Eda Čufer
A Conversation with the WHW Collective
(Ana Dević, Nataša Ilić, Sabina Sabolović)
The curator's collective WHW originated from very specific circumstances. It was set up during the preparation for the exhibition that was dedicated to the reprint of the Communist Manifesto, which was published in a Croatian translation in 1998 by the publishing house Arkzin in Zagreb. The Communist Manifesto is an extremely symbolic encouragement. This is a book that belongs to a certain political viewpoint, a certain view of the world. I therefore concluded that the social position from which you operate is of great importance for you. How would you define it?
WHW-NI: The reprint was published in 1998. That was a period during which the first initiatives not linked to the existing cultural institutions occurred in Croatia. During this period Igor Grubić realised his project 22% - Books and Society. This was a single day installation that took place all across town (Zagreb) and which demanded the co-operation of over forty artists. They organised themselves against the introduction of the 22% VAT, which suddenly increased the price of books to a great degree. This was the time during which Attack (one of the initiatives and projects of the anti-war campaign and newspaper Arkzin) became a separate organisation. At that time Attack also organised exhibitions, street performances, street theatre, etc. (Attack still operates today). This was the social climate in which we started and this was and still is of great importance to us.
What is Attack and is it linked to Ghetto Attack, which operates in Vienna?
WHW-NI: At the beginning Attack (or Autonomous Cultural Factory) was conceived as an open social space, in which various social initiatives and programs could be realised. At that stage Attack operated in an old toy factory, only later did it start to operate as a kind of club, as a part of the anti-globalism movement. This was the beginning of the softening of the rigid, closed Croatian story in 1998. And we were of the opinion that it is possible to make a project, which could on one side be socially provocative, a project that would open certain topics that were not discussed at the time. On the other hand we thought that the cultural and art institutions are becoming increasingly open and that there was a possibility of co-operating with them.
The period in the beginning of the 1990's when Tuđman, the first democratically elected president, was in power, was by no means a step forward, but rather a great set back for Croatian society. How do you perceive this period?
WHW-NI: This passed us by without any sort of reflection. When we started working at the end of the 90's we somehow wished to connect to the energy that was present at the end of the 80's, the period before Tuđman, when the scene was still alive and buzzing. The concept of our first exhibition is great evidence to this, for it tried to connect these two lost generations. Everything that we are currently doing is a continuous attempt to re-establish this continuity. In Croatia the entire 90's can be perceived as a break in this continuity.
Within this continuity, how do you experience the difference between the seventies and eighties on the Croatian scene? Especially Croatia had an extremely powerful art scene in the seventies.
WHW-NI: I understand the 80's mainly as enjoying the fruits of the 70's. The 80's were the period in which the Gallery PM (Expanded Media) operated, a gallery that realised the initiative artists run space from the 70's. In the 80's all of these people such as Sanja Iveković, Dalibor Martinis, Mladen Stilinović and others were merged in the project carried out by this gallery, which was lead by Mladen Stilinović. Then the 90's begun. This was a period in which the Gallery PM was forced out from the 'Starčević House'. Namely, at the beginning of the war members of the Croatian armed forces and the orthodox units of the Croatian Right Party continuously busted into the premises and kept throwing the artists out and so on. I think that this situation explains everything; it explains what went on in the 90's. It talks about a moment, when the armed forces busted into a gallery and fought against the artists.
I am always interested in parallels. It is possible that the Škuc Gallery in Ljubljana had a similar function as Gallery PM in Zagreb. However, I do feel that the actors of the 70's were later not really present in Škuc; it seems as if the art scene in Ljubljana started in the 80's from level zero.
WHW-AD: In Croatia these things somehow managed to become a myth. There were no catalogues, no relevant documentation as so forth. These were stories that we did not learn about in faculties, but were the results of our own research and endeavour. Most of the things from the 70's reached our generation through a sort of oral tradition. They were sort of urban trails which managed to make their way from generation to generation. Of course, there is the link between the 70's and 90's, a link that I think emerged in a spontaneous manner. I think that the very important element, which connects them, is this imperative of organising events outside of institutions. At this point I do not think it is truly important whether it is the curators or artists that are finding connections amongst themselves. To me, one of the important landmarks was presented by the action carried out by Igor Grubić, an action that was carried out for the 30th anniversary of Rdeči peristil (Red Peristyle). Rdeči peristil is, as we know, a legendary Split group from the end of the 60's and beginning of the 70's who painted the roman Split peristyle in red. Grubić made a parallel action, which was anonymous and was entitled Črni peristil (Black Peristyle) - he painted a black stain on this same peristyle. This took place in 1998 and later on Grubić exhibited the documentation, which caused great upset.
WHW-NI: 1998 was also the year in which the first exhibition by Grupa šestorice autora (the Group of Six Artists) was held. With this exhibition the group gained its legitimacy, catalogue and so on.
WHW-AD: This was the moment in time when the lethargic situation of the Tuđman period of government reached its peak and things had to start changing.
