Ivan Kožarić Essay Englisch

Page 1


Ivan Kožarić Freedom Is a Rare Bird Edited by Patrizia Dander & Radmila Iva Janković

in cooperation with:

Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König


Patrizia Dander Freedom Is a Rare Bird – or: Centrifugal Forces at Work

In the wake of the Eastern bloc’s collapse, the last two decades have seen a striking upsurge of interest in artistic positions from its former countries. One manifestation of this is found in publications such as Primary Documents. A Sourcebook for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s,1 which seek to foster scholarly analyses and boost the visibility of this part of Europe, often given short shrift in art history as written in the “West.” This heightened interest also becomes apparent in the numerous group shows that include artists from former Eastern bloc states, and in solo exhibitions devoted exclusively to their work.2 As artistic movements and positions from these countries are belatedly “integrated” into the art historical “canon,” the main focus in this context is on tendencies that could be described as conceptual in the broadest sense of the term – which is in part due to the current phase of historicization of this movement from the late 1960s and early 1970s that plays such a central role in contemporary art. At the same time, this implies that, in order to make space within conceptual art’s “history” for artists from these – and other – countries, this movement, shaped primarily by US and Western European work to date, must be revisited and a more nuanced analysis devised. To cite Luis Camnitzer, Jane Farver, and Rachel Weiss in their study on Global Conceptualism, “It is important to delineate a clear distinction between conceptual art as a term used to denote an essentially formalist practice developed in the wake of minimalism, and conceptualism, which broke decisively from the historical dependence of art on physical form and its visual apperception. Conceptualism was a broader attitudinal expression that summarized a wide array of works and practices that, in radically reducing the role of the art object, re-imagined the possibilities of art vis-à-vis the social, political, and economic realities within which it was being made. Its informality and affinity for collectivity made conceptualism attractive to those art-

10

ists who yearned for a more direct engagement with the public during these intense, transformative periods. For them, the de-emphasis – or dematerialization – of the object allowed artistic focus to move from the object to the conduct of art.”3 Furthermore, “In a broader reading of conceptualism, however, ‘dematerialization’ did not always mean the disappearance of the object, but a redefining of the role of the object as carrier of meaning, the reinvestment of meaning in preexisting objects, and the attempt to eliminate the erosion of information.”4 This makes clear that the concepts and terminology deployed in discussing conceptual developments in the global context must be cast in broad terms – generally for want of a better alternative. This raises the question of the extent to which such discussions may, in notions coined by specifically Western European and US thinking, be attempting to squeeze phenomena into this template even if they cannot be subsumed into these categories, and also leads us to consider the extent to which this ap-

1

2

Laura Hoptman/ Tomáš 3 Pospiszyl (eds.), Primary Documents. A Sourcebook for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2002. To cite just a few: Tadeusz Kantor, Edward Krasiński, Alina Szapocznikow (Poland), Maria Bartuszová, Július Koller (former Czechoslovakia), Ion Grigorescu (Romania), Andrei 4 Monastyrski, and the Collective Actions Group (former USSR).

Luis Camnitzer/ Jane Farver/ Rachel Weiss, “Global Conceptualism: Points of Origin, 1950s–1980s,” in: Global Conceptualism: Points of Origin, 1950s–1980s, exh. cat., Queens Museum of Art, New York; Walker Art Center, Minneapolis; Miami Art Museum, Miami; New York, 1999, p. VIII. I would like to thank Okwui Enwezor for drawing my attention to this reference. Ibid. Pejzaž [Landscape], 1958

11


proach signifies neglecting varying points of departure in particular regions or countries.5 Slovenian curator, author and critic Igor Zabel has formulated the following hypothesis on this nexus of problems, in particular the dichotomy between “East” and “West:” “within the global network of art, western art seems to hold the position of a ‘commanding point.’ (...) One could say without too much exaggeration that the West actually determines what art is and what not. And even the much discussed ‘trans-cultural’ processes cannot avoid this determinant; a certain regional art phenomenon or idiom is first appropriated by western interpretations, institutions, and capital, and subsequently ‘re-localized’ or ‘projected back’ into its original context. (...) It may be true that western art is ‘other’ for us, but what really matters is that ‘we’ are ‘others’ for the West.”6 Explanations of artistic positions from “other” countries – in this instance the former Eastern bloc, which was an economic-political entity rather than a social or geographic unit7 – proposed within the frame of the “discovery” of such positions frequently draw on reductionist national or cultural representations.8 However, it is vital to move beyond such representations if we are to comprehend the particularities of each specific artistic approach. “But such an endeavour would demand a concentration of energies, and in the first place, an escape from the game of representations, from the position of being the ‘other’s other.’”9 I shall address this point again at the end of this essay. Although there has also been a heightened interest in artists from the former Yugoslavia,10 scant attention has generally been paid to Ivan Kožarić’s work in the “Western” context.11 The artist, born near Zagreb in 1921, produced an astoundingly multi-faceted œuvre, which in many respects displays parallels to the concerns explored by international conceptual movements, in some cases even anticipating these. The scant reception of his work therefore appears all the more

12

astonishing. One of the first topics we encounter when addressing his œuvre is the emphasis on artistic freedom that has informed his creative activities from the earliest phase of his artistic career to the present day. But what does this artistic freedom signify in concrete terms? How is it articulated, and what consequences does it have for Kožarić’s conception of the artwork? And how did it influence the terms under which an understanding of his artistic output has been communicated? The difficulty of summarizing the many strata of his œuvre in terms of any single concept may be one reason for the lack of precise analyses of his work in the international context. THE 1950S In 1949, Ivan Kožarić completed a degree course at Zagreb’s Academy of Fine Arts, which included classes with Antun Augustinčić, renowned for his monumental sculptures. The defining theme of Kožarić’s work after his studies at the Academy is his engagement with the human figure. Standing figures, a Čovjek koji sjedi [Seated Man, ca. 1954–1960, p. 58], even a “Bather Under a Shower” [Figura (Kupač pod tušem), 1956, p. 56], portraits, anonymous heads (cf. pp. 50–55), and torsos enliven Kožarić’s figurative cosmos. At the start of his career, he explored ways of approaching the human being as a topic, and ultimately of moving in closer to the essence of human existence, in a varied range of expressive forms. Inspired by the seminal stylistic positions of modernity, Kožarić’s work from this period displays a remarkable openness and zest for experimentation, and reveals his need, subsequently explicitly articulated, to constantly re-evaluate his own artistic practice. The variations on familiar sculptural themes that emerged from this process are still valid today. Ivan Kožarić’s appraisal of those years is as modest as it is impartial: “When I was younger, I took my ideas from just about everywhere, from many people.

