Europe at work

The creation of an international “net” of curators and private cultural institutions between the countries of Eastern and Western Europe, to promote common projects in the field of contemporary art, reinforcing a cooperation which today is still rather weak, partly due to the lack of public funds for culture. Has been the dominant theme of the second Forum dedicated to the art system in East Europe, organized in Venice by Trieste Contemporanea, at the Academy of Fine Arts, during the opening days of the Visual Arts Biennial, with the participation of critics, curators, and artists from numerous countries, developing the themes which sprang from the 2001 meeting, which intends to further, with the help of art research as a bonding agent, the promotion of European integration. The urgency and the essential need for the creation of a network is due to the absence of the Soros Foundations – stressed from various quarters during the debate – and which, especially during the nineties, helped to finance and support culture, thanks to the institutions created by the Hungarian millionaire, when, after the fall of the Berlin wall, many East European countries lacked all forms of state funding for artistic creativity. After the welcome speech from Riccardo Rabagliati, the director of the Academy of Fine Arts of Venice and the introduction of Harald kreid, Ambassador, Director General, CEI Executive Secretariat (Central European Initiative) – who recalled the role of the CEI, founded in Trieste fourteen years ago as the only institutional organisation which worked for the cultural and scientific cooperation between the countries of Eastern Europe – Giuliana Carbi, the president of Trieste Contemporanea introduced the theme for the new Forum. The goal is to organize in 2005 an exhibition and a curatorial project shared by different countries of the East, through the development of a permanent network of reports and contacts. A first example, illustrated in Venice by Jerzy Onuch, Director of the Centre for Contemporary Arts of Kiev, is the international network i_CAN (International Contemporary Art Network Association), started in Budapest as a direct consequence of the withdrawal of Soros funds from his Centre for Contemporary Arts in the Hungarian capital and once registered in Amsterdam has become a website that promotes the exchange of experiences and contributions in the artistic field between the countries of Eastern Europe – even those most penalized like Moldova, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakihstan, because of the difficult economical conditions – and the acquaintance of new artists who, through the initiative of Art work of the Mouth, can present their work on the net. This was the basis from which the debate developed. Júlia Fabényi, Director of the Mu”csarnok of Budapest, stressed the importance of cooperation, recollecting that Hungary is preparing, for 2005, the exhibition Soap Opera, which counts on different spaces and invited artists of all ages interested in the theme of critical reflexion on television and daily life to participate. She also invited foreign curators to view the Hungarian artistic scene. Still regarding the situation in Hungary, Katalin Néray, Director of the Ludwig Museum of Contemporary Art of Budapest, mentioned the exodus of many Magyar artists to the United States or Western Europe, projected into this new mentality, but partly renouncing their own roots. Lilia Dragneva, Director of K:SAK of Chisinau, dwelled upon the enormous problems created in Chisinau, in Moldova, by the missing funds from the Soros Foundation, an artistic structure which today functions only through voluntarism. Inna Reut, independent curator of Minsk, described a similar situation in Belarus, recalling that the first contemporary art gallery was only opened in 1991 and that any “imported” exhibitions have to be screened by the Ministry of Culture, which distributes the few funds available. The consequence of this hard reality is that many Belarus artists seek refuge in an almost decorative dimension. Beral Madra, Director of the Contemporary Art Centre of Istanbul, underlined the need for sponsors to substitute Soros in supporting an international artistic cooperation, isisting on a more active role from artists in their contribution to an international network. Anda Rottenberg of the Adam Mickiewicz Institute of Warsaw, believes that the contemporary art of Central Eastern European countries is still almost unknown to most, including European countries which show more interest in proposals coming from America or Asia. Therefore the request is for a strong sense of realism when researching and obtaining finances, stressing the important role of exhibitions like Europe Europe, organized in Cracow with the ambitious intent of rewriting European history, or Continental Breakfast, scheduled for 2005, to represent the different social and artistic aspects of the various countries. If Sirje Helme the Director of the Centre for Contemporary Art of Tallinn, vindicates freedom and independence for curators in artistic proposals, the Canadian researcher Collen Ovenden replies that it ís impossible to think about art existing outside the institutions and that the formula of the Venice Biennial of Visual Arts proves the point. Janka Vukmir traced the situation of art and culture in Croatia, starting from the experience of the Institute of Contemporary Art of Zagreb of which she is director, once part of Soros, and now independent but relying on state contributions. The only private resource is Face Croatia (Foundation for the Arts and Cultural Exchange), which operates from the United States. So the aim is to try to involve new private parties in the promotion of artistic events, the organization of which suffers greatly today because of political upheaval. Ryszard Z_ól´taniecki of the Adam Mickiewicz Institute of Warsaw, discussing the Polish situation, said that to obtain private funds, meant acting like the institute he directs, which doesn’t apply to the Goverment, but to private sponsors and important personalities, involving them in projects that include neighbouring countries. According to him, art can’t be used as an instrument for other aims and for that reason the international artistic cooperation should not be handed over to state institutions, in case it’s specificity is lost. In conclusion, at the end of the meeting in Venice three points were made, untrusted to the Secretariat of the CEI for diffusion in the various countries: the idea of art as a meeting point of integration and development between populations and societies, the necessity for more diligence from goverments, in this sector and of curators from all countries committed to a more rigorous international cooperation.