|
|
| Farewell to theory? Helēna Demakova The Creative Work of Leonards Laganovskis from the Postmodernist Perspective. | |
| At the time when these lines are being written, our small world of art history has grown by one more monograph - Stella Pelše's precise study about the art theory of the 1920s and 30s. Amongst others, this motivates one to pose questions about the significance of theory in the descriptions of the artistic process in Latvia in the 1990s and early 21st century.
How many theories have been possible overall and how many have been expressed in a particular historical situation? Was Socialist Realism, with which the older generation of art reviewers continued to occupy themselves in the late 1980s, one of the most visible and prevalent art theories because there was a theoretical vacuum? Can the enthusiasm of individual artists for the legacy of Plato and Hegel, for example (Miervalds Polis), and their further interpretation in written form be viewed as a lasting contribution to art theory? It is precisely the historical, ‘eternal' and in many other ways long-term theoretical perspective which becomes problematic, if we wish to oversee the last two decades in Latvia with (impossible) distance. The theoretical clashes which surged in the West since the late 1970s (the most graphic was the polemics between Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jurgen Habermas, although the hermeneutic tradition also continued, which was most notably represented by Hans-Georg Gadamer; at the same time a diverse array of theories, critical of the left, grew out of the Frankfurt school, as well as the studies of psycho- analysis, semiotics, chaos and social phenomena) did not reach Latvia. In terms of theory we have continued to exist as pragmatic and poetic Latvians, and this is best expressed by a number of sentences in the introduction to the excellent monograph by Eduards Kļaviņš, "Joe", about Jāzeps Grosvalds, the pronounced artist of the early 20th century: "In place of biased simplifications the author of the book has strived to analyse the illustrative material as artistic phenomena, that is, explaining their aesthetic functions, rather than considering these as illustrations of general culture or political history, although in Grosvalds' case (particularly in relation to the refugee and riflemen series) this could be tempting."1 However, the most often invoked notion in art criticism becomes apparent when performing not even one hundredth of the pedantic research that has been undertaken by Stella Pelše: it is ‘Postmodernism'. This concept has also infiltrated the language of the mass media - unlike more marginally-used postulates such as some of the theoretical expressions from the Western left political activism (Kaspars Vanags, Rasa and Raitis Šmits, Ilze Strazdiņa and others have written about this). In turn, Postmodernism was already being invoked in the late 1980s by one of the most prominent painting theorists of that time, Aleksis Osmanis: "If we believe the assumption expressed by the semiotician and writer Umberto Eco, that Postmodernism is a name for Mannerism as metahistorical category, then a lot becomes clearer also in Latvian painting. Without a doubt, it is difficult to speak about Postmodernism in a society which has never had Modernism."2 And further: "Real avant-garde art is socially active, it wishes to gain the recognition of the public, even if it is rejected, while Postmodernism tortures itself with deep-thinking nostalgia."3 To continue to put off focussing on Postmodernism - the general phenomenom, demanding serious studies in contemporary Latvian art, centres on two broad, general attitudes. The first can be described using the conclusion by artist and professor at the Latvian Academy of Art, Ojārs Pētersons, made at the end of the 1990s, that "art has regained consciousness, and found its place in real life"4, therefore, as is said by his student Mārtiņš Ratniks: "The border between art and that which is something else is disappearing. The resampling method rules the current process. Collaboration with workers from other fields is important - inventors/politicians/policemen and others. Art can be created by a neurosurgeon/programmer or hacker/librarian and others."5 The other attitude is apparently rooted in ‘idealistic' assumptions about the necessary ‘correctness' of art work, and this is confirmed by Maija Kūle's deliberations in her monograph Eirodzīve ("Eurolife"), for example: "The duality typical of Western thinking, which is characterised by the ability to discern art from non-art, is broken. Everything can become art. If there is context and a good performance organiser, then even the jar of peas or pig's