I appropriated whatever I liked with much enthusiasm. Everything I saw shaped me. At the beginning, Rodin, then Maillol, Brancusi, and Pevsner too.”12 He tested his knowledge of sculpture through the prism of a classical repertoire of motifs, without imposing any constraints on his explorations. Figurative depictions in the modern tradition form the backbone of his creative work to this day, in both his sculptures and drawings. Alongside this, works moving in a somewhat different direction also emerged in the early 1950s. Examples include one of the artist’s most remarkable pieces Osjećaj cjeline [Feeling of the Whole, 1953/1954, p.�� 61]. Although curator Ana Dević notes that abstraction is essentially not a relevant category for Kožarić, but rather just one variant among many possible forms of expression,13 this work is nevertheless still viewed as one of the first non-representational sculptures from Yugoslavia.14 In his somewhat later sculpture in plaster Precizni mehanizam [Precise Mechanism, 1959, p.�� 66] Kožarić’s fascination with the inner construction of human beings, conceived in mechanical terms and rooted in an abstracted, figurative depiction, is made manifest – a torso, reminiscent of a pendulum, is visible on a white painted wood plinth. Radoslav Putar, former Director of the Galerija suvremene umjetnosti [Gallery of Contemporary Art] in Zagreb, described this early in the artist’s career as indicative of an essentialist tendency in Kožarić’s œuvre, which leads him to pare his work down to the absolute minimum required.15 Both works move beyond solely representational concerns, striving instead to transpose abstract conceptions into sculptural forms. The artist thus expands his gaze to encompass the process of translating states of being into the language of sculpture. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, this aspect came to the fore, giving rise to works that still exude a genuine idiosyncrasy. This can be clearly identified in sculptures such as Unutarnje oči [Inner Eyes, 1959, p. 73] and Isječak rijeke [Segment of

a River, ca. 1959/1960, p. 74], with their topics of interiority, emptiness, immateriality or transience. As described below, these works are held to be the catalyst that led him to joining the avant-garde group Gorgona in 1960. Whilst the works I have just cited illustrate an inward-directed movement, turning towards the interiority of the mind or towards abstraction, at the same time the artist also created “distance-generating” works: from the mid-1950s on, he produced his first globes (for example Globus, 1956, p. 62; Globus, 1959, p. 65); Pejzaž [Landscape, 1958, p. 11], an abstract landscape, enfolding a mountain from below; later came Sfera [Sphere, ca. 1959–2000], which can be seen as Cf. Zdenka Badovinac/ Eda Čufer/ Cristina Freire/ Boris Groys/ Charles Harrison/ Vít Havránek/ Piotr Piotrowski/ Branka Stipančić, Conceptual Art and Eastern Europe: Part 1, online: http://www.e-flux.com/journal/ conceptual-art-and-eastern-europe-part-i/, consulted on April 5, 2013. 6 Igor Zabel, “‘We’ and the ‘Others’,” in: Moscow Art Magazine, 22, 1998, pp. 27– 35, reprinted in: Igor Španjol (ed.), Igor Zabel. Contemporary Art Theory, Zurich/Dijon, 2012, pp. 32–45, here p. 34. 7 Hoptman/ Pospiszyl, “Introduction,” in: Idem, Primary Documents, op. cit., p. 9. 8 Zabel, in: Španjol, Igor Zabel, op. cit., p. 37. 9 Ibid., p. 44. 10 Examples include Marina Abramović, Braco Dimitrijević, Mladen Stilinović, and Sanja Iveković. 5

11 Exceptions include, for

12

13

14

15

example, his solo show at the Musée d’art moderne de la Ville de Paris or his contribution to Documenta 11 (both 2002). Ivan Kožarić, quoted from: Hans Ulrich Obrist/ Vivian Rehberg, untitled, in: Idem (eds.), Ivan Kožarić, exh. cat., Musée d’art moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris, 2002, unpaginated. Ana Dević, “Ivan Kožarić. A Feeling of Wholeness,” in: Afterall, 31, fall–winter, 2012, p. 40. Igor Fisković (ed.), 1000 Tisuću godina hrvatskog kiparstva [1000 Years of Croatian Sculpture], Muzejsko Galerijski Centar [Museum and Gallery Center], Zagreb, 1997, p. 323. Cf. Radoslav Putar, “Ivan Kožarić’s Plastic Intuition,” in this publication, p. 165.

13


artist establishes an equilibrium between various polarities in his “cosmology,” with the human set at its center, centrifugal forces are at work.

the quintessence of wholeness. The standpoint assigned to the viewer is moved increasingly outwards – to a position of “gazing down” on the world from a distance, which can be read as an attempt at a clearer positioning within one’s surroundings. In this context, a drawing from 1953 appears paradigmatic: Muški akt (p. 14), a male nude standing on a globe – rooted on the earth, yet looking down from a distance. Kožarić formulated this in the following terms: “I found a fixed point in Space…!”16 Even this small handful of examples demonstrates the great breadth of Ivan Kožarić’s artistic viewpoint. Grappling with the question of positioning the human subject, in particular those involved in artistic creation, between the poles of the universe and individuality, he concentrates his attention on the elements that constitute life – the immediate environment, human beings per se, and interior processes. In this broad spectrum that Kožarić creates via oscillations between proximity and distance, he seems to adhere to an idea described by Vito Acconci: “In order for discovery to be possible, land has to be considered first as far away; land has to be far off so that it can be seen all at once, as a panorama. Land recedes and becomes ‘landscape’.”17 When applied to Kožarić’s œuvre, this implies spatial and mental distancing as prerequisites for understanding human existence. In this period what is later succinctly described by artist and curator Antun Maračić was already beginning to take shape: “Thus Kožarić presents himself as the artist of spatial maximalism, as a sculptor who remains a sculptor even when he does not deal with tangible material. A sculptor, above all, by his all-encompassing spirituality by which he links and demystifies all sorts of distances and differences.”18 Ana Dević proposes a similar argument, positing that the particularity of Kožarić’s entire œuvre is expressed in the way that it unites the most diverse materials and shapes these into a notion of wholeness.19 Whilst the

