Zagreb Notes
Zagreb Notes is published at the occasion of the exhibition of Minna L. Henriksson in November, 2006 in Galerija Miroslav Kraljevic
Publisher: g-mk | galerija miroslav kraljevic, 2006.
Texts: Minna L. Henriksson, Sezgin Boynik
Design: Damir Gamulin
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Sezgin Boynik
HAPPY TOGETHER
1. Antonio Lauer – Meeting with Antonio Lauer (aka Tomislav Gotovac) was one of the most meaningful experiences for me in Zagreb. Apart from his charismatic personality, straight, but rude vocabulary and very interesting stories, which he told me and Minna L. Henriksson for many hours, the most interesting part of the meeting with Antonio Lauer was the experience that we had with a Croatian police-officer.
Lauer wanted to re-perform to us, especially to the artist from Finland, the ‘Decollages’ by Wolf Vostell. He was interrupted by a waitress working in the café next to the site of the performance. That triggered Lauer’s rude vocabulary, and a big quarrel between the artist and the waitress ended with the intervention of a policeman. Again, after a long discussion, and after the policeman not wanting to believe that the mess on the street, resulting from the cutting of posters off the lamppost, is an art piece, Lauer reminded that he had audience for his artwork, and that one of them is an artist from Finland. Then suddenly the policeman’s attitude changed, and he started to support the artist who made the mess on the street and blame the waitress, who tried to stop it, as one of ‘our hillbillies’ who cannot understand art and modern things. And he was not hiding his ideas about ‘us’ and ‘Europe’. (1)
2. Institution Europe – When Louis Althusser tried to explain his theory of the Ideology Apparatus of the State, he gave an example of how the policeman calls, stops, and asks someone for their identity, and how this is a process of interpellation of subject to ideology.
The experience that we had with the radical performance artist Antonio Lauer and an ordinary policeman made us think that this ideology-apparatus in Croatia is not so rigid and one-way directed as in Althusser’s schema. We came to think that policemen, with all their official state apparatus, are in a very strange situation in Croatia as they are in some kind of work-in-progress structure, always ready to redefine (or interpellate) themselves for the ‘European ideology’. It is close to a situation where one could say that the police and the state are still trying to find their identity, trying to find their place of belonging. In this process, of course, amnesia and invention of traditions are going hand-in-hand with the attempt for the search of belonging.
One of the best interpreters of Althusser and of the materialism of ideology, Slovenian philosopher Rastko Mocnik, has a very interesting theory on institutionalization of nation and ideology. In a very complex manner he is developing a theory of ‘society structured as bricolages’ by Levi-Strauss and showing that the institutions are performing their function of simplifying, or putting to order, all the mess and confusion of interpellation and ‘bricolage-society’. They are materializing ideology, or to put it straight: they are making ideologies work simpler, direct and one-direction. They are cleaning the paradoxes of ideology. (2)
In his very theoretical book, Mocnik tries to explain this process by analyzing a dialectic between two institutions: the ‘Europe’ and the ‘Balkans’. (3) So the confusion of the bricolage of the European or the Balkan identity must be simplified in one institution.
In the same article about the institution of the Balkans, Mocnik gives many examples from the speeches of official representatives and state-spokesmen about this identity confusion, as well as calling for the urgent need to clarify this identity. It is very interesting to see that more than half of the examples are quotations from the Croatian state apparatus. (One of the best example is of Franjo Tuđman’s speech in 1996: ‘We have strong support from United States that Croatia is part of Central Europe, not the Balkans’)
Any visitor to Croatia can easily recognize this paradox of Europe and the Balkans. First of all, people are really allergic towards the concept of the Balkans. At the same time, there are many paradoxes concerning the issue of being European. (4) One doesn’t need to be an expert on the region to understand that people have a certain strange feeling of loosing something Croatian in this process of Europeanization. Even if nobody knows exactly what is this Croatian, which is disappearing, many have already materialized it in the symbol of Ante Gotovina, even some contemporary artists. But as we said before, this process of institutionalization of identity has two effects: one of them is amnesia, and the other one is invention of traditions. Luckily, here we will deal with the latter, the positive one.
