K.Štefančić_Prostor, okružje, društvo - osvrt na hrvatsku skulpturu 90-ih / Space, environment, society - looking back at the Croatian sculpture of 90's more |
20 views |
klaudio πtefanËiÊ prostor, okruæje, druπtvo space, environment, society
osvrt na hrvatsku skulpturu 90-ih looking back at the croatian sculpture of the 90s
t U nezahvalnoj potrazi za prepoznatlji-
l In the evasive search for a recognisable
vim trenutkom poËetka onoga πto sam na poticaj uredniπtva ovog Ëasopisa uvjetno nazvao skulpturom 90-tih, pojava grupe EgoEast i njihov manifestni nastup na 23. salonu mladih 1992. u Zagrebu viπe je nego dobar primjer. U jeku rata pet je mladih umjetnika (Aleksandar IliÊ, Æeljko BoæiËeviÊ, Ivica FraniÊ, Ivana Keser, Davor PaveliÊ) u predgovoru kataloga Salona potaknulo pitanje “identiteta hrvatske umjetnosti” i na izloæbi u UmjetniËkom paviljonu sebi i svojim vrπnjacima, nedavno diplomiranim umjetnicima mahom zagrebaËke Akademije likovnih umjetnosti, rame uz rame postavilo one autore koji su svoju druπtvenu i umjetniËku afirmaciju stekli gotovo 20 godina prije, uglavnom u okviru konceptualnih kretanja 70-tih godina. Izloæbom i tekstovima u katalogu petnaestak se mladih umjetnika programatski obratilo javnosti i pozvalo na umjetniËku tradiciju omeenu s jedne strane konstruktivistiËkim tendencijama, a s druge jedinstvenim iskustvom zagrebaËke Gorgone. To, drugim rijeËima, znaËi da su iz cjeline umjetniËkih kretanja u Hrvatskoj Ëlanovi grupe EgoEast izdvojili one skulptorske radove Ëija je donja granica egzatovsko promiπljanje objekata u kinetiËkom i optiËkom kljuËu, a gornja umjetniËke pojave konceptualnog karaktera.
skulptura kao medij politiËke komunikacije
Postoji nekoliko razloga zbog kojih bi ovaj prikaz trebalo zapoËeti Ëlanovima grupe EgoEast i nekolicina njihovih srodnika koji su se svojim prvim izloæbama pojavili na samom poËetku ovog razdoblja. Jedan od njih svakako je postmodernistiËki prosede koji transparentno objavljuju na spomenutom Salonu mladih. U sredini tradicionalno nepovjerljivoj prema koriπtenju razliËitih umjetniËkih medija, neskrivenom referencijalnoπÊu na druπtvo u cijelosti, njihov istup imao je nesumnjivo velik utjecaj na dobar dio mladih umjetnika. S druge strane, oni na poËetku 90-tih, u vrijeme sve jaËe homogenizacije ratom zaokupljenog druπtva, svojim interesima Ëija se πirina nije zadræavala samo na polju umjetnosti, ponovno aktualiziraju heterogenost umjetniËke djelatnosti, njezin nomadizam i tako u 90-te pronose neka od naËela koja su okupljala umjetnike s poËetka 80-tih (So-
moment in which to place the beginnings of what I have - at the instigation of the editors of this journal - conditionally labelled as the sculpture of the 90s, I have considered the emergence of the group called EgoEast and their manifestation at the Zagreb 23rd Salon of Young Artists held in 1992 as a perfectly good example. In the midst of war, five young artists (Aleksandar IliÊ, Æeljko BoæiËeviÊ, Ivica FraniÊ, Ivana Keser, and Davor PaveliÊ) raised a question in the preface to the Catalogue of the Salon about the “identity of Croatian art”. At the exhibition at the Art Pavilion, they placed themselves and their coevals, recently graduated artists (mostly from the Zagreb Academy of Fine Arts), shoulder to shoulder with those authors who gained their social and artistic affirmation nearly twenty years before, mostly within the context of conceptual movements of the 70s. Through the exhibition and the texts in the catalogue, fifteen young artists programmatically addressed the public, referring to the artistic tradition delineated on one side by constructivist tendencies, and on the other by the unique experience of the Gorgona group from Zagreb. In other words, it meant that the members of the EgoEast group singled out of the totality of artistic movements in Croatia those works of sculpture the lower limit of which was the factual thinking of objects in kinetic and optical keys, while the upper consisted in artistic phenomena of conceptual character.
sculpture as the medium of political communication
There is more than one reason why this presentation should begin with the members of the EgoEast group, as well as with several related artists who appeared at the very beginning of the period with their first exhibitions. One of them is certainly their postmodernist programme, transparently announced at the mentioned Salon of Young Artists. In the environment that is traditionally mistrustful when it comes to the usage of various artistic media that is not concealed by its reference to the society as a whole, their coming out undoubtedly had a great impact on a bunch of young artists. On the other hand, at the beginning of the 90s, during the time of an
sl.1: N. RadiÊ, Konstrukcije / Constructions, detalj / detail, Galerija Galæenica / Galæenica Gallery, Velika Gorica, 1999.
16
1
4
3
2
sl.2: I. Keser, Narator / Narrator, 1992. sl.3: A. IliÊ, Enciklopedija dijaloga / Encyclopaedia of Dialogues, 1992. sl.4: I. FraniÊ, Velika gozba / The Great Feast, 1992. sl.5: Æ. BoæiËeviÊ, Iz arhiva Muzeja brzine / From the Archives of the Speed Museum, 1992. sl.6: D. PaveliÊ, Bez naziva / Untitled, 1991.
t
1
Tihomir Milovac, BoæiËeviÊ, FraniÊ, IliÊ, Keser, PaveliÊ, katalog izloæbe, MSU, Zagreb, 1994.