14

GORGONA AND THE OBLICI PROSTORA

Muški akt [Male Nude], 1953

I would like now to turn my attention above all to works by Kožarić that can be read in a conceptual frame – from our contemporary perspective – and articulate his relationship to the living environment. In 1960, he returned from a six-month grant-funded study trip to Paris with the pioneering works Unutarnje oči [Inner Eyes] and Isječak rijeke [Segment of a River], which are considered to have sparked the invitation from Gorgona to join the group: “It happened after my last stay in Paris, from where I returned at the end of 1960, when Ješovar asked me whether I would like to join the Gorgona group. And since we had known one another from before, I said, ‘why not?’”�20 Gorgona was an alliance of artists, architects, and art historians, active from 1959 to 1966, which was committed to a “process of seeking artistic and intellectual freedom, viewing this as a goal and intention in and of itself. (...) Despite differences concerning their individual artistic conceptions, the members of Gorgona had one thing in common: their modern mindset, i.e. recognition of the absurd, of emptiness and of monotony as aesthetic categories and a penchant for nihilism and metaphysical irony.”21 Unlike other artistic groups, Gorgona was not characterized by a shared stylistic program or by a desire to propagate their activities to the outside.22 In essence, the approach Gorgona adopted was privatist – which can be understood, inter alia, as a reaction to the domestic political situation. Painter Josip Vaništa, “spokesman” of the group, recalls: “The Gorgona focused on a reality that was outside the world of aesthetics. The restraint in thought, passivity and even indifference that the group practiced were more than the simple and ironical denial of the world we were living in. We gave

no importance to artwork, and our activities were extremely simple: for example, going for walks together in the surroundings of the city, ‘a commission investigating the beginning of spring,’ as Putar used to say jokingly, simple talks in the countryside. Sometimes the Gorgona did nothing, just lived. I, like others at that time, was interested in the emptiness of Zen, in a world that was permeated by ideology, I strove for normal behaviour, a natural life.”23 In this sense, there are parallels to collective approaches in other socialist countries, as Claire Bishop notes in a text on the Collective Actions Group, active in Russia from the 1970s on: “(...) the individual experiences that were the target of participatory art under existing socialism continue to be framed as shared privatised experiences: the construction of

16 The quotation is taken from

17

18

19 20

21

[Gallery of Contemporary an undated text work by the Art], Zagreb; Galerija artist (Tekst, n.d. [Text], p. 64 Studentskog centra [Student top). Center Gallery], Belgrade; Vito Acconci, “Leaving Home. Städtisches Museum Notes on Insertion into the [Municipal Museum], Public,” in: Florian Matzner (ed.), Mönchengladbach; Zagreb, Public Art. Kunst im öffent1977; transl. from the German lichen Raum, Hatje Cantz, supplement to the exhibition Ostfildern-Ruit, 2001, p. 46. catalog, published by Antun Maračić, “Ivan Kožarić Städtisches Museum, Deserves His Happiness,” Mönchengladbach, 1978, in this publication, p. 211. unpaginated. Dević, “Ivan Kožarić. A 22 Public awareness of Feeling…,” op. cit., p. 39. Gorgona did not really develIvan Kožarić in conversation op until 1977 with the retrowith Vladimir Kusik, in: Ivan spective, curated by Nena Kožarić, exh. cat., Galerija Dimitrijević. 23 Josip Vaništa, “The Gorgona,” Kazamat (HDLU) [Kazamat in: Marija Gattin (ed.), Gallery, Croatian Association Gorgona / Protocol of for the Visual Arts (HDLU)], Submitting Thoughts, exh. Osijek, 2003, unpaginated. Nena Dimitrijević, “Gorgona cat., Muzej suvremene – Kunst als Lebensform,” in: umjetnosti [Museum of Gorgona, exh. cat., Galerija Contemporary Art], Zagreb, suvremene umjetnosti 2002, vol. 1, p. 159.

15


a collective artistic space amongst mutually trusting colleagues. Rather than frame this work as ‘implicitly political,’ (...) (the) work produced under state socialism during these decades should be viewed in more complex terms. Given the saturation of everyday life with ideology, artists did not regard their work to be political but rather as existential and apolitical, committed to ideas of freedom and the individual imagination.”24 The system in Yugoslavia was relatively permissive compared with other socialist states – Yugoslavia had already broken with the USSR in 1948 – and artists were ostensibly not subject to any substantial restrictions.25 The favored art movement of this era was not Socialist Realism, but Modernism, which was understood as “‘pure’ art, concerned only with itself, not impinging on the social and political sphere and therefore harmless,”26 as well as holding the promise of opportunities to catch up with Western developments and markets.27 The curators of What, How & for Whom / WHW emphasize, however, that Modernism, inasmuch as it was an advocate of social change, was viewed in the Yugoslavian context as being antibourgeois and was consequently seen as substantively akin to the socialist project – thus politicizing modern art in Yugoslavia, contrary to its self-proclaimed ambitions of autonomy.28 Art historian Boris Groys writes: “All modern societies prefer the vita activa to the vita contemplativa. (...) However, under the conditions of modernity it is precisely progress and change that constitute the status quo. Every member of modern society is immersed since his or her birth in the process of economic progress, growth and change.”29 Gorgona explicitly countered this premise of progress with its rejection of the artwork and its emphasis on the primacy of the idea over its execution. This backdrop also sheds light on the following note by Josip Vaništa: “Against modern art.”30 This non-object-focused approach reveals Gorgona’s proto-conceptual thinking, which also finds expression in Ivan Kožarić’s works.

16

During this period, he further developed his “gaze from a distance.” This was manifested in projects conceived on such a grand scale that realizing them was out of the question. That holds true for example for the following proposal from the artist: “I came upon the idea of making plaster casts of the surface of the earth in areas where the roads are trodden down and scored with wheels, feet and various imprints. And so I could make a cast of the whole globe, of course over a period of time and if a number of people were at work. It would be necessary to make a positive cast, but where would it be exhibited?”31 Probably his best known project from this period, Neobični projekt – Rezanje Sljemena [Unusual Project – Cutting Sljeme Mountain, 1960, pp. 76–78], which Kožarić developed in sketches and sculptures, envisaged removing the summit of Zagreb’s local mountain, Sljeme – and is virtually impossible to put into practice. The immanently unrealizable nature of the projects and the emphasis this places on the primacy of the artistic idea makes them closely related to conceptual practices. As is often emphasized, the locus of this artistic activity – the world of nature or the landscape – allows us to read these pieces as an early manifestation of Land Art. The type of intervention Kožarić proposed in the Neobični projekt – Rezanje Sljemena [Unusual Project – Cutting Sljeme Mountain] dovetails with Vito Acconci’s observation: “A view of the landscape can be replaced by a view into the landscape and through the landscape. The landscape, instead of being an object for the body; instead of being an object of sight, it’s an object of touch – an object of the body’s insertion into the landscape.”32 Kožarić thus sees the world simultaneously as a ready-made and as a malleable entity.

Space], 1963, p. 172) and later continued in fiberglass,33 should be understood in terms of its conceptual point of departure as “casts” of private and public interstices and hollow spaces from within the city. The artist elucidates his approach in his response to the question, frequently discussed among Gorgona members, of whether it is possible to create a collective artwork. Kožarić’s statement on this topic, dated February 26, 1963 (cf. p. 17), asserts: “We must also colletively make casts of the inside of all the Gorgonians’ heads, no one may be left out. We must make, discretely, casts of the interiors of several important cars, the interior of

This twofold engagement also appears through the Oblici prostora [Shapes of Space], which the artist began to make in the 1960s and in which his interest in urban space first became apparent. The series, initiated in lime-wood in 1962 (cf. Oblik prostora [Shape of

28

24 Claire Bishop, “Zones of

25

26 27

Kolektivno djelo [Collective Work], 1963/2011 Ivan Kožarić’s reply to the question, whether Gorgona should make a collective artwork.

