PlatformaSCCA, the journal of the SCCA, Center for Contemporary Arts - Ljubljana (SCCA-Ljubljana), was predominantly created as a platform for the texts written within the frame of the research project Manifesta in Our Backyard.(1)While the both previous issues (June 2000, December 2000) were dedicated to it, this issue is bringing it to a close.
Although the research project has been frequently presented and referred to in PlatformaSCCA, certain things are worth repeating and some should be articulated: all the more so as we asserted in presenting the project that, among other, Manifesta - 'the other' - serves us for self-observation.

On the one hand, SCCA-Ljubljana conceived Manifesta in Our Backyard as a means to avoid passive and uncritical reception of Manifesta 3 (and of what it stood for in the research, the 'imported' Western European representative exhibition of contemporary art as well as the model/example of manifestation of cultural industry) and, on the other hand, its aprioristic rejection.(2)

The concept of the project was marked with ambivalence: on the one hand, ambition (the time-span -1999/2001 - and the content-span of the project), on the other, 'caution'. It is therefore no surprise (and especially so in the époque of late Capitalism in which critical reflection is easily appropriated/used/abused/neutralised by those who are themselves the objects of reflection) that the project obtained the status of a 'hybrid PR extension' of M 3 itself. Manifesta in Our Backyard was namely too often perceived as part of M 3.
'Cautiousness' was manifest already in the 'research' nature of the project and its original positivistic-objectivist intention to publish the results of the research only after the conclusion of M 3 in order not to influence the subject itself and the course of the research. With the post festum publication of the findings we also intended to distance the Manifesta in Our Backyard i.e. SCCA-Ljubljana from the status of 'M3 extension', the risk which we were aware of from the very beginning of the research project (partly also because of the tight collaboration between Soros Centers for Contemporary Arts and Manifesta and their, in many ways, comparable policy and ideology of functioning).(3)
The intention to publish the findings afterwards was to a large extent connected to the uneasiness and the difficulties of SCCA-Ljubljana in taking a clear stance towards the questions that were encompassed by the project and in front of which the institution that, in the 90's, was practically a 'service branch' of Manifesta could not remain inarticulate. In my view, the embarrassment or rather the very decision for such a project (of which a symptomatic part was the inquiry on expectations and experiences of the protagonists of the local art scene regarding M 3 in Ljubljana(4)) was also tightly connected with the fact that, at the time of the launching of the project and its course, SCCA-Ljubljana initiated the process of separation from the Soros Foundation (OSI - Open Society Institute). For us working there, this move meant a possibility for a different operation in the art world (than before), but there was no clear vision on how to proceed with that. One of the crucial goals of the project was to examine the dominant representative exhibition practices of art establishment and to try to synthesise out of the specifics and needs of 'our' milieu possible different models of functioning within the art system.(5)

Thus it was easier and less risky to 'wrap' the uncertainty in the basic principle of scientific discourse that requires the separation of the observer from the observed; in the principle of objectivity by which the properties of the observer shell not enter the description of his/her observation and for which Heinz von Foerster (in his theory on Second Order Cybernetics)(6) claims that it is based on fear - fear that paradoxes would when the observer was allowed to enter the system of his/her observation.(7)

If not for anything else, there was a need for a small time distance (even if until the end of M 3) in which 'the other/s' (from Manifesta to the protagonists of the local art scene) would disclose themselves more or less clearly and when it would be undoubtedly easier to take a stance towards them.

Yet, such 'objectivity' i.e. 'distance' soon proved to be an illusory, impossible and certainly problematic operation as, in the case of analysis of social systems, the observer (here SCCA-Ljubljana) is always part of the system which he/she is observing and analysing (in this case, part of the art system). Hence there is no mention of whatsoever 'objectivity'; moreover, objectivity cannot be any criterion, although it can be a manner of avoiding responsibility.(8)

As already said, in various presentations(9) of the research project Manifesta in Our Backyard it was underlined that, 'by observing Manifesta - 'the other' - we also observe the 'our backyard' and ourselves' and that 'we want to stimulate self-reflection of the protagonists of the local art scene (and mostly ourselves) as well elsewhere (particularly in the region of Eastern Europe)'(10). In order to make this possible, it was necessary to expose i.e. to establish the relation with 'the other' as 'the other observer'; it was necessary to establish 'circular causality', partnership among observing and communicating which, according to the theory of Second-Order-Cybernetics, is present in all forms of self-reference and is at once its simplest form - namely, through self-observation and self-reflection the system (individual, institution...) collects information about its functioning which in turn influences that functioning.(11)

