Spaces of Interpretation
The arbitrarily chosen list of works exhibited during the decade of Miroslav Kraljevic Gallery existence, also presents a history placed on a meta-level, without trying to connect these ‘events’ with any ‘objective’ legend. The free-from-interpretation approach leads to the idea about the existence of ideological interpretations of history, therefore colonization and imperialism which suppose an imagining of space. There is a real space referred to by interpretation, then there is the maneuverable space of theory, and finally the imaginary one. The historiography of art originated as literation 1, therefore the majority of later critics objected to the creative games within new science. Roughly said, that was the time when the instruction about scientific narration began, but after some time this same reasoning changed, since there was a large number of various scripts for the same events.
Hayden White for example, describes history as met fiction 2 and met narration. Similarly an art history methodologist, David Carrier 3, points to a fictionality needed for the introduction of connections between the clear and unlike elements such as an event and a happening on a simple time scale.
Their relation is some kind of causality 4 recognized for a specified professional area, that enables the differentiation of a short story from the mere chronological enumerating.
Yet, the majority of recognizable relations belong to some other discourse of explanation.
“The only discovered … is a formal coherence of historical events and its theories… that carry their ideological implications.’ (Hayden White). Or; ‘The objective history is impossible”. 5 Namely, each is selective and chooses events that are plausible within the chosen narrative frame. And finally, each becomes free in picturing the space onto which it had only been projected. A tactical space is needed for setting up the theory. It is the territory of explanatory manoeuvre. With the passing of time ideologies come out of that specific space and are laid into a fictional one, which only just corresponds to the real one. This one however, will not be carried out, most likely because of the ‘laws’ of reality. 6 Therefore it is not uncommon that descriptions within the terms ‘influence’ and ‘disciple’ are leave behind the parameters of travelling through space.
And yet, it can occasionally be very difficult to discover the differences between the spaces of manoeuverable and imaginary theory.
This situation is also clear with the Miroslav Kraljevic Gallery as an example. Every ideological perspective colonizes the past: through assimilation, destruction or marginalising a previous explanation. Consequently the same events become arranged into new narrative structures with other ‘distant’ events, therefore reshaping the territory of interpretation.
These interpretations can reach very remote standpoints, from the late socialist pro-capitalist theory to Marxist doctrine.
“The existence of the Miroslav Kraljevic Gallery is made possible by the merging of many circumstances: the tradition of spontaneous art exhibitions in the lobby of the company; the local government’s conditions for the building permit which included opening a space within INA-Naftaplin’s headquarters which should be accessible to the citizens; the existence of the improvised exhibition space of the famous ‘Biafra’ art group at the same location; as well as the enthusiasm of INA-Naftaplin employees…” 7. While descending to the fictional territory we can almost feel the fortress of ‘Worker’s Art’, the basements of a big corporation, places for public gatherings of the local population. And yet all of these buildings are placed outside any kind of realistic territory, emancipating the history from its location.
The works of Anna Best select elements for new narrative games within the past frames of the location. The border between the realistic and fictional territories of theory, is also as unclear as it is between history and fairytales. Both depend on a system of belief. And yet, contemporary history is less often exposed to big doubts about the authenticity of the source; the way events happen, the continous passing of time…
The rise of contemporary legends shows the similarity of myth and ‘factual’ short stories, in the same way as their emancipation. Therefore it becomes clear that besides the existing myth of spaces for ‘workers’ art’ there are the facts of the art works of some workers; the myth about the location once used by the Biafra art group. These are separate from the facts about the gallery and the group… Their connection, however, is unclear without the ideology of interpretation.
Moreover, it is clear that there is history and there are histories, and the past of a gallery is offered for new narration of both spaces.
——
1 Plinius, Vasar.
2 or metafictions, for example; Patricia Waugh Metafiction or Linda Hutcheon “historiographic metafiction”
3 D. Carrier: Principles of Art History Writing, University Park and London, Penn State University Press, 1991.
4 Geniuses and disciples, schools and students…
5 Hayden White; The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation
6 Geography taken as science about space, dealing with universal principles of spatial organization and human behviour in space, introducing the ‘absolute’ insight into space as a separated entity that contains its causal powers
7 Branko Franceschi: “Present, Past, Future”
Ana Peraica
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Anna Best
Born 1965. London, UK. Lives and Works in London.