3. Network – In the book ‘Leap Into the City’, a publication of the German Federal Foundation’s project ‘Relations’, including seven cities of the so-called post-socialist countries, the section about Zagreb is dealing with collectives. (5)
It is very easy to see how contemporary art and cultural scene of Zagreb is well organized and structured with every initiative, group, movement, event, action, NGO, institution (it is still early to add State to this macro-cosmos) is in a big network. At least this is an impression, which one gets immediately from familiarising with the cultural scene of Zagreb. The questionnaire and article “Working together?”, by the Zagreb based curatorial collective What, How & for Whom (WHW), is trying to draw a line of continuity between the collective practices in the history of contemporary art of Croatia, from Dadaist Zenit, abstract Exat 51, to New Tendencies, group Gorgona, Grupa šestorice Autora (Group of Six Authors), Katedrala, Ego East, Weekend Art etc. With this they are re-reading contemporary art of Croatia through the history of networks and collectives. (6) These groups are the historical collectives, the avant-garde.
But today it seems that contemporary cultural scene of Croatia is nothing but collectives. For example the project ‘Zagreb Cultural Kapital 3000’, which is supported by the ‘Relations’ project and Erste Bank, is gathering the most influential collectives in one big network: BLOK, CDU (Centre for Drama Arts), KONTEJNER, Multimedia Institute, Platforma 9.81, WHW, Bacači Sjenki (Shadow Casters) and Community Art are the members. (7)
4. Happy Together – In the ‘Relations’ book, this new network-phenomenon is called ‘The Second Life of the Collective’. Without exaggerating the situation, we can say that the entire cultural scene is part of this network. Even the music punk underground bands (there is a strong connection between contemporary art and culture happenings with the commercial night clubs like KSET and Močvara), or radical political anarcho-groups are part of this networks (Subverzije had presentations in Mama, and što Čitas anarcho-shop had a book fair in WHW’s Gallery Nova). Everything seems to be in a big network of being together. Even though there is a big difference of the ideological and strategic standpoints between the different actors in the scene, there is one thing common to all of them. (8)
Even the socialist self-managed official institutions of the Yugoslav State, or the Party-collectives, often supported punks with the aim the stabilization of the political radicalism of the youth. We have to ask what is the difference between the Second Collective and the Yugoslav State institutions and what is keeping all of them happy together. After revealing this ‘differance’ of the Second Collective we can deconstruct the network and possibly the ‘real of the institution’. (9)
Difference of this ‘post-alternative’ as Dejan Krsic put it, is strictly ‘economic’. (10) It is a very basic fact that more people together can get more money, and is also more pragmatic in bringing together different knowledge and experiences. That, which is keeping all these groups happy together is the common strategy of cultural policy – a strategy of supporting the activities without being monopolized with one single subject of power. Being more open, dynamic, fast and innovative. This is actually the ‘differance’ of the second collective from the first one. We must keep in my mind that here the first collective refers more to the socialist collectivization than to historical avant-garde collectives. The first collective was, following this logic, more totalitarian, corrupted in one subject of power, discriminatory, elitist, bureaucratic, and more than anything, old-fashioned. The Second Collective is its total opposite: it is progressive, spontaneous, open, non-bureaucratic, non-formal, fast, effective and, of course, liberal. It is in place to say that the Second Collective is turning the mechanicality of the socialist modernist Yugoslavia’s cultural policy upside-down, and towards the post-modern liberal market of the new Croatia. (11)
For that reason, the cultural policy issues on the contemporary art scene in Zagreb are a lot more visible than theoretical discussions about it and probably for the same reason many contemporary art and culture publications in Croatia are among the best designed publications in the region. If the new collective, and the new network, is in construction, it must also have a totally new look. (12) (One of the counter-arguments for the alternative design of Dejan Kršić was that old people cannot read it). (13)
I think that the work for a new sociologist or artist is to make a list of groups or initiatives that are not part of the network. Then we would have the possibility to find out what are the cultural and political criteria for the second collective, or network.
