BACK TO TEXTS

Tina Lipsky - Conversation between Mladen Miljanovic and Tina Lipsky

TL: Mladen, anyone who examines your biography closely can see how much it has been shaped by the Balkan Wars. You were born in Zenica (Bosnia-Herzegovina). On your way to school in Doboj, you had to go along the front line. You witnessed the killing of many members of your family.

You spent your late youth and years as a student in a devastated Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had to deal with the consequences of ethnic cleansing, the territorial division of the country and its isolation from the international community. Then there was the obligatory military service, which you served in the school for reserve officers of the Army of the Republic of Srpska in Banja Luka and confronted you with, as you put it, the “mindless visual language of the military”.

It’s understandable that you wanted, above all else, to forget the subjects of war, occupation and destruction. But your works show us that – unlike that of many of your fellow artists - you were engaged from the very start in an intensive dialogue with your biography and the recent history of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

MM: The not so distant past and the resulting present time, still damaged, are very conspicuous in my work. In the beginning, the interest in a matter such as war was a kind of introspection, while now, in my more recent works, I use war iconography as a metaphor to problematise other areas of human activity. There are many artists today dealing with that or similar themes, but the question is to what extent the “experiential” is the element that entitles one to use this kind of iconography. I cannot write about the samurai or their tradition since I am not a part of that culture and have no experience of it. I think one’s experience is tremendougly important for art, because you have to know the path you are walking so as not to step on thin ice. Most of my opus, beginning with “I Serve Art”, is contextual, which means the works consist of creations rooted in circumstances that basically correspond to reality. Chris Jenks says it is culture that defines us from our very birth, which means the specific character of a community shapes each one of us as we grow up. One way to interpret or expand on his idea is to say that not everything is possible at any place and not everything is possible at any time. Thus, my growing up during the war is clearly reflected in most of my early works; nevertheless, these works show a tendency to sublimate memories through art, in spite of their reflective quality. Christa Wolf wrote ih her memoirs that it is easier to fictionalise a past than to remember it, and in view of this attitude, my artistic aspirations have been to try and participate in the creation of a new reality which does not erase the past, but rather recycles it.

    Through history, art has frequently, if not always, used its visual tools as “weapons” to speak out or criticise the spirit of the era. One example of explicit exploitation of military iconography is a series of pictures where I presented imaginary plans to attack and occupy some of the world’s galleries and museums. Basically, I tried to transfer the experience I got at the military school in the tactics class to the field of culture and art, where I gave typical military symbols new meanings in culture.

TL: The concept of extending up art to include political and socio-political subjects suggests that you had a very political concept of the artist’s art. Do you consider yourself a political artist?

 MM: A political artist! I’d rather not think of myself as a political artist, but of my art as political art. The definition of politics is based on the history of words and ideas, which absolutely corresponds with my attitude to art, but with many other artists’ attitudes as well. Politics means an initial multitude of opinions, needed both in art and society – and I think need is an understatement here, it is a must! There is no need to conceal or dispute the fact that artists also build their own policies, they do it already, but most of them are unaware of it.

   Dealing with the present time, with the actuality, is inevitable, because this same actuality is partly built of the various policies that create and shape our lives. The moment art rebelled against politics opened the door for it to become a power. When I say art as a power, I mean first and foremost its cultural position as something visible in the public realm. It is precisely this visibility that empowers it to turn things into art, i.e. into artefacts, by intervening, labelling and defining social phenomena, as well as by criticising politics.

TL: Although art operates exclusively with symbols and metaphors, do you think it is a suitable vehicle for drawing attention to social and political shortcomings?

MM: As I mentioned at the beginning of this conversation, our culture and environment shape us according to their specificities, which are made up of different mechanisms that are often not progressive or do not act as vehicles of progress. Those mechanisms work daily and obscurely; they are as common as Duchamp’s urinal. The thing needed to awaken their singularity is the stagnation of form or shape. Of form or shape through a range of disciplines and kinds of cultural action. All those forms exist in the public realm as public goods accessible to all; however, if a form stagnates in the era of global pluralism, that does not only mean that it as a unit is uncapable of its own progress, but it is also a fact indicating the inability of society to make progress.

   For that reason, I chose a vehicle as an example of a form which has not changed in 36 years of revolutionary advances in design and technology. Such examples of forms in the public realm may be used as models illustrating the social conscience. The vehicle which is the centrepiece and starting point of this exhibition is not only representational, but also opens up and challenges the possibility and sense of its further use and exploitation.

TL: The art industry itself is generally seen as being very elitist. Artists only reach a small percentage of the population…

MM: That is true. Unfortunately. Even though we have the impression that nowadays, more than ever, art interacts with society, this is gradually becoming an illusion. The same opportunity in the form of new information and networking media, which has made it possible to facilitate and expedite the dissemination of artistic ideas, has also mitigated and opened the door for many other more commercial and dynamic disciplines. These days, the people we see on opening nights and while exhibitions are open are most often the artists’ family and relatives, people from the art world (curators, gallerists, art students, etc.), and only a comparatively small number of visitors who come to satisfy their need to consume culture.

