|
|
| A Conversation by the White Curtain Eglė Juocevičiūtė, Jolanta Marcišauskytė-Jurašienė, Danutė Gambickaitė, Art Cirics and Curators About the genesis of the Lithuanian exposition for the Venice Biennale 54th International Art Exhibition | |
 From left: Jolanta Marcišauskytė-Jurašienė, Eglė Juocevičiūtė and Danutė Gambickaitė. Photo from the private archive | |
| Eglė Juocevičiūtė, Jolanta Marcišauskytė-Jurašienė and Danutė Gam-bickaitė are independent art critics and curators based in Vilnius. Once in a while they work together as a team in curating and writing, trying to implement the idea of collective thinking and action. They cooperate with the cultural weekly 7 meno dienos and contemporary art news web-site artnews.lt. Eglė Juocevičiūtė. As Žilvinas Kempinas, who represented Lithuania in the 53rd Venice Biennale put it in an interview couple of months ago, the project Behind the White Curtain of Darius Mikšys is at least a good project in the sense that it serves as a topic for conversation when two Lithuanian artists meet. Even though since the very first participation of Lithuania in 1999, every project elected to represent Lithuania at the Venice Biennale has been a reason for a quarrel, discontent or at least discussion. But the Curtain project aroused a real storm or even a war between the Contemporary Art Centre, the institution curating the project, and the rest of the cultural world, all those who were not connected with putting together the project. It is kind of a paradox, because the main idea of the project is said to have been to incorporate the greater part of the same world. What do you think, is it possible to imagine this project being curated by some other Lithuanian cultural institution and getting a more friendly reception because of that? Jolanta Marcišauskytė-Jurašienė. I think that even if the Mikšys Curtain project had not been curated by this institution, it would anyway be doomed to be doubted and discussed. But in this case, with CAC in the background, the situation is especially acute. There are several reasons for this and they have been discussed in the Lithuanian cultural press several times. Everything about the project is suspect: euphoric and generalized rhetoric through which the aim to present all state-funded art (state as curator) is being postulated, alongside with the leaks of the concept. It came out that not all of the art is welcome – only the works of fine arts, without the applied arts. Moreover, it appeared that the criteria of selection were set not only by the “state”, but also by the organizers of the project. And, of course, the disgusting role of the artist in the eyes of the older generation artists and art lovers – Mikšys does not create anything, he, somehow magician-like, only unveils the work of somebody else for the viewer who picks the work. And still, you can’t deny that it is somehow appealing. Danutė Gambickaitė. Mikšys’ project can’t be separated from the discussion. As a matter of fact, the discussion is the project, or at least a part of it. The project seems like some kind of provocateur-intriguer (I use these terms purposely). This kind of organism is always painful, whatever the situation might be. As we can perceive a knife only because of its sharpness, in the same manner we can perceive Mikšys’ project only because of its ‘intriguer’ character. Jolanta, you use the pronoun doomed. It might have a negative connotation, maybe we can try saying blessed?! It is a blessing to get so much attention, isn’t it? Of course, when you think about the kind of attention, it gets a bit more complicated, but not too much. Any attention feeds (fattens) the gluttonous mouth of the project. I think an ironic attitude towards state-funded art is shown by what you, Jolanta, called “euphoric and generalized rhetoric”. On the other hand, it might not be ironic. After all, it seems to be similar to the situation where somebody criticizes you, but after a minute says that it was just a joke. There’s always criticism left somewhere deep inside this kind of joke. E.J. It is really strange and disappointing that no independent research has been done about the results of state funding so far. Someone invited to the grant award board uses their own insight and intuitional criteria. That way every man and woman of the cultural world separately and intuitively develops cultural policy. The project parodies this kind of research, by inviting artists to participate and suggesting that the author picks the best works from the period when they were receiving a state grant. If the artist decides he/she doesn’t want to be involved, nobody will get to know about their state-funded works. And even if an artist decides to propose his/her works, it might be that they have already sold the best of them to collectors or museums. And of course there were the “forgotten” artists who didn’t get the invitation by email, although they had been awarded a state grant. Those commentators of the project who also see it as a critique of the absence of state cultural policy distinguish four interdependent institutions: the Ministry of Culture, CAC, Lithuanian Artists’ Association and Lithuanian Interdisciplinary Artists’ Association. In their comments, the first one obeys the second one and allows to mock the third. The fourth one, uniting contemporary artists and brought up by the same CAC, almost does not participate in the project, but closely monitors the situation and what will occur. J.M-J. All of these sides, in some sweet and sour kind of way, enjoy monitoring the smouldering situation. The discussion incorporated itself into the project and showed new points of view, even those which perhaps were not predicted by the institution and the artist. Controversy might seem a very positive mantle indeed. But still, what makes me critical about Behind the White Curtain? It is the fact that the author does not disappear fully. With Gilles Deleuze