SANJA IVEKOVIC, CROATIA - CANCELED FROM THE PARTICIPATION           
AT THE SAO PAULO BIENNALE 2002
 

to see support postings go here: [see support postings]                    
to send us a comment go here: [send a comment]                                

SANJA IVEKOVIC, CROATIA -
CANCELED FROM THE PARTICIPATION AT THE SAO PAULO BIENNALE 2002

 
Performing the curator: against the curatorial methods of destroying artists

I decided to write this statement being revolted by the case of what happened to Sanja Ivekovic, a Croat artist, first selected for the Sao Paulo Biennial 2002 by Leonida Kovac, the appointed curator, and than being by the same curator, so to speak overnight, after nearly half of year of Ivekovic preparation of the project, rejected, dismissed, kick in the but. Instead of Sanja Ivekovic, Leonida Kovac, decided to propose another artist!

Firstly, I am not interested in the reasons, as here it is no one reason that counts. For me the question of reasons, the pro and contra arguments does not exist. No one reason, anyway, can be the one that legitimizes such a decision by the curator. Only the death of the artist can give a pertinent reason for substituting him ore her, after being selected and publicly declared to be the representative, or the artist decision by himself or herself to quite the project.

The rule is very simple, the curator is given a huge privilege, this is, the absolute privilege of having free hands to select any artist, but soon afterward he or she is in the position of a subordinate link in the alliance of curator-artists, that means he or she transfers this privilege to the chosen artists. No positive reasons can be found for rejecting the selected artist, no instantiation can be taken into an account for a legitimization of such an act. The moment the curator wants to play further the pathetic figure of power, showing his or her "fragile" power, with an act of a rejection of the selected artist, he or she becomes just a clown and a bastard, surpassing the line of the disaster. A curator, not mater the name or gender, that rejects the firstly chosen, and publicly denoted artist, transforms himself or herself into misery.

If it will be a court of honor and principle for the curators (as it is for journalists, as their both perform a public critical work), such a curator will have to be criticized by the institution, by the Biennial, and by the ones that hired him or her and gave him or her the mandate to perform his or her curatorial job. And any other artists that will be asked to take the place of Sanja Ivekovic or better of the rejected artists will have to say : NO! If such an activist solidarity and movement will be possible to arose, maybe, a different balance will be created between artists and curators.

In the end, the artists has no other way than to react with all means, as it is no a possible single reason of legitimization of this manipulation with his or her concepts.

Marina Grzinic, Ljubljana, January 11, 2002

 

 

 

The following text will be published in Croat language in ZAREZ, Zagreb in a special selection of texts about Sanja Ivekovic case, a selection coordinated by Natasa Ilic

Marina Grzinic, Ljubljana

SANJA IVEKOVIC: A FIGHT FOR THE ARTIST’S INTEGRITY         

 
The case of the Croat artist Sanja Ivekovic, who was first selected by Leonida Kovac and then afterwards rejected by the same curator for the biennial of Sao Paulo 2002.

This text is motivated by two statements published recently in Croatia; first is the statement for the mass media about the case by Leonida Kovac herself. The second is the text published in Feral Tribune, Croat monthly critical magazine, by Mr. Zvonko Makovic, art historian and critic from Zagreb, who is writing in support of Leonida Kovac. Both letters-texts-statements open a wider field of possible analysis of the whole situation. Both, the statement for the public by Leonida Kovac and Z. Makovic text came after the reaction and pressure of an interested public from Serbia, Slovenia, and the world, written and signed by artists, intellectuals, critics, from the domestic and international art culture scene in favor of Sanja Ivekovic. See http://anart.no/~syndicate/ coordinated by Anna Balint and Claudia Westermann.

The Makovic text was published as a reaction to these statements, giving ferocious support for Leonida Kovac’s action, as I named it, being ‘an act of pure misery’.

Ivekovic’s participation at the Sao Paulo Biennial 2002 is now cancelled and accepted as a fait accompli, demagogically and publicly canonized by Makovic’s institutionally imposed letter. The Ministry of Culture, who is giving the money for the presentation, silently benedicted the case, meanwhile the mass media has taken this as a new way to raise new external income. The Museum of Contemporary Art in Zagreb, that is the producer of the project, until now did not release any statement. This is why I decided to write an analysis of what seems a case for history. For now it reveals a new disturbing situation, one of persecution and the future penalization of the artist Sanja Ivekovic.

