N 2007, the National Museum in Warsaw exhibited the part of its collec
Download 5.09 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
Part I · Moving People
well as other artists from Poland. 816 The success “Cricot 2” had in Edinburgh was, partially, also one for the gallery. Contemporary art from Poland was recognized as part of a cutting-edge visual culture. As a consequence, Demar- co continued his cooperation with Foksal in subsequent years. In 1979, the Foksal Gallery was back in Edinburgh. As before, it was part of a major event, as the press release of the Richard Demarco Gallery shows: The 1979 Edinburgh Festival will see the Demarco Gallery much involved in the Official Festival program and on the Fringe. The official program of exhibitions will include the Demarco Gallery’s exhibition presenting . . . two important Polish artists for the first time in Britain. These artists, . . . Witkiewicz and . . . Stazewski, represent the widest possible range of the Polish visual art character. Whereas Witkiewicz is the personification of Polish Expressionism, Stazewski represents the extraordinary devel- opment of Polish Constructivism, linked to the Russian Constructivist School in the 20s. These two exhibitions will be presented at the Scottish Arts Council’s Fruitmarket Gallery with financial support of the Scottish Arts Council and in association with the Łódź Museum, Polish Ministry of Culture and the Third Eye Centre in Glasgow, which will be present- ing the exhibitions in Glasgow in the early autumn. The Demarco Gallery is also presenting two other Polish exhibitions, one at Gladstone’s Court in the Royal Mile, of ten contemporary Polish artists, selected by Ryszard Stanisławski of the Łódź Museum; the other is tracing the history and philosophy of the Foksal Gallery in Warsaw from 1966 to the present day. It will be at the Demarco Gallery. 817 This document can be interpreted as a representation of the discursive order by which contemporary art was mediated. Schematically speaking, art institu- tions in Poland and Scotland were set in relation to each other in hierarchical 816 Noted in the margin, although the exhibition in Edinburgh was similar to that in Lausanne, it represented a changed institution. Due to internal conflicts in these times, Ptaszkowska and Tchorek left the gallery as well as the artists Krasiński and Stażewski. Cf. Anka Ptaszkowska, “Wspólny czas i wspólne miejsce. My in On. My i On. My i Ja. Ja i On. (próba rozwarstwienia),” in Tadeusz Kantor z archiwum Galerii Foksal, ed. Małgorzata Jurkiewicz, Joanna Mytkowska, and Andrzej Przywara (Warsaw: Gallery Foksal, 1998), 439– 52, 450, 452. 817 The Richard Demarco Gallery Ltd., “Press Release” (1979) in the archive of the Foksal Gallery (Warsaw). accordance. So, works of “pivotal” importance, by Witkiewicz and Stażewski, were presented in an official institution, the Fruitmarket Gallery, before be- ing sent to the Third Eye Centre in Glasgow. Whereas contemporary art that, seemingly, did not bare the label of representing the Polish “character” was ar- ranged in other institutions, at Gladstone’s Court and in the Demarco Gal- lery itself. Foksal presented a historiographical survey of its past activities, a his- tory of the gallery to which Stażewski also belonged. This artist, though, was part of the “official program” as well. By positioning Stażewski on two poles of the exhibitional program, at least nominally, a link was established between of- ficial and “semi-official” entities. Correspondingly, among the artists selected by Stanisławski for Gladstone’s Court were Bereś, Kantor, and Krasiński, who also cooperated with the gallery. Thus, the archival construction of Foksal’s his- tory presented at Demarco can be interpreted as a comment on the other exhi- bitions. The viewpoint from which this survey of Polish art in the twentieth century receives its coherence is represented as being located in the Foksal Gal- lery that, in turn, is framed by Demarco’s gallery. Because the works exhibited combine the artistic process in Poland of the twentieth century from past till present, a similar equation affects the institutional context. Thus, an umbrella is put up not only to “represent the . . . Polish visual art character,” but also to cover the institutional order of things. In this sense, the Scottish Arts Council, the Łódź Museum, and the Polish Ministry of Culture are conveying the con- secrational power of legitimizing art to both the galleries. Richard Demarco’s close liaison with the Polish Ministry of Culture, with Ryszard Stanisławski of the Łódź Museum of Art and Wieslaw Borowski of the Foksal Gallery in Warsaw has produced a tri-partite contribution in which the official, the acceptable and the radical elements in Polish art meet on neutral ground. 