Djelovanje Adama Szymczyka, od početaka u varšavskoj Galeriji Foksal do upravljanja velikim kulturnim institucijama poput Kunsthalle u Baselu i manifestacijama poput documente 14, obilježava usmjerenost na eksperimentiranje kustoskim konceptima te inkluzivan sistem organizacije produkcijskih procesa. Sa Szymczykom, koji je bio i jedan od profesora prvog ciklusa WHW Akademije, imali smo priliku razgovarati o neformalnom i izvaninstitucionalnom obrazovanju, potencijalima suvremenih izložbenih koncepata, ali i o profesionalnim izborima i kompleksnom organizacijskom i financijskom okviru velikih kulturnih događanja.

KP: Suosnivanjem Fondacije galerije Foksal u Varšavi htjeli ste proširiti pristup i aktivnosti u prostoru koji je smatran važnim mjestom na međunarodnoj avangardnoj i suvremenoj umjetničkoj sceni. Je li moguće značajno doprinijeti afirmiranim institucijama, a da se njihovi temelji pritom ne promijene?

Prostor je osnovan 1966. u posve drugačijem povijesnom kontekstu. Kad sam se pridružio, moj prijatelj Andrzej Przywara već je bio tamo, a ubrzo nam se pridružila i Joanna Mytkowska. Bilo je to ranih 90-ih i zanimalo nas je nasljeđe neoavangardnih praksi u galeriji Foksal, a zatim se pružila prilika da je pomnije istražimo. Zamolili su nas da pomognemo u pripremi jednog izdanja povodom godišnjice galerije. Knjiga je objavljena 1996. i bila je primjer revizije povijesti jer smo morali razumjeti dinamiku procesa u galeriji tijekom 60-ih i 70-ih. Shvatili smo da su rijetki trenuci bili od tolikog povijesnog značaja kao prvotni zamah u galeriji koju su osnovali Anka Ptaszkowska i Mariusz Tchorek te rasprave koje su kasnih 60-ih vodili o smjeru u kojem se galerija trebala razvijati. Neki od suosnivača htjeli su da postane nešto poput ureda za razmjenu informacija u kojemu fizička produkcija izložbi ne bi nužno bila u fokusu. Trebalo je to biti mjesto s manjim fokusom na umjetnička djela, no većim fokusom na razmjenu ideja koje bi se ostvarivale u prolaznom obliku.

Trebalo je to biti mjesto koje će voditi svoj živi arhiv podložan izmjenama, za razliku od statičnih arhiva koji samo čuvaju dokumente. Razmišljali smo o tome da krenemo s izložbama koje su povezane s našim vremenom. U jednom trenu naišli smo na birokratske prepreke, nedostatak sredstava i razumijevanja naših administratora, nazovimo ih tako. To je bio glavni razlog zašto smo htjeli izgraditi strukturu za podršku kojom bi postigli donekle veću neovisnost galerije u odnosu na financiranje iz lokalnih javnih izvora. Time je Fondacija galerije Foksal postala paralelna struktura. Tijekom razgovora o ideji i programu shvatili smo da krećemo u novom smjeru jer smo htjeli raditi s mlađim umjetnicima, bilo iz Poljske, bilo iz inozemstva. Također smo pristupili umjetnicima koji su odigrali ulogu u povijesti razvoja galerije, no zatim su bili izgurani i izbrisani od strane onih koji su vodili galeriju 80-ih i 90-ih. Bilo je sasvim prirodno da smo poželjeli u potpunosti napustiti takvu strukturu. Morali smo osnovati vlastitu instituciju jer nismo bili zadovoljni institucionalnim obrascima koji su onodobno prevladavali u Poljskoj. Htjeli smo nešto što će biti naše vlastito oruđe, umjesto da radimo za postojeće institucije.

Oko 2000. godine preselili smo se u novi prostor koji smo iznajmili u tu svrhu. Počeli smo raditi pod imenom Fondacija galerije Foksal, neprestano raspravljajući o legitimnosti našeg imena u usporedbi s Galerijom Foksal, koja je ostala na svom mjestu. Ja sam se 2004. godine preselio u Švicarsku i počeo raditi u baselskom Kunsthalleu. Povijesni prostor galerije postoji i dan danas. „Novu“ Fondaciju galerije Foksal vodi Andrzej Przywara, a Joanna Mytkowska je voditeljica varšavskog Muzeja moderne umjetnosti koji se trenutno gradi.

KP: Spomenuli ste nužnost toga da kolekcija bude živi arhiv. S odborom Kontakt kolekcije Erste fundacije, u kojem je Boris Marte okupio značajne povjesničare umjetnosti, zajedno ste odlučili umjetnost srednje, istočne i južne Europe staviti u fokus kolekcije. Smatrate li da je i ta kolekcija postala svojevrsni živi arhiv?

Možemo to tako gledati. Uz prikupljanje umjetničkih djela, u Kontaktu se odvijaju razne aktivnosti koje imaju javnu dimenziju – konferencije, izložbe i izdavački rad. Postoji Nagrada Igor Zabel u Ljubljani, institucije Tranzit na više mjesta i slično. Umjesto da svrha kolekcije bude prikupljanje predmeta i njihovo čuvanje na jednom mjestu, ona je na neprestanoj posudbi za izložbe koje organiziraju druge institucije i drugi ljudi. Redovito se prikazuje i interpretira na izložbama poput one koja se održala ovdje u Zagrebu. Mislim da se danas djela iz kolekcije može češće vidjeti nego što je to bio slučaj kad su nastajala. Obično bi ostala u privatnim arhivima umjetnika ili bi ih kupili privatni kolekcionari ili muzeji, čime nastaje disperzija djela i ograničavaju se mogućnosti njihovog izlaganja. S većom kolekcijom ili zbirkom umjetničkih djela, Kontakt može raditi s njima, interpretirati ih, širiti te očuvati opuse i fenomene koji prije nisu bili u fokusu javnosti. Pogotovo ne u zemljama bivšeg Zapadnog bloka. Iako, oduvijek je postojao određeni oblik komunikacije između Austrije, Graza i Beča, s Jugoslavijom ili prostorom bivše Jugoslavije. No kolekcija obuhvaća više zemalja i više različitih konteksta.