At least there is one initiative that, as far as I know, is not part of any structured and institutionalized network in Croatia. It is a music label called Slušaj Najglasnije (Listen Loudest). Even though – ever since its beginning in 1989 with compilation called ‘Bombing the New York’ – Slušaj Najglasnije is bringing together different bands from different pars of the region (network!), releasing demos of amateur bands (non-bureaucracy and non-formal structure!) from many provincial places (decentralization!) and publishing underground poetry and novels (innovative!) as well as DIY albums (self-management!), it is not part of the network. (14)
The reason why Slušaj Najglasnije is not part of the network is the same as the very reason for the existance of this network. Slušaj Najglasnije’s compilations with all the dirty bands from all the villages in Croatia and ex-Yugoslavia are not suitable for the new look of the new emerging network of urban, European image. It is not a politically correct thing.
5. Anti Turbo-Folk – In the panel discussion about the second life of the collective, the moderator of the discussion, Boris Buden is asking: ‘Whether coincidentally or not, in Croatia a plurality of autonomous, self-organized cultural and artistic collective projects have emerged in parallel with nationalist ‘collectivizing’ of society. How can we understand this paradox?” (15)
This interesting paradox is unfortunately not much discussed in the panel, nor within the critical discourse of the Croatian cultural scene.
Maybe we can say that actually this is not a paradox, but instead, that these are two sides of the same process. It is the process of institutionalization of the cultural sphere of Croatia. As I tried to show before, this new institutionalization has new economy-politics and a definition of cultural policy, which is contrasted to the ‘old’ system, as in more liberal and democratic.
Another construction of this new institution is done through the de-balkanization of Croatia.
Nobody in Croatia would like to hear that their country is Balkanic.
For example, exports from Serbia, as a symbol of the East and the Balkans, are most un-welcomed influences in Croatia. This non-hospitality to Serbia is materialized in musical phenomenon called turbo-folk. Even if the popular culture in Croatia, just like in many countries, and yet-to-be countries, of the region, is enjoying turbo-folk, in Croatia there is also a big anti-campaign against this genre of music. Since this music is uncritically connected and misused in many scholarly articles and books as a tool of politics of Milosevic and uprising of the Balkan nationalism, it is very logical that progressive movements are against this pop-culture, which has many associations also to hillbillies, machismo, corruption, regressive politics, and most importantly to the Balkans. (16)
Now we can somehow understand why Slušaj Najglasnije is not part of the network. Many bands are using punk or hard-core sounds in their music, have a very dirty vocabulary, they are politically non-correct, and they smell of the Balkans. Just to analyze, the band Satan Panonski (Satan from Pannonia), whose albums have all been released by Slušaj Najglasnije, is enough to show this dirty politics. He talks like most of the ultra-nationalist Croatian paramilitary forces did (or even worse); he is macho, simple, rude, and he is Balkan.
Here is the second thesis: the network, with its support of urban, youth oriented and progressive artistic and cultural practice, is helping the creation of institution that will interpellate people of Croatia into a more bright, European, anti-Balkan, rich, liberal, capitalistic and happy collective.
The network is bringing all the anarchists, liberals, artists, state officials, NGO’s, punks, academics and clubbers together against the big evil of the Balkans, called turbo-folk.
6. Methodology – In this text I used the brief experience of research, which I had with the artist from Finland, Minna L. Henriksson, during her artist residency in Zagreb, in spring 2006. My conclusions are drawn from the research, which I did during the two weeks in Zagreb, and from endless talks with the artist.