818 From this perspective, Demarco’s “neutral ground” appears as a bench- mark of artistic processes in Poland. In his review about the “Polish month in Edinburgh,” Paul Overy starts with the words: “This September was the fortieth anniversary of the Ger- 818 Felix McCullough, “Edinburgh Festival 1979,” Arts Review 18 (1979): 454–55, 455. 386 387 2. The Moscow Underground Art Scene… Part I · Moving People man invasion in Poland, and Britain’s somewhat tardy declaration of war two days later. In Edinburgh, Richard Demarco presented four exhibitions of Polish art for the Festival.” 819 With this opening, Overy places his follow- ing deliberations in a political context. His favor is with Foksal, to which he attributes “the most interesting work today,” and in the exploration of “that area between drama and the visual arts” he recognizes something familiar. 820 “[It’s] worth reflecting,” the critic concludes, “that much of the most in- teresting work in Britain today, like that of Stuart Brisley or Ian Breakwell, lies in that area too.” 821 Thus, when Germany was at the beginning of the ar- ticle, at the end it is Britain that stands next to Poland. This replacement ap- pears as a metaphorical realization of the obligations that historically were undertaken “somewhat tardy,” as Overy says. 822 It indicates the sociopoliti- cal embeddedness of art processes and a symbolic order of governmental af- fairs. Thus, Foksal’s attendance in Edinburgh must be seen in a geopoliti- cal context. As Borowski himself mentioned, these times were the “Gierek era.” 823 The gallery was fully aware of this. However, now it was not Germa- ny anymore—to take Overy’s example—that constituted an obstacle, but the problematic sociopolitical regime(s) in communist Europe. 824 In this re- spect, the exhibition in Edinburgh, on “neutral ground,” can be interpreted as a tactical appropriation of Polish art and its separation from the Eastern Bloc. A good argument for this can be found in another of Overy’s surveys. “[It] is not entirely surprising that in its variety, international awareness, in- ternecine aggressiveness and peculiar brittleness, the art scene in Poland re- minds one most of Italy among Western countries.” 825 This “Italianization” of Polish matters appears as a way of constructing familiarity in alien terri- tory. Basically, Overy writes, “East Europe . . . remains unknown ground.” 826 Foksal, though, functioned as a vehicle conveying the idea that Eastern Eu- rope was, hypothetically at least, knowable, that it was part of a common 819 Paul Overy, “Edinburgh’s Polish Month,” Art Monthly 30 (1979): 10–11, 10. 820 Ibid., 11. 821 Ibid. 822 Ibid., 10. 823 Interview with Borowski. 824 Of course, in 1939 and later Germany was not a mere “obstacle” for the national and cultural development in Poland, but a hostile aggressor. 825 Paul Overy, “Polish Pluralism,” Art Monthly 28 (1979): 12–15, 15. 826 Ibid., 12. knowledge space. The “radical” art presented at the gallery was the “radix” of this idea. 827 For the gallery, cooperation with Demarco continued to be fruitful. From Edinburgh the exhibition went to the Third Eye Centre in Glasgow. The fol- lowing year, 1980, this exhibition was presented at the Institute of Contem- porary Art in London and at the Project Gallery in Dublin. Before coming to a general conclusion, a few words about some aspects that could not be considered here: (1a) The Exchange between Artists, 1931– 1982: Poland–USA, an exhibition, organized by Anka Ptaszkowska in 1982 in Paris, together with Pontus Hultén, and in cooperation with Foksal. Thanks to its “Swedish connection,” Olle Granath, director of Moderna Museet, sug- gested the gallery host an exhibition called Dialog. Here, in 1985, works of Polish artists were exhibited alongside works of other European and North American artists with which the former wished to enter into spatial interac- tion. Thus, for example, Henryk Stażewski was presented in dialogue with Daniel Buren. Foksal’s other international experiences were the Art Frank- furt (1988 and 1991) and the Art Hamburg (1993). (1b) Another aspect, al- most completely omitted here, are the exhibitions of foreign artists in War- saw. Beginning with the solo exhibition by Lars Englund in 1967, there have been over thirty artists from abroad at the gallery. Among them are such re- nowned names as Art & Language, Christian Boltanski, Daniel Buren, Al- lan Kaprow, and Anselm Kiefer. 828 (1c) Also, the contacts between Foksal and official cultural institutions, councils, and embassies of countries such as Germany, France, or Great Britain were not studied. (2a) The gallery’s ar- chive is of great importance. It offers not only information about Foksal’s ex- hibitions and voyages, but also administrative correspondence. Additional- ly, it presents a specific material and haptical side of the gallery’s institutional endeavors. That is, it also bears auratic traces of geographic trajectories with a poetological dimension of their own that deserves further attention. The photographic works and documents in the archive are worth particular con- sideration. (2b) Before the initial Foksal group split up in 1970, the galler- ists had discussed and, partially, agreed on the pronouncement of a new reg- ulation for the institution. This “New Regulation for Cooperation with the 827 McCullough “Edinburgh Festival 1979,” 452. 