscow, and our idea wasthat art is political, itÕs a type of propaganda, andyou canÕt dissociate it from its ideologicalfunction. Komar & Melamid spoke of Pollock andHitler as two kinds of decentered, ecstaticleaders; they spoke also about the proclamationof the independence of Greenwich Village byDuchamp, which took place almost at the sametime as October revolution. So the initial gestureof considering art as propaganda was absolutely

central for our reflections.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊTo be continued in ÒConceptual Art andEastern Europe: Part IIÓ

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 4 0

Ñ d




d


1 3 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



Zdenka Badovinac has been the Director of Modernagalerija, Ljubljana since 1993, now comprised of twomuseum locations: the Museum of Modern Art and theMuseum of Contemporary Art Metelkova Ð MSUM. Shehas curated numerous exhibitions presenting bothSlovenian and international artists, and initiated thefirst collection of Eastern European art, ModernagalerijaÕs 2000+ Arteast Collection. She hassystematically dealt with the processes of redefininghistory and with the questions of different avant-garde traditions of contemporary art, starting with the

exhibition ÒBody and the East Ð From the 1960s to thePresentÓ (Moderna galerija, Ljubljana, 1998; Exit Art,New York, 2001). She continued in 2000 with the firstpublic display of the 2000+ Arteast Collection: Ò2000+Arteast Collection: The Art of Eastern Europe inDialogue with the WestÓ (Moderna galerija, 2000); andthen with a series of Arteast Exhibitions, mostly atModerna galerija: ÒForm-SpecificÓ(2003); Ò7 Sins:Ljubljana-MoscowÓ(2004; co-curated with VictorMisiano and Igor Zabel); ÒInterrupted HistoriesÓ (2006);ÒArteast Collection 2000+23Ó (2006); ÒThe SchengenWomenÓ (Galerija Škuc, Ljubljana, part of the HostingModerna galerija!project, 2008). Her other majorprojects include Òunlimited.nl-3Ó (DeAppel,Amsterdam, 2000), Ò(un)gemalt, Sammlung Essl,Kunst der GegenwartÓ (Klosterneuburg/Vienna, 2002),Òev+a 2004, Imagine Limerick, Open&InvitedÓ;ÒDemocracies/the Tirana BiennaleÓ(Tirana, 2005), ÒTheSchengen WomenÓ, Galerija Škuc, (Ljubljana, 2008),ÒMuseum of Parallel NarrativesÓ in the framework ofLÕInternationale, MACBA, (Barcelona, 2011) ÒPresentand Presence,Ó MSUM, Ljubljana, 2011 (co-curatedwith Bojana Piškur and Igor Španjol). She was theSlovenian Commissioner at the Venice Biennale(1993Ð1997, 2005) and the Austrian Commissioner atthe Sao Paulo Biennial (2002) and is the President ofCIMAM, 2010Ð13.ÊEdaČufer is a dramaturge, curator and writer. In 1984

she co-founded an art collective NSK based inLjubljana, Slovenia. She has collaborated with manycontemporary theater, dance and visual art groupsincluding the Sisters Scipion Nasice Theater, thedance company En-Knap, the IRWIN group and MarkoPeljhanÕs Project Atol. Her recent writings are mainlyconcerned with the ideological dimensions ofcontemporary art and the relationship of politicalsystems to art systems. These have appeared inmagazines like Art Forum and Maska, and in bookspublished by MOMA, MIT Press, Revolver, AfterallBooks, Sternberg Press, Whitechapel Gallery, and thecatalog of the 2009 Istanbul Biennial. She has curatedexhibitions in Germany, Austria, and Italy, including InSearch of Balkania, Balkan Visions, and Call Me

Istanbul. She recently published a history of dancenotation systems, and is now working on a new bookproject, Art as Mousetrap, with the support of afellowship from the Arts Writers Grant Program of theAndy Warhol Foundation. Now living in the UnitedStates, she remains active with many art projects andgroups in Europe.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊ

Cristina Freire graduated in Psychology from theUniversity of S‹o Paulo (1985), MA in SocialPsychology from the University of S‹o Paulo (1990),MA in Museums and Galleries Management, The CityUniversity (1996) and PhD in Social Psychology fromthe University of S‹o Paulo (1995).She is a lecturer at the Institute of Psychology of theUSP (2003) and Associate Professor of ContemporaryArt Museum of the University of S‹o Paulo. She wasCoordinator of the Division of Research in Art, Theoryand Criticism of Contemporary Art Museum of the

