| Gregor Podnar, Škuc Gallery | |
| interview, 2. 6. 2000 | |
|
Škuc Gallery , Stari trg 21, Ljubljana |
|
| At the time we met on Prušnikova it was not
yet clear what the theme of Manifesta 3 will be, or who will be the
curators, etc., and therefore the expectations themselves were not of a
concrete nature. However, we expected, that the venue (in this case the
Ljubljana art scene) will, in the same way as Olympic games venues, have
certain benefits from the hosted event. The purpose of the meeting was of a constructive nature, we therefore did not have a negative attitude towards Manifesta. We wanted to show readiness to co-operate with curators, organisers and between each other. We were dealing with collegiality. Our main goal at the meeting on Prušnikova was to detect the starting-points and ways of co-operation between us. We discussed the ways to prepare ourselves for the hosting of a large international art event, which we could use as an instrument in the battle for a better infrastructure in the art system in Slovenia. With this I think mainly of better production conditions and an improved (cultural) policy, which would clearly state its political decisions and goals, with which we could confront in a democratic way. The decision to host Manifesta 3 in Ljubljana was understood by us as the existence of a political will, which is in favour of contemporary art, and we were also of the opinion that the conditions in this field will start improving. However, this proved to be an illusion. The hope which we held in relation to the hosting of Manifesta 3 in Ljubljana, has now disappeared. I am increasingly convinced that the hosting of Manifesta 3 in Ljubljana is only a political gesture, linked to the desire of Slovenia to join the European Union. I link this statement with the fact that no actual bonding was achieved between the event and the Ljubljana art scene. I attribute the responsibility for this mainly to the project carriers (Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia, Municipality of Ljubljana), who did not financially support the formation of such links. The hosting of M3 did not offer additional funds to the disposal of the local art scene, in order for it to present itself alongside M3, yet alone for it to be able to become stronger in the long term. On the contrary, with the hosting of M3 the situation became even worse. The Škuc Gallery received even less funds than in the previous years and is now on the edge of existence. However, I do not think that finance is the main issue. When taken into account that in 1997 the European Month of Culture was supported by 5 million German Marks, while the Manifesta 3 is currently estimated to 1.6 million German Marks, this turns out to be more an issue of political will then money. It is my opinion that on the side of the organisers and/or financiers no interest for the actual linking between the event and the local art scene was shown, for this would also represent a symbolic confirmation of the local art scene’s work so far. The cultural traditionalists, who are linked to the authorities, do not want to share symbolic values with the internationally oriented contemporary arts, which they still understand as an "alternative" to "high national art" (which is represented by the post-socialist cultural institutions). However, it is also true that curators of M3 have created the link with the local art scene mainly by involving four Slovene artists on the exhibition and that this link with the local art scene is therefore mainly performed through art itself. If this is sufficient for the M3 statement as regards the connection with the local context will be seen at the exhibition itself. The inclusion of texts by Slovene thinkers and artists into the Manifesta 3 newspaper is also not sufficient for the statement of the M3 curators as regards the connections with the local and socially politic situation and I also doubt that the authors of the texts would agree with this statement. |
|