Ivanka Apostolova |
|
Installation - an Interview
with Suzana Milevska |
I.A.: At the last year's Congress of the world
art critics, members of the AICA, held in London, you presented,
as you say, a brave report under the title: 'Self-referential
Versus Critical'. What provoked you to such an attitude and
what have you proven or accomplished with it in front of your
colleagues?
S.M.: The purpose of the text, which I presented at
the session 'Cultural power of the curator' was not to prove
a completely new thesis or to make absolute changes in the
professions of the curator and the critic. I would rather
say that I wanted to re-examine the relation between these
two, in my opinion, totally different professions. That is,
during the last two decades we are continually facing the
disappearance of differences and distinctions between the
fine-arts media, a process that is occurring in the relation
between the criticism as well the art. Curatorship, as a hybrid
profession which establishes a more direct relationship between
the critic or theoretician and the artist, underlined this
interactive intertwining of different professions and media.
I see this tendency as a positive one, and from the beginning
of my professional engagement in this field I supported a
more creative, more artistic form of criticism which has brought
me to the curatorial profession as the most creative relation
between the artist and the art work. Even my first project
Signature, Event, Context, was in a way a manifest
of my future understanding of the need for a more creative
function of criticism. From here originates my text on re-examination
of another extremity and danger which, I believe, comes from
such an approach: the danger of losing any critical attitude
toward the art work and reality in general. The problem of
self-reference is present everywhere from the simple reason
that language itself is self-referential. According to Wittgenstein
self-reference is the only mechanism by which something can
be created in the language, but criticism and curatorial practice
are caught in the language as well as a large part of conceptual
art. That is why the main question that emerges from my text
is: how can the curator be self-referential and critical at
the same time, and in what way do words have or can have a
connection with reality. Recently I have curated the project
Words, Objects, Acts which deals exactly with the very
important relation between our words, our world and the problem
of performativity in the language: I see these issues as a
continual and consequent quest within my theoretical investigations
of the nature of the language and its reflection on the reality.
The danger that I sensed in the theoretical explanation: proliferation
of power (which as pointed out by John Searl, comes from the
need to control reality by creating or believing that one
is creating reality when the method of self-reference prevails)
was present in practice, on the AICA Congress itself in the
presentations of my colleagues who spoke mainly of their own
projects with no global reflection. At this point I would
like to emphasize the fact that I consider self-presentation
as the most obvious abuse of self-reference that you can find
among critics and curators. That was one of the highest reasons
for my provocative presentation at the AICA Congress. Still,
I am afraid that I could not avoid the self-presentation virus
during this interview. Sometimes the context dictates it and
it is up to the ethical sensitiveness of the authors as regards
the dealing with such dangers.
I.A.: Could you tell us a bit more about the project
Signature, Event, Context; in connection with it you
mentioned also a creative function of criticism. With what
methods is a creative critique achieved?

Signature, Event, Context (detail), 1992, Foto:
R. Jankuloski
S.M.: The project Signature Event, Context
was my first project (1992). That was an attempt to actually
realise what I had already written about and the method I
represented at that time - the deconstruction. In fact, the
idea was to show how the critique could be in a more direct
relationship with the work it refers to.
Maybe it would be best if I stick in greater detail to one
of the 'critiques installations' (as I would call those works
now) so as to make it more clear how the exhibition place
looked like. Namely, instead of exhibiting works of artists,
I exhibited my own critiques on artists. One of the pieces
consisted of a photo collage (all photos were from Robert
Jankulovski) made of several of my published and unpublished
texts written for the group ZERO - a Macedonian group from
the eighties which was the first and perhaps the only alternative
postmodernist movement in the age when modernism was still
highly dominant in Macedonia - as well as texts on one of
its members, the sculptor Bedi Ibrahim. Next to the collage
there was a fragment from his mirror installation which helped
reading the text that was typed backwards. The idea was that
the piece of work and the critique are intermingled, that
they complement each other, and are mutually dependent on
each other. Another example that could clarify the concept
and aim of this project would be the installation with the
kaleidoscope - the visitors could watch one of the photo-collages
through it thus viewing a fragmented and multiplied image
of the work - such images that I proposed the critiques should
offer.
