igorzabel

tadej pogaËar

Since Tadej PogaËar1 established theinstitutional basis and framework for

his work in 1990 (the year in which he fou-nded his Muzej sodobne umetnosti (Muse-um of Contemporary Art) which was later,in 1994, renamed The P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E.Museum of Contemporary Art, it is inevi-table that we should speak about two sub-stantial views in connection with him:about the “new parasitism” as his basicmethod and about the museum as theinstitutional framework and point of refer-ence for that method. In the first place, weshould certainly raise the question of thereasons that brought PogaËar to renounceat his position of a creative individual andshift to the far more impersonal concept ofinstitution, as well as that of the relation-ship between the new parasitism as met-hod and the concept of museum. In orderto obtain the clearest possible picture of thenew parasitism, we shall first of all con-centrate in somewhat more detailed wayupon one of PogaËar’s projects, which isperhaps of special importance since itshows the P.MCA2 at its beginnings as aproperly formed institution.

west side history

Among the first projects in which Po-gaËar clearly shaped his strategy of newparasitism towards museums was the exhi-bition West Side Story,3 which he organ-ised in 1994 at the Gallery of Visual Arts (Ga-lerija likovnih umjetnosti) in Slovenj Gra-dec. The exhibition had two parts; the firstbore the title West Side Story - Pitagora,while the second was entitled West SideStory - Africa. PogaËar described the basisof this exhibition as a “glass cube in a whi-te cube”. Both parts of the installation in-cluded a show-case as a “micro ethno-sp-here”, that is, a “glass cube that tries to de-fine life, to determine the border (membra-ne) of the real”.4 The logic behind the in-stallation can be explained in several hypo-thetical steps. The first step is the questionabout the venue which the artist is suppo-sed to enter, its institutional foundations andconceptual presumptions that appear assomething natural and self-understandable.We can imagine how PogaËar, having recei-ved the invitation to exhibit in the gallery atSlovenj Gradec, first asked himself whatkind of space he would enter with hisworks. When he heard that the gallery hosts

Otkako je Tadej PogaËar1 1990. godineuspostavio institucionalni temelj i okvir

za svoj rad (te je godine osnovao svoj Muzejsodobne umetnosti (Muzej suvremeneumjetnosti) koji je kasnije, 1994. godine,preimenovan u The P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Muse-um of Contemporary Art), neizbjeæno je das njim u vezi govorimo o dva suπtinska gle-diπta: o “novom parazitizmu” kao njegovojtemeljnoj metodi i o muzeju kao institu-cionalnom okviru i usmjeritelju te metode.Prije svega nam se, naravno, postavlja pita-nje πto je PogaËara dovelo do odricanja po-zicije stvaralaËkog pojedinca i pomicanjaprema puno neosobnijem konceptu institu-cije te kako je novi parazitizam kao metodapovezan s konceptom muzeja. Da bismodobili neπto jasniju sliku o novom parazitiz-mu, najprije Êemo se malo podrobnije zau-staviti na jednom od PogaËarovih projekatakoji je moæda posebno vaæan zbog toga πtopokazuje P.MCA2 u vrijeme kada se ta in-stitucija dobro formirala.

west side history

Jedan od prvih projekata u kojima jePogaËar jasno oblikovao svoju novoparazi-tistiËku strategiju prema muzejskim pros-torima bila je izloæba West Side Story 3 kojuje 1994. godine postavio u Galeriji likovnihumjetnosti u Slovenj Gradecu. Izloæba jebila dvodijelna; prvi je dio nosio naslovWest Side Story - Pitagora, a drugi WestSide Story - Afrika. PogaËar je osnovu izloæ-be opisao kao “staklenu kocku u bijelojkocki”. Oba dijela instalacije ukljuËivala suizloæbenu vitrinu kao “mikro etno-sferu”,dakle “staklenu kocku koja pokuπavadefinirati æivot odnosno odrediti granicu(opnu) realnog”.4 Logiku koja je dovela doinstalacije moæemo objasniti u nekolikohipotetiËkih koraka. Prvi korak je pitanje oizloæbenom prostoru u koji bi umjetnik tre-bao stupiti, o njegovim institucionalnim te-meljima i konceptualnim pretpostavkamakoje nastupaju kao neπto prirodno i samopo sebi razumljivo. Moæemo zamisliti kakose PogaËar, nakon πto je primio poziv zaizlaganje u galeriji u Slovenj Gradecu, naj-prije upitao u kakav Êe to prostor uÊi svojimradovima. Kad je doznao da galerija Ëuvazbirku afriËkih predmeta koje je za svogdugogodiπnjeg boravka na tom kontinentuprikupio dr. Franc Tretjak, odluËio je svojeslike suoËiti s tim predmetima i tako negi-rati neutralnost izloæbenog prostora.

1 Tadej PogaËar roen je u Ljubljani 1960. godine. 1984.godine diplomirao je povijest umjetnosti i etnologiju naFilozofskom fakultetu u Ljubljani, a 1988. godine naAkademiji za likovnu umjetnost u Ljubljani, gdje je 1990.godine zavrπio joπ i slikarsku specijalku. Samostalnim jeizloæbama nastupio u Ljubljani, Berlinu, Kölnu, BeËu idrugdje. Sudjelovao je na viπe znaËajnih grupnih izloæbi,izmeu ostalog Pittura-Immedia (Graz, 1995.),Manifesta 1 (Rotterdam, 1996.), U3 (Ljubljana, 1997. i2000.), Kartografi (Zagreb, Varπava, Budimpeπta,Maribor, 1998.-1999.), After the Wall (Stockholm,Budimpeπta, Berlin, 1999.-2000.). Djeluje i kao kustos iorganizator te vodi galeriju P74 u Ljubljani. 2 Premda suvremena likovna kritika za muzej priznajekraticu PMCA, ovdje Êu ipak upotrebljavati kraticuP.MCA. Razlika nije osobito vaæna za sam sadræaj ipomalo podsjeÊa na rasprave o tome da li da kraticaMuzeja moderne umjetnosti u New Yorku bude MOMA ili(kao πto je sada sluæbeno prihvaÊeno) MoMA.3 Naslov izloæbe je viπeslojan. Neposredno se, naime,odnosi na strategije kojima Zapad osigurava svoju domi-naciju nad egzotiËnim TreÊim svijetom. Na drugoj stranije upravo njujorπka West Side, gdje se dogaaBernsteinov mjuzikl, bila prostor iskoriπtavanih i siro-maπnih ljudi, ali ujedno i specifiËnih, egzotiËnih i ma-njinskih kultura (πto je neizbjeæno dovelo do kulturnogkonflikta). KonaËno, naslov moæemo razumjeti i u smis-lu da je “west side” konstrukt, utemeljen na odnosimau odreenom trenutku (poznato je kako je meu evrop-skim narodima rasprostranjeno uvjerenje da su oni kraj-nji bedem zapadnog kulturnog kruga pred najezdomIstoka; pomicanjem prema istoku pomiËe se i predodæ-ba o tome gdje prolazi ta krajnja granica Zapada; sliËnoje i s granicom Balkana koju, kao πto je poznato,Austrijanci postavljaju na slovensku granicu, Slovencina hrvatsku, a Hrvati na granicu s Bosnom i Srbijom,iako je nesumnjivo najtoËnija poznata tvrdnja da BalkanpoËinje na beËkom Juænom kolodvoru). 4 Tadej PogaËar, Laboratorium. Journal for Anthropologyand New Parasitism, vol. 23, no. 1-2, Likovni salonCelje i The P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Museum of ContemporaryArt, 1995.; 21.

t

44

t l

1

a collection of African objects collected byDr Franc Tretjak during many years of hisstay there, he decided to confront his pic-tures with those objects and thus deny theneutrality of the venue. However, showcas-es with Tretjak’s collection unexpectedlybecame an equally important element asPogaËar’s paintings themselves. The nextstep was built precisely upon the showcas-es and the questions of the place in whichthe idea of the collection of African curiosi-ties was conceived, the basis for the choiceand the combination of these objects, andthe way in which the information and theknowledge that they mediate was formed.Thus, the showcase became an object as alimited and transparent space that definesa specific cultural sphere and represents itwith the displayed contents. PogaËar there-fore doubled the instalment of the show-case: he placed another showcase in theneighbouring exhibition room, in which heinstalled a didactic model for the demon-stration of Pitagora’s Theorem. In this way,a school object for everyday use becamethe equivalent of the exotic African curiosi-ties. Moreover, just as the African objectswere examples of a specific “culture” thatwas object of research and investigation(and that is another strategy used in estab-lishing relations of dominance), the didacticmodel (and along with it the entire geome-try of Euclid, which we regard as the trueand objective description of the state ofthings, as objective knowledge the impor-tance of which can not depend on culturalrelativism) became an example of a differ-ent culture, which is just as partial andexotic as the “African” one. The collection ofcactea on the top shelf of that showcase andon the sculpture pedestals located aroundthe room would belongs at first sight ratherto the window pane. However, at the mo-ment when it was assigned to the glass sho-wcase, just like the Pitagora’s Theorem orthe African objects, it became an example ofa specific culture. The apparent arbitrarinessand senselessness of PogaËar’s gesture ofexposing the cactus in the showcase is com-pletely equivalent to the arbitrariness withwhich the “orientalist” view had chosen par-ticular African objects, torn them out of theirfunctional and meaningful context, trans-formed them into signs and linked them wi-th other signs into a discourse about an exo-tic, primitive culture. Ultimately, by placingseats, PogaËar turned the exhibition hall intosome sort of a waiting room.