Indistinguishability: The Collective Actions Group and Participatory Art,” in: Boris Groys (ed.), Empty Zones. Andrei Monastyrski and Collective Actions, exh. cat., 54a Esposizione Internazionale d’Arte – la Biennale di Venezia, London, 2011, p. 10. Cf. Dunja Blažević, “Wer singt da drüben? Kunst in Jugoslawien und danach... 1949–1989...,” in: Aspekte/ Positionen. 50 Jahre Kunst aus Mitteleuropa, exh. cat., Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig, Vienna, 1999, pp. 81–96, esp. p. 83. Ibid., pp. 83f. Cf. Igor Zabel, “Art and State: From Modernism to the Retroavantgarde,” in: Španjol, Igor Zabel, op. cit., p. 64. What, How and for Whom / WHW, “In Conjunction, Not at All Accidental,” in: Vojin Bakić, exh. cat., Grazer Kunstverein, Graz, 2008, p. 24; cf. also Gal Kirn, “Anti-fascist Memorial

29

30

31

32 33

Sites: Pure Art or the Mythologisation of Socialist Yugoslavia?,” in: What, How and for Whom / WHW (ed.), Art Always Has Its Consequences, Zagreb, 2010, pp. 120–133. I would like to thank Ana Dević and Sabina Sabolović for these references. Boris Groys, “Art Clearings,” in: Idem, Empty Zones, op. cit., p. 6. Josip Vaništa, O Ništa [On Nothingness], undated text work, Marinko Sudac Collection, Zagreb. Ivan Kožarić in his notes of March 25, 1964, quoted by Evelina Turković in: “My Studio Is a Laboratory for Vivification,” in: Antun Maračić/ Evelina Turković, Atelijer Kožarić / The Kožarić Studio, Zagreb, 2002 (second edition), p. 106. Acconci, in: Matzner, Public Art, op. cit., p. 41. Cf. Turković, in: Maračić/ Turković, Atelijer Kožarić, op. cit., p. 90.

17


Oblik prostora (Frižider) 2 [Shape of Space (Refrigerator) 2], 1975 Documentation of its temporary installation in urban space.

bed-sitters, trees, the interior of a park, etc., in short, of all the more important hollows in our city.”34 This group of works includes an Oblik prostora [Shape of Space], depicting the oversized interior of a refrigerator, Oblik prostora (Frižider) [Shape of Space (Refrigerator), 1963, p. 82], and another work that references a bathroom, both several years earlier than Bruce Nauman’s A Cast of the Space under My Chair (1965–1968). Essentially, however, the Oblici prostora [Shapes of Space] are conceived in more general terms as the sculptural transposition of negative spaces into positive forms, and it is not always possible to establish a link between their amorphous forms and specific initial objects or shapes. By underscoring the “ontological emptiness of the space in which we move,”35 the artist offers an illuminating transposition of this central topic of the Gorgona group. The emptiness of public space is in addition a vital prerequisite that offers scope to occupy this space with private or institutional concerns,36 as formulated by Kožarić little later in his work. In the 1970s, his work was therefore also directed towards the urban space. The photographs of the Oblik prostora (Frižider) [Shape of Space (Refrigerator), cf. p. 19] from 1975 are prime examples of this. Placing his fiberglass “refrigerator”

34 Ivan Kožarić, Kolektivno djelo

38 Rosalind Krauss, “Sculpture in [Collective Work], 1963/2011, the Expanded Field,” in: Octop. 17. ber, 8, spring, 1979, pp. 30–44. 35 Boris Groys, “Art Clearings,” 39 Hans Haacke, “Public Sights,” in: Idem, Empty Zones, op. in: Matzner, Public Art, op. cit., p. 7. cit., p. 337. 36 Ibid. 40 Želimir Koščević, “Kroatische 37 Cf. Davor Matičević, “PredgoKunst,” in: Christina Steinle/ vor [Preface],” in: Ivan Kožarić, Peter Weibel (eds.), Identität, exh. cat., Galerija suvremene Differenz. Tribüne Trigon umjetnosti [Gallery of Con1940–1990. Eine Topogratemporary Art], Zagreb, 1975, phie der Moderne, exh. cat., unpaginated. Künstlerhaus, Neue Galerie and Stadtmuseum, Graz; Böhlau, Vienna, 1992, p. 383.

18

temporarily outside Zagreb’s Ethnographic Museum, the artist proclaimed that this work was a study for a public sculpture – a pointed commentary on the institution as the guardian of culture, testifying to the history of humanity. (Further photographs reveal that he also tried out various other locations).37 The relatively modest size in comparison to other sculptures in public space is striking – the Oblik prostora (Frižider) [Shape of Space (Refrigerator)] is only 146 centimeters high. The focus is consequently not so much on an overwhelming confrontation between the viewer and a work on a monumental scale, but rather on a direct, unmediated physical encounter between the viewer and the object. URBAN INTERVENTIONS During this decade, the landscape and public space were the locus for artistic explorations internationally, as analyzed by Rosalind Krauss in her essay “Sculpture in the Expanded Field” (1979).38 Numerous artistic projects were informed by the idea of reaching a wide audience through projects in public space,39 in Zagreb as elsewhere, without interposing an institution as a go-between. Kožarić was involved above all in this respect in the context of a younger generation of artists, such as Sanja Iveković, Goran Trbuljak, Dalibor Martinis, and Braco Dimitrijević. Želimir Koščević writes: “Some artists of the older generation, first and foremost the sculptor Ivan Kožarić, then Julije Knifer, Đuro Seder (1927), Dimitrije Bašičević (all members of the Gorgona group!), as well as Tomislav Gotovac (1937), joined the younger generation, finding not only kindred spirits but also the impetus for a new creative beginning. The real force of creative energy however was to be found in the generation of artists born around 1950, all of whom were active, to a greater or lesser extent, within the framework of conceptual art, with a pronounced penchant for socialisation of art. They were interested in environments, interventions in the streets, installations and in process-oriented techniques.”40

