izstĀŽu retorika jeb kas veido 90 gadu mĀkslas valodu?

IZST!"U RETORIKA JEB KAS VEIDO 90 GADU M!KSLAS VALODU?

EXHIBITION RHETORIC OR WHAT SHAPES THE ART LANGUAGE OF 1990s?

Solvita Krese

IZST!"U RETORIKA JEB KAS VEIDO 90 GADU M!KSLAS VALODU? | 61

For#my#generation#the nineties aren’t terra incognita, but rather biographic events entwined in

facts and a spirit of the time feeling that has stayed in the memory, reminding us of those rapid changes in daily events and in art processes. Globally this is the period of time between the knocking down of the Berlin Wall, which delineated the end of the Soviet empire, announcing a new cycle of history, and New York’s Twin Towers, destroyed by terrorists, which also brought down the previous “world order”, and warned of inescapable changes.

Robert Fleck, curator of the European Biennale of Contemporary Art Manifesta 2, unified Eastern European art in the nineties under the title “Art after Communism”1. Estonian art critic and curator Ants Juske objected to this, stating that “So-called post-communist art is a myth,” pointing out that radical changes had already taken place in art processes behind the Iron Curtain before the “Fall of the Wall” and for a long time socialist realism hadn’t been the only possible artistic form of expression.2

What was it then that had changed in Latvian 90s art environment? Some of the most important trends should be mentioned in briefly describing the situation. The previous art system changed, new institutions and attitudes emerged. With the collapse of the Soviet era’s finance system, the most important institution up to that time – the Artists Union, lost its influence. In 1993, the Soros Centre for Contemporary Art-Riga (SCCA-Riga) was founded, which for a long time became the only institution, which provided support for the development of contemporary art processes. Private galleries appeared and began their work. A colourful and varied alternative scene and diverse creative initiatives developed (Open, E-LAB, K@2, Noass et al.) New media and technology came into being. Opportunities for

1. Robert Fleck, “Art after Communism?” In: Manifesta 2. European Biennial of Contemporary Art. Luxembourg, 1998, pp. 193–195.

2. Ants Juske, “The Myths and the Realities of Post-Communist Art”. In: Nosy Nineties. Problems, Themes and Meanings in Estonian Art in 1990s. Centre for Contemporary Arts, Estonia, 2001, p.12.

Manai#paaudzei#devi!desmitie nav terra incognita, dr"z#k biogr#fiskos notikumos sapinu$ies fakti

un atmi!# palikusi laika gara saj%ta, kas atg#dina par strauj#m p#rmai!#m ikdienas noris&s un m#kslas procesos. Glob#li $is ir laika nogrieznis starp Berl"nes m%ra nojauk$anu, kas iez"m& padomju imp&rijas galu, pasludinot jaunu v&stures ciklu, un teroristu sagrautajiem 'ujorkas Dv"!u tor!iem, kas ar" izn"cina iepriek$&jo „pasaules k#rt"bu”, br"dina par neizb&gam#m p#rmai!#m.

Eiropas laikmet"g#s m#kslas bienn#les Manifesta 2 kurators Roberts Fleks Austrumeiropas m#kslu devi!desmitajos apvienoja zem nosaukuma „m#ksla p&c komunisma”1. „T# saukt# postkomunisma m#ksla ir m"ts,” vi!am iebilda igau!u m#kslas kriti(is un kurators Ants Juske, nor#dot, ka m#kslas procesos aiz dzelzs priek$kara bija notiku$as radik#las izmai!as jau pirms „m%ra kri$anas” un soci#lais re#lisms sen vairs nav bijusi vien"g# iesp&jam# m#ksliniecisk#s izpausmes forma.2

Kas tad bija main"jies 90. gadu Latvijas m#kslas vid&? Raksturojot situ#ciju "sum#, var min&t da)as b%tisk#k#s tendences. Main"j#s iepriek$&j# m#kslas sist&ma, rad#s jaunas instit%cijas un poz"cijas. Sabr%kot padomju laika finans&$anas sist&mai, ietekmi zaud&ja l"dz tam noz"m"g#k# instit%cija – M#kslinieku savien"ba. 1993. gad# tika dibin#ts Sorosa m%sdienu m#kslas centrs-R"ga (SMMC-R"ga), kas ilgu laiku k*uva par vien"go instit%ciju, kas sniedza atbalstu laikmet"g#s m#kslas procesu att"st"bai. Aktiviz&j#s priv#to galeriju darb"ba. Veidoj#s spilgta un sazarota alternat"v# sc&na, att"st"j#s da)#das rado$as iniciat"vas („Open”, E-LAB, K@2, „Noass” u. c.) Aktualiz&j#s

1. Fleck Robert. Art after Communism? // Manifesta 2. European Biennial of Contemporary Art. Luxembourg, 1998, pp. 193.–195.

2. Juske Ants. The Myths and the Realities of Post-Communist Art // Nosy Nineties. Problems, Themes and Meanings in Estonian Art on 1990s. Center for Contemporary Arts, Estonia, 2001, p.12.

62 | IZST!"U RETORIKA JEB KAS VEIDO 90 GADU M!KSLAS VALODU?

international contacts and all sorts of collaboration opened up. The boundaries of art expanded, the means of expression and messages, as well as the role of the artist changed. Changes in the perception of art works appeared.

As the Director of the Contemporary Art Centre I have often been asked the question: “What is contemporary art?”, to which I have replied, that it’s art, which mirrors and reflects its own time. Art scholar, Stella Pel!e, made the following comment about my statement, “It remains unexplained though, how this reflection’s specifically artistic dimension can be measured and how to evaluate the circumstance, that “one’s time” for many might not mean problems which are common with others who are living in this time”3. Accepting that each individual may have “one’s own time”, one cannot, however, deny the presence of some universal Zeitgeist.

One can accept that the spirit of the time was more brightly reflected in the alternative art scene, which developed from interdisciplinary meshed “mycelium” and was based in the shared initiative of creative people. It is however undeniable that, specifically in the 20th century, “exhibitions have become the medium through which the greatest proportion of art becomes known” and they work as the main communicator as well as participating in the development of the importance of art work.4 Therefore, I will track 90s art processes through exhibitions, rather than through the

3. Stella Pel!e, “Politisk" Rudens ra#a”, Diena, 25. 11. 2008.4. ”Introduction”. In: Ed. Reesa Greenberg , Bruce W. Ferguson, Sandy Nairne,

Thinking About Exhibitions, Routledge, 1996, p. 2.

experience of the media, individual personalities, themes or discourses, within this article.

In Latvia, in the 90s, the formation of several programmatic exhibition trajectories could be observed, which also influenced the further development of Latvian art. Examples of such initiatives were the interdisciplinary events organized by the Open creative group, which took place in empty industrial buildings, clubs, improvised shops, television screens and in public spaces5, falling within the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) definition provided by American anarchistic culture theorist Hakim Bey. Another important initiative was Inga $teimane’s organized projects, which introduced the public to a new generation of artists, beginning with the Culture of Life (1994) exhibition and continuing on at the Slepenais eksperiments club.

However, the most visible 90s programmatic exhibition practice was connected with the work of the SCCA-Riga (1993–2000), which was directed towards the development of innovative art processes. SCCA-Riga appeared from the outside, as a foreign body and at the same time as a “life buoy” in Latvia’s art space, being a part of support programmes for post-Soviet nations

5. Open organized projects: Open (1995), Biosport (1996), Empire of Tenderness (1996), Panorama (1997), Aktuelle Tanzen (1998), Slideshows (2000), T-shroom (2000, in cooperation with Katr%na Neiburga and P&teris 'imelis), Party Animals / Animal Farm (2001), Subversion in the City Space (2001), Communes After Communism (2004, in cooperation with LCCA and European research network Re_public Art). About the Open activities, see also Santa Mazika’s article “The Alternative Scene of Latvian Cultural Institutions in the 90ies” and M"ra Traumane’s article “Contemporary Art: Public Space, Influence of the Media and Communication Strategies in the 1990s” in this collection.

jauno mediju un tehnolo(iju kl"tb)tne. Pav&r"s iesp&jas starptautiskiem kontaktiem un da#"d"m sadarb%bas form"m. Papla!in"j"s m"kslas robe#as, main%j"s izteiksmes l%dzek*i un v&st%jumi, ar% m"kslinieka loma. Notika izmai+as m"kslas darbu uztver&.

K" Laikmet%g"s m"kslas centra vad%t"jai man bie#i uzdots jaut"jums: „Kas tad ir laikmet%g" m"ksla?”, uz ko esmu atbild&jusi, ka t" ir m"ksla, kas atspogu*o un reflekt& savu laiku. „Paliek gan nenoskaidrots, k" izm&r"ma !%s refleksijas specifiski m"ksliniecisk" dimensija un k" v&rt&t apst"kli, ka „savs laiks” daudziem var nenoz%m&t probl&mas, kas kop%gas ar citiem !aj" laik" m%to!ajiem,”3 manu izteikumu koment&jusi m"kslas zin"tniece Stella Pel!e. Pie+emot, ka katram indiv%dam var b)t „savs laiks”, tom&r nevar noliegt k"da univers"la Zeitgeist kl"tb)tni.

Var pie+emt, ka laika gars spilgt"k atspogu*ojas alternat%vaj" m"kslas sc&n", kas att%st%jusies no starpdisciplin"ra t%klota „mic&lija” un balst%ta rado!u cilv&ku kop%g" iniciat%v". Tom&r nenoliedzami 20. gadsimt" tie!i „izst"des ir k*uvu!as par mediju, caur kuru k*)st zin"ma liel"k" da*a m"kslas”, un t"s darbojas k" galvenais komunikators un piedal"s m"kslas darba noz%mes veido!an".4 T"d&* !% raksta ietvaros izseko!u 90. gadu m"kslas procesiem caur izst"#u, nevis mediju, atsevi!,u person%bu, t&mu vai diskursu pieredzi.

3. Pel!e Stella. Politisk" Rudens ra#a // Diena, 2008, 25. okt.4. Introduction // Ed. Reesa Greenberg , Bruce W. Ferguson, Sandy Nairne,

Thinking About Exhibitions, Routledge, 1996, p. 2.

90. gados Latvij" bija v&rojamas vair"kas programmatiskas izst"#u tap!anas trajektorijas, kas iespaidoja ar% t"l"ko Latvijas m"kslas att%st%bu. Viena no !"d"m iniciat%v"m bija rado!"s grupas „Open” organiz&tie starpdisciplin"rie pas"kumi, kas norisin"j"s tuk!"s industri"l"s &k"s, klubos, improviz&t" veikal", telev%zijas ekr"nos un publiskaj" telp"5, iek*aujoties amerik"+u anarhistisk" kult)rteor&ti,a Hakima Beja pied"v"taj" Tempor"ro Autonomo Zonu (TAZ) defin%cij". Cita noz%m%ga iniciat%va bija Ingas $teimanes organiz&tie projekti, kas iepaz%stin"ja skat%t"jus ar jauno m"kslinieku paaudzi, aizs"koties ar izst"di „Dz%ves kult)ra” (1994) un turpinoties klub" „Slepenais eksperiments”.

Tom&r redzam"k" 90.gadu programmatisk" izst"#u prakse saist"s ar SMMC-R%ga darb%bu (1993–2000), kas bija v&rsta uz novatorisku m"kslas procesu att%st%bu. SMMC-R%ga k" sve!,ermenis un vienlaikus „gl"b!anas ri+,is” Latvijas m"kslas telp" par"d%j"s no "rpuses, esot da*a no D#ord#a Sorosa inici&t"s atbalsta programmas postpadomju valst%m. T" k" centra darb%bu tika aicin"ti nodro!in"t viet&jie m"kslas

5. „Open” organiz&tie projekti: “Open” (1995), “Biosports” (1996), “Maiguma imp&rija” (1996), „Panor"ma” (1997), “Aktuelle Tanzen” (1998), “Slaidlugas” (2000), „T&jas s&ne” (2000, sadarb%b" ar Katr%nu Neiburgu un P&teri 'imeli), „Party Animals / Animal Farm” (2001), „Subversija pils&tvid&” (2001), “Kom)nas p&c komunisma“ (2004, sadarb%b" ar LLMC un Eiropas izp&tes t%klu Re_public Art). Par „Open” darb%bu skat. ar% Santas Mazikas rakstu „90. gadu alternat%v" kult)ras organiz"ciju vide Latvij"” un M"ras Traumanes rakstu „Laikmet%g" m"ksla: sabiedrisk" telpa, mediju iespaids un komunik"cijas strat&(ijas 90. gados” !aj" kr"jum".


initiated by George Soros. As local art experts were invited to provide the work of the centre, the new institution quickly fitted into the local art environment and became one of the leading opinion leaders in Latvia’s art space. It is interesting that at that time one of the SCCA-Riga board members, P!teris Bankovskis, in writing about artist Andris Bre"e, expressed this view: “Fundamentally, Andris and his contemporaries (I. Gail#ns, K. $elzis, O. P!tersons, O. Tillbergs, and a few others) are in the same conjuncture strings, as salon-artists, who have to constantly follow the tastes of buyers, which change along with their bathroom furnishings and the vagaries of money hungry armchair producers’ imaginations. It is merely those artists who interest us don’t sell their works to private buyers, but instead their names to the so called contemporary art process. But this process, possibly, is merely a cherished idea of art “scholars” and a justification for existence.”6

The annual SCCA-Riga exhibitions were widely reported in the media and became the art milieu’s most significant yearly events. In attempting to follow their sequence, it is possible to gain an idea about many Latvian art development trends at that time.