Meutim, time su vitrine s Tretjakovomzbirkom neoËekivano postale jednako vaæanelement kao same PogaËarove slike. IduÊise korak nadovezao upravo na vitrine i napitanje gdje je utemeljena ideja o zbirciafriËkih kurioziteta, na Ëemu se zasniva iz-bor i kombinacija tih predmeta te kako seoblikuje informacija ili znanje koje posredu-ju. Predmet je, dakle, postala vitrina kaoograniËen i proziran prostor koji definira i nauvid ponuenim postavom reprezentira spe-cifiËnu kulturnu sferu. PogaËar je, dakle,udvostruËio postavljene vitrine: u susjedniizloæbeni prostor postavio je joπ jednu vit-rinu i u njoj πkolski model za demonstracijuPitagorina pouËka. Time je taj svakodnevniπkolski predmet postao ekvivalentan egzo-tiËnim afriËkim kuriozitetima. ©toviπe, kaoπto su afriËki predmeti primjeri iz specifiËne“kulture” koja je predmet istraæivanja i pro-uËavanja (a to je opet jedna od strategijaprilikom uspostavljanja odnosa gospodstva),tako πkolski model (i s njim sva euklidskageometrija koju smatramo pravim i objek-tivnim opisom stanja stvari, objektivnimznanjem Ëija vaænost ne moæe ovisiti o kul-turnom relativizmu) postaje primjer zadrukËiju kulturu koja nije niπta manje parci-jalna i egzotiËna od “afriËke”. Zbirka kaktu-sa na gornjoj polici te vitrine i na po sobipostavljenim kiparskim postamentima naprvi bi pogled bila primjerenija prozorskojpolici. Meutim, u trenutku kad je raspore-ena u staklenoj vitrini, sliËno kao PitagorinpouËak ili afriËki predmeti, postaje primjerza specifiËnu kulturu. Prividna samovolja ibesmisao PogaËarove geste izlaganja kak-tusa u vitrini potpuno je ekvivalentna arbi-trarnosti kojom je “orijentalistiËki” pogledodabrao pojedine afriËke predmete, istrg-nuo ih iz njihova funkcionalnog i smisaonogkonteksta, pretvorio ih u znak i s drugim ta-kvim znakovima povezao u diskurs o egzotiË-noj, primitivnoj kulturi. Na kraju je pomoÊusjediπta izloæbeni prostor pretvorio u nekakvuËekaonicu.

umjetnost i sustav

Jedan od temeljnih faktora PogaËaroveodluke o osnivanju institucije sigurno je du-boka preobrazba statusa umjetnosti u 20.stoljeÊu. Tradicionalna estetika je umjetnostuspijevala definirati specifiËnim medijima idisciplinama (slikarstvo, kiparstvo, crteæitd.), specifiËnim aktivnostima unutar tih me-dija (“oponaπanje”, “uobliËavanje” itd.) te

46

l

1 Tadej PogaËar was born in Ljubljana in 1960. In 1984,he graduated Art History and Ethnology at thePhilosophical Faculty, Ljubljana, and in 1988 at theAcademy of Visual Arts, Ljubljana, where he completedhis specialization as painter in 1990. He presented him-self to the public on solo exhibitions in Ljubljana, Berlin,Cologne, Vienna, and elsewhere. He participated in anumber of important group exhibitions, among themPittura-Immedia (Graz, 1995), Manifesta 1 (Rotterdam,1996), U3 (Ljubljana, 1997 and 2000), Kartografi (Za-greb, Warsaw, Budapest, and Maribor, 1998-1999),After the Wall (Stockholm, Budapest, and Berlin, 1999-2000). He is today active as curator and organizer, aswell as the manager of the P74 gallery in Ljubljana. 2 Even though today’s art critics have accepted theabbreviation PMCA, I will use here P.MCA. The differ-ence is not too important for our subject and somewhatresembles the debates whether the abbreviation for theMuseum of Modern Art at New York should be MOMA or(as officially accepted today) MoMA.3 The title of the exhibition is manifold. Directly it refersto the strategies applied by the West in order to secureits dominance over the exotic Third World. However, itwas precisely the West Side of New York, the stage ofBernstein’s musical, that was on the other side as thespace of the exploited and the poor, but also of specific,exotic, and minority cultures (which inevitably led to cul-ture conflict). Eventually, we can understand the title inthe sense that the “west side” construct, based uponthe relationships at a given moment (notoriously, thereis a widespread belief among the European nations thatthey are the final bulwark of the Western cultural circleagainst the incursions of the East; the more we movetowards the East, the greater is the shift in the image ofthe exact place where that final border of the Westshould be placed; a similar case is the border of theBalkans, which the Austrians - as we know - locate atthe Slovenian border, Slovenians at the Croatian border,and Croats at that with Bosnia and Serbia, even thoughthe most correct assumption is undoubtedly that theBalkans actually begin at the Vienna Southern Station). 4 Tadej PogaËar, Laboratorium. Journal for Anthropologyand New Parasitism, vol. 23, no. 1-2, Likovni salon Celjeand P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Museum of Contemporary Art, 1995,p. 21.

sl.1: T. PogaËar, Laboratorium I, 1993., Træaπka 371,Ljubljana, foto / photo: Æiga Koritniksl.2: T. PogaËar, West Side Story (Pythagoras),1994., Galerija likovnih umetnosti / Gallery of VisualArts, Slovenj Gradec, foto / photo: Bojan Salaj

art and system

One of the fundamental factors influ-encing PogaËar’s decision to establish aninstitution was certainly the deep transfor-mation that the status of art underwent inthe twentieth century. Traditional aesthet-ics managed to define art in specific mediaand disciplines (painting, sculpture, graph-ic, etc.), specific activities within thosemedia (“imitation”, “formation”, etc.), andspecific values thus created (“beautiful”,“sublime”, etc.). In the past century, artexpanded its field far beyond those bound-aries, radically changing its character anddefinition. Duchamp’s concept of ready-made demonstrates that whatever the artistappropriates as his statement can becomeart; a famous example is the “bus ride”,which can become art if the artist con-sciously employs it to that purpose. How-ever, the transformation of the nature of artwas not completed at that point. In thetwentieth century, art was developing inconstant tension between the strivingtowards perfect autonomy and that towardsthe abolishment of its autonomous status,towards the active intervention of art intosocial life and the perfect fusion betweenart and life, which would eventually resultin abolishing art as art. These two tenden-

47

specifiËnim vrednotama koje su tako nas-tajale (“lijepo”, “sublimno” itd.). U proπlomje stoljeÊu umjetnost svoje polje raπiriladaleko preko tih granica i radikalno pro-mijenila svoj karakter i definiciju. Ducham-pov koncept ready-made pokazuje da πtogod si umjetnik prisvoji za svoju izjavu mo-æe postati umjetnost; poznat je primjer “voæ-nje autobusom” koja moæe postati umjet-noπÊu ako je umjetnik svjesno upotrijebi stom namjerom. Meutim, transformacija pri-rode umjetnosti time joπ nije zavrπila. Um-jetnost se u 20. stoljeÊu razvija u nepres-tanoj napetosti izmeu teænje za potpunomautonomijom umjetnosti i teænje za ukida-njem autonomnog statusa umjetnosti, zanjenim aktivnim posezanjem u druπtveni æi-vot te potpunim spajanjem umjetnosti i æivo-ta, πto naposljetku znaËi ukidanje umjet-nosti kao umjetnosti. Tek te dvije teænje za-jedno, upravo u svojem antagonizmu, odreu-ju prirodu moderne i postmoderne umjetnosti.

S obzirom na to da umjetnost sada usebe moæe zahvatiti bilo koji predmet, poja-vu ili djelatnost, a ujedno Ëesto pokuπavaukinuti samu sebe kao autonomno polje iliËak kao umjetnost i prijeÊi u ono πto se na-ziva “æivotnom praksom”, morali su se us-postaviti novi kriteriji umjetniËkoga, daklekriteriji po kojima je moguÊe prosuditi pri-pada li neπto umjetnosti ili ne. Pokazalo seda ti kriteriji mogu biti samo vanjski ili for-malni, a ne sadræajni ili strukturni. Pojed-nostavljeno reËeno, polje umjetnosti je odre-eno svojim institucionalnim okvirom, odre-eno je kao svijet ili sustav umjetnosti; sveπto ue u taj sustav dobije umjetniËku rele-vantnost. Ako je duchampovski ready-madeimplicirao da je za ulazak odreene real-nosti u polje umjetnosti kljuËna umjetniko-va odluka, sada je dovoljno da tu realnost usebe ukljuËi sustav umjetnosti (kojega, osimumjetnika, mogu predstavljati i kustos, kriti-Ëar, povjesniËar, direktor muzeja itd.) i daona time dobije umjetniËku relevantnost.Tako ponekad na izloæbama pored umjet-niËkih djela moæemo vidjeti ravnopravno iz-loæene najrazliËitije eksponate koji nisu nas-tali kao umjetnina i koje niti jedan umjetniknije upotrijebio za svoju izjavu. To je moædai jedan od uzroka pribliæavanja jedne drugojizvorno meu sobom jasno razdvojenihfunkcija u sustavu umjetnosti (npr. funkcijeumjetnika i kustosa), kada se sve ËeπÊe Ëinikao da zapravo prelaze jedna u drugu.

2

cies, precisely through their antagonism,determine the nature of modern and post-modern art.

Since art could now include anyobject, phenomenon, or activity, and at thesame time it often made an attempt toabolish itself as an autonomous field, oreven as art, and pass into that what wastermed “life practice”, it was necessary toestablish new criteria for art, that is, crite-ria that would make it possible to estimatewhether something was art or not. It turnedout that such criteria could only be externaland formal, rather than topical or structur-al. To say it in a simplified way, the field ofart was defined by its institutional frame-work, classified as the world or the systemof art; anything that entered that systemwould acquire artistic relevance. If theDuchampian ready-made implied that theartist’s decision was crucial for the inclu-sion of particular reality in the field of art,now it was sufficient that the reality shouldbe included in the system of art (whichcould, besides artists, be represented bythe curators, critics, art historians, museumadministration, etc.) in order to acquireartistic relevance. Thus, in some exhibitionswe could occasionally see, next to the artobjects and on equal footing with them,very versatile exhibits that were not createdas works of art and that no artist ever usedas his or her statement. That might be oneof the reasons for the approximationbetween clearly separated functions withinthe system of art (for example, those ofartist and curator) which increasinglyappear to actually merge with each other.

museum

A special, dominant position within theworld of art has been allotted to the institu-tion of museum (in particular the museumof modern and/or contemporary art). Wecould say that the museum often plays therole of some kind of metonymic representa-tive of the world of art (as the pars pro totofor the entire system). This crucial role isthe result of its position within the hierar-chy of systems, the diversity of its activitiesand structures, as well as its role as theselector and regulator of the domain of art.The museum stands on the top of the pyra-mid of public spaces (among which Iinclude physical and institutional spaces inwhich art is at the disposal of the public);

muzej

Poseban, dominantan poloæaj unutarsvijeta umjetnosti dobila je prije svega je-dna institucija: muzej (osobito muzej mo-derne i/ili suvremene umjetnosti). MoæemoreÊi da se muzej Ëesto nalazi u ulozi neka-kvog metonimijskog zastupnika svijetaumjetnosti (kao pars pro toto Ëitavog susta-va). Tu kljuËnu ulogu stekao je zbog svojegpoloæaja u hijerarhiji sustava, zbog razno-likosti svojih djelatnosti i struktura te zbogsvoje uloge selektora i regulatora polja um-jetnosti. Muzej se nalazi na vrhu piramidejavnih prostora (pod tim podrazumijevamfiziËke i institucionalne prostore u kojima jeumjetnost ponuena na uvid javnosti);fiziËko prisustvo nekog djela u muzejskimprostorima je dakle veÊ samo po sebi potvr-da da je to djelo ne samo umjetnina, veÊ iumjetnina sa specifiËnim kvalitetama zbogkojih je zavrijedila da se njome podrobnijebavimo.

Ako je veÊ samo prisustvo u muzejuujedno potvrda da se radi o relevantnomumjetniËkom djelu (ili o neËemu πto, dodu-πe, nije umjetniËko djelo po svojoj intenciji,ali je zbog ukljuËenosti u muzej u nekomsmislu adekvatno umjetnini), moæda semoramo zapitati o strukturiranosti muzej-skog prostora; otuda Êe zasigurno biti jasni-ja parazitska strategija prema muzeju kaoprostoru i instituciji.

