russPOST-WHAT? NEO-HOW?
IARA BOUBNOVA
|
russPOST-WHAT? NEO-HOW?
IARA BOUBNOVA
|
|
|
That was also the time when Perestroika failed completely, the Soviet Union fell apart and the new Russian art ceased to personify the state. At the same time the new art of the East-European countries liberated itself from the domination of the new Russian art and within the international art world context acquired a quota of exoticism all of its own on an equal basis with the other "exotic" cultures - the new Latin-American, new Chinese, etc. art began to attract relatively equal attention. This was also the time when our common label of approval "post-totalitarian" was substituted by the more politically correct but neutral label - "Eastern European", which is quite incorrect in terms of geography (the East European region might or might not include Russia and/or the former Soviet republics, as well as, the former Yugoslavian republics or the current left-overs from the federation).
Thus, after 1994/5 the second stage of the integration experiment was started. Its main principle is the use of independent possibilities for success by individual artists, curators and critics from the Eastern part of Europe. We in Bulgaria, for instance, are proud of Nedko Solakov (for 1997 alone - 6 one person and 10 group shows abroad) and Luchezar Boyadjiev (for 1997 alone - 4 one person and 8 group shows abroad). The existence of a limited number of artists who are a constant presence on the international art scene is a proof for the scale of these possibilities. For all the rest is left the possibility to fill-up the quota of the international shows within the framework of political correctness. After all, this situation could be described as normal having in mind the interest in contemporary art for the group legitimization (homosexual, Mexicano, feministic, Afro-American, etc.). On the other hand, the "decline of demand" is causing severely conflicting situations within the art world/art of the countries in Eastern Europe. The artists who have succeeded in legitimizing their own identity in the West are usually in their 40-es. Their younger colleagues who have witnessed this cultural infiltration during the process of their own professional "growing up", feel "uninvited" and "unwanted". The ambitions of the younger artists are modelled by the achievements of the previous generation while the opportunities for their realization encounter the new type of isolationism. We shouldn't forget also the practically total absence of infrastructure for contemporary art in most of our countries, the still continuing restrictiveness of the professional information, as well as, the existence of various subjective national/cultural factors such as the psychological chaos and lack of motivation. Unlike many other changes, the change for the better in the attitude of the state towards its own contemporary art didn't happen at all, at least not in Bulgaria. The self-consciousness of the younger artists is the consciousness of total outsiders. As the Moscow art-critic Ekaterina Dyogot cleverly defines the problem - the contemporary art of Eastern Europe is 100% "an agent of the West" in its own countries, an agent though that feels abandoned by his own center. That is where the insults and the humiliations, the frustration and the thirst for revenge come from. |
The experiences of the Russian situation gave birth to the aggressive and terrorist actionism that has already resulted in the media stardom of Alexander Brener and Oleg Kulik. The experiences of the much smaller Bulgarian art scene so far offer two possibilities. The first one is "the return to the traditional values in art", to art that beautifies life, to the saleable art work (in the absence of a legitimate art market!). The popularity of such art within the national borders is reflected in the self-imposed and provincial auto-isolation of culture, accompanied by proud declarations of withstanding the foreign influences. The other one is the absolute orientation towards the West through the copying of strategies and codes, languages and idioms of its own art. It is precisely the life of art that turns out to be in the center of all interests because from the marginal point of view of the young East-European artists its existence is seen as a self-sufficient system with a closed off circle of functioning - something like a new utopia. The young art in Eastern Europe is living through its art-centric period. Sometimes it seems that in spite of the declared choice of another model, the Western art model is viewed as a more developed and better one but still similar to the model that we know from the existence of the socialist system in Bulgaria - as members of the Artists' Union, we are the authors, we are the critics, we are appraising our own art and we are diagnosing/curing our own mistakes, we buy our own art or we don't, as a form of punishment.The young artist himself naturally doesn't want to represent neither the socialist, nor any "post" identity since he/she is convinced that his space, the one of art, is outside of the familiar social realities. Nonetheless, what could be said about the reality of "capitalism"? At the end of the XX century it is impossible to glorify capitalism wholeheartedly. Besides, this would be in opposition to the strategies accepted in contemporary art. What if the problems and contradictions of capitalism are to be analyzed - would the results be compatible with the works of the authors who have been brought up in capitalism's bosom? There is also, of course, the possibility to look closely into specific details and thus to try to make sense of the whole. |
However, such a fragmentary approach would require highly masterful execution and precise, aesthetically pleasing form. But - the masterful form is "by definition" outside of the capabilities and the aspirations of the young art. Thus, a serious contradiction arises between the already appropriated as "ones own" language of art and that which is signified by it. Such art is not capable to represent the unknown social reality and its manifestations. I think it represents the ambitions of its authors about what they would like to be, not about what they actually are. The young East-European artists do not feel they are citizens of their own countries - they feel they are citizens of the art world in the West, as a young colleague of mine once admitted. It could be said that in a paradoxical way the young artists exist in Baudrillard's hyperreality, not in the chaotic and traumatic reality that is surrounding us. The hyperreality is known to be generated with the help of a media mediator and exists as a projection on a screen, while its perception depends on media interpretations, as well as, on the prestige of the media itself. Thus the already mentioned Russian artists Alexander Brener and Oleg Kulik became idols for the entire generation because of their media success, again to quote a young colleague. The so called Sofia "radical artists" think of themselves as a projection of the