2 “Mislimo da nije nimalo sluËajno πto smo u vremenu rata, na ovome mjestu, osjetili potrebu uËiniti odmak od naπih individualnih nastupa i prihvatiti se projekta koji πire promiπlja o hrvatskoj umjetnosti. Istovremeno, potaknuti Ëinjenicom da se u posljednjih nekoliko godina u
kiÊ, BijeliÊ, Petercol i drugi). ShvaÊajuÊi skulpturu kao tek jedan od medija kojim svoju postkonceptualnu strategiju mogu viπe - manje uËinkovito razvijati, zapoËeli su izlagati 1991. u Galeriji PM u Zagrebu, predstavivπi se radovima koji su se bavili prvenstveno druπtvenom ulogom i znaËenjem koje emitiraju mediji visoke tehnologi1 je (kompjutor, video, fotografija). Premda su svoje radove na Akademiji likovnih umjetnosti i u Galeriji PM isprva paæljivo prostorno organizirali (BoæiËeviÊ je na godiπnjoj izloæbi Akademije na pod dvorane postavio televizor sa snimkom metle koja mete upravo taj pod; IliÊ je u radu Informativni pult nasuprot velikom uredskom stolu s kompjutorom postavio veliku fotografiju tog istog stola i kompjutora), ozbiljnija im se prilika u smislu artikulacije prostora i pripadajuÊeg mu objekta pruæila tek na Salonu mladih 1992. »lanovi grupe Ivica FraniÊ (1960.), Æeljko BoæiËeviÊ (1965.), Aleksandar IliÊ (1965.) i Davor PaveliÊ (1967.) predstavili su se instalacijama Ëije je zajedniËko ishodiπte bilo u industrijskim predmetima (baËve, fino obraene drvene πipke, æeljezne cijevi, panel ploËe, prometni semafori) i njihovoj hermetiËnoj repetitivnosti. IliÊ je na instalaciji, nazvanoj Enciklopedija dijaloga (1999.) na velikim crvenim baËvama crnom majuskulom napisao pojmove poput Ideja, Kontekst, Paradoks, Dijalog i sliËne Ëesto rabljene rijeËi u razliËitim diskursima. Podi-
increased homogenisation of the society preoccupied by war, their interests, the range of which was not restricted to the field of art, brought back into the focus of attention the heterogeneity of artistic creation and its nomadic nature, thus taking over into the 90s some of the principles that had unified artists since the beginning of the 80s (SokiÊ, BijeliÊ, Petercol, and others). Understanding sculpture merely as one among the media by means of which they could develop their post-conceptual strategy more or less efficiently, they began to exhibit in 1991 at the Gallery PM in Zagreb, introducing themselves through works of art that were primarily about the social role and significance emitted by the media of high technology (computer, video, 1 photography). Even though at the beginning they presented their works very carefully - in the spatial sense - at the Academy of Fine Arts and at the Gallery PM (at the annual exhibition of the Academy, BoæiËeviÊ placed a TV-set on the floor, which showed the video of a broom sweeping that very floor; in his work entitled Information Desk, IliÊ installed a large office desk with a computer, placing opposite to it a large photograph showing that same desk and computer), a more significant opportunity in the sense of articulation of space and the corresponding object was offered to them at the Salon of Young Artists in 1992. Members of the group Ivica FraniÊ (1960), Æeljko BoæiËeviÊ (1965), Aleksandar IliÊ (1965), and Davor PaveliÊ (1967) presented themselves with installations the common source of which were industrial objects (barrels, finely made wooden rods, iron tubes, panel boards, traffic lights) and their hermetic repetitiveness. By inscribing notions like Idea, Context, Paradox, Dialo-
18
t
5
gavπi te baËve na æeljeznu skelu daleko od promatraËa, autor je na prostorno πkrt, ali sugestivan naËin, istaknuo ono iza Ëega se - kao i drugi Ëlanovi grupe - potpisao na 2 poËetku kataloga koji je pratio izloæbu. SliËnim su se oblikovnim konceptima posluæila i ostala trojica umjetnika, referirajuÊi se svojim velikim i nerijetko prijeteÊim instalacijama na sveopÊu druπtvenu kontrolu (PaveliÊ, Bez naziva, 1992.), povijesnu, arhivsku ili komunikacijsku inflaciju pojava i dogaaja (FraniÊ, Velika gozba, 1992.), ili institucionalnu entropiju (BoæiËeviÊ, Iz arhiva Muzeja brzine, 1992.). Æarko Jovanovski (1966.) nije bio formalni Ëlan grupe, ali se na istoj izloæbi predstavio radom koji Êe uz IliÊev rad (Bez naziva, 1993.) predstavljati zakljuËne i najmlae autore na retrospektivi hrvatske skulpture 3 na izloæbi Zentrum Zagreb. Bez naziva Æarka Jovanovskog zapravo je maketa velikih, neantropomorfnih dimenzija koja prikazuje pojavni svijet u istodobnoj izgradnji i razgradnji. Sloæena od umanjenih modela aviona, tenkova, poruπenih kuÊa, vojnika, stabala, dizalica i - kao otklon od uobiËajene trgovinske ponude - neba i oblaka, svojevrsnog nebeskog grada, ova se skulptura moæe gledati u bilo kojem postmodernistiËkom kljuËu, a da pri tome ne gubi na odreenoj angaæiranosti i neskrivenom cinizmu, kako na lokalnoj, tako i na globalnoj razini. Dosljedno svojem nomadskom programu, spomenuti autori, izuzev Ivane Keser (1967.), narednih godina neÊe realizirati svoje ideje u mediju skulpture. Barem ne onoliko koliko bi to u ovaj kratki uvid unijelo neke nove pojave. Meutim, serija radova Ivane Keser pod nazivom Zagaena voda vratila je njezin predmet interesa joπ iz ranih 90-tih - medijsku manipulaciju posredstvom novina kao “najsta-
Hrvatskoj razvija specifiËna umjetniËka scena koju saËinjava petnaestak autora mlae generacije, odluËili smo njihovim predstavljanjem potaknuti pitanje identiteta hrvatske umjetnosti. IzlagaËka djelatnost ovih autora uglavnom je bila vezana uz zagrebaËku Galeriju PM (Proπirenih medija), koja je 80-tih i poËetkom 90-tih godina odigrala vrlo znaËajnu ulogu u okupljanju viπe generacija umjetnika, pa tako i ove najmlae. Æelja nam je bila, ovom izloæbom i katalogom, kroz autorski odabir pruæiti na jednom mjestu podatke, imena, Ëinjenice vaæne za razumijevanje kontinuiteta ovog dijela suvremene hrvatske umjetnosti. UnatoË teπkim okolnostima koje su zadesile Hrvatsku, pa time i organizaciju ove izloæbe, dalje nas je vodilo vjerovanje u nezamjenjivost umjetniËkog dijaloga. Stoga smo mi kao umjetnici njegovo ostvarenje naπli u realizaciji ovog projekta.” EgoEast - hrvatska umjetnost danas, katalog 23. salona mladih, HDLU, Zagreb, 1992.
3 Izloæba je 1994. u organizaciji MSU odræana u Duisburgu (NjemaËka) i prikazala je hrvatsku skulpturu od 1950. do 1990. Kustos izloæbe bio je Æelimir KoπËeviÊ, a od umjetnika zastupljenih u ovom tekstu izlagali su Aleksandar IliÊ i Æarko Jovanovski.
l
1
Tihomir Milovac, BoæiËeviÊ, FraniÊ, IliÊ, Keser, PaveliÊ, exhibition catalogue, MSU, Zagreb, 1994.
6
gue, and other words frequently used in diverse discourses, in black capitals on large red barrels (the installation was entitled Encyclopaedia of Dialogue , 1992), and raising them on an iron scaffold far away from the observer, IliÊ managed to accentuate, in a spatially reduced, but nonetheless suggestive way, what he - together with other members of the group - subscribed to at the beginning of the catalogue accompa2 nying the exhibition. Similar formative concepts were adopted by the other three artists, whose large and often threatening installations referred to the overall social control (PaveliÊ, Untitled, 1992), to the historical, archival, or communicational deflation of phenomena and events (FraniÊ, The Great Feast, 1992), or to the institutional entropy (BoæiËeviÊ, From the Archives of the Museum of Speed, 1992). Æarko Jovanovski (1966) was formally not a member of the group, but he participated at the exhibition with a work that, along with that of IliÊ (Untitled, 1993) represents the final and youngest authors at the retrospective of Croatian sculpture, at the exhibition Zentrum Zagreb . 3 The Untitled by Æarko Jovanovski is actually a scale model of large, non-anthropomorphic dimensions, show-
“We believe that it is by no means accidental that in the times of war, in this place, we felt the need to detach ourselves from our individual presentations and start a project that would consider Croatian art in a more complex way. At the same time, prompted by the fact that in the past few years a specific art scene had developed that comprised fifteen authors of younger generation, we decided to raise the issue of identity of Croatian art by presenting them. The exhibition activity of these authors was mostly linked to the Gallery PM in Zagreb (Galerija proπirenih medija, Gallery of expanded media), which during the 80s and the beginning of the 90s played a very significant role in joining together several generations of artists, including the youngest ones. Our wish was to offer in one place, by means of this exhibition and the catalogue, and through the choice of the artists, all the data, names, and facts that are important for understanding the continuity of this part of contemporary Croatian art. Despite the difficult conditions in which Croatia found itself, which also influenced the organisation of this exhibition, we were helped to go on by our faith in the indispensability of artistic dialogue. Therefore, we found its fulfilment as artists in the realisation of this project.” EgoEast - hrvatska umjetnost danas (EgoEast - Croatian art today), Catalogue of the 23rd Salon of Young Artists, HDLU, Zagreb, 1992.
3
2
The exhibition was held at Duisburg (Germany) in 1994, organised by MSU, and presented Croatian sculpture from 1950 to 1990. The curator of the exhibition was Æelimir KoπËeviÊ, and among the artists mentioned in the present text Aleksandar IliÊ and Æarko Jovanovski were present.
