|
|
| I'd like to understand... Isn't that a nice invitation to communicate Maija Rudovska, Curator Conversation | |
| in late autumn of 2013, for the second time since its foundation kim? contemporary art centre hosted an art exhibition by lithuanian artists. the exhibition Underground1 caused quite a stir on the latvian art scene, just like its predecessor a Thing Spins a leaf by the Wind in 2010. at that time, three years ago, art critic Jānis borgs’2 review was published in the Studija magazine, and this time it is art critic Jana kukaine who has fearlessly revealed her opinion in the article ‘into the underground tunnel with an artificial satellite’3, published on the website Satori. however, Underground leads one not so much to view and evaluate the exhibition’s atmosphere and virtuosity, with which the small group of artists from lithuania are so masterfully juggling, but more so the impact of the exhibition and its interaction with the latvian art milieu. there is a need to keep on asking questions about the chain of relationships “artist – art institution – art viewer and art itself”. in this conversation, art curator maija rudovska, art critic Jana kukaine and the programme director of kim? zane onckule, with the participation of līga marcinkeviča, editor-in-chief of Studija, discussed expectations and clichés, what is needed and what is there already, the desirable and the reality of things encountered on the scene of latvian contemporary art and in its exhibition life. Maija Rudovska: on the basis of previous experience and the reflections about contemporary art on the local scene i would say that what is expected from contemporary art here is something epic, cathartic or mind-blowing. similar thoughts come to mind also with regard to the exhibition Underground and the opinions that have been voiced about it. on reading Jana’s review, which is quite critical of the exhibition, there are certain things that i can agree with and others about which i disagree. Jana, what do you think - what do local viewers expect from art? what are your expectations? Jana Kukaine: your question seems to imply that there is a certain public, a homogeneous entity with the same interests. to my mind such a presupposition is unfounded, and the interests of the public are fragmented. someone, for instance, might wish to see the creative progress of their students, someone else might want to experience the failure of their rivals, and someone else again might be looking forwards to having a good time with their family. therefore we cannot answer the question about what the viewers expect, as we don’t know what each one of them wants. you have offered a divided concept of the art viewer, distinguishing between a close and a distanced viewer. when delving into the consequences of this idea, many problems emerge with regard to what we understand by “distance”. zane onckule: maybe instead we can speak about an interested viewer and the rest of the public who attend this exhibition or that? M.R.: but the term “interested” also won’t be precise. a viewer can come to an exhibition without being interested and become interested. Z.O.: i think that the term “interested” could refer to the professional we all know, who works with art on a daily basis because they have chosen to do so. M.R.: sometimes a professional, or someone who is close to art and culture, can be completely disinterested. Z.O.: he or she is interested in looking at the issue at hand and also to criticize, because, after all, that is their only weapon. J.K.: interest is hard to measure, and it is just as unhelpful to sort people according to their profession. this is where even the totally cliched example of the street cleaner is of no use, because i know of an artist who worked as a janitor while she was studying. for her it was a kind of gesture of protest. M.R.: zane, when you organize exhibitions, do you think about who the potential viewer might be? i suspect that you may not, and are more concerned with the idea of the exhibition, your own feelings and interests. Z.O.: it’s a compromise, in a way. who is the viewer in latvia? if we take culture in its broadest sense, there is no amorphous public, instead there is a division between the various branches of culture: visual art, classical music, theatre, opera, etc. the potential audiences for these is determined by the available resources or infrastructure, as well as the historical development of the particular field of art and chance events. for this reason, when we think about the audience for visual art, we have to look at what is available to us, that is, the number of exhibition halls, how many museums we have, what type of museums they are, how many commercially successful galleries there are, and how educated and interested in processes the art collectors are, etc.. while i am working, certainly this or that type of viewer may cross my mind. J.K.: but how does this division help us? why are we even expanding on the topic? | |
 Maija Rudovska, Jana Kukaine and Zane Onckule | |
