Published on the web site
http://www.labforculture.org/
(->CASE STUDIES)
March 2009

At the end of the last year, in the Gallery Miroslav Kraljević in Zagreb (Croatia), artist Andreja Kulunčić tried to answer this question through the project On the State of the Nation.

Andreja Kulunčić is one of the most immanent Croatian artists on the international scene. Her works have been presented both in public spaces and in galleries, in numerous cities around the globe - from Documenta in Kassel and Menifesta 4 in Frankfurt, through Biennale in Istanbul and Liverpool, to New York "P.S.1" and Whitney Museum. She's the author of projects NAMA, Closed Reality-Embryo and Distributive justice. In her works she is focused on social subjects and very often on those that represent taboos, and she often collaborates with experts from different fields.

What is the main idea of the project On the State of the Nation?

Curators of the Gallery Miroslav Kraljević, Antonia Majača and Ivana Bago, invited me to participate in the project Land of Human Rights. The question that came up was who are these persons in Croatia who, from the perspective of the majority, do not have the same rights and is it possible to open any kind of dialog on that topic which could, in an affirmative and educative way, involve cooperation of both sides.

Croatia is not a multicultural country, but things are changing. In fact, the tendency for entering into EU at the same time opens the door for new working class of what an average Croatian citizen is not aware. Thus, it seemed to me that the dialog on the topic of the Other, i.e. non Croatian, non-catholic, non-white is necessary. While abroad people often have personal experiences through work, neighbourhood, social contacts or even marriages with people from different cultures or races, here people do not have this type of personal experience. Because of this opinions based on the personal attitude on the Other are not formed. Here, the otherness is constructed mostly through the titles and subtitles in the newspapers.

Project On the State of the Nation on one hand deals with researches of this relation towards the Other, and on the other with creating new models for shaping the tolerance and possibilities to deconstruct this otherness in Croatian society.

So, through the project you researched social integration of the Other. What can you tell about the Croatian context in relation to this topic?

After a year working with a workgroup which was consisted of philosopher Hrvoje Jurić, psychologist Anita Lauri Korajlije, anthropologist Sanja Potkonjak and sociologist Višnja Vukov, we came to very interesting results. Namely, the research of social distance which we made on 200 persons in Zagreb, demonstrated which minorities are the least tolerated with our examinees. Those are homosexuals, Roma and Chinese. And, to be noted, the degree of tolerance is very high (which is great), so it seems like those weren't Croatian who answered the questionnaire but, let’s say people from Scandinavia.

All the results of this one-year research were exhibited in the gallery. The affirmative results were presented on the outer glass of the gallery wall. For example 86% of examinees would like to have a Chinese for a friend and 72% would have a Roma as a neighbour. In the gallery, we presented the negative results. Like 37% of examinees consider that the male homosexuality as completely unacceptable and 33% wouldn't like to have a Roma as a lifetime partner and a parent of their child.

Within the workgroup, we discussed a lot why these results are so unreasonably high, we wondered what the reasons of social distance are. After our conclusions, main reasons for the intolerance would be the family, church, education and media. As I considered the first three reasons too complex for the possibilities of this project, I've decided to focus on the fourth – media.

This project tried to research what are the possibilities of raising the responsibility of media when the social integration of theOther is in question. What are the results you've came to?

It's about three completely differently defined groups (homosexuals, Roma and Chinese) so there is no similarities in their treatment in the media. I was interested in the opinions and attitudes of the people belonging to these groups on these matters, so I made nine video interviews (I spoke to three persons from each group) and later we played these videos in the gallery. I've asked them what to they think about their image in the media, and how could this be changed.

For example, Chinese do not consider themselves as inferior. They do their work – stay until the market is well, if the business falls, they go further. Mostly, they do not have friends among Croatians, the language is definitely a barrier, so they expect that the second generation will assimilate better in the society. But, China is a very dynamic country in its development, so they think more and more about going back.

