Interviews
EVERYONE IS A CITY MAKER
mini interview with Alex Axinte & Cristi Borcan // StudioBasar (Bucharest, Romania) on the occasion of their lecture SEARCH AND RESCUE:CITY at Zagreb Architects Society (DAZ) on September 28, 2010. The lecture was part of the program Loose Associations:Lines of Movement.
Your credo?
Everyone is a city maker.
Your influences (these aren’t necessarily architectural)?
The range is wide, and the selection is seasonal, but we took some lessons from Woody Allen, The Situationist Movement, Orhan Pamuk, Yona Friedman, Oblomov, Team 10 and even Corto Maltese.
Your favorite tools?
Whatever works in getting us from square one to a new logic.
You are keen on..?
Translating the environment prior to any Intervention.
Message to architecture students?
Have a taste from everything around, because history of architecture is not enough.
.
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT STUDIO BASAR´S PROJECT “EVICTING THE GHOST”, PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW
studioBASAR_evicting_the_ghost
——————————————-
——————————————-
——————————————-
You are coming to Croatia to present self organized art scene from Ukraine that has been developing from 2004/2005 on. The exhibition’s title is FUTURE WAS YESTERDAY. The title referes to 1999 Zagreb exhibition FUTUR IS NOW (curators Tihomir Milovac and Branka Stipančić) presenting Ukrainian artists from 1990′s. Can you explain us the link between the titles? What happened in between 1999 and 2009?
R.E.P: Next generation came to Ukrainian social life and art scene as well. People are more disillusioned regarding advantages of neo-liberal regime and possibilities of becoming part of western world. Less believe to “democratic rituals”, to parliament representative function and higher level of horizontal self-organization. There is less delight among artists about “new media” and “freedom of expression” in art; a “realistic” turn.
FUTURE IS NOW title presents post-socialist lovely phantoms about time which is new in essence, and non-critical taking the concept of “end of history”. FUTURE WAS YESTERDAY is about disillusioned position towards “brave new world”, about return of memory, about some kind of social and artistic restart. It is a kind of manifest of new disillusioned optimism.
What is the relation between your generation of artists and those that were active in the 1990s, is there continuity between those 2 generations?
R.E.P: For some of us that are family relations. But if there is any continuation of some tradition – it is not visible for us. We pay more attention to differences. Probably whole situation will be evident much later.
After Soros left Ukraine, it seems that the contemporary art significantly “suffered”. How do you explain the fact that the state did not find relevant to support it? Does it mean that Soros introduced contemporary art practices in Ukraine? Is there a relevant cultural continuity between today’s art in Ukraine and some other epoch in Ukrainian art history or Soviet system managed to prevent all the possible attempts?
R.E.P: The process didn’t stop. Artists just removed to commercial galleries and then to private art centers. A lot of artists become dependent from the support of Ukrainian new rich and from their tastes. That mad a bed influence on a quality of artistic life. But then a new generation of internationally active Ukrainian artists came.
Soros centre started to work in Ukraine (1993) when young contemporary artists from “Paris commune” squat, from Odessa conceptual art movement, from Kharkiv “social photography” school already widely represented their works even collaborating with later-Soviet and post-Soviet official art institutions.
These institutions are still active but since early 1990s they become more and more conservative. So Ukrainian contemporary art exists on the territory of local private or western (or those of western origin) institutions or it survives and develops through self-organization of art community.
The number 1 contemporary art institution in Ukraine today is definitely Pinchuk Art Center, opened in 2006 in Kiev. It is a strange mixture of art as part of PR, serving for some kind of image building of the Ukrainian oligarch? There are some opinions that Pinchuk appeared to fill the gap of what were presumably the hopeful expectations of George Soros’ efforts to institutionalize art and culture in Eastern Europe, i.e. neo-capitalists pointing capital towards art. What do you think of that and what is your relation towards the Pinchuk center?
R.E.P: This institution is really autonomous on Ukrainian scene. It is not a part of local institutional infrastructure. Somehow it acts more as attraction centre, kind of Disneyland. Also invited western specialists create for Pinchuk a collection on luxury and glossy art.
But same time this centre works instead of absent state centre of contemporary art forming strong collection of Ukrainian art of elder generation and sometimes supporting young artists.
