Tanja Mastnak
A conversation with Tadej Pogačar
The beginnings of your public appearances reach back to the 80's, to a time when you were studying History of Art and Ethnology at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana. At the time you also co-operated with Srp (sicle), a band that was very popular at the time. It seems that such a combination between an analytic, research, studious, critical analysis and a more emotional, personally denoted activity is typical for your entire work, even today. How do you see your beginnings? What do they mean to you?
This seems to be an interesting question, for until today nobody tried to link my musical activities with my other activities. This is a good question. Two years ago Nika released a CD with previously unreleased studio and concert recordings. The CD was released within the collection Arhefon, which is lead by Ičo Vidmar. We had to open up our archives and once again listen to what we have created in the past. I still find the things that we did at the time interesting. I notice there are certain parallels with the things that I am doing today, just that today I do them in other fields. During our period of creation we seemed to be completely unburdened, we were curious and we had the guts to experiment. At this we mainly stuck to the European and American musical tradition, for in Slovenia there were no real role models at the time. In Slovenia the only band that was doing something similar to us was Begnagrad. One of the most important experiences that I have gained while working within Srp was that I learned how to operate within a group. The band consisted of four good friends, all completely different personalities. Each of us emerged from a different background and environment. Matjaž Sekne and Primož Simončič emerged from the classical and partially jazz music scene, Gojmir Lešnjak was always fairly theatrical, my approach was more conceptual, etc. All of this merged into an interesting synthesis of different spheres.
I suppose your public appearances were also important. Your appearances were some sort of performances, conceptually rounded up and explicitly critically engaged. What was your contribution in the band?
Lešnjak and I covered the majority of the conceptual preparation of the script for the performance, while the musical part was a product of teamwork. The performance was a musical, visual and stage design whole, with elements of cabaret, performance, provocation, etc. Of course this demanded an active audience. Our public performance was our strongest weapon. There was a lot of improvisation and that is why it was important to know one another. Only then was it possible to predict how the other band member will react and these reactions have to be carried out in a second. At most of our performances we had no idea how long would it last, when and how would we bring it to an end.
Twenty years down the line. What was the reaction like now when the CD was released?
This CD is intended for a narrow circle of friends and connoisseurs of such music. This is a fact. If it were not for this collection, this music would never be released on a CD. Even thought we had second thoughts we still decided to hold a promotional concert. We staged two concerts - one in Ljubljana and one in Maribor - and both were surprisingly well attended. We did not wish to create a feeling of nostalgia and we did not play the songs that can be found on the CD. In November of this year it will be twenty years since our first LP was released. The collected material could have originated from the 70's but it could also be contemporary, for there is a certain revival of improvisational tendencies in the electro-acoustic music.
In what way is your work influenced by the other component from that time - your study of history of art and ethnology? Throughout time you have constantly worked within this field, with museology, curatorship, the relation between the artist and the history of art, with the structures of power and representation. Already from the very beginning you were interested in the problem of display: how to exhibit certain cultural artefacts? You tend to present this as a political problem. What do you think that the institution of the museum represents for the reality of a work of art?
These were themes that I found interesting until the end of the 80's. One of the logical consequences of these thoughts was the establishment of my own institution: P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Museum of Contemporary Art. The illusion that galleries, museums, curators, i.e. the entire art system and its apparatus are neutral spaces is constantly recreated. When we enter them, we automatically become a part of a certain history, ideology, forces and positions. In the early 90's P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Museum of Contemporary Art, mainly discussed the artistic context, the positions of power, representation, etc. In the mid 90's it started to focus on broader cultural issues, media and the active cultural operation.
In the project Laboratorium you exposed the laboratory as a space for carrying out experiments, while you presented the museum as a space of power. Later on you built upon these notions. How did you research these fields of power from No Events Actions to CODE:RED?
The laboratory and
the museum are mainly understood as symbolic spaces. The museum always
represented the official ideology and the dominating cultural norms. We
never doubt in the museum, in it we see the absolute truth. This is why
it is always interesting to observe the story the museum is trying to
tell. It is interesting to see in what way it is doing this, who is excluded
from this story, etc. As a symbolic space the laboratory is a location
of the search, a space within which certain knowledge has not yet turned
into a dogma. I was interested in the conceptual junction of these two
symbolic spaces.
The projects Laboratorium and the so-called No Events Action (i.e. actions
without an event) are most definitely linked as regards their contents.