The most significant conceptual exhibition forerunners were the Gentle Fluctuations and Latvia – the 20th Century’s Somersault. 1940–1990 exhibitions (both 1990)7. A significant fortuitousness is that the SCCA-Riga annual exhibition

6. P!teris Bankovskis, „Bre"e“, Literat!ra un M"ksla, 11. 12. 1992, p. 5.7. See M. Traumane’s article “Contemporary Art: Public Space, Influence of

the Media and Communication Strategies in the 1990s” and Aiga Dzalbe’s article “In the Shadow Side of Tradition” in this collection.

tradition was begun with Zoom Factor (1994), marking the decade after the legendary exhibition Nature. Environment. Man (1984), which (although it was closed down prematurely due to censorship) is recognized as the turning point in Latvia’s contemporary art development.

We Start to Zoom

Hel!na Demakova wrote the following in the Zoom Factor exhibition catalogue: “The supporters of contemporary art can now heave a sigh or relief: at last it is for granted that at least once a year in Riga there will be a carefully prepared, conceptually well-considered and well-founded wide-scale exhibition, duly documented by a catalogue.”8

The annual exhibitions also promoted the development of the curator’s role. In contrast to the art critic and dealer positions in Latvia, the curator role was quite unclear for a long time. With the SCCA-Riga exhibitions, the curator, from an event producer and organizer, became an exhibition’s joint author and the creator of context. “Zoom Factor completely validated the exhibition curator’s role in local art life. Elsewhere in the world it no longer caused astonishment. We can only wait for when this role is perceived just as naturally here as well.”9

8. Hel!na Demakova, „Trespassers or Some Theoretical Debate and Historic Facts about the Untraditional Art of Latvia”. In: Zoom faktors [catalogue], SCCA-Riga, 1994, p. 9.

9. Inga %teimane, “Zoom faktors = Gulbju ezers?”, Literat!ra un M"ksla, 4. 03. 1994.

pazin!ji, jaun# instit&cija #tri iek'#v#s lok#laj# m#kslas vid! un k'uva par vienu no vado(aj#m viedok'a veidot#j#m Latvijas m#kslas telp#. Interesanti, ka tobr)d viens no SMMC-R)ga valdes locek'iem P!teris Bankovskis, rakstot par m#kslinieku Andri Bre"i, pauda viedokli: „B&t)b# Andris un vi*a laikabiedri (I. Gail#ns, K. $elzis, O. P!tersons, O. Tillbergs, v!l da"i) ir t#d# pat konjukt&ras valgojum#, k# salonm#kslinieki, kam nemit)gi j#seko l)dzi pirc!ju gaumei, kas main#s l)dz ar vannas istabas iek#rtu un atzveltnes kr!slu ra"ot#ju pe'*as k#r#s izdomas l)klo+iem. Vien)gi m&s interes!jo(ie m#kslinieki nep#rdod vis savus darbus priv#tperson#m, bet gan savus v#rdus t. s. laikmet)g#s m#kslas procesam. Bet (is process, iesp!jams, ir tik vien k# m#kslas „zin#tnieku” lolojums un past#v!(anas attaisnojums.”6

SMMC-R)ga gadsk#rt!j#s izst#des tika pla(i atspogu'otas medijos un k'uva par m#kslas vides noz)m)g#kajiem gada notikumiem. M!,inot izsekot to sekvencei, g&stams priek(stats par vair#k#m Latvijas m#kslas att)st)bas tendenc!m tobr)d.

Konceptu#lo izst#"u noz)m)g#k#s priek(teces bija izst#des „Maig#s sv#rst)bas” un „Latvija – 20. gadsimta k&lenis. 1940–1990” (abas 1990)7. Z)m)ga nejau()ba, ka SMMC-R)ga gadsk#rt!jo izst#"u trad)ciju aizs#ka „Zoom faktors” (1994),

6. Bankovskis P. Bre"e //Literat&ra un M#ksla. 1992, 11. dec., 5. lpp.7. Skat. M. Traumanes rakstu „Laikmet)g# m#ksla: sabiedrisk# telpa, mediju

iespaids un komunik#cijas strat!,ijas 90. gados” un A. Dzalbes rakstu „Trad)cijas !nas pus!” (aj# kr#jum#.

iez)m!jot desmitgadi p!c le,end#r#s izst#des „Daba. Vide. Cilv!ks” (1984), kas (lai gan cenz&ras d!' tika sl!gta priek(laic)gi) tiek atz)ta par pagrieziena punktu Latvijas laikmet)g#s m#kslas att)st)b#.

S#kam z$m%t

„Zoom faktora” izst#des katalog# Hel!na Demakova rakst)ja: „Laikmet)g#s m#kslas atbalst)t#ji nu var uzelpot: beidzot R)g# ir garant!ta iesp!ja, ka vismaz reizi gad# notiks r&p)gi sagatavota, konceptu#li p#rdom#ta, nopamatota un katalog# dokument!ta v!rien)ga izst#de.”8

Gadsk#rt!j#s izst#des sekm!ja ar) kuratora lomas att)st)bu. At(-ir)b# no m#kslas kriti-a un d)lera poz)cij#m Latvij# kuratora loma ilgu laiku bijusi visai neskaidra. L)dz ar SMMC-R)ga izst#d!m kurators no pas#kuma producenta un organiz!t#ja k'uva par izst#des l)dzautoru, konteksta rad)t#ju. „„Zoom faktors” piln)gi legaliz!ja izst#"u kuratora lomu viet!j# m#kslas dz)v!. Citur pasaul! tas vairs neizraisa izbr)nu, atliek gaid)t, ka () loma tikpat dabiski tiks uztverta ar) (eit.”9

8. Demakova H. Robe"p#rk#p!ji jeb Da"i teor!tiski p#rspriedumi un v!sturiski fakti par Latvijas netradicion#lo m#kslu // Zoom faktors [katalogs], SMMC-R)ga, 1994, 8. lpp.

9. %teimane I. Zoom faktors = Gulbju ezers? // Literat&ra un M#ksla, 1994, 4. marts.


Following the Soros Foundation’s guidelines about the need for an open and democratic process, exhibition participants were selected in an open competition, which allowed many new and unknown names to appear. Despite the popularity of the SCCA-Riga exhibitions and support in the creation of new art works, such a generally approbated art institution strategy, which promoted a discursive approach in art, was often viewed critically in artists’ circles. For example, Gints Gabr!ns commented: “The idea selection system which characterises the downward trend in art in the nineties and at the beginning of this century, when projects have been especially selected for certain exhibitions and projects have greater opportunities for realisation when they are based on briefly-formulated idea descriptions which fit easy into the concept held by the curator of the exhibition.”10

Zoom Factor took place in the traditional “white cube” setting at the Latvija exhibition hall, where paintings alternated with

10. J!nis Taurens, Gints Gabr!ns. “Studijas bibliot"ka” series. Neputns, 2008, p. 34.

spatial installations. Although ten years had passed since the first most important contemporary art manifestation, Zoom Factor still continued to be engaged in persuading that installation artists and non-traditional media works weren’t “real” art’s exotic spin-o#s.

Using the “zoom factor” term borrowed from the technology sphere, exhibition curator Juris Boiko aspired to gather information about the conditions of zooming, without especially outlining the concept’s theoretical or contextual aspects. “I would come to seriously regret this entire event, if even one of the works had been deliberately adapted to the concept”11, he added.

Exhibition participants developed the poetic metaphor line typical of Latvian art, allowing form to serve as association evoking images, which were brought to life in sculptural creations (Kristaps Gulbis), in clever interactive installations (Kristaps

11. Juris Boiko in discussion with Elita Ansone, “Zoom faktors”, M!ksla, 1994, no. 6, p. 11.

Sekojot Sorosa fonda pamatnost!dn"m par atv"rta un demokr!tiska procesa nepiecie$am%bu, izst!&u dal%bnieki tika izv"l"ti atkl!ta konkursa k!rt%b!, kas '!va par!d%ties daudziem jauniem un nezin!miem v!rdiem. Neraugoties uz SMMC-R%ga izst!&u popularit!ti un atbalstu jaunu m!kslas darbu tap$an!, $!da pasaul" aprob"ta m!kslas instit(ciju strat")ija, kas veicina diskurs%vu pieeju m!ksl!, nereti m!kslinieku vid" tika v"rt"ta kritiski. Piem"ram, Gints Gabr!ns koment"jis: „Ideju atlase instit(ciju un kuratoru vad%b! – sist"ma, kas raksturo m!kslas pagrimumu 90. gados un $% gadsimta s!kum!, kad projekti tiek speci!li izv"l"ti noteikt!m izst!d"m un kad liel!kas iesp"jas ir realiz"t projektus, kam ir viegli formul"jumi, kuratora izst!des koncepcijai atbilsto$s idejas apraksts.”10

„Zoom faktors” notika tradicion!l! „balt! kuba” ietvaros izst!&u z!l" „Latvija”, kur glezniec%ba mij!s ar telpisk!m instal!cij!m. Lai ar% kop$ pirm!s v"rien%g!k!s laikmet%g!s

10. Taurens J. Gints Gabr!ns. S"rija „Studijas bibliot"ka”, Neputns, 2008, 35. lpp.

m!kslas manifest!cijas bija pag!ju$i desmit gadi, „Zoom faktors” joproj!m nodarboj!s ar p!rliecin!$anu, ka instalatoru un citu netradicion!lo mediju darbi nav „%st!s” m!kslas eksotisks blakusprodukts.

Izmantojot no tehnolo)ijas sf"ras aizg(tu terminu „zoom faktors”, izst!des kurators Juris Boiko tiec!s apzin!t tuvin!"an!s nosac#jumus, %pa$i neizv"r$ot koncepcijas teor"tiskos vai kontekstu!los aspektus. „Man n!ktos stipri no&"lot visu $o pas!kumu, ja kaut viens no darbiem b(tu t%$!m piel!gots koncepcijai”11, vi*$ bilda.

Izst!des dal%bnieki att%st%ja Latvijas m!kslai rakstur%go po"tisko metaforu l%niju, 'aujot formai kalpot k! asoci!cijas raiso$iem t"liem, kas iedz%vin!ti skulptur!los veidojumos (Kristaps Gulbis), aspr!t%g!s interakt%v!s instal!cij!s (Kristaps +elzis) vai lakoniskos objektos (Sarm%te M!li*a, Sergejs Davidovs). O'egs Tillbergs turpin!ja darboties ar atrastiem priek$metiem – milz%giem k!postu sk!b"jamiem

11. J. Boiko sarun! ar E. Ansoni. Zoom faktors // M!ksla, 1994, nr. 6., 11. lpp.

O'egs Tillbergs. Gaidot Berl#nes vilcienu. 1994.

O'egs Tillbergs. Waiting For the Berlin Train. 1994.


!elzis) or in laconic objects (Sarm"te M#li$a, Sergejs Davidovs). O%egs Tillbergs continued to work with found objects – huge cabbage fermenting tubs and old railway station information devices, which gained a social commentary role in their new context and conjured up a nostalgic atmosphere with the title Waiting for the Berlin Train. “This poetic base, of itself, provides certain guarantees: a feeling of rhythm, balance and space, and finally a tangible feeling as well. That is, in my view, the fascinating thing about Latvian art,”12 commented the curator.

Vilnis Z#bers, Anita Zabi%evska and Andris Fr"dbergs were able to avoid the Latvian poetic spirit. Combining Sots-art elements with pornographic episodes in a geometric elementary form framework, Z#bers ironized about society’s changing value scale, overall conventions and hypocrisy. Fr"dbergs conceptualized an aspect of communication, o&ering viewers assistance in listening to city noises from a “dog’s perspective” with a telephone located in the exhibition hall. Anita Zabi%evska examined the conditions of perception, using sliding views of landscapes on a number of monitors.

