|
|
| Without regret. Without risk Maija Rudovska, Art Critic, Curator | |
| “It is still unclear whether it was the right decision to write this text in [sic] the moment it was written”1 is how ekaterina degot reflected on her role of getting involved with the european biennial of contemporary art manifesta 10, which the state hermitage museum in st. Petersburg has taken on this year. she declined to get involved in writing about the political significance of russian art for the manifesta 10 catalogue, just as the chto delat (Что делать) artists’ group and Paweł althamer refused to participate in the exhibition due to the annexation of crimea. As pointed out by degot, time will reveal all. but even now one can foresee that this manifesta exhibition will go down in history as the most complicated of them all up till now. this is not due to the artistic content; rather, it is due to the complicated circumstances of its creation and the political background. firstly, the time – the summer of 2013 – when the venue for the exhibition, the hermitage, was decided also coincided with the law issued in russia against gay propaganda. secondly, as the opening month of the exhibition approached, political and military tensions between russia and ukraine arose, tensions that have still not abated. all of these reasons have significantly impacted the course of the biennial, bringing up conflicting views in both international as well as russian art circles. these extend from the idea of cancelling or boycotting the exhibition to suggestions that it should be moved to another city or that a politically active position be taken, that a critical stance be taken against the breaches of human rights currently taking place in russia, the annexation of crimea, propaganda, press censorship and other manipulations in which the country is engaged. however, despite all of the troubles, the biennial’s main curator, kasper könig, and his team have steadfastly continued with the implementation of the event. It should be added that könig’s frequently stated message, that manifesta 10 is taking place because of art and that it is trying to stand apart from the political context, is, however, wrong, because art is a political unity that is not separate from power, political influence and institutional links at the most diverse levels. this event also demonstrates this. “(..) when it is serving the enforcement of western norms, contemporary art shows itself to be anything but ‘free’, and its ‘critical’ stance is always already marked as the expression of specific social relations, regardless of the position which they are claimed,”2 writes helmut draxler in the biennial’s catalogue. To understand what manifesta is and what role it has in the contemporary art context, one has to look into its short history. the international foundation manifesta, an independent non-profit organisation located in amsterdam, is the initiator of the biennial. manifesta began in the early 1990s through the need for art to respond to the situation and circumstances after the cold war and the fall of the berlin wall. the new social, political and cultural environment enticed people to study and find out about the territories that hadn’t previously been accessible to europe. as a consequence, manifesta grew into a nomadic biennial, taking place every two years in a different european city (up till now it has been held in rotterdam, luxembourg, ljubljana, frankfurt, donostia/san sebastian, trentino–south tyrol, murcia and ghent). the role of the biennial, against the background of other large european art exhibitions like the Venice biennial and documenta, has always been more focused on finding out about the art of more marginal european territories, problem zones like eastern europe, the balkans and other geographical regions and to work with new, as yet unknown artists. st. Petersburg and the state hermitage museum, which is celebrating its 250th anniversary, were selected as the venue for manifesta 10. a part of the exhibition is taking place in the recently renovated general staff building, which has been dedicated to modern and contemporary art, and another part takes place in the winter Palace among the works in the museum collection. the programme for the huge event, including the public programme, includes various venues throughout the city. The exhibition in the general staff building begins with tatzu nishi’s work So I only Want to Love Yours (2014) and juan muñoz’s Waiting for Jerry (1991), which is followed by timur novikov’s Horizons and thomas hirschhorn’s abschlag (2014). all of these act as introducers to the exhibition, setting the tone or accent and in their own way providing references to what can be expected later in the exhibition “programme”. hirschhorn’s abschlag – a monumental, architectonic installation that unsettles the general staff building’s interior courtyard’s architectonic composition in both a direct