In 2008 we made there a work, trying to analyze the place and role of this institution in a context of different forms of socialization of art. This installation called “Art as a present” presented a critical position towards Pinchuk Art Centre as phenomenon of wild post-Soviet capitalism. But the fact is that PAC was able to show this work.
The need of Ukrainian situation is not a monopolistic private institution but a lot of different ones and not-for-profit public institutions which could produce an independent expert function.
Kiev is a 3 million inhabitant city. What are the main tensions within the city? What is specific for the city in this very moment?
R.E.P: The most evident is the attack of big building companies on public spaces. Children playgrounds, parks are in danger. City power often is on the side of builders.
Communal services become more and more expensive, for poor social groups it is catastrophe.
Kiev is mostly Russian speaking, as well as Odessa and Harkow while western Ukraine speaks Ukrainian mostly. Is there a tension between those two languages/ language groups?
R.E.P: Professional politicians from nationalistic and from pro-Russian sides create artificial tension – especially before elections. To use language issue in agitation and promises which are always given before elections – people call it “to show the tongue”.
There are no natural obstacles for coexistence of two languages in Ukraine. But xenophobes from both camps always in search for occasion for conflict. This occasion can become a reason to divert from real social problems.
What is Ukrainians’ relation with Russia today and how do you look at soviet cultural heritage from today’s perspective?
R.E.P: Do you ask about our personal relation? What is “Russia” – people or regime?
Regime is really shitty. But it is not a reason to idealize “democratic west”.
Regarding people and personal relations, we have plenty of friends and colleges. There is a strong cultural proximity. And common Soviet is experience really conducive for this.
What changed after the Orange revolution?
R.E.P: People got valuable experience of mobilization and self-organization. Regarding system of power – nothing changed in essence.
In an article in an Ukrainian magazine I read about «appropriation of protest» by different power groups, and that there are so called «professional protesters» people hired to protest paid by an hour. You also used the language of the protest in your earlier works. How do you perceive the power of protest today, within the political system? Can people in the street today really change something? And on what it depends?
R.E.P: Yes, power really appropriates the language of protests, creates groups of fake independent protesters. When people can not distinguish truth from lie, they become passive.
But those who want to change the situation create new methods. If you know who are people who protest and if you can suppose the results – you can understand the motives. At least real activist scene is not so big.
I always ask this question lately: when you mention self education versus the old art education system, whom/where do you learn from?
R.E.P: From art schools and academies which keep a lot of elements of Soviet system of art education, from books, from Internet, from traveling, from communication, from theoretical events we participate in.
What do you know about Croatia(n art)?
R.E.P: It is the first in a line of applicants for EU. Beautiful landscapes, ancient history, strong corruption, popular tourist place, radical nationalism.
Strong conceptual artists: Mladen Stilinovic, Sanja Ivekovic, Braco Dimitrijevic, Tomislav Gotovac. Stilinovic work is important for us, particularly his text “Praise to laziness”. We also appreciate the practice of WHW curatorial group.
Another thing that we see is well-developed non-commercial institutional scene. But maybe we are somewhat idealistic.
.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
——————————————————————————————
.
One might say that you are one of several Romanian artists quite present internationally. How did this happen? Was it the strategy of networking that you specially focused on or you were lucky that the West (and the rest) at some point had the particular interest in Romanian up to date art?
V.N: I don’t think I’m that present internationally, but I agree, for a while I have been involved in networking projects but rather locally and anyway, it was never done in a structured way, I never told myself “I must do networking!”. It all happened naturally, mostly coming from my constant need to be in contact and dialogue with artists of my generation. Looking at the way things are at the moment I realize that I am in as good relations with fellow artists from Bulgaria or Poland as with Romanian ones, but I don’t think that makes me present internationally. Otherwise I agree, for some years there might have been an increased interest in Romanian art but I think that in this case, unlike with Romanian Cinema for instance, it has more to do with business and art investment reasons than with interest on Romanian creativity.