19


From the early 1970s on, Kožarić increasingly developed proposals for interventions in the cityscape, mostly for specific exhibitions or in response to calls for proposals, for example for the 6th and 7th Zagrebački salon [Zagreb Salon] in 1971 and 1972 or for the exhibition trigon 71: intermedia urbana in Graz: “The re-examination of the quality of urban environment is one of his main preoccupations, resulting in far-reaching projects, which he showed to the public only when the right opportunity presented itself (...).”41 He proposed three projects for the Zagreb exhibition (May 8– June 5, 1971): Raznobojne svijetle trake idu preko kuća [Multicolored Light Ribbons Stretched Across Houses, pp. 94–95], Zlatna fasada [Golden Façade, p. 95] and Prizemljeno sunce [Grounded Sun, pp. 98–99], all from 1971.42 The only one to be realized, albeit temporarily, was Prizemljeno sunce [Grounded Sun]. The gold-colored fiberglass sphere, roughly two meters in diameter, was placed on the Marshal Tito Square in front of the National Theater of Croatia. It rapidly became the target of iconoclastic43 attacks, described in detail in the interview between Ivica Župan and Ivan Kožarić republished here.44 This was by no means a one-off incident, as art historian Walter Grasskamp notes: “Since the modern monument has taken the place of such [traditional] monuments, without, as they did, being clearly legible in their references to a collective contemporary meaning, it is attacked as an usurper and viewed as an unreasonable provocation.”45 Kožarić appeared unperturbed by the various “interactions” between viewers and his “sun.” The same could not be said of the municipal institutions, which demanded that the artist remove the sculpture.46 Their reaction highlights the imperatives of cultural policy during this era, which demanded non-disruptive, “harmless” art. In conjunction with his nephew, Tomislav Kožarić, Ivan Kožarić submitted three drafts for projects in the Graz urban area to the exhibition trigon 71: intermedia

20

urbana (October 8–November 19, 1971). Grouped under the motto “What Is a City? What Could a City Be?”,47 he deployed photo collages and over-painted photographs to present his ideas for Lokve vode [Water Puddles; Project number 51192, p. 92], Duga [Rainbow; Project number 51193, p. 92], and Ritmički stup [Rhythmic Column; Project number 51194, p. 92].48 As the Lokve vode [Water Puddles] are addressed in the text by Antun Maračić reprinted in this volume,49 I shall not describe them in more detail here. The graphic form and ambitious dimensions of Duga, a rainbow designed to stretch across the city of Graz, are reminiscent of the earlier Neobični projekt – Rezanje Sljemena [Unusual Project – Cutting Sljeme Mountain].50 The third project, Ritmički stup [Rhythmic Column], is elaborated in three sketches and is split into two distinct parts: on the one hand there is a column, reminiscent of the zigzag form of the Crveni znak [Red Sign, 1969, p. 93], for which Kožarić proposed various exhibition sites – on a tram, in the street, on the sidewalk. The second portion was to comprise red “pipes” running across the Baroque stucco façade of the Luegg House on Graz’s main square, connecting the various flats and floors. This visually striking design can be seen in relation to the Zagreb Raznobojne svijetle trake idu preko kuća [Multicolored Light Ribbons Stretched Across Houses]. Although the Zagreb “ribbons” mark links between various buildings and seem to have a more flexible form than the red “pipes” for Graz, the basic essence of the two projects is the same: creating connections and thereby, hopefully, fostering exchanges. Whilst Vera Horvat-Pintarić emphasizes in her essay for the trigon 71 catalog that projects in public space are “about people at the scale of the collective, about users of public, shared, i.e. collective space,”51 in Kožarić’s works the idea of the collective is definitely not foremost. This may also be because public space in socialist Yugoslavia was not “public;” any form of use was only possible with prior authorization or as part of institutionalized events such

as art exhibitions, which opened up niches of greater freedom.52 Public space for Kožarić is of interest instead as an interface between the private and public, as a site of encounters. He underlined this with his comment that the proposals aimed to express intimacy between people or between an individual and the city.53 A year later, he developed two proposals for the 7th

41 Matičević, in: Exh. cat., 42

43

44 45

top: Sjećanje na poplavu 1 [Remembering the

46

Flood 1], 1972 bottom: Sjećanje na poplavu 2 [Remembering the Flood 2], 1972 Designs for the 7th Zagrebački salon [Zagreb Salon]

47

Zagreb, 1975, unpaginated. Cf. Turković, in: Maračić/ Turković, Atelijer Kožarić, op. cit., p. 105. “The unspecific character and the polemic dimension of the term led me to prefer ‘iconoclasm,’ previously reserved above all for historical phenomena in which the religious dimension of the images attacked took centerstage, but also used with reference to forms of socially legitimate aggression, such as the symbolic attacks of the avant-garde, directed at traditional art forms.” Dario Gamboni, “Kunst, öffentlicher Raum, Ikonoklasmus,” in: Walter Grasskamp (ed.), Unerwünschte Monumente. Moderne Kunst im Stadtraum, Schreiber, Munich, 1989, p. 15. Cf. Ivica Župan, “Martian,” in this publication, pp. 197–198. Grasskamp, “Invasion aus dem Atelier. Kunst als Störfall,” in: Idem, Unerwünschte Momente, op. cit., p. 146. Cf. Ivica Župan, “Martian,” in this publication, p. 199. Cf. “Protokoll,” in: Wilfried Skreiner (ed.), trigon 71: inter-

48

49

50

51

52

53

media urbana, exh. cat., Künstlerhaus, Graz, 1971, unpaginated. The title is taken from the list of interventions in urban space, enumerated in exh. cat. Ivan Kožarić, Galerija suvremene umjetnosti [Gallery of Contemporary Art], Zagreb, 1975, unpaginated. Cf. Maračić, “Ivan Kožarić Deserves His Happiness,” in this publication, p. 211. Unfortunately it has not been possible to determine more precise details (e.g. material, envisioned dimensions) of the projects submitted by Kožarić either from the artist, in the exhibition catalog, or in the archives of the Provincial Archive of Styria. Vera Horvat-Pintarić, “Der Mensch und seine Umwelt,” in: Skreiner, trigon 71, op. cit., unpaginated. Branka Stipančić, conversation with the author, Zagreb, March 14, 2013. Ivan Kožarić, conversation with the author, Zagreb, March 12, 2013.

21


Zagrebački salon (May 8–June 8, 1972) in the section “The City as a Space of Sculptural Events.” The first was Granica poplave [Border of the Flood, 1972], intended to recall the historical floods in Zagreb, in October 1964. On his project sketches, his Oblici prostora (Sjećanje na poplavu) [Shapes of Space (Remembering the Flood), 1964]54 appear as larger scale sculptures in public space – they were to be set up in the park on Savska Street (cf. p. 21), marking the point, which the floodwaters had reached in 1964. Roughly 2 x 3 x 2 meters, their scale also evokes the unique extent of this flood. The second study was for Nazovi je kako hoćeš [Call It as You Like, 1971, p. 22],55 an abstract sculpture made of rubber and intended to tower over a road intersection. Despite its monumental scale, Kožarić refused specific readings of the work or representational claims through the abstract form he chose and above all through the title of the project. It is left to the viewer to determine the content of the work. This subversive yet not overtly political mode of dealing with monumentality and representation is also continued in other studies by the artist that caricature traditional monuments. Examples include Čekajući tramvaj... [Waiting for the Tramway..., 1971], four of his Faličke figure [Phallic Figure, 1971], which were to be positioned around a tram stop, visible from all sides with their oversized penises (cf. p. 104). Rather than referencing the type of figures conventionally honored, other projects are dedicated to a barmaid (Spomenik pipničarki [Monument to a Barmaid], 1973, pp. 102–103), to be placed like a ship’s figurehead outside a tenement block, and to a Sirotica56 [Poor Woman, 1973]. The latter work was designed for a site in front of the Moderna galerija [Modern Gallery] and would therefore have stood directly opposite the building that formerly housed the American Consulate, probably an unintentional political statement,57 although at the same time this coincidence underscores the provocative nature of this unrealized proposal. With reference to these public projects, Davor Matičević wrote in 1975:

22

“His contribution is the equalization of the public with the private, the intimate with the representative, the interpretative with the objective (...).”58 Kožarić’s proposals grew increasingly provocative during this period – a development that went handin-hand with a move away from largely formalistic interventions towards figuration, and in this respect was also diametrically opposed to the “pure” art favored at the time. They lay claim to public space – in Zagreb – as a locus of communication, but also as a locus of confrontation. At the same time, the artist was all too aware that the projects were unlikely to ever be realized.59 It is not clear whether Kožarić’s increasingly conceptual critique of the conventions of the monument was triggered by disillusionment with local cultural policy. In the light of his relaxed response to the sometimes infuriated reactions to the Prizemljeno sunce [Grounded Sun], it is, however, fair to assume that the artist understood discussion and dispute as central components of art;60 later he may even have aimed explicitly to stir up such debate. “FREEDOM IS A RARE BIRD” 61

top: Nazovi je kako hoćeš 1 [Call It as You Like 1], 1971 bottom: Nazovi je kako hoćeš 2 [Call It as You Like 2], 1971 Designs for the 7th Zagrebački salon [Zagreb Salon]

The projects described above relate to one particular aspect of Kožarić’s œuvre: his engagement with public, urban space as a site of encounter and exchange. Although the above account may read as if this were a self-contained development, it is, however, only one of several artistic strands unfolding in parallel. At the same time as the proposals for urban interventions, he engaged in a thoroughgoing revision of his previous activities by “gilding” his studio in 197162 – including everything from the doorframe to completed sculptures – and wrapping other objects to form Pinkleci [Bundles, 1971–1975, pp. 116–118]. The Spontane skulpture [Spontaneous Sculptures], created from simple materials such as planks of wood from the

mid-1970s on, are also characterized by interactions with found material, including some of the artist’s own earlier works: in Reagiranja [Reactions, 1956–1978, p. 121] for example a bronze head by Kožarić from 1956 is reutilized.63 The conceptual rigor of the designs for the city is thus flanked by works in which spontaneity and materiality form the focus of artistic exploration. “It is not only difficult to see a formal connection between his certain sculptural cycles made in a period of several years, but at the same time, contradictory plots are unfolding: the already made is taken to pieces; a discarded is again put together; a material is dematerialized and the other way around; or crossed out and altered.”64 This aspect, sketched out here with reference to the 1970s, holds true for the artist’s œuvre

54 Large areas of the city were

under water as a result of the flood; the elevated forms of the Oblici prostora (Sjećanje na poplavu) [Shapes of Space (Remembering the Flood)] evoke objects and buildings protruding above the floodwaters. 55 The title refers to the designation given to Kožarić’s proposals in the exhibition catalog for the 7th. Zagrebački salon [Zagreb Salon], Umjetnički pavilion [Art Pavilion], Zagreb, 1972, p. 163. 56 The exhibition catalog Ivan Kožarić, Galerija suvremene umjetnosti [Gallery of Contemporary Art], Zagreb, 1975, calls this project Beskućnik [Homeless Figure]; Ivan Kožarić also used the title Sirotica [Poor Woman] to refer to it. As the aluminum sculpture depicts a woman

57 58 59

60

61

62

63 64

with a bundle under her arm, the title Sirotica [Poor Woman] will be used here. Ivica Župan, e-mail to the author, November 21, 2012. Matičević, in: Exh. cat., Zagreb, 1975, unpaginated. Ivan Kožarić, conversation with the author, Zagreb, March 12, 2013. Cf. on this point the theses of Belgian political scientist Chantal Mouffe on “agonistic” public space. Ivan Kožarić, in: Ana Marija Habjan (director), Gorgona, television documentation, 52 min., HRT / Croatian Radio Television, 2012. Cf. on this point Davor Matičević, “Foreword,” in this publication, p. 182. Ibid., p. 184. Želimir Koščević, “Ivan Kožarić,” in: Idem, Ivan Kožarić, Zagreb, 1996, p. 63.

23


in general, which is characterized by an extraordinary heterogeneity and diversity. The oscillating movements described at the beginning of this text apply not only to the thematical focus of his interest but also to his constant switching between various forms of artistic expression: “Already since his artistic beginnings, every convention of artistic behavior was strange to Ivan Kožarić, for he simultaneously expressed himself in several different ways – figuratively and abstractly, in geometry and organics...; in his morphology there are no iconographic constants.”65 Simultaneously pursuing a range of different approaches, coupled with his questioning of categories often viewed as mutually exclusive, Kožarić threw much of what we take as self-evident within art history “onto the scrap heap” – if we take his presentation at the 1976

65 Ivica Župan, “Ivan Kožarić,” in:

Jovan Brajović (ed.), Ivan Kožarić, exh. cat., Galerija Moira [Gallery Moira], Stari Grad, 2003, unpaginated. 66 Kožarić’s contribution for the Yugoslavian Pavilion comprised some of his most important sculptures (inter alia Crveni znak [Red Sign], 1969, some Oblici prostora [Shapes of Space] from the early 1960s, and Pozlaćena vrata, the gold-painted door of his studio from 1971), which he arranged in a heap for the exhibition; on a shelf alongside this, he showed Privremene skulpture [Temporary Sculptures] made of aluminum foil. 67 Vladimir Kusik, “Brief Introduction to the Works of Ivan

24

68

69

70

71

72 73

Kožarić,” in: Exh. cat., Osijek, 2003, unpaginated. Ivan Kožarić, inscription on a self-portrait [Autoportret (Tekst), 1987, p. 154]. Ivan Kožarić in conversation with Vladimir Kusik, in: Exh. cat., Osijek, 2003, unpaginated. László Beke, “Conceptual Tendencies in Eastern European Art,” in: Exh. cat., Queens Museum of Art, New York, 1999, p. 42. Renato Barilli, “Opera o comportamento?” [Work or Behavior?], in: Idem, Informale, oggetto, comportamento, volume secondo, La ricerca artistica negli anni ’70, Milan, 1979, p. 96. Cf. Igor Zabel (Footnote 6). Cf. Igor Zabel (Footnote 9).