University of S‹o Paulo, from January to December2005 and March 2006 to August 2010. Since August2010, and is Vice-Director of the MAC USP.ÊBoris Groys is a philosopher, art critic, essayist, andcurator who teaches modern Russian philosophy,French poststructuralism, and contemporary media.He is the Global Distinguished Professor of Russianand Slavic Studies at New York University, New York. Inaddition Groys is Professor for Philosophy and MediaTheory at the Academy for Design (Hochschule fŸrGestaltung) in Karlsruhe since 1994. Together withPeter Weibel he organized Medium Religion, ZKM,Karlsruhe, 2008Ð2009 on the medial aspect of religion.GroysÕs work was recently shown in the exhibitionThinking in Loop: Three Videos on Iconoclasm, Ritualand Immortality, apexart, New York, 2008. He alsodirected The Post-Communist Condition researchproject at ZKM, Karlsruhe and published Daskommunistische Postskriptum (2005) detailing thefindings of the project. Other recent publicationsinclude: Under Suspicion: A Phenomenology of Media(2012); Introduction to Antiphilosophy (2012); TheCommunist Postscripts (2010); Going Public(2010);ArtPower (2008); Ilya Kabakov. The Man Who Flew IntoSpace From His Apartment (2006); Dream FactoryCommunism: The Visual Culture of the Stalin Period(2004); and The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-Garde,Aesthetic Dictatorship, and Beyond (1992). Groys lives

and works in New York.ÊCharles Harrison (1942 - 2009), BA Hons (Cantab), MA(Cantab), PhD (London) was a prominent UK arthistorian who taught Art History for many years andwas Emeritus Professor of History and Theory of Art atthe Open University.He was tutor in Art History, Open University,1977Ð2005, Reader in Art History 1985-1994,Professor of the History & Theory of Art, 1994Ð2008,Professor Emeritus, 2008Ð2009; Visiting Professor,University of Chicago 1991 and 1996, VisitingProfessor, University of Texas, 1997.In addition to being an academic and art critic he wasalso a curator and a member of the Art & Language

Group. He curated the seminal exhibition "WhenAttitudes Become Form at the ICA" in 1969. And as amember of Art & Language, community of artists andcritics who were its producers and users, he editedtheir journal Art-Language.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊ

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 4 0

Ñ d




d


1 4 / 1 5

12.06.12 / 18:37:42 EST



ÊV’t Havr‡nek is a theoretician and organizer based inPrague, Czech Republic. He has been working since2002 as director of the contemporary art initiativeTranzit.cz. In 2007, Havr‡nek co-foundedTranzitdisplay, a resource center for contemporary art,and has since been lecturing on contemporary art atthe Academy of Art, Architecture and Design in Prague.He serves as an associate editor of JRP|Ringier artpublisher, and was a member of Tranzit.org, one of thethree curatorial teams for the European contemporary

art biennial Manifesta 8. In addition, he has curatedand co-curated exhibitions includingÊMonument to

Transformation, City Gallery Praguem Prague, CzechRepublic (2007-10); and tranzitÐAuditorium, Stage,

Backstage, I, series of exhibitions in three acts,Frankfurter Kunstverein, (2006). Havr‡nek has editedand co-editedÊ Atlas to Transformation (JRP|Ringier,2011),Ê Jiř ’ Sk‡la (JRP|Ringier, 2011),ÊKateř ina Šed‡

(JRP|Ringier, 2008),Ê Jan Manč uška (JRP|Ringier/Tranzit series, 2007),Ê Jiř ’ Kovanda

(JRP|Ringier/Tranzit series, 2007), and others such asThe Need to Document (Zurich: JRP|Ringier, 2005).Havr‡nek has written for books and cataloguesincludingÊManifesta 8 (Silvana Editoriale, 2010);Promesses du passŽ (Praha: Kant,2002);ÊReconsidering the Documentary and

Contemporary Art (Sternberg Press, CCS Bard,2008);ÊVoids (Centre Pompidou, Kunstalle Bern, 2009);andÊRight About Now (Valiz, 2007), among others.ÊPiotr Piotrowski is Professor Ordinarius and Chair ofModern Art History at Adam Mickiewicz University,Poznań. From August 2009 to October 2012, he was

Director of the National Museum in Warsaw. From1992 till 1997, Piotrowski was a Senior Curator ofContemporary Art at the National Museum, Poznań.

He has been a Visiting Professor at the Center forCuratorial Studies, Bard College and several otherinstitutions. Piotrowski is a FORMER WEST Research

Advisor and was a fellow at the Clark Art Institute inWilliamstown earlier this year, where he worked on abook project entitled ÒNew Art Ð New Democracy inPost-communist Europe.Ó He was also a fellow at,among others, Collegium Budapest, Budapest(2005Ð2006), the Institute for Advanced Study,Princeton (2000), Humboldt University, Berlin (1997),and Columbia University, New York City (1994). He hasco-organized several exhibitions and projectsincluding: 2000+: The Art from Eastern Europe inDialogue with the West, Moderna galerija, Ljubljana,2000 and The Central European Avant-Gardes:Exchange and Transformation, 1910Ð1930, LosAngeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), Los Angeles,2001. Piotrowski has written extensively on Central

European art and culture. His recent books include:Avant-Garde in the Shadow of Yalta. Art in Central-Eastern Europe, 1945Ð1989 (2009); Art after Politics(2007), among others.ÊBranka Stipančić is an art historian, curator and editorbased in Zagreb. She is a Faculty of Philosophy atUniversity of Zagreb. From 1983 to 1993, she was acurator at the Museum of Contemporary Art Zagreb;and from 1993 to 1996, the Director of Soros Center forContemporary Art, Zagreb. Stipančić curated Scenes

from Zagreb: ArtistsÕ publications of the New Practice

(2011) at the Museum of Modern Art, New York.Ê

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 4 0

Ñ d




d


1 5 / 1 5

eastern conceptual art vvaa

Documents