KP: U kojoj je mjeri pomogla osporiti dominantnu zastupljenost zapadnjačkih umjetnika? Ili je to previše za očekivati od jedne kolekcije?

Zasigurno je pomogla. Može se usporediti s nastojanjima određenih muzeja u zapadnoj Europi koji pokušavaju ažurirati svoje kolekcije s djelima “nastalima u istočnoj Europi”. Tate i Centar Georges Pompidou selektivno kupuju. Ne znam kako to radi madridska Reina Sofia, no tamo su definitivno održane važne izložbe umjetnika iz regije. Atelijer Kožarić izložen je tijekom documente 11 te u Haus der Kunst u Münchenu. Više je primjera umjetnika za čija je djela zanimanje muzeja i akademika poraslo nakon što su uvršteni u kolekciju Kontakt, što je dovelo do velikih izložbi poput Promises of the Past u Centru Georges Pompidou čije su kustosice bile Christine Macel i Joanna Mytkowska.

KP: Jedan od razloga vašeg dolaska u Zagreb bilo je izlaganje o documenti 14. U jednom od svojih prošlih izlaganja rekli ste da “documenta mora biti sredstvo oporavka i izgradnje nacionalne i internacionalne zajednice uz pomoć estetskog i intelektualnog iskustva”. Smatrate li da ste to postigli?

To je proces koji nikad neće biti gotov. Baš sam nedavno pisao bivšim sudionicima documente 14. Imamo mailing listu na koju su se mnogi prijavili, podjednako umjetnici i oni koji su bili u timu ili sudjelovali na neki drugi način. Postoji grupa od 200 ljudi koji s vremena na vrijeme pokušavaju podići moral u ovim mračnim vremenima. Mislim da smo svjesni mogućnosti takve zajednice, no teško ju je držati na okupu. Sve je vrlo fragmentirano. Iskustva su fragmentirana, ljudi se neprestano sele i suočavaju sa životnim okolnostima zbog kojih je rad na zajedničkom cilju otežan. No činjenica da se velik broj ljudi sastao i pokrenuo konkretne projekte ili da su jednostavno mogli stupiti u kontakt kako bi surađivali, iznimno je vrijedna. A pitanje je li veća preobrazba moguća… Htio sam uputiti na svojevrsnu promjenu svijesti takozvane publike koju bih zapravo radije nazvao javnošću. I radije bih one koji rade na postavljanju izložbe zadržao na poziciji publike umjesto da održavamo razliku između njih i primatelja. To je nešto što će se može postići daljnjim razvojem documente i drugih sličnih projekata.

U zadnjih se par godina ozračje na polju suvremene umjetnosti promijenilo. Radi se o zanimljivim strategijama dekoloniziranja, a zastupljenost autohtonih umjetnika diljem svijeta sve je veća. Dolazi do promjene i mislim da je nismo mi samostalno inicirali, ali imali smo svoju ulogu u tome time što je documenta 14 bila aktivna zadnje tri-četiri godine. Putem sadržaja atenskog časopisa South as a State of Mind koji smo četiri puta izdali kao časopis documente 14, kao i našeg pristupa programima za javnost poput stvaranja takozvanog Parliament of Bodies te obrazovnih programa u oba grada u kojima se održavala documenta 14. Izložbe su bile prisutne i na druge načine, za početak, na radijskim postajama diljem svijeta i javnoj televiziji u Ateni i slično. Bilo je to ulaganje u medije koji se čine staromodnim, no bez obzira na sve, imaju odjek u javnosti i zašto to ne bismo iskoristili?

KP: Pripreme za tako veliko događanje započele su i prije same godine održavanja. Surađivali ste s građanima i lokalnim umjetničkim zajednicama u Ateni prije 2017. Smatrate li da ste uspjeli učiniti documentu 14 uključivom za lokalnu umjetničku scenu?

Nije sasvim jasno može li se postići potpuna uključivost. Uvijek ćete izostaviti nekoga. Mislim da smo uspjeli uključiti puno javnih institucija i ljudi koji surađuju s takvim institucijama. Prvi smo put izložili kolekciju atenskog Nacionalnog muzeja u velikog zbirci međunarodnih djela u Fridericianumu, simboličkom izložbenom centru Kassela.