48

3

sl.3: T. PogaËar, West Side Story (Africa), 1994.,Galerija likovnih umetnosti / Gallery of Visual Arts,Slovenj Gradec, foto / photo: Bojan Salaj

tlocrt i znanje

PripremajuÊi u drugoj polovici tridese-tih godina 20. stoljeÊa svoj prvi veliki arhi-tektonski projekt, zgradu ljubljanske Moder-ne galerije, arthitekt Edvard Ravnikar briælji-vo je prouËavao noviju muzejsku arhitektu-ru. Viπe nego na formalne aspekte, paænju jeusmjerio na strukturu prostora i njegovu funk-cionalnu organizaciju. Sakupio je Ëitav nizprimjera za arhitekturu koja omoguÊuje ra-cionalnu, preglednu i smisaonu ureenostgradiva, a istovremeno jednostavan i logiËanput kroza nj te brzi pristup do svake toËke.Ako, meutim, pogledamo tlocrte koje jeRavnikar objavio kao poredbeno gradivo uËlanku o svom projektu Moderne galerije,vidimo kako oblik tih tlocrta ima viπe odstrogo funkcionalne vrijednosti. Njihova geo-metrijska pravilnost istovremeno odraæavaureenost muzejem reprezentirana znanja.Prostori su Ëesto meusobno povezani usustav podruËja i disciplina. Kada predmetpristigne u muzejsku dvoranu, samim timeveÊ ulazi u ureeni i hijerarhizirani sustavznanja koji je pregledan, jasan i dostupankao πto su to i sami muzejski prostori.Shema strukture znanja je neposredno pres-likana u tlocrt izloæbenih prostora.

Zanimljivo je da su tlocrti koji su Ravni-kara osobito zanimali meusobno vrlo sliËni.RijeË je o formi kotaËa, dakle kruæne grae-vine s poveznicama koje se iz srediπtazrakasto πire poput æbica na kotaËu (bilo dase radi o punom krugu ili samo o polovici).Radi se, dakle, o arhetipskoj formi koja,osim πto se odlikuje racionalnoπÊu, pregled-noπÊu, funkcionalnoπÊu i estetiËnoπÊu, sa-dræi i velik metaforiËki potencijal. RijeË je,meutim, o formi koja u zapadnome svijetuima vrlo specifiËnu povijest i konotacije.Neposredno se, naime, nadovezuje na ure-enu i hijerarhiËnu arhitekturu tamnica, bol-nica i sliËnih ustanova koja seæe u 17. i 18.stoljeÊe, k arhitekturi ureivanja i disciplini-ranja o kojoj piπe Foucault, osobito u knjiziSurveiller et punir (Nadziranje i kaænjava-nje). U tom bismo smislu moæda mogli po-jam “disciplina” koje muzej povezuje, ure-uje i reprezentira, razumjeti doslovnije imuzej povezati sa sustavima upravljanja idiscipliniranja - u ovom sluËaju znanja.

Stvarni tlocrt Ravnikarove Modernegalerije ipak se priliËno razlikuje od tradicio-nalnog kruænog tlocrta. To je moæda pove-zano s Ëinjenicom da muzej moderne umjet-nosti ipak nije utemeljen na ureenom ihijerarhijskom sustavu znanja u istom smis-

physical presence of an object in the muse-um hall is by itself an assertion that it is notonly art, but art with specific qualities forwhich it deserves to be considered in detail.

If the very presence of an object in amuseum is proof that it is a relevant workof art (or at least something that is not art,but the inclusion in a museum places it ona level equal to that of art), perhaps weshould raise the question of the structure ofthe museum space; it might help to clarifythe parasitic strategy towards the museumas space and institution.

ground plan and knowledge

In the second half of the 1930s, whenhe was preparing his first great architectur-al project, the building of the Modern Ga-llery in Ljubljana, architect Edvard Ravnikarcarefully studied recent museum architec-ture. Rather than considering its formal as-pects, he directed his attention to the struc-ture of space and its functional organisa-tion. He collected a number of examples foran architecture that enables rational, clearand senseful ordination of the material, aswell as a simple and logical way through it,with ready access to each item. However, ifwe take a close look at the ground plansthat Ravnikar published as comparativematerial in his article on the Modern Galleryproject, we will see that the form of thoseground plans has more than strictly func-tional value. Their geometrical regularity atthe same time reflects the organisation ofthe knowledge represented by the museum.Spaces are often linked together into a sys-tem of fields and disciplines. When anobject arrives to the museum hall, by its ve-ry arrival it enters a hierarchically ordainedsystem of knowledge that is transparent,clear, and accessible as the museums the-mselves. The scheme of the structure ofknowledge is directly copied into the grou-nd plan of the exhibition halls.

It is significant that the ground plansthat especially interested Ravnikar were ve-ry similar to each other. They were wheel-shaped, that is, round with links which sp-read in form of rays from a focus like spokesof a wheel (be it full circle or just half of it).Thus, they represented an archetypal formthat, besides its rationality, transparency,functionality, and aestheticity, possessed agreat metaphorical potential. However, inthe Western world this form has a very spe-

49

cific history and connotations: it directlybuilds upon the ordained and hierarchicalarchitecture of prisons, hospitals, and simi-lar institutions that can be traced back tothe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,to the architecture of order and disciplineanalysed by Foucault, notably in his bookSurveiller et punir (Discipline andPunishment). In this respect, we might per-haps understand the notion of “discipline” -as co-ordinated, ordered, and representedby the museum - in its more literal senseand relate the museum to the systems ofrule and discipline: in this case, of knowl-edge.

The actual ground plan of Ravnikar’sModern Gallery nevertheless differs consid-erably from the traditional ground plan.This might be related to the fact that themuseum of modern art is not after all basedupon an ordered and hierarchical system ofknowledge in the same way as the so-calledgeneral museum or a museum related to aparticular branch of science, for examplenatural sciences, ethnography, or history.The function of the museum of modern orcontemporary art primarily consists in allo-wing various types of knowledge and practi-ce into a special field, in which they will ac-quire a specific “artistic” value. Therefore,Ravnikar could modify the hierarchical str-ucture of the ground plan, allowing greaterflexibility, decrease of hierarchy and sys-temacy, and even greater heterogeneity.Despite this, the comparative material thatthe architect published in his article revea-led in the ground plan of the Modern Gal-lery (with its central hall acting as a pointfrom which it is possible to enter directly orat least very quickly into all other exhibitionhalls) a somewhat faded, but still positivelypresent system of an institution of hierarchyand discipline - prison, hospital, etc.

artist and institution

PogaËar is certainly not the only authorwhom the structure of the world of modernand contemporary art led to establish hisown museum or some other institution.Understanding and self-understanding ofartistic activity are still determined by theechoes of romantic ideology according towhich that activity should be based exclu-sively upon the artist’s absolute, self-basedsubjectivity. His activity should not haveconsiderations for institutional and conven-

lu kao tzv. opÊi muzej ili muzej koji se zas-niva na odreenoj grani znanosti, npr. priro-doslovlju, etnografiji ili povijesti. Funkcijamuzeja moderne i suvremene umjetnostipreteæno se sastoji od propuπtanja razliËitihznanja i praksi u posebno polje gdje Êe steÊispecifiËnu “umjetniËku” vrijednost. Zato jeRavnikar mogao modificirati hijerarhijskustrukturu tlocrta dopustivπi mu veÊu fleksi-bilnost, smanjenje hijerarhiËnosti i sus-tavnosti, pa Ëak i veÊu heterogenost. UnatoËtomu poredbeno nam gradivo, kojeg je arhi-tekt objavio u svojem Ëlanku, pokazuje kakoje u tlocrtu Moderne galerije (sa srediπnjomdvoranom koja djeluje kao toËka iz koje jemoguÊ neposredan, ili barem vrlo brz ulazaku sve druge izloæbene prostore) izblijedio, alijoπ uvijek prisutan sustav hijerarhijsko-disci-plinarne institucije - tamnice, bolnice itd.

umjetnik i institucija

PogaËar, naravno, nije jedini umjetnikkojega je struktura svijeta moderne i suvre-mene umjetnosti dovela do uspostavljanjavlastitog muzeja ili kakve druge institucije.Razumijevanje i samorazumijevanje umjet-nikove djelatnosti joπ uvijek odreuju i odje-ci romantiËne ideologije po kojoj bi ta djelat-nost morala biti zasnovana samo na umjet-nikovoj apsolutnoj, u sebi samoj utemelje-noj subjektivnosti. Umjetnikova djelatnost

50

4

sl.4: T. PogaËar, Kraljevi ulice / Kings of the street,1995., Ljubljana, foto / photo: Borut Kranjc

ne bi se smjela obazirati na institucionalnai konvencionala ograniËenja; πtoviπe, uko-liko bi to bilo potrebno, morala bi im seotvoreno oduprijeti. Nasuprot tomu, sve jejasnije kako je ta djelatnost bitno odreenainstitucionalnim i sustavnim okvirom kojiumjetnika usmjerava i odreuje, a njegovuumjetninu umjeπta i odreuje joj vrijednost.©toviπe, odluka je li neπto umjetnost ili nijene dolazi iz autonomnosti umjetnikoveodluke, veÊ o tome odluËuje sustav svijetaumjetnosti. Zato su mnogi autori razvili in-stitucionalne sustavne strategije - bilo zaosiguravanje vlastita poloæaja (npr. muzeali-zacijom vlastita rada) u kontekstu kojeg seodreuju sustavni odnosi, bilo prilagoava-njem svojih metoda tom kontekstu - s ci-ljem djelovanja na nivou kojeg omoguÊavainstitucija, dakle pridobivanja πireg podruË-ja djelovanja i operativne sposobnosti. Pita-nje je li osnivanje privatne institucije origi-nalna zamisao je, dakle, besmisleno. Samou slovenskoj umjetnosti zadnjih godina po-red PogaËara moæemo naÊi joπ nekolikoumjetnika koji su razvili svoje posebne mu-zeje ili druge institucije (Marko A. KovaËiË,Alenka Pirman, Irwin i drugi), dok u umjet-nosti 20. stoljeÊa, naravno, moæemo prona-Êi Ëitav niz uzora za to - na neke je PogaËarsam otvoreno upozorio (npr. na Broodthaer-sa). Puno je zanimljivije pitanje kako su ta-kve institucije strukturirane i konceptualnoodreene, kako djeluju i kakvi su njihovirezultati. Mislim da moæemo postaviti tezuda je PogaËarov P.MCA utemeljen na meto-di novog parazitizma, dok je sama metodarezultat promiπljanja o prirodi suvremeneumjetnosti i njezine uglavljenosti u mreæuinstitucija i drugih sustava (u kojoj, narav-no, muzej ima kljuËnu ulogu).