828 As can be seen on the homepage of the gallery: http://www.galeriafoksal.pl/old/hist_p.htm. 388 389 2. The Moscow Underground Art Scene… Part I · Moving People Foksal Gallery PSP” (Nowy Regulamin Współpracy z Galerią Foksal PSP), initiated by Ptaszkowska, seems to be close to some deliberations undertak- en by the Situationist International (cf. in this regard also Borowski´s term “Pseudoawangarda” (see below)); it was not adopted, though. 829 (2c) Further- more, to what extent have Foksal’s international experiences intensified ex- isting differences between the gallery and the Polish art community? In his text “Pseudoawangarda” (1975), Borowski ambivalently divides the Polish art world into “real” and “fake” avant-gardists; the author also argues in reference to the West, thus taking a viewpoint from outside Poland in order to segre- gate internal matters. 830 (2d) Additionally, and viewed from a post-1989 per- spective, it is worth examining to what extent this notion of institutional su- periority affected the further history of the gallery and beyond. Primarily, this concerns the problematic relationship between the gallery and the Foksal Gallery Foundation (FGF) that was established in 1997, because the stand- ing of the FGF amid the contemporary art community is not unambivalent. Here, too, a narrowing of discursive access possibilities is sometimes criti- cized. In this context, it would be worth examining the FGF’s institution- al contacts. Their genealogy partly reaches back to the gallery’s times. This seems to be the case with a former member of the FGF, Joanna Mytkows- ka, for example. Before she took up the position of director of the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, she was curator at the Centre Pompidou in Paris. As has been shown, this museum established contacts with the Foksal Gal- lery many years ago. Foksal’s international relationships were mainly built on personal con- tacts and the reputation they mediated. Contacts established in early times were cultivated and helped when organizing ventures in the following years. Consequently, Foksal’s network was expanding. In this context, it was De- marco in particular who helped the gallery, but others did so as well: artists, museum directors and curators, collectors, art journals, etc. Looking back at Lausanne and Edinburgh and considering the question of ideology, two main aspects have to be outlined. In Lausanne, political aspects were, at least explicitly, set aside in favor of a universalistic paradigm of cultur- al communication. Art as “science” and galleries as “observatories” were two 829 Ptaszkowska, “Wspólny czas i wspólne miejsce,” 451. 830 Wiesław Borowski, “Pseudoawangarda,” Kul’tura, 23 March 1975, 11–12. of the main devices that regulated this interchange. Thus, the Foksal Gallery was part of a symbolic order that perpetuated the notion of an aestheticized, socially detached knowledge production. This went hand-in-hand with the galleries’ self-perception as avant-garde. In Edinburgh, however, a more po- liticized interpretation was suggested by the exhibitional context. The polit- ical dimension of this event consisted, at first, in the historically connoted seizure of Polish art from the twentieth century and its trenchant reproduc- tion as a galleristic projection, while official institutions were pushed to the margins. Ultimately, it was the galleries, Demarco and Foksal, that constitut- ed the prevailing focal point, from which the synopsis received its coherence. Accordingly, the next step was a rhetorical appropriation of Polish art and its separation from the Eastern Bloc. Interestingly, this rendering of art was con- sidered a “neutral” presentation. On both layers, therefore, Foksal functioned as a frame for a detaching the presentation of art processes. Although both the events, Lausanne and Edinburgh, differed in respect to the degree of po- liticization, a similar device for regulating the symbolic order seems to have been in operation: the idea of a scientific and neutral representation of con- temporary art. Against all means of institutional decomposition that Fok- sal and others have undertaken, it was the paradigm of the White Cube that “crossed the border”—it “closed the gap.” 390 391 Part I · Moving People I n 1981, two exhibitions of contemporary German art take place in suc- cession at the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris. The first, entitled Art Allemagne Aujourd’hui (Art Germany today), is organized by Suzanne Pagé and René Block at L’Arc and at the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, and it embodies the recognition of German art of the second half of the twentieth century by French museums. 