FIRST: In one part of the letter Makovic is giving a detailed summary of money used to cover the projects of Sanja Ivekovic. He is telling this to us also to convince us of the “huge support and good working conditions” supplied for Sanja Ivekovic’s work in Croatia. He displayed in front of the reader a very detailed budget that had been invested for several productions of art works for Sanja Ivekovic, implying first and foremost how much she “stole” from the poor Croatian taxpayer community. Although the amounts are here to shock us, saying ‘you see who is stealing money from you? You poor taxpayers’, I was astonished first and foremost by the accuracy of this money data supposedly invested in recent Sanja Ivekovic works and presentations in Zagreb. It now seems that Makovic’s role is not as an art critic or an intellectual, he is a policeman. Who else can get such a detailed budget investment listing? This also means that the institutions involved in these productions and presentations were quickly and willingly provided to him with statistics. If not maybe a police data archive, that collects such detailed investment for the contemporary artists, which is somewhere hidden, waiting to be used when it is appropriate.

After such accuracy it is obvious that the tax payers (half starving in Croatia, demolished economically by the last decade of political and social turmoil in Croatia) will not want to invest into art and culture, especially not in the future works of Sanja Ivekovic. The rhetoric, using witch hunting tactics, thus declaring future censorship is what is effective here. The despotic and over the top punishment imposed by the art establishment is merciless in defending its curatorial methodology, showing a level of repressiveness that is as repressive as the state apparatuses. Sanja Ivekovic will of course feel the result of the harshness and she will be used as a scapegoat by this supposed art critic’s ‘policeman like’ antics. The listings ‘falsly’ transform Sanja Ivekovic into somebody who is stealing what is the most precious from us – money. We can not find in Makovic letter not a single note of the importance of her projects for the international reputation and for the history of contemporary art and culture of Croatia.

DIALING HISTORY: It is obvious that it is not Sanja Ivekovic that is vulgar, as Makovic is implying. When giving also to the reader a series of quotations from a personal letter written by Sanja Ivekovic to Leonida Kovac, or better to say Makovic’s brutality and vulgarity, is something that is without border. It serves as one sole purpose, to destroy the artist who dares to raise a critical voice. Furthermore I would like to draw attention to the fact that Leonida Kovac gave to Z. Makovic a personal letter to be used publicly, an act that confirms the misery of both, Kovac and Makovic. It reminds me of another case that was conducted about a decade ago, of destroying another personality of the art contemporary world - Davor Maticevic. He was dying from AIDS in Zagreb and the mass media was using this to destroy the Museum of Contemporary Art in Zagreb, where Maticevic worked, publishing parts of his diary-letters and personal testimonies, presenting Maticevic as an amoral, vulgar and sexual perverted person. So you can see the sort of people that we are dealing with here, backward non-progressive types who do not challenge their own presumptions, whilst ignorantly ruining other people’s possible freedoms.

Makovic confidentiality with power and money is also visible when in the letter he is listing names of artists and philosophers who stood up in defense of Ivekovic. Milica, Trsa and Marina are without the family names, as Mr. Makovic knows perfectly that in Croatia, in Zagreb, he is the one who is making order, he is cutting heads and he is the bloody king of the province. We can learn here very precise method of manipulating with data, names, and bodies.

SECOND: The level of function performed by the institution of art and culture, and the logic of the curator’s work, the way and how the art system is dealing with contemporary art when producing an art work and the ways of installing them in different collections, is what is at stake here. It is not just having to simply deal with everyday politics but also with the internal political and strategies of the Institution of art in the public field. I would rather not comment on the populist opinion of Makovic regarding Slavoj Zizek’s work in the letter, disqualified. The same is possible for Sanja Ivekovic’s work that has been totally disqualified as well. Maybe it is normal enough for the ‘policeman’ Makovic, that the quality of the work of Ivekovic, put forward by Leonida Kovac herself, as the most important reason why Ivekovic was selected, vanished here, and is not important any more. Leonida Kovac stated in her statement: Ivekovic was selected because of her international reputation and importance.

Three points are taken as a strong alibi for the rejection: The delay in the production process, the “abundant” honorarium to Sanja Ivekovic that would be paid, and Sanja Ivekovic’s rejection to sign a producer contract. Ivekovic refused to sign this contract as in the contract is implied that Ivekovic must give one copy of the work to the Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, being the producer of the whole project. The work will be therefore with such a signed contract automatically part of the Museum collection.

I am not surprise that the time delay is put forward, as one of the “reasons” why Kovac has to cancel the project of Sanja Ivekovic. Is Leonida Kovac having a clue of how today the work of arts are constructed, produced and realize? The work is finalized always and solely at the point of displaying! There in Sao Paulo it would achieve a total form, until then it is all in fragments, it is installation – media- conceptual work that lives in discontinuity.

Sanja Ivekovic, it is mention’s, in both letters, would received a sum of 32.000 HRK as a honorarium. Strange enough and not under discussion is the honorarium of the curator, the equal amount as to be given to Leonida Kovac. The works of both are disproportionate, but the money is equal! Ivekovic work is far more demanding: developing the idea of the work, the process of realization and its actual realization!