snout you have bought can play a role in a new type of art."6 And further: "(..) real art is precisely that which all the above is not. The feeling of challenge, accompanied by courage to display senseless and rubbishy things, is extraordinary. After conquering barriers of perception, it does not create a lasting impression a second time. Art does not need shallowness, but depth. Depth only interests few recently. Although artistic experiments do not always pave a way for culture. At times they point to a dead end."7 The application of this theory to concrete current artistic processes and phenomena, in my opinion, is not the most urgent issue which should be achieved in our artistic milieu, although each theoretical expression also has its own beauty as ‘art for arts sake'. The writing of this article was dictated by completely practical considerations, which then incidentally transformed to a broader study. While acting on an international committee of experts which acquires art works for the emerging Contemporary Art Museum, I encountered the problem of how to justify the significance of particular works for the only representative on our committee who is not a specialist in the area, but who is the largest sponsor of the project. It was particularly the wish to explain the necessity of acquisition of particular art works, and the overall acquisition policy, that gave the impetus to organise an international conference about this theme in early October of this year. It immediately became clear, that we had to begin with an expanded artist's statement, and I chose a path where we did not have to avoid theory, while also not being fettered by it. This year, some surprisingly interesting drawings by Leonards Laganovskis were acquired for the museum. It seemed that not avoiding the invocation of Postmodernism could establish clarity in the general theoretical and practical framework of the emerging collection. I remember that once, a number of years ago, there was polemic about the meaning of Postmodernism in the cultural supplement of the newspaper Diena between two culture commentators - Pēteris Bankovskis and Artis Svece. I do not remember the topic of the argument, but today I sooner support Bankovskis' position, who viewed the theoretical direction of Postmodernism as a small, insignificant drop in the vast sea of human contemplation. Nevertheless, no one forbids this drop to be highlighted in a particular context, particularly if it is one viewpoint amongst other possible ones. Many publications have been produced about the Latvian artist Leonards Laganovskis, also introductions for catalogues of his solo and group exhibitions. Although paradoxically, no one has written an extended study in which the works of the artist are explained from a Postmodern perspective until now. It is precisely this theory which characterises the era, no matter how uninteresting and shallow it may seem to a mature and educated person, which nevertheless gives an opportunity to interpret an art work, broadening the usual themes of aesthetics, content and biographical subject. Foreign and Latvian critics have associated Leonards Laganovskis with Sots art and Conceptual art, for example, claiming that Leonards Laganovskis "works in the field of Conceptual art. In the late 1980s and early 1990s his working style was similar to that of Sots art: Laganovskis used symbols commenting on the era; subversive, ironic references to political and ideological manipulations; the deconstruction of socio-political cliches (his series "Tribunes", beginning in 1988; "The End", 1992). Laganovskis portrayed and ironically commented on contradictions in society, and on myths of the Soviet era."8 This type of approach to the work of an artist is justifiable, although it mostly addresses the diachronic framework of visual art, rather than the broader framework of cultural critique. One has to remember that Sots art and Conceptual art are directions of visual art, rather than a branch of theoretical thinking, which, as it is in the case of Postmodernism, relates to all fields of art, literature and architecture, even laying claim to its own philosophy, particularly the reflections of the so-called French New Philosophers (Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Paul Virilio and others). By comparison, Sots art emerged from Soviet Russia in the late 1960s and was named ironically and in parallel to Pop art which was popular in the West at that time, and which gradually became also known to Soviet artists through reproductions. Sots art developed as a branch of Conceptual art, and its expression could be seen as commensurate to a Postmodern world view to a certain degree. In the