Connected with this (perhaps in this place I could also speak about the feeling of responsibility and care for the self-image of the SCCA-Ljubljana) was also the decision to initiate publishing PlatformaSCCA already during Manifesta 3 - specially because we hadn't generated any other situations through which we could establish a more direct circulation of information. Thus the aim of the first issue of PlatformaSCCA was the presentation of the research project Manifesta in Our Backyard, its 'history', goals and first findings. Since in general the 'research nature' of the project, particularly the collective work, did not show good results(12), PlatformaSCCA was primarily envisaged as the platform that enabled SCCA-Ljubljana to indirectly take a position towards the subject through the mapping of perspectives of others - from the interviewed(13) to 'contributing' writers.
This has eventually showed that the way of functioning of this institution formally is no different from the times when it was still operating with the 'Soros label'. Perhaps now (as opposed to 'before') the act of mapping was somewhat more 'selective'. As if 'non-objectivity' in the process of mapping was now 'allowed', i.e. the criterion of 'objectivity' was replaced with the criterion of responsibility in 'choosing' - in the case of PlatformaSCCA, through the decisions to whom to 'give the word'(14), since 'the act of pointing to the world is basically the act of pointing to oneself'(15). At this the crucial question for understanding the issue of how maps are formed is - who has the power to name and subsume others in its hegemonic identity.(16)

Perhaps this has a simpler name - 'editorial policy'?

As already said, the research project Manifesta in Our Backyard has reduced itself to publishing the journal PlatformaSCCA, which we still publish long after Manifesta 3 has abandoned 'our backyard' and we intend to continue its publishing even after the conclusion of this project (with this issue). We have taken the decision for such a move since we estimate that art theory and criticism in the field of contemporary art in Slovene milieu have been insufficiently present and developed also in the last decade. Thus we continue i.e. realise the basic goals of Manifesta in Our Backyard which are 'the examination of the dominant representative... practices of the art establishment and a try to synthesise out of the specifisc and needs of 'our' space possible different models of functioning within the art system' as well as 'to stimulate critical discourse on dominant practices of contemporary art system.'

Apart from informing on the activities of the SCCA-Ljubljana, PlatformaSCCA is further dedicated to actual themes that contribute to the understanding of contemporary art practice and its context - with publishing original and translated texts in the field of contemporary art and social-critical theory and art criticism; within the section Open Scene (which is unfortunately absent from this issue) we intend to stimulate to writing younger and less experienced authors.

In this issue of PlatformaSCCA we publish some additional texts that were written in connection with the project Manifesta in Our Backyard: the text by Miško Šuvaković in which the author deals with ideologies of display based on the examples of three biggest European manifestations in the field of contemporary art - Kassel Documenta, the Venice Biennial and Manifesta - and which concludes with the comparison of Manifesta and Soros Centres fo Contemporary Arts; Lev Kreft's text on the relation of art, politics and aestethics in historical Avant-garde, Neo-Avant-garde and Postmodernism; and the text by Nataša Ilić and Dejan Kršić in which, through the example of the work of Sanja Iveković that they locate in the cultural-political context of Croatia in the 90's, the authors write about the possibilities for alternative culture in Croatia, on the strategies of subversive art practices and ways of their neutralisation by the art system.

With the texts by Bogdan Lešnik (the examination of the relation of theory and ideology through psychoanalytical reading and in the dialogue with Freud's essays on art), Rastko Močnik (the text on 'parasitism' of art theory i.e. the discourses on art undergoes a parasitism of the kind with the visual intervention of P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Museum of Contemporary Art), Igor Zabel (in dialogue with Urša Jurman, a contemplation on the issues of interpretation and evaluation of contemporary art) and the interview of Ivanka Apostolova with Suzana Milevska (on (self)criticism and self-referentiality of critical writing on art) we introduce the problematics of relation between art-theory-ideology-critic with which we will continue in the next, fourth issue, as we believe that the continuity in the treatment of certain themes/problematics brings the much needed deeper view of the chosen subject.