19
7
rijeg” ideoloπkog oruæja - u galerijske prostore Umaga i Zagreba. Na 33. zagrebaËkom salonu 1998. Keser je po podu galerije rasporedila raznobojne i raznolike lavore u kojima su, potopljene u vodu, leæale stranice hrvatskih dnevnih novina. Ova instalacija, jednostavna u artikulaciji galerijskog prostora, a sugestivna u manipulaciji promatraËeva kretanja, zapravo je dio πireg projekta koji se sastoji od izdavanja vlastitih novina, subverzivnih projekata u kojima uobiËajeni prijelom novina Keser naruπava svojim intervencijama - akcija i instalacija izvedenih velikim koliËinama novina na otvorenom ili u zatvorenim galer4 ijskim prostorima. Ako su se umjetnici okupljeni oko grupe EgoEast i 23. salona mladih meu mnoπtvom dogaanja u hrvatskoj suvremenoj umjetnosti uglavnom opredijelili za ona koja su veÊinom odreena konceptualnim pristupom umjetniËkom radu i mediju, jedan se vitalan dio mladih skulptora 90-tih okrenuo konstruktivistiËkoj tradiciji, pokuπavajuÊi meu svojim najboljim predstav20
ing the world of phenomena in simultaneous construction and deconstruction. Composed of tiny models of aeroplanes, tanks, demolished houses, soldiers, trees, cranes, and - as a step aside from the usual market offer - sky and the clouds, a sort of heavenly city, this sculpture could be viewed in any postmodernist key without losing its engagement and unconcealed cynicism, both at the local and the global level. Consistent with their nomadic programme, the mentioned authors would in the following years, except for Ivana Keser (1967), not realise their ideas in the medium of sculpture, at least not to the extent that would introduce new phenomena into this brief survey. However, the series by Ivana Keser entitled Polluted Water brought that what had been the object of her interest since the 90s - the media manipulation by the newspapers as the “oldest” ideological weapon - back into the galleries of Umag and Zagreb. At the 33rd Zagreb Salon in 1998, Keser distributed on the floor buckets of various shapes and colours,
nicima odgovoriti na pitanje πto je skulptura danas i koje su granice njezina fiziËkog i druπtvenog prostiranja. Ova linija hrvatske skulpture 90-tih, u skladu s europskim tendencijama imenovanim “modernizam pos5 lije postmodernizma” , u svojim realizacijama paradoksalno svjedoËi o nemoguÊnosti da se uspostavi druπtveni konsenzus oko toga πto bi trebala biti skulptura. Generacija ovih mladih kipara ostat Êe u granicama kipa kao konstrukcije, kao mentalne i optiËke projekcije, pri Ëemu Êe im se paænja nerijetko s tijela, odnosno objekta u prostoru, usmjeravati prema konceptualnoj umjetniËkoj intervenciji ili sloæenoj prostornoj artikulaciji.
skulptura kao mentalna operacija
–ore JandriÊ (1956.), neπto je stariji od generacije 60-tih koja Ëini najveÊi dio ovoga teksta, ali se njegova afirmacija dogodila upravo 90-tih godina. Izloæivπi na 4. trijenalu hrvatskog kiparstava rad pod jednostavnim nazivom Skulptura (1990.), na samim poËecima svojih nastupa odredio je jedan od parametara meu kojima Êe se njegova skulptura 90-tih kretati. Skulptura je uspravljeni æeljezni i reπetkasti pravokutnik koji sadræi dvije kvadratne æeljezne ploËe, postavljene jedna nasuprot drugoj, i koje u suodnosu s reπetkastim omotaËem pravokutnika mentalno konstruiraju tijelo kocke. Ovako analitiËki razloæena svojstva visoke modernistiËke skulpture (problem volumena, unutraπnjeg i vanjskog prostora, povrπine), osobito one avangardne tradicije, kod JandriÊa su zapravo citati, Ëiji Êe se rjeËnik obogatiti izloæbom u Galeriji Josip RaËiÊ 1995., kad na seriju uglavnom ready made-a (pisaÊi stroj, vaga, πah, protvan i dr.) intervenira natpisom “Ceci n’est pas une sculpture” (Ovo nije skulptura). Takve tautoloπke pojmovne operacije odredit Êe njegovu skulpturu i u razdoblju koje slijedi, osobito u projektu koji je u istoj galeriji realizirao 2000. godine. PolazeÊi od Ëovjekova problema percepcije pojavnog svijeta, i osobito od percepcijske navike trodimenzionalnog shvaÊanja pojava u prostoru, JandriÊ je svojom instalacijom pokrenuo niz problema s kojima se suoËavamo u pokuπaju razgraniËenja izmeu svijeta povrπine, tj. slike, i svijeta prostora, odnosno skulpture, te stvorio promiπljenu cjelinu “mental6 no aktiviranih radova” u kojoj se suvremena skulptura joπ jednom pokazala kao po-
in which she drenched in water pages from Croatian daily newspapers. This installation, simple in its articulation within the gallery space and nonetheless suggestive in its manipulation of the observer’s movement, was actually part of a larger project, consisting in publishing a private newspaper and subversive projects in which Keser was deconstructing the usual newspaper format by interventions, actions, and installations performed with large quantities of newspapers in the open or in closed gallery 4 spaces. Although artists gathered around the EgoEast group and the 23rd Salon of Young Artists decided, among the very versatile events in Croatian contemporary art, mostly for those determined primarily by their conceptual approach to art and media, a vital part of young sculptors of the 90s turned to the constructivist tradition, with an attempt to answer - by means of their best representatives - the question what is sculpture today and what are the limits of its physical and social scope. This orientation within the Croatian sculpture of the 90s, in accordance with European tendencies labelled as “modernism after postmod5 ernism” , paradoxically testified in its realisations of the impossibility to establish a social consensus about what sculpture is supposed to be. A generation of these young artists would remain within the limits of the sculpture as construction, as mental and optical projection, whereby they would frequently direct their attention from the body, that is, from an object in space, towards conceptual artistic intervention or complex spatial articulation.
8
9
t
Primjerice, The Exhibition of the Local Newspapers, Central Park, New York, 1997.
5 Miπko ©uvakoviÊ, Pojmovnik moderne i postmoderne likovne umetnosti i teorije posle 1950, SANU, Prometej, Beograd, 1999., str.195. 6 Borivoj PopovËak, Metastaze prostora, Moderna galerija, Zagreb, 2000.
4
sculpture as mental operation
–ore JandriÊ (1956) is somewhat older than the generation born in the 60s, which dominates this text, but it was precisely in the 90s that he achieved his affirmation. Having presented a work entitled simply Sculpture (1990), he determined at the very beginning of his public activity one of the parameters within which his sculpture of the 90s would move. The sculpture consisted of a vertical rectangle made of iron bars, containing two square iron boards placed one opposite to the other, which in correlation with the iron-bar mantle of the rectangle mentally constructed the body of the cube. Thus analysed features of a
l
4 For example, The Exhibition of the Local Newspapers, Central Park, New York, 1997.
Miπko ©uvakoviÊ, Pojmovnik moderne i postmoderne likovne umetnosti i teorije posle 1950 (Glossary of modern and postmodern art and theory since 1950), SANU, Prometej, Belgrade, 1999, p.195.
sl.7: Æ. Jovanovski, Bez naslova / Untitled, 1992./93. sl.8: –. JandriÊ, Skulptura / Sculpture, 1990. sl.9: –. JandriÊ, Metastaze prostora / Metastases of Space, 2000.