as well as a figurative sense – is visually the most effective. there, a partly demolished façade of a building has been constructed, unveiling a view to komunalkas (communal apartments). as pointed out by the artist, “an entirety, a building or history, remains standing but is faceless, and behind the structure it offers a new view, making the inside parts obvious. ‘hidden spaces’ become visible, and the normally hidden connections shine brightly. the past breaks through; forgotten parts of history come to light again.”3 the artist’s message could be read in both the context of broad historical meaning as well as directly in this exhibition – the internal spread to the external, revealing a not entirely pleasant view of its “organs”: cement blocks, bits of stone, pieces of wallpaper and the remains of furniture. hirschhorn explains this work as a forgotten act in history, showing respect for such russian constructivist artists as kazimir malevich, lyubov Popova, Varvara stepanova, alexander rodchenko and others, although it could also be interpreted as a general reference to russian art, its history and artists, who have experienced being forgotten and, thanks to the cut-off (as used by the artist), are after a time again raised back into the spotlight. Still, despite hirschhorn’s great gesture, it seems that in the context of the overall exhibition, muñoz’s metaphoric and witty work Waiting for Jerry expresses itself much more strikingly. in the small dark space one sees a mouse hole from which a meaningful ray of light shines, while dramatic moments from the very well-known Tom and Jerry cartoon can be heard in the background. it’s clear that something should happen at any moment; as we recall from the cartoon, jerry should emerge from the hole. it is almost a symbolic, archetypical image. but the hole and jerry are incompatible. he doesn’t emerge after all. the viewers search for jerry, in the hole as well as behind the wall, but he’s not there. this work’s similarity with manifesta 10 itself and the peripeteia of its coming about probably doesn’t have to be particularly pointed out – so many words of promise, so many plans that the curator has talked about, so many unrealised hopes, but the outcome is just a hole with a beam of light, a promise from which we expect a miracle to emerge that isn’t really there. Timur novikov, a legend of the russian art scene of the 1980s and 1990s, requires particular attention, as does his student and confrère, Vladislav mamyshev-monroe, who is represented by a wide collection of works at the manifesta 10 exhibition. they are two of the most striking artists from the russian art scene, which, it should be said, except for a few other names, like Pavel Pepperstein, alexandra sukhareva, elena kovylina, ilya orlov and natasha kraevskaya, is not strikingly represented at the biennial. novikov’s and mamyshev-monroe’s names bring to the exhibition the energy that it lacks and the presence of what would have been much more desired, namely, freshness, enthusiasm, love of art and selflessness. at the exhibition we can see novikov’s well-known Horizons series of textile works, in which he tells us about the world order, various cultures, their inhabitants and their habits. the canvases are very simple, even minimalist, often consisting of three or four tones and portraying landscapes with only a few elements, for example, the sun and a hill (The Pyramids, 1989) or a deer and fir trees (The Deer, 2000). the simplicity and accuracy of these artefacts creates the feeling that the window to truth is being revealed to the viewer. finally, the world can be seen in its true beauty. in creating the socalled neoclassicism school, novikov was convinced that art has to be “universal”, meaning “common”; in other words, art has to suit everyone and be simple to understand, lasting and uninfluenced by change, similar to classical art. | |
 Lara Favaretto. Kicking. Detail of installation. View from the Manifesta 10 exhibition. 2014 Publicity photo Courtesy of the artist and Galleria Franco noero, Torino, Italy | |
| The exhibition at the winter Palace reveals quite a different approach in representing the artists than what can be seen at the general staff building. contemporary artworks have found a place among the works of the huge permanent collection, which provide a rich art and cultural heritage covering many centuries; the contemporary works fill individual corners, “pockets” within the space, neutral wall space and so on. the majority of the contemporary art representatives invited to manifesta 10 have created works especially for these conditions and this context, conducting their own discussion and conversation with the hermitage collection. this dialogue may not be directed specifically in the direction of the past and history; the presence of the works can operate on its own, inviting thoughts about the relationship between what’s created today and