Zoom Factor in the context of Latvian art introduced the conceptually directed exhibition, which was di&erent from the annual Autumn harvest parades and confirmed that “there is a basis for hope, that gradually natural changes will take place in contemporary art, this long rejected enfant terrible and in the exhibition public’s mutual relations.”13

12. Ibid. p. 9.13. Anita Zabi%evska, „M#ksla jau netiek rad"ta m#kslas d'%...” Izgl!t!ba un Kult"ra,

24. 02. 1994, p. 26.

toveriem un veciem dzelzce%a staciju informat"vajiem apar#tiem, kas jaun# kontekst# ieguva soci#la koment#ra slodzi un ar nosaukumu „Berl"nes vilcienu gaidot” uzb(ra nostal)isku atmosf'ru. „[*]is po'tiskais pamats pats par sevi dod zin#mas garantijas: ritma, l"dzsvara un apjoma izj(tu, galu gal# ar" materi#la izj(tu. Tas tad ar" ir, manupr#t, fascin'jo+ais latvie+u m#ksl#,”12 koment'ja kurators.

No latvie+u po'tisk# gara izdev#s izvair"ties Vilnim Z#beram, Anitai Zabi%evskai un Andrim Fr"dbergam. Kombin'jot soc#rta elementus ar pornogr#fisk#m epizod'm )eometrisku pamatformu ietvar#, Z#bers ironiz'ja par sabiedr"bas main"go v'rt"bu skalu, visp#r'j#m konvencij#m un liekul"bu. Fr"dbergs konceptualiz'ja komunik#cijas aspektu, pied#v#jot skat"t#jiem ar izst#,u z#l' izvietotu telefona apar#tu pal"dz"bu ieklaus"ties pils'tas trok+$os no „su$u skatpunkta”. Anita Zabi%evska p't"ja uztveres nosac"jumus, izmantojot vair#kos monitoros sl"do+as ainavas att'lus.

„Zoom faktors” Latvijas m#kslas kontekst# aktualiz'ja konceptu#li virz"tu izst#,u praksi, kas at+-"r#s no ikgad'j#m „Rudens” ra,as par#d'm un apliecin#ja, ka „ir pamats cer"b#m, ka pamaz#m notiks likumsakar"gas p#rmai$as m(sdienu m#ksl#, +" tik ilgi atstumt# enfant terrible un izst#,u publikas savstarp'j#s attiec"b#s.”13

12. Turpat, 9. lpp.13. Zabi%evska A. M#ksla jau netiek rad"ta m#kslas d'%... [pierakst. A. K%avi$a] //

Izgl"t"ba un Kult(ra, 1994, 24. feb. 26. lpp.

Sarm"te M#li$a. Bez nosaukuma. 1994.

Sarm"te M#li$a. Untitled. 1994.

Vilnis Z#bers. Romas ie#em$ana. 1994.

Vilnis Z#bers. Taking Rome. 1994.


State Through the Whole State

The SCCA-Riga’s next exhibition State was in much more wider scope, and in moving outside the traditional exhibition spaces, moved to take over the “whole state”. It was like an art landing in which 35 Latvian artists, in the words of the curator, “had to involve (take over) as widely as possible all possible communication means (press, post, radio, television, telephone and fax connections, computer networks, various playback systems), as well as already existing and real structures covering the state (police, post, railway, polyclinics, libraries, schools, local history museums, etc.).”14

Paradoxically, the exhibition’s curator, Ivars Runkovskis, weaved the socio-political meaning charged State idea into a private mythology pattern, viewing art as a “means of perception and productive activity”, but unfortunately not its connection with the “existence and self-realization conditions and capability of the contemporary individual.”15

Coming out with similar ambitions to those of the almost legendary curator Harald Szeemann, about the exhibition as a Gesamtkunstwerk, Ivars Runkovskis announced the exhibition as “a whole, which has become a conceptual work of art”. Avoiding the “state” concept’s socio-political rhetoric, he aspired to create a poetized metaphor, an examination of the conditions of perception, which, prodding the

14. Ivars Runkovskis, „Valsts”, Diena, 26. 04. 1994.15. I. Runkovskis, „A Fairy Tale”. In: Valsts [catalogue]. SCCA-Riga,1994.

„Valsts” pa visu valsti

Daudz v!rien"g#ka bija SMMC-R"ga n#kam# izst#de „Valsts”, kas, izejot #rpus tradicion#laj#m izst#$u telp#m, tiec#s p#r%emt „visu valsti”. T# l"dzin#j#s m#kslas desantam, kur# 35 Latvijas m#ksliniekiem, kuratora v#rdiem, „maksim#li pla&i vajadz!tu iesaist"t (ie%emt) visus iesp!jamos komunik#ciju l"dzek'us (presi, pastu, radio, telev"ziju, telefona un faksa sakarus, kompj(tert"klus, da$#das reproduc!jo&asa sist!mas), k# ar" jau eso&#s un re#lo valsti apdveso&#s strukt(ras (policija, pasts, dzelzce'&, polikl"nikas, bibliot!kas, skolas, novadp!tniec"bas muzeji, utt.).”14

Paradoks#li, ka izst#des kurators Ivars Runkovskis soci#lpolitisku noz"mju uzl#d!to „Valsts” ideju sav!rpa priv#tas mitolo)ijas mustur#, apl(kojot m#kslu k# „uztveres veidu un produkt"vu darb"bu”, bet diem$!l ne t#s saist"bu ar „m(sdienu indiv"da past#v!&anas un pa&realiz#cijas nosac"jumiem un iesp!j#m.”15

N#kot klaj# ar glu$i vai le)end#rajam kuratoram Haraldam Sc!manam radniec"g#m amb"cij#m par izst#di k# Gesamtkunstwerk, Ivars Runkovskis pieteica izst#di k# „vienu veselu, kas k'uvis par konceptu#lu m#kslas darbu”.

14. Runkovskis I. Valsts // Diena, 1994, 26. apr"lis15. Runkovskis I. Pasaka // Valsts. Katalogs. SMMC-R"ga,1994.

Ieva Iltnere. Materi!lais – imateri!lais. 1994.

Ieva Iltnere. Material – Immaterial. 1994.

J#nis Mitr!vics. Spe"is visai valstij. 1994.

J#nis Mitr!vics. Bacon for All the State. 1994.


boundaries between art and reality, tried to find answers to the question, what is art. “Although, in justifying it, the apolitical nature of the idea was emphasized in the State campaign concept and the later interpretations of critics, I saw in it the most unsparing, most sarcastic political criticism, to which our wise kings of kings must not have been capable of reacting, at a suitable level. This time the era turned out to be a skewed mirror, but the campaign was its living face,” observed art scholar Gundega Rep!e.16

Museums and galleries, the city’s public space, as well as regional culture institutions and libraries became the project venues in Riga. Kristaps "elzis’ work Eco Fence – area, in which natural flora could grow undisturbed for a number of years, served as a reference to “all of the wire fences, which enclose private homes, gardens, fields, etc.”17 Images of Ieva Iltnere’s paintings were projected on the walls at a number of Latvian post o#ces, and could be seen against a background of a dried up bundle of plants at the Arsen!ls exhibition hall. “All bunches of dried grasses are hereby declared to be parallel objects, no matter where they might be, and so are all slide projections in which we see blossoms, grass, trees and all that is alive [..] Idea of the STATE lives in the bunches of dried grasses found in every home”18, declared the exhibition’s curator. J$nis Mitr%vics exhibited

16. Gundega Rep!e, „Laikmet&g$s juto'as un j(tas pret laikmetu”, Labr"t, 7. 12. 1994.

17. I. Runkovskis, „Objects ECO FENCE”. In: Valsts [catalogue]. SCCA-Riga,1994.18. I. Runkovskis, „MATERIAL – IMMATERIAL” In: Valsts [catalogue].

SCCA-Riga,1994.

Bacon For All the State, which spread an alluring smell at all of the central exhibition venues as a symbol of plenty and a guarantee of well-being. Barbara Mui)niece (Gaile) left transparent glazes which corresponded to some ploughed Zemgale field, in the pages of Latvian – Italian dictionaries at five state libraries. At the National Museum of Art’s hall, Anita Zabi*evska transferred the museum’s own map onto a huge carpet. Sandra Krasti'a sent a postcard which she drew herself by post to herself each day. One of the most direct commentaries about the state power’s unstable position and its symbols was created by Oj$rs P%tersons upside down Big Orange Arch of Triumph, which was placed in the Rund$le Palace courtyard. The ironic intonation was supplemented by the Small Transportable Orange Arch of Triumph at the Arsen!ls exhibition hall and The Smallest Orange Arch of Triumph at the Art Museum. Inese P%tersone and Aigars Spar$ns realized the

Izvairoties no „valsts” j%dziena soci$lpolitisk$s retorikas, vi'! tiec$s veidot poetiz%tu metaforu, uztveres nosac&jumu p%t&jumu, kas, uztaustot robe)as starp m$kslu un realit$ti, mekl%ja atbildes uz jaut$jumu, kas tad ir m$ksla. „Kaut ar& akcijas „Valsts” koncept$ un kriti+u v%l$kaj$s interpret$cij$s k$ attaisnojoties tika uzsv%rts idejas apolitiskums, es taj$ ieraudz&ju visnesaudz&g$ko, sarkastisk$ko politisko kritiku, uz kuru m(su viedie +%ni'u +%ni'i laikam nav sp%j&gi atbilst&g$ pak$p% rea,%t. Laikmets !oreiz izr$d&jies greizais spogulis, bet akcija ir t$ dz&v$ seja,” iebilda m$kslas zin$tniece Gundega Rep!e.16

Par projekta norises viet$m k*uva muzeji un galerijas R&g$, pils%tas publisk$ telpa, k$ ar& re,ion$l$s kult(ras instit(cijas un bibliot%kas. Kristapa "el)a darbs „Eko s%ta” – ie)ogota plat&ba, kur$ vair$kus gadus netrauc%ti augt savva*as florai, kalpoja k$ atsauce uz „vis$m stiep*u s%t$m, kuras ie)ogo priv$tm$jas, d$rzus, laukumus, utt.”17 Vair$k$s Latvijas pasta noda*$s uz sienas tika projic%ti Ievas Iltneres gleznu att%li, kas izst$)u z$l% „Arsen$ls” savuk$rt bija redzami uz sa)uvu!u augu sai!+&!u fona. „Par paral%liem objektiem tiek pasludin$ti visi sakaltu!o z$*u k(l&!i, lai kur tie neatrastos, un visi diapozit&vi, kuros redzami ziedi, z$le, koki un viss dz&vais ar&dzan. [..] Ar& ikm$ju sa)uvu!o z$*u k(l&!os ir !& VALSTS

16. Rep!e G. Laikmet&g$s juto'as un j(tas pret laikmetu // Labr&t, 1994, 7. decembris

17. Runkovskis I. Objekti ECO S-TA// Valsts. Katalogs. SMMC-R&ga, 1994.

ideja”18, apgalvoja izst$des kurators. J$nis Mitr%vics izst$d&ja „Spe+i visai valstij”, kas k$ p$rtic&bas simbols un labkl$j&bas garants izplat&ja vilino!u smar)u vis$s centr$laj$s izst$des viet$s. Barbara Mui)niece (Gaile) piec$s valsts bibliot%k$s latvie!u – it$*u v$rdn&cu lappus%s atst$ja caursp&d&gus laz%jumus, kas sasauc$s ar k$du uzartu Zemgales t&rumu. Anita Zabi*evska Valsts M$kslas muzeja hall% uz milz&ga pakl$ja p$rnesa t$ pa!a muzeja karti. Sandra Krasti'a katru dienu sev pa pastu nos(t&ja pa!as z&m%tu pastkarti. Vienu no tie!$kajiem koment$riem par valsts varas nestabilo poz&ciju un t$s simboliem veidoja Oj$ra P%tersona otr$di apv%rst$ „Liel$ oran)$ triumfa arka”, novietota Rund$les pils pagalm$. Ironisko inton$ciju papildin$ja „Maz$ p$rvietojam$ oran)$ triumfa arka” izst$)u z$l% „Arsen$ls” un „Vismaz$k$ oran)$ triumfa arka” m$kslas muzej$. Inese P%tersone un Aigars Spar$ns &stenoja akciju „Skola”, kop$ ar Lieti!+$s m$kslas

18. Runkovskis I. Instal$cija Materi$lais – Imateri$lais // Valsts. Katalogs. SMMC-R&ga,1994.

Oj$rs P%tersons. Maz! p!rvietojam! oran#! triumfa arka. 1994.

Oj$rs P%tersons. Small Transportable Orange Arch of Triumph. 1994.


School campaign, together with the School of Applied Arts students heading to the park, market, exhibition hall, station, theatre and doing various activities there. School wasn’t played out as an element of the technology of state power though. “The project’s most voluminous characterization is its decorativeness in relation to reality, in relation to art, in relation to the STATE,” commented the project’s creators.