Venice Biennale literally (cf. p. 185).66 Considered in these terms, it becomes apparent why the term “freedom” crops up so often in descriptions of his œuvre. The freedom, expressed in the artist’s conceptual pieces as hypothetical elaboration of projects that cannot be put into practice due to the prevailing circumstances, finds a material pendant in the spectrum of artistic forms of expression in which Kožarić chooses to work. This freedom can be summed up as an unprejudiced stance towards his own work, a refusal to impose constraints upon himself, and as a constant questioning of his own achievements. Chronology, development, and uniqueness play a subordinate role in his work. To him, they represent a less successful attempt to define what constitutes art and how art can be grasped in substantive terms – a question Kožarić believes is impossible to answer: “Asked what art is, he will say ‘it is an idea,’ leaving the problem of definition open, making it irrelevant, since ‘art cannot be defined.’”67 As Kožarić has said: “Art is always elusive!”,68 and is therefore as much of a “rare bird” as the freedom he seeks to attain. He does repeatedly emphasize the key importance of the idea for a work of art: “My interest lies with ideas, and I attempt to realise every idea. (...) No form of artistic expression can be without an idea; without an idea a work is empty. (...) If a work contains an idea, it has it all, it has life.”69 At the same time, he does not view an idea exclusively as a concept; a notion of form or a particular understanding of sculpture or art can be subsumed into this term. That complicates links to conceptual approaches, even taking the following assertion as a starting point: “In comparison to this Western notion of conceptual art, the Eastern European variant was never so rigorous. Rather, it was flexible and elastic, ironic, humorous and ambiguous, nonprofessional, communicable, always ready to become a social activity of a group of young people or even an alternative movement.”70

Rather than seeking to define Kožarić’s œuvre by categorizing it as part of a particular artistic movement, it appears more productive to foreground his artistic stance. This chimes with the dichotomy between “Opera o comportamento?” [Work or Behavior?] proposed by art historians Francesco Arcangeli and Renato Barilli, at the 1972 Venice Biennale. On this issue, Barilli writes: “It may well be no exaggeration to claim that this even involves a contrast between two anthropological modes of being, one of which, that of the work, represents an evolutionary line familiar to people in the ‘West,’ in which it has attained some of its more typical and most valid results. The other mode of existence in contrast might well constitute a kind of endpoint for the numerous experiments that have endeavoured for nearly a century now to strip the ‘Western’ individual of his habitual trajectory in order to open him up to the ‘Other,’ in other words to the possibility of a broader and more intensive life.”71

by the Western-influenced canon as the “other.”72 His work cannot be ascribed to a particular tendency in art historical terms and is not representative of a particular social context. As a consequence, it eludes the “representation game,” in Igor Zabel’s sense of the term, on every level.73 Perhaps now we may have reached a point where an appropriate mode of encounter with this work has become possible.

A process of moving from things to being seems to encapsulate the quintessence of Kožarić’s work. For all their diversity, his works articulate a fundamental attitude towards the world and life that is shaped as much by instability and unpredictability as by curiosity and openness towards encounters and change. Striving to attain art and to attain freedom merge and become one within this strategy. Ivan Kožarić claims the right to continue choosing new forms of expression and hence new forms of artistic communication. We have become accustomed to this type of practice in the artistic production of Postmodernism – such a consistent assertion of this approach is however unusual for artists of Kožarić’s generation. Perhaps one answer to the initial question of why there has been such scant reception of his œuvre to date lies in the fact that this freedom precludes an appraisal of his work in terms of unambiguous categories and concepts. It thus in the first instance already resists appropriation

25


Colophon

Photographic Credits

The catalog is published on the

EXHIBITION

PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS:

The exhibition and the catalog

occasion of the exhibition

Curator: Patrizia Dander

see page 247

would not have been possible

Curatorial assistance: Jelena Lozo IVAN KOŽARIĆ.

ESSAYS (pp. 10–47) pp. 11, 28 (bottom): Branko Balić, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb pp. 14, 32: Filip Zima, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić pp. 17, 21–22, 28 (top): Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb p. 19: Petar Dabac, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb p. 27: Boris Cvjetanović, Courtesy Ivan Kožarić p. 29: Tomislav Šmider, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 30: Matija Pavlovec, Courtesy Moderna galerija, Ljubljana p. 33: Ivan Kožarić, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 34: Rudolf Bartolović, Courtesy Galerija likovnih umjetnosti, Osijek p. 36: Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 37: Tomislav Šmider, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 39: Antun Maračić p. 41: Boris Cvjetanović, Courtesy Antun Maračić pp. 42 (top), 43, 45: Antun Maračić, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 42 (bottom): Radmila Iva Janković p. 44: Ljubo Gamulin, Courtesy Antun Maračić

COLOR PLATES (pp. 48–160) pp. 48–49, 50 (top left, bottom left), 51–52, 54–55, 57, 68, 70– 71, 74, 79, 88–89, 103, 108–110, 116–118, 122–128, 132–133, 135, 139, 146: Boris Cvjetanović, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić pp. 50 (right), 59, 62, 90, 150– 151: Damir Žižić, Courtesy of Lauba

pp. 53, 76, 121: Goran Vranić, Courtesy Moderna galerija, Zagreb pp. 56, 65–66, 82–83 (bottom), 93: Darko Bavoljak pp. 58, 83 (top): Ana Opalić, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb pp. 61, 64 (bottom), 104, 120, 141: Lisa Rastl, Courtesy Goran Prkačin Collection, Vienna/ Zagreb pp. 63, 67, 69, 80, 85, 91, 92 (bottom left), 96 (bottom left), 129 (all but top left), 130 (all but top left), 131, 134, 138, 142–143, 147, 149, 152–155: Filip Zima, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić pp. 64 (top), 84, 96 (top left, right), 100, 106–107, 119, 129 (top left), 130 (top left), 140, 144–145, 148: Tomislav Šmider, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 73: Branko Balić, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb p. 75: Fedor Vučemilović, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb pp. 77, 98–99, 101: Courtesy Ivica Župan Collection, Zagreb pp. 78, 94, 95, 102: Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb p. 81: Tošo Dabac, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb pp. 86–87, 112–113: Courtesy Marinko Sudac Collection Zagreb p. 92 (all but bottom left): Marino Solokhov p. 97: Martina Vidas Butorac, Courtesy Muzeji Hrvatskog zagorja, Muzej seljačkih buna, Gornja Stubica p. 105: Petar Dabac, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb p. 111: Aleksandar Saša Novković, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb

pp. 114–115: Mio Vesović, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb p. 137: Courtesy Museum of Contemporary Art (M HKA), Antwerp pp. 157–158: Lado Mlekuž, Matija Pavlovec, Courtesy Moderna galerija, Ljubljana p. 159: Dejan Habicht, Courtesy Moderna galerija, Ljubljana

p. 215: Antun Maračić, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić pp. 221–222: Radmila Iva Janković The photo-negatives of Branko Balić are part of the Photoarchives Branko Balić at the Institute of Art History, Zagreb.