   This is why I believe art, meaning artists as well, have to come up with new strategies to increase their impact and participation in society and enhance their presence in social interaction. In that sense, new artistic policies need to be spawned, a kind of action that will take political form.

TL: But when you think politically and are able to use a medium like art, aren’t you tempted to communicate directly?

MM: Why not! I believe art as direct communication, performance, action, can be more effective than art that simply displays a collection of artefacts. The most important quality of this kind of approach is that it allows two-way interaction with the audience, thereby creating a brand-new reality. This could be a new realism, but in a dynamic, contextual form, because by acting directly in the real world it reshapes and improves the current relations between things and our conscience. This does not only depict the existing factual situation, but also leads to new consequences in the process as the parameter.

TL: How do people in your immediate surroundings in Banja Luka, in Bosnia-Herzegovina… respond to your discourse? In what ways do people react to your international success? 

MM: Let me respond first to your question about my international success: I really believe my work cannot be seen as an international success, because its influence does not have any connotations on the regional level, let alone the international one. The way I see it, for art to be classified as internationally successful, it would have to effect change in artistic conscience as well as social conscience in general. By the same token, I have to admit I do intend to bring about change in society through my work and action, primarily in my local community.

TL: Joseph Beuys once defined every human being as an artist. Was it this declaration that inspired you to do your Balkana (2006) project?

MM: Any person can be an artist, but let me ask this question: can any person be a good artist? When the Balkana project began to take shape as an event in my junior year of college, it coincided with my discovery of Joseph Beuys’ work and influence. At that time, I worked with people who had been disabled in the war, people coming from all the three local ethnic communities, and I recognised the necessity and importance of the social aspect of art. If art is used in an efficient way, it really can become a tool for resocialization, in this particular case, into a society which has experienced a trauma. A four-day happening took place, with twelve participants with disabilities coming from all the three local ethnic communities. The majority of them had lost body parts in the armed conflict, and for some of them the happening was the first encounter with yesterday’s enemy. I had interviews with them before the event, and I didn’t tell them members of other ethnic groups were going to participate, presenting the happening to them as a kind of art colony. They responded by rejecting the invitation to participate because, as most of them said, they were not formally trained artists. I explained to them that did not really matter to me, because the whole project would have media coverage, with an exhibition in its final stage. The realisation that their works would be presented publicly, and that even though they had not been trained as artists they were being given a chance to exhibit and display their works in public, replaced their anxiety over meeting yesterday’s enemy with creativity. After only two days of the event the participants had used up all the painting and sculpting material, and their only concern was to produce the best possible works because television was there covering it and the pieces would be put on display. However, the unconscious aspect of the happening was a lot more important – as they strove to work as fast as they could, they were absolutely unaware of the fact they had merged with the other participants, losing their bias. So, art and art awareness were used as a medium in the process of resocialization, and the fact that an artist moderated and provided guidance in the process may be seen as sculpting and modelling a social sculpture.

TL: You now teach at the Academy of Arts in Banja Luka, whose rooms are in the same building as the former Vrbas military barracks... You performed your military service in these barracks, which later were the scene of – what you yourself called – you most important performance so far: I serve art in which you isolated yourself for nine months (October 2006 to July 2007) on the military grounds, which were closed by then...

MM: Connecting art with mere living was one of the postulates of “I Serve Art”. The most significant aspect of this project was its existential component, but the experiential one was also very important. The former military barracks Vrbas (today Banja Luka University Campus) is a symbolic mark, the once middle point of the apparatus of a totalitarian system whose traumatic residues are still present in society. I deconstructed the identity of that place and my personal history during nine months of work in that same enclosed space, through performances and multimedia interventions. I related to this place and its former use thanks to the fact I had spent nine months at a similar place, attending the army reserve officers’ school for six months and training 30 soldiers for three months. The idea behind this revisit to a place of the same kind that would last the same length of time and the ritual repetition of a particular mental and physical condition (with all its inhumane implications) was to question the endurance and staying power of the artist’s body in the service of art. Art, thus, became a tool for decontaminating and deconstructing a place.

   “I Serve Art” was a performance that problematised one’s awareness of oneself and of the local situation, how sure we should be of ourselves and how fast we should cling to our ideals, which set people apart more than anything else. We are our greatest enemies; when we overcome ourselves, we will win the war. This kind of attitude may sound too sharp or it may sound like political jargon, but that is an indication of a person’s spiritual and intellectual maturity. Likewise, my 9-month-long stay at the former military barracks needed to resolve or raise certain issues of mental and physical freedom, and also explore the issues of physical restraint and mental insularity. Actually, the project reflected the transformation of our local social reality, from a time of mental and physical isolation to a new, more open community.  