The exhibition provoked lively discussions and exchanges of views in the press. The views had to be refuted, for example, that “Soros with his attempts at converting us to contemporary art and a non-traditional world view, threatens Latvian identity.”19 The minister of culture at the time, J!nis Dripe commented on the situation in this way: “The Soros Foundation admittedly works with avant-garde art. If the Ministry of Culture had invested even three lats in the State campaign, I would have had hell to pay from taxpayers.”20

When compared with the Zoom Factor exhibition, State more obviously demonstrated the materialization of the curator’s vision, which mapped out the newly created art work context. “Why is this exhibition even possible? Because there is this SCCA-Riga. To my mind, currently it is the only serious force in Latvia, which promotes contemporary art processes, therefore – thinking processes as well,” summed up Ivars Runkovskis.21

19. Dainis Gr"nvalds, „Da#as piez"mes par latvie$u mentalit!ti”, Izgl!t!ba un Kult"ra, 18. 05. 1995, p. 17.

20. Rimants Ziedonis discussion with LR Minister of Culture J!nis Dripe, “Sak!rtot eso$o, neatteikties no jaun!m idej!m”, Neatkar!g# C!$a, 15. 12. 1994.

21. Ieva Raiskuma’s discussion with Ivars Runkovskis. “Valsts, bru%as un neredzamais”, Labr!t, 7. 11. 1994.

Monuments to Their TimeThe next exhibition, Monument (1995) moved to Riga’s public

space, coming into direct contact with the eventual viewer and causing many situations of conflict, even vandalism against individual works. The invasion of significant sculptural objects in the city environment reminded one of the Munster Sculpture Project, one of the most significant European public art projects at the time. As opposed to State or the Munster Sculpture Project, Monument provided an ideological context, inviting to interpret the monument as a reservoir of meaning, symbol of power or a commentary on the situation.

Exhibition participants were invited to create works in places, where a monument previously stood or was planned. The ideologically charged site mapped out the context, in the development of which, both socio-political actualities, as well as an interpretation of the heritage of the past played a substantial role. In the middle of the nineties the re-evaluation of history was still taking place; a change of value systems and new identity signs and symbols were being sought.

Monument marked out the public dimension as a psychological and less a physical spatial construction, which worked as an ideological, contradictory and fragmentary structure, a politicized unit, which “can’t be separated from its conflicting social relationships, which create a society’s specific historic moments”.22

22. Rosalyn Deutsche, Eviction. Art and Spatial Politics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1996, p. 262.

vidusskolas audz&k%iem dodoties uz parku, tirgu, izst!#u z!li, staciju, te!tri un veicot tur da#!das darb"bas. Skola gan netika izsp&l&ta k! valsts varas tehnolo'iju elements. „Projekta ietilp"g!kais raksturojums ir dekorativit!te attiec"b! pret realit!ti, attiec"b! pret m!kslu, attiec"b! pret VALSTI,” koment&ja projekta veidot!ji.

Izst!de rais"ja spriegas diskusijas un viedok(u apmai%u pres&. N!c!s atsp&kot, piem&ram, viedok(us, ka „Soross ar saviem centieniem piev&rst m)s m)sdienu m!kslai, netradicion!lai pasaules uztverei, apdraud latvie$u identit!ti.”19 Toreiz&jais kult)ras ministrs J!nis Dripe situ!ciju koment&ja $!di: „Sorosa fonds atz"stami str!d! ar avangarda m!kslu. Ja Kult)ras ministrija akcij! „Valsts” b)tu ieguld"jusi kaut vai tr"s latus, es pamat"gi norautos no nodok(u maks!t!jiem.”20

Sal"dzinot ar ”Zoom faktoru” izst!de „Valsts” jau uzskatam!k demonstr&ja kuratora v"zijas materializ!ciju, kas iez"m& jaunrad"to m!kslas darbu kontekstu. „K!p&c visp!r var notikt $" izst!de. T!p&c, ka ir $is SMMC-R"ga. Manupr!t, $obr"d Latvij! tas ir vien"gais nopietnais sp&ks, kas veicina m)sdienu m!kslas norises, t!tad ar" – dom!$anas norises,” rezum&ja Ivars Runkovskis.21

19. Gr"nvalds D. Da#as piez"mes par latvie$u mentalit!ti // Izgl"t"ba un Kult)ra, 1995, 18. maijs, 17.lpp.

20. Rimanta Ziedo%a saruna ar LR kult)ras ministru J!ni Dripi. Sak!rtot eso$o, neatteikties no jaun!m idej!m // Neatkar"g! C"%a, 1994, 15. dec.

21. Ievas Raiskumas saruna ar Ivaru Runkovski. Valsts, bru%as un neredzamais // Labr"t, 1994, 7. nov.

Pieminek#i savam laikam

N!kam! izst!de „Piemineklis” (1995) p!rvietoj!s uz R"gas publisko telpu, non!kot tie$! kontakt! ar eventu!lo skat"t!ju un izraisot vair!kas konflikt&jo$as situ!cijas, ar" vand!lismu pret atsevi$*iem darbiem. V&rien"g! skulptur!lo objektu inv!zija pils&tvid& atg!din!ja Minsteres Skulpt)ru projektu, vienu no noz"m"g!kajiem t!laika Eiropas publisk!s m!kslas projektiem. At$*ir"b! no „Valsts” vai Minsteres Skulpt)ru projekta „Piemineklis” pied!v!ja ideolo'isku kontekstu, aicinot pieminekli tulkot k! noz"mju rezervu!ru, varas simbolu vai situ!cijas koment!ru.

Izst!des dal"bnieki tika aicin!ti veidot darbus viet!s, kur agr!k atradies vai ticis pl!nots piemineklis. Ideolo'iski uzl!d&t! vieta iez"m&ja kontekstu, kura veido$an! b)tiska loma bija gan soci!lpolitiskaj!m aktualit!t&m, gan pag!tnes mantojuma interpret!cijai. Devi%desmito vid) joproj!m norisin!j!s v&stures p!rv&rt&$ana, v&rt"bu sist&mas mai%a un tika mekl&tas jaun!s identit!tes z"mes un simboli.

„Piemineklis” iez"m&ja publisko dimensiju k! psiholo'isku, maz!k fizisku telpas konstrukciju, kas darbojas k! ideolo'iska, pretrun"ga un fragment!ra strukt)ra, politiz&ta vien"ba, kas “nav nodal!ma no t!s konflikt&jo$aj!m soci!laj!m attiec"b!m, kuras


Exhibition curator Hel!na Demakova spoke about the presence of a selective point of view, which stimulates artistic signs in the community space and already gives them content, which could be considered worthy of note. She pointed out, that strict mentioning (remembering) values also fall within the spectrum of community values, collective memories’ pictorial expression, which aren’t archetypal, but rather ideological.23

In Monument, the participation of four artists from abroad, representing nations that have historically a"ected Riga’s destiny (Dimitry Gutov [Russia], Robert Rumas [Poland], Ulf

23. Hel!na Demakova, “’Monument’: The Curator’s View”. In: H. Demakova, Di!erent Conversations. R#ga: Visual Communication Department, 2002, p. 187.

Rollof [Sweden], Ra"ael Rheinsberg [Germany]), alongside the works of Latvian artists, broadened conceptual boundaries in the Riga city environment.

Some of the objects worked as metaphors or symbols, containing messages and meanings which could only be interpreted by those who knew the local situation. In the contextual meanings in many works, it was possible to recognize a critical intonation, which commented on both the political and social processes of the time, as well as looking back on the recent past. Seems, the most striking one which remains in the memory is the tram standing vertically on its end (Gatis Blunavs’ Tram Tree) and the upside down Soviet era MiG-27 fighter plane, in which artist O$egs Tillbegs

veido konkr!tas sabiedr#bas specifiskos v!sturiskos momentus”.22

Izst%des kuratore Hel!na Demakova run%ja par selekt#va skat#juma kl%tb&tni, kas ierosina m%ksliniecisk%s z#mes sabiedrisk% telp% un jau iepriek' pie'(ir t%m saturu, kuru var d!v!t par piemin!'anas v!rt#bu. Vi)a nor%d#ja, ka sabiedrisko v!rt#bu spektr% iek$aujas ar# striktas piemin!'anas (atcer!'an%s) v!rt#bas, kolekt#v%s atmi)as t!lains izpaudums, kas nav arhetipisks, bet gan ideolo*isks.23

22. Deutsche, Rosalyn. Eviction. Art and Spatial Politics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1996, p. 262.

23. Demakova H. Par „Pieminekli”: kuratores skat#jums // Demakova Hel!na. Citas sarunas. LMA Vizu%l%s komunik%cijas noda$a, R#ga, 2002, 186. lpp.

„Pieminekl#” l#dz%s latvie'u m%kslinieku darbiem R#gas pils!tvid! konceptu%l%s robe+as papla'in%ja ,etru %rvalstu m%kslinieku piedal#'an%s, kuri p%rst%v!ja valstis, kas v!stures gait% ietekm!ju'as R#gas likteni (Dmitrijs Gutovs [Krievija], Roberts Rumas [Polija], Ulfs Rolofs [Zviedrija], Rafaels Rainsbergs [V%cija]).

Da$a objektu darboj%s k% metaforas vai simboli, kuros ietvertos v!st#jumus un noz#mes var!ja iztulkot tikai lok%l%s situ%cijas zin%t%ji. Vair%ku darbu kontekstu%laj%s noz#m!s iesp!jams saskat#t kritisku inton%ciju, kas koment!ja gan t% laika politiskos un soci%los procesus, gan atskat#j%s nesen% pag%tn!. K% spilgt%kais, '(iet, atmi)% palicis vertik%li gais% uzslietais tramvajs (Gata Blunava „Tramvajkoks”) un otr%di apgriezt% padomju

O$egs Tillbergs. Kukainis. 1995.

O$egs Tillbergs. Insect. 1995.


had placed a bee hive. Insect (that’s what the work was called) could be interpreted as a metaphor about the breakdown of the Soviet system’s power and the change in the power structure in the post-Soviet period political map. K!rlis Alainis’ Column was situated in the place previously planned for the Victory column opposite the Arsen!ls exhibition hall, manipulating with the inclusion of cultural signs in the new context. The artist, deforming the Ionic column’s proportions, had created a shortened column–barrel version, based on Latvian craft traditions, which transformed the frequently used symbol of power into an ironic commentary about the local power structure’s, at times, groundless ambitions. J!nis Mitr"vics’ work Erect 85 – an inscription which could be read on the Ministry of Agriculture’s high-rise facade and focussed attention on this vertical dominant, which brutally intrudes into the Old Riga silhouette, operated as a response to the

Soviet era’s ill-considered city planning trends. The elevated telephone booth construction created by #riks Bo$is, which repeated the shape of the Riflemen Monument next to it, also allowed itself to be read as an ideologically directed commentary.

Many works (Juris Putr!ms’ Monument to Staburags, Aija Zari%a’s Monument to J!nis Rainis, Dzintars Zilgalvis’ and J!nis B"rze’s L!&pl"sis’ Hat floating in the Daugava) visualized references to Latvian folklore and cultural history, which corresponded with the period of change’s ethnic pathos and searches for national identity.

Except for Andris Fr'dberg’s work Joseph Feeding the Pike Ducks, which was focused on communication, creating a situation and then turning it upside down (he surprised passers-by in a city park with the sudden barking of dogs which then transformed into melodic waltzes), Monument works were

laika izn'cin!t!jlidma('na MiG-27, kur! m!kslinieks O)egs Tillbegs bija iemitin!jis bi(u spietu. „Kukaini” (t!ds bija darba nosaukums) var"ja interpret"t k! metaforu par padomju iek!rtas varen'bas sabrukumu un sp"ka poz'ciju nomai%u p"cpadomju laika politiskaj! kart". K!r)a Alai%a “Kolonna”, novietota k!dreiz"jai Uzvaras kolonnai paredz"t! viet! pretim izst!$u z!lei “Arsen!ls”, manipul"ja ar kult*ras z'mju iek)au(anu jaun! kontekst!. M!kslinieks, deform"jot jonie(u kolonnas proporcijas, bija rad'jis latvie(u amatniec'bas trad'cij!s balst'tu, piezem"tu kolonnas–muci%as variantu, kas bie$i izmantoto varen'bas simbolu p!rv"rta ironisk! koment!r! par viet"jo varas strukt*ru reiz"m nepamatotaj!m amb'cij!m. K! replika par padomju laika nep!rdom!taj!m pils"tpl!no(anas tendenc"m darboj!s J!%a Mitr"vica

darbs “Erect 85” – uzraksts, kas bija las!ms uz Zemkop'bas ministrijas augstceltnes fas!des un piev"rsa uzman'bu (ai vertik!lajai dominantei, kas brut!li iejaucas Vecr'gas siluet!. Ar' #rika Bo$a veidot! paaugstin!to telefona b*du konstrukcija, kas atk!rtoja l'dz!s eso(! Str"lnieku pieminek)a aprises, )!v!s nolas'ties k! ideolo+iski t"m"ts koment!rs.