Roma people feel the discrimination the most. For example, titles such Roma murdered again, Roma raped disturb them a lot. In fact, there's never a title like Croat raped. And if there's an affirmation, than it's usually like this: Roma completed high school which means it's rare and thus important news. They are annoyed by the fact that one person is evened up with the whole community. They are also annoyed by the fact that in the Black Chronicles they are stated with full name and surname, while Croats only with initials. They consider this as an attack to their privacy. And they really are not evened up. They are not asked what they think about the traffic in the city, economic crisis or about the violence in the streets, they are only asked questions about themes connected with Roma.

Concerning homosexuals, they entered in the media with audacity and it helped them as well as provoked negative effects for what they give numerous examples.

Important part of the research, which was organized by coordinator of the project Ana Kutleša, is the archive of about 300 news articles which were exhibited in the gallery. The most of the articles we found were on homosexuals, than Roma which were, unfortunately, in the Black Chronicles, and the least about Chinese. They are mostly based on stereotypes.

Workshops with students were the third segment (mostly students of journalism, anthropology and sociology), where we analysed articles from newspapers, dragged out the stereotypes and actually discovered very little positive information. For example, we found out that Roma people are free spirits, that the members of gay population are very good stylists and that Chinese will work for a cup of rice. All these statements are only stereotypes but not real affirmations.

Except this, we organised round tables and presentations on the topic of the other in media, where we tried to involve journalists, theorists and others in order to surround the theme from all sides. The attendance was really very good, mostly young people came. This gives a signal that young people are aware of this problem and that they are interested in dialog.

In what way did you intervene in the media space through this work, way was this method important and what were the reactions of media?

Media is a strong „weapon“ for both – creating bad stereotypes but also for dissolving them. Working on one side with young, future journalists and anthropologists, and on the other side by infiltrating virus-reports in the mainstream media, I think we „attacked“ two important frontlines.

In fact, collaborating with journalists and members of minority groups, during the project in Croatian media were published so-called virus-reports which presented homosexuals, Chinese and Roma in the same way as the rest of the population. We tried to bring around in a subtle way, and not by force, that they also create Croatian society and that they share the same social and life space. All the news were of course truthful! The project, in this way, actively tried to find new models for creation of tolerance.

For example for the topic on vision of Zagreb in one daily newspaper we've sent the opinions of our associates Chinese and Roma from the perspective of the citizens of this town who think about the needs of protecting youngsters from violence in the evening going outs or about the future internationalisation of the city. For one female magazine, our gay associate wrote that she and her partner are thinking about adopting a child (what is unfortunately taboo here) and so on. So, we spoke about their situations and opinions on which they usually are not asked.

In this very exhausting part of work – contacting media and placing our virus-reports Nevena Tudor was working. The experiences were different, for example Radio 101 was hundred percent partners in the project, Croatian Radio 2nd programme also broadcasted few virus-reports. With daily newspapers we had most problems and least success. Namely, daily newspapers were afraid that our proposals were subversive because it's about art and that the journalists who would publish report would get fired. The other problem was also that they wanted contacts and stories, but without our presence. And it would mean getting back to the same old stereotype matrix. Our wish was not to correct journalists nor to make subversive news, but to open right question which means not to ask Roma about the situation in Kozari Bok (part of Zagreb inhabited by Roma), but to ask for their opinion on life in Zagreb in general, changes in the state and so on. Our daily newspapers are not willing to show other sides and their contributions to the society. And I was astonished by the amount of resistance we met with some editors.

What are the effects you expect this project could provoke?

First of all I would like us, at lease for a moment, to think about our personal attitude towards the Others. Even when we claim that we are tolerant, the question is what it really means? Does it mean that a tolerant person will not spit on young Chinese girl on the street (unfortunately it happens), or that this tolerant person will come and help her (what unfortunately does not happen) if some kind of inconvenience happens?