You were attending the National University of Arts in Bucharest, Department of Photography and Time-Based Media Arts. You said once that you came there because you wanted Iosif Kiraly, one of the most prominent figures in today’s Romanian contemporary art/photography, to be your tutor. He was the member of the “subREAL group”, rooted in Romanian conceptual art of the 1980s and focused on the new realities of post-Communist Romania, in the same time. Some of the theorists point out this “subREAListic” moment in your photography. Could you describe what those elements in your works are? What is “subREAL” in your photography?
V.N: As a high school student my interest in sciences decreased as my connections to the art high school students and the number of visits to the galleries in Bucharest increased. It was during a period when the National Art Museum in Bucharest did some wonderful retrospectives of Ion Grigorescu, Horia Bernea and Paul Neagu that I came across a subReal catalogue… These were all events that made think more and more about taking on an artistic journey in my life. If at one point I was more interested in cinematography, after studying in the film school for a semester I quickly moved on to the Art University knowing that Kiraly (who was then active within the subReal duo) was teaching in the photography department. I would say that the subReal influences might be visible in my installations rather than my photography. There is always a small provocation, irony and humour but also serious questions that I try to stir up.
Do you see photography as a document for anthropological research i.e. as a tool for documenting changes in urban landscape as representation of changes in social context, or you are looking for something else?
V.N: As years are passing and I look back at my photographs I start to understand more and more the importance of their documentation value. I would say that now more than ever, the everyday photographs that I take are done with a sense of awareness of their future documentary value. Up until a few years ago I wasn’t really thinking of it this way (except for the street art and graffiti photographs I was taking which were for pure documenting reasons), I would just take pictures of the everyday environment I was living in, just as simple daily observations.
When speaking of post-Ceausescu public space in Romania, there is a common observation about exclusion from collective use of space, a sort of „dispossession of the city“. One of the projects by Calin Dan (entitled „Sample city“ in which he walks the city of Bucharest carrying door on his back) shows those discontinuities of the urban tissue, areas that most systematically suffered from the interventions of communist urbanism. How do you perceive your home city today, besides the fact that it has been overtaken by cars (as your DACIA project/Dream of Bucharest shows)?
V.N: After years and years of living in constant fear, in a police and secret polices controlled society, where almost nothing was allowed in public space, now there is a constant feeling of uncertainty when it comes to think to whom the public space belongs to. On one hand there is still a general paranoia about photographing anything from buildings to cars to a piece of graffiti on a wall but on the other hand people go out and fix their cars on the street, bring out chairs and play backgammon listening to their favourite turbo folk songs. One might put a fence in front of their garden or build a contraption to mark a parking space without any approval from the council, or the city council might build a horrendous fountain or bring in some beyond kitsch street sculptures without any consultation of the public, the architectural guild or anybody. In this picture everything is paved with huge billboards advertising anything and everything. There are adverts on buildings, on the pedestrian crossings, on the public transport, on huge led screens, everywhere. It is a total mess which might be extremely inspiring for creative types but a daily torture for the Bucharest citizens.
When you speak about your projects you tend to make a clear distinction between personal artistic projects, and collaborative projects that you do not perceive as artistic. Or, you talk about me and us. We would like to know who constitues the «we», and why do you think that the collaborative projects you’re involved in are not the artistic ones?
V.N: I’m not sure I understand the question. I suppose it depends if there are projects done under 2020.ro umbrella then there were different people involved (Kate Smith, Stefan Tiron, Valentin Chincisan, sometimes Ion Cotenescu and myself) or other common projects but sometimes it can be just a manner of speach, I wouldn’t give that too much importance.
Scoala Generala is one of the collaborative projects you’re involved in. How would you define your role within this project, and could you tell us more about its modus operandi?
V.N: Scoala Generala is a free school based on the model of the free universities in the ‘west’, it involves meeting on every Monday evening where a certain person from within the usual attendees of the school or sometimes a guest (though we never want to make people feel as guests within the school) is giving a lecture, presentation, showing a film or simply proposing an issue for debate. My role is what I would like to be everyone’s role, that of a coordinator and active member of the free school.
You are, quite often, the total producer of your own artistic projects which is in a way a self-sufficient role? How do you define yourself in relation to the curatorial practices, and do you really need a curator?