Vair!ki darbi (Jura Putr!ma “Piemineklis Staburagam”, Aijas Zari%as “Piemineklis J!nim Rainim”, Dzintara Zilgalvja un J!%a B"rzes Daugav! peldo(! L!&pl"(a “Cepure”) vizualiz"ja atsauces uz latvie(u folkloru un kult*ras v"sturi, kas sabalsoj!s ar p!rmai%u laika etnisko patosu un nacion!l!s identit!tes mekl"jumiem.

Iz%emot Andra Fr'dberga darbu „Jozefs baro Paika p'les”, kas bija v"rsts uz komunik!ciju, situ!cijas rad'(anu un

K!rlis Alainis. Kolonna. 1995.

K!rlis Alainis. Column. 1995.


spatial objects. This trend was determined by the project’s conceptual direction, which invited artists to follow the semantics of the monument, which usually asked for a certain aesthetic platform and visualization of an idea. The majority of the art works were linked closely with their spatial context. It was possible to interpret site specifically based works on many levels – as references to the site’s historic meanings, ideological background or a commentary about actual processes. They were characterized by an aesthetic strategy, where the context was included in the art work itself, broadening the context concept itself with the site’s symbolism, social and political meaning and the interpretation of historic conditions as seen by the artist.

Wrestling With the Landscape

The SCCA-Riga exhibition cartography continued to widen – Geo – !eo already taking place outside Riga at the Pedv!le Open Air Museum. Exhibition curator J!nis Borgs recalled, that its proprietor, sculptor Oj!rs Feldbergs had, over a few years, been able to create a new “Barbizon” at Pedv!le, developing “a new trend in our art, which was expressed in an original and immediate artistic activity linked to nature”24.

The exhibition theme seemed quite simple – geometrical in nature, inviting one to follow the tradition of Land art, integrating art work in nature and making the landscape a part of the art work. More than 30 artists worked in the

24. Borgs J. Geo – "eo. Booklet, 1996, SMMC-R#ga, 1996.

apv$r%anu (vi&% pils$tas park! p!rsteidza gar!mg!j$jus ar p$k%&!m su&u rej!m, kas p!rauga melodiskos estr!des val%os), „Pieminek'a” darbi bija telpiski objekti. (o tendenci noteica projekta konceptu!l! ievirze, kas aicin!ja m!ksliniekus sekot pieminek'a semantikai, kas ierasti prasa noteiktu est$tisku platformu un idejas vizualiz!ciju. Liel!k! da'a m!kslas darbu bija cie%i saist#ti ar to telpisko kontekstu. Vietas specifik! (site specific) balst#tos darbus bija iesp$jams interpret$t vair!kos l#me&os – k! atsauces uz vietas v$sturiskaj!m noz#m$m, ideolo)isko fonu vai koment!ru par aktu!laj!m noris$m. Tos raksturoja est$tiska strat$)ija, kur konteksts iek'auts pa%! m!kslas darb!, papla%inot pa%u konteksta j$dzienu ar vietas simbolikas, soci!lo un politisko noz#mju, v$sturisko apst!k'u interpret!ciju m!kslinieka skat#jum!.

C#kst$%an&s ar ainavu

SMMC-R#ga izst!*u kartogr!fija turpin!ja papla%in!ties – „Geo – "eo” jau notika !rpus R#gas, Pedv!les Br#vdabas muzej!. Izst!des kurators J!nis Borgs atsauc!s, ka t!s saimniekam, t$lniekam Oj!ram Feldbergam da*u gadu laik! Pedv!l$ izdevies rad#t jaunu „barbizonu”, att#st#t „jaunu tendenci m+su m!ksl!, kas izpau*as #patn$j! un nepastarpin!t! m!kslinieciskas darb#bas saikn$ ar dabu”24.

Izst!des t$ma bija %,ietami vienk!r%a – )eometrija dab!, kas aicina sekot zemes m!kslas trad#cijai, integr$t m!kslas darbu dab!, padar#t ainavu par m!kslas darba sast!vda'u.

24. Borgs J. Geo – "eo. Buklets, 1996, SMMC-R#ga, 1996.

Dzintars Zilgalvis, J!nis B$rze. Cepure. 1995.

Dzintars Zilgalvis, J!nis B$rze. Hat. 1995.


open air park, using natural materials, as well as “wrestling” with the landscape. Aigars Bik!e exhibited a fragment of a subterranean meadow, J"nis Kup#s grew cabbages, J"nis Mitr$vics made some goslings peck at an IBM sign, Ilm"rs Blumbergs planted birches for a newly created place for rituals. Others, using Land art methods, endeavoured to integrate new “natural forms” into the landscape. Ieva Rubeze created Islands in a small stream which organically blended with the surrounding environment, P$teris Sidars built constructions from little pots of peat and Ieva Iltnere “drew” a mirror Line over the Pedv"le hillocks which reflected and strengthened the landscape. A number of artists intervened in the landscape with geometrized objects. Aigars Zem%tis set up a red cone–like object, which had water pouring over it and the young architect Andris B$rzi&! erected a Time Bridge grid structure. J"nis Borgs remarked that only “the few were able to pass the test with the scale of nature [..] As if the required and measured cubic metres which were

tested inside disappeared in the landscape as if they were nothing.”25

The most monumental work of the exhibition was undoubtedly Aija Zari&a’s The Head of the Holy Virgin, the symbolism of which was concentrated over Pedv"le’s hillock’s and hollows in a ploughed up oval. The work was only really observable and its scale perceivable in photographs, which taken from a helicopter, became the art work’s indirect medium. The American land artist Robert Smithson, in describing his works, used the terms “site” and “non-site” – when a work is transferred from the site where it was created to a neutral place – the gallery environment, and exhibited in a way that it is traditionally accepted for the exhibition of art works. Art critic Craig Owens, in describing Robert Smithson’s versatile practice called it an “allegoric site”, whose discursive site concept di'ered from, for example, his colleague and friend

25. J"nis Borgs, “M"kslas manevri Pedv"les poligon"”, M!ksla, 1996, no. 5, p. 14.

Vair"k k" 30 m"kslinieki darboj"s br%vdabas poligon", gan izmatojot dabas materi"lus, gan „c%noties” ar ainavu. Aigars Bik!e izst"d%ja pazemes p(avas fragmentu, J"nis Kup#s audz$ja k"postus, J"nis Mitr$vics zosl$niem lika izkn"b"t IBM z%mi, Ilm"rs Blumbergs jaunizveidot" ritu"lu viet" st"d%ja b$rzus. Citi, izmantojot zemes m"kslas pa&$mienus, cent"s integr$t ainav" jaunas „dabas formas”. Ieva Rubeze up%tes nog"z$ veidoja „Salas”, kas organiski sapl)da ar apk"rt$jo vidi, P$teris Sidars b)v$ja konstrukcijas no k)dras podi&iem, Ieva Iltnere p"ri Pedv"les pakalniem „novilka” spogu(u „L%niju”, kas atspogu(oja un pastiprin"ja ainavu. Vair"ki m"kslinieki ar *eometriz$tiem objektiem iejauc"s ainaviskaj" vid$. Aigars Zem%tis uzst"d%ja sarkanu konusveida objektu, kam p"ri l%st )dens, jaunais arhitekts Andris B$rzi&! uzsl$ja „Laika tilta” re+*u strukt)ru. J"nis Borgs gan piebilda, ka tikai „retajam izdev"s iztur$t p"rbaud%jumus

ar dabas m$rogiem. [..] It k" telp"s p"rbaud%ti vajadz%gie un v$rien%gie kubikmetri, bet ainav" tie pagaist k" nieki.”25

Monument"l"kais izst"des darbs ne!aub%gi bija Aijas Zari&as „Dievm"tes galva”, kuras simbolisms koncentr$j"s p"ri Pedv"les pakalniem un ieplak"m uzart" ov"l". T" %sti darbs bija apl)kojams un t" m$rogs aptverams tikai fotogr"fij"s, kas, uz&emtas no helipkoptera, k(uva par m"kslas darba pastarpin"to mediju. Savulaik amerik"&u zemes m"kslinieks Roberts Smitsons, raksturojot savus darbus, lietoja terminus „vieta” un „nevieta” – kad darbs no vietas, kur" rad%ts, ticis p"rnests uz neitr"lu telpu – galerijas vidi un ekspon$ts veid", k" tradicion"li pie&emts izst"d%t m"kslas darbus. M"kslas kriti,is Kregs Ovens, raksturojot Roberta Smitsona vispus%go praksi, to sauc par

25. Borgs J. M"kslas manevri Pedv"les poligon" // M"ksla, 1996, nr.5, 14. lpp.

Ieva Rubeze. Salas. 1996.

Ieva Rubeze. Islands. 1996.

P$teris Sidars. 2148. 1996.

P$teris Sidars. 2148. 1996.


Richard Serra’s phenomenological site model, in which the work cannot be separated from its site.26 Serra himself, commented on Smithson’s works, saying, that Spiral Jetty (the most famous of Smithson’s works, which is known to viewers through photographs taken from a plane) can only be reached with the help of representative means, but Serra’s works are perceptible only as phenomenological encounters.27 Barbara Mui!niece’s (Gaile’s) work Geometry of Success… Night Fell Suddenly can also be perceived in a similar way, and was developed as intensive geometric fields of colour, painted into the ruins of an old cowshed. A work, which, not just physically but also intentionally, is

26. Craig Owens, Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power and Culture. University of California Press, 1992, pp. 40–51.

27. Richard Serra, Writings, Interviews. University of Chicago Press, 1994, p. 129

not possible to separate from the environment in which it was created.

Ironic commentaries also appeared. Arm"ns Ozoli#$ invited one to look at the landscape through a little hole, where the curious viewer saw an environment foreign to Pedv%le with palms and a southern beach. &riks Bo!is attached lighting boxes usually used in advertising on the façade of Firkspedv%le Manor, full of pasta, causing one to smirk about the self-su'cient city dweller, who is convinced that milk comes from tetra packs.

Escaping from the city and working in the land art area, new solutions and possibilities were sought outside traditional exhibition spaces. Art works united with the environment of the landscape, and the features of the site – like minimalism and land art – they became a component of the art work.

„alegorisku vietu”, kuras diskurs"vais vietas j(dziens at$)iras no, piem(ram, vi#a kol(*a un drauga Ri+arda Serras fenomenolo*isk% vietas mode,a, kur% darbs nav atdal%ms no t% vietas.26 Pats Serra Smitsona darb"bu koment(jis, sakot, ka „Spir%les mols” (slaven%kais Smitsona darbs, kur$ skat"t%jiem paz"stams p(c fotogr%fij%m, kas uz#emtas no lidma$"nas) sasniedzams ar att(lojo$o l"dzek,u pal"dz"bu, bet pa$a Serras darbi uztverami tikai k% fenomenolo*iska sastap$an%s.27 L"dz"gi var uztvert ar" Barbaras Mui!nieces (Gailes) darbu „Veiksmes *eometrija. Un p(k$#i iest%jas nakts”, kas bija risin%ts k% intens"vi *eometriski kr%sas laukumi, iegleznoti vec%s k-ts drup%s. Darbs, kuru ne

26. Owens, Craig. Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power and culture. University of California Press, 1992, pp. 40–51.

27. Serra, Richard. Writings, Interviews. University of Chicago Press, 1994, p. 129

vien fiziski, bet ar" intencion%li neiesp(jami atraut no t% rad"$anas vides.

Par%d"j%s ar" ironiski koment%ri. Arm"ns Ozoli#$ aicin%ja l-koties uz ainavu caur maz"ti#u caurumi#u, kur zi#k%rais skat"t%js ieraudz"ja Pedv%lei sve$u vidi ar palm%m un dienvidu pludmali. &riks Bo!is pie Firkspedv%les mui!as fas%des bija piestiprin%jis ierasti rekl%m% izmantot%s gaismas kastes, pieb(rtas ar makaroniem, liekot pasm"n(t par pa$pietiekamo pils(tnieku, kur$ p%rliecin%ts, ka piens rodas tetrapak%s.

Aizb(got no pils(tas un darbojoties zemes m%kslas virzien%, tika mekl(ti jauni risin%jumi un iesp(jas %rpus tradicion%laj%m izst%!u telp%m. M%kslas darbi sak,%v%s ar ainavisko vidi, un vietas specifika – l"dz"gi k% minim%lism% un zemes m%ksl% – k,uva par m%ksla darba sast%vda,u.