novi parazitizam

PogaËar svoju metodu oznaËava poj-mom novi parazitizam, razlikujuÊi je timeod parazitizma kao prirodnog fenomena.Naravno, sliËnost s prirodnim parazitizmomsvjesno je naglaπena; meutim, novi paraz-itizam teËe prije svega kao eksplicitno para-zitsko ponaπanje unutar druπtvenih struktu-ra. Kao πto i sam PogaËa upozorava, teπkoje jasno definirati P.MCA kao instituciju inovi parazitizam kao njezin konceptualnitemelj i glavnu strategiju. Obje su pojave,naime, promjenjive i mobilne i zato smo uneprestanoj opasnosti da Êe veÊ u iduÊemkoraku izmaknuti naπim nastojanjima da ih

tional limitations; on the contrary, it shouldopenly resist them if necessary. On theother hand, it has become increasinglyclear that such activity is essentially deter-mined by the institutional and systemicframework, which directs and orients theartist and also situates his work of art anddefines its value. Moreover, the decisionwhether something is art or not does notcome from the autonomy of the artist’sdecision; it is rather the decision of the sys-tem of the world of art. For this reason,many authors have developed institutionaland systemic strategies - be it in order tosecure their own position (for example, bymeans of musealisation of their work) with-in the context determined by systemic rela-tionships, be it by adapting their methodsto that context - with the purpose of actingon a level which the institution makes pos-sible, that is, by winning a broader area ofaction and operative capacity. It is thereforemeaningless to ask whether the foundationof a private institution is an original idea.Even in Slovenian art we can find severalartists beside PogaËar who have in the pastfew years founded special museums or oth-er institutions (Marko A. KovaËiË, AlenkaPirman, Irwin, and others), whereas in thetwentieth-century art we can certainly finda whole series of models for that - to someof them PogaËar himself has openly drawnattention (e.g. to Broodthaers). A far moreinteresting question is the way in whichthese institutions are structured and con-ceptually oriented, how they operate andwhat are their results. I believe that we canestablish a hypothesis that PogaËar‘sP.MCA was founded by means of the meth-od of new parasitism, method which is it-self a result of thinking about the nature ofcontemporary art and its rootedness in thenetwork of institutions and other systems(in which the museum naturally plays a keyrole).

new parasitism

PogaËar labels his method new para-sitism, separating it thus from parasitism asnatural phenomenon. Naturally, similaritywith natural parasitism is consciouslyaccentuated, but new parasitism surgesabove all as explicit parasitic behaviourwithin social structures. As PogaËar himselfhas pointed out, it is difficult to establish aclear definition of P.MCA as an institution

51

and of new parasitism as its conceptualfoundation and its main strategy. Both are,namely, changeable and mobile and there-fore we face constant danger that they willat the very next step evade our attempts tocatch and determine them. Very generally,we can say that P.MCA is an institutionlacking material foundations of its own (col-lections, space, technology, and even itsstaff is minimal), which for that reasonoperates with the help of hosting institu-tions and other structures. It temporarilysettles there, uses their material and insti-tutional facilities, reaches into establishedworking methods, etc. It would perhaps beof interest to cite some of PogaËar’s ownstatements about P.MCA: “We can presentit as a fictive, parallel institution of art,which establishes interspecific relation-ships with various subjects, the society,institutions, social groups and symbolicnetworks. P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Museum ofContemporary Art does not own its ownrooms or staff, but takes over territories,chooses other spaces and feeds on thejuices of institutions. As a “parallel artisticinstitution,” it serves as: a) a critical modelfor the analysis of a system and its institu-tions, and b) a framework for establishingparallel forms of communication and con-nection. Its activity is not founded upon theproduction of objects or analysis of thestate of affairs, but rather upon the creationof circumstances and promotion of rela-tions.”5

PogaËar’s new parasitism has beenwell defined by Miπko ©uvakoviÊ.6 Accor-ding to him, one should primarily take intoconsideration three essential features. Newparasitism “establishes an analogy with theparasitism of organisms in nature” (indis-pensable, but also lethal relationship of oneorganism towards another) and “an analogybetween natural organisms and social insti-tutions,” since it is “based upon the convic-tion that artistic action as life activity allowsparasitism and shows that art is no longerthe production of a work of art, but ratherthe use of the “world of art,” “culture” and“society” surrounding it and making it nec-essary or unnecessary.”

parasitism as paramirror

New parasitism originates in the reflex-ive nature of art as it was established in thecourse of development and transformations

uhvatimo i pojmovno ograniËimo. Vrlo op-Êenito moæemo reÊi da je P.MCA institucijakoja nema svoga materijalnog temelja (zbir-ki, prostora, tehniËkih sredstava, a i osobljeje malobrojno) te zato svoju djelatnostobavlja pomoÊu ugostiteljskih institucija ilidrugih struktura. Privremeno se u njih use-ljava, iskoriπtava njihove materijalne i insti-tucionalne moguÊnosti, poseæe u ustaljenenaËine rada itd. Moæda bi bilo zanimljivonavesti nekoliko PogaËarovih vlastitih odre-enja P.MCA: “Moæemo ga predstaviti kaofiktivnu, paralelnu instituciju umjetnostikoja uspostavlja interspecifiËne odnose srazliËitim subjektima, druπtvom, institucija-ma, socijalnim grupacijama i simboliËkimmreæama. P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Muzej suvreme-ne umjetnosti ne posjeduje vlastite prostorei osoblje, veÊ preuzima teritorije, odabiredruge prostore i hrani se sokovima institu-cija. Kao “paralelna umjetniËka institucija”sluæi nam: a) kao kritiËni model za analizi-ranje sustava i njegovih institucija i b) kaookvir za uspostavljanje paralelnih oblika ko-municiranja i povezivanja. Njegova djelat-nost ne temelji se toliko na proizvodnjiobjekata ili analizi stanja, veÊ prije svega nastvaranju okolnosti i poticanju odnosa.”5

PogaËarov novi parazitizam dobro jeodredio Miπko ©uvakoviÊ 6. On izdvaja prijesvega tri kljuËne oznake. Novi parazitizam“uspostavlja analogiju s parazitizmom orga-nizama u prirodi” (neophodan, ali i smrto-nosan odnos organizma prema drugom or-ganizmu) i “analogiju meu prirodnim orga-nizmima i druπtvenim institucijama” te “te-melji na uvjerenju da umjetniËko djelovanjekao æivotna djelatnost dozvoljava paraziti-zam i da pokazuje kako umjetnost viπe nijeproizvodnja djela, veÊ upotreba “svijetaumjetnosti”, “kulture” i “druπtva” koji djelookruæuju, te ga Ëine potrebnim ili nepotreb-nim.”

parazitizam kao parazrcalo

Novi parazitizam proizlazi iz refleksiv-ne prirode umjetnosti, kako se ona usposta-vila u razvoju i transformacijama umjetnostiu 20. stoljeÊu. Ranije sam spomenuo unu-tarnji antagonizam te umjetnosti koji pro-izlazi iz dviju suprotstavljenih teænji: teænjeka autonomiji umjetniËkog djela i teænje zaukinuÊem te autonomije i neposrednom po-sezanju u druπtvo. Taj antagonizam (pove-zan s utemeljenjem umjetnosti u instituciji“svijeta umjetnosti” koju, prije svega, pred-

52

stavlja muzej) doveo je do proturjeËnog re-zultata: pitanja o kontekstu, druπtvenojfunkciji, utemeljenju vlastita poloæaja, poli-tiËkim, gospodarskim, ideoloπkim, rasnim,spolnim, kulturnim i dugim problemimaprevladala su nad formalnim i estetskim pi-tanjima. Meutim, premda takva djela ite-kako naglaπavaju realnost pitanja kojih sedotiËu, ulaskom u kontekst umjetnostipostaju objekt kontemplacije i razmiπljanja,oblik, reprezentacija. Dakle, Ëini se da za-dobivaju vidljivost, a gube svoju realnostkao dio stvarnoga svijeta - naravno, uz uvjetda ne uzmemo u obzir realnu druπtvenuulogu reprezentacija i slika.

Muzej kao zastupnik svijeta suvremeneumjetnosti u nekom smislu djeluje kao ogle-dalo - moæe uhvatiti skoro “cijeli svijet”, alikoliko god se to πto u njemu vidimo ËiniloidentiËnim “vanjskoj” realnosti, joπ je uvijeksamo odsjaj, slika, reprezentacija te real-nosti. Kao πto ogledalo odabere neki detaljili fragment kojeg izreæe iz kontinuiteta real-nosti i tek kadriranjem uËini vidljivim, takoi muzej prima u sebe objekte i prakse “iz-vanumjetniËkog svijeta”. Ti objekti ulaskomu institucionalno polje umjetnosti (na prim-jer izloæeni u dvoranama muzeja suvremeneumjetnosti) izgube svoju “realnost” i pretvo-re se u odsjaje i reprezentacije realnosti, alisteknu vidljivost, oblik i strukturu, znaËenjei nove kontekste. Dakle, oni ulaze u vidlji-vost, a time i u odreeni sustav znanja. Me-utim, kao πto je pokazao primjer Ravnika-rova planiranja Moderne galerije, “ogledalo”galerije nije neutralno ni nevino. Prikrivenoili otvoreno, njegova struktura jest strukturahijerarhijski-disciplinarne institucije. Dakle,kada muzej moderne umjetnosti “zrcali” svi-jet, njegove razliËite prakse i realnosti, timega ujedno ureuje, disciplinira i mijenja usustav znanja te kroza nj uspostavlja vlas-niËke strukture.

refleksija

P.MCA, prema tome, iskoriπtava spo-sobnost refleksije koju omoguÊava svijetsuvremene umjetnosti ukazujuÊi na sakri-veno ili neopaæeno (potisnuto) u realnosti,a samim time i u onim sustavima koji pro-duciraju znanje o toj realnosti i, prema to-me, djeluju kao instancije selekcioniranja,ureivanja i potiskivanja. Bitna intervenci-ja P.MCA u te sustave upravo je upozora-vanje na njihovu selekcijsku ulogu. Pritommoramo upozoriti na joπ jedno glediπte:

of art in the twentieth century. I have men-tioned above the internal antagonism ofthat art, which results from two oppositetendencies: the tendency towards theautonomy of artistic creation and the ten-dency to abolish that autonomy and reachdirectly into the society. That antagonism(related to the foundation of art in the insti-tution of the “world of art,” primarily repre-sented by the museum) has led to contra-dictory results: the question of context,social function, establishing one’s own po-sition, as well as political, economic, ideo-logical, racial, gender-related, cultural, andother problems, have overweighed those ofform and aesthetics. However, even thoughsuch works of art by all means accentuatethe reality of questions they raise, by enter-ing the context of art they become an objectof contemplation and reflection, an image,representation. Thus it appears that theygain visibility, but lose their reality as a partof the real world - naturally, under the con-dition that we do not take into account thereal social role of representations andimages.