Personally, I have an impression that people here do not listen to each other and that there is neither thinking nor comprehension. Thus, I'm trying to teach young people how to listen, to develop their critical consciousness, no matter if they read or write. I'm trying to worn them that maybe they don't know some things and that they have to accept it and learn. I think it’s worth working with young people. They are open, have questions and they are not yet certain about their judgements. It can be clearly noted that from some point on they start listening. Thereat it’s not me who talks to them, but I invite experts. That's why we had so many things in the gallery. Gallery wasn't an exhibition space, but the space for dialog, thinking and creating virus-reports on the Other.

For the good functioning of the space its design was important which was perfectly made of 4 tones of old newspapers designed by the group of architects from Zagreb group Archisquad (squad for the architecture of consciousness).

You usually do not use the space of gallery as an exhibition space for your works but as the space where the project grows. Dynamic interaction between the audience, associates and you as the author, is exhibited during the process of researching, working and seeking for answers. Why is this approach important for you as an artist, as you never know the result?

The gallery here appears as a space - white cube in the sense that anything can get in, there's no things assumed in advance such as the way of thinking, attributes, stereotypes, discourses, but not as a white cube in the sense of exhibiting artefacts. Gallery is neutral, there's nothing that was discussed somewhere previously and the judgement is already brought. Here is the emptiness in which we all can bring something, take something, add something or remove something. A little bit chaotic atmosphere I'd say. Here the exhibit, i.e. artefact is a personal thinking on relations towards the Other. Are we the ones because someone else is the Other? Can the way of treating this other be better and more conscious in my personal, but also in a wider social context?

Engagement in the social subjects, widening communicational models and cooperation with experts from different fields determines my artistic practice. I'm sensitive to the range of nuances inside of the social justice and my works are often based on previous researches. I'm trying to discover, together with the audience and associates, traps, contradictions, and in this case, declarative tolerance of the society we are part of. In the majority of my works the essence is in developing forms of dialog and in (if it's possible in any way) offering some different, subtle, but clear model for resolving problem the work is focused on. But here, the accent is not on the result, but on the process and quality of participation of audience and associates in the project.

Majority of your works includes participation of experts from different areas: anthropologists, philosophers, sociologists and so on. Why do you insist on the interdisciplinary work?

Yes, during the process of creating my works, I often involve experts from other disciplines, especially in the internet works which are imagined as a tool for knowledge, and less as a directly engaged works (for example extensive project Distributive Justice presented on Documenta 11 in Kassel in 2002). This is the product of a wider field I'm wishing to encompass with the project. Working with philosophers, sociologists or urban anthropologists I can enter much deeper in the subject, use different methodologies in approach, lighten up the same problem (theme) from different points of view. I think that it provides much more complex, precise and broader image than the one any of us as an individual could elaborate from its own angle. Except that, working with other people is very inspiring, like different layers that touch, pervade, but also preserve their autonomy within the project.

Activists are usually explicit in their demands and messages. Unlike them, you always access the public with subtlety.

Yes, I don't see my work as an immediate activism. Actually, by trying to work with activists I came up to many misunderstandings in approach many times. There were also successful cooperation, but always with observant distance... Activists are trying to be loud and explicit, what I understand and support to some level, while I'm trying to get my ideas through in an almost indiscernible way with an affirmative approach and with faith in dialog. Maybe, at some point we supplement each other.

Can art today be engaged and contribute to the shift in existing ideas, thinking and attitudes?

Art can raise right (precise) questions, demand different answers, even open new circles, i.e. models of resolving, but not in the sense of one work. I think that we all together contribute to an open and more critical thinking, on condition that we are careful and ethical towards the group that is in question. There's a lot of bad works that are engaged (as in other forms of art, of course), which brings an additional burden for the group which is already socially marginalized.

Personally, I think that the work should have openness and at least try to go further from just enumerating or demarking the problem. Thus, I respect the most the type of works which do not close the problem, but oppositely, open new possibilities of relations between associates dealing with the problem in focus.