beginning, while Soviet censorship was still active, it existed ‘underground'. Many Sots art artists have moved to the West where they have become widely known. The attribution of the label of Sots art to the work of Leonards Laganovskis is partly legitimate. The name of Sots art alone indicates its ironic and distancing nature - although Postmodernism is also like this. It is only in the "Sots" (soc-) notion that Sots art indicates the social dimension of this art form and its connection to the earlier Socialist Realism. Similarly, as I already mentioned, the name of Sots art uses the aural connection with Pop art (and along with this, also the contextual). Sots art artists, the same as Pop art artists, used socially recognised signs and symbols in their work. Although these were signs of the socialist era - slogans, emblems, flags, and widely-known historical figures (Stalin, Lenin, Gorbachev), who were just as visually recognisable in Soviet society as Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley were in the West. Sots art researcher Olga Holmogorova writes: "The same as art of other totalitarian regimes, Stalinist Socialist Realism was a pale shadow of the heavy Roman classicist academism. This academism was ‘thrown back' to the ‘democratic', on a background which was thematically primordial, boorish, Russian peredvizhniki-inspired. Therefore tension between the richly presented form and seemingly folksy content (which was later played on by Sots art) was contained by the structure of Socialist Realism itself with its doubtful illusionistic nature. Sots art led this original absurd combination of stereotypes to a pronounced culmination."9 Already in 1992, when inviting Leonards Laganovskis to participate in an Ars Baltica exhibition "Face to Face", the head curator of the Helsinki Contemporary Art Museum Kiasma described the difference between his art and Sots art: "A trade mark is not a guarantee of the long-term existence of art. This was the case, for example, with Sots art. By creating art as criticism, you remain a prisoner of this criticism. By contrast the works of Leonards Laganovskis are spiritual, they depict politics more generally. This is universal art with original poetics."10 Apparently the invocation of Sots art in relation to Leonards Laganovskis' work can be justified with the small amount of stylistically similar works in Latvian art. As artist Oļegs Tillbergs commented in the early 1990s: "The themes of Sots art could not organically stick to us. We did not feel we could be blamed for this society to such a large degree,"11 - with this referring to the continued influence of the Soviet era into the early 1990s. Leonards Laganovskis in his own way could be held responsible for the previous system, because during the Soviet years he was painting large ideological street banners, although it is doubtful if this could be considered to be the impulse for his creative thought in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Laganovskis is the son of writer Jezups Laganovskis, and one can say that the budding artist grew up in his father's library in Riga, on Ģertrūdes (at that time, Karl Marx) Street. It is possible that the narrative, literary nature of his art was influenced by the wide range of books he read during his school years. After his studies at Riga's High school No. 40 (this was a school with a specialisation in the English language studies), Laganovskis began studies in the Interiors and Design Department of the State Academy of Art, but changed to the Stage Design Department after the third year. At that time he was interested in painting more than anything else, but the management of the Painting Department ruled that it was not possible for him to transfer to their department. Although the stage designers also had an advantage - you had to read there, at least plays. Painter Marina Ainbindere prepared him for study at the Academy of Art in her own private studio. Her teaching methods were rooted in both serious nature studies and the study of the styles of Post-Impressionism (particularly Paul Cezanne) and the masters of Classical Modernism (for example George Rouault). Because I also studied for many years under this same teacher, I can assert that she taught a very systematic and in-depth approach to the history of painting. She was very taken by semiotics and language philosophy, which were popular in the USSR at the time, thanks to the Tartu-Moscow school, and she shared her thoughts about these with her students. The influence of Marina Ainbindere was determined not only by her intelligence, but also by many of the books on art history which were sent to her from the USA and Israel, which were not accessible