Brener/Kulik activities. (The action of a fellow artist, for instance, who burned his own paintings in front of the President's Office as a gesture of protest against the state's ignorance for the problems of culture, did not trigger any reaction within the professional community).Is the existing post-experimental/neo-experimental reality in a position to satisfy a question about "neo - how, where and for whom?" In view of the above-described circumstances - there will be no easy answers. The East-European art today refuses to admit its own East-European identity because this, in its view, would be a speculation with the repulsive everyday reality. Because this still is the identity of the looser, of the one that has been outrun and left behind, of the provincial one. I am not talking here about the loss of identity but about the choice to reject any known identity in the hope that it would be possible "to hide" in another one. However, this turns out to be an evidence of provinciality, even of self-inflicted provincialism because there is neither concrete life material to represent, nor is there any possibility to offer a new form/packaging for the world art market. But how is this related to the widespread notion that there is no longer either a center, or a periphery, the proclaimed "there" globalization? This is probably true as far as the creation of forms and meanings is concerned. The problem however, is not only the creation of universally relevant forms and meanings but the creation of a strong context capable not only to accommodate and assimilate outside influences but also to radiate reciprocal energies. |
Obviously the practical solution of this problem is removed in the undetermined future. But the theoretical reflection upon the relation "local - universal" is currently possible more than ever. If, for instance, in the beginning of the 1980-is the problem for the periphery was how to invade the center, now, in the 1990-is when, presumably, there is no more a center, the question is what, after all, are the specific national characteristics of a quite universal art discourse. The "look inside", here and now, is being triggered by the eagerly accepted cosmopolitan nature of the whole cultural situation. The urgent question within the debate about Bulgarian or Eastern-European contemporary art now is: "How art "Made in Bulgaria" is related to art "Made in the World"? Or, to use some "foreign" terminology instead of a metaphor - we would like to find out just how nationally productive is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), just how Bulgarian is the World Bank, etc? In order to find out the solution art, obviously, should not bypass (once again - ironically) the problems of its own society. It has to make an educated choice and bare its responsibilities. In other words, our art will be just as much Bulgarian and East-European as we would be able to make it. And World Art as well. And Good Art as well. Maybe the answer is in the use of the virtual technologies that acknowledge no boundaries and distances. Potentially they could erase all social and economical inequalities and that's why they are particularly attractive for us. Born out of the need to communicate, the virtual space for us is becoming the ideal channel for sending information back and forth. In its turn digital art, as the newest kind of art, is not yet appropriated (excluding the technology for its production) neither by the center nor by the periphery. Now it looks to be relatively democratic and thus giving a chance to the next generations from both West and East, as well as, the rest of the world, to use a common language. That's why the interests of the almost virtual Institute of Contemporary Art-Sofia, of which I am one of the founding members, are focused now on the creation of a Virtual Museum for Contemporary Art (MCA-virtual). There isn't any museum nor private collection of Contemporary Art in Bulgaria. The existing state galleries and museums, for instance, have not been buying art works for the last 10 years at all! We are working on the objective that MCA-virtual will exist as an extended website, as well as, an "upgradable" CD-ROM. Although, a virtual institution of this sort can't possible substitute for a real, physical institution, yet - it can compensate to a large degree for the isolation. For a website can be loaded with any sort of visual information and what's more important, it can be accessed from anywhere in the world!
|
|
Iara Boubnova Curator and critic. Graduated from the Moscow State University, department of Art History. Curated over twenty individual and group shows. Founding member and director of the ICA, Sofia. Lives in Sofia (Bulgaria). |
In other words, in my mind I already split the "period of transition" into two parts. The first stage was related to the feeling of the exceptional experiences that we had accumulated during the time of totalitarianism, the experiences of the socialist culture that we tried to represent sometime from the end of the 1980-es to the middle of the 1990-es. The Eastern European art was visualizing at that time the strategies of survival in the conditions of restrictive ideology. The substance of this art could be defined as simultaneously dramatic and analytical while its identity was being interpreted as regional or historical and group-based with almost equalized internal relations. At this time the real success story was undoubtedly the "splash" made in the West by the so called "actual Soviet art", the Moscow Conceptualism, heated up by Gorbachev's Perestroika. The up-until-recently inofficial Russian art was representing for the West the new character of the state. This success had its purely "quantitative" dimensions - a great number of new artists emerged on the international art scene, many galleries represented their works, the art press was devoting whole series of texts to their art and even private collectors of this specific art began to emerge. But the success had qualitative dimensions as well. I have in mind the definition "Europe Unknown" used by Anda Rottenberg for the title of her show (Krakow, May 1991) - maybe the most important international show of the period. This term was announcing the new art from the formerly socialist countries as a part of the all-European culture. Here, the unfamiliarity of this art, a problem that seemed to be a basic problem at the time, is present as well. The solution of this problem was actually a continuation of the success story mentioned above. The new art of Eastern Europe was represented quite widely in Venice (1991, 1993), Documenta (1992) and the 3rd Istanbul Biennial (1992). I think, however, that the 22nd Sao Paulo Biennial (1994) was of crucial importance in this respect. Thanks to the already established at that time Soros Centers for Contemporary Art-Network, still our only common network, and due largely to the personal efforts of its Executive Director, Suzanne Meszoly, the new East-European art "performed" a massive invasion of the international art scene.