Museum as representative of the worldof contemporary art in a certain sense actsas a mirror - it can embrace almost the“entire world” but, however identical whatwe see in it might appear with respect tothe “external” reality, it still remains a merereflection, image, representation of thatreality. In the same way as the mirror picksout a detail or a fragment, cutting it out of

5

53

l

5 Tadej PogaËar, P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Muzej sodobne umet-nosti in novi parazitizem (Museum of contemporary artand new parasitism), in: Teorije razstavljanja / Theoriesof Display. Svet umetnosti - teËaj za kustose sodobneumetnosti, πolsko leto 1997/98, SCCA-Ljubljana, 1998,p. 49. 6 Miπko ©uvakoviÊ, Parazitizem in arbitrarnost, in: T.PogaËar, Zgodbe dveh mest, The P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Mu-seum of Contemporary Art, Ljubljana, 2001, p. 59.

t

5 Tadej PogaËar, P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Muzej sodobne umet-nosti in novi parazitizem, u: Teorije razstavljanja /Theories of Display. Svet umetnosti - teËaj za kustosesodobne umetnosti, πolsko leto 1997/98, SCCA-Ljubljana, 1998.; 49. 6 Miπko ©uvakoviÊ, Parazitizem in arbitrarnost, u: T.PogaËar, Zgodbe dveh mest, The P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E.Museum of Contemporary Art, Ljubljana, 2001., str. 59.

sl.5: T. PogaËar, CODE: RED, Red Umbrellas’ March,2001., 49. Biennale, Venecija / 49. Biennale diVenezia, foto / photo: Tadej PogaËar

the continuity of reality, and makes it visi-ble only by framing it, the museum takes initself objects and practices of the “extra-artistic world.” By entering the institutionalfield of art (for example, by being exhibitedin the halls of a museum of contemporaryart), these objects lose their “reality” andbecome reflections and representations ofreality, but they gain visibility, shape andstructure, meaning and new contexts. Thatis, they enter visibility and thereby anordered system of knowledge. However, asshown by the example of Ravnikar’s plan-ning of the Modern Gallery, the “mirror” ofa gallery is neither neutral nor innocent.Concealed or transparent, its structure isthe structure of an institution of hierarchyand discipline. Therefore, when a museumof modern art “mirrors” the world with itsvarious practices and realities, it orders thatworld at the same time, disciplines it andtransforms it into a system of knowledge,establishing through it structures of owner-ship.

reflection

P.MCA thus uses the ability of reflec-tion, made possible by the world of con-temporary art, by pointing to the hidden orunnoticed (that is, the repressed) in thereality and subsequently also in those sys-tems that produce knowledge about thatreality, acting thus as instances of selec-tion, order, and repression. The essentialintervention of P.MCA into those systems isprecisely pointing to their selective role.

With respect to this, we must drawattention to another view: the self-reflexivedimension of P.MCA. Besides using itsfunctions and structure, it treats the institu-tion of museum as one of its crucial objects.Moreover, within the interventions andinstallations prepared by P.MCA, theP.MCA itself features as the object of pre-sentation and reflection, and by this I donot mean the fact that occasionally worksby painter Tadej PogaËar find their way intothe installations of P.MCA. It simply con-cerns the relationship between the individ-ual artist and the institution that I tried todescribe above. In this relationship, theinstitution is formal and formless, eventhough established and directed by PogaËarhimself. What is presented in these rela-tionships is the institution itself. This mightlead us to assume that PogaËar wants to

na samorefleksivnu dimenziju P.MCA.Osim πto iskoriπtava njene funkcije i struk-turu, on muzejsku instituciju tretira kaojedan od svojih kljuËnih predmeta.©toviπe, unutar zahvata i postava koji pri-premaju P.MCA kao predmet prezentacijei refleksije Ëesto nastupa upravo sâmP.MCA. Time ne mislim samo na Ëinjenicuda se povremeno u postavima P.MCA na-u i djela slikara Tadeja PogaËara; to jejednostavno odnos izmeu umjetnika poje-dinca i institucije koji sam prethodno po-kuπao ocrtati. U tom odnosu institucija jeformalna i bezliËna, premda ju je osnovaoi usmjerava je sâm PogaËar. Radi se o to-me da se u tim odnosima prezentira upra-vo sama ta institucija. To nas moæe do-vesti do pretpostavke da PogaËar s P.MCApokuπava izvesti onaj preokret za kojim jeneprestano teæila kritiËno usmjerena kul-tura 20. stoljeÊa: uz pomoÊ refleksije (uteoretskom ili umjetniËkom diskursu) opa-ziti okolnosti i opravdanost vlastita poloæa-ja. To je i onaj iznenadni preokret kojeg jeRastko MoËnik vidio u slici Ustajanje Ses-tara Scipio Nasice grupe Irwin: “Ne gleda-te perspektivu, veÊ gledate kako se gledaperspektiva … Umjetnina nam omoguÊavaono πto u empirijskom svakodnevnom is-kustvu nije moguÊe.… Ukratko, mi se vidi-mo kako se gledamo, ali ne tek tako, veÊposredstvom objekta. I taj objekt je sampogled.”7 (Samo) refleksivna pozicija bi,dakle, trebala omoguÊiti da preko pos-rednog objekta vidimo istinu vlastite pozi-cije, samu toËku s koje gledamo - kao πtouz pomoÊ sustava ogledala vidimo vlastitustraænju stranu (koja nas Ëini cjelovitimkao tijelo, dok nam u neposrednom doæiv-ljavanju tijela izmiËe, a time nam bjeæi isama cjelovitost tijela).

Prilikom tumaËenja ovoga pitanja mo-ramo iznova uzeti u obzir Ëinjenicu da jePogaËarova praksa sastavljena od dvajukomplementarnih i ponekad skoro neraz-dvojivo isprepletenih glediπta, naËela mu-zeja i naËela novog parazitizma. Dok mu-zej “obrauje”, “zrcali” i Ëitav svijet -ukljuËujuÊi sebe - uvodi u sustav ureenogznanja, naËelo parazitizma je neπto druk-Ëije: naseliti se u domaÊinu, djelovati unjemu, iskoriπtavati njegove resurse i takou drukËijem svjetlu ukazati na materijale,naËela, prakse i pretpostavke koje formira-ju domaÊina. P.MCA formira tlocrt znanjaparazitskom metodom (koja je inaËe i sa-ma mobilna te se moæe artikulirati kao te-renski rad8, aktivizam9 i sl.)

54

Kao i svaki muzej, i P.MCA produciravidljivost koju uvodi u sustave znanja, alitako da to Ëini na nekoj metaravni. Radi seo paralelnom i delokaliziranom entitetu (do-slovno “para-site”, tj. “s onu stranu lokaci-je”) koji nema vlastite “supstancije”, mate-rijalnog temelja takve produkcije, nego sa-mo institucionalnu formu kojom se prilijepina tijelo domaÊina i poËinje izrabljivati nje-gove potencijale. Utjelovljuje i lokalizira se,dakle, u domaÊinu u datom trenutku i nje-gove izvore iskoriπtava za svoju temeljnumuzejsku funkciju - produkciju vidljivosti,odnosno znanja. Tek domaÊini mu dajuonaj prostor, onu “zrcalnu povrπinu” kojamu to omoguÊava. Meutim, time daP.MCA kao parainstitucija udvostruËujesvoje domaÊine, a ujedno je sâm nelocirani nematerijaliziran, u optiku domaÊina uvo-di odreenu dvojnost. DomaÊinovom “od-sjajnom povrπinom” hvata odsjaje svijeta,ali ujedno se na toj povrπini ukazuju njego-ve vlastite strukture, dakle strategije i pos-tupci kojima domaÊin proizvodi vizualnost.Odnos tog podvojenja, samozrcaljenja do-maÊina u parazitovu “paraogledalu” je nei-zvjestan, krhak i u neprestanoj opasnosti dase preokrene u svoju suprotnost (da doma-Êin prihvati u sebe parazita, kao πto se do-godilo u nizu pervertivnih i kritiËkih praksikoje su napadale muzej - muzej, koji se mo-rao prilagoavati tim napadima i na njih od-govarati, pritom se uistinu vrlo modificirao);“prikriveni tlocrt” odnosa moÊi koji odreujemuzej, prema tome, pokazuje se samo frag-mentarno i nekako na rubovima tog podvo-jenja.

toposi rada p.mca

Prije sam rekao da se P.MCA razvijai, prema tome, pravi bi pristup trebao bitikronoloπki. Meutim, s obzirom na to dase radi o muzeju i s obzirom na to da seËini kako je u toj prividno sluËajnoj ili sa-movoljnoj kronologiji moguÊe identificiratineke glavne teme i njihove povezanosti,pokuπat Êu oblikovati topoloπki model mu-zeja i njegovih podruËja, odnosno proble-matika. Bit Êe to pokuπaj zacrtavanja ne-kakvog tlocrta tog muzeja bez materijalnesupstancije, koji postoji samo kao organi-zacija znanja, a ne kao realna arhitek-tura. Meu kljuËnim toposima kojima sebave PogaËar i P.MCA Ëetiri mi se Ëineposebno vaænim: muzej, ulica, labora-torij i dom.

use P.MCA to realise that turnover whichthe critically oriented culture of the twenti-eth century ceaselessly strove to achieve: tonotice the circumstances and justificationof one’s own position with the help ofreflection (in theoretical or artistic disco-urse). That is the sudden turn that RastkoMoËnik saw in the picture UstajanjeSestara Scipio Nasice by the Irwin group:“You do not look at the perspective, butrather look at how to look at the perspective… The work of art makes possible what isimpossible in everyday empirical experi-ence. … Briefly, we see ourselves looking atourselves, but not just like that, ratherthrough an object. And that object is thelook itself.“7 The (self)reflexive positionshould therefore make it possible to see,through the mediating object, the truth ofour own position, the very point from whichwe look at it - just as with the help of thesystem of mirrors we can see our own back(which makes us complete as a body, eventhough it escapes our look in the indirectexperience of our body, leading to theescape of the very completeness of thebody).

Regarding this question, we mustagain take into consideration the fact thatPogaËar’s practice comprises two comple-mentary and sometimes almost inextricablyinterwoven views: the principle of museumand the principles of new parasitism.Whereas the museum “transforms”, “mir-

55

l

7 Rastko MoËnik, Postmodernizem in alternativa(Postmodernism and alternative), in: Extravagantia,©KUC-ZIFF (Studia humanitatis minora), Ljubljana,1993, pp. 103 and 104.

6

sl.6: T. PogaËar, Kitchen Icon (TomatenSuprematismus), Project: Home Stories, Köln, 1998.,foto / photo: Tadej PogaËar

t

7 Rastko MoËnik, Postmodernizem in alternativa, u:Extravagantia, ©KUC-ZIFF (Studia humanitatis minora),Ljubljana, 1993.; 103-104. 8 Npr. u projektu Pripovijest o dva grada. 9 Npr. u projektu Code: Red.

rors”, and brings the entire world - includ-ing itself - into the system of ordered knowl-edge, the principle of parasitism is some-what different: to settle within the host, tooperate within him, to use his resources,thus showing in different light the materi-als, principles, practices, and presumptionswhich form him. P.MCA shapes the groundplan of knowledge by parasitic method(which is itself mobile and can be articulat-ed as field work,8 activism,9 etc.)