to others at the time. As a result, the presence of art history quotes in Laganovskis' works later on (also in his last exhibition from 2007, "8 March. Vodka, Sex, Perfumes" at the Riga Gallery) are based on three types of serious educational experiences: at the Academy of Art, individually and with Marina Ainbindere. At once I need to mention a well known fact, that the integration of art history quotes in new works is one of the most obvious components of art work labelled as Postmodern. Leonards Laganovskis' first solo exhibition in 1984 at the "Republican House of Knowledge" (today it is the Orthodox Cathedral in the centre of Riga, which at that time had been transformed into a Planetarium; a cafe much loved by artists was located there which was informally called "God's ear") revealed his paintings - nature studies - in which you could sense the talent of a very sensitive colourist. Both literature and set design studies, and his later interest in various theories, amongst these Postmodernism, furthermore developed him into a consistently Conceptual artist. After finishing his studies Laganovskis worked for a number of years in the Opera and Ballet Theatre, simultaneously collaborating also with one of the founders of the informal "Workshop for Restoration of Non-Existent Feelings", Hardijs Lediņš, organising and designing Riga's first discos. Although Laganovskis tends to assert that he is independent, he collaborated with Lediņš a large number of times; special mention should be given to their collective work with Imants Žodžiks in the legendary exhibition "Nature. Environment. Man" at St Peter's Church in 1984. In the exhibition they created a spatial object (no one talked about installations back then) "Metaphysical Chair". At that time they were influenced by various essays on Postmodernism, which, particularly taking into account Lediņš' architectural education and Laganovskis' interest in design, was related to the new trends in Western design and architecture. Commentary by Ettore Sottsass and Alessandro Mendini should be specially mentioned. At that time the non-functional neon "Metaphysical Chairs" was the striking debut of Laganovskis' ‘ephemeral art' (which exists only as a short-term project). Together with the "Workshop for Restoration of Non-Existent Feelings", Laganovskis created the concept for a multimedia exhibition "Wind in the Willows" at the Architects' House in 1987 and participated in this with his own work. A turning point in Laganovskis' creative biography is his participation in the exhibition "Riga - Latvian Avant-garde" in West Berlin in 1988. He is the only participant from this exhibition who in the following ten years connected his life with Berlin. He began to collaborate with the gallery Wewerka, and after that with the gallery Barbara Weiss. It is possible that the basis of his success of that time was his feel for the spirit of the times, which he described in the early 1990s: "Art today is not just the reflection of emotional surges. It is necessary to predict and ‘invent' the art of today. Meaning that, while being aware of what is happening in all fields, you have to feel what is pertinent and what is needed."12 My own favourite exhibition that I curated comes to mind: "Quality ‘92", which was held in 1992 in the Exhibition Hall Latvija and in which one of the five participating artists was also Leonards Laganovskis. He exhibited a 190 x 150 cm large oil painting, in which a simplified silhouette of Red Square was painted in grey-black tones. The title "The End" was painted over the canvas. I will quote part of my catalogue text for the exhibition (which mainly refers to the choice of the name "Quality" - during the Soviet era this was a special sign apportioned to goods), because this serves as a partial justification of the necessity of broader theoretical studies today: "(..) This apparently blameless internationalism gained a new additional significance in Soviet mythology, which can be likened to the fig leaf of the naked emperor. This word, seen in old newspapers and photographs, reminds one of the hopeless alcoholic greyness, the slurred speech of Brezhnev and... fear, sharp as the whip of censorship. (..) Will you, while flipping through this catalogue, get the impression that this exhibition has been planned as a late comment on Soviet signs, symbols and myths? (..) This exhibition is a quiet statement of freedom of intelligent artists, who with their art attempt to tell more than just ‘me' in their memories and neuroses... These artists are not ‘typical' intellectuals, who answer for everything and imagine that they can evaluate everything. This is why their work is not a banal paraphrasing about the