La etajul al doilea (din trei) al Anexei MNAC, spatiul expozitional care functioneaza in cladirea de pe Calea Mosilor 62-68, s-a deschis recent o noua expozitie (colectiva) a Salonului de Proiecte (Salonul este initiativa Magdei Radu si a Alexandrei Croitoru de a aduce Bucurestiului pulsul cel mai alert si tanar al productiei contemporane). Eu am ajuns pentru prima data in acel loc – si gasiti pe Artindex si celelate doua articole aferente etajelor ramase – datorita lui Mihai Oroveanu (directorul MNAC) care a pomenit de “Anexa” la cursurile IMA de weekendul trecut. Cum aloc semnificative cantitati de bunavointa in a intelege in ce constau ingredientele fizice si metafizice ale artei contemporane, am purces curios sa descopar spatiul patronat de MNAC care readuce viata in ceea ce pana nu demult era un fantomatic imobil al vreunei defuncte institutii de altadata.

Ce ma nedumireste cel mai tare este faptul ca productia plastica contemporana imi declanseaza un set cu totul diferit de receptori si emotii decat o fac tablourile si sculpturile care ocupa legitim rafurile mintii mele alocate “artei”. De aceea mi-am propus sa privesc arta contemporana cu asteptarile de consum al unui fenomen mai degraba de istorie culturala a timpului pe care il taim cu totii decat de creatie plastica propriu zisa. O istorie eminamente subiectiva si incurajata ca atare. Acest filtru pune o oarecare noima in ceea ce vad, ma amuza pe alocuri, ma face sa exclam un infundat “Hm!” cand ceva ma pune pe ganduri – asa, ca o genuflexiune a mintii – dar tot nu-mi poate scutura senzatia de ineluctabila efemeritate. E un fel de arta-ziar. A doua zi totul e ingropat sub alte si alte provocari teribile ale altor “artisti contemporani”. Si mai imi spun ca daca sunt atatea expozitii, muzee, galerii, manufacturieri, teoreticieni si energii consumate in jurul acestor lucruri probabil imi scapa mie ceva din esenta fenomenului. Asa ca raman dispus sa consum in continuare productia plastica a timpului meu. In ultimsa instanta, cine stie cum as fi privit panzele lui Caravaggio daca as fi trait in timpurile lui. Mai departe, textul apartine organizatorilor. Fotografiile sunt realizate de subsemnatul.

Mihai Constantin

E obligatoriu sa avem un titlu

Artisti: Mihut Boscu Kafchin, Andreea Ciobica, Andrei Dinu, Mixer, Daniela Palimariu, Flaviu Rogojan

Perioada: 21 februarie – 7 aprilie 2013

Salonul de proiecte continua seria expozitiilor generate de open-call-ul destinat tinerilor artisti, avand ca scop principal sprijinirea productiei de arta contemporana. Selectia lucrarilor prezentate in acest episod a fost realizata de artistul Ciprian Muresan care isi argumenteaza astfel pozitia:

„Am acceptat – poate mai mult din masochism decat din satisfactia preluarii pozitiei celui care ar decide ceva – invitatia Salonului de proiecte de a selecta cateva propuneri adunate in urma unui open call. Invartindu-ma pe loc eu insumi intr-o mlastina de nesiguranta si cautari, situatia poate parea comica: cum sa aleg eu 6 proiecte din aproximativ 70? Aceste nesigurante nu trebuie privite ca o scuza pentru eventuala receptare proasta a expozitiei, pentru ca starea de indoiala permanenta imi convine personal de minune si imi hraneste „practica artistica”. Ca atare, ar fi nedrept si inutil sa caut, sa inventez o linie sau ceva coerent in alegerile facute. E important de mentionat ca nu am ales lucrari definite, ci propuneri de proiecte care urmau sa fie realizate, in a caror productie nu a trebuit si nici nu am intentionat sa intervin, dar pe care, poate din deformatie profesionala, mi le-am inchipuit asa cum le-as fi realizat eu.

Andreea Ciobica se autoflageleaza prin desen, lucru care nu poate sa nu impresioneze. Grupul Mixer porneste de la un fenomen raspandit printre gospodinele din Romania, acela de a impartasi si copia retete culinare – un fel de open source rezultat din motivatii pe care grupul Mixer le „cerceteaza” in lucrarea lor, adunand un bagaj de documente si marturii pe care le proceseaza prin ilustratii care fetisizeaza „recuzita” acestui fenomen, dar si prin identificarea lor cu „subiectul” (prin scrierea unui propriu caiet de retete). Aceste metode trec dincolo de o „cercetare sociologica” (asa cum ar numi-o marii curatori).

Departe de a-i ajuta pe cei marginalizati – unii din artisti fiind, dimpotriva, chiar privilegiati pe scena artistica (Mihut Boscu Kafchin a fost selectat in Trienala de la Paris, iar Andrei Dinu e un scenograf de succes) – as putea spune ca alegerile au fost facute dupa criterii diferite. Daca la unele lucrari selectia a tinut cont de criterii formale, altele nu au nimic de-a face cu vreo istorie a artei (pe care, oricum, se pare ca nimeni nu o cunoaste prea bine, ceea ce face ca ea sa fie reinventata acum de galeristi, oameni de afaceri colectionari, comunisti, capitalisti, mnaci, erstebanci, reviste de arta – pana si Biserica Ortodoxa are ceva de spus pe acest subiect). Daca lucrarile lui Mihut au batut targurile Europei si poate chiar pe cele americane, Andrei Dinu nu a mai expus ca artist, din cate stiu, decat in cerc restrans. In ambele cazuri m-au atras absurdul si ironia: Dumnezeu reprezentat ca glob de discoteca cu barba de Mos Craciun sau icoana in care pustnicii se uita tamp la niste sandvisuri.