Arm"ns Ozoli#$. Ainavas kompens!cija. 1996.

Arm"ns Ozoli#$. Compensation for the Landscape. 1996.


Starpdisciplin#r# formula jeb kas kop$gs %e&inam, l$bie'iem un Rainim

Cita veida perspekt!vu iez!m"ja starpdisciplin#rais projekts „Opera” (1997), kura galvenais akcents bija uzvedums „Rolstein on the Beach”, ac!mredzama reference uz Filipa Gl#sa „Einstein on the Beach”. T# autori, multimedi#lais m#kslinieks Hardijs Ledi$% un filozofs Kaspars Rol%teins izmantoja postmodernos kodus, &#v#s apropri#cijai un negaid!tai t"lu sint"zei, apliecinot fran'u kriti(a Nikol# Burjo izmantoto 90. gadu m#kslinieku sal!dzin#jumu ar d!d)ejiem – vi$i m#kslas darbus rada, izmantojot iepriek% rad!tus darbus, tos cit"jot, tulkojot, interpret"jot, koment"jot.

Operas vadmot!vs bija centr"ts uz etnisko identit#ti Latvijai neierastaj# postkoloni#l# diskurs#, v"r%ot uzman!bu uz l!vu, mazas tautas, kas apdz!vo Latvijas teritoriju, izzu%anu. Ieraug#mas bija ar! atsauces uz padomju mantojumu, glob#lo terorismu, ekolo*isko problem#tiku. Operas galvenie varo$i – l!bie%u meitene un Sorosa d"ls, da&a darb!bas notiek Mazirb", l!bie%u ciem# pie Baltijas j+ras, kur ,e$ina ien#k%anu sagaida „Suitu sievas”. Uz Dailes te#tra skatuves darboj#s profesion#li operas dzied#t#ji, popul#r#s m+zikas izpild!t#ji, aktieri un autentisks l!bie%u folkloras ansamblis. Pateicoties publicit#tei un veiksm!gi sav"rptai intrigai, abas operas izr#des bija p#rpild!tas. Lai ar! da&a no profesion#l#s kritikas bija visai skarbi un

opera tika d"v"ta par „kapust$iku”, „l!bie%u hamburgeru”, „provinces ekstr"mismu”, publika to uztv"ra atsauc!gi un jau v"l#k produc"tais operas ieraksts daudz#s m#j#s ar baudu tiek atska$ots joproj#m.

Ar! projekta otr# da&a – izst#de, kur# 24 m#kslinieki reflekt"ja par operas j"dzienu – notika Dailes te#tr!. Taj# tika izmantots aprob"tais pa$"miens atrais!t k#da j"dziena semantisk#s robe)as un &aut izt"lei dreif"t starp da)#du noz!mju un interpret#ciju sal#m, ko kuratore Solvita Krese tiec#s sintez"t kop"j# kontekst#. „Pasaul" arvien maz#k v"rojamas m#kslas darbu skates, kur#s darbi salikti cits citam l!dz#s

Inter-disciplinary Formula or What’s Common to Lenin, the Livs and Rainis

Another type of perspective was given by the Opera (1997) inter-disciplinary project, the main accent of which was the Rolstein on the Beach performance, an obvious reference to Philip Glass’s Einstein on the Beach. Its authors, multimedia artist Hardijs Ledi$% and philosopher Kaspars Rol%teins, used postmodern codes, appropriation and an unexpected synthesis of images, confirming the comparison made by French critic Nicolas Bourriaud between 90s artists and DJ’s – they create art works, using works created previously, citing, translating, interpreting and commenting on them.

The Opera leitmotif was centred on ethnic identity in a postcolonial discourse unusual for Latvia, focusing attention on the disappearance of the Livs, a small nation that live in Latvia’s territory. References could also be seen to the Soviet legacy, global terrorism and ecological problems. The main heroes of the opera were – a Liv girl and Soros’s son, with part of the action taking place in Mazirbe, a Liv village by the Baltic Sea, where Lenin’s arrival is welcomed by the “Suitu sievas” [ethnographic ensemble from Kurzeme]. Professional opera singers, popular music performers, actors and an authentic Liv folklore ensemble performed on the stage of the Daile theatre. Both of the opera performances were packed to the rafters thanks to the publicity and its successfully woven intrigue. Even though part of the professional criticism was rather harsh and the opera was termed a “kapust$iks”

[amateur revue], “a Liv hamburger”, “provincial extremism”, the public received it well and the later produced recording of the opera continued to be played with pleasure in many homes.

The project’s second part – an exhibition, in which 24 artists reflected about the concept of the opera – took place at the Daile theatre, too. The approbated technique of undoing some concept’s semantic boundaries and letting the imagination drift between various islands of meaning and interpretation was used in this, which the curator, Solvita Krese, sought to synthesize into the overall context. “Fewer and fewer shows of art work can be seen in the world in which works are placed next to each other in a way that

Andrejs Kalna's. F.Q.A.D. mister prezident!. 1997.

Andrejs Kalna's. F.Q.A.D. mister president!. 1997.


t!, ka nevienam nav saprotams, kas tie"i kalpojis par to atlases krit#riju. [..] Kurators iez$m# trajektoriju, kur! br$vi un nepiespiesti p!rvietojas m!kslinieks.”28

Izst!des koptoni iekr!soja gigantiska d$vas kleita (Fran%eska Kirke) un galvaskausa makets pie te!tra ieejas (Arm$ns Ozoli&"), fotogr!fiju cikls ar popul!ru operu si'etu interpret!cij!m („LN Sievie"u l$ga”), Latvijas Nacion!l!s operas skatuves att#la projekcija uz Dailes te!tra z!les priek"kara, nor!dot uz muzik!li dramatiska uzveduma patosu un pompozit!ti (J!nis Mitr#vics). Ar$ vari!cijas par darba t#mu, k! M!rti&a Ratnika piktogramma uz te!tra jumta terases, vai uz kapit!lisma kritikas pusi raid$t! Andreja Kalna%a intervence te!tra tualet#s, kur D'uzepes Verdi „Vergu kora” un "!viena trok"&u pavad$jum! var#ja las$t ar$ k!du no Marksa izteikumiem. Atsaucoties uz opernamu trad$ciju ziedot!ju v!rdus iegrav#t operas kr#slos, O(egs Tillbergs no akmens pirts soliem, kuros iestr!d!ti paz$stam!ko Latvijas m!kslinieku v!rdi, veidoja savdab$gu piemi&as galeriju.

Citu noz$mju tulkojumu izv#l#j!s )riks Bo'is, izst!dot operat$vo transportu. Te!tra foaj# glu'i k! autosalon! bija v#rojamas re!las !tr!s pal$dz$bas un policijas automa"$nas. L$dz$gam interpret!cijas pavedienam sekoja Kirils Pante(ejevs, pied!v!jot iel*koties „opera” (operat$v! darbinieka) kofer$. Aicinot aizpild$t anketu, kas skat$t!jiem (auj prognoz#t savu

28. Margaritas Ziedas saruna ar Solvitu Kresi. Septembra Opera // Literat*ra. M!ksla. M#s, 1997, 28. aug. – 4. sept., 14. lpp.

no-one understands what has directly served as the selection criteria. [..] The curator marks the trajectory, in which the artist moves freely and without constraint.”28

The exhibition’s overall tone was coloured by a gigantic gown of diva (Fran%eska Kirke) and a skull by the theatre entrance (Arm$ns Ozoli&"), a photographic series with interpretations of popular opera plots (LN Women’s League), a projection of the Latvian National Opera’s stage on the curtain of the Daile theatre hall, drawing attention to the pathos and pomposity of the musically dramatic production (J!nis Mitr#vics). Variations about the theme of the work, too, like M!rti&" Ratniks’ pictogram on the theatre’s roof terrace, or Andrejs Kalna%s’ intervention in the theatre toilets directed at a criticism of capitalism, where accompanied by the sound of shooting and of Giuseppe Verdi’s Slaves Chorus one could read one of Marx’s propositions. Alluding to the Opera’s tradition of engraving the names of benefactors on the opera’s chairs, O(egs Tillbergs created a peculiar remembrance gallery from stone sauna benches, on which the names of the most well known artists in Latvia were engraved.

)riks Bo'is chose a di+erent version of meaning, exhibiting operative transport. One could see real ambulances and police cars in the foyer of the theatre just like in a vehicle showroom. Kirils Pante(ejevs followed a similar thread of interpretation, o+ering a look into the “opera” (operative employees’) suitcases. Inviting the viewers to

28. Margarita Zieda’s discussion with Solvita Krese, “Septembra Opera”, Literat!ra. M"ksla. M#s, 28. 08. – 4. 09. 1997, p. 14.

M!rti&" Ratniks. Transplantators. 1997.

M!rti&" Ratniks. Transplantator. 1997.

O(egs Tillbergs. Starpbr$dis. 1997.

O(egs Tillbergs. Interval. 1997.

Kirils Pante(ejevs. Opera kofer$tis. 1997.

Kirils Pante(ejevs. Opera Suitcase. 1997.


fill in a form which would let them predict their behaviour in an extraordinary situation, Gints Gabr!ns with his Stairway to Heaven work continued his relationship with a work sequence based in aesthetics, in which the active participation of the viewer was expected.

Ieva Rubeze’s work however turned out to be the most popular, providing the project with an unexpected wave of publicity. Actor "ris Rozent!ls brutally tore o# a red plush fabric, in which the artist had wrapped a bust of Rainis created by sculptor K!rlis Zemdega, accusing the artist of profaning the genius. An intensive polemic began in the media about the boundaries of art, freedom of expression and the possibilities of interpretation.

The Opera project moved away from the traditional exhibition format, allocating the main position to stage performance as well as trying to adapt the specific character of art exhibitions to an unusual space, which di#ered essentially from the neutral “white cube”, where the art work is isolated from the surrounding environment.

Diagnosis – Virus

The last of the SCCA-Riga annual exhibitions Ventspils. Transit. Terminal took place in 1999 in Ventspils. A year earlier an unusual art propaganda-train with an exhibition set up in the baggage wagon headed to Ventspils, later arriving at the Ventspils Museum and introducing the artist’s ideas to inhabitants and guests of Ventspils, and also inviting them to

uzved$bu visai neordin!r! situ!cij!, Gints Gabr!ns ar darbu „K!pnes debes$s” turpin!ja attiec$bu est%tik! balst$tu darbu sekvenci, kur! no skat$t!ja tika sagaid$ta akt$va l$dzdal$ba.

Popul!r!kais tom%r izr!d$j!s Ievas Rubezes darbs, kas sag!d!ja projektam negaid$tu publicit!tes vilni. Sarkan! pl$&a audumu, kur! m!ksliniece bija ietinusi t%lnieka K!r'a Zemdegas veidoto Rai(a bisti, brut!li nopl%sa aktieris "ris Rozent!ls, apvainojot m!kslinieci )%nija zaimo&an!. Medijos aizs!k!s intens$va polemika par m!kslas robe*!m, v!rda br$v$bu un interpret!cijas iesp%j!m.

Projekts „Opera” att!lin!j!s no tradicion!l! izst!*u form!ta, galveno vietu ier!dot skatuves performancei, k! ar$ m%)inot adapt%t m!kslas izst!des specifikai neierastu telpu, kas b+tiski at&,$r!s no neitr!l! „balt! kuba”, kur! m!kslas darbs ir izol%ts no apk!rt%j!s vides.

Diagnoze – v#russ

P%d%j! no SMMC-R$ga gadsk!rt%j!m izst!d%m “Ventspils. Tranz$ts. Termin!ls” 1999. gad! notika Ventspil$. Gadu iepriek& uz Ventspili dev!s $pa&s m!kslas a)itvilciens ar bag!*as vagon! iek!rtotu izst!di, kura v%l!k non!ca Ventspils muzej!, iepaz$stinot ar m!kslinieku idej!m Ventspils iedz$vot!jus un viesus, un aicinot izteikt viedokli par t!m. Augsnes sagatavo&anu veica ar$ starptautiska

K!r'a Zemdegas skulpt+ra Rainis un Ievas Rubezes darbs 132 p%c Dailes te!tra aktiera "ra Rozent!la iejauk&an!s. 1997.

K!rlis Zemdega’s sculpture Rainis and Ieva Rubeze’s work 132 after intervention by Daile Theater actor "ris Rozent!ls. 1997.


konference par m!kslu publiskaj! telp!. P"c gada ar pils"tas atbalstu tika #stenoti 17 Latvijas un !rvalstu m!kslinieku darbi.