idiotism of the previous era, because why should they repeat the empty exercises of Russian Sots art? You can see that Leonards Laganovskis has painted ‘The End' on the dusky background of Red Square. You can sense that he is writing the final credits not just for socialism, but also for Sots art. These artists are united by their attitude to the multilayered visual expression of the cultural space. They are showing that perception develops while simultaneously interacting on many levels."13 These are fifteen year old deliberations, which already at that time led to a wider theoretical framework. Therefore also the analysis of Sots art today cannot be imagined without the major postulates of Postmodern theory. However at the very beginning it must be stipulated that under no circumstances does this article aim to prove that the work of one artist, Leonards Laganovskis, has been advanced only through theoretical criteria, although to deny their presence would be obviously wrong. I cannot fail to mention an interview from the early 1990s with the first person to popularise Postmodernism in Latvia. This man, who has already passed away, architect and multi-media artist Hardijs Lediņš, said: "Our largest mistake, to my mind, is that we take some theory: chaos, Postmodernism or other and begin to create this phenomenon using the ‘main characteristics' known to us. For example: Postmodernism is very topical, and I want to become a real Postmodernist. Therefore - firstly I take some metaphors, secondly, quotations, thirdly, paradoxes, fourthly, some other features and from all this I create Postmodernism - it doesn't matter in which sphere. But I think that this is a totally wrong type of approach. Unfortunately here these kinds of mistakes happen often. Although it should be the opposite: we should create something independent of the ruling theories."14 Western theoreticians have been actively discussing Postmodernism since the late 1970s. Today the genealogy of the concept doesn't seem significant any more - that it emerged from the environment of literary theory, but gained wider recognition to a large degree because of Charles Jencks' discussion of Postmodern architecture. It is important that this concept refers to both particular cultural mediums, as well as a general world view. Postmodernism has been explained in various ways in relation to various fields of culture - literature, cinema, theatre, visual art - however the main ones, that is, the most popular postulates are present in all explanations. Pseudo intellectual discussion tends to claim that the invocation of Postmodernism coincides with the loss of belief in the progression of humanity and that pluralism and the general aesthetisation of life is promoted in place of progress.15 The prefix in the concept of "Postmodernism", "post-" indicates a state following Modernism, although some theoreticians, for example, Lyotard, tries to view Post-Modernism only in its interaction with Modernism: "The postmodern would be that which in the modern invokes the unpresentable in presentation itself, which refuses the consolation of correct forms, refuses the consensus of taste permitting a common experience of nostalgia for the impossible, and inquires into new presentations - not to take pleasure in them but to better produce the feeling that there is something unpresentable. The Postmodern artist or writer is in the position of a philosopher: the text he writes or the work he creates is not in principle governed by pre-established rules. (..) Post- modern would be understanding according to the paradox of the future (post) anterior (modo). It seems to me that the essay (Montaigne) is postmodern, and the fragment (the Athenaeum) is modern." 16 Let us recall that the world view of Modernism was a spiritual tension looking towards the future. Modernist writers, painters and composers expressed this tension as a finished ethical and aesthetic concept. The possibility of Modernism sprang from a perception of a unified world view. In turn, the understandings of Postmodernism can be diverse: ‘reality' is no longer perceived as a completed, external given, but as a ‘construction'. Consequently, as is indicated by Russian author Viktor Halipov, the pronounced presence of the mind characteristic of Postmodernism, in Halipov's eyes, in the apollonic (in terms of Nietzche's ‘classification') Postmodernist angle is dominated by "logically considered material which has been planned from the beginning", and also "the systematic ‘deception' of the reader and viewer."17 The concept of Postmodernism became particularly widespread thanks to the interpretations of Umberto Eco. The field of view of Umberto Eco is mainly associated