At that time I thought that such an approach was important
and necessary as a counterpoint to the established abstract
expressionism and the critique that was written for such works,
a critique that imitated the manner of painting. Soon I realised
that I am more interested in being directly involved in the
process of my projects, so I had to choose between the critique
and the curatorship. Inevitably, I have chosen the later mostly
because it allows a wider range of practices and it can still
include a theoretical approach when it comes to writing introductory
texts in catalogues.
I.A.: You said that in cases of a more creative,
artistic critique, there is a risk of loosing the critical
attitude towards art. How does the critic achieve being self-referential
and critical at the same time?
S.M.: Besides the risk that exists when the curator
writes critiques for her/his own projects, which is more of
a social problem and a problem of conflict of interests, there
is also another risk. That risk is in connection to the texts
that are only descriptive and imitate the structure of the
piece of work. That is the type of school writing in the sense
of 'draw a line from the left bottom corner diagonally to
the right top corner'. In that way the text remains closed
in the same circle as the work and says nothing more about
the work and the context it had been created in. For example,
one can not write about the fine-art structure of an engaged
piece of work. The self-referential in that case would mean
complete avoiding of the exterior circumstances that had led
to the creation of the work, thus the critique would not be
critical at all. Within the framework of several projects
such as Writing and Difference (1993), Self and
Other (1994) or Liqour Amnii I (1996) I evolved
a kind of 'three dimensional curatorship' represented by objects
or installations that I would make by the end of the preparation
of the exhibitions. This would be an interactive comment on
the curatorial process and the intertwining of my and artists'
ideas. That was my contribution to the reconstruction within
the context of curatorship, an obviously impossible intervention
when art criticism is in question.
I.A.: In the same text 'Self-referential Versus
Critical' you write that the critique today should change
its methods to get in terms with art that has changed significantly.
What are those methods or what should they be?
S.M.: If the artists use an indefinite number of different
media, I think that the critics should use more methods, a
sort of interdisciplinary approach that would allow different
angles of understanding the piece of work. So, if the artist
had used references of Byzantine frescos I think that it would
be a great problem if the critic stuck to some structuralist
methods. This leads to a huge misunderstanding (unless one
uses a literature that speaks of that issue) and we get a
text that is not adequate to the works; similarly as in the
case of the engaged works. It is always better to combine
several different methods from different cultural and historic
contexts, so that the work can be seen from different angles.
I.A.: The critic, as is the case with the artist,
goes through different phases of perception and relationship
in his work; could you tell us a bit more about your methods
in the past and now.
S.M.: In the course of my 10 years of intensive engagement
in criticism and curatorial practice I am constantly trying
to change and build my methods of working. This does not mean
that there is a lack of consistency as a negative definition;
on the contrary, for me consistency inevitably leads to dogmatism.
My attitude towards art and the artists I work with has changed,
and this is evident in the texts I write and the method of
co-operation. My first critical writings were full of theoretical
references and application of the current methods which gradually
disappeared as a schematic structure. But in my later writings
I leave more space for the ideas of the artists I write about.
These texts are more thorough descriptions of the works and
I minimise the interpretations which I insist should come
from the conceptual and social milieu of the artist, as well
as from his/her personal character. I have not neglected theory,
I only complemented the starting methods of deconstruction
and psychoanalysis with phenomenology, philosophy of the mind,
pragmatism and post-feminism, the methods of which I intertwine
and use more thoroughly when writing theoretical texts. Of
course, the use of these methods could be discerned also in
writing for exhibition catalogues, although in that case I
try to be more direct and stick to the appropriate context.
When it comes to curatorial projects, in view of realisation
of art works, choice of place, presentation and promotion,
the theory and the practice of collaboration with the artists
are intermingled and they interactively build up a complex
material of the exhibition project.
I.A.: Why do you give priority to description rather
than interpretation; where is the creative function of the
critique here?
S.M.: When I speak of description, I do not have in
mind describing only the piece of work, but as I have already
stated, description of the wider circumstances in which it
had been outlined and created.