| M.R.: to my mind, the viewer who has connections with culture should have the foundation and knowledge that allows them to view an exhibition and feel engaged, in contrast to a viewer who does not have that background. knowledge establishes the preconditions for appreciating an exhibition. Z.O.: yes, exactly! there must be some foundation because, as we can see, even those interested professionals we are talking about are so very diverse that sometimes any discussion about them is impossible. this is particularly strikingly evident if we compare ilmārs blumbergs’ exhibition i Won’t Die and the reactions to Underground. J.K.: and we can conclude that the background or knowledge can differ, can’t they? that’s not surprising. M.R.: i asked this question because i have some doubt whether the same viewer who goes to an art exhibition at kim? or anywhere else is able to reflect on the exhibition. on reading your review, Jana, i get the feeling that there are cases when the viewer is unable to do that. i don’t think that you can’t. it’s more that communication is not happening between the curator and/or artist and the audience, with their knowledge and experience. there is the feeling as if there was an abyss between art and the viewer. J.K.: i would like to clarify: the fact that communication is not taking place does not mean that the viewer does not reflect on the exhibition. M.R.: i can agree with that. Jana, your article is in a way a reference point for this conversation, because you, of course, are not the first who has reacted critically to this exhibition (or similar ones). i would prefer to find out why this is the case. what are the reasons? since i am familiar with zane’s approach and her style of organizing exhibitions, i would like to hear her thoughts, too. why is it that when an exhibition such as this is held, many art professionals have a critical, even negative reaction towards it? J.K.: in this case the exhibition showed little inclination to invite communication, in my opinion. although i can’t say that it was silent as a tomb, its message sounded like, hmm... inarticulate sounds. Z.O.: but what exactly makes up communication? i would like to understand. at the exhibition we see a playfully low-key aesthetic, it is calculated but definitely not openly provocative. what about all those who attended the opening and had the opportunity to receive a blast of energy on the improvised dance floor right next to the artworks. isn’t that a nice invitation to communicate? but back to the problem in question, that’s really nothing new – having planned the exhibition calendar of kim? for the last four years it has been a frequently recurring issue. at the same time, i thought your article, Jana, was interesting. i don’t perceive it as criticism. there were a few places where i would like Jana to comment. J.K.: how to build communication? there is no single answer. it depends on how “communicative” the artworks themselves are, the tradition they represent, and the context in which they are exhibited, in other words, which way the wind blows. M.R.: in this case, it is the so called post-conceptual approach that specifically points to the traditions of how the works have been created, how they are viewed, how they evolve, on what basis. J.K.: with this kind of approach the exhibition reveals a lot of imperfections, which i have already pointed out in my article. Z.O.: i have to add that the artists featured in Underground are from one concrete country (except for two participants) and to a certain extent represent the region. they themselves would categorically reject the term “represent”, but there is a commonality that is obvious and makes our work easier. we have some inkling how they work and how they organize exhibitions. M.R.: give us a rundown! Z.O.: the starting point of Underground was the exhibition a Thing Spins a leaf by the Wind which took place exactly three years ago at kim?, in the third floor space. the artists intentionally chose this space which is sort of an in-between area, nonspace, not suitable for exhibitions. at the time they chose the space it was painted an unattractive brown, and that made it all the more appealing for them. the way they work is through feelings – through being together. the exhibition develops as a story, a narrative. there is a creative idea that they work on as individual projects in parallel with the common work, and from these conversations, deviations from the themes and set tasks the exhibition takes shape. Underground is an exhibition that shapes itself. Underground is like the organizer of the exhibition, and the artists are its agents. that is why there isn’t a list of works in the exhibition, and there aren’t any artists’ names next to the works, and so on. M.R.: but is what you’ve just described characteristic only of lithuanians? any contemporary art exhibition could evolve in the same way. Z.O.: maybe you could say that it is something that is characteristic of the present day. so we return to the question – why is the local viewer, the local audience reluctant to accept this? M.R.: i don’t think you mentioned any distinguishing feature that would apply only to the lithuanian artists in particular. i do admit that there are some characteristics that describe only