5
21
11
vijesna konstrukcija ovisna od cjelini umjetniËke djelatnosti i njezina druπtvenog statusa. Gotovo u isto vrijeme na 7. trijenalu hrvatskog kiparstava JandriÊ izlaæe “klasiËno” koncipiranu skulpturu (PjeπËanik, 2000.). RijeË je skulpturi kao samostojeÊem objektu u prostoru, Ëime potvruje πirinu svojeg skulptorskog djelovanja koje se postmodernistiËki suvereno kreÊe od konceptualnih do visokomodernistiËkih tendencija u suvremenoj umjetnosti, ne propuπtajuÊi ozbiljnost pojedinih realizacija nadopuniti duhovitoπÊu i ironijom.
skulptura bez tijela
Od samostojeÊih je objekata u prostoru krenula i Nika RadiÊ (1968.), slaæuÊi svoje skulpture od samostalnih drvenih elemenata, uglavnom Ëetvrtastih sumarno obraenih oblika. U pojedinim radovima (Bez naslova 6, Bez naslova 3, 1993.) Nika RadiÊ posegnula je i za kiparskim postoljem, i to tako πto ga je izvedenog u kamenu ili drvu, neproporcionalno umanjila u odnosu na cjelinu kipa, dopuπtajuÊi nam da cijeli postupak stavimo u parodijski kontekst. DjelomiËno neobraenim drvenim elementima, koji se razliËitim oblicima nastavljaju jedni
10
l
6 Borivoj PopovËak, Metastaze prostora (Metastases of space), Moderna galerija, Zagreb, 2000.
sl.10: N. RadiÊ, Bez naslova IV / Untitled IV, 1995. sl.10: N. RadiÊ, Konstrukcije / Constructions, Galerija Galæenica / Galæenica Gallery, Velika Gorica, 1999.
high modernist sculpture (the problems of volume, inner and outer space, and surface), especially of vanguard tradition, with JandriÊ were actually quotations, the vocabulary of which would be enriched at the exhibition of 1995, in the Josip RaËiÊ Gallery. There he would intervene in a series of mostly ready-mades (typewriter, scale, checkerboard, pan, etc.) with an inscription “Ceci n’est pas une sculpture” (This is no sculpture). Such tautological notional operations would determine his sculpture in the following period as well, especially in the project which he would realise in the same gallery in 2000. Starting from the human problem of the perception of the world of phenomena, especially from the perceptive habit of three-dimensional understanding of objects in space, JandriÊ instigated with his installation a whole range of problems that we face in the attempt to delimit the world of surface - that of painting - and the world of space - that of sculpture - and created a deliberate entity of “mentally activated 6 works of art”, in which the contemporary sculpture once more proved to be a historical construction, dependent on the wholeness of artistic creation and its social status. Almost at the same time, at the 7th
22
na druge principom adicije, ona je oko mentalno zamiπljene osi skulpture gradila ovojnicu Ëija povrπina nije bila kontinuirano prostiranje u prostoru, nego kretanje izlomljeno razliËitim kutovima, odnosno rubovima na kojima su se povrπine drvenih elemenata spajale. Rezultat tako analitiËki zamiπljenog rada u veÊini je sluËajeva bila skulptura otvorenog volumena, skulptura Ëije se postojanje zapravo mjerilo koliËinom proizvedene drvene ovojnice, odnosno povrπine. Dvije godine kasnije u svojim je æeljeznim i velikim skulpturama takav koncept - u Galeriji Forum tek nagovijeπten - dosljedno realizirala kombinirajuÊi neutralne i hrave povrπine velikih i najËeπÊe Ëetverokutnih oblika tankih æeljeznih ploËa. UnatoË izboru materijala proizvela je lake strukture otvorenih volumena, skrivenog tijela i prijeteÊih povrπina koje doslovno sijeku prostor. Iste, 1995. godine, izloæbom u Paviji upustila se prvi puta u cjelovito artikuliranje galerijskog prostora traæeÊi u njemu zakonitosti koje odreuju naπe kretanje i naπ neponovljivi doæivljaj prostora. Kako je sama izjavila tijekom pripreme izloæbe u Galeriji KloviÊevi dvori, Ëini joj se da se u ranim skulpturama, moæda i nesvjesno, bavila upravo prostornim silnicama u strukturi nekog objekta, odnosno utjecajem koji prostorna organizacija moæe imati na okolni prostor i na samog promatraËa. Ideju je u potpunosti ostvarila izloæbama u Galeriji Galæenica (1999.), Galeriji KloviÊevi dvori (2000.) i Galeriji Grita Insam u BeËu (2000.) kada je, slijedeÊi formate zadanog prostora minimalnim intervencijama u jednostavnim materijalima (gipsane ploËe, tepison, najlon) usmjeravala kretanje publike. Izjavom da ju ne zanima proizvodnja 7 umjetniËkih predmeta okrenula se “proπirenom polju” skulpture, a aktualnim planovima, koji bi trebali biti ostvareni ove godine, najavila je da Êe oni biti socijalno referentni.
12
Triennale of Croatian Sculpture, JandriÊ presented a “classically” conceived sculpture (Sandbox, 2000), sculpture as a selfstanding object in space, and thus restated the broad scope of his sculpting creation, which in a post-modernist, self-confident way moved from the conceptual towards the highly modernist tendencies in contemporary art, not failing to complete the seriousness of certain realisations with humour and irony.
sculpture without body
Nika RadiÊ (1968) started likewise from self-standing objects in space and constructed her sculptures out of independent wooden elements, mostly rectangular and briefly treated forms. In certain exhibits (Untitled 6, Untitled 3, 1993), RadiÊ even used a sculpture pedestal, made of stone or wood and disproportionally reduced in size, allowing us in this way to view the entire procedure in the context of parody. Out of partly untreated wooden elements, which were mounted upon each other by principle of addition, RadiÊ created a membrane around the mentally conceived axis of the sculpture, the surface of which was not a continuous expansion in space, but rather a movement broken in different angles or edges, in which the surfaces of wooden elements met. The result of such analytically conceived work was in most cases a sculpture of open volume, a sculpture the existence of which could in fact be measured by the quantity of created wooden mem-
13
skulptura kao nacrt
Svojim je prvim radovima Danijel KovaË (1966.) meu konzervativnijim profesorima na zagrebaËkoj Likovnoj akademiji izazivao nesporazume, kombinirajuÊi u svojim radovima drvo i metal. Po vlastitu priznanju, u formiranju njegova kiparstva najveÊu je ulogu odigrala Nova britanska skulptura i njezina konaËna europska afirmacija krajem 80-tih godina. Potaknut prije
t
7
Klaudio ©tefanËiÊ, Nika RadiÊ, Intervju, katalog izloæbe, Galerija KloviÊevi dvori, Zagreb, 2000.
sl.12: D. KovaË, Roenje / Birth, 1996. sl.13: D. KovaË, Smrt / Death, 1996.