Izazov leži i u tome da nismo dugo trajali. Imali smo financijski kapacitet da sprovedemo projekt u potpunosti i zatim odemo, što je zasigurno ostavilo prazninu. Nije na meni da kažem je li to bilo iskustvo gubitka nečega što se nakratko pojavi i zatim nestane, ali mislim da sada u Ateni i Grčkoj ima puno više događanja nego što ih je prije bilo nekoliko godina i sama kompleksnost održanih događanja značajno je veća. Čak i ako puno toga možda jest kritička reakcija, mislim da je to nastavak documente 14 jer je naš projekt izazvao frikciju. Zbog te su frikcije ljudi morali zauzeti različite položaje i razmisliti o tome što žele raditi. Dinamizirala je okolinu koja je bila prilično statična kad smo stigli u Atenu. Beznađe, nedostatak motivacije i kapaciteta za pokretanje novih projekata bili su vrlo izraženi, a sada ipak ima malo više nade u budućnost. Mnogi su tada prvi put počeli razmišljati o Ateni i to nije rezultiralo pokretanjem privatnih poduzeća za suvremenu umjetnost koja bi izbrisala sve otprije nego malim inicijativama, projektima, prostorima, rezidencijama i aktivnostima koje su pokrenuli umjetnici. Prijatelji iz Grčke mi kažu da ih je sve više i da su aplicirali za stotinjak novih projekata koji se sada održavaju. Kada sam 2013. došao u Atenu, tamo se definitivno nije održavalo sto projekata. Sve je bilo prilično centralizirano u nekoliko privatnih ili poluprivatnih institucija i naravno, Atenskom Biennalu, koje je postiglo svoj kritički vrhunac tijekom documente 14, a sad je prodano privatnoj zakladi.

KP: Kako se ekonomija velikih kulturnih događanja može pomiriti s njihovim kritičkim ambicijama?

U sklopu documente 14 to je bilo moguće. Sami okupljate svoj tim i ne morate raditi s nekim koga vam je nametnula organizacija. Postoji administrativna superstruktura Documenta GmbH, neprofitno društvo s ograničenom odgovornošću Documenta koje izvještavate o svojim idejama, raspravljate o financijskim mogućnostima i kako osigurati financijska sredstva. Iznad toga postoji još i nadzorni odbor onih koji predstavljaju grad Kassel i državu Hesse, oni su najvažniji dionici i vlasnici poduzeća Documenta.

Kao umjetnički ravnatelj, prenosio sam svoje ideje i pregovarao o njima s izvršnim direktorima Documente GmbH, a zatim su izvršna direktorica i financijski direktor izvještavali nadzorni odbor. Sudjelovao sam na tim sastancima kao vanjski suradnik, nisam sudjelovao u donošenju odluka. To se radikalno promijenilo u kolovozu 2017. kada je održan sastanak nadzornog odbora kako bi se raspravio neizbježan deficit i nedostatak likvidnosti Documente. To je nešto što se odvilo u vrlo kratkom roku jer pred travanjsko otvorenje u Ateni stvari nisu tako izgledale. Problem leži u tome što sudjelujete u relativno kratkoročnom projektu i sve se odvija vrlo brzo. Zato prognozirate kako će se budžet trošiti. Documenta GmbH neprestano je poticala kustoski tim pod mojim vodstvom da radimo na oba dijela izložbe prema planu, a nadzorni odbor ničim to nije pokušao zaustaviti. Kad su od nas zatražili smanjivanje budžeta, sastali smo se sa svim kustosima i ljudima u odjelu za produkciju te smanjili sredstva za neke projekte na razinu koja se od nas očekivala. Nastavili smo dalje i izložba je prema planu otvorena u Ateni, a zatim u Kasselu. U lipnju je sve bilo u redu. U srpnju je nova osoba postala gradonačelnikom Kassela. Nije me htio upoznati kao umjetničkog ravnatelja documente 14 i nije pokazao zanimanje za službeni posjet izložbi. Mislio sam da je to jer je tek izabran i da mu treba vremena, nisam to protumačio kao nedostatak interesa ili upozorenje. Krajem kolovoza i početkom rujna, otprilike mjesec dana nakon što je izložba u Ateni zatvorena te tri tjedna prije njenog kraja u Kasselu, iz nadzornog je odbora vijest o deficitu procurila u lokalne medije.

Zatim je to postala sočna vijest za veće njemačke medije i izgovor za napade na documentu 14. Za tri-četiri dana vijest su prenijeli međunarodni mediji, koji su ionako imali problema sa sadržajem documente. Očekivalo se da loša izložba znači loš financijski ishod, scenarij katastrofe koji su potpirivali mediji, s političarima koji se sa svojih visina spuštaju napraviti reda, poput spasitelja. Bio je to primjer načina na koji funkcionira neoliberalna ekonomija. Zanemarivali su sadržaj izložbe i uskočili u trenutku kad su se mogli obratiti njemačkoj javnosti kao poreznim obveznicima i potencijalnim glasačima. U rujnu ili listopadu primili smo tužbu stranke AfD. Javnom tužitelju Kassela iznijeli su optužbe protiv izvršne direktorice, bivšeg gradonačelnika i mene za neodgovorno upravljanje sredstvima i zlouporabu. Tada smo se našli pod sumnjom jer je javni tužitelj mjesecima radio na slučaju, a nije nas informirao o detaljima istrage.

Nikad nisam vidio rezultat financijske revizije koju je naručio nadzorni odbor. Odbor nam nikad nije otvoreno priopćio zaključke revizije, no oni su procurili u javnost kao sredstvo odvraćanja pozornosti od prave javne rasprave. Javnost se navodilo na krive zaključke senzacionalističkim člancima i novine grada Kasella koje imaju monopol na informacije u tom gradu oblikovale su diskurs, zajedno s političarima koji se nisu morali uplitati ili zauzimati stav. Zatim su čekali sve dok izvršna direktorica nije pristala otići. Nije službeno dobila otkaz, no zašto bi odjednom otišla ako to nije htjela prije? Na kraju su sve optužbe protiv nas odbačene i javni tužitelj je ukazao na političku motivaciju AfD-ove tužbe protiv nas.

Zatim se situacija primirila na razini službene interpretacije. Postojao je veliki deficit koji su riješili dionici. Činjenica je da značajni deficit jest postojao, ali način na koji je prezentiran javnosti je nešto s čime se iz političke perspektive nimalo ne slažem. Bila je to manipulacija sa svrhom pokazivanja kako će se takvi “problemi” rješavati u budućnosti.