this group, and also some other artists exhibiting at kim?. for example, i can see similarities with the exhibitions of oļa Vasiļjeva. they differ from other exhibitions in the way they are organized, put together and presented to the viewer – there is some uniting element there. if we were to compare the exhibitions that were held last year, then we could say that the exhibitions by maija kurševa or kristaps epners that took place at kim? were different. Perhaps by making this comparison we may be able to explain why the reaction has been so different? Z.O.: yes, you can see it also in the dynamics of attendance. M.R.: opinions are most often expressed outside the exhibition, off the record. so many times i’ve had conversations about exhibitions with people from the artistic milieu, where they have expressed thoughts and opinions that have not been revealed in reviews or critiques. J.K.: unofficial talks... of course, better than no discussion at all. however, what happens in public? M.R.: where then do we get told in public? – Vilnis Vējš or stella Pelše in the newspaper Diena, anna iltnere in the portal arterritory, reviews in Studija, and maybe here or there else. not every exhibition receives three different opinions in each of these media. given that, there can be no public comparison of different views about one exhibition or another, even though this would be indispensible. opinions are expressed in private conversations. and afterwards they become evident in the nominations for prizes. Līga Marcinkeviča: the majority is not particularly concerned about, for example, the opinion of the magazine Studija, as media, but it is the opinions of a certain group of people that is far more important. J.K.: but Studija is also a group! besides, i think that public opinion includes the conversations that take place at exhibitions with the participation of artists, curators, viewers and others. Z.O.: the portal Satori is like a group. the magazine Rīgas laiks [riga time] is also a group. M.R.: zane, kim? also bears your personal signature. Z.O.: kim? is a multi-faceted institution. initially there was a decision to restructure the organisation so that there would not be three separate pockets, with different organizations working separately (rixc, gallery Vkn and the magazine fotokvartāls), but rather to have a single united institution. the feeling was that we had to work with a curated programme. up until now, the programme has been designed as an attempt to achieve a balance between the exhibitions of latvian artists (various – well-known, less known) and the exhibitions of foreign artists (group shows and solo exhibitions). L.M.: how exactly do the lithuanian artists work? zane, perhaps you could try to elucidate? Z.O.: it’s hard for me to define. at the same time, i think that there are various side issues that are very important. for example, latvia and riga. for these lithuanian artists latvia and riga are very important as venues for such an exhibition. it’s a liberating environment. riga is not likely to be a critical environment. riga is problematic but at the same time significant for them as a place for testing out new artwork formats. i’ve also noticed this with other artists who have been invited to present their projects in riga by kim?. for instance, nick mauss and others have written letters about it afterwards. they’ve all had memorable moments in riga. they don’t always understand what happened - riga is like an escape from somewhere. M.R.: and yet there is a big difference between how foreign artists or curators themselves feel when presenting exhibitions and staying in riga, and how their work is perceived by others. J.K.: you are speaking from a position that assumes that the exhibition Underground is coherent, of reasonable quality and then you try to figure out why it has problems with communication. why don’t people understand it? i look at it differently: in my opinion, to put it simply, it’s a complete flop! and the fact that there are problems with communication – well, that is only to be expected. besides, they are not the only problems with the exhibition. M.R.: zane, do you think it’s a successful exhibition? Z.O.: i don’t know what is successful or unsuccessful. i think it’s an interesting exhibition from the point of view of how artists work with space, with an idea, with each other. for example, one of the artists, nicolas matranga, made a sketch for a work to be made by a ceramics student at the art academy of latvia. she didn’t know what to do with it, and so she named it Vase. and she also couldn’t understand why the artist should work from a distance, just sending her a sketch. so in the process a “mistake” occurred, imprecisions in the scale of the object. here immediately a certain communication was formed, and the latvian artist definitely learned that there were other ways to work, about authorship, etc. in the finish this was revealed in the exhibition space as well. another example - the paintings of norwegian artist helge halvorsen, which were displayed and finished according to the instructions left by the artist. J.K.: well, see, if we dig into the history