23
svega radovima Richarda Deacona, KovaË je danas veÊ prepoznatljivom upotrebom drva, metala i umjetne koæe ostvario niz skulptura velikih dimenzija kojima je na 5. trijenalu hrvatske skulpture 1994. zasluæio i nagradu. U velikom dijelu kritiËke recepcije KovaËeva rada isticala se svojevrsna 8 kristaliËnost njegovih skulptura. Ta jeziËna figura zapravo dobro upuÊuje na metodu kojom KovaË gradi prostorni oblik. Forma je kod KovaËa, prije svega, precizno usaglaπavanje planova. NaglaπavajuÊi rubove na mjestima spajanja tih planova, KovaË istiËe skulptorsku formu kao zbroj vizura, odnosno slika koje vidimo u prostoru i koje iskustvom naπe percepcije rekonstruiraju
brane, that is, of surface. Two years later, she consistently realised this concept merely announced at Galerija Forum - in her large iron sculptures, combining neutral and rusted surfaces of large and mostly rectangular thin iron boards. Despite the choice of material, she thus produced light structures of open volume, concealed body, and threatening surfaces, that were literally cutting the space. In the same year of 1995, at the exhibition in Pavia, she dared for the first time to articulate the space of the gallery in its entirety, searching for rules that determine our movement and our unique experience of space. As she herself stated during the preparations for the exhi-
14
formu (Voyager, 1994.; Roenje, 1997.). Meutim, KovaËeva osobitost ne leæi samo u tome (sliËnom se metodom sluæila i Nika RadiÊ). Ona je ponajprije u naglaπenoj bipolarnosti tih vizura/slika ostvarenih razliËitom uporabom materijala po pravilu: jedna povrπina, jedan materijal. Tako shvaÊena skulptura rezultira simetriËnim oblicima Ëiji osjeÊaj mase i volumena u pravilu ne prati njihovu veliËinu, pa oni prije lebde, nego πto stoje ili vise. Velika se skulptura Majka
24
bition at Galerija KloviÊevi dvori, it appeared to her that in her early sculptures she might have unconsciously dealt precisely with space forces within the structure of an object, that is, with the impact that the spatial organisation could have upon the surrounding space and the observer himself. This idea was fully realised at her exhibitions at Galerija Galæenica (1999), Galerija KloviÊevi dvori (2000), and Gallery Grita Insam in Vienna (2000), where she
15
zemlja (1997.) nakon galerije svojevremeno preselila u urbani prostor zagrebaËkog Oktogona i na oduπevljenje samog KovaËa okretala oko svoje osi pokrenuta propuhom. U kontekstu hrvatskog kiparstva KovaËeva je uloga neobiËno vaæna jer pokazuje da kiparski oblik - kako ga je shvaÊao visoki modernizam - nije uvijek neometano, neupitno i kontinuirano πirenje planova u trodimenzionalnom prostoru. Gotovo redovita osovljenost tih skulptura i njihova tradicionalna statuarnost samo joπ jaËe potvruju te rezultate (Smrt, 1997.). Te precizne, simetriËne i zatvorene skulpture imaju volumen, ali je on, kao i masa, uspjeπno neutraliziran binarnom izmjenom planova koji se u svojoj materijalnoj egzistenciji (drvo, lim, umjetna koæa) istodobno paradoksalno slaæu i latentno potiru. KovaË je izloæbom u mraËnom podrumskom prostoru Galerije KloviÊevi dvori (2000.) oprezno proπirio prostor svog izraæavanja. Posegnuo je za novim materijalom (ugljen) i pristao na jaËu ambijentaliziranost svoga rada (do tada su njegove skulpture prema razliËitim prostorima bile priliËno indiferentne; uostalom, kao i prema promatraËu) dajuÊi mu neskrivena simboliËka, pa i aktualna druπtvena znaËenja.
followed the formats of given space with minimal interventions in simple materials (plaster boards, pieces of wall-to-wall carpet, nylon), directing in this way the movements of the visitors. With her statement that she was not interested in the produc7 tion of artistic objects, she turned to the “expanded field” of sculpture, and regarding her future plans, to be realised this year, she announced that they would have social reference.
sculpture as Plan
16
grafiËari u prostoru
Tijekom 90-tih hrvatsku umjetniËku scenu obogatila je grupa mladih umjetnika, uglavnom vezana za tzv. Pedagoπki odjel zagrebaËke Akademije likovnih umjetnosti,
With his early works, Danijel KovaË (1966) caused confusion among the more conservative professors at the Zagreb Academy of Fine Arts by combining wood and metal. According to his own statement, the main role in the formation of his sculpture was played by the New British Sculpture and its eventual European affirmation at the end of the 80s. Inspired above all by the work of Richard Deacon, KovaË has become known for his recognisable use of wood, metal and artificial leather, creating a series of large-dimensioned sculptures which earned him a reward at the 5th Triennale of Croatian Sculpture in 1994. A large part of critical reception of KovaË’s work placed an accent 8 on the certain crystal quality of his sculptures. As a matter of fact, this figure of expression describes very well the method by which KovaË builds spatial form. The form consists for him above all in the pre-
t
8 Marina Viculin, Tranzicije Danijela KovaËa, Galerija KloviÊevi dvori, Zagreb, 2000.
l
Klaudio ©tefanËiÊ, Nika RadiÊ, Intervju (Interview), exhibition catalogue, Galerija KloviÊevi dvori, Zagreb, 2000. Marina Viculin, Tranzicije Danijela KovaËa, Galerija KloviÊevi dvori, Zagreb, 2000.
8
7
sl.14: I. Franke, Povrπina / Surface, 1999. sl.15: S. Majkus, Bez naziva / Untitled, Galerija KloviÊevi dvori / KloviÊevi dvori Gallery, Zagreb 2000. sl.16: S. Majkus, Superior, 1996.
25
17
odnosno za klasu koju na grafiËkom odsjeku dræi Miroslav ©utej. Iako grafiËari po obrazovanju, nekoliko je njih osvojilo javnost i kritiku svojim radovima koji su prelazili uske granice medija koje im je πkolovanje nametalo i suvereno se nametnuli na gotovo svim podruËjima umjetniËkog djelovanja, pa tako i na podruËju prostornog izraæavanja, odnosno skulpture. Kritika je njihovo djelovanje doËekala s neskrivenom podrπkom, a u opisu njihova djelovanja posegnula za sintagmom koja kao metafora viπe prikriva nego πto otkriva neka
cise co-ordination of planes. Accentuating edges in places where these planes come together, KovaË stresses the form of sculpture as a result of the addition of perceptions, that is, images that we see in space and that reconstruct the form with the help of our experience (Voyager, 1994; Birth, 1997). However, KovaË’s speciality does not end there (similar method was used by Nika RadiÊ). It consists primarily in the accentuated bipolarity of these perceptions/images realised through diverse uses of materials, according to the rule: one surface, one material. The sculpture understood in this way results in symmetric shapes, and the perception of their mass and volume as a rule does not correspond to their size, with the result that they float rather than stand or hang. The large sculpture Mother Earth (1997) was moved from the gallery to the urban space of the Oktogon passage in Zagreb, where it turned along its axis moved by air current, to the great delight of its author. In the context of Croatian sculpture, KovaË’s role is of extraordinary importance, since it shows that the form of sculpture - such as understood by high modernism - is not always the undisturbed, unquestioned and continued expansion of planes in three-dimensional space. The almost regular verticality of these sculptures and their traditional statue-like quality only help to accentuate these results (Death, 1997). These precise, symmetrical and closed sculptures possess volume, but this volume is, same as the mass, successfully neutralised through binary exchange of planes, which in their material existence (wood, tin, artificial leather) paradoxically harmonise and latently annihilate each other at the same time. With his exhibition in the dark cellar space of Galerija KloviÊevi dvori (2000), KovaË cautiously expanded the space of his expression. He adopted a new material (charcoal) and agreed to a greater ambience quality of his art (up to that moment, his sculptures were rather indifferent to differences in space, same as to the observer), which was thereby assigned unconcealed symbolic and also actual social meanings.
