O kockicama koje nedostaju…
Proslost se nekako uvek smesti u piranezijevski nepregledan, ‘istorijski’ lavirint-ruinu, konstruisan od maglina zaborava, kao i od interpretacija proslih dogaðaja vec prema perspektivi aktuelnog momenta. Ako ‘istorija’ treba da predstavlja stabilno i tvrdo kolektivno secanje, proizvedeno za potrebe odreðenog drustva, onda ‘memorija’ predstavlja onu meku i promenljivu, ‘nesigurnu’ varijantu secanja/zaborava kako odreðene drustvene grupe, tako i onu najintimniju, svakog od nas pojedinacno. Memorija pojednica predstavlja najspecificniji, neponovljivi, nesvodivi, visoko sofisticirani i individualizovan ‘istorijski’ tekst, u kome se Istorija, Memorija, etnicka, rasna, verska, rodna, drustvena, klasna i svaka druga pripadnost preplicu, razgraðujuci bilo kakva uopstavanja, vracajuci ih domenu konkretnih iskustava, mnogostruke realnosti, odnosno samom zivotu.
Marc Auge je na jednom mestu napisao da je prostor nuzan okvir za secanje i da, ako se desi da nas pamcenje izda, to je samo zato sto uspomene izlaze iz svog prostornog okvira. Ako uzmemo da je i potisnuto ‘neverna uspomena’, uspomena ciji je prostorni okvir unisten, onda bi povratak potisnutog podrazumevao i rekonstrukciju nestalog prostornog okvira, sa namerom da se ‘ponovo oseti (ono) sto nedostaje’.
Instalacije Zorice Vasic i Margarete Stanojlovic (re)konstruisu prostore detinjstva ovih umetnica...
...U drugom slucaju, ‘traganje za izgubljenim vremenom’ inicirano je prilikom koju svaka majka/roditelj dobije sa roðenjem deteta, a to je prepoznavanje (mogucih) sopstvenih ‘prvih koraka’ u saznavanju sveta, upravo percepiranjem svih onih nacina na koje dete savlaðuje, interpretira, organizuje svoj prostor. Instalacija dovodi u vezu dva prostorna okvira: aktuelni, Teodorin, i prosli, Margaretin. Drugim recima, u prostor koji formira detetov prezent upisuje se/ispisuje se prostor sopstvenog (pluskvam) perfekta. Instalacija dovodi u istu ravan secanje na daleki osecaj bezbriznosti, ideju o nevinosti, iluziju o neposredovanom savladavanju realnosti, kao i svest o aktuelnom nizu konvencionalizovanih odnosa koji proizvode svakidasnje realno.
Zasto smo uopste opsednuti pretrazivanjem proslosti? Verovatno zato sto nam missing parts neprekidno podmecu nogu.
mart 2003.
Jasmina Cubrilo (izvod iz predgovora kataloga izlozbe u Galeriji Zvono)
//////////////////////////////////////
About the missing parts…
The past is somehow always situated in Piranesi-like endless, “historical” maze-the wreck, designed of the oblivion, and of the interpretations of the past events according to the perspective of the current moment. If “history” is to mean the stable and tough collective memory, produced for the needs of the particular society, than “memory” presents the soft and changeable, “uncertain” version of the memory/oblivion for the particular society, as well as for the most intimate version, for each of us separately. The memory of an individual represents the most specific, unrepeatable highly sophisticated and individualized “historical” text in which History, Memory, ethnical, racial, religious, social, social status and every other belonging overlap, distilling any kind of generalizations, and getting them back into the domain of the concrete experience, multiple reality, to life itself actually.
Marc Auge has written once that the space is necessary frame for memories and if happens that our memory fails, it is just because the memories are leaving its spatial frame. If we take the suppressed as “unfaithful memory”, memory whose spatial frame has been destroyed, then the return of the suppressed would imply the reconstruction of the spatial frame which disappeared with the intention “to feel again what has been missing”.
Installations of Zorica Vasic and Margareta Stanojlovic (re)construct the spaces of the childhood of these two artists.
In the second case, “the search for the lost time” was initiated by the occasion which every mother/parent experiences with the birth of a child, and that is the recognition of (possible) one’s own “first steps” in discovering the world, exactly by the of all those ways in which child interprets, organizes its space. Installation connects two spatial frames: current, Teodora’s and past, Margareta’s. In other words, in the space which is formed by child’s present, we have the space of our own (perfect) past written. The installation brings together to the same level memory of the distant feeling of carelessness, the idea of innocence, the assumption of the management of reality without mediations as well as the awareness of the current series of conventionalized relations which produce every day reality.
Why are we obsessed with the search of the past? It’s probably because the missing parts keep tripping us.
March, 2003
Jasmina Cubrilo (taken from foreword in catalogue of exhibition in Gallery Zvono)
////////////////////////
What a child does
The child’s transcendence
What does a child do? A child plays. What does it mean “to play”?
To play, it means to invent your own rules, to build your own personality. The child investigates itself and its body. The child imagines another body for itself (transnatural) body. The child play is without any rules. The child hovers above the gap of indifference which belongs to the world and to the horror of existence on the whole. The child plays without realizing the consequences of the game. It exaggerates while playing. It plays Heraklit-like world games like a child.
Niche is a philosopher of the innocence of this game. Niche , who is thinking about a child-player.
However, the child is insincere, like the automatic waiter, says Sartre. It creates the theatre, it acts a role, it gets engaged in it. The child plays with its body, in order to explore it, so that it would be able to make some conclusions of its appearance after those explorations. It could be said that it wants to get to know its body. But anyway, the child has to give up itself. It has to move away from the look of the adults, in order to develop its own personality. The child, of whom Sartre speaks, is the subject of the theatre. It behaves for itself because it plays with itself. But it plays for the others. It looks for its audience. It is trying to establish itself as an independent subject by wandering around the world of adults and through the feelings and reactions it provokes in the surrounding world which is strange to the child itself. It is looking for a way to be noticed in order to be closer to itself as much as possible.
Does it explore itself in order to understand what it is (now), or to see its chances, in order to become something or someone else? Does the child try out its factuality in its game or it realizes it, what this factuality exceeds and is it on the other side of its current situation? Does it remain in the immanence of possible, or it started long time ago with turning the immanence to impossible? Is it the child that plays, what is it? Or, does the play mean some kind of selftransedence, is it excess of the auto-ontological system?
The play would live the child on the edge of the idea of his own wandering. The play would be the challenge to the adulthood of every ontological structure.
The child plays with its body. It desires new expressions of tenderness. It desires the attention, touches and approvals of the adults. It acts and hurts itself in such a game. It looks for itself in something it isn’t. This quest could belong to the essence of the play. It could be the condition for self-discovery. The child overcomes its gloomy self in front of the others. In the end, it overcomes their looks, while beginning to understand itself as someone else. However, this different side is the child itself.
Marcus Steinweg
Gilles Deleuze, Critique and clinic, Frankfurt, 2000,p.181
Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and nothingness, Reinbeck by Hamburg 1994. p. 140