Projekt koji sam ja predložio – ravnopravne documente 14 u Ateni i Kasselu – i koji je na kraju realiziran bio je doista izvanredni, veliki i složeni pothvat. Svi na čelu to su znali još od 2013. kada su me zadužili za njegovu realizaciju. Sumnjam da je to pitanje novca. Budžet documente 15 veći je od našeg. Političari su uvijek tvrdili da je budžet dovoljan i razljutila ih je naša direktorica koja je jednom prilikom javno izjavila da vjerojatno nemamo dovoljnu financijsku potporu. I najednom, budžet raste.

KP: Time se postavlja pitanje financiranja kulturnih događanja i kulture općenito. Ako se želi izbjeći stvaranje spektakla i zadržati kritički momentum, kako to postići bez oslanjanja na javna sredstva? Kakva je uopće budućnost financiranja kulture?

Moramo inzistirati na tome da vlasti, bilo državne, bilo lokalne, preuzmu odgovornost za kulturne institucije, dopuste im da zadrže neovisnost u izradi svog programa, a istovremeno vlasti moraju biti sposobne procijeniti koje bi institucije trebale primati sredstva i koliko dugo kako bi nastavile s radom ili postigle stabilnost. Značajni dio kulturnih institucija prima određena javna sredstva. No u documenti trećina zarade proizlazi iz prodaje ulaznica publici koja izravno plaća ovo događanje. Korisnici plaćaju više od grada i države zajedno. Uz to, imate obavezu prikupljanja sredstava putem donacija sponzora. Mi nismo dobili mnogo novca od galerija, no jesmo od međunarodnih zaklada i drugih institucija. Mislim da je najbolje ako postoji ravnoteža između različitih izvora financiranja. U Baselu sam imao budžet od približno 2,2 milijuna franaka zato što je grad-kanton Basel financirao jednu trećinu toga, koliko se sjećam, a zarađivali smo i na restoranu koji smo vodili te sam uz to prikupljao dodatna sredstva za sve izložbe.

Najgore je kad se ne prepoznaje potreba za javnim financiranjem.

KP: Vaše formalno obrazovanje uključivalo je De Appel. Tijekom godina kustoskog rada, koji su bili manje formalni načini učenja i samoizobrazbe?

U Baselu sam učio iz prakse jer nikad nisam vodio instituciju poput Kunsthallea i doista sam morao učiti kako raditi neke stvari, kako voditi financije, voditi tim i tako dalje. Morao sam naučiti kako raditi s ljudima jer sam oduvijek radio u horizontalnoj strukturi Fondacije galerije Foksal. Najednom sam bio glavni, mogao sam zapošljavati ljude i govoriti im što da rade. To mi je bilo novo. Naučio sam nešto od institucije u kojoj sam radio. Po pitanju umjetničkog sadržaja, većinom sam učio od umjetnika i prijatelja kustosa koje cijenim. Još od ranih 90-ih često razgovaram s umjetnicima. Ti razgovori se i dalje nastavljaju s brojnim ljudima. Neki od njih su odlični umjetnici i moji dobri prijatelji s kojima ponekad surađujem na projektima.

Documenta 14 je bila poput akademije u nastajanju, naravno. Neprestano smo se mučili i učili jedni od drugih. Imali smo ljude različitih zanimanja, različitih vještina i različitog znanja. Iz svega toga pokušali smo napraviti izložbu. Nakon documente 14, stvari za mene više nisu bile iste. Moj program u baselskom Kunsthalleu bio je izrazito europski, eurocentričan, moram priznati. Bilo je trenutaka kad su se otvorile druge mogućnosti, no nikad nisam sasvim prihvatio otvaranje institucije pozicijama izvan Europe i SAD-a. A trebao sam. Možda tada nisam bio spreman, nisam imao sadašnji kapacitet i znanje. No čim sam počeo raditi na documenti 14, znao sam da moram stubokom promijeniti svoj način razmišljanja. Iz tog sam razloga pokušao naći ljude od kojih bi nešto naučio. Pronašao sam grupu ljudi koja me naučila dosta toga s političke strane, o drugim povijestima, a ne samo povijesti umjetnosti. Mnogo se toga pretočilo u ono što je postala documenta 14 i u izdanja koja samo objavili, uključujući Reader i Daybook documente 14.

Nisam počeo s documentom 14 s jasnim planom onoga što želim izložiti. Imao sam namjeru oblikovati nešto s drugima, izazvati promjenu percepcije, možda i šok, naći način kako postići dislokaciju. No jedna je stvar moj privatni afinitet prema dislokaciji, a sasvim druga kad osvijestite da se ovaj svijet tiče mnogih koji su dislocirani ne zato što žele otići i živjeti u diskursu bez identiteta, nego zato što njihovom zemljom vlada rat, iskorištava ih mafija ili kapitalizam zbog čega neprestano moraju bježati. Documenta 14 odvila se u vremenu velikih rasprava o migracijama i fizičkoj činjenici migranata koji dolaze u Europu, a zaustavlja ih se na granicama i zatvara u kampove. To je bila svakodnevna rasprava. Više ili manje uspješno, pokušali smo odgovorno privući pozornost na te probleme. Više umjetničkih odluka rodile su se iz potrebe da javno artikuliramo nešto.