graphic artists in space
During the 90s, Croatian art scene was enriched by a group of young artists, mostly linked to the so-called Pedagogy Depart-
26
obiljeæja njihove umjetnosti. “Oprostoreni crteæ”, kako se Ëesto opisivao njihov rad, kao stilska figura, naime, upuÊuje tek na instalaciju u prostoru izvedenu jednoobraznim sredstvima (konopac, flaks, papir, prozirne folije, parafin i sl.), ali ne govori puno o prirodi odnosa izmeu zadanog prostora i izvedenoga rada. U naËelu, rijeË je o vrlo promiπljenim i precizno izvedenim intervencijama u zadanom prostoru Ëiji transparentni volumeni i ambivalentne, lebdeÊe forme - Ëesto na granici paroksizma - skreÊu pozornost na prostorne uvjete (arhitektonski prostor, svjetlo, moguÊnost kretanja i sl.) u kojima se konkretna intervencija dogaa i bez kojih ona zapravo ne bi bila moguÊa. Takav ambijentalni predznak svojstven je radovima Ivane Franke (1973.), a neπto se rjee, fleksibilnije i uglavnom u posljednje vrijeme, pojavljuje i u radovima Mirjane Vodopije (1963.) i Siniπe Majkusa (1962.), 9 takoer ©utejevih studenata. ZajedniËki nazivnik u radovima ovo troje umjetnika ne leæi toliko u naËinu artikulacije galerijskog prostora (Vodopijini objekti su transportabilni, dok su ambijenti Ivane Franke pravi primjeri site specific rada), koliko u odnosu prema statici forme, odnosno skulpture. Kolokvijalno govoreÊi - radovi ovih umjetnika ne stoje, veÊ vise u prostoru. Takvo izbjegavanje podne osovljenosti odreene forme u prostoru nesumnjivo je antikiparsko i vjerojatno ne bi bilo moguÊe bez utjecaja πkolovanja na grafiËkom odjelu zagrebaËke Akademije. Drugo, i ne manje bitno zajedniËko svojstvo Mirjane Vodopije, Ivane Franke i Siniπe Majkusa, jest odnos prema materijalu. Materijal koji koriste industrijski je proizveden materijal Ëija svojstva ne zadræavaju paænju na sebi ili na svojoj specifiËnoj obraenosti, veÊ svojom jednoobraznoπÊu (æica, flaks, prozirna tkanina i 10 sl.) i repetitivnoπÊu usmjeravaju naπ doæivljaj na podruËje koje ne leæi iskljuËivo u granicama neke forme ili intervencije. To podruËje zapravo je sâm prostor u kojem se izloæba ostvaruje - Ivana Franke naziva ga formatom - i premda je on uglavnom galerijski, dakle institucionalan, shvaÊen je prije kao fizikalni fenomen, nego kao druπtveni 11 okvir. Svjetlo je kljuËni materijal u radovima Mirjane Vodopije; ono je kao element najËeπÊe konkretni, nerijetko skriveni dio 12 njezinih luminoobjekata, a drugaËije nije ni s radovima Franke i Majkusa, buduÊi da veliki dio svoje ambijentalnosti duguju upravo svjetlosnoj artikulaciji. Meutim, nije dovoljno precizno reÊi da doæivljaj nji-
ment of the Zagreb Academy of Fine Arts, that is, to the direction at the Graphic Department held by Miroslav ©utej. Even though they were graphic artists by training, some of them conquered both the public and the critics with their art, which surpassed the narrow limitations of the medium imposed by their schooling, and selfconfidently asserted themselves in almost all areas of artistic achievement, among others that of spatial expression, that is sculpture. Critics greeted their activity with overt support and used in describing their work a syntagm that, as a metaphor, rather concealed than revealed certain features of their art. “Drawing turned spatial”, as their work was frequently described, as a figure of style implied merely an installation in space performed by one-sided means (rope, nylon, paper, cellophane, paraffin, etc.), but did not say much about the nature of relationships between the given space and the created work of art. In principle, these are very deliberate and precisely realised interventions in the given space, the transparent volumes and ambivalent, floating forms of which - often bordering with paroxysm - draw attention to the space conditions (architectural space, light, possibilities of movements, etc.) in which the proper intervention is taking place and without which it would in fact be impossible. Such mark of ambience is characteristic for the art of Ivana Franke (1973) and is also present, although somewhat more rarely, more flexibly and mostly since recently, in that of Mirjana Vodopija (1963) and Siniπa Majkus 9 (1962), likewise students of ©utej. The common denominator of the work of these three artists is not the way they articulate the gallery space (Vodopija’s objects are portable, whereas the ambiences of Franke are proper examples of site specific work), but rather the relationship between the static of form, that is sculpture. Colloquially speaking - the works of these artists do not stand, but hang in space. Such evasion of perpendicular fastening to the floor is undoubtedly counter-sculpture and would probably be impossible without the influence of training at the Graphic Department of the Zagreb Academy. The second and equally important common feature of Vodopija, Franke, and Majkus is their relationship towards material. The material they are using is industrially transformed and its features do not draw attention to themselves or to the specific type of their
t
9 Osobito je zanimljiva izloæba Siniπe Majkusa u Galeriji KloviÊevi dvori 2000. godine, na kojoj je niz veÊ gotovih æiËanih konstrukcija-objekata prilagodio prostoru podruma.
Ivana Franke je u svojim ambijentima koristila neupadljive i gotovo beznaËajne, nekiparske materijale. Tako je u Galeriji SC u Zagrebu 1998. cijeli ambijent naËinila od tankog bijelog konopca i konveksnih ploËica parafina, a godinu dana kasnije u Galeriji Galæenica u Velikoj Gorici upotrijebila je samo ribiËki najlon i pravokutne komadiÊe bijelog papira. Majkus veÊ godinama koristi armaturnu tanku æicu Ëiji su kilometri duæine obraeni identiËno i gotovo strojno. Na spomenutoj izloæbi u GKD cijeli je ambijent rijeπio samo s tako obraenom æicom. Precizna i potpuno impersonalna izvedba Vodopijinih radova sastavljenih od skrivene konstrukcije, malih elektriËnih sklopova i industrijskih materijala (svila, prozirna folija itd.), nerijetko podvrgnutih mehaniËkoj tehnici klasiËnog ili digitalnog tiska, upuÊuje na isto.
11 Najava izloæbe Ivane Franke u organizaciji MSU, koja bi se krajem 2002. u neposrednoj blizini muzejske zgrade trebala po prvi puta odræati na otvorenom, svjedoËi o irelevantnosti druπtvenog znaËenja prostora u kojem je ambijent izveden. 12
10
Branko Franceschi, Intervju s Mirjanom Vodopijom, katalog izloæbe, Galerija Galæenica, Velika Gorica, 2000.
l
Of special interest is the exhibition of Siniπa Majkus at the Galerija KloviÊevi dvori in 2000, for which he adapted a series of ready-made wire constructions-objects to the cellar space.
9
sl.17: M. Vodopija, Praskozorje / Dawn, 1990.
27
hovih radova leæi iskljuËivo u domeni vizualnog aparata. Naprotiv. Prostorne intervencije Ivane Franke, Siniπe Majkusa i donekle Mirjane Vodopije osvjeπtavaju, odnosno materijaliziraju arhitektonske zadatosti odreenog prostora sloæenim suodnosom izmeu galerijskog prostora, svjetla, upotrijebljenog materijala i promatraËa, u kojem nam ruka, odnosno taktilnost 13 potencirana u skulpturi 80-tih godina - ne govori niπta, oko nedovoljno, a tijelo kao cjeloviti instrument percepcije svakog, pa i umjetniËkog prostora, zapravo sve. Iskustvo skulpture ovdje se gotovo izjednaËilo s iskustvom arhitektonskog prostora. Ukratko, upotrijebljeni materijali, njihova industrijska uobliËenost, naËelo repeticije, nedefinirane forme transparentnih ili nepostojeÊih volumena i izbjegavanje zakona gravitacije, temeljna su svojstva ovih radova. U osnovi ta su svojstva tranzicijska, buduÊi da uvijek upuÊuju na neπto drugo, neπto πto na prvi pogled nije dio njih samih. U tom smislu nije samo izbor materijala medij koji usmjerava paænju, primjerice na svjetlo kako to dobro primjeÊuje Igor Siddiqui povodom izloæbe Ivane Franke u njujorπkom 14 P.S.1 - nego je i sama skulptura shvaÊena kao medij, kao posrednik izmeu umjetnika, promatraËa i prostora.