Amongst other things they both deal with the issue of information: its
meaning, circulation, mediation, the power of those who possess it and
manipulate with it. These 'actions without an event' took place anonymously
and were never officially announced. The Laboratorium installation never
existed for the public as a physical installation. Only the documentation
of the installation was published and even this was done only a few years
later. As the director of the museum I had the absolute power to withhold
the information and mediate it only at a chosen time. This is exactly
the same situation as we encounter in everyday life, in the media, the
politics, etc. The only difference is that in my case the process of transformation
and manipulation was shown and not hidden.
Later on you introduced other principles of power into your artistic operation and your actions become even more socially critical.
Typical for the first,
more auto-referential period, were my dealings with the art system and
its infrastructure, as well as with its logic of progress, the deconstructing
of linear history, etc. The latter was for instance exposed also by the
installation in the Museum of Modern History (former Museum of the People's
Revolution) in Tivoli in 1993.
The goal of the installation was to prepare a different view of history
with the museum pieces that are kept in their depos. The exhibition was
entitled The Art of History - Through the Body and one could see some
exceptional works, such as for instance Tito's death mask, Kidrič's new
leather chairs and settee (which he never used), various medicine and
medical tools used in hospitals by the partisans in WWII, etc. Together,
the installations in the five rooms told non-linear stories, which dealt
with the vulnerability and fragility of the body, its disappearance through
ideology and similar, i.e. the other part of the linear, heroic history.
With this you also touched the most current themes in these contemporary social science and humanistic fields. In the project West Side Stories you also touched the field of the Euro-centric approach in art and the division of power between the various cultures.
The project West Side Stories dealt with the problems of Western stereotypes towards the so-called primitive cultures, the exotic, their representation, etc. The project emerged from the invitation to co-operate at an exhibition in the Gallery of Fine Art in Slovenj Gradec. During this project I was mainly interested in their collection of African artefacts that were kept in their depos. This was a private collection of African artefacts; works of art, tools, everyday objects, masks and similar. When all of these various objects are hidden behind a glass display cabinet of some sort of an ethno-sphere all became of equal importance and the museum magic begins. By including this Tretjakov African Collection into my exhibition, my installation, i.e. with its re-conceptualisation, the collection was offered to the public for a new reading. Instead of placing the emphasis on the aesthetic objects it was placed on the symbolic relations of power.
It appears that it is exactly in this relation towards non-European collections and cultures that the ideological role of the museum is most clearly shown. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century, when the first museum collections of this kind were started, the roles of anthropology and ethnography were very dubious, for it was exactly through the ways of representation that they produced a racist view. I find it is good that you have touched this issue, for at the beginning all objects, even masks and sculptures were considered to be ethnographic material, but by adding context the role of such objects is slowly changing.
This is true. Something similar, but with a different context took place at the exhibition that was dedicated to the anniversary of the birth of France Prešeren - in the National Museum in Ljubljana. At this exhibition the issue of the 'national substance' of the natives was discussed. I was invited to co-operate at the preparation of the exhibition and I invited various media and Internet artists to comment on the 'nation creation themes'. The exhibition experienced harsh criticism especially by the museologists, for it did not follow the nationalistic clichés and stereotypes. Igor Zabel contributed an excellent text, which reveals this constantly present ideology of 'preserving order' so typical for museums.
We absolutely have to discuss the role of science in all this. What is your attitude towards science, what do you think about the humanistic and social science theories? I find it amusing to observe how you use the principles of scientific research with all this artistic freedom. In some of your texts you have already mentioned that you were greatly influenced by those directions in science, which permit pluralistic approaches, for instance the new history of the French Annals, urban anthropology and similar. You have completely avoided the very popular, in theory and practice, psychoanalysis theory. You have chosen your route and I am interested in your explanations of these decisions. I would also like to know to what extent were you aided by your study experience at the Faculty of Arts?
As regards science, I am mostly interested in concepts. Paul Weyne once stated that the most interesting things in history are concepts. The project Evolutionary!, which I prepared for Manifesta 1 in Rotterdam (at the time the first issue of the new European biannual), dealt with the different (European) concepts of development between the late 18th and early 20th Centuries. I chose such concepts that most explicitly showed that prejudices, emotions, morals, etc. kept winning also in science. I was interested in those concepts that were the most bias, rough, sexist and racist. I used them as a sort of a diagnosis for our continent. I do not believe in dualisms, such as 'objective scientific work' and 'subjective artistic creation'. Science and art can be equally creative and are the most interesting, when they break the rules and overcome their own logic. I like to use various sources and I merge them in the process. I am not interested in a strict academic discourse.