M"$inot savienot lokalit!ti ar glob!lajiem m!kslas str!vojumiem un viet"j! vid" ied"st#t jaunus „m!kslas asnus”, izst!d" “Ventspils. Tranz#ts. Termin!ls” tika pieteikta „jaun! %anra publisk! m!ksla”. Pasaul" &!da veida m!kslas norises aktualiz"j!s 80. gados un apz#m"ja m!kslas strat"$iju, kas “nebalst!s materi!la, telpas vai m!ksliniecisk! medija tipolo$ij!, bet dr#z!k auditorijas, savstarp"jas komunik!cijas un politisk!s intences koncept!.”29 M!kslas darba noz#mes centrs p!rvietoj!s no objekta uz jauna veida pieredzi, ko tas provoc", un dialogs starp skat#t!ju un m!kslinieku ieguva m!kslas darba statusu.

Ventspil# izst!des kuratori Kristaps 'elzis un Solvita Krese aicin!ja m!ksliniekus sekot “v#rusa” koncepcijai, ar saviem darbiem veicot &(ietami neman!mas intervences Ventspils pils"tvid". „M!kslinieku darbi “infic"ja” pils"tu, )aujot pils"tas iedz#vot!jiem nojaust, ka kaut kas nav #sti k!rt#b!, bet &o darbu neoblig!tums un pietuvin!t#ba realit!tei skat#t!jam )!va vai nu nepaman#t m!kslinieka v"st#jumu, vai ar# identific"t uztvert!s sav!d#bas c"loni.”30

29. Lacy, Suzanne. Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Pubic Art. Washington, Bay Press, 1995, p. 28.

30. Krese, S. Paral"l!s realit!tes v#russ // [katalogs] „Ventspils. Tranz#ts. Termin!ls”. SMMC-R#ga , 2000.

Liel!k! da)a darbu iek)!v!s projekta koncepcij! iez#m"taj! “v#rusu” kategorij! un provoc"ja publikas iesaist#&anos, radot gan paredzamas, gan neprognoz"jamas situ!cijas. Monika Pormale izveidoja telekartes ar savu portretu un plak!tus ar izst!des dal#bnieku att"liem, kas nomain#ja “Lattelekom” standarta rekl!mas publisko telefonu kab#n"s. Telefona lietot!ju samulsin!&ana bija pl!nota m!kslinieces darba sast!vda)a, pie)aujot, ka da)a publikas &o „triku” pat nepaman#s. P!rsteigumu ventspilniekiem sag!d!ja ar# Anitas Zabi)evskas “Ce)ot!ja pastkartes”, kuras tie atrada sav!s pastkast"s. Turpinot str!d!t ar ainavu, m!ksliniece aicin!ja ventspilniekus l#dzdarboties, katram pa&am izv"l"ties un izkadr"t k!du savas apk!rt"j!s vides fragmentu, t!d"j!di m"$inot paskat#ties uz ierasto vidi no jauna skatpunkta. Papildinot tradicion!l!s informat#v!s z#mes Statoil degvielas uzpildes stacij!s, Ilva K)avi*a veidoja instal!ciju “Gaiss +dens Zeme Uguns”,

express an opinion about them. An international conference about art in the public space also broke the ground for this. A year later, 17 works by Latvian and foreign artists were created with the city’s support.

“The new genre public art” was announced at the Ventspils. Transit. Terminal exhibition, in an attempt to combine the locality with global art trends and to plant new “art shoots” in the local environment. Around the world, these kinds of art processes appeared in the 80’s and marked an art strategy, which “is not based in material, space or artistic media typology, but more in the audience’s mutual communication and political intention concept.”29 The centre of meaning of the art work moved from the object to a new form of experience, which it provoked, and the dialogue between the viewer and artist gained the status of an art work.

In Ventspils, exhibition curators Kristaps 'elzis and Solvita Krese invited artists to follow the “virus” concept, making seemingly unnoticeable interventions in the Ventspils city environment with their works. “The artists’ works “infected” the city, allowing the city’s inhabitants to suspect that something wasn’t quite right, but the non-obliging nature of these works and their closeness to reality allowed the viewer either not to notice the artist’s message, or to identify the cause of the perceived strangeness.”30

29. Suzanne Lacy, Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Washington, Bay Press, 1995, p. 28.

30. S. Krese, “Paral"l!s realit!tes v#russ”. In: Ventspils. Tranz!ts. Termin"ls [catalogue], SCCA-Riga, 2000.

The majority of the works fitted in with the project concept’s distinct “virus” category and provoked the public’s involvement, creating both predictable, as well as unpredictable situations. Monika Pormale created phone cards with her portrait and posters with exhibition participants’ portraits, which replaced the Lattelekom standard advertisements in public telephone booths. Confusing telephone users was planned as part of the artist’s work, conceding that some of the public wouldn’t even notice this “trick”. Anita Zabi)evska’s Traveller’s Postcards, also provided a surprise for the people of Ventspils when they found them in their post boxes. In continuing work with the landscape, the artist invited Ventspils residents to join in, with each one selecting and photographing a fragment of their surrounding environment, in this way trying to look at their usual environment from a new angle. Supplementing the

Monika Pormale. Bezga#as l!nija. L!nija aiz$emta! 1999

Monika Pormale. No Meatline. Line Is Engaged! 1999.


kuras b!tisk"k" sast"vda#a bija apmekl$t"ju reakcija uz neordin"ro situ"ciju.

Par lok"l"m socializ"cijas viet"m k#uva Inetas Sipunovas un Daces D%eri&as darbi. Vair"kus m$ne'us I. Sipunova tik"s ar jaun" blokm"ju rajona iedz(vot"jiem, un '(s tik'an"s rezult$j"s “Galerij" “Kaimi&i””, kas katru vakaru pulcin"ja viet$jos iedz(vot"jus, kuri ne vien apsprieda viet$jos jaunumus, bet ar( koment$ja m"kslas darbu. Uz jauncelt&u sien"m projic$t"s lielizm$ra vecmeistaru gleznu reprodukcijas nomain(ja mikrorajona iedz(vot"ju fotogr"fijas, kur"s meistar(gi piemekl$tie tip"%i poz$ja l(dz(gi gleznu person"%iem. Daces D%eri&as interakt(v" instal"cija “Stabilit"te”, kas bija iecer$ta k" metafora par dz(ves situ"cij"m, kad “pamats z!d zem k"j"m”, k#uva par popul"ru b$rnu atrakciju un vec"ku pulc$'an"s vietu.

Lok"l"s vides materi"lu un vietas specifiku savos darbos tiec"s integr$t liela da#a m"kslinieku. Hardijs Ledi&' no pils$tas trok'&iem rad(ja unik"lu ska&u ainavu, Arm(ns Ozoli&' pils$tas muzeja arh(vos atrastu fotogr"fiju p"rv$rta op"rtisk" moza(k", par ekspon$'anas virsmu izmantojot promen"des segumu. R!p$joties par cilv$ku gl"b'anu gan tie'", gan metafizisk" noz(m$ Andrejs Kalna)s krastmal" uzst"d(ja gl"b'anas ri&*us. Modris Sapuns rekl"mas stendu, kas sagaida brauco'"s ma'(nas pie pils$tas robe%as, p"rv$rta savdab(g" pils$tas viz(tkart$, piepildot to ar naivisma gar" tapu'aj"m glezn"m. Sapinot viet$jo atmosf$ru ar univers"l"m kategorij"m, a%!ras konstrukcijas–pieminek#us rad(ja Leonards Laganovskis.

Lok"l"s sabiedr(bas problem"tikai tie'"k piev$rs"s "rvalstu m"kslinieki – tiekoties ar da%"diem sabiedr(bas

traditional informative signs at Statoil fuel service stations, Ilva K#avi&a created the Air Water Earth Fire installation, the most important part of which was the visitor’s reaction to an extraordinary situation.

Ineta Sipunova’s and Dace D%eri&a’s works became local socializing spots. I. Sipunova met with the residents of new high rise suburbs for a number of months and these meetings resulted in the “Neighbours” Gallery, where local residents met each evening, not only talking over local issues, but also commenting on the art work. Very large reproductions of paintings by the old masters were projected onto the newly built walls, alternating with photographs of the local suburb’s residents, in which the masterfully selected person-types posed in a similar way to the personalities in the paintings. Dace D%eri&a’s interactive installation Stability, which was

intended as a metaphor about life’s situations, when “the ground under your feet gives way”, became a popular children’s attraction and a place for the parents to meet up.

A large number of artists strived to integrate material and specific features from the local environment into their works. Hardijs Ledi&' created a unique sound landscape from the city’s noises, while Arm(ns Ozoli&' converted a photograph he found in the city’s museum archive into an op art mosaic, using the promenade’s surface as the demonstration’s surface. In caring for people’s safety, both in a direct as well as a metaphysical way, Andrejs Kalna)s set up life buoys on the quay. Modris Sapuns transformed an advertising stand, which greeted drivers in their cars at the city’s borders, into an original city business card, supplementing it with paintings which were done in a naïve style. Intertwining the local

Ilva K#avi&a. Gaiss !dens Zeme Uguns. 1999.

Ilva K#avi&a. Air Water Earth Fire. 1999.


p!rst!vjiem un iez"m#jot pils#tas n!kotnes v"ziju („Superflex”, D!nija), r"kojot bezmaksas brokastis un uzklausot viet#jo iedz"vot!ju st!stus un koment!rus (Minna Heikinaho, Somija), rosinot sadarb"bu ar viet#j!s bibliot#kas apmekl#t!jiem (Magnuss Berto$s, Zviedrija).

Izpalika gan „jaun! %anra publiskai m!kslai” aktu!l! politisk! un soci!l! intence – pasaul# $!da veida rado$!s aktivit!tes visbie%!k sak&ojas k!das sabiedr"bas grupas v#lm# vai

nepiecie$am"b! p#c redzamas reprezent!cijas, kurai m!ksla var kalpot k! noz"m"gs l"dzeklis. Institucion!li projekti, kas izv#las $!da veida strat#'iju, bie%i vien att"st!s jaunas formas mekl#jumu virzien!, ko m#dz papildin!t projekta kontekst! iek(auts koncepts vai koment!rs par lok!lo situ!ciju. )!di projekti, kas p!rst!v k!das soci!l!s grupas poz"ciju vai tiecas k(*t par lok!l!s problem!tikas ruporiem, nereti ir sa&#mu$i kritisku v#rt#jumu. M!kslinieki, k! raksta m!kslas zin!tniece Mivona Kvona, bie%i k(*st par m!kslas sist#mas „deleg!tiem”, kas k! eksperti „nolai%as” no !rpasaules, lai medit#tu starp soci!lo grupu ikdienas gait!m un m!kslu.31 Var atsaukties uz kritiz#to $veicie$u m!kslinieka Tomasa Hir$horna „Bataija pieminekli” (2002), kas kop! ar viet#jiem iedz"vot!jiem tika rad"ts imigrantu rajon! Kasel# Documenta 11 laik!, kur s!kotn#ji veiksm"gi iecer#t! iniciat"va non!ca apv#rst! situ!cij!, liekot viet#jiem iedz"vot!jiem sajusties manipul#tiem, bet Hir$hornam atrun!ties, ka „vi&$ nav nek!ds soci!lais darbinieks, bet m!kslinieks”.32

Projekt! „Ventspils. Tranz"ts. Termin!ls” m!kslinieki cent!s veidot tie$! vai netie$! interaktivit!t# balst"tus darbus, instal!cija vai darba telpiskums darboj!s k! tikai viena no sast!vda(!m un skat"t!ju reakcija k(uva par b*tisku darba

31. Kwon, Miwon. One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity, MIT Press, 2002, p. 139.

32. Claire Doherty. From Studio to Situations: Contemporary Art and the Question of Context, Black Dog Publishing, 2004, p.137.

atmosphere with universal categories, Leonards Laganosvkis created open-work constructions–monuments.

The foreign artists focussed more closely on the local community’s problems – meeting with various community representatives and mapping out the city’s vision of the future (Superflex, Denmark), organizing free breakfasts and listening to the stories and comments of local residents (Minna Heikinaho, Finland) as well as promoting cooperation with the local library’s patrons (Magnus Bartas, Sweden).

The current political and social intention of “the new genre public art” seemed not to be there – in the rest of the world these types of creative activities are most often rooted in some community group’s desire or need for visible representation, for which art can serve as an important means. Institutional projects, which choose this type of strategy, often develop in the direction of a search for a new form, which can be added to by a concept or commentary about a local situation included within the project context. Such projects, which represent some social group’s position or strive to become the mouthpieces for a local problem, have often been subject to critical assessment. Artists, as art scholar Miwon Kwon writes, often become an art system’s “delegates”, who as experts “ascend” from the outside world, to mediate between the everyday life of the social group and art.31 One could refer to the criticized Swiss artist Thomas Hirschhorn’s Bataille Monument (2002), which was created jointly with the local inhabitants in an immigrant suburb in Kassel during Documenta 11, where the initially successfully planned initiative descended into the reverse situation, making the local inhabitants feel manipulated, but Hirschhorn to make the excuse that “he is no social worker, just an artist”.32

In the Ventspils. Transit. Terminal project, the artists tried to create works based in direct or indirect interactivity, the installation

31. Miwon Kwon, One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity, MIT Press, 2002, p. 139.

32. Claire Doherty. From Studio to Situations: Contemporary Art and the Question of Context, Black Dog Publishing, 2004, p. 137.