kip ili prema tijelu
Joπ je 1997. mladi splitski kipar Loren ÆivkoviÊ Kuljiπ (1973.) razlagao oblike u kljuËu modernistiËke samoanalize, nastupivπi na 6. trijenalu hrvatskog kiparstva sa skulpturom Ptica (1997.), Ëije su dramatiËno supostavljene autonomne æeljezne plohe u prostoru gradile krhku strukturu svojih odnosa. Kulminacija oËitom zaokupljenoπÊu kiparskog medija i svojevrsna katarza u traæenju uporiπta u njegovoj tradiciji jest skulptura KomadiÊ protoka (1999.) Ëija je duhovita interpretacija tradicije prepoznata i nagraena na 7. trijenalu hrvatskog kiparstva. Nizom neskrivenih referenci na kontekst umjetniËkog πkolstva i tradiciju europskog kiparstva prilagoenu hrvatskim prilikama (od Fernkorna do KoæariÊa) ÆivkoviÊ Kuljiπ doπao je do kipa kao promiπljene prostorne i povijesne forme Ëiji se dispartni korijeni, ne bez ironije, uspjeπno slaæu u
transformation, but rather to their simplicity (wire, nylon thread, transparent fabric, 10 etc.), and direct our perception through their repetitiveness to the area which does not lie exclusively within the boundaries of some form or intervention. This area is actually the very space in which the exhibition is being realised - Franke calls it the format - and even though this space is mostly a gallery, that is, institutional space, it is conceived as a physical phenomenon rather 11 than a social framework. Light is the key material in the art of Mirjana Vodopija; as an element, it is most frequently a concrete, often concealed part of her lumino-obje12 cts, and the case is similar with the art of Franke and Majkus, since they owe a great part of their ambience quality precisely to the articulation of light. However, it is not sufficiently precise to say that the perception of their work moves exclusively within the domain of visual apparatus. On the contrary: spatial interventions of Franke, Majkus, and to certain extent of Vodopija, awaken the awareness, that is, they materialise the given architectural elements of particular space by means of complex correlation between the gallery space, light, used material, and the observer, in which our hand, that is, the tactility - intensified in the scul13 pture of the 80s - says nothing, the eye does not tell enough, but the body as a complete instrument of perception of every space, and therefore also of the artistic space, actually tells everything. The perception of sculpture is here almost identified with the perception of architectural space. Briefly speaking, the materials used, their industrial formation, the principle of repetition, the undefined forms of transparent or non-existing volume and the evasion of gravitation laws are the basic features of these works of art. These features are fundamentally transitional, since they always imply something different, something that is at first sight not a part of them. In this sense, it is not only the choice of material which is a medium drawing attention to light, for example - as was rightfully observed by Igor Siddiqui at the occasion of the exhibition of Ivana Franke at P.S.1 in New 14 York - instead, the sculpture itself is understood as a medium, a mediator between the artist, the observer, and space.
28
cjelinu. Tako je drveni sanduk s metalnom πipkom zapravo πkolski pribor na kiparskom odsjeku zagrebaËke Akademije. »etiri granitne kockice na kojima stoji sanduk zapravo su duhovit citat kiparskog postamenta, a vijugavim oblikom crne daske privezane za metalnu πipku referenca su na Fernkornovog JelaËiÊa. Sama pak daska, Ëija se statuarnost ne moæe realizirati bez privezivanja za πipku, svojim oblikom citira tradiciju murovske organiËnosti i podsjeÊa na dio KoæariÊeve Hrpe izloæene na venecijanskom Bijenalu dok samo ime rada priziva u sjeÊanje KoæariÊevu skulpturu IsjeËak rijeke iz 1959. »ini mi se da se isticanje termina kip i tijelo opravdano pojavljuju pri kraju ovog presjeka radovima Pola (1999.), Sadræaj jedne vreÊe (2000.) i Zavezani jezik (1999.). Svi su se dosadaπnji primjeri, bilo postkonceptualnim tretiranjem skulpture (JandriÊ, Keser), bilo udaljavanjem od shvaÊanja kiparstva kao autonomnog objekta u prostoru (RadiÊ, Franke), uklanjali onoj tradiciji kiparskog jezika Ëija abeceda zapoËinje i zavrπava fenomenima taktilnos-
statue or towards the body
As early as 1997, a young artist from Split, Loren ÆivkoviÊ Kuljiπ (1973), deconstructed forms in the key of modernist selfanalysis, presenting himself at the 6th Triennale of Croatian Sculpture with the sculpture entitled Bird (1997), in which autonomous iron surfaces, dramatically counterpoised in space, built a fragile structure of their relationships. The culmination of the obvious preoccupation with the sculpture as medium and a sort of catharsis in search of support within tradition is the sculpture entitled A Particle of Flow, 1999), a witty interpretation of tradition that was recognised and awarded at the 7th Triennale of Croatian Sculpture. Through a series of overt references to the context of artistic education and the tradition of European sculpture, adapted to Croatian circumstances (from Fernkorn to KoæariÊ), ÆivkoviÊ Kuljiπ reached the statue as a deliberate and historical form the disparate roots of which were, not without
t
13
RijeË je o skulpturama malog ili srednjeg formata Ëije su granice dohvatljive, tj. obujmljive osjetilom dodira. Npr. u radovima Peruπka BogdaniÊa, Kuzme KovaËiÊa, Petra BariπiÊa, pa i Slavomira DrinkoviÊa. www.ps1.org/cut/writers/siddiqui/html
14
l
In her ambiences, Franke used non-striking, almost meaningless, non-sculpture materials. Thus, in 1998, at the Galerija SC, she created the entire ambience out of thin white rope and convex paraffin plates, and one year later, at the Galerija Galæenica in Velika Gorica, she used only fishing nylon and small rectangular pieces of white paper. Majkus has for years been using thin armature wire, the kilometres of which have been treated identically, almost industrially. At the mentioned exhibition at GKD, he solved the entire ambience only with wire prepared in this way. The precise and completely impersonal performance of Vodopija’s works of art, composed out of hidden construction, small electric assemblages and industrial materials (silk, cellophane, etc.), which was frequently subjugated to the mechanical technique of classical or digital print, points to the same goal.
11
10
The announcement of the exhibition by Ivana Franke, organised by MSU, that should take place in the end of 2002 in the immediate vicinity of the museum building, for the first time in open air, testifies of the irrelevance of social meaning of space in which the ambience is realised.
12
Branko Franceschi, Intervju s Mirjanom Vodopijom (Interview with Mirjana Vodopija), exhibition catalogue, Galerija Galæenica, Velika Gorica, 2000.
13 These are small or middle-sized sculptures the borders of which are accessible, that is, tangible. Such are, for example, sculptures by Peruπko BogdaniÊ, Kuzma KovaËiÊ, Petar BariπiÊ, and even Slavomir DrinkoviÊ. 14
www.ps1.org/cut/writers/siddiqui/html
sl.18: L. ÆivkoviÊ Kuljiπ, KomadiÊ protoka / Particle of a flow, 1999.
18
29
19
ti i haptiËnosti. »ini mi se da je i u KovaËevu sluËaju, bez obzira na vjernu produkciju skulptura kao “predmeta”, i samim time na haptiËnost koja se uspostavlja u kontaktu s njegovim skulpturama, dominantnija ona tradicija kiparskog modernizma koja je vizualnom aparatu davala apsolutnu prednost u recepciji. U ÆivkoviÊevim kipovima Pola i Zavezani jezik izbor materijala (drvo, juta, spuæva, æeljezo, aluminijska sajla) uspostavlja kip koji viπe nije dohvatljiv samo okom, nego se u sloæenoj interakciji ruke, oka i tijela uspostavlja doæivljaj koji bi u drugom umjetniËkom mediju bio nemo15 guÊ.
umjesto zakljuËka
VeÊini mladih hrvatskih kipara medij skulpture je u jednom trenutku postao upitan kao naËin umjetniËkog izraæavanja i oni su ga na razliËite naËine rjeπavali, tumaËili, a ponekad i potpuno napuπtali. Spomenutim umjetnicima svojstven je prije svega odmak od svake ekspresivnosti, odnosno od onih tendencija koje su u skulpturi vidjele prije svega skriveni æivot unutraπnje forme, Ëije se granice podudaraju s tzv. unutarnjim i emocionalno izraæajnim æivotom neke 16 umjetniËke osobnosti. Taj pomak, zamije30
irony, successfully joined into a whole. Thus, a wooden case with a metal bar was actually part of the school equipment at the Sculpture Department of Zagreb Academy. Four granite cubicles, on which the case rested, were actually a witty quotation of the sculpture pedestal, and the winding shape of the black board tied to the metal bar was a reference to Fernkorn’s JelaËiÊ. And the very board, the statue-like quality of which could not be realised without tying it to the bar, quoted with its shape the tradition of Moore’s organic sculpture and reminded on a part of KoæariÊ’s Heap exhibited at the Biennale of Venice, whereas the very title of the work recalled KoæariÊ’s sculpture Fragment of a River from 1959. It seems to me that in the case of works Half (1999), Contents of a Bag (2000), and The Tied Tongue (1999) the accentuation of the terms statue and body rightfully appear at the end of this overview. All mentioned examples tend towards that tradition of the sculpture language the alphabet of which begins and ends with the phenomena of tactility and palpability, be it by their postconceptual treatment of sculpture (JandriÊ, Keser), be it by their estrangement from the understanding of sculpture as an autonomous object in space (RadiÊ, Franke). It seems to me that even in case of KovaË, notwithstanding his faithful production of sculptures as “objects” and the subsequent palpability established in contact with them, the tradition of figural modernism that gives an absolute priority in reception to the visual apparatus is more dominant. In ÆivkoviÊ’s sculptures Half and The Tied Tongue, the choice of materials (wood, jute, sponge, iron, aluminium cable) creates a statue which is not merely accessible by the eye, but rather by the complex interaction of hand, eye, and body, which generates perception that would be impossible 15 in another art medium.