WHW-SS: The situation suddenly livened up. And anybody who visited Zagreb in the mid 90's and returned at the end of the 90's could not overlook the great difference. The most interesting point is that the younger generations from all possible perspectives started to form groups and organise themselves. To a great extent this was also aided by the Multimedia Institute mi2 and their club Mama in Zagreb, which became the first non-profit cultural centre in Croatia. Anybody who visits it can get his time frame, technical support or space to do something. Through this the initiative and idea of Attack was somehow realised.
What was the function of the Soros Center for Contemporary Arts in Zagreb in the 90's?
WHW-NI: It functioned great from the very beginning and I think that it helped a specific generation to make important projects. In general, I think that the greatest credit must go to the Soros Center for Contemporary Arts in Zagreb for their production of catalogues, because there truly were not enough possibilities for this before.
How do you function as a trio? Do you have your roles divided?
WHW-SS: Pretty chaotic.
WHW-AD: A division exists, but all three of us do everything, we divide the work in accordance to the possibilities and time of each of us.
At your lecture it appeared that you are very good at supplementing each other and synchronising your various potentials.
WHW-NI: We do not consciously divide roles, instead we try to give each other as much space as possible and of course each of us tries to do whatever is her forte.
WHW-SS: I think that the basis of our operation is that we try to thoroughly discuss everything already in advance. These are of course not conversations in front of a computer screen, but conversations accompanied by long coffees, excellent diners, lunches and so on. And this is where the division of roles or whatever you would like to call it takes place.
I am interested in your relation towards politics and the ideology of the curator. To me Croatia seems specific in the fact that you have some really good and successful curators, who are closely linked to the artistic practices. Do you have a role model amongst the local or international curators?
WHW-NI: I think that we do not really derive from the tradition, politics or the ideology of the curator. Our thoughts are much closer linked to social projects such as Mama, Arkzin and so on. Visual art is a field which we are only slowly discovering.
There is most certainly a difference between the notion of a curator as a museum or institution representative, a curator as a sort of ideologist of direct artistic practices, which for example emerged with conceptual art or this new figure of a curator - star, which emerged in the 1990's. How do you see yourselves in this tradition?
WHW-AD: I think that we did not consciously search for a model or lean upon any sort of tradition or anything similar. We chose this way of work in a spontaneous way. When we were working on our first exhibition which had a clearly defined social standpoint, we tried to simply define what is our task and what could the role of the curator be in this example. We immediately came into a conflict with our surroundings, for we found ourselves in this role without a solid social position, without an official function, without any power. Thus, we had to construct our profile through our work process. We worked on the exhibition for over six months. It is also important to emphasise that the institution of a curator as a large ego is broken up into numerous smaller egos if you work in a group. And this is very important. On one hand this gives us additional strength in the sense of working towards the outside, on the other hand it is also a safety valve preventing an authoritative approach and way of thinking.
WHW-NI: Firstly, this means that the authorship is collective and secondly, that our work is not strictly connected merely to the work of a curator. Not only do we come up with the concept and set up the exhibition, but our work also encompasses everything from financial construction, organisation to public relations. This is a wholesome approach to a project. Every exhibition, project has different goals. Already the idea that we can gather money from other places than merely the existing structures of power, that the idea can be placed without touching these structures, has the same power as the issue whether the exhibition will be good or bad.
WHW-SS: We like to emphasise that we never do merely the exhibition. Of course, the exhibition by itself is nothing negative, but for us it is important that the work on a project pulls along also broader social levels that we research and potentially also change. We endeavour to discover and do whatever is necessary. It does not matter whether this is a translation of a book or text, an exhibition or any other kind of project.
WHW-NI: This is one of the reasons why we gave ourselves the name 'What, How and for Whom'. This issue emerged when we were doing the project What, How & for Whom, on the occasion of 152nd anniversary of Communist Manifesto and I think that the basic concepts of our operation are included in our name. These are issues, which define the operation of any economy-based organisation, for this economy-based moment seems to be of key importance to us. With every project we try to intervene into the social space as much as possible with a certain theme, a specific issue. With the first project, the Communist Manifesto we thought it was important to open a context, pose a question, as to what are the 90's all about. The 90's were a decade that completely past us in Croatia, for we survived it in isolation and we wondered what was it all about. We tried to emphasise that it is not a taboo if you are dealing with the issues of economy and communism in the 90's and that these issues are being discussed all across Europe. In the Broadcasting project, dedicated to Nikola Tesla set in the Technical Museum in Zagreb in 2002 we placed a great emphasis on the series of lectures. In the last project Start (a project that took place in the same year) we emphasised the intervention on the basis of our conclusion that nobody is working with the young, even though we realise that they are our future.
WHW-SS: And these are the true issues that we keep thinking about and discussing. We have loads of ideas, but it is always important to focus, to work on that here only then do we confront the issue how and so on. In reality we do not get anything automatically, we have to fight for everything, find ways how to come across things, how to create proper conditions and so on.