V.N: Quite often working with do it yourself methods can exclude a curator, (it’s full on diy!) but even if in some of the self produced shows I give the impression I’m totally on my own it is never the case. I could not and would not want to put on a show without talking through the creation / production process with other artists, curators or philosophers. I don’t necessarily see the process as a curatorial one, but a constant dialogue around the works certainly exists before, during and after each show I do. That doesn’t mean I don’t like working with curators, I actually really like it as I see them as an important part in a creative process and for me coming up with a new work from an exchange of ideas with a curator is an ideal situation.
Majority of your works involve the idea of reclaiming the personal (artistic and citizen) space/sphere within the broader public/ideological field. What strategy or urge drives you towards them?
V.N: It’s funny that you say that because for a while I’ve been getting a bit frustrated with my role as an artist as citizen and would prefer to be more focused on the artist as creative person situation rather than the politically/socially/environmentally involved figure. I still think an artist, just like any other person should be socially engaged and a responsible citizen but somehow I get a bit tired of the social and geo political imprint in my art discourse. That is why at the moment I am happy to be away from my usual context in Bucharest and I enjoyed my time away in London and nowadays in Vienna. It gives me the needed distance to disconnect more than just physically and I am also curious to see in what way this will influence my work.
How would you describe the situation in Romanian art nowadays? What are the major preoccupations, structures that support the artistic productions and projects, and how do you position your 2020 Home Gallery towards it?
V.N: 2020 Home Gallery is a closed project, it all ended with the 3 week long performance when I moved in a gallery with my family and we used it in reverse to the situation when we were doing exhibitions in our apartment. The art scene is ever changing… I am happy to see more and more young artists coming from everywhere, after a period of quietness, more new spaces, the former Soros Centre is working again after a few years of inactivity, the contemporary art museum in Bucharest seems to have found a certain rhythm and puts on some good shows but the most interesting situation is in Cluj. Since a few years the art scene in Cluj has called wide international attention especially because of the painters based there. Up until recently the situation was that with all the fuss about Cluj if one had travelled there they would have had good chances to find almost nothing going on. The situation hss changed and now Cluj is the first city in Romania to have an artists’ community working together for a certain goal. All the contemporary art galleries, some artist studios, arts associations, fashion studios etc have all moved on the building of the former paintbrush factory… There is also an auditorium, some offices for the cultural managers running the space but most importantly there is plenty of potential. The initiative is unique, especially as they are all very good galleries and good artists. It’s simply wonderful!
How do you position the project of the ongoing network of home exhibitions within the larger art historical frame?
V.N: 2020 Home Gallery came out more or less from the need to be active as artists at a time where there was almost no interest towards the young art scene. At that time opening up our flat for exhibitions was a very handy solution and we did it without much thinking about the historical situation. Later on I found out that there were some artists in the 60’s who were doing home gallery exhibitions as they were not accepted in the artists’ Union – the only institution that was allowed to do art shows apart from the foreign cultural centers, and also I learned about some home exhibitions and performances done by Lia and Dan Perjovschi. As for the international situation I’m still not so aware of what was or still is happening but I never imagined we were doing something unique. However, I am a big supporter of using every available space, private or public, for dialogue, public expression and the arts. That is why even though 2020 Home Gallery stopped working, I have always supported initiatives of this kind.
You once mentioned that the Romanian Ministry of culture operates in parallel with the Ministry of religious affairs. You were dealing with this kind of issues in your work…
V.N: This is one of the only weird situations in Romania and as far as religion is concerned the most ridiculous thing is that in 2009 when the whole world celebrated the Darwin year, the Romanian authorities proposed the suspension of the evolutionist theories from all the school books. Another amazing thing is the result of a recent study which shows that from 1990 until now there has been build one church every day, not literally but anyhow, imagine the amount of resources spent for that… These are situations that need to be reacted to and challenged one way or another. Whether this should be done through the arts or through proper citizen action is something I ask myself more and more.
an interview with the curator Cristian Nae (Iasi, Romania) on the occasion of the exhibition “While You Were Sleeping” in Student Center Gallery in Zagreb in April 2009. The interview was conducted by Nataša Bodrožić.
.