1. The research project Manifesta in Our Backyard was aimed at examining the functioning of contemporary art system on the example of Manifesta 3, the European Biennial of Contemporary Art, hosted last year by Ljubljana. We have focused on three themes in the research project and we created a basic working groups for each of them: a) examination of the relation between M 3 and the local art scene; b) analysis of artworks exhibited at M 3; c) analysis of M 3 self-projection (image).
Comm.: Urša Jurman, 'Research project Manifesta in Our Backyard', PlatformaSCCA, SCCA-Ljubljana, June 2000, pp. 6-7; e.g. http://www.ljudmila.org/scca/platforma1 (further comm.: Urša Jurman)
2. Comm.: Ibid., p. 6.
3. From the very beginning of Manifesta, Soros Centers for Contemporary Arts (SCCAs) were considered as its valuable informer on the events on art scenes of Eastern and Central Europe as well as an important financier of the projects from those regions that were selected and presented at Manifesta.
The text of Miško Šuvakovic in this issue of PlatformaSCCA speaks about the (in many aspects) comparable politics and ideology of SCCAs and Manifesta.
4. The group for analysis of influence of M 3 on the local (fine) art scene was supposed to execute the inquiry on the expectations and experiences of the protagonists of Slovenian visual arts scene concerning M 3 in three phases - prior to the opening of M3, right after its conclusion and by the end of the year 2000. The only phase of the inquiry that has been executed was the first one: it was sent to over 1000 addresses. Yet even that phase has not been completed as we haven't managed, in spite of expert help, to process the received replies. The task proved to be too demanding and the project, with its pre-supposed 'non-ideology', an ideological project par excellence - beginning with the formulation of inquiry questions that often implicated 'correct' answers.
The inquiry is symptomatic in its revealing Manifesta in Our Backyard as the project of mapping, the project of positioning in the art world map by the very drawing of that map, where it is not unimportant that '... maps serve the purpose of location and that alleviates the anxiety of being lost' and that '... maps mask the interests which bring them into being'. See: Irit Rogoff, 'Reasons for Critical Cartography', Cartographs: Gnostic Projections for the 21st Century, Author of the catalogue and of the exhibition Želimir Koščevic, Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, 1997, Slovenian edition: Editor Meta Gabršek Prosenc, Breda Kolar Sluga, Art Gallery Maribor, 1998, pp. 146-147. (in continuation: Irit Rogoff)
5. Comm.: Urša Jurman, p. 6.
6. See: The Heinz von Foerster Page, http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/HvF.htm
7. Ex.: Heinz von Foerster: 'Ethics and Second-Order-Cybernetics', Cybernetics & Human Knowing; A Journal of Second Order Cybernetics & Cyber-Semiotics, Vol. 1, no. 1, 1992, p. 2., http://www.flec.kvl.dk/sbr/Cyber/cybernetics/vol1/v1-1hvf.htm (in continuation: Heinz von Foerster)
8. Ex., Ibid., p. 7.
9. I would like here to point out to the presentation of Manifesta in Our Backyard in a) Cankarjev dom, February 3, 2001, when on the occasion of the visit of the organisation team of Manifesta 4; the office of Manifesta 3 has organised a closed session on the relation between Manifesta 3 and the local scene and b) in the publication Research & Education in Contemporary Art in Eastern and Central Europe, (SCCA-Ljubljana, 2000), which presented the projects that were chosen and financed by SCCA Network in the frame of the Regional Programme.
10. Comm.: Urša Jurman, p. 6.
11. Ex.: Heinz von Foerster, p. 2 in Felix Geye: 'What is Sociocybernetics?', http://www.unizar.es/sociocybernetics/whatis.html
12. With the exception of the group for analysis of artworks which has published its reports in the second issue of PlatformaSCCA, the goals of Manifesta in Our Backyard proved to be a too demanding task for those engaged in the research project.
13. In the first issue of the magazine we have published short interviews with the protagonists of the contemporary art scene in Ljubljana regarding the relation of Manifesta 3 and the contemporary art scene in Ljubljana. Those interviews served also as the source for deeper analysis in the second issue of the magazine: the text by Eda Čufer, interviews with Victor Misiano and Ole Bouman.
14. There were also examples that the 'invited speakers' have declined the invitation.
15. Dennis Wood, The Power of Maps, The Guillford Press, New York, London, in Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Art, New York, 1992, p. 113.
16. Comm.: Irit Rogoff, p. 145.