WHW-AD: 'What, How and for Whom' reflects the idea that you never operate in a vacuum, in an empty space, but always in a concrete environment, where some sort of structures, conventions, ways of operation, etc. already exist. Our idea is to always move something within this environment, move it at least a little bit. Apart from the awareness that we operate in our environment, we also find it important to try and communicate universally, i.e. that whatever we are doing in Croatia can always communicate with some other environment, system and so on. When we presented the exhibition Communist Manifesto or for the second edition of What, How & for Whom in Vienna we set up a different exhibition, even though we predominantly used the same exponents. On one side this was dictated by the space and on the other by the context.
Are you familiar with the book Relational Aesthetics by Nicolas Bourriaud and what is your opinion of it?
WHW-NI: I found it to be an interesting text, even though I thought it is very ideological. I am not convinced that art is renouncing the idea of changing the world and is satisfied merely by these small steps.
WHW-AD: I also think that the text is very interesting, even though we most probably should not read it as a synthesis, but as a momentary, obvious symptom. It would be very interesting if this basic thesis tried to systemise itself within a specific time period, in the perspective from the end of the 60's and beginning of the 70's.
And what is your relation towards theory in general? What is its function at forming the contexts of art today?
WHW-AD: Of course, theory is of great importance to us. But even if our work is closely connected to a certain theoretical profile, a trend, it still remains independent from it. Theory is important and it still has a great possibility of reflection, even though art should not exist merely to illustrate the theory. Artistic reflections have to independently intervene with social reality and can be (but not necessarily so) in accordance to certain theoretical thesis and interpretations.
Do you not think that today theory is only a sort of an amalgam, which links all of these broken up local and global communities in the same way ideology did in the past? Communism, socialism, etc. I am interested in what are your feelings as regards the issues local-global, East-West and so on within this context.
WHW-SS: I agree. Personally I think that the local situation in Croatia is very troubling, in fact so much so that it has to be paid undivided attention. Of course, opening the local always also means insisting on a dialogue with the global.
This means that you do not find the perspective East-West to be of great importance?
WHW-NI: It is important. During our work for the exhibition Communist Manifesto our priority was to deal with the issue whether is this, or will it remain an Eastern European exhibition. And I think that at a certain moment we realised (and were greatly relived) that this would not be an Eastern European exhibition. It was not necessary. 47 artists co-operated at this exhibition, of which only 10 did not come from the East, but we found it very important that the exhibition was not limited merely to the East.
WHW-SS: In general the communication with neighbouring organisations such as SCCA, Center for Contemporary Arts in Ljubljana or the School for History and Art Theory in Belgrade comes naturally to us. Our needs are very similar. Thus, it is normal for us to join our forces, for in Ljubljana as well as in Belgrade the need exists to invite other people, to organise lectures, translate books. Thus, it is normal that we communicate and join forces, only then can we do as much as possible.
WHW-NI: And it is a fact that we are better acquainted with the Eastern European scene.
What about your attitude towards all of these large projects that marked the 90's? Which do you find to be the most important?
WHW-NI: All of the local projects that we have already mentioned and the exhibition Zagreb Salon, which was selected by the curator Igor Zabel. This was the first exhibition for which a foreign curator selected Croatian artists and presented them to the Croatian public. Also important is the trend that has been developed by the project Manifesta ever since Luxembourg onwards. For us the experience we gained at our professional training during the Laboratorioum project carried out by Barbara Vanderlinden and Hans-Ulrich Obrist was also of great importance. At the preparation of this exhibition Sabina and I performed the lowest possible tasks and learnt a lot about how to methodologically pull off a project that was also constructed outside of the institutional frames.
WHW-AD: Everything that happened in Ljubljana, the projects carried out by the Ljubljana Museum of Modern Art and the Škuc Gallery.
WHW-SS: For a period of one month I worked at the exhibition After the Wall with Bojana Pejić and this project was of great importance to all of us. During the preparation of this exhibition I gained a lot of information and contacts and this project was an especially good starting point when we were forming our standpoints as to how to set up our exhibition and that this should not be an exhibition limited merely to the East.
What about the experience with the project Start? Did you feel a new trend emerging, a change in the climate that we cannot yet observe?
WHW-NI: In principle it is not a trend, truly not. When we worked on this project with the youngest artists we had the feeling that all of these issues form the 90's, such as the question of transition, national identity, economic boarders do not represent such dominant issues for the youngest generation. These artists deal mainly with their individual identity and we can observe that they are increasingly turning towards painting and sculpture.
WHW-AD: We can most certainly not talk about trends, they are closer to some sort of new guidelines. I found this great, unburdened feeling, with which these young people approach the realisation of their projects, exceptionally interesting. They are neither burdened by creating a dialogue with a certain set of problems, nor by the idea of creating something new.
And for the end, how does the local community react to your interventions?
WHW-NI: In the usual way, I would say. The younger generation accepts us better than the older generations. I think that we are also helped by the fact that we are often present in the media. This media image has certainly helped us and helped our projects to reach a greater audience.
WHW-AD: And I think that we have gained respect, an acknowledgement for what we do and acknowledgement that we are a subject in this environment, regardless of the fact whether they accept or reject our work.
July 2002