Also in this text I used the opportunity to write as an ‘artist’; one can easily criticize the conclusions I have made as conspiracy theories, or as theoretical exaggerations, since there is not so much strictly defined theoretical and historical facts regarding the topic. But using this manner of aesthetical thinking, I found the opportunity to say things more directly than all the libraries of pop-academia kitsch tautology could.
(1) “A. Lauer is his new name, which he claims is not an artistic performance, but part of his search for real identity. Tomislav and Gotovac come from his father side, who is from a part in Dalmatia, where there is just ‘sperm and rocks’ and where the feet of men stink. Antonio and Laurens are from his mother’s side, who was from Hungarian aristocratic family.” Sezgin Boynik & Minna Henriksson, Who Is Antonio Lauer?, Muhtelif, no.1, p.3., September 2006, Istanbul
(2) “When we conceptualize structure as ‘collage’ or ‘bricollage’, then the ‘nativistic view’ will fall apart into many different conceptual schemes, ‘programmes’ and discourses which are not so coherent (or appropriate) and for that reason are giving chance to praxis of ‘changing’, transitioning and re-institutionalization.’ Rastko Mocnik, Tri Teorije, CSUb, Beograd, 2004, pg. 178
(3) Rastko Mocnik, Tri Teorije, CSUb, Beograd, 2004.
(4) One of the best articles on this issue is Boris Buden’s text ‘Evropa je Kurva’ from 2000, “Europe is a Whore”, republished in Kaptolski Kolodvor, CSUb, Beograd, 2004
(5) Leap Into the City, editors: Katrin Klingan and Ines Kappert, DuMont Literatur und Kunst Verlag, Cologne, March 2006
(6) It is totally opposite to the Serbian historiography of contemporary art, where discontinuity is more underlined than continuity. For example, Branislav Dimitrijevic’s article on history of video-art in Serbia is titled ‘Intermittent History’.
(7) It might sound sarcastic but, definitely, with the work of this network Zagreb will be cultural capital before the year 3000 (but the question is of what?).
(8) Probably the best example of this is ‘megazine’ 04 (nula četvortka) which was a bulletin for propagating activities of another gigantic network called Clubture, which includes all the above mentioned groups plus some forty other small decentralized groups from everywhere in Croatia. In 04 megazine one can read an article on radical anarchist actions, following an interview with some well-known Croatian scriptwriter, or a review of a very big contemporary art exhibition following an article severely criticizing the whole art system.
(9) The Second Collective has many theories about the network practices, including the works by Manuel Castells, Gilles Deleuze, Antonio Negri, unfortunately Brian Holmes and many other postmodern thinkers.
(10) ‘The Second Life of the Collective’, panel discussion, participants Boris Buden, Dejan Kršić, Tomislav Medak, Ana Dević and Pero Kvesić, in: Leap into the City.
(11) It is not surprise that par excellence primer of ECF (European Cultural Foundation) application form is one that the Multimedia Institute, Zagreb has submitted.
(12) We know from the experience of the history of avant-garde movements in the Soviet Union after the October revolution, that art and culture can be very influential in process of construction of the new state and the new man. But of course in the contemporary history of Croatia a socialist revolution is not the case.
(13) ‘U nekoj Vrsti Ogledala’, interview with Dejan Krsic, Rec magazine, no. 62/8, March 2001, Belgrade.
(14) Listen Loudest is a music label and project of Zdenko Franjic and his friends, which started in early 1987. Until know they have released hundreds of albums of amateur punk, noise, garage, rock ‘n’ roll, hard-core, hip-hop, dub and experimental bands.
(15) Leap into the City, pg. 433
(16) Not only turbo-folk, but also punk and other ’urban’, music bands from Serbia are many times represented in Croatia as the ‘East’. For example, in the free city brochure on cultural events in Zagreb ‘inzg # 21’ April 2006, punk band from Serbia Elekticni Orgazam is announced as band from the ‘East’.