with literature therefore it is worth citing the opinion that often appears in secondary literature which emerges from Eco and the conclusions of other famous theoreticians. The above-mentioned Russian theoretician considers that the main Postmodernist characteristics are the following: "The use of literary heritage from the previous era, using it as ‘building material' for creation (and citation as the most popular phenomenon of this type); the evaluation of past cultural elements (also their parody, with irony being the most common form of this phenomena); the multilayered organisation of text; techniques of the game."18 In the work of a number of Western authors, the term ‘Post-modernism' has gained a more differentiated approach when related to a wider cultural field than just literature. This is based on concepts such as "signification, originality, appropriation, authorship, deconstruction, discourse and ideology. Simply speaking, Postmodernists doubt the conviction of Modernists that art is autonomous. (..) Postmodernists consider that representation and reality overlap one another, because customs of representation or language (‘signification') have been taught and learned in such a way that we believe these to be real."19 The ultimately cynical conclusion is reached in the deliberations about simulacra by the French, so-called New Philosopher Jean Baudrillard, which suggest that in the era of the mass-media, representation becomes reality. Thanks to the mass media, the voices of minorities have finally been heard in the Postmodern world and we can divide off the problems of identity as one of the central problems in the context of Postmodernism. Since the 1970s feminist, homo-sexual and various ethnic minority groups have become active in the West; these themes also appear in art works. A large number of internet web pages are dedicated to discussions about differences and advantages between the sexes or the self-expression of various subcultures (for example, football fans or alien researchers). This is all represented in art, but the expression and message is no longer saturated in heroic pathos as it was in the first half of the 20th century. (Of course there are exceptions, and one of these is the American multimedia and video artist Bill Viola). It is precisely the opposite, that the joyfulness of Postmodernism about various perspectives of perception creates a misshapen image in the anonymous, second generation, or interactive internet portals. When struggling against one, often apparently imposed demonstration of power, the mass of anonymous commentators express repulsive homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist, even racist comments, for example, in the Latvian portals Delfi, Apollo and TVnet. This postmodern ‘any-thing goes' has also touched the readers of the purportedly serious newspaper, Diena, and the largest daily newspaper also publishes anonymous, diversely ‘pluralistic' comments. Therefore the Postmodern world view has begun to change at the beginning of the 21st century, although Leonards Laganovskis' work more closely adheres to the ‘classic' explanatory postulates of Postmodernism of the 1980s. This is the production of art, which includes ironic distance and the citation of historical experience. Let us compare the art work of Leonards Laganovskis with similar examples around the world. For example, one of the most widely known Pop art works, ‘LOVE', created by Pop art artist Robert Indiana at the end of the 1960s. This embodied a reference to an era after abstraction with its geometrical fields of colour, and the free love atmosphere in youth movements. This work showed how colourful capitalism can be and how often visual signs are (also) reproduced within it. In turn, twenty years later in 1988, the artists group ‘General Idea', created their own art work using this icon of Pop art. They repeated Indiana's graphic style in a spatial arrangement, using the citation characteristic of Postmodernism, only this time in place of LOVE the letters read AIDS. Their message is expressed not only in an informative or socially critical way, but also with resigned irony. Western society maintains its environment of colourful consumerism irrespective of global problems, which also includes an incurable immunodeficiency virus. Leonards Laganovskis, in his last exhibition, which was able to be viewed in March 2007 in the Riga Gallery, included the series "Perfume Bottles". This showed famous artists' works sketched (quoted) in colourful pencil (Goya, Vel·zquez, Titian and others). Small perfume bottles were drawn in place of the heads of the people in these classics of Western European art. The lightly playful works in the