With the exhibition „While you were sleeping“ in SC gallery, Zagreb audience had a rare chance to have an insight into the Romanian contemporary art scene (although few of the Romanian artists were represented through the projects by the local curators such is WHW (Normalization- Dan Perjovschi, Joanne Richardson) and the very recent Zagreb Salon „The Salon of Revolution“ by curatorial team Majaca/Bago (Mona Vatamanu, Florin Tudor, Ciprian Muresan etc). As you said before, your curatorial conception was based on the choice of younger generation of artists, basically from Iasi (with few exceptions). Can you explain the title of your exhibition, in relation to the tendencies on the art scene/generation you were interested in?
C.N: There is maybe an ironic suggestion in your question which I really didn’t intend – the idea that somehow, a younger generation of artists has occurred unnoticed. In fact, the title of my exhibition, which indeed presented a selection of works by really young artists, referred to a state of what I called ”generalized numbness”, to lack of awareness and participation to the everyday public sphere. It may seem odd to consider this a shift of perspective or interest, since criticality has been in the center of art discussions and production in Romanian art for the last 10 years, I could say. But today it has also become an easy label and comfortable positioning – almost an ideological and void term used to cover up singular projects and give them a sort of immunity and authority. That is precisely why I also wondered if the younger generation of artists, most of them developed around the ”Vector” Association in Iasi and most of them also young students until recently, still relate to such a theme. Are they still interested in such a theme, such as the “sleep of reason” in recent Romanian public sphere? And of course, I also wondered if they approach social content, and relate to questions of intervention and opposition, in a different manner than the older artists and the already established ones. Secondly, nationalist representations and retrospections tend to leave place for a cosmopolitan and globalized discourse. That is also why I was interested if this type of self-questioning is still important for the young generation. The works I have selected are all connected among them by an obvious interest in debating the question of public space from a subjective perspective, and I considered they illustrate a chaotic state of affairs in Romanian society, where a new class of rich people exhibiting sheer economic power is emerging.
As for other aspects of the young artistic scene, I can say that it also shows a great interest in working with subjectivity and intimacy in an expressive, sometimes theatrical way, often using powerful aesthetic devices. I am now more and more interested in this tendency – but this is already a future project.
What constitutes Iasi contemporary art scene? What is its’ specificity, in what relation is it with Bucharest (art scene)?
C.N: I think that the part of the Iasi artistic scene which is visible internationally today was and is still less exposed to commercialism than other Romanian centers, such as Bucharest and Cluj. And that is why it is maybe more closely connected to direct criticism than the polymorphic Bucharest art scene, of which there is, of course, a similar group of artists with similar approaches. Young artists from Iasi are also used to work with low-budget, unlike many of the Bucharest-based ones – and this could also be seen in my exhibition. They have turned this situation into a conceptual choice. As for the already established ones, they grew out of a powerful conceptual expression and social thematic – and they still work with minimal devices, although, they do not necessarily low-budget today, in terms of materials and aesthetic devices used in their works. On the other hand, there is still a profound gap in Iasi between local artists around the Artists Union, practicing traditionalistic modernist painting and sculpture, on the one hand, and those grew out of the oppositional tendency which Vector group represented in the nineties.
As for the relation with Bucharest- I think there are unavoidable connections. Still, Bucharest-based art galleries keep on focusing on Bucharest-based artists.
Recently more people heard about the city of Iasi through the Periferic biennial. It seems that through the last edition (2008) it gained international recognition. Can you tell us something about this particular biennial, its history, subjects who started it, this new strategy that was applied with the choice of Dora Hegy for an artistic director, last year?
C.N: First of all, I think Matei Bejenaru should say more about this. But first, I have to say that I think the international recognition of the Biennal came earlier. Maybe it came with the 7th edition, which followed the first biennial as such, called ”Prophetic Corners” and curated by Anders Kreuger. The choice of Anders Kreuger for the 6th edition already announced the biennial on the European map, and it was indeed a major turning point for the ex-performance festival which grew into an international contemporary art exhibition and then into a biennial.
