Михайло Рашковецький

Якось на початку 2003 року пан Пінчук і пан Гельман зібрали у Києві десь біля трьох десятків митців, мистецтвознавців, кураторів та галеристів. Порадитись Як їм зробити „Музей сучасного мистецтва для України”. Хоча я теж був запрошений, але сидів тихо, мов миша, бо вже два з чимось років займався не сучасним мистецтвом, а навпаки – Музеєм історії євреїв Одеси. Навіть не висловлювався с приводу назви: мені б більше сподобалось „Музей сучасного мистецтва України”, але нехай буде „для”. Підвівся я тільки один раз, коли Ніколя Буріо почав дуже палко виступати проти наміру низки „радників” приділити особливу увагу у збірці майбутнього музею власне українським митцям. Буріо дуже обурився і почав темпераментно лякати всіх небезпекою створення в Україні такого собі „культурного гетто”. Тоді я спитав славетного французького куратора: "А скільки зараз у Франції існує музеїв сучасного мистецтва?". „Десь близько 200, але до чого тут Франція?”. Так, мабуть Буріо краще за мене розуміється на сучасному мистецтві, але що він знає про гетто?

Mihailo Rashkovetsky

In the beginning of 2003, Mr. Pinchuk and Mr. Gelman gathered about three-dozen artists, art critics, curators and gallery people in Kiev, to consult on how to make The Museum of Contemporary art for Ukraine. I was invited as well, but I was sitting there as quiet as a mouse, because at that time I had been working for two years with the History Museum of Odessa’s Jewish community, and not with contemporary art. I did not even mention anything concerning the title, although I would have preferred “The Ukraine Museum of Contemporary Art”, as long as it was indeed ‘for Ukraine’. I stood up only once, when Nicolas Bourriaud started to discuss in an animated fashion the intention of some advisors to give a special attention to the future collection of the Museum to Ukrainian artists. Bourriaud felt indignation and began to warn everyone with the dangers of ‘ghetto-izing’ Ukrainian art, if such a path of collecting the ‘local’ was pursued. I then asked the famous French curator how many contemporary art museums there were in France? “About 200, but what does it have to do with France?” Bourriaud, most likely, knows more than I do about contemporary art, but, what does he know about the ghetto?

Этот текст написан в 1995 году в бытность Александра Ройтбурда куратором Ассоциации «Новое искусство» в Одессе.  Нас заинтересовала яркая и трагическая картина несоответствия между прогнозами и стремлениями, звучащими в тексте и состоянием вещей сегодня, когда современное искусство переместилось в область частного владения, а отношения с государством на прежнем месте.

***

Alexandr Roitburd    
1995

A ten-year experience of legal functioning of the modern art in Ukraine is a unique experience of failures. We haven’t had and we still don’t have any conditions for the normal functioning in our motherland and for the civilized integration into the world cultural process. Ukraine remains a remote art province, a wild steppe of the European culture. The split artistic community, domineering of non-topical problems, a lack of organization of art life, and absence of the modern art infrastructure – these are the realties of today. Independence of Ukraine has not led it to the factual appearance on the cultural map of Europe. We do not participate in the most important world cultural forums; we stay in the information blockade and none of the artists living in Ukraine has gained a real world fame, and nobody has got real and stable prices at the world market (we are afraid, it is not quite appropriate to explain what the Ukrainian art market is like     in the presence of the respected ladies and gentlemen). We don’t have all that and in terms of the logic of the modern art process we won’t have all that either. Only the art supported by the money of its country, recognized within this country and lobbied by it, is capable of entering the international level.  They say there is no money for culture in Ukraine. Really, allocations into this sphere have reduced but the traditional Soviet system of the imitation of culture is still there – from a country club to the state kitsch.

- Are you talking to me?

- To you?

Mirroring the Critique of Representation

Jelena VesiC
Prelom Kolektiv

[The version of this text is published in (an)Other Publication, artistic project by Renée Ridgway and Katarina Zdjelar, Piet Zwart Institute and Revolver Books, Rotterdam, 2006.
According to the artistic concept, the writers are invited to conceive the introductory chapter for the imaginary book, discussing the notion of  'Otherness' in the theory, art and life.]

Octavian Esanu

In Eastern Europe the phrase “decade of transition” refers to the 1990s, when the countries of the former Soviet bloc went through a series of radical transformations that touched upon almost every aspect of social life. In visual art this transition was manifested in the shift from a socialist cultural model, with socialist realism as the official doctrine and non-conformism as the un-official, to the new Western paradigm of contemporary art. The idea of “contemporary art” was popularized and implemented by a number of Western NGOs, in particular by the Soros Foundation whose autonomous regional program “Soros Centers for Contemporary Art” (henceforth SCCA) was one of the main mechanisms of this transition. The activity of the SCCAs is most usefully regarded using those concepts and postulates that influenced George Soros – the financial entrepreneur who established the Soros Foundation in 1984.

NIKITA KADAN

Since the early nineties in Ukraine and also in other post-soviet countries artists construct new relations with society. this process started when the entire system of social integration of artists in the soviet union was ruined. That system was determined by the opposition between official art and nonconformist underground art. after the fall of the USSR official and nonconformist positions were both devaluated. the place of art in the whole system of social communication was lost. Contemporary art of the ukrainian nineties presented different models to integrate nonconformist experience with external forms by 'looking like' Western art. After the loss of the familiar social conditions and functions ukrainian artists found themselves in the middle of nowhere. the nonconformist artist thought of himself as an 'agent of the West', but an abandoned agent. Superficial imitation of Western art (always with some delay) was treated as a kind of heroism. the role of the traitor of socialism which nonconformists played free of charge paradoxically made them outsiders when the socialist country was betrayed by the majority of its citizens. But if treason is committed by a majority - is it still treason? Ukrainian contemporary artists of the nineties were treated as parasites in their country.

The loss of the usual relations with society determined the ukrainian art scene of the nineties: a shortage of any personal positions prevented it from building a new strong system of relations.