first instance seem superficial, however they possess great professional perfection, thought and clarity of execution. They, with all their ironic attitude to consumer society, nevertheless refer to some movements of the soul and intellect, which cannot exist without the visuality of the surrounding world and their comprehension in realisations (mainly incomplete). This example demonstrates that during the era of Postmodernism a very concrete informative environ-ment is included in an art work, which is only representative of this time or concrete place. The Latvian multimedia artist Hardijs Lediņš, the same as his colleagues in the West, speaks about the double code of Postmodernism, which encompasses the spirit of the time and the atmosphere of the place: "The spirit of the time embodies technology and the programmed sense of order, the atmosphere of a place - the ecology and diversity of life."20 In Postmodernism even the individual work styles are not ‘clean'. Their origin is both the elite world of ‘cultural' images, and references to mass culture, and documentary information from various realms of life. Postmodernism differs from Conceptualism in visual art with its ‘thirst for images'. Viewers already in the second half of the 1970s were tired of intellectually dry Conceptualism. Postmodern imagery was reborn ‘loudly' through painting in the West. In the 1980s, a new, Postmodern group of painters was also operating in Latvia (Aija Zariņa, Frančeska Kirke, Ieva Iltnere, Ģirts Muižnieks, Sandra Krastiņa, Jānis Mitrēvics, etc), although their creative work cannot really be related to all of the above-mentioned theoretical criteria as can be in the case of Leonards Laganovskis. It is precisely when comparing the art of Laganovskis with that of other artists in Latvia, including the above-mentioned painters, does the wish arise to group his style with academic Postmodernism. Everyday perception has gained the assumption that Postmodern works are ‘dry', that they are not able to be understood without commentary. As an example, here is an opinion about Postmodernism expressed in early 2007 by popular poet Kornēlija Apšukrūma in an interview with the popular magazine Ieva: "Experiments will perish. If there were more poems published by Postmodern authors without attribution to an author, no one would be able to tell who had written what. Because they are all the same - streams of associations created from a few words. Postmodernist verse is a clever construction."21 In opposition to this popular opinion I would like to assert, that, irrespective of all the ‘classical' Postmodernist characteristics, many series of works by Laganovskis demonstrate obvious features of the author. This can be explained through completely technical techniques, which tend to be classified as the artist's style. One of the most well-recognised groups of works of the artist is "Tribunes". Hundreds of seemingly simple drawings, which have been created over a period of 20 years, give variations on the theme of a tribune in the most diverse historical and everyday situations. The works are ironic and clearly understood, although they are truly created, again calling on the words of the respected poet Apšukrūma, as ‘streams of association'. In the case of Laganovskis these streams have not been created from words, however they are comparatively easy to verbalise. As usually results from academic Postmodernism, there are strong references to mass culture (a tribune like pink Coca-Cola), to the everyday world of artefacts (a kitchen, or a pink remote control by the writing desk), to banality (women's breasts, a pink cake, a wall with stylised male genitalia), to historical quotations (a rocket with a star and wings). Laganovskis began to work on the imagery of tribunes in the late 1980s, when his works were mainly dominated by external themes close to those of Sots art. Then the drawn tribune also appeared in the form of a labyrinth of barbed wire and other similarly heavy works. His contemporary, Hardijs Lediņš, wrote about his conceptually clear exhibition in the Exhibition Hall Jāņa sēta in 1989, "The Sub-Soviet Art Cell. The Resource Institute": "As opposed to the Sots art works of Russian artists, which are on top of the situation, the Sub-Soviet art cell institute of resources does not agitate for or against something and does not try to didactically convince anyone - in these works you will find both fine irony, deft paradox, sympathy and remorse. Leonards Laganovskis has, to my mind, through a completely unusual and strange prism, successfully reached his own feel for the postmodern situation of the late 20th century."22 That year, in the newspaper Literatūra un Māksla ("Literature