of development of each particular work, then we can see some “lifebuoys” that may save this exhibition from being a complete failure. but why hasn’t this information been accessible to the person attending the exhibition? why do i find out about it in a roundabout way? M.R.: this is a question i would like to bring up in this conversation: i go to an exhibition and i have the feeling that there is some mystical knowledge hidden there. L.M.: maybe it’s the methodology of creating exhibitions? M.R.: maybe. but that knowledge is not accessible to us. and then there is a question – should that information be accessible or not? Līga: as a viewer, what am i supposed to evaluate in this exhibition? the exhibition guides at kim? told me about the process of how the exhibition was created. do i have to evaluate the process that i am being told about, or the exhibition that i am viewing? if the process experienced by the artists when they were arranging the objects in the space is the most important thing, perhaps it’s enough just to hear the story - and the objects set out in the exhibition space are superfluous. what’s important here? | |
 Views from the exhibition Underground at kim? contemporary art centre. 2013 Publicity photo Photo: Ansis Starks | |
| Z.O.: how they have worked with the space, how the things are arranged, the relationship between the objects... gestures like this. there are no names or surnames next to the works, no annotations. the exhibition opening was of essence as well. it’s hard to comment on what is the right thing. i don’t have a problem with not understanding everything completely, or to feel deceived. M.R.: Jana, what exactly did you feel was unsuccessful in the exhibition Underground? J.K.: the mystical knowledge you mentioned, and zane’s definition via negation (that is, that we have to notice what is not there) resonates with what ekaterina degot has written about moscow conceptualism. she points to the characteristic reticence, dissociation from “undesirable” external elements, secretiveness, the cult of the initiated... degot relates this tendency to apophatic theology, i.e., god is beyond description. it’s amusing that this tendency has travelled to us from moscow via lithuania, except that god has been lost on the way and what has remained is the fact “nothing can be said”. the elitism, on the other hand, that is often associated with similar exhibitions...honestly, i don’t think that’s the worst feature, although it might seem unacceptable from the social point of view. there is a scene in hermann hesse’s Steppenwolf, when the protagonist is walking down the street and he notices a sign: “the magic theatre. not for everybody. for madmen only”. this dissociation gives hope that there is something to the exhibition, after all – if i diligently delve into it, and if i am really open to it, and if i think about it a lot, i will learn something and finally understand. but in the case of Underground i get the feeling that any sort of understanding is not even intended, because the conceptual material of the exhibition is... rather weak. M.R.: to my mind, this is exactly what that lithuanians are good at: being ironic about the search for meaning. maybe that also creates the feeling that there is something there, even though there is nothing like that. they play about with it in other exhibitions as well, for example at the Venice biennale. art critics don’t really know what to write about them afterwards, what to latch onto, what to point out, because the exhibitions by lithuanian artists do not fit in with western discourses, they are outside their framework. even claire bishop seemed a bit confused in her review. J.K.: this also relates to what you, zane, asked me – why is formalism excluded from the analysis of kim? activities. formalism along with a few other instruments of classical interpretation won’t work here. i am not going to describe some little umbrella that has been inadequately stuck together with sticky tape! Z.O.: maybe this is exactly what applies to exhibitions in latvia? J.K.: there are many exhibitions in latvia about which we read reviews that say: “oh, the colour palette!” M.R.: we love to follow the traditions of formalism. in a way it’s liberating, because then the description about the work of art can be poetic, based on what can be seen, and not on what is known. Possibly this is what the local viewer expects. however, right now contemporary art is moving in the opposite direction – there is a tendency to pursue practices that involve not only formal, but also conceptual abstractions. J.K.: but what conceptual abstractions are at work in Underground? Z.O.: i wouldn’t say that formal abstractions are not present in the exhibition. J.K.: but then what is there in this exhibition? Z.O.: there’s a lightness about contemporary art nowadays; it is simultaneously politically charged and ethereal in its expression, at times also incomprehensible and not fully explicable. M.R.: you cannot say that about all contemporary art. these days it is extremely diverse. there’s politically and socially powerfully charged, direct and concrete contemporary art, and provocative