Just like any other museum, P.MCAproduces visibility which it introduces in thesystems of knowledge, only it does this ona certain meta-plane. It is a parallel and de-localised entity (literally: “para-site”, thatis, “beyond location”), which does not pos-sess its own “substance”, the materialfoundation of such production, but only aninstitutional form by means of which itadheres to the body of the host and beginsto exploit his potentials. Thus it incarnatesand localises itself within the host at thegiven moment and uses his resources for itsbasic function of a museum - the produc-tion of visibility, that is, knowledge. It is thehosts that give it the space, the “mirror sur-face” that enables it to do this. However,since P.MCA as a para-institution doublesits hosts and is at the same time unlocatedand unmaterialised, it introduces a certainambiguity into the optics of its host. Withthe help of the host’s “reflective surface” itcatches the reflections of the world, but atthe same time this surface shows its ownstructures, that is, strategies and proce-dures by which the host produces visuality.The relationship between this doubling, thisself-reflection in the parasite’s “para-mir-ror,” is unconscious, fragile, and in con-stant danger of turning into its own opposi-tion (that the host accepts into himself aparasite, as it happened in a series of per-verted and critical practices attacking themuseum - and the museum, which had toadapt to the attacks and counter them, wasindeed considerably modified in the pro-cess); the “hidden ground plan” of thepower relations which orients the museumis therefore shown only fragmentary andsomehow at the margins of this doubling.

topoi of p.mca’s work

I have said above that P.MCA is in theprocess of development and therefore theright approach should be the chronological

museum art

Meu PogaËarovim projektima, koje jemoguÊe neposredno povezati s Ëetiri toposatemeljnog kvadrata, moæda su najbrojniji onivezani uz problematiku muzeja. To je ra-zumljivo pomislimo li na posebnu poveza-nost novog parazitizma i institucionalne for-me muzeja, ali i na posebnu druπtvenu ulo-gu koju muzej obnaπa u odnosu prema pro-dukciji i tradiciji umjetnosti. Zato bismo mog-li reÊi da je temeljni kvadrat zapravo asi-metriËan, jer jedan njegov Ëlan ima posebnuulogu. UkljuËivanje muzeja u taj kvadratupozorava joπ na neπto: na dijalektiËku na-petost izmeu uloge subjekta i objekta. Mu-zej je u tom sluËaju predmet analize i pre-zentacije, ali isto tako i institucionalni okvir;dakle, subjekt te analize i prezentacije. Upra-vo zato πto kao subjekt znanja ima moguÊ-nost odsijavanja Ëitava svijeta i njegova pre-zentiranja u ureenom (discipliniranom) su-stavu, u taj isti sustav moæe unijeti i samogsebe. To proturjeËje prisutno je i u drugimelementima kvadrata i u njihovim meusob-nim odnosima. Pojednostavljeno bismo teodnose mogli rezimirati ovako: “tlocrt zna-nja”, kako smo ga pokuπali zacrtati zaP.MCA jest sustav koji pokazuje druπtveneprostorne i lokacijske odnose kao ureenoznanje. Meutim, to znanje je moguÊe samozato jer je i samo uglavljeno upravo u onedruπtvene odnose koje pokuπava prikazati.Meu projektima u kojima su se PogaËar i

56

7

P.MCA prihvatili muzeja najprije moæemospomenuti Obisk II (Posjet II)10, osobnuakciju koju je PogaËar bez znanja i suradnjejavnosti izveo u Prirodoslovnom muzeju uLjubljani 1993. godine. Tijekom akcije us-postavio je meditativan intenzivan odnosprema muzejskim eksponatima - ostacimapretpovijesnih æivotinja (Meditiranje s ma-mutom, Spavanje s jelenom, Hranjenje med-vjeda). NeoparazitistiËku strategiju P.MCAposve je razvio i jasno formulirao u dva pro-jekta iz 1994. godine, veÊ spomenutoj WestSide Story i projektu Umjetnost povijesti -kroz tijelo. Taj postav, realiziran u Muzejunovije povijesti u Ljubljani (nekadaπnjemMuzeju narodne revolucije), bio je moædanajneposredniji uzor za novi parazitizam kaostrategiju prisvajanja i iskoriπtavanja doma-Êinovih izvora. PogaËar je u muzejskim izloæ-benim dvoranama predmetima iz muzejskihzbirki oblikovao instalaciju u kojoj je uz po-moÊ uloge, razumijevanja i prezentacije tije-la govorio o povijesnim i druπtvenim odnosi-ma. Ta je instalacija pokazala kako je sistim muzejskim predmetima moguÊe izgra-diti razliËite pripovijesti, odnosno povijesti.U radu Umjetnost povijesti vjerojatno se ra-dilo o dva vidika: o oblikovanju, usmjerava-nju i upravljanju tijela, dakle o tijelu kaosredstvu i cilju strategija moÊi, te o trauma-tiËnoj i skandaloznoj dimenzioniranosti tjeles-nosti, nepodnoπljivoj za djelovanje vladaju-Êeg simboliËkog sustava koji se mora potis-nuti. Sastavni dio postava bio je ured Upra-ve P.MCA. PogaËar je starim uredskim na-mjeπtajem, pronaenim u muzeju, oblikovaoprostor nalik na birokratske i politiËke pros-tore Ëetrdesetih, pedesetih i πezdesetih godi-na, reprezentirajuÊi tako onu toËku moÊi iupravljanja koja zapravo uspostavlja “priËu”u kojoj pojedini muzejski predmeti dobivajusvoje mjesto i znaËenje. Posjetitelju je timeomoguÊio neposredan pristup do one dubin-ske razine u radu muzeja koja mu je skorouvijek nedostupna i prikrivena. U tom sklo-pu (osim pojedinih postava periodiËkih i stal-nih izloæbi, gdje je P.MCA uspjeπno upotrije-bio neoparazitske strategije) mogu spomenu-ti joπ barem jedan projekt: P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E.Security je zapoËeo na 2. trijenalu slovenskeumjetnosti U3 u Modernoj galeriji u Ljublja-ni 1997. godine da bi se zatim nastavio naviπe drugih izloæbi. Projekt povezuje dvijeopsesije koje se tiËu muzeja: sigurnost i nep-restano sakupljanje, klasificiranje, arhivira-nje i prezentiranje. Muzejski namjeπtenici susakupljali, ureivali, arhivirali i izlagali otis-ke prstiju posjetitelja.

one. However, since it is a museum, andsince it appears that in this apparently acci-dental or arbitrary chronology it is possibleto identify certain main themes and theirrelations, I will try to create a topologicalmodel of the museum and its domains orproblems. It will be an attempt to delineatea ground plan for that museum withoutmaterial substance, which exists solely asan organisation of knowledge and not asreal architecture. Among the key topoiemployed by PogaËar and P.MCA, fourseem to me of particular importance: muse-um, street, laboratory, and home.

museum art

Among those PogaËar’s projects whichcan be directly connected to the four topoiof the basic square, perhaps the mostnumerous are those related to the problemof the museum. It is understandable if weconsider the peculiar link between new par-asitism and the institutional form of themuseum, as well as the social role playedby the latter in relation to art productionand art tradition. Thus we might say thatthe basic square is actually asymmetricbecause one of its members is assigned aspecial role. The inclusion of the museumin the square points to another thing: to thedialectic tension between the roles of sub-ject and object. In this case, the museum isan object of analysis and interpretation, butalso an institutional framework, that is, thesubject of that analysis and interpretation.Precisely because it has, as the subject ofknowledge, the possibility to reflect theentire world and to present it in an ordered(disciplined) system, it can also introduceitself into that system. This contradiction ispresent in other elements of the square aswell, and also in their mutual relationships.In order to present it in a simplified way, letus resume these relationships in the follow-ing way: the “ground plan of knowledge,”as we tried to delineate it for P.MCA, is asystem demonstrating social relationshipsof space and location as ordered knowl-edge. However, this knowledge is only pos-sible because it is itself embedded in thosesocial relationships it seeks to present.

Among the projects in which PogaËarand P.MCA dealt with the museum, wemight first mention Obisk II (Visit II), 10 per-sonal action that PogaËar performed at theMuseum of Natural Sciences in Ljubljana in

57

sl.7: T. PogaËar, Tales of Two Cities, Galerija likovnihumetnosti / Gallery of Visual Arts, Ravne naKoroπkem, 2000., foto / photo: Tadej PogaËar

t

10 Obisk II ubraja se meu projekte koje PogaËaroznaËava kao No Event Actions, akcije bez dogaaja.Prvu akciju te vrste, Obisk I, izveo je u Prirodoslovnommuzeju 1981. godine.

l

8 E.g. in the project Zgodbe o dveh mest (Tale of two cities) 9 E.g. in the project Code: Red.10 Obisk II (Visit II) belongs to those projects of whichPogaËar speaks as No Event Actions. First of this sortwas Obisk I, which he realised at the Museum of NaturalSciences in 1981. godine.

1993, without knowledge and co-operationof the public. During this action, he estab-lished a meditative relationship with themuseum exhibits - remnants of prehistoricanimals (Meditating with the Mammoth,Sleeping with the Deer, Feeding the Bear).He fully developed and clearly formulatedthe neoparasitic strategy of P.MCA in twoprojects from 1994, the above-mentionedWest Side Story and Umetnost zgodovine -skozi telo (The Art of History - Through theBody). This installation, realised in theMuseum of Modern History in Ljubljana(former Museum of People’s Revolution),was perhaps the most direct model for newparasitism as a strategy of appropriationand exploitation of host’s resources. In theexhibition halls of the museum and usingobjects from its collections, PogaËar creat-ed an installation in which he exploited therole, understanding, and presentation of thebody in order to speak of historical andsocial relationships. This installation sho-wed that it is possible to use the samemuseum exhibits in order to create differentstories or histories. The Art of History prob-ably expressed two viewpoints: the shap-ing, orienting, and directing the body, thatis, the body as the tool and the aim ofpower strategies, and the traumatic andscandalous dimensioning of corporeality,unbearable for the operation of the estab-lished symbolic system which must sup-press them. A constitutive part of the instal-lation was the office of the Direction ofP.MCA. With the help of old office furniturethat he found in the museum, PogaËar cre-ated a space reminiscent of the bureaucrat-ic and political spaces of the 40s, 50s, and60s, representing thus the point of powerand rule which would actually establish the“story” in which individual museum exhi-bits would acquire their space and mean-ing. In this way, he enabled the visitor toaccess directly the essential plane of theoperation of a museum, which otherwisepractically always remains inaccessible andconcealed. Within this framework, (besidescertain installations with exhibits from tem-porary exhibitions and permanent collec-tion, for which P.MCA successfully used itsneoparasitic strategies) I could mention atleast one more project: P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E.Security began at the 2nd Triennale ofSlovenian Art U3 at the Modern Gallery inLjubljana in 1997 and continued at a num-ber of other exhibitions. The project linkstwo obsessions of a museum: security and

street art

Ulica se u PogaËarovu radu pojavljujekao javni prostor Ëiju slojevitost i proturjeË-ja prikrivaju sustavi usmjeravanja naπeg po-gleda time πto pojedina glediπta izguravajuna rub ili u nevidljivost. Tako je prilikom po-sezanja u uliËne prostore jedna od kljuËnihstrategija P.MCA preusmjeravanje pogleda ipostavljanje previenog i odgurnutog u prviplan. TipiËni primjer tog pristupa su Kraljeviulice, projekt koji je P.MCA realizirao usklopu projekta SCCA-Ljubljana Urbanariau razdoblju od 1995. do 1997. godine. Po-gaËar je u srediπte paænje postavio inaËerubne kloπare, “kraljeve ulica”. U akciji kojusu najavljivali plakati s natpisom “Kraljevidolaze” kloπari su na nekoliko sati na ulica-ma dobili svoja kraljevska “prijestolja”. Taprijestolja su, naravno, ujedno bila i svoje-vrsne kazaliπne pozornice i muzejski posta-menti. (To je pogotovo postalo jasno kadaje PogaËar u Moderna Museet u Stockhol-mu kloπaricu posjeo na stolicu na takvom