in mind, a game, an experiment is in process, and it seems intriguing. But the final representation or meaning has been foreseen. It makes me suspect that by trying to enlist only the fine arts – mostly modern painting, graphic art, sculpture – into the project, the aim to show state-funded art as provincial art is set. While looking at it in this perspective, the conceptual level fades out and the trivial level of the undercurrent of relations between CAC and the modernists (the artists’ association) reveals itself. The question is, will it be interesting and recognizable for anybody in Venice? D.G. I‘m sure that it will be interesting for somebody, in some aspect. It’s more complicated with the recognition and underlying relations. On the other hand, projects of a similar character, for example Christoph Schlingensief‘s Please Love Austria (Foreigners out! Schlingensiefs Container) in which the national aspect is very important, is experienced better by the locals, but can be understood by others also. If articulated in the proper way, the problem of recognition would partly disappear. The aim of making the project asubjective is, of course, seen in the project in a clear form. But at the moment certain circumstances have occurred that are not controlled, neither by the artist nor by the institution, that is, certain traces of status, which prevents total disappearance of the subject. While looking at the project in a more formal way, it seems that the subject is appositely trying to disappear, but a result is also anticipated (it is inevitable to anticipate some kind of end). So, even though the subject disappears in the project, it is a self-reflective project. Or in other words, the disappearing of the subject leads to self-reflection. Formally thinking, it is not clear if it was anticipated to enlist only modern painting, graphic art, sculpture, but it is unclear only when thinking formally. It was one of the expectations, and it came true. I was talking about the project using human characteristics – intriguer and provocateur. In contemporary art, any negative connotations of these terms fade away and they become positive. There’s something that helps enjoy the project – that it is very alive (human). So alive, pulsating, confusing, that one unconsciously uses human characteristics to describe it. E. J. It is really the charm of relational art – the relation cannot be anything but human and lively. But also there’s always the question of responsibility of the author, even if he/she tries to disappear completely. Maybe that’s the key for the disappearance: the artist himself has to obey the rules which he/she established at the beginning of the project. Not to anticipate the result, but to stay sincere with himself/herself and let the project flow in its own way, even if the artist doesn’t like that way. Mikšys and the CAC, by adding more and more new rules during the project, lost the trust of the participants and the viewers. What makes me a little bit sympathetic to this project is its attitude towards the Venice Biennale as a phenomenon. It is a big and well conceptualized art/world fair, where the work of art might be important, but the way artists and curating institutions use the given public relation possibilities is much more important. And if Lithuania never gets it right in the Eurovision song contest, it almost every time hits it in Venice. Especially with the Nomeda and Gediminas Urbonas Villa Lituania project in 2007, which has already become a classic (public) relational art example in Lithuania. In this sense, sending a relational art project to Venice is a good decision, but closing it with an anticipated result (a simulated performance of representation) is not the best way to do it. J. M-J. On the other hand, tendency to representation doesn’t block the other features of the project. Especially through the representation (there are many ways to think of and qualify it) the most positive features of the project come out: self-reflection and discursiveness. Despite the elimination of the categories of subjectivity and authorship, a conscious looking from the “state” position, Mikšys’ project is self-reflective. In the case of national Lithuanian art, institutional complications, the role of the state, as well as in the case of the Venice Biennale as a phenomenon. Behind the White Curtain in a certain way reflects the Lithuanian “national taste” or the state position and priorities, but also it is a small model of the Biennale. The works at the Venice Biennale are all representative of the condition of art in each country. In this sense the project, bringing all the art of the state to the Biennale, lies somewhere between mocking the Biennale and hyperbolizing its function. D. G. The thought that the Curtain project can be seen as a certain model of the Biennale reached me for the first time through the previously-mentioned Kempinas interview. The artist was considering how relevant the Curtain project might become for a non-Lithuanian viewer. He had this tentative insight about the project as a reference to the Biennale. While the questions of why some are admitted and others are not swim in the mist, the project becomes pure quicksilver. We can think of it as offensive, harmful to health or as a nimble metal which was thought of by alchemists as the First Matter, from which all other metals emerged. The project is open and continuous, and has some alchemy in itself. It is important that we should be able to see a try-out at the CAC for the sake of peace. This way, maybe, the shadow of the sight unseen will be avoided. However, we can make conclusions only after the Biennale. And now we can only participate by talking and try to obtain gold (the golden mean) by changing the quantity and quality of sulphur in the quicksilver. Exposition of the project at the CAC: 15 April – 1 May, 2011 Exposition in Venice: 1 June – 25 September, 2011 | |
| go back | |