Flaviu Rogojan nu e convins daca e artist sau curator (poate nu e niciuna nici alta), dar am interpretat aceasta ambivalenta ca pe o reactie la valul de pictori care impanzesc strazile Clujului si Fabrica de Pensule. El transforma un spatiu dedicat expozitiei, adica „sfintit”, intr-unul obisnuit, fara vreo functie specifica. Altfel spus, el merge exact impotriva tendintei (de laudat) de a crea cat mai multe spatii de arta si nu vad de ce nu ar avea acest drept. Iar pe cei care nu au chef sa vada expozitia ii invitam sa foloseasca lucrarea Danielei Palimariu, lucrare care s-a vrut a fi functionala, si sper ca ea sa aiba rolul unui spatiu de relaxare si odihna (in unele birouri corporatiste dar si in spatiul expozitiei).

Desi unele lucrari incearca sa evite diverse trenduri si pot aluneca in capcana altora, cred totusi ca ele au in comun incapacitatea de a repeta un exercitiu. Acest fapt, care in gimnastica poate conduce la dezastru, poate fi benefic in campul artei pentru ca ne face sa ne dam seama de imposibilitatea oricarei profesionalizari, a oricarei sigurante date de un statut, titlu onorific, diploma, certificat de autenticitate sau chiar autoconstientizare de sine ca artist.

Dupa toata aceasta experienta am ramas cu cel putin inca o intrebare, care se adauga noianului meu de indoieli: avem oare nevoie de un titlu?”)

______________________________________________________

It’s Compulsory That We Have a Title

Artists: Mihut Boscu Kafchin, Andreea Ciobica, Andrei Dinu, Mixer, Daniela Palimariu, Flaviu Rogojan

February 21st – April 7th, 2013

Opening: Thursday, February 21st, 7 p.m.

Salonul de proiecte continues the series of exhibitions generated by its open call to young artists, a series whose main aim is to support the production of contemporary art. The selection of the works presented in this instalment was made by artist Ciprian Muresan, who lays out the arguments for his position as follows:

“I accepted – perhaps more from masochism than from any satisfaction in taking on the position of the person who has to decide things – the invitation from Salonul de proiecte to select a number of proposals gathered as a result of an open call. The more I got bogged down in uncertainties, the more comical the situation seemed: how was I to choose six projects from around seventy? These uncertainties should not be viewed as an excuse for any eventual poor reception of the exhibition, because the state of constant doubt suits me down to the ground and nourishes my “artistic practice”. As such, it would have been unjust and pointless to seek, to invent, a common line or anything coherent in the choices I made. It’s important I mention that I didn’t choose finished works, but rather proposals for projects that would then be implemented, in whose production I had no business or intention of intervening, but which, perhaps from professional distortion, I pictured in the way I myself would have made them.

Andreea Ciobica flagellates herself through drawing, something that could not fail to impress me. The Mixer group sets out from a widespread phenomenon among Romanian housewives: sharing and copying recipes – a kind of open source resulting from motives that the Mixer group “examine” in their work, gathering documents and testimonies which they process by using illustrations that fetishise the “props” of the phenomenon, as well as by identifying with the “subject” (writing their own recipe notebook). These methods go beyond “sociological research” (as the major curators would call it).

Far from helping the marginalised – some artists are, on the contrary, privileged within the art scene (Mihut Boscu Kafchin has been selected for the Paris Triennial, and Andrei Dinu is a successful stage designer) – I should say that the choices have been made according to different criteria. While in some works the selection took account of formal criteria, others have nothing to do with any history of art (which in any case nobody seems to be very familiar with, and this causes it to be reinvented nowadays by gallery owners, businessmen collectors, communists, capitalists, MNACs, Erstebanks, and art magazines – even the Orthodox Church has something to say on the subject). While the works of Mihut have done the rounds of the European and perhaps even American fairs, Andrei Dinu has, as far as I know, exhibited his art only in small circles. In both cases, what attracted me was the absurdity and the irony: God depicted as a disco glitterball with a Santa beard and an icon in which some hermits are gazing dumbly at some sandwiches.

Flaviu Rogojan is not sure whether he is an artist or a curator (maybe he’s neither the one nor the other), but I interpreted this ambivalence as a reaction to the wave of painters who throng the streets of Cluj and the Paintbrush Factory. He transforms a space dedicated, i.e. “consecrated”, to exhibitions into one that is ordinary and has no particular function. In other words, he is going against precisely the (praiseworthy) tendency to create as many arts spaces as possible, and I don’t see why he shouldn’t have the right to do so. And if you can’t be bothered to see the exhibition, we invite you to use Daniela Palimariu’s work, which is intended to be functional, and I hope that it will play the role of a space for rest and relaxation (in corporatist offices as well as in the exhibition space).

Although some works try to avoid certain trends and may fall into the snares of others, I think that all the same, what they have in common is their inability to repeat an exercise. While this can lead to disaster in gymnastics, in the arts it can be beneficial, because it makes us realise the impossibility of professionalisation, of the certainty lent by status, honorary titles, diplomas, certificates of authenticity, and even the self-awareness of being an artist.

After the whole experience, I was left with at least one more question, which adds to my heap of doubts: do we really need a title?”