How do you create a division (if you do) between your activities as a curator and an artist? How do you combine the fact that you are actively involved as a curator, while at the same time you also have the experience of an artist? How does this influence the operation of the other institution of which you are the director, i.e. the Gallery P74 in Šentvid?
I do not divide the
roles of the artist and curator, for the principle of work is fairly similar.
Even when I work as a curator I operate on the basis of a relation artist-artist.
I find the curator mediator approach developed by Viktor Misiano very
close to my way of thinking. In this approach the curator is a part of
the process of creation, but not by decisively intruding into it, nor
by summarising the work of the artist in his curatorial work.
I do not separate the work in the Centre and Gallery P74 from the work
I perform in P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Museum of Contemporary Art. P74 is important
for the expansion of space. It does not belong to any interest group or
bloc. In Slovenia, there are not enough spaces that would in general be
open for a planned presentation and promotion of the young, for experimenting,
etc.
From here we can move towards teamwork, which is an important element in all of your activities, especially in your last projects. I am interested in the position of your co-workers that you have managed to attract to the project - in the sense of the idea of parasitism. What is the situation of, for instance, the homeless people or sexual workers, who enter your project in the light of parasitism? Who is a parasite to whom and how?
The relations I have with the groups and individuals that I co-operate with differ greatly. Sometimes this is a co-operation with other artists or experts from various fields. In such an event the division of our roles is very clear. My co-operation with various social groups is much deeper and more complex. These social groups are marginal groups that operate on the boarder or even outside of society and are most commonly characterised as parasites for the society. I am interested in their economy models, which differ greatly to those that can be found within the mainstream of the dominant economy. My work with them is a partnership. I am the initiator of our connections; all the rest emerges from our joint co-operation. This holds true especially for the Kings of the Street and CODE:RED projects. These two are not classical collaboration projects, in which the artist realises a 'humane idea' by using a group of extras from the social group. This is a joint creation of conditions for active changes.
Can you tell us more about your last projects, the ones in Mexico and Puerto Rico? What are you doing now?
At the moment I am
into a number of projects. The project Constructed Cities is in its second
phase. This project analyses the examples of newly constructed cities
- from utopias from the beginning of the 20th century to the socialist
and post-modern towns. I am also co-operating at an international project
Shrinking Cities, which deals with the phenomenon of disappearing cities.
We are continuing with the project CODE:RED, which has been going on for
years, the archive of Street Economy and the preparation for an extensive
publication on the operation of the P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Museum.
The project in Mexico City entitled Autonomous Territory II deals with
the phenomenon of occupying a public space within an urban environment.
Years ago I co-operated with the group KAVN (Art Outside a Network) from
Graz and together we constructed a temporary shelter for homeless people
in the centre of the city. That was an occupation of a public location
within the elite centre of the city. Autonomous Territory II in Mexico
City was performed within the frame of the new media and performance festival,
which developed the ideas of operation from the situation artists in the
60's. Together with the passers-by we constructed a piece of architecture
from cheap cardboard in the middle of the street. The construction was
spontaneous and not planned. This was a joint creation of an event, a
situation that opened the issues as regards the relation between space
and power within a city. In Mexico City the everyday life takes place
in the streets with great intensity and the struggle for the public space
is extremely harsh.
What about Puerto Rico?
Lampadedromia, Puerto
Rico 2004 emerged within the frame of the biannual event PR 04, which
was truly an exceptional biannual event as far as the organisation as
well as contents are concerned. In the context of contemporary art Puerto
Rico is a totally peripheral territory. Apart from the bad sides this
also brings with it some good ones. The organisers (a non-profit organisation)
are independent at their work, they have no direct pressure from the gallery
scene or capital. They have good support from the large local sponsors
and unselfish help from a large group of volunteers.
The theme of the June event was the Olympics. Ten years ago Puerto Rico
was a candidate for the organisation of the 2004 Olympic games. On the
island they even started to construct the infrastructure, but unfortunately
they were never given the organisation of the Olympic games. The project
Lampadedromia discussed the triangle between politics, sport and art.
Amongst others I invited the American artists Deidre Hoguet and Peter
Walsh to co-operate and together we formed the group Equipa Terrestre.
This group prepared the introductory, symbolic ritual of the event. As
a sport team we organised a relay of the torch through the streets of
San Juan and Rincon. Anybody could run. At the Olympics sportsmen compete
as representatives of their nation, at our relay anybody could represent
anything. When they entered they had to state for whom are they running
on the list. I must admit that the list was very entertaining. All participants
also received a gift: a memorial T-shirt.
August 2004