831 Alongside the works of Joseph Beuys, Wolf Vostell, Sigmar Polke, Gerhard Richter, Hanne Darboven, Pal- ermo and Klaus Rinke, the exhibition presents paintings by Georg Baselitz, A. R. Penck, Markus Lüpertz, and Jörg Immendorff; this is one of the first 831 See the catalog of Art Allemagne Aujourd’hui. Différents aspects de l’art actuel en république fédérale d’Allemagne (Paris: ARC/Musée d’art moderne de la ville de Paris, 1981). The first stages of this research were carried out in the context of a thesis. See Mathilde Arnoux, “Les musées français et la peinture allemande 1871–1981” (Thesis, MSH/Centre Allemand d’Histoire de l’art, 2007). More in-depth research subsequently followed during a seminar, the results of which were published and which we recommend for a thorough study of the exhibition Art Allemagne Aujourd’hui; see Mathilde Arnoux, “ Art Allemagne Aujourd’hui ou la reconnaissance de l’art allemand contemporain par les musées français,” Etudes germaniques 64 (2009): 1037–53. The article mentioned here is the result of research into new archives and our continued reflections on the marks left by the Cold War on writing about the history of art. Mathilde Arnoux 30 To Each Their Own Reality: The Art of the FRG and the GDR at the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris in 1981 392 393 2. The Moscow Underground Art Scene… Part I · Moving People events outside Germany to showcase these artists. 832 A few months later, an exhibition opens which has now almost faded into oblivion. Only a few spe- cialist publications on the issue of the cultural relations of the GDR, such as Kunst als Botschafter einer künstlichen Nation by Christian Saehrendt, still refer to it. This exhibition, organized by Bernadette Contensou, is entitled Peinture et gravure en République démocratique allemande. It presents works by Bernhard Heisig, Werner Tübke, Volker Stelzmann, Hartwig Ebersbach, Arno Rink, and others, who are now considered to have been the most im- portant representatives of GDR art. 833 These two exhibitions are to be seen in the context of the signing of cul- tural agreements between France and both Germanies at the beginning of the 1980s. In February 1981, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing meets Helmut Schmidt on the occasion of the Franco-German Summit, which for the first time focus- es on the issue of cultural relations between the two countries. Originally planned for November 1980, the opening of Art Allemagne Aujourd’hui—an ambassadorial exhibition of contemporary German culture—is postponed so as to provide the backdrop for this meeting. The exhibition of GDR art occurs in the context of the signing of the cultural agreement between the GDR and France in 1980, and paves the way for the establishment of a French cultural center in East Berlin in 1984. A GDR cultural center opens at 117 Boulevard Saint Germain in 1983. Beyond the characteristic matters of cul- tural diplomacy, a study of these two exhibitions reveals the impact of the Cold War on the selective approach to the past taken by the two Germanies. Through their choices, each explains the grounds for, and legitimacy of, hav- ing established the values system that prevails in their own country. Art Al- lemagne Aujourd’hui sees itself as the legitimate representative of contempo- rary German identity, while the GDR exhibition asserts the good founded by socialist realism to better embody a possible alternative to the crisis of values experienced by the West. Each one presents a distinct and rival model of so- ciety. The ideas proposed in each exhibition catalog thus reveal the extent to which the ideological issues resulting from the Cold War had a strong impact 832 This interest in young German artists is expressed in various exhibitions organized in the same year in Europe; on this subject, see Schilderkunst in Duitsland 1981. Peinture en Allemagne (Brussels: Société des expositions du Palais des Beaux-Arts de Bruxelles, 1981), and A New Spirit in Painting (London: Royal Academy, 1981). 