Secondly, it is very simple to describe ”Periferic” in terms of artistic initiative and its history: it is mainly the work of Matei Bejenaru, and it owes much to his personal charisma and energy. Many people may feel upset by the fact that ”Periferic” always meant, at least in Romania, ”Matei Bejenaru”, like a sort of one-man-institution. But it is due to his personal energy that it grew out in the nineties, first, as a performance festival and then, as a biennial. I think it started out of the acknowledgment of an isolated and peripheral condition of Iasi on the international art scene, despite its cultural importance. Shortly, I think Matei Bejenaru tried to create a platform for fostering artistic interest and critical attitude – which, strangely enough, had a sort of avant-garde look and atmosphere in the late 90’s. But again, he should say more about it… As for the last edition, Dora Hegy certainly succeeded to expand this self-awareness – but I am not entitled to appreciate it. All I can say, as someone who took part of it, is that she is a really great person and a really professional curator.
What is the influence of the Periferic biennial on the local art scene? How is it perceived locally?
C.N: It is hard to discuss this. I only worked as assistant curator for the 7th edition and for the last one, in the mediation team of the biennial, where I collaborated with Catalin Gheorghe in order to create an almost autonomous curatorial/artistic mediation project. So, paradoxically, I cannot tell you much about this, and I can. Strangely, enough, what it is obvious is that the large public is scarcely present and also treated the event as a sort of elitist manifestation. I can also say that the last edition was somehow better in terms of public attending the biennial and approaching it. But I am always sorry to realize that, if this biennial succeeds to be really different from a spectacular event such as the Venice Biennial etc., being open to the public sphere and also free in terms of commercial interests, it also remains somehow “elitist” for the large public.
What are the basic preoccupations of the new generation of Romanian artists, the one you chose for Zagreb show and their colleagues from other parts of Romania? Do their practices present certain continuity in respect to some of the previous generation? Who are their role models?
C.N: I do not think there are role models today anymore, even for the young artists. One can perceive continuity, for instance, in relation to a persistence of documentary practices and intervention. But the major change comes, in my opinion, in respect to a new accent on aestheticism and detached irony in relation to the present, and a more relaxed approach of a ”post-communist condition” they no longer seem to be interested in. Simply, I think they are interested either in subjectivity and intimacy, either in social and political features – like everybody else, isn’t it?
Does the Romanian contemporary art starts after Ceausescu or before? Many people mention the year 2000 as a turning point for Romanian art?
C.N: Well, it depends a lot on how you define the term ”contemporary”. The communist regime and its modernist legacy certainly created artificial history and hierarchy of values, which also isolated Romania a lot on the European art map and in relation to western art history. And it is well known that this also gave birth to the oppositional, “underground” art practices in the eighties. Today, these may become, of course, the starting point for defining “contemporary art” in Romania. But also, we should reevaluate well our modernist legacy. Do we have modernity as such? What type of modernism did we create? How many modernities are there? What comes next, if modernism is really over? As for the 2000, I think I could agree with this year as a turning point only from an institutional point of view.
There were some underground artists who were active even during his totalitarian regime, from Ion Grigorescu to Dan and Lia Perjovschi etc. What is their position today within the (art) society?
C.N: I think they are commonly respected figures, really respected artists – and they deserve this position. These names you quote are among the ones that managed not to get discredited after 1989 – on the contrary. I think it is also their moral integrity and authenticity which helped them achieve the importance they have for Romanian contemporary art today. These are strange values for a market oriented cultural industry. Even though they are also among those names best known internationally, which maybe only highlights their position of leading figures on the international scene. But they are also very different figures and personalities. And I think it is less their ”underground” position in communist times, but rather their authenticity which makes them important today, on the so-called ”local” scene, to which their previous art has contributed, of course, in a significant way.
What is the main specificity of Romanian context today? How do Romanians perceive their new position within the EU? Since there is a relatively short period between 1989 and 2007 (execution of Ceausescu and Ro entering the EU)? What are the basic themes of the day in Romania? How much is the nostalgia for the past present in respect to the general instability of today’s neo- liberal/capitalist/transitional(?) context?
C.N: This is such a difficult question… I think there has been time enough – on the contrary, things are perceived to have changed too slowly. Changes are superficial. And superficiality is, of course, one characteristics of late capitalism, according to Jameson. I also think there is no longer nostalgia of a past. Moreover, we are facing a deeply unstable society, as you said, but I think that the key term here is transition: transition towards what? I think we should better speak about a society which is deeply ”amnesiac”, instead of calling it ”transitional”. The most important problem of Romanian society is corruption and hyper-individualism. There is no past and no future, except for the thinner and thinner group of ”intellectual” or ”cultural” people. That is all.