instead of a conclusion
The majority of young Croatian sculptors at a certain point began to question the medium of sculpture as a means of artistic expression. They solved and interpreted this medium in various ways, sometimes abandoning it altogether. The artists mentioned in this article are specific in the first place because of their detachment from all expressivity, that is, from those tendencies
Êen veÊ u generaciji koja je stasala u 80-im godinama, ovdje je joπ transparentniji, buduÊi da iz danaπnje perspektive radovi nekolicine kipara, poput DrinkoviÊa, BogdaniÊa, KovaËiÊa i drugih, svojim tretmanom materijala na neki naËin slijede i nastavljaju tradiciju murovske mistike materi17 jala. Nasuprot njima, veÊini mladih umjetnika materijal je sredstvo, nikako cilj; dok su umjetnici predstavljeni na izloæbi Druga skulptura joπ nastojali “ukazati na prirodne 18 elementarne osobine izabrane tvari” te tako na tome mogli zasnovati veliki dio svoga rada, generacija 90-tih, pojednostavljeno reËeno, ne koristi, odnosno ne obrauje tvar, nego se sluæi razliËitim materijalima. Otklon od skulptorske prakse koja 19 im je prethodila potvruju i Ëestim odbijanjem da svoje skulpture Ëvrsto osove na zemlju. Takvim tretmanom objekta u prostoru (KovaË, Franke, Majkus, Vodopija) kipari 90-tih zaobilaze veliki dio kiparske tradicije i u tradicionalno konzervativnoj sredini kao πto je hrvatskaœ otvaraju novo polje kiparskog iskustva. Suverenim prelaæenjem iz jednog stanja pojavnosti u drugo, odbijanjem da se meu razliËitim vidovima prostornog, odnosno skulpturalnog izraæavanja povuËe jasna granica (JandriÊ, Vodopija, grupa EgoEast), spomenuti umjetnici negiraju tradicionalno modernistiËko naËelo kipa kao autonomnog i jedinstvenog objekta u prostoru, pri Ëemu pozornost Ëesto usmjeravaju na prostor sam, odnosno na uvjete u kojima se skulptura pojavljuje. Naglaπavanje uvjeta i moguÊnosti kiparskog djelovanja u skulpturama EgoEast-a ili Jovanovskog druπtvenog je, pa i politiËkog karaktera, dok je u intervencijama Ivane Franke, –ora JandriÊa, Siniπe Majkusa, Nike RadiÊ ili Mirjane Vodopije ono najprije Ëistog, fizikalnog predznaka. I u jednom i u drugom sluËaju promatraË je suoËen sa sloæenim i zahtjevnim prostornim iskustvom koje mijenja njegov doæivljaj objekta, prostora i skulpture kao umjetniËkog medija u cijelosti. t
that view sculpture primarily as the secret life of an inner form, the boundaries of which coincide with the so-called inner and emotionally expressive life of some artistic 16 personality. This shift, noticeable as early as the generation that matured in the 80s, is even more transparent with these artists, since some of them, such as DrinkoviÊ, BogdaniÊ, KovaËiÊ, and others, follow and continue with their treatment of material in some way the tradition of Moorean mysti17 cism of material. Contrary to them, the majority of young artists see material as means, never as end in itself; whereas the artists presented at the exhibition The Other Sculpture still strove to “point to the natural elementary features of the chosen mat18 ter” and could base upon that a great part of their work, the generation of the 90s, to put it simply, does not use, that is, does not treat the matter, but employs various materials. These artists also confirm their turning away from the practice of sculpture that 19 preceded them by their recurrent refusal to base their sculptures firmly upon the ground. By such treatment of object in space, the sculptors of the 90s (KovaË, Franke, Majkus, Vodopija) bypass the main part of sculpture tradition and open a new field of sculpturing experience in a traditionally conservative environment such as Croatia. By their self-confident passage from one state of manifestation into another and the refusal to draw a clear line between diverse aspects of spatial, that is, sculptural expression, the mentioned artists (JandriÊ, Vodopija, the EgoEast group) deny the traditional principle of sculpture as an autonomous and unique object in space, whereby they frequently draw attention to the space itself, to the conditions in which the sculpture is situated. The accent on conditions and possibilities of sculpturing activity in the sculptures of EgoEast or Jovanovski is of social, even political character, while in the interventions of Franke, JandriÊ, Majkus, RadiÊ, or Vodopija it primarily bears the pure, physical mark. In both cases, the observer is faced with a complex and demanding spatial experience, which changes his perception of the object, the space and the sculpture as a complete artistic medium. l
t
15 “Cilj fiziËke neovisnosti skulpture od materijalnih uvjeta kiparskog medija jest u dostizanju najviπeg stupnja vidljivosti, optiËnosti pri πto manjoj skupljenoj upotrebi, tj. izloæenosti taktilnosti. (…) ako je tijelo, onda je vaæna i njegova supstanca, ne arhitektonski konstrukt gradiva, veÊ materija od koje je tijelo.” Tomaæ Brejc, O kiparstvu, Quorum 5/6, Zagreb, 1989. 16
Rosalind E. Krauss, Passages in Modern Sculpture (Tanktotem: Welded Images), MIT Press, 1998.
To je najbolje pokazao niz malih retrospektivnih izloæaba odræanih u Galeriji KloviÊevi dvori 1997. i 1998. Zvonko MakoviÊ, Druga skulptura, predgovor kataloga izloæbe, Galerija Nova, Zagreb, 1981. Jedan od rijetkih resuméa skulptorske produkcije u posljednjih dvadesetak godina bila je izloæba Druga skulptura.
l
15 19 18
17
“The aim of the physical independence of the sculpture from material conditions of the sculpture medium is to reach the highest degree of visibility, opticality, with the least possible total usage, that is, exposure to tactility. (…) if it is the body, then also its substance is of importance, not the architectural construct of the material, but the matter of which the body consists.” Tomaæ Brejc, O kiparstvu (On Sculpture), Quorum 5/6, Zagreb, 1989.
16
Rosalind E. Krauss, Passages in Modern Sculpture (Tanktotem: Welded Images), MIT Press, 1998.
17 This was most clearly shown in a series of small retrospective exhibitions which took place at the Galerija KloviÊevi dvori in 1997 and 1998. 18 Zvonko MakoviÊ, Druga skulptura (The other sculpture), preface to the exhibition catalogue, Galerija Nova, Zagreb, 1981.
Exhibition The Other Sculpture was one of the rare resumés of sculpture production during the past twenty years.
sl.19: L. ÆivkoviÊ Kuljiπ, Pola / Half, 1999.
19
prijevod / translation: Marina Miladinov
≥ Klaudio ©tefanËiÊ - povjesniËar umjetnosti i kustos. Voditelj Galerije Galæenica, Velika Gorica. Klaudio ©tefanËiÊ - art historian and curator. Manager of Galæenica Gallery, Velika Gorica.
31