Ljudi više slušaju umjetnike od kustosa. Bez umjetnika, kustosi su prilično smiješni ljudi koji raspravljaju u svom krugu i možda su zanimljivi sami sebi, ali umjetnici imaju mogućnost velikih javnih istupa s odjekom. Zbog toga su vrlo dobri prijenosnici ideja. Zato na izložbi nismo imali puno formalista koji njeguju svoj introvertirani formalni razvoj, iako postoje radikalne pozicije koje mogu proći kroz ova vrata. Imali smo mnogo njih koji su radili u raznim zajednicama i obično izvodili svoje umjetničke statemente u napetom ili problematičnom kontekstu iz kojeg proizlaze. Pokušali smo takve prakse približiti široj javnosti.

KP: Bili ste jedan od predavača na WHW Akademiji u Zagrebu, a održat ćete i seminar u Beču, u sklopu projekta Akademije likovnih umjetnosti. Po vašem mišljenju, koliko je formalno obrazovanje važno umjetnicima i koji je položaj neformalnih edukacijskih projekata?

Čak i u sklopu formalnih shema uvijek postoje točke susreta i mislim da je za umjetnike važno da se upoznaju s ljudima izvan svoje škole. Pri takvim susretima ljudi upoznaju ideje i šire svoje znanje. WHW Akademija omogućava takve susrete koji bi mogli biti značajni za umjetnike koji u njima sudjeluju, nadam se. U različitim fazama života upoznao sam pojedince koji su u potpunosti promijenili moje poimanje stvari, bilo generalno ili u vezi nečeg određenog. Većinom, ali ne isključivo, bila je riječ o umjetnicima. Nadam se da će ovakav posebni kontekst, privilegiran u smislu da otvara prostor za rad i refleksiju malom broju ljudi, potaknuti otkrića kod nekih ili njihovo transformativno iskustvo. Manje konvencionalni formati obrazovanja bitni su radi propitivanja okvira. Umjesto da apeliramo na akademije da promijene svoj način rada i svoj kurikulum, možemo osnovati vlastite akademije koje ljudi mogu izabrati, što je dobro.

Slična filozofija stoji iza osnivanja WHW-a i nečega poput Fondacije galerije Foksal. Nisu sasvim usporedive institucije, ali slične su u namjeri da imaju barem dio kontrole nad sredstvima za proizvodnju. Želite biti dijelom cjelokupnog procesa, a ne samo zaposlenik veće strukture koja vas otuđuje. To su mali koraci prema obliku rada koji ne otuđuje ili barem ne otuđuje toliko. Hoće li ovaj projekt preživjeti ili ne, vidjet ćemo. Umjesto da budu autori, kustosi i animatori projekata, u WHW-u počinju prenositi svoje iskustvo drugima. Dobar je osjećaj širiti ga, okupljati ljude i zatim ih vraćati u njihov kontekst i društvo.

KP: U kojem polju umjetnosti očekujete najviše promjena pod utjecajem novih tehnologija i novih načina komunikacije?

Pa, nemam smislenu teoriju o tome, no mislim da za mnoge koji mogu pristupiti tom novom svijetu ili novim načinima komunikacije to znači neovisniji pristup znanju. Možda je to prilika da individualno ili povremenim suradnjama oblikujemo stvari umjesto da moramo prolaziti kroz hijerarhijske strukture, no tu je mnogo neriješenih pitanja. Takva dostupnost ponekad je potencijal, ali on se ne iskoristi u potpunosti. Sve je dostupno i to je dovoljno. Ponekad otkrivamo mnogo čitanjem iste knjige više puta jer možemo nešto intenzivno proučiti. Ponekad je svašta moguće s ograničenim sredstvima. Mislim da su dostupnost i mobilnost koje se predstavlja kao dio privlačnosti mainstream kulture istovremeno fiktivni nusproizvodi ove faze kapitalizma. Naravno, ljudi to mogu različito iskoristiti, ali sve u svemu, mislim da može biti riječ o novom obličju ideologije koje krije surovu stvarnost kapitalizma i kojem trebamo pristupati s oprezom. A tehnologija… Ne očekujem mnogo od nje, iskreno. Tehnologija komunikacije se mijenja, ali ne mislim da tehnologija doista proizvodi novi sadržaj.

KP: Kakve su danas mogućnosti razvoja eksperimentalnih izložbi?

Beskrajne. Izložba je neistraženi žanr. Koristim tu riječ jer smatram da se ne radi samo o formatu ili obliku prezentacije sadržaja. Mislim da se mnogo toga može učiniti organiziranjem vremena i prostora u formi iskustva. To je zanimljiv žanr jer još uvijek nema službena pravila. Izložbe se mogu preobraziti ili često modificirati, od izložbi koje su veliki amorfni projekti poput documente, do izravnijih i kraćih istupa. Na neki način, riječ je o sveobuhvatnom žanru u koji se mogu uključiti druge umjetnosti. Velik potencijal leži u radu s književnošću, filmom, kazalištem, glazbom ili digitalnom sferom i novim oblicima komunikacije. To je izrazito zanimljivo jer sve navedeno može postati dijelom izložbenog iskustva, isto kao i predavanja, konferencije ili diskurzivna događanja. Izložba može biti sveobuhvatno mjesto iznad specijalizacije umjetničkih disciplina i diskurzivnih polja. U tom smislu ima mnogo prostora za inovacije i promjene.

Postoji čar u prolaznosti izložbe i fragilnosti singularnog iskustva posjeta i sjećanja na taj posjet, umjesto čuvanja nečega pri ruci što vam omogućava da se tome stalno vraćate. Zbog toga su izložbe posebne. Predstavu je moguće mnogo puta izvesti na pozornici. Izložba se otvori, zatvori i to je to. A ponekad do otvorenja niti ne dođe.