and Art") I wrote about this exhibition and Laganovskis' "double code games", mainly referring to his connection of opposite meanings into one concept, the change in place of the attributed and the attributor when explaining one phenomenon. At that time I was fascinated by paintings which commented on the time - restrained, monochromatic canvases with the slogans "kindergarten" "trade union committee" and others. Or "The USSR - birthplace of the computer". Later I was honestly fascinated by his small, filigree objects - empty statue pedestals with the labels "avant-garde", "soothsayer", "founder" and others. Also for the exhibition in Ventspils organised by the Soros Center for Contemporary Arts-Riga in 1999, "Ventspils Transit Terminal" Laganovskis created seemingly ‘empty' monuments which were as close as possible to the everyday (and closely linked with associations; therefore he erected ‘monuments' without any clear ideological justification, with the openness and pluralism characteristic of Postmodernism). These were four bronze objects, placed in the city park, in essence a succession of three-dimensional inscriptions. The anti-monument was acknowledged in an unusually subtle, poetic way. The inscriptions told of "life, character, the will, intention, power, time". Another monument celebrated "we are what we are". Much could be written about Laganovskis' paraphrasing of classical art work, particularly that of German romantic Caspar David Friedrich, by carefully painting a copy of the original and then alienating it. It should be mentioned that in Laganovskis' series of paintings "Private collection", iconic works of contemporary artists were visibly painted into copies of Friedrich's paintings, for example, Keith Haring's famous dog, Wolfgang Laib's yellow pollen rectangle and others. However the analysis of every one of Laganovskis' works or even each series is not the purpose of this article. The aim has been to use a theoretical perspective to demonstrate the artistic style of one particular artist in step with the spiritual trend of a particular era. The influence of Postmodernism in the work of Laganovskis is obvious. In order to continue to expand this theme and explore deeper levels of art, which, by using a specific approach, makes Leonards Laganovskis question the seemingly elusive essence of art itself, I would have to write a monograph. 1 Kļaviņš E. Džo: Jāzepa Grosvalda dzīve un māksla (Joe. Life and Art of Jāzeps Grosvalds). Riga: Neputns, 2006. p. 19. 2 Osmanis A. Par dažām tendencēm XX gadsimta 80. gadu glezniecībā. In: Doma-2 / Compiled by Z. Konstants. Riga: Latvijas mākslas muzeju apvienība, 1994, p. 134. (All articles written from 1988-89). 3 Ibid., p. 135. 4 Demakova H. Ojārs Pētersons. In: Studija, 1999, Nr. 6, p. 18. 5 Ibid., p. 20. 6 Kūle M. Eirodzīve. Rīga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts, 2006, p. 90. 7 Ibid., p. 92. 8 Astahovska I. Laganovskis, Leonards. In: Māksla un arhitektūra biogrāfijās. Riga: AS "Preses nams", 2003, vol. 4, p. 228. 9 Холмогорова О. Соц-арт. Москва: Галарт, 1994, p. 11. 10 Jaukuri M. [Interviewed by Helēna Demakova]. Latviešu identitāte ir viņu māksla. In: Sestdiena, 1992, 4 January, p. 11. 11 Demakova H. Iedvesmas pieturvietas. In: Oļegs Tillbergs. Konjunktur = Konjunktūra = Suhdanne = Conjuncture [Catalogue]. Kiel; Helsinki: ARS FENNICA, 1994, p. 44. 12 Laganovskis L. [Interviewed by Daiga Rudzāte]. Visstulbāk ir atkārtoties. In: Nakts, 1994, 1 September, p. 14. 13 "Quality'92 [Catalogue]. Riga: "IDeA", 1993, p. [11]. 14 Bankovskis P., Lediņš H. Ne acīm redzams, ne acīmredzams: [Conversation]. In: Kentaurs XXI, 1992, Nr. 2, p.104. 15 This is particularly well demonstrated by the book by Wolfgang Welsch Grenzg‰nge der ƒsthetik published by the Latvian Centre of Contemporary Art in 2005. It is recommended to read the subtly ironic endnote by philosopher Jānis Taurens. 16 Lyotard J.-F. Answering the question: what is the postmodern?. In: The Postmodern Explained to Children. Sydney: Power Publications, 1992, p.7; teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/ArtHistory/ARHT1002/readings/postmodern.pdf 17 Халипов В. Постмодернизм в системе мировой культуры. In:Иностранная литература, 1994, Nо. 1, p. 239. 18 Ibid., p. 238. 19 Christopher R. Postmodernism and the Art of Idenity. In: Concepts of Modern Art: from Fauvism to Postmodernism. 3rd ed. London: Thames a. Hudson, 1997 (repr.), p. 272. 20 Riga: Lettische Avantgarde [Catalogue]. Berlin: Elefanten Press, 1988, p. 79. 21 Apšukrūma K., Blaua L. [Conversation]. In: Ieva, 2007, Nr. 14/15, p. 13. 22 Lediņš H. Izstāde: Zempadomju mākslas kamera. Resursu institūts 1955-1990 [Booklet]. Riga: Jāņa sēta, 1989. | |
| go back | |