58

8

postamentu u sobi s Duchampovim radovi-ma i time je zapravo proglasio ready-made-om.) Jasno je da je vidljivost u kontekstujavnog prostora moguÊe osobito dobro do-seÊi naglaπeno teatralnim, kazaliπnim sred-stvima. U projektu Code: Red, u kojem seP.MCA bavi pitanjem prostitucije, pokazalose kako su kazaliπna sredstva vrlo djelotvor-na pri otvaranju prostora za razmiπljanje,analizu i akciju. ©ator, postavljen u sklopuVenecijanskog bijenala 2001. godine, bioje nenacionalni paviljon, aktivistiËka toËka,komandni most, ali i uliËno kazaliπte. Ka-zaliπte se pohodom suradnica projekta scrvenim kiπobranima po gradu raπirilo navenecijanske ulice i trgove. (Osim sustavavidljivosti, kljuËni je vidik uliËne djelatnostiP.MCA analiza ekonomskih sustava i toko-va. P.MCA ne zanimaju samo parazitizam iparalociranost, veÊ i paralelni sustavi, a naulici se prepliÊu paralelni ekonomski sus-tavi: prosjaËenje, prostitucija, uliËna trgov-ina, sakupljanje i preprodavanje otpadnihmaterijala, ali i kriminal.)

lab art

Konceptom laboratorija PogaËar sebavio u seriji radova koji su zapoËeli 1993.godine instalacijom Laboratorium I. Instala-cija je postavljena u javnosti nedostupnomprivatnom prostoru. Radilo se o ruπevinamanastalim nakon neuspjelog laboratorijskogpokusa. S posljedicama tog pokusa javnostse upoznala samo putem fotografskih doku-menata i opisa. “Za postav Laboratorium Ivaæno je odsustvo instance javnosti, jer jeprostor sliËnih projekata (istraæivanja,eksperimenti) uvijek “privatan” ili obavezanπutnjom (tajnoπÊu) odreenih elita i odabra-nika.”11 U umjetniËkoj tradiciji zadnjih dva-ju stoljeÊa laboratorij Ëesto ima karakter je-zivog (uncanny, unheimlich). To je znaËe-nje povezano upravo s nedostupnoπÊu do-gaanja u njemu. Meutim, tajnost i privat-nost joπ nisu dovoljni za pretvaranje labora-torija u neπto opasno i prijeteÊe. Moæda jetaj uËinak moguÊe povezati s poznatim od-lomkom iz Engelsova djela Ludwig Feuer-bach i zalazom klasiËne njemaËke filozofije;Engels tvrdi da su “eksperiment i industrija”najdjelotvorniji kritiËari filozofskog agnosti-cizma i skepticizma, Kantove “stvari po se-bi” i drugih takvih “filozofskih muha”. Akofilozof postavlja pitanje: “Kako mogu znatiπto je istina?”, Engels mu odgovara: “Uz po-moÊ prakse.” Ako mogu analizirati prirodni

constant collection, classification, archiva-tion, and presentation. The employees ofthe museum were collecting, ordering,archiving, and exhibiting fingerprints of thevisitors.

street art

In PogaËar’s work, the street appearsas a public space the complexity and con-tradictions of which are concealed by thesystems of direction of our view in whichcertain views are pushed to the margins orto invisibility. Therefore, with interventionsin street spaces, one of the crucial strate-gies of P.MCA is to redirect the view andplace the overlooked and the repressed intothe first plane. A typical example of thisapproach is the project Kralji ulice (Kings ofthe Street), realised by P.MCA in the frame-work of the project SCCA-Ljubljana Urba-naria between 1995 and 1997. In thefocus of attention PogaËar placed the other-wise marginal homeless, “kings of thestreet.” In an action announced by posterswith the inscription “Kings are coming,” thehomeless could for a few hours occupy theirroyal “thrones” in the street. Naturally,these thrones were also theatre stages andmuseum pedestals of a sort. (This becameparticularly clear when PogaËar at theModerna Museet in Stockholm placed ahomeless woman in a chair on such apedestal, which was situated in the roomwith works by Duchamp, thus actually pro-claiming her a ready-made.) It is obviousthat it is possible to accomplish visibilitywithin the context of public space especial-ly with strikingly theatrical, theatre-likemeans. In the project Code: Red, in whichP.MCA deals with the problem of prostitu-tion, it became clear that theatrical meansare very efficient in opening space forreflection, analysis, and action. A tent pla-ced in the framework of the Biennale atVenice in 2001 was a non-national pavil-ion, an activist point, the commander’sbridge, but also the street theatre. In a pro-cession of female co-workers at the project,carrying red umbrellas through the city, thetheatre spread to the streets and squares ofVenice. (Apart from the systems of visibili-ty, the crucial view of the street activity ofP.MCA is the analysis of economic direc-tions and processes. P.MCA is not interest-ed exclusively in parasitism and para-loca-tion, but also in the parallel systems, and

sl.8/9: T. PogaËar, Tales of Two Cities, Galerijalikovnih umetnosti / Gallery of Visual Arts, SlovenjGradec, 2000., foto / photo: Tadej PogaËar

59

9

t

11 PogaËar, Laboratorium; 7.

street is the place of interaction of paralleleconomic systems: beggary, prostitution,street trade, collection and selling of wasteand also crime.)

lab art

PogaËar dealt with the concept of lab-oratory in a series of works that he began in1993 by the installation of Laboratorium Iin a private space inaccessible to the pub-lic. It was a space demolished in a failedlaboratory experiment. The public wasacquainted with the consequences of thatexperiment only through photographic doc-umentation and descriptions. “For theinstallation Laboratorium I the absence ofthe public instance is crucial, since thespace of similar projects (research, experi-ments) is always “private” or bound bysilence (secrecy) of particular elites or theinitiated.”11 In the artistic tradition of thepast two centuries, laboratory has often hadthe character of the uncanny (unheimlich).This meaning is linked precisely to theinaccessibility of information about what ishappening there. However, secrecy and pri-vacy are not enough to turn the laboratoryinto something dangerous and threatening.Perhaps this effect can be related to thewaning of German classical philosophy andthe extract of Engels’s work on LudwigFeuerbach, in which he states that “experi-ment and industry” are the most efficientcritics of philosophical agnosticism andscepticism, Kant’s “thing in itself” and othersimilar “philosophical caprices”. If thephilosopher raises the question: “Howshould I know the truth?”, Engels replies tohim: with practice. If I am able to analyse anatural process, isolate it from its naturalenvironment, perform as an experiment inthe laboratory, and subsequently use it inindustry, then Hume’s doubts about causal-ity must be meaningless. It is not decisivewhether a chemical formula is a “syntheticaprioristic judgement” or just an “aposteri-oristic judgement”; what matters is whetherit is used in industry. The practical usabili-ty of knowledge becomes its criterion, par-ticularly in industry production. However,no matter what Engels thought, the spreadof knowledge in the world means at thesame time subordination of that world tomass production, that is, subjugation to thelogic of the capital and its accumulation.The uncanny “mad scientist” in the labora-

proces, izolirati ga iz njegove prirodne oko-line i eksperimentalno izvesti u laboratoriju,a potom upotrijebiti u industriji, onda suHumove dvojbe o uzroËnosti oËito besmis-lene. Nije presudno je li neka kemijska for-mula “sintetiËki apriorni sud” ili samo “apo-steriorni sud”, vaæno je da je upotrebljiva uindustriji. Kriterij znanja postaje njegovapraktiËna upotrebljivost, osobito u industrij-skoj proizvodnji. Ali bez obzira na to πto jeo tome mislio Engels, πirenje znanja o svi-jetu ujedno znaËi podreivanje tog svijetamasovnoj produkciji, dakle podreivanjelogici kapitala i njegove akumulacije. Jezivi“ludi znanstvenik” u laboratoriju (a moædajoπ jeziviji, i na neki naËin niπta manje lud,hladni, racionalni i pragmatiËni tehnolog)moæda je upravo personifikacija iracional-nog nagona kapitala koji sve podreuje sebii sve preobraæava u viπak vrijednosti, dok je

60

10

sl.10: T. PogaËar, Laboratorium I, 1993., Træaπka371, Ljubljana, foto / photo: Æiga Koritnik

l

11 PogaËar, Laboratorium; 7.

nihilizam “neuspjelog pokusa” koji uzrokujeruπenje demonstracija uniπtavajuÊe, nihilis-tiËke strane kapitala kao vlastite bezumneakumulacije.

home art

»etvrti kljuËni topos koji se pojavljujekod PogaËara jest prostor doma. Naj-potpunije neoparazitistiËko pretresanje do-ma predstavlja projekt Home Stories iz2000. godine. PogaËar i P.MCA naselili suse u stan povjesniËara umjetnosti DanielaSpankea u Kölnu. I taj je projekt - naravno,zbog privatnog karaktera doma - dostupanjavnosti samo preko sabranog dokumen-tarnog materijala. Mogli bismo reÊi da jedom u koji se naselio P.MCA za njega najednoj strani objekt istraæivanja a na drugojprostor kreativnosti. U svjetlu PogaËarove in-tervencije “dom” se pokazao kao spleturoeniËkih sustava, praksi, tehnologija imodela, ali i specifiËnih predmeta, slika iikonografije. Ti sustavi uglavljuju dom, obi-teljske strukture, domaÊe prakse i ekonomi-ju u druπtveni i povijesni kontekst te ih prila-goavaju tom kontekstu. Osim toga, dom jesediment razliËitih praksi i tradicija koje seodræavaju u njegovu razvoju i transformacija-ma. Metoda P.MCA koja je osvojila ta glediπ-ta bila je posredna. Nije se, dakle, radilo oneposrednim socioloπkim i antropoloπkim is-traæivanjima, nego o uspostavljanju situacijakoje su iskoriπtavale razliËite elemente do-ma, a koje se dalo iπËitavati i kao umjetnosti kao kreativnu igru. Kuhinjska ikona je, naprimjer, ponavljanje MaljeviËeva Crvenogkvadrata, ali upotrebom kuhinjske ikonogra-fije suvremenog potroπaËkog druπtva. Poga-Ëar je crveni kvadrat naslikao keËapom nabijeloj kuhinjskoj krpi. Pritom si je kao re-ceptom iz kuharice pomagao reprodukcijomMaljeviËeva rada u katalogu. Meusobnoprelamanje proturjeËnih kodova stvorilo jeuËinak humora, a ujedno je te kodove osvi-jetlilo kao vizualne i konceptualne sustavekoji odreuju i usmjeravaju stavove i djelat-nosti.