S engleskog prevela: Kristina Đurić

Adam Szymczyk‘s work focuses on experiments with curatorial concepts and inclusive system of cultural production process. His professional path extends from beginnings at the Foksal Gallery in Warsaw, after which he co-founded the Foksal Gallery Foundation, to managing and curating large cultural events and institutions such are Kunsthalle Basel and documenta 14. With Szymczyk, who was also one of the professors of the first cycle of WHW Academy in Zagreb, we had the opportunity to talk about informal education, professional choices, potential of contemporary exhibition concepts, but also about the complex organizational and financial framework of major cultural events.

KP: With (co)founding Foksal Gallery Foundation in Warsaw you were looking to extend approach and activities of a space that was considered an important spot for international avant-garde and contemporary art scene. Is it possible to make significant contributions to established institutions without making changes to their very foundations?

That space was founded in 1966 in a completely different historical context. When I arrived, my friend Andrzej Przywara was already there and Joanna Mytkowska joined soon. It was early 90s and we were interested in the legacy of the neo-avant-garde practices at Foksal and then came the occasion for researching it more profoundly. We were asked to help prepare a book for the gallery anniversary. The book came out in 1996 and this was a kind of exercise in revisionist history writing because we had to understand dynamics of processes in the gallery in the 60s and 70s. We realized there were a few moments in that history that were of interest such as the initial impetus of the co-founders of the gallery, Anka Ptaszkowska and Mariusz Tchorek, and the debates that they had in the late 60s about the direction the gallery should take. Some of the co-founders wanted to push it towards becoming something like an office for exchange of information where the material production of exhibitions would not necessarily be the main focus. It was to be less artwork oriented, but more the place for discussion of ideas where they would materialize in ephemeral form. It was supposed to be a place that would run its own living and changing archive, as opposed to static archives that just keep documents.

We were also thinking of beginning with exhibitions that would have some relationship to our time. At some point there were bureaucratic obstacles, constant lack of funds and understanding on the part of our, let’s say, administrators. I think that was the main reason why we were interested in founding a support structure that would make the gallery slightly more independent from the municipal funding. Therefore, Foksal Gallery Foundation became a parallel structure. While negotiating the idea and programme we realized we were going in a new direction because we really wanted to work with younger artists, both Polish and international. We also addressed the artists who at some point played a role in historical development of the gallery, but then were side-lined and wiped out by those who were running the gallery in the 80s and 90s. At a certain point it was natural that we wanted to get out of this structure completely.

We had to create our own institution because we were not satisfied with the institutional formulas which were prevailing in Poland at the time. We just wanted something that we have in our hands as a tool, and not to work for institutions as they were. Around the year 2000 we moved to a new space which we rented for that purpose. We started working under the name of Foksal Gallery Foundation, constantly debating the legitimacy of our name with historical name of Galeria Foksal, which stayed where it was. I left in 2004 because I moved to Switzerland and started to work at Kunsthalle Basel. Today, the historical space of the gallery still exists. The “new” Foksal Gallery Foundation continues to be run by Andrzej Przywara, while Joanna Mytkowska is now the director of the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, which is about to be built.

KP: You mentioned the necessity of collection being a living archive. With the Erste Kontakt Collection, where different art historians were gathered by Boris Marte, you decided together to focus the collection on the art of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. Do you think that collection too became a kind of a living archive?

One could see it this way. Apart from collecting artworks, there is a whole range of activities within Kontakt which have public dimension – conferences, publications and exhibitions. There is also the Prize of Igor Zabel in Ljubljana, Tranzit institutions in several places and so forth. Rather than just to keep the collection as some sort of discreet accumulation of objects somewhere, this collection is constantly being loaned to exhibitions organised by other institutions and other people. It is regularly shown and interpreted through exhibitions, like the one that happened in Zagreb. These works are, I believe, more often seen publicly today than they were seen since they were created. Otherwise they would’ve stayed in either artists’ private archives or they would’ve been bought by private collectors or museums which also creates dispersal of works and puts limitations on the conditions of their showing. Having a larger collection, or pool of artworks, Kontakt is able to work with it and do the work of interpretation, dissemination and also preservation of the oeuvres and phenomena that previously had not been on the radar. Especially not in the countries of the former Western bloc. Although for instance, there was always some form of communication between Austria, Graz, Vienna, maybe, and Yugoslavia or post-Yugoslav space – but there are more countries and contexts represented in this collection.

KP: To what extent it helped challenge the representational domination of Western artists? Or is that too much pressure on one collection?

It definitely helped. It can be compared to efforts of some Western European museums that are trying to update their holdings of art “made in East Europe”. The Tate, Centre Georges Pompidou, they’re buying selectively. I don’t know about Reina Sofia in Madrid, but they definitely held important exhibitions of artists from the region. Kožarić studio was also showing in documenta 11 and at Haus der Kunst in Munich. There are several examples when those artists who are represented in Kontakt Collection became interesting for museums and scholars elsewhere, resulting in large exhibitions such as the Promises of the Past at Centre Georges Pompidou curated by Christine Macel and Joanna Mytkowska.

KP: One of the reasons for coming to Zagreb was to hold a lecture about documenta 14. In one of your previous lectures you said that “documenta needs to be a mean(s) to restore and to build national and international community with the help of aesthetic and intellectual experience”. Do you think you managed to achieve that?