I.A.: If one leaves more space for the idea of
the artist, does that present a threat of loosing the criticality
of the critique?
S.M.: On the contrary, I think that only then the
real critique can begin, after a wholesome presentation of
the initial concept, so that it can be compared to the final
result and thus be assessed weather it is a successful piece
of work or not. I think that texts which have a theoretical
nature can refer only to some theoretical and philosophical
concepts that are very different from the initial point of
the artist, because otherwise the concept of the piece of
work would be burdened by meanings that are only in the heads
of ambitious critics who want to impose their knowledge and
their arbitrariness, as if the artist did not know what he/she
wanted to say and that he/she was not intelligent enough.
Such underestimation of the artists and the art works are
often present with critics who use art as an excuse for their
own equilibrating interpretations which show how little they
appreciate the artists they write about. It is a completely
different thing when the piece is criticised for not achieving
the goal that was set in the initial concept.
I.A.: In your opinion which method most convincingly
allows the understanding of the truth of the art work and
the artist?
S.M.: Because I do not believe that there is a single
truth of the art work, I represent a critique that allows
as many interpretations as possible.
I.A.: The attitude as well as the principle is
changeable. Do you have the ability for a chameleon strategy?
S.M.: This question of changeable attitudes is connected
to the question regarding the need for consistency. The curator's
work means collaboration with many different artists of different
generations, conceptual schools and different social and cultural
contexts. It would be a problem if a curator stuck to certain
established norms and rules without taking into consideration
the contextual belonging of the artist and the piece of art.
That is why, in describing methods close to me I prefer the
scheme of the MPD syndrome. I'd like to explain this: the
MPD - multiplex personality disorder syndrome is a medical
term used to describe people who suffer the syndrome of a
multiple personality, but at the same time is used by the
philosophy of the mind and the problems of the mind and body.
This term was introduced by Danniel Dennett who uses it to
explain a non-medical phenomenon - a very frequent occurrence
which he believes we all suffer from - a phenomenon of representing
and simulating more persons in different contexts. Thus, in
order to fulfil his professional duty correctly, the curator
is often forced to adapt to the character of the artist and
'to step into the artists shoes', to try and think like him/her
and to make decisions from the aspect of the other person,
and not according to some formerly established rules. If there
is an absolute need to establish a global strategy, I would
choose a flexible strategy in which the context sets the rules
of the game. As context we would consider all elements of
space, artistic concept, the real social, cultural, economic
and political conditions in which the work is created and
presented, the personal interest of the curator in a certain
moment, as well as the personal evaluation of the relevancy
of the art work.
I.A.: The overall reality of its existence has
shown that only art can change art, and it is redundant to
insist on synthetic criteria of value criticism; especially
in this time when all values are re-examined.
S.M.: I do not think that value criticism is redundant,
but I think that the evaluation of the art work is much harder
today due to the intermingling of the media and the appearance
of new media for which we have no established value criteria.
Hence, in this phase it is probably more important to write
about the new media, because only through writing and theoretical
re-examination we can come to a starting point of evaluation.
When it comes to the re-examination of the values it is difficult
to differentiate facts from values. And this is where mistakes
happen. There are certain attitudes, like Richard Rorty's
conceptual realism, that all facts are values because they
had been subjected to a particular point of view, that the
objective reality is cotradictio in adjecto. The relation
between language and reality - whether we choose a realistic,
nominal or conceptual approach - will also determine the attitude
whether there should or could be a value criticism. My attitude
would be a moderate one - that reality, despite all our different
views, in fact does exists (at least some segments of reality)
and it exists independently of us, and that we can always
establish a critical attitude towards reality. The more diverse
subjective criticism we have, from our personal aspect, the
greater the chances are to obtain a more overall picture of
the real place of a certain art project within the frames
of art's current interest.
I.A.: Could you give a comment on the quality and
freedom of the Macedonian art criticism today and your position
both in and out of it.