rasporedni odnosi

Moæemo vidjeti da se spomenuta Ëetiritoposa povezuju, odnosno rasporeuju sobzirom na odreene odnose. PogaËaru suod posebne vaænosti odnosi koje bismo mog-li svrstati u podruËje moÊi, osobito je eko-

tory (and perhaps the even more uncannyand in some way equally mad, cold, ratio-nal, and pragmatic technologist) are per-haps precisely the impersonifications of theirrational drive of the capital which has sub-ordinated everything to itself and trans-formed everything to surplus value, where-as the nihilism of a “failed experiment”causing destruction is a demonstration ofthe destructive, annihilating side of the cap-ital as its own irrational accumulation.

home art

The fourth key topos of PogaËar is thespace of home. The most complete neopar-asitic discussion of home is the project Ho-me Stories from 2000. PogaËar and P.MCAmoved into the apartment of art historianDaniel Spanke in Cologne. This project waslikewise - certainly because of the privatecharacter of home - accessible to the pub-lic only through the collected documentati-on material. We might say that the home inwhich P.MCA settled represented for it onone hand the object of investigation, and onthe other the space of creativity. In the lightof PogaËar’s intervention, the “home” sho-wed itself as a cluster of ordering systems,practices, technologies, and models, but al-so of specific objects, images, and iconog-raphy. These systems place home, familystructures, domestic practice and economyinto the social and historical context andadapt them to that context. Besides, homeis a sediment of various practices and tradi-tions kept throughout the process of its de-velopment and transformations. The met-hod by which P.MCA conquered these vie-ws was indirect. Therefore, it did not consi-st of direct sociological and anthropologicalresearch, but rather establishing situationsthat used various elements of home andcould also be interpreted as art or a creativegame. The icon for the kitchen was, forexample, the repetition of Malevich‘s RedSquare, but with the use of kitchen iconog-raphy of the modern consumer. Thus, Po-gaËar painted a red square with ketchup ona white dishcloth, using thereby a repro-duction of Malevich’s painting in a catalo-gue as he would use a recipe from a cook-book. The overlapping of contradictory co-des created the effect of humour and at thesame time exposed these codes as visualand conceptual systems that orient anddirect attitudes and activities.

61

distributive relationships

We can observe that the mentionedfour topoi are linked, that is, distributedaccording to certain relationships. Of par-ticular importance for PogaËar are thoserelationships that can be classified into thefield of power, and the economy is notablyone of them. When PogaËar settles in a par-ticular environment, he is always interestedin its economy. Naturally, in the field of po-wer economy equals knowledge. WhenP.MCA analyses a museum, school, labora-tory, home, etc., it again and again raisesthe question of knowledge, its possession,structuring, and ordering. Besides the fieldof power, another type of relationships ap-pears important: those that we can classifyas spatial. Thereby, it is crucial to distingui-sh between the public and non-public (pri-vate) spaces.

fictive ground plan of p.mca

Starting from the enumerated clustersand relationships, I will eventually try tocreate the fictive “ground plan” of P.MCA,the topological system of the domain of itsactivity. I am of the opinion that all fieldscomprised by P.MCA can be classified withrespect to two axes that I will term the“spatial axis” and the “axis of power”. Whe-reas the first is determined by the relation-ship between public and private, the sec-ond is defined by that between knowledgeand economy. These two axes constitutethe basic square formed by the home andthe laboratory in the field of private, and thestreet and the museum in the field of pub-lic.

The home and the street create theaxis of economy that expands into a trian-gle with the third crucial element: the fac-tory, which lies at the intersection of publicand private. (Dealing with the factory asspace, system, and a factor of local urban-ism, economy, ecology, etc. is not particu-larly usual with PogaËar; among other pro-jects, we can observe it in his Tale of TwoCities: there the factory is situated in abroader context of the analysis of twoneighbouring towns, Slovenj Gradec andRavne na Koroπkem.) The museum and thelaboratory as the third element of knowl-edge include school, which is likewiselocated at the intersection of public and pri-vate. This “triangle of knowledge” is very

nomija jedan od takvih odnosa. Kad se Po-gaËar naseli u odreenu okolinu, uvijek gazanima njezina ekonomija. Naravno, na po-druËju moÊi ekonomiji je ekvivalentno zna-nje. Kada P.MCA analizira muzej, πkolu, la-boratorij, dom itd., uvijek se iznova pita oznanju, njegovu posjedovanju, strukturira-nju i ureivanju. Osim podruËja moÊi, joπmi se jedan tip odnosa Ëini bitnim: odnosikoje moæemo odrediti kao prostorne. Tu jekljuËna podjela na javne i nejavne (privat-ne) prostore.

fiktivni tlocrt p.mca

PolazeÊi od nabrojanih sklopova iodnosa, konaËno Êu pokuπati oblikovati fik-tivni “tlocrt” P.MCA, topoloπki sustav po-druËja njegove djelatnosti. Mislim da je svapodruËja koje obuhvaÊa P.MCA moguÊerasporediti u odnosu na dvije osi koje nazi-vam “prostorna os” i “os moÊi”. Prvu odre-uje odnos izmeu javnoga i privatnoga, adrugu odnos izmeu znanja i ekonomije. Tedvije osi Ëine temeljni kvadrat koji oblikuju

62

11

sl.11/12: T. PogaËar, School’s out!, Gimnazija©entvid / ©entvid High School, Ljubljana, 1997.,foto / photo: Bojan Salaj

dom i laboratorij na podruËju privatnog iulica i muzej na podruËju javnog.

Dom i ulica uspostavljaju os ekonomi-je koja se πiri u trokut s treÊim bitnim ele-mentom, tvornicom, koja leæi na sjeciπtujavnog i privatnog. (Bavljenje tvornicom kaoprostorom, sustavom i sastavnicom lokal-nog urbanizma, ekonomije, ekologije i sl.kod PogaËara baπ i nije Ëesto; na nj naila-zimo izmeu ostalog, u Pripovijesti o dvagrada: tu je tvornica umjeπtena u πiri kon-tekst analize dvaju susjednih gradova,Slovenj Gradeca i Ravni na Koroπkem.) Mu-zej i laboratorij kao treÊi element trokutaznanja ukljuËuju πkolu, isto tako na sjeciπtujavnog i privatnog. Taj “trokut znanja” vrlodobro reprezentira rad ukljuËen u postavLaboratorium II na Likovnom salonu u Celju1994. godine. Radi se o dvije ploËe s nat-pisima Museum i Laboratorium; muzej i la-boratorij, kao komplementarne institucijeznanja, sintetizirane su u πkoli na koju upo-zoravaju natpisi kredom na crnim πkolskimploËama. (PogaËar je πkolu obraivao uprojektu School’s Out!; kao πto se u HomeStories naselio u dom, ovdje se naselio uπkolu, upotrijebivπi prostore, predmete, sli-ke i ikonografiju za postav koji je osvijetliodjelovanje sustava koji formiraju/disciplini-raju pojedinca i njegovo znanje uvodeÊi gau druπtvene sustave.)

Os dom - laboratorij, dakle os privat-nog prostora, takoer moæemo raπiriti u tro-kut uvoenjem umjetniËkog atelijera kaosjeciπta izmeu elemenata znanja i ekono-mije. Na drugoj strani trokut javnog prosto-ra oblikuju muzej, ulica i lokal kao sjeciπteznanja i ekonomije. (Pod pojmom lokal po-drazumijevam specifiËne prostore dostupnejavnosti, koji su ipak zatvoreni - na primjertrgovine, gostionice, obrtniËke radionice,noÊne klubove i sl.) U Pripovijesti o dva gra-da PogaËar je analizirao i funkciju lokala, uprojektu u kojem je svojim privremenim na-stanjivanjem dvaju gradskih prostora sinte-tizirao svoje dotadaπnje interese i otvorioneke nove.

Osnovne osi takoer su i osi preslika-vanja i projekcije. Njihovim se posredova-njem privatno preslikava u javno i obrnuto,a znanje u ekonomiju i obrnuto. Projekcijomse moÊ projicira u prostor i obrnuto. t

sa slovenskog na hrvatski preveo / translated from Slovenian into Croatian by:Igor ©panjol

well represented by a work included in theinstallation Laboratorium II at the Salon ofVisual Arts in Celje in 1994. It consists oftwo plates bearing the inscriptions Museumand Laboratorium - the museum and thelaboratory as two complementary institu-tions of knowledge synthesised in theschool, pointed to by the inscriptions inchalk on school blackboards. (PogaËardealt with school in the project School’sOut!; just like in Home Stories he movedinto a home, in this one he moved into aschool, using its spaces, objects, images,and iconography for an installation whichelucidated the operation of the systemwhich forms/disciplines the individual andhis knowledge, introducing him into socialsystems.)

The axis home - laboratory, that is, theaxis of private space, can be likewiseexpanded into a triangle by introducing theartist’s atelier as the intersection betweenthe elements of knowledge and economy.On the other side, the triangle of publicspace is formed by the museum, the street,and the locale as the intersection of know-ledge and economy. (Under the term localeI understand specific spaces accessible tothe public, but enclosed, such as shops,bars, artisans’ workshops, nightclubs, etc.In the Tale of Two Cities, PogaËar analysedthe function of such locales in a project inwhich, by means of his own temporary set-tlement in two urban spaces, he synthe-sised his former interests and opened upsome new ones.

The basic axes are also axes of copyingand projection. Thus, private is being copi-ed into public and vice versa, knowledge in-to economy and vice versa. Power is beingprojected into space and vice versa. l

s hrvatskog na engleski preveo / translated from Croatian into English by:Goran VujasinoviÊ

63

12

≥ Igor Zabel - viπi kustos u Modernojgaleriji u Ljubljani. Autor viπe samostalnih igrupnih izloæaba slovenskih i svjetskihumjetnika. Objavio dvije knjige ogleda osuvremenoj umjetnosti i viπe Ëlanaka u kat-alozima i Ëasopisima.Igor Zabel - senior curator at the Museumof Modern Art, Ljubljana. Curated many so-lo and group exhibitions with Slovenian andinternational artists. Published two booksof essays on contemporary art and a num-ber of essays and articles in catalogues andmagazines.