It’s never a complete process. I was just trying to write a letter yesterday to former participants in documenta 14. We have a kind of a mailing list to which many people signed up, both artists and those who were on the team or otherwise participated. There’s a group of 200 people that are still from time to time trying to keep the spirit up in these dark times. I had a feeling we understood that there was a possibility of this community existing, it’s just very difficult to hold it together. Everything is so fragmented – the experiences are fragmented, people move all the time and confront life circumstances that makes it difficult to work on something common. But the fact that so many people met and initiated concrete projects, or were just able to reach out to each other to work on things together, that is very valuable. And whether a larger transformation is possible… what I was hinting at would be a kind of a change of consciousness on part of the so-called audience, which I prefer to call the public. And I would prefer to position the producers as part of this public rather than to keep distinction between them and the recipients. This is something that can only be proved through further development of documenta and other similar projects.

The climate has changed in the contemporary art field over the last couple of years. There are definitely interesting de-colonial strategies and there is an increasing presence of indigenous artists all over the world. There’s a change happening and I think we were not the only ones who initiated this change, but we played a role through the constant presence of documenta 14 over 3-4 years. Through the content of the Athenian magazine, South as a State of Mind that we were able to publish four times as documenta 14 magazine, and the approach to the public programmes as the creation of Parliament of Bodies and “aneducation” programme in both cities of documenta 14. There were also other forms of presence that exhibitions assumed, beginning with radio stations worldwide and public television in Athens, and so forth. It was kind of investing in the media that might be seen as outdated, but nevertheless they have a public resonance – so why not use them.

KP: Preparations for such a large event started much before that exact year. Before 2017 you were cooperating with people in Athens and with local community of artists. Do you think you managed to make documenta 14 inclusive for local art scene?

It’s not so clear whether one can reach some kind of full inclusion. It’s always with the cost of exclusion. I think we managed to include a good deal of mostly public institutions and people who work with those institutions. For the first time we showed collection of the National Museum in Athens in such a large selection of works internationally, at the Fridericianum, this symbolic centre of exhibition in Kassel.

It’s also a challenge because we did not last. We had financial capacity and means to implement the project in full and move on, which then certainly left a gap. It’s not up to me to say whether it was more like an experience of loss of something that passes through and then disappears, but I think there is substantially more happening in Athens and Greece right now than it did some years ago, and especially the complexity of what is happening is much greater. Even if a lot of it might be a kind of critical reaction, I think it is a continuation of documenta 14 because our project produced friction. Out of this friction people had to take different positions and start thinking about what they want to do. It dynamized this environment which was a fairly static one when we arrived in Athens. A feeling of hopelessness, lack of motivation and capacity to initiate new projects was very often declared, and right now it’s a little more forward-looking. A lot of people began to think about Athens for the first time and this didn’t result in creation of private enterprises in contemporary art that would just erase everything that existed before, but in small initiatives, projects, spaces, residences, artist-run things. My Greek friends tell me there’s more and more of those and they quoted about hundred new projects that are happening now. I definitely did not see a hundred projects happening in Athens when I came there in 2013. It used to be pretty centralized around few private or semi-private institutions, and of course there was the Athens Biennial, which reached a peak of its critical fervour during documenta 14 and now got sold to a private foundation.

KP: How the economics of large cultural events can be compatible with their critical ambitions?

It was possible within documenta 14. You create your team from scratch so you don’t have to work with anyone imposed by the organization. You do have this administrative sort of superstructure of the Documenta GmbH, the non-profit limited liability company Documenta, to which you report with your ideas, declare certain financial means and you discuss how to secure this financing. Above that there is the supervisory board of those who represent the city of Kassel and the state of Hesse and they are the most important stakeholders and the owners of this enterprise Documenta.

As Artistic Director, I negotiated and communicated my ideas with the executives of Documenta GmbH, then the CEO and CFO reported to the Supervisory Board. I only sat in those meetings as an external person, I was not part of their decision making process. This changed radically at the end of August 2017 because there was a meeting of the Supervisory Board called up in order to discuss what they found was the imminent deficit and loss of liquidity of Documenta. This was something that must’ve happened in a very short time because things didn’t look this way ahead of the opening in Athens in April. The problem is that you’re on a project over a relatively short period of time and everything happens very quickly so you make certain prognosis of how the budget will develop. As a curatorial team under my directorship we were constantly motivated and encouraged by documenta gGmbH to work on both parts of the exhibition as planned and the Supervisory Board did not say one word to stop the process.

Once we were asked to cut the production budget, we got together with all curators and people who worked in production department and we cut funding for some projects to the amount that was expected. We moved on and the show opened in Athens and then in Kassel as planned. Everything was fine in June. In July a new mayor of Kassel took the office. He wasn’t interested in meeting me as the artistic director of documenta 14 and did not show interest in officially visiting the exhibition. I thought maybe he’s new on the job and needed time so I didn’t read it as withdrawal of interest or a warning sign. At the end of August and the very beginning of September, about a month after the show ended in Athens and three weeks before it ended in Kassel, news of the deficit were leaked from the Supervisory Board to the local press. Than it became a super tasty bite for bigger German press and a pretext to start ripping documenta 14 apart. Within three or four days it was reproduced by international press which had problems with the content of documenta even before.

There was a kind of expectation that a bad exhibition translates into a bad financial outcome, a disaster scenario produced in the media, with politicians who appear as saviours from their heights to clean up the mess. It was an exercise in understanding how neoliberal economy works. While ignoring the content of the exhibition they stepped in at the moment when they could address the members of German society as a) taxpayers and b) prospective voters. In September or October AfD sued us. They brought to the public attorney of Kassel an accusation against CEO, the former Lord Mayor of the city and me of mismanaging funds, a fraud. From that moment on we were suspended in a position of doubt because the public attorney took many months to proceed and did not inform us about the details of investigation. I was never shown any results of the financial audit that was ordered by the Supervisory Board. This audit results were never openly communicated by the Board, but they were again leaked to the press as a complete evasion of real public debate.