long ago. as noted by könig, his running into louise bourgeois’ nature Study (1986) during his visit to st. Petersburg – a hybrid, animal-like creature without a head, with paws and a number of breasts; a work that was located between the antique sculptures next to the baroque-era artist giovanni battista Piranesi’s works – was one of the sources of inspiration that later encouraged him to develop the idea of bringing the biennial to the hermitage.4 at the same time, it encouraged him to adopt a playful strategy in his work with modern and contemporary art, exhibiting it in the middle of the hermitage’s collection. in the context of manifesta 10, this is one of the most captivating moments, even though such an approach has in some ways already been used at other biennials; a similar strategy could be seen this year at the berlin biennale, in which its curator, juan a. gaitán, chose the museen dahlem: staatliche museen zu berlin’s permanent exhibition as one of the main parts of the biennial exposition. one almost needs skills worthy of a detective to view the manifesta 10 exposition at the winter Palace. the artworks are arranged over a number of floors with minimal signage as to their location, which leads the viewer willingly or unwillingly throughout the entire collection. it is an interesting and at the same time exhausting experience that offers those interested in contemporary art to unwittingly get to know the richness and brilliance of the hermitage collection during the high tourism season in an obligatory way and, in turn, allows the tourist to unwittingly come into contact with elements of contemporary art and be amazed at its suitability in this environment. here, the contemporary art is revealed quietly and unnoticeably, but this does not mean that it does not remain in the memory. for example, lara favaretto has placed rough cement blocks in the hercules room, where antique greek sculptures from the 4th century bc can be found. they simultaneously contrast with and add to the idealised antique art images, having been placed together with them in equal non-hierarchical positions, thereby seemingly creating a neutral, mutually supporting dialogue with each other. i’d also like to mention yasumasa morimura’s work of art, Hermitage 1941– 2014, which, as its base, has taken works by the soviet-era artists Vera miliutina and Vasily kuchumov, which portray how the museum looked during the second world war, when about one-and-a-half million works of art were removed from its walls. this interplay with a historical event and the museum collection, entering into the spirit of different eras, encourages one to imagine the museum as it was in the “period of crisis” during the war, when the empty painting frames were like ghosts in the museum. morimura emphasises that Hermitage 1941–2014 is about the “visible” and the “invisible”. Francis alÿs’s Lada “Kopeika” Project (2014) is also symbolic. together with his brother he has realised his childhood dream, namely, a road-trip from brussels to st. Petersburg in a LaDa. for young people, the soviet union seemed like an alternative promised land in its otherness. more than 30 years ago, the journey ended halfway, with the car “breaking down” at the german border; this time, however, the travel goal was reached, but with quite a pathetic ending – running into a tree in the courtyard of the winter Palace at the final destination. as the artist points out in the manifesta 10 catalogue, it is “the story of a journey that came to a stop and caught up with the course of history. the crashed car is turned into a shelter for homeless animals (turn the action into a function: ended up in today’s russian reality).”5 it is a great and simple message about the dreams of youth, utopia and the desire for a different world; its realisation in the form of an art project has gained consummation today – the circle has been closed. at the same time, this act, this journey, is a connection between history and today. the LaDa as a symbol of the soviet era, the journey like a dream or a desire for something different and escape; failure as a return and an initiation to prepare for life (reality); a repeated journey with the destination finally being reached as the realisation of a dream, but at a different stage of life. the manifesta 10 public programme, which was created by Polish curator joanna warsza, is worthy of separate attention. as she pointed out in the catalogue, the basic idea for the programme came about by taking the list of train destinations at Vitebsk station as the base.6 this was russia’s first railway station connecting russia with the west. today, too, one can get to tallinn, kiev, kishinev and warsaw from Vitebsk. in choosing destinations in eastern europe on the map, warsza invited Pavel braila (moldova), lado darakhvelidze (georgia/netherlands), alevtina kakhidze (ukraine), deimantas narkevičius (lithuania), kristina norman (estonia), ilya orlov and natasha kraevskaya (russia), alexandra Pirici (rumania), Slavs and Tatars (eurasia) and ragnar kjartansson (iceland) to take part in the project. the list is supplemented by many other artists whose interventions can be episodically encountered in the city. warsza’s project gives more political discourse to manifesta 10 and also brings eastern european art and its complex historical and current relationships with russia to the fore. the public programme with its focus on the relationships between the public and private is able to capture painful and sensitive socio-political, historical and aesthetic issues that have been points of dispute and the causes of intrigue in this region for hundreds of years and in a variety of ways. the invited artists reflect, indirectly or directly, on crisis situations, conflicts, confrontations, resistance and other politically and socially relevant circumstances, mainly in an allegoric or abstract way. warsza’s public programme, in particular, flows into the city and could possibly, by having a quieter voice at times than the biennial’s core exhibition at the hermitage, in this way, satisfy many visitors’ desire to receive politically active, currently topical art from the biennial that is full of reflection and is both complex and artistically captivating in its message. this part of the biennial is also supplemented by manifesta 10’s parallel programme, which includes countless activities organised by various local institutions. as an example, i could mention the Что делать artists’ group event, Between a rock and a Hard Place, which took place during the opening of the biennial and was dedicated to the current ukrainian and russian events. even though the könig-directed manifesta 10 is an exhibition without a manifesto,7 as he himself has pointed out, this obviously does not immediately mean that it is good or bad. however, the complex circumstances in which the biennial has come about and the context that has influenced it this time is not a reason to justify the lack of an overall concept, the fragmentation and the inability to create a mutually communicative and/or synergistic link between the artists and the public. i don’t think it was the fault of the curator’s intuitive method of selection (used by so many curators and artists); rather, it was the desire to introduce an exhibition format that is typical of the west into the russian art environment but being unable to adapt it to local conditions and operate flexibly. an exhibition (or art) doesn’t have to come about in conditions of safety, and, as a consequence, there’s no reason to blame political tensions alone. at the same time, könig’s wish to be liked by the institutionalised “faces”, standards and criteria of western art biennials and great art institutions is obvious. evidence of this is provided by the names of the artists forming the body of manifesta 10, which are known to everyone in the international arena: francis alÿs, marlene dumas, dominique gonzalez-foerster, thomas hirschhorn, bruce nauman, boris mikhailov, gerhard richter, Slavs and Tatars and wolfgang tillmans. the end result is a polite, conformist exhibition that brings up a lot of ideas about how it could have looked, what sort of variations could have been played out, what type of energy could have been built up...but all of that remains at the “what if” level. the curator himself expresses romantic visions about works he wanted to include and the atmosphere that he wanted to create,8 but the exhibition is what it is, lacking a special spark. it seems that up till now no international art biennial has included so many public revelations about missed opportunities as has happened this time with manifesta 10. and once again we have to return to muñoz’s work Waiting for Jerry, which, as i mentioned previously, has most likely, unwittingly, become the biennial’s key work because it characterises the feeling of waiting and promise that is unleashed by this event. however, in getting to know it, it becomes clear that we haven’t encountered jerry. Translator into English: Uldis Brūns 1 degot, ekaterina. a text that should never have been written? available at: www.e-flux. com/journal/a-text-that-should-never-have-been-written/ (accessed on 31.07.2014). 2 draxler, helmut. alienation through history: the partiality of contemporary art. in: manifesta 10: The european Biennial of Contemporary art. ed. by kasper könig. st. Petersburg: the state hermitage museum, 2014, p. 40. 3 thomas hirschhorn. in: manifesta 10, p. 124. 4 könig, kasper, evans, emily joyce. manifesta without a manifesto. in: manifesta 10, p. 24. 5 francis alÿs. in: manifesta 10, p. 168. 6 warsza, joanna. turning unpublic into public. in: manifesta 10, p. 223. 7 könig, kasper, evans, emily joyce. manifesta without a manifesto, p. 24. 8 more: könig, kasper, evans, emily joyce. manifesta without a manifesto, p. 24–31. | |
| go back | |