S.M.: I have to say that I no longer feel that I am
an art critic. This is due to my personal choice resulting
from all the realisations mentioned in the answer to the first
question, and also due to a more direct problem known as a
conflict of interests. Namely, Skopje is a small place, the
circle of people involved in contemporary art, whether they
are critics, curators or artists, is very closed. When I started
conceptualising and realising projects, I saw that writing
about the projects of my colleagues would lead to the monopolisation
of my position: no one took away my freedom to criticise their
work, I myself felt that it would be unjust. I know that it
is difficult to define this issue - a conflict of interests.
Thomas Nagel has dedicated nearly an entire book The Mortal
Questions to the conflict of interests, the political
correctness and giving advantage. I think that this is a question
of personal ethics and depends on the personal choice. I've
chosen to write critical texts only on exhibitions held outside
Macedonia and to publish promotional texts on our authors
and exhibitions in foreign language magazines. No matter how
hard I tried to be objective, I realised that the context
of a situation in which I myself organise exhibitions or promote
artists would influence their meaning.
I.A.: Regarding the Macedonian contemporary
art - do you consider it as a scene and what is the direction
it is moving to?
S.M.: Three or four years ago I wrote a text: 'Her
Majesty - the Scene', which was the only censored text I ever
wrote. It was a text on this subject and I was commissioned
to write it for the only existing specialised magazine on
fine-arts in Macedonia - The Large Glass published
by the Museum of Contemporary Art. The Editorial board had
decided not to publish it because it was too open and critical
towards that particular phenomenon. My attitude has remained
pretty much the same. Although there are many young artists
working hard and gradually making their way in both home and
abroad manifestations, I think that they are not sufficient
to be defined as a scene. I don't see any liable structure
depending on the artists conceptual definition or generation.
There are only certain institutions promoting and favouring
a particular number of artists which could be the beginning
of a scene, but this is not happening with a consistent strategy.
On the contrary, ignoring the problem of conflict of interests
has led to a situation where the artists are not chosen according
to the current happenings in the world art scene, but are
instead, chosen according to some games of conspiracy and
nepotism. And in the last decade when the fall of the Berlin
Wall opened the doors of the world public for the East European
artists, at the world manifestations, Macedonia continuously
presents artists chosen according to the personal interest
of the institutions and curators. There have been cases when
artists chosen by foreign curators were discarded only because
they did not belong to the clan. The monopolisation of several
institutions by their directors also did not help in creating
a constructive scene where the artist could attract the public
attention. That was mainly due to the fact that there was
no criticism (the blame for this partly goes to the papers
and the magazines which do not consider criticism as necessary
in establishing the editorial policy). In that text I held
an attitude that the impression of a chaotic situation results
from the absence of critical reflection on the part of theoreticians,
lack of attitude towards reality, and there is only turning
to a self-referential and self-indulgent game. The curatorial
practice can not give an answer to that. There is a need for
a critical reflection that will be an obligation for the critics
and not the curators. The critics will be those to debate
on the artistic activities in the country. So, only with a
constructive interaction and balancing between the artists
(whom we do not lack here in our state), the curators, the
critics and the institutions in the sphere of fine-art can
speak of a scene. In such conditions, the artists would have
a chance to be successfully promoted.
I.A.: As a curator by profession, you are one of
the most active ones in Macedonia. Do you follow the world
trends in a certain topic from where the art works are initiated?
Are you preoccupied by the trend, or maybe you take up a place
somewhere in between?
S.M.: I would redefine the question about the trend
into a question about the rules of the game. All of us who
live and work, and try to function outside the states in the
West do not have a lot of options. We either work in concordance
with our local rules and ambitions, or we strive towards presentation
in global frameworks where different rules of the game apply
- the rules of globalism. And the globalism we are experiencing
during the past decade is less global for some entities. It
is not easy to keep a balance between the local predispositions
and authentic interests on one side, and the demands of the
global cultural network on the other. The information gained
through the main instrument of globalism - the Internet -
does not solve the problems of the contradictions between
the local and the global. Maybe the only possible answer to
this question is subversion and anarchy. Namely, to simulate
the demanded trendy approach, and always to conceal something
that's local and non-comprehensible for the foreigners.
Suzana Milevska: philosopher and art historian, curator
at the Open Graphic Art Studio - Museum of the City of Skopje,
Macedonia.
|