The amount given as an honorarium in not the same as the amount that would be paid for the art work within the art market. The value of the artwork is something else; it is part of the mechanism that is connected with the history of the artist work, with his or her status, and the work reception and interpretation within the international arena. The Museum of Contemporary Art’s contract insisting that it gets a free copy of the artwork for the collection of the Museum is not legal. With signing such a producer agreement Sanja Ivekovic would legalized the confiscation of her work for the purpose of the collection. The artist is forced to give over the work of art, but with a benediction of his or her signature, being just and solely paid for his work and services. Donating a work of art to the Museum is only possible as a free decision of the artist!

The question is how many other artists were forced to give the work of art for the collection with signing similar contracts, as a “thankful” gesture of being invited to present the state in this or that situation or manifestation.

CONCLUSION: From my point of view both letters-texts-statements reconfigure an understanding of the whole cultural process that is currently taking place, demonstrating the dangerous actions and path of cultural politics in Croatia. Plus its terrifying way in which it acts with and via institutions of art, creating a new pattern that can only be seen and named as ‘witch hunting’. The two letters-statements throw light on the situation of how art and institutional politics is presently functioning, and how it is possible to ‘cover up’ almost methodically, the rejection of Ivekovic while at the same time preparing a terrain for her terminal expulsion from the Croat art scene in the very immediate future. How many other artists will be imposed such a regime and onslaught of such uncaring decisions on their practice? Last but not least the two letters/texts also reveal a dangerous discourse of how the institutions of contemporary art and the state is functioning in post-socialism, getting works of art almost for free, and how the ideology of power is proposing almost a ferocious sentencing of artists whilst supporting the new ‘irresponsible’ face and methodology of the critic, curator transformed into a culturalized enforcer.

Ljubljana, 20. January, 2002

 

I would like to express all my gratitude to Marc Garrett from the independent artists group furtherfield.org for a collaborative and editorial support.

 

 

 

[I send this letter to the chief curator of the Sao Paolo Biennial. tx. to Marc Garret&furherfield for editing the text. greetings, anna]

LETTER TO MR. ALFONS HUG, CHIEF CURATOR OF THE SAO PAULO BIENNALE

 
Dear Alfons Hug,

We were informed about what happened to the Croatian artist Sanja Ivekovic through the Syndicate mailing list. An Internet list where many European artists, curators, project organisers are subscribed to. A platform that has pro-actively been forging links with other creative individuals/groups globally.

It is very important to many of us in Eastern Europe to insist on this case for multiple reasons. Not every Eastern European country is represented at the Sao Paulo Art Biennale, and many of us identify with artists from Eastern Europe who go there. In many of these countries there is no curatorial training and no professional forums where such cases can be regulated. And in many of these countries political and bureaucratic criteria have and do, influence the selection of those chosen for such ventures. Thus a misrepresentation occurs, and those who are deserving of such support are too often pushed aside for political reasons.

It is an everyday and constant struggle for Eastern European artists and independent curators to overcome the political pressure that is always imposed unsympathetically on the art scene. Sanja Ivekovic is a respected and well-known pioneering video artist. Regarding the sudden decision of the Croatian curator to commission another artist to represent Croatia at the Biennale. We view this as a political decision, a deliberate act to try and put the contemporary and critical, Eastern European avant-garde scene in a position of disempowerment. It is important for you to be aware of the issues at hand for there are many artists' careers at stake, and the infringement and success of this type of separatist strategy does not bode well for those who seek to explore creative projects outside Eastern Europe, in other cultures.

Not last, we consider Sanja Ivekovic's project as an excellent, innovative and culturally informed piece. The work itself is deeply rooted in our social and political environment, and we can hardly accept to see it cancelled. I also would like to mention that the eyes of the Internet world are watching. We have support from many different Western Arts organizations who are interested in the outcome of what happens in reference to this situation, which is of course very unfortunate.

Below I have attached opinions expressed on this case by Serb artist-theoretician couple Branimir Stojanovic & Milica Tomic, and of the Slovenian philosopher and curator Marina Griznic, and also a list of intellectuals who have signed Marina Griznic's statement as a sign of protest and of solidarity with Sanja Ivekovic.

Please consider the case. If there is no representation of Sanja Ivekovic's work at the Sao Paulo Biennale, we ask you to inform your collegues, artists and visitors of the exhibition about it.

In the name of the syndicate mailing list
Anna Balint
administrator
Budapest

 

 

 

RE: LETTER TO MR. ALFONS HUG         

 
 
Dear Anna

thanks. As you surely are aware, the Bienal de Sao Paulo has, just like Venice, a system of national representations in which every country is autonomous in the selection of its artist. While we deeply deplore the incident, there is nothing we can do about it, since Croatia is responsible for its participation.

The Bienal organizes its own show which this year is based upon 70 artists from 11 metropolises around the world. The list of artists for that part of the Bienal was closed a long time ago. In fact, we are already printing the catalogue, and I cannot include any more artists in this section.

Yours

Alfons Hug