REPUBLISHED TEXTS (pp. 163–224) pp. 163, 191, 200: Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić pp. 164–165: Branko Balić, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 167, 213: Boris Cvjetanović, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb p. 169: Boris Cvjetanović, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 170: Zlatko Movrin, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb pp. 172, 185, 193: Branko Balić, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb p. 175: Photoarchives Branko Balić, The Institute of Art History, Zagreb p. 176: Enes Midžić, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb pp. 179, 186, 196: Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb pp. 180–181: Courtesy Branko Silađin p. 183: Petar Dabac, Courtesy Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb pp. 189, 190: Marija Braut, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić p. 207: Antun Maračić p. 209: Ivan Kožarić, Courtesy City of Zagreb, Atelijer Kožarić

without the generous support of Cover: Crvena petlja, 1969

numerous friends and compan-

[Red Loop]

ions of Ivan Kožarić.

FREEDOM IS A RARE BIRD

CATALOG

June 21 – September 22, 2013

Editors: Patrizia Dander (for Haus

at Haus der Kunst, Munich

der Kunst, Munich) and Radmila Iva

We thank all copyright owners

exhibition: Božo Biškupić,

organized in cooperation with the

Janković (for the Muzej suvremene

for their kind permission to

Vladimir Macura, Dušan Mandič,

Muzej suvremene umjetnosti Zagreb

umjetnosti Zagreb)

reproduce their material. Should,

Tomislav & Željka Pernar, Goran

[Museum of Contemporary Art

Editorial assistance: Jelena Lozo

despite our intensive research

Prkačin, Marinko Sudac, Vanja

Zagreb]

(Haus der Kunst, Munich) and Filip

any person entitled to rights

Žanko (Lauba), Ivica Župan;

Turković-Krnjak (Muzej suvremene

have been overlooked, legitimate

Gliptoteka Zagreb, Kontakt. The

© 2013 Stiftung Haus der Kunst

umjetnosti Zagreb)

claims shall be compensated

Art Collection of Erste Group and

München, gemeinnützige

Authors: Bart De Baere (BB), Patrizia

within the usual provisions.

ERSTE Foundation Vienna,

Betriebsgesellschaft mbH, the artist,

Dander (PD), Ješa Denegri (JD), Okwui

the authors, the photographers, and

Enwezor (OE), Radmila Iva Janković

Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther

(RJ), Antun Maračic (AM), Davor

DISTRIBUTION

Zagreb, Muzej suvremene umjet-

König, Köln

Matičević (DM), Snježana Pintarić (SP),

Switzerland

nosti Zagreb, Muzeji Hrvatskog

Radoslav Putar (RP), Zdenko Rus (ZR),

Buch 2000

zagorja Gornja Stubica, Zak

Stiftung Haus der Kunst München,

Marco Scotini (MS), Ivica Župan (IZ)

c/o AVA Verlagsauslieferungen AG

Branicka Gallery Berlin, as well

gemeinnützige Betriebsgesell-

Copy-editor: Uta Hoffmann

Centralweg 16

as those lenders who wish to

schaft mbH

Translators: Helen Ferguson (PD),

CH-8910 Affoltern a.A.

remain anonymous. Furthermore

Director: Okwui Enwezor

Andy Jelčić (JD, RJ, AM, DM, SP, RP,

Tel. +41 (44) 762 42 00

we wish to thank all those who

Team: Tina Anjou, Stephan N.

ZR, IZ), Nicola Iannelli Popham (MS)

Fax +41 (44) 762 42 10

supported our research, in

Barthelmess, Daniela Burkart, Sylvia

Graphic Design: Sabine Pflitsch,

a.koll@ava.ch

particular: the City of Zagreb, the

Clasen, Arnulf von Dall’Armi, Patrizia

probsteibooks, Cologne

Dander, Elena Heitsch, Tina Köhler,

Printing and Binding:

UK & Eire

and Sports of the City of Zagreb,

Anton Köttl, Isabella Kredler, León

DZA Druckerei zu Altenburg GmbH

Cornerhouse Publications

and the Ministry for Culture of

70 Oxford Street

the Republic of Croatia; Dunja

Krempel, Teresa Lengl, Anne Leop-

We thank the lenders to the

M HKA Antwerp, Moderna galerija Ljubljana, Moderna galerija

City Office for Education, Culture

old, Julienne Lorz, Iris Ludwig, Karin

Publisher: Verlag der Buchhandlung

GB-Manchester M1 5NH

Blažević, Katrin Bucher Trantow,

Mahr, Marco Graf von Matuschka,

Walther König, Köln

Fon +44 (0) 161 200 15 03

Vladimir Čajkovac, Anne

Miro Palavra, Glenn Rossiter, Andrea

Ehrenstr. 4, D-50672 Cologne

Fax +44 (0) 161 200 15 04

Faucheret, Alexander Fritz, Ana

Saul, Anna Schüller, Martina Schmid,

Tel. +49 (0) 221 / 20 59 6-53

publications@cornerhouse.org

Marija Habjan & HRT / Croatian

Cassandre Schmid, Ulrich Wilmes

Fax +49 (0) 221 / 20 59 6-60 verlag@buchhandlung-walther-koenig.de

Prinzregentenstr. 1

Radio Television, Magdalena Outside Europe

Holzhey, Petar Krelja, Antun

D.A.P. / Distributed Art

Maračić & Evelina Turković, Irena

D-80538 Munich

Bibliographical information of Deutsche

Publishers, Inc.

Šimić, Saša Šimpraga, Vanja Šišek,

Tel. +49 89 21127 113

Nationalbibliothek

155 6th Avenue, 2nd Floor

Dejan Sretenović, Branka

www.hausderkunst.de

This publication is registered in the

USA-New York, NY 10013

Stipančić & Mladen Stilinović,

Deutsche Nationalbibliografie of the

Fon +1 212 627 1999

Petra Vidović, Janka Vukmir, Ana

Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.

Fax +1 212 627 9484

Dević & Sabina Sabolović of

www.artbook.com

What, How and for Whom /

We would like to thank our shareholders for their annual support of the program: Freistaat Bayern, Josef

Printed in Germany

Schörghuber Stiftung, Gesellschaft der Freunde Haus der Kunst e.V.

WHW, and Dr. Peter Wiesflecker. Our greatest thanks go to:

ISBN 978-3-86335-395-7

Ivan Kožarić, Tomislav Kožarić (†), and Filip Kožarić.

in cooperation with:

247


Millions discover their favorite reads on issuu every month.

Give your content the digital home it deserves. Get it to any device in seconds.