Modris Sapuns. Bez nosaukuma. 1999.

Modris Sapuns. Untitled. 1999.

Andrejs Kalna+s. Gl!b"anas ri#$i. 1999.

Andrejs Kalna+s. Life Belts. 1999.


or works’ roominess worked only as a component and the viewer’s reaction became an essential component of the work. Marking the art work’s load transfer from the object to the creation of the situation, the artists in their own way continued the Situationist tradition, which anticipated the creation of an unexpected situation in an environment that is familiar, as well as tending to use strategies based in relational aesthetics, which are described in the practice of art, the exit point of which is human relationships and their social context.

Mental Exercises and the Testing of Boundaries

Following the SCCA-Riga exhibitions in chronological order, one can get a kind of cross-section of Latvian contemporary art, the coordinate system of which was created by time and space, namely, the 90s in a former republic of the Soviet state. Here one can refer to Hardijs Ledi!" reflection about “the spirit of the time and the atmosphere of the place”: “The spirit of the time and the atmosphere of the place are mutually connected values. Their interplay could be compared with the workings of a panorama potentiometer. Turning it in one direction, the spirit of the time’s specific weight increases and the presence of the atmosphere decreases; turning it in the other direction, the opposite process takes place. However, the complete exclusion of one

factor is not possible – we can’t exist only in a place without a time or in the reverse.”33

SCCA-Riga with the assistance of its annual exhibition had attempted to explore possible territories of art expression and their boundaries, living through the phenomena which had already been approbated in the West in a tight time frame. If the so-called “tresspassers” who tended to cross the boundaries of accepted forms and messages, as well as enthusiastically using opportunities to cross over the Soviet state’s borders, were the avant-garde in Latvia at the end of the 80s, then the problems of the 90s were illustrated by various side movements, which moved back and forth, exploring the reachable perimeter – media field investigations alternating with life style experiments, exercises of perception supplementing biographic projects, the institutional platform meeting up with the alternative scene.

SCCA-Riga exhibitions continued to seek new locations, attempting to get the city environment used to art, to get spaces, which were not traditionally meant for the creation of exhibitions, and heading outside the geographic epicentre of culture. This strategy can also be viewed as a focused escape from the “white cube”, which Irish artist Brian O’Doherty has called the art cemetery and written about it in this way: “The outside world must not come in, so windows are usually sealed o#. Walls are painted white. The ceiling becomes source for light. Art is free, as saying used to go, “to take its own life”. [..] Art works are untouched by the

33. Hardijs Ledi!", „Laika gars un vietas atmosf$ra”. In: Riga – Lettische Avantgarde [catalogue], NGBK, 1989, p. 79.

komponenti. Iez%m$jot m&kslas darba smaguma centra p&rvieto"anos no objekta uz situ&ciju rad%"anu, m&kslinieki sav& veid& turpin&ja situacionistu trad%ciju, kas paredz$ja negaid%tu situ&ciju rad%"anu ierast& vid$, k& ar% tiec&s izmantot attiec%bu est$tik& balst%tas strat$'ijas, ko raksturo m&kslas prakse, kuras izejas punkts ir cilv$cisk&s attiec%bas un to soci&lais konteksts.

Dom#$anas vingrin#jumi un robe%u test&$ana

Izsekojot SMMC-R%ga izst&d$m hronolo'isk& sec%b&, ieg(stams sava veida Latvijas laikmet%g&s m&kslas ")$rsgriezums, kura koordin&tu sist$mu veido laiks un vieta, proti, 90. gadi biju"aj& padomju lielvalsts republik&. Te var atsaukties uz Hardija Ledi!a apceri par „laika garu un vietas atmosf$ru”: „Laika gars un vietas atmosf$ra ir savstarp$ji saist%tas v$rt%bas. To mijiedarb%bu var$tu sal%dzin&t ar panor&mas potenciometra darb%bu. Grie*ot to vien& virzien&, laika gara %patsvars pieaug un atmosf$ras kl&tb(tne samazin&s, grie*ot otr& virzien&, notiek pret$js process. Tom$r piln%ga viena faktora izsl$g"ana ar% nav iesp$jams – m$s nevaram eksist$t tikai viet& bez laika vai otr&di.”33

33. Ledi!" H. Laika gars un vietas atmosf$ra // R%ga – latvie"u avangards. Katalogs. NGBK, 1989, 79. lpp.

SMMC-R%ga ar gadsk&rt$jo izst&*u pal%dz%bu bija m$'in&jis iztaust%t iesp$jam&s m&kslas izpausmes teritorijas un to robe*as, bl%v& laika nogriezn% izdz%vojot Rietumos jau iepriek" aprob$tas par&d%bas. Ja Latvij& 80. gadu beigu avangardu iez%m$ t& d$v$tie „robe*p&rk&p$ji”, kuri tiec&s p&rk&pt akcept$t&s formas un v$st%juma robe*as, k& ar% entuziastiski izmantoja iesp$jas doties p&ri padomju valsts robe*&m, tad 90. gadu problem&tiku ilustr$ da*&das s&!u kust%bas, kas virz&s turp un atpaka+, iztaustot aizsniedzamo perimetru – mediju lauka p$t%jumi mijas ar dz%ves stila eksperimentiem, uztveres vingrin&jumi papildina biogr&fiskus projektus, institucion&l& platforma satiekas ar alternat%vo sc$nu.

SMMC-R%ga izst&des mekl$ja arvien jaunas lok&cijas, m$'inot pieradin&t pie m&kslas pils$tvidi, apg(t telpas, kas tradicion&li nav paredz$tas izst&*u veido"anai, dodoties &rpus 'eogr&fisk& kult(ras epicentra. To strat$'iju var apl(kot ar% k& m$r)tiec%gu b$g"anu no „balt& kuba”, kuru %ru m&kslinieks Braiens O’Dohertijs nod$v$jis par m&kslas kaps$tu un aprakst%jis "&di: „,rpasaule tur nedr%kst ien&k iek"&, t&p$c logi parasti ir aizzie'el$ti. Sienas ir nokr&sotas baltas. Griesti ir k+uvu"i par gaismas avotu. M&ksla ir br%va, k& m$dz sac%t, „dz%vot savu dz%vi”. [..] M&kslas darbi ir laika un dz%ves nepast&v%bas neskarti. [..] -% %pa"i atdal%t& un izol$t& vieta k+(st par nevietu, kur& apk&rt$j&s vides laika un telpas matrica ir simboliski anul$ta.”34

34. O’Doherty, Brian, McEvilley, Thomas. Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space. University of California Press, 2000, p. 8.


transience of time and life. [..] This specially separated and isolated place becomes a non-site, in which the surrounding environment’s time and space matrix is symbolically annulled.”34

The SCCA-Riga exhibitions however do not fall into the so-called second institutional wave of criticism, the beginnings of which can be found right in the 90s in the rest of the world. It encouraged artists and various social groups to stand in opposition to art institutions and to seek opportunities for representation outside traditional exhibition halls, and were moving to find a new public, also addressing that part of society, which wasn’t focused on attending art events.

The search for new territory was reflected in the interdisciplinary approach of many SCCA-Riga exhibitions, which were characterized by the proportion of performances, as well as in the exhibitions’ conceptual positions, which reacted to current socio-political events, bringing to maturity the union of the spirit of the time and the atmosphere of the place, merging local messages with globally resonating discourses.

The SCCA-Riga exhibition chronologic overview also allows one to follow changes in the arsenal of art expression, in art language, which marked an object’s change in a situation, art work content being replaced by the creation of the context, which corresponded to Nicolas Bourriaud’s defined “relational aesthetics”, which developed widely in the international art space in the 90s.

34. Brian O’Doherty, Thomas McEvilley, Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space. University of California Press, 2000, p. 8.

Marcel Duchamp, commenting on the art works of his contemporaries, mentioned that “retinal art” does not interest him, namely, art, which is only meant for the eye, but doesn’t engage the mind. The exhibition strategy examined could also be similarly classified, marking movement towards art as a form of thinking. “Art humanizes (that’s not the same as – harmonizes) rational aspects of a person’s existence. [..] Art is o!ered an aesthetic priority. But for me it has always attracted more as a “society awareness form” in all social historic angles and contexts. In art, its philosophy fascinates me, the development of a thought. [..] It is the thinking process itself that is worthy of attention, not, what sort of techniques or expressions of form it appears in,” admits SCCA-Riga director J"nis Borgs.35 One can agree with him, the same as one can agree with the widely held opinion that in the 90s the SCCA-Riga was one of the most important formers of Latvia’s contemporary art space, not only providing a platform for the creation of new art works, but also mapping out the progress of art and getting society used to the new expressions of creativity.

35. „J"nis Borgs atbild uz jaut"jumiem par m#sdienu m"kslas izpausm$m”, Literat!ra. M"ksla. M#s, 28. 03. – 4. 04. 1996, p. 14.

SMMC-R%ga izst"des tom$r neiek&aujas t. s. otraj" institucion"l"s kritikas viln%, kura aizs"kumi pasaul$ mekl$jami tie'i 90. gados, kas mudin"ja m"ksliniekus un da("das soci"l"s grupas nost"ties opoz%cij" m"kslas instit#cij"m un mekl$t reprezent"cijas iesp$jas "rpus tradicion"laj"m izst"(u z"l$m, un bija virz%ta uz jaunas publikas mekl$jumiem, uzrun"jot ar% to sabiedr%bas da&u, kas nav m$r)tiec%ga m"kslas pas"kumu apmekl$t"ja.

Jauno teritoriju mekl$jumi atspogu&oj"s gan vair"ku SMMC-R%ga izst"(u starpdisciplin"raj" pieej", ko raksturoja performances %patsvars, gan izst"(u konceptu"laj" poz%cij", kas rea*$ja uz soci"lpolitisk"m aktualit"t$m, briedinot laika gara un vietas atmosf$ras kop%bu, lok"los v$st%jumus sapludinot ar glob"li rezon$jo'iem diskursiem.

SMMC-R%ga izst"(u hronolo*iskais p"rskats &auj ar% izsekot izmai+"m m"kslas izteiksmes arsen"l", m"kslas valod", kas iez%m$ objekta p"rtap'anu situ"cij", m"kslas darba satura aizst"'anu ar t" konteksta rad%'anu, kas sasaucas ar Nikol" Burjo defin$to „attiec%bu est$tiku”, kas 90. gados pla'i att%st%j"s starptautiskaj" m"kslas telp".

Marsels Di'"ns, koment$jot savu laikabiedru m"kslas darbus, min$ja, ka vi+u neinteres$ „t%klenes m"ksla”, proti, m"ksla, kas dom"ta tikai acij, bet nepieprasa pr"ta kust%bu. L%dz%gi var klasific$t ar% apl#koto izst"(u strat$*iju, kas iez%m$ virz%bu uz m"kslu k" dom"'anas formu. „M"ksla humaniz$ (tas nav tas pats, kas – harmoniz$) cilv$ka es%bas racion"los aspektus. [..] M"kslai pied"v" est$tikas priorit"ti.

Ta,u mani t" vienm$r ir vair"k saist%jusi k" „sabiedrisk"s apzi+as forma” visos soci"li v$sturiskos rakursos un kontekstos. M"ksl" fascin$ t"s filozofija, domas att%st%ba. [..] Tie'i dom"'anas norise ir uzman%bas v$rta, nevis tas, k"d"s tehnik"s vai formu izpausm$s t" par"d"s,” atz%st SMMC-R%ga direktors J"nis Borgs.35 Vi+am var piekrist, t"pat k" var piekrist visai izplat%tajam viedoklim, ka SMMC-R%ga 90. gados bija viens no noz%m%g"kajiem Latvijas laikmet%g"s m"kslas telpas veidot"jiem, kas ne tikai pied"v"ja platformu jaunu m"kslas darbu tap'anai, bet ar% iez%m$ja m"kslas virz%bu un pieradin"ja sabiedr%bu pie jaun"m rado'uma izpausm$m.

35. J"nis Borgs atbild uz jaut"jumiem par m#sdienu m"kslas izpausm$m // Literat#ra. M"ksla. M$s. 1996, 28. marts – 4. apr., 14. lpp.

izstĀŽu retorika jeb kas veido 90 gadu mĀkslas valodu?

Documents