833 See, for example, the GDR artists recently presented in the exhibition Kunst und Kalter Krieg. Deutsche Po- sitionen 1945–89, Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, 2009. on the way in which FRG and GDR art were presented and interpreted. Ev- erything appears to place the two Germanies in stark contrast and it would therefore be unthinkable to establish any kind of relation between the artistic practices used on either side of the Iron Curtain. Today, it is striking to note that the differences between the two models are manifested around a com- mon axis constituted by the notion of the real/reality. As it is sufficiently ab- stract, this notion is freely interpreted by each Germany; it very much deter- mines the understanding of the artistic scene in the form of a model, at the same time as justifying the distinctiveness and legitimacy of that model. This notion—used in a characteristic manner in each case—merits special exami- nation in order to gain a better understanding of what differentiates the dis- courses on the art of the FRG and that of the GDR. The pieces selected for Art Allemagne Aujourd’hui are extremely diverse. Although not exhaustive, the selection could be considered representative of what was being done during the 1960s and 1970s in Germany. This is thanks to Suzanne Pagé and her wisdom in working with René Block, one of the most important figures in the Western art market, as well as the recommen- dations of artists such as Vostell and Beuys. 834 Suzanne Pagé’s introduction stresses the variety of practices. Apart from the “case of Beuys,” who is set aside as a timeless phenomenon, 835 Suzanne Pagé marks the distinction between the pre-1968 generation, characterized by engagement, and that of post-1968, characterized by disillusionment. The diversity of practices, illustrated by the variety of mediums presented (paint- ing, sculpture, environments, video installations, etc.), but also by distinct ways of creating art, speaks for a complex and multifaceted Germany and rules out the idea of a supposed Germanness. Freed from simplistic termi- nology, the search to validate specifically German characteristics is based on the originality of contemporary artistic practices. However, anyone attempt- ing to get closer to the artistic singularity of Germany cannot really be con- tent with characterizing it by its diversity and originality; coherence must be found in the scene in question. This coherence will be affirmed through one drawing and three themes that can be found in the catalog texts. 834 Suzanne Pagé, “Introduction,” in Art Allemagne Aujourd’hui, 5. 835 On this subject, see Maïté Vissault, Der Beuys Komplex—l’identité allemande à travers la réception de l’œuvre de Joseph Beuys (1945–1986) (Dijon: Les Presses du Réel, 2010). 394 395 2. The Moscow Underground Art Scene… Part I · Moving People In response to the need to find coherence, René Block creates a picture of the river of German art, which illustrates several sources from which con- temporary German art finds its inspiration. Coming from the avant-garde schools of the beginning of the century—expressionism, dadaism, Bauhaus, etc.—it ignores New Objectivity. After having gone underground during the Nazi period, the river resurfaces. Beuys is one of the tributaries having given it most nourishment, and several rivers and streams merge to keep it moving, passing through New York and Paris. The variety and diversity of the sources make up the river that inspires Germany and its culture; it is their sum that constitutes the importance and power of German culture. There is no uni- vocity. Contemporary creation is a complex network covering all of Germany and its culture and benefiting from permeations from outside. The first theme, which aims to set out the diversity of expression in a co- herent whole, is very much influenced by the diplomatic issues that prevailed during the exhibition. This theme develops the idea that the originality and variety of expression are largely dependent on the political system of the FRG as a guarantor of freedom, modernity, creativity, and autonomy. The second theme presents the autonomy of the FRG, in relation to the United States, as a characteristic that interlinks artistic expressions. This is not about a wholesale rejection of the United States—without which the riv- er of German art would not pass through New York. The aim is to break with the idea of a universal model, of standardization in line with American values to highlight the value of the singularities. Finally, to affirm this coherence of expression, the works—varied as they may be—are for the most part placed in the context of a notion that can be identified with the real. According to the works, this notion is interpreted from a temporal point of view (the real being current events, the present) or from a material point of view (the real being the surrounding world, that of concrete objects), which corresponds with the very ambiguity in the defini- tion of the term. This link between the works and the real, in terms of cur- rent events, is recurrent. The relationship with the real differs from one artist to the next. It is ap- plied to practices that use the introduction of objects in works (Vostell) and to certain forms of conceptual art that aim to remove the barrier between art and life (Haacke), as well as in certain practices—returning to representation Figure 30.1. René Block, Le fleuve caché de l’art allemand, catalogue Art Allemagne Aujourd’hui. Différents aspects de l’art actuel en république fédérale d’Allemagne. Musée d’Art moderne de la ville de Paris, 1981. Courtesy René Block. |