   During those nine months of the performance, I also produced several conceptual works. As a result, my total output during that project was greater and more serious in an artistic sense than everything I had done previously. The factors that were instrumental for the creation of such quality work were my unwavering focus on work during that time, and the logistic and financial support of the Arts Academy, Pro Helvetia, City of Banja Luka, Museum of Contemporary Art of Banja Luka and UDAS. The multifariousness of an idea is the most important thing, along with the context it relates to; however, without its materialisation and implementation an idea remains but a reflective and intellectual construct that is erased and forgotten with the passing of time. Accordingly, its implementation, i.e. support for its actualisation is the precondition for achieving plurality of artistic action, which will automatically be reflected in the total cultural conscience. For the most part, I can attribute the success of the project “I Serve Art” to my own dedicated work and research, as well as other people’s understanding and support, which may serve as a model for other local young artists.

   Those nine months meant a lot to me, as they made it possible for me to explore my conscience and creativity. The idea behind the performance was to show the significance of mental freedom in conditions of physical restraint. I think we can project or see a connection between this assumption and our whole society, and my performance represented the critical awareness of the society we live in. Naturally, there were moments of crisis, which I had anticipated in a way, but I also knew I had to keep myself and my mind active the whole time I was there. So, at the very start I took on the duty to produce a piece of work every day following a set of concepts. You know what they say in the military – an idle soldier is a a problem soldier. As a joke, I told my professor Veso Sovilj that equally so, an idle artist is a problem artist.

TL: So far, you have mainly worked with symbols and motifs that were dominant during the war period, reflecting on them through a variety of media, history, meaning and the content of spaces and places. But for the exhibition at the MUMOK, you chose the Zastava 101 as a motif. An everyday object under socialism. Why this change in themes? What symbolic meaning does the Zastava have for people in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

MM: Exactly, this exhibition will probably come as a surprise to many, as my work has been full of military iconography and themes. In fact, my interests have frequently been identical to what will be on display at the MUMOK. Simply, I used a different language to express those interests. I was driven to choose the car “Zastava 101” as the focus of this exhibition for the reason the original model has not changed in a long time, as I said before. This car was a vehicle created to satisfy the needs of our people back in the old days, i.e. the needs of the nation created and developed by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At that time, back in 1972, the make could rival any car from the same category of products. However, if we remember that the same make (the same shape and engine) was manufactured in 2008, it becomes clear that it is a case demonstrating a discontinuity of pluralism of forms in society. A multiplicity of forms is very often the evidence of the growth of social conscience, and at the same time, it is a process that leads to multilateral thinking and development. It is also characterised by a formal aspect, which may be seen as the spirit of the time that also marked the discontinuity of the 1990’s.

   However, I must point out that it is also a starting point from which to raise a number of issues in connection with transition society – or should I say post-transition society. In general, transition is a process which takes place when state-owned capital becomes privately-owned capital, and in a political sense a totalitarian single-party socialist discourse transmutes into a multitude of micropolicies and multipolar social initiatives. Of course, the relation to this kind of assumption can be interpreted from various perspectives, which turn out to be a starting point, a reason for debate.

TL: ... and aren't you showing that Plato and many natural scientists are lying when they call artists liars, because artists, in their eyes, are simulating a world that doesn’t really exist…

MM: The language of artistic expression may be a simulation, but what an artwork pertains to is most certainly not a non-existent world, because art is an expression of the awareness of the world. It is impossible to separate that awareness of the truth and of the world from art, according to Ješa Denegri: today’s art is the total impact of past art. I should also say that we turn a blind eye to the truth, and for the most part, today’s engaged art is confrontation with that truth.

TL: Let’s return to the MUMOK exhibition. For the exhibition and the one-week performance in which you want to act as a taxi-driver, you have chosen the title Museum Service…

MM: Yes, the title is formal and implies a reconsideration of the position of an artist as someone who serves the community, society, which can be equated with serving institutions that represent art. For me, that is one of the most important works shown in the exhibition because, as mentioned before, it opens up the possibility of direct impact and interaction with the audience, i.e. society. The performance that will involve transporting visitors to the museum during opening hours will allow them to feel and experience a ride in the car which is the centrepiece of the exhibition. For me, the space of the car and transport to the museum equals a time spent in a peculiar cultural vacuum, which will enable the visitors to see the exhibited objects through different eyes. Also, this addresses the question of the artist’s capacity to become fully serviceable, which he is expected to, a tendency which, as I see it, may turn into a utopia at any moment.I am not interested only in showing my works at relatively isolated and specially arranged places used for art representation (museums, galleries...), places where art lives in isolation from its visitors’ lives. Similarly, I am not interested in the position of the beholder apart from the institutions representing art; instead, I try to fill the space between these two subjects and their respective positions.

TL: Isn't this a critique of institutions after all?

MM: I wouldn’t call it a critique of institutions, but rather an extension of the range of activities of artists and institutions, and the development of new strategies and operation modes. In this particular case, the operation mode corresponds with the special intention and focus of the exhibition. An artwork has to operate on several levels, ranging from the contextual, to aesthetic, to critical, to artistic, to personal, and at each of these levels it should break the boundaries of the existent and of the possible alike. I think that like science, today’s art is not interested in the possible but in the impossible, as that is the only way to break the boundaries of what is possible and eventually move ahead.

Vienna 2010

  Mladen Miljanovic e- iserveart@gmail.com