The public was completely misguided through sensational press articles and the Kassel newspaper that has pretty much a monopoly on information in this town, shaping the discourse, working hand in hand with politicians who didn’t have to get involved or take position. So they waited us out and the CEO agreed on leaving. Officially, she wasn’t fired, but why would she leave if she didn’t want to do it at any point earlier? In the end, the public attorney cleared us all from all accusations and pointed to the political motivation of AfD’s motion against us. Then things slowly stabilized on the level of official interpretation. There was a big deficit which was dealt with by stakeholders. Technically speaking, it’s true – there was a substantial deficit, but the way it was packaged and sold to the public is something I politically completely disagree with. It was a manipulation which was supposed to demonstrate how these kinds of “problems” will be dealt with in the future.

The project which I proposed – of documenta 14, Athens and Kassel on equal footing – and which we realised, was really exceptional, large and complex operation. All those in charge knew it from the beginning, from the late 2013, when I was appointed to realize it. I don’t think it’s even about the money issue. There is more money in the budget of documenta 15 than it was in ours. The politicians always claimed the budget was sufficient, and they got angry when our CEO once said in public that we are probably underfunded. Suddenly now – the budget increases.

KP: This raises the question of financing cultural events and culture in general. If you want to avoid spectacular and retain the critical moment, how can you do that without relying on public funds and what is the future of cultural funding?

We must insist on governments, be it state or municipal, to assume responsibility for cultural institutions, allow them to remain independent in their programming, and keep some sort of ability to evaluate which institutions and for how long should receive funding to perpetuate or stabilize their activities. There’s a significant part of cultural institutions that receive some public funding. But in documenta, one third of the income is generated through ticket sales so the public directly pays for this event. The users pay more than the city and state together. Plus, you are obliged to raise a lot of money from sponsors. We didn’t get that much money from galleries, but we got quite an amount from international foundations and other institutions. I think it is the best if there is a balance between different sources of funding. My experience in Basel, where I had a budget of approximately 2,2 million francs is that the city-canton of Basel, as far as I remember, gave around one third of the budget and then there was an income from the restaurant that we were running plus I had to fundraise extra for all exhibitions.

The worst thing is if there is no understanding for a need to receive public funding.

KP: Your formal education included De Appel. Throughout your years of curatorial work, what were the less formal channels of learning and further educating yourself?

In Basel I was learning by doing cause I never ran an institution like Kunsthalle so I had to really learn how to do things, how to run the finances, manage the team, and so forth. I had to learn a lot about how you work with people since I was always working in a horizontal structure at Foksal Gallery Foundation. Suddenly I was in charge, I could hire people and tell them what I wanted to do. That was a new thing – so I learned a bit from the institution with which I worked. In terms of artistic content, I mostly learned from artists and few friends whom I respected in this curatorial profession. From early 90s on I always talked to artists a lot. These conversations have been continuing with many people involved. Some of them are great artists and my good friends and we work on projects occasionally.

Documenta 14, of course, was like an academy in progress, we were struggling all the time and learning from each other. We had people from different walks of life, with different sets of skills and knowledge. Out of that we tried to piece together this exhibition. For me, after documenta 14, things weren’t the same. My programme in Kunsthalle Basel was very European, Eurocentric, I must admit. There were moments which hinted at other possibilities, but I never went fully for opening the institution to non-European, non-US positions. And I should’ve done it. Maybe at that time I wasn’t ready for it, I didn’t have this capacity and knowledge. But, I knew from the moment I started to work on documenta 14 that I had to change a lot in my way of thinking. Therefore I tried to find people who would teach me something. I found this group who taught me a great deal on political side of things, other histories and not only art histories. A lot of that transpired into what documenta 14 became and into stuff that was published – including the documenta 14 Reader and Daybook. I didn’t come to documenta 14 with a ready-made plan of what I wanted to show.

I had an intention of shaping things with others, producing a kind of perception shift or shock, perhaps, a way to perform displacement. But one thing is some private passion for displacements and the other thing is that you suddenly see that this word also applies to a lot of people who are displaced not because they want to leave and enjoy non-identitarian discourse, but because they have a war in their country, they are exploited by mafias and capitalism and they have to move and flee all the time. Documenta 14 was coinciding with big debates on migrations and the physical fact of migrants coming to Europe, being blocked at different borders and locked in camps. So this was a daily discussion. More or less efficiently, we tried to work with responsibility and attention to these issues. Many of artistic decisions were motivated by the need to articulate things publicly.

People tend to listen more to artists than curators. Curators without artists are a pretty ridiculous bunch of people discussing things in their own circle and that may be interesting to them, but artists have this licence for making a big public statement. That makes them very good transmitters of ideas. That’s why we didn’t have that many formalists in the show, who are interested in cultivating their introverted formal development, although there are some radical positions that can also go through this doors. We had a bunch of people who work with different communities and usually deliver their artistic statements in a very tense or problematic context they’re coming from and we tried to bring such practices into larger public perception.

KP: You were one of the lecturers of WHW Academy in Zagreb and you will be also running a seminar in Vienna, in a project at the Academy of Fine Arts. How important do you think formal types of education are for artists and where do you think the position of non-formal educational projects is?

Even within the formal schemes there are always open points of encounter and I think for artists it’s important to also meet people from outside their school. Through these encounters people come across ideas and expand their knowledge. The WHW Academy provides a chance for such encounters that would hopefully be significant for the participating artists. At various stages of my life I remember meeting individuals who completely changed my perception of things, either generally or in some specific aspect. Mostly, but not only, artists. I hope that a context like this, which is pretty special and privileged in the sense of creating