We were witnessing the boom of the Romanian cinematography in recent couple of years. Does the cinematography treats similar issues as contemporary visual art scene? Do they interrelate?
C.N: Hm, this certainly is a tricky question, since it supposes a comparison between the neo-realistic artistic style of the cinematography and the multiplicity of approaches and styles in the visual arts. For some Romanian artists, the comparison might work broadly speaking, since it is also the observation of society that connects them. But honestly speaking, this happened much more at the beginning of the 2000 than today, where a lot of Romanian artists relate more to the present-day condition and also to themes which are by no means specific to the communist/post-communist condition.
Who would be the most interesting Romanian artists today, in your opinion and what are their basic preoccupations in thematic and ideological sense?
C.N: It is simple and complicated. Shortly, except for Dan Perjovschi, of course, I can quote Ciprian Mureșan who is really keen and subtle in finding deep social issues in the most banal and unusual everyday-life gestures. He works a lot with signs and their power to manipulate as a means of creating reality. Cristian Pogacean, too. Mircea Cantor and Daniel Knorr are among the best-known, active today in various international contexts – but they are Paris or Berlin-based artists. Somehow, all these artists are also all connected to the same thematic interests in relation to the public sphere. Among the Bucharest-based ones, I also find some of Alexandra Croitoru’s projects to be inspiring related to a feminist critique of photography and representation in general, and its power to create identities and effects – but there are a lot I do not have time enough to mention here. Among the Iasi-based ones, Dan Acostioaei and Cezar Lazarescu are also interesting in their humor and keen irony towards absurd practices and habits of Romanian society and the local context. The latter is one of the most underrepresented Romanian artists today, I think, although he has a terrible potential to produce subversive interventions with maximum effect and minimal costs-a sort of ”conceptual efficiency”.
What would be the main art happenings/manifestations in Romania today? Bucharest Biennial position?
C.N: In Cluj, there was until recently Protokoll Gallery, run by Attilla Tordai-S and also Plan B gallery, with very important artists. Then, there is also a Biennial of Young Artists, which is growing bigger in terms of artists and big curatorial names, although it also received several harsh criticisms for its last edition… Bucharest has now an important newly emerged commercial gallery with a non-commercial discourse featuring important Romanian artists, run by Andreiana Mihail. And there is also the Center for Visual Introspection Alina Serban opened last year.
Bucharest Biennial is important too, since it is a major event like any other biennial, isn’t it? And I think it would always be better to discuss and criticize or praise a specific edition, a specific curatorial choice etc. than to discuss an institutional event as such.
You were mentioning some other art scenes active in recent period: Cluj, Bucharest, Sibiu, Iasi… Can we talk about certain polycentrism in the development of the art scene in Romania or this is only SPORADIC, an effort of few enthusiasts? How much does the state recognize contemporary art in Romania? Is it part of the NATIONAL STRATEGY OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT? What is the general situation with funding contemporary art?
C.N: I think Romanian scene is polycentric, too polycentric I should say. As for the State, except for the Romanian Cultural Institute, financing several projects, there is also the MNAC. Art institutions, like galleries and NGO-based initiatives have to hire good cultural managers in order to apply for funding permanently. This takes over the ideological pressure of centralized regime and state funding and turns it towards the commercial sphere. It is nothing special as such, but something new for Romania, indeed.
What does a Romanian curator know about Croatian art scene today and vice versa?
I must confess that have no clue about what do Croatian curators know about the Romanian scene. And also, I have no idea what other Romanian curators know about the Croatian scene. Maybe, to make a joke about the so-called ”tyranny of the curator” in contemporary art, it is better for you to ask what Croatian curators know about Romanian curators and vice versa…
.
While You Were Sleeping curated by Cristian Nae (exhibition detail). SC Gallery, Zagreb 2009.
.
Cristian Nae (b.1979) is a current lecturer at the ‘George Enescu University of Arts, Iasi, Department of Art History and Theory, teaching Aesthetics and Art Theory. He is an editor of ‘Vector-Art and Culture in Context’ Magazine.