and harsh as well, but this type of exhibition, of course, is exactly the kind that you, zane, described. J.K.: formalism is just one of the stumbling blocks in latvian art criticism. there is a whole string of clichés that are being persistently reproduced. in some of the articles published in Studija as well. they present information that is secondary to the understanding of the work, they describe the formal characteristics of the work, they characterise the “signature style” of the artist, they analyse the development of the “style”, and then there is an atrocious conclusion: “this artist, in my opinion, is promising.” when i read a review like this, i can tell already from which higher educational establishment the author has graduated. Z.O.: that demonstrates a reviewing tradition, the tendency of some educational establishment, the education. it can spoil something, but it can also contribute. the descriptive approach that you’ve just mentioned does not bring anything. your article, Jana, definitely was much more interesting and made me think. over the last few years i’ve taken to writing down the “pearls” that can be found in articles on contemporary art – what it is like, what is the understanding about it and the attitude towards it. J.K.: for example? Z.O.: for example, and i am quoting from memory: “contemporary art is a superficial, fast creation”. essentially it would not be right to agree with this, because the time spent in creation is not a criterion of good or bad art. here we once more return to the question of elitism that maija mentioned. compared to other forms of art such as classical music and opera, contemporary art is not well-liked in latvia. i think that probably more than anything it’s a social issue. when attending various exhibitions with foreign colleagues, for example, there are some interesting observations. seeing how they evaluate this or that exhibition which locally is being praised to the skies. People from outside perceive it all differently. their opinion can be noticeably more critical, since they are looking at the local art scene from a distance. for instance, right now we are discussing the exhibition Underground, which foreign critics are simply thrilled about, but as regards blumbergs’ exhibition there was... confusion. M.R.: why is it rated so highly? referring to the exhibition, not the artists themselves, of course, because exhibitions can be put together in different ways. Z.O.: here we have the question of how the eye has been trained, how the viewer sees the exhibition. things which have a basis in the international art scene are perceived differently here. J.K.: a trained eye and experience are important, but do we have to accept that our foreign colleagues will determine the criteria? Z.O.: yes and no. here, locally, i am not aware of the existence of any interest group or discussion going on. let’s assume i would find it interesting to discuss things, and that’s why i draw comparisons with the view to the outside. M.R.: it would be arrogant to look on local art from the viewpoint of western art, as if that were better. it’s not like that, of course. i myself am critical towards the cultivation of an approach that places the latvian art scene at a lower level than elsewhere. at the same time, nevertheless, there are characteristic features and problems which should be addressed and need attention. the question is, what do we want? do we want to preserve the “localism” in which we live and work? or would it be more appropriate to speak about locality and provincialism, because the former could be viewed in a positive light, whereas the second is more negative. i think that exhibitions brought here by foreign colleagues can promote a different perspective, reaction and critique. one problem of the local art scene is a certain complacency, and the inability to take an interest in anything else. also we have limited access to information and knowledge about, let’s say, those latvian artists who work outside latvia. it could be said that london and new york are also in a way local, as they are known for having a closed art scene, and you could say the same about other art scenes. but when we are talking about our own local environment, it is more about how we could become more open to fruitful and vital discussion in order to achieve a different level of intensity and a new dynamic. J.K.: it’s nice if you manage to get over the fact that someone might consider your questions to be stupid. but it is also naive to hold any illusions that with -15° outside, people will be keen to go rushing about and discussing issues, rather than staying inside, in cosy house slipper self-sufficiency. Translator into English: Vita Limanoviča 1 Participants of the exhibition Underground: liudvikas buklys (1984), gintaras didžiapetris (1985), antanas gerlikas (1978), helge halvorsen (1981), nicolas matranga (1983), elena narbutaitė (1984), and tomas Požemis (1978). 2 borgs, Jānis. Vēl daži ezīši miglā. Studija, 2010, no. 74, pp. 54 –55 3 kukaine, Jana. ar mākslīgo pavadoni pazemes tunelī. Published online, 11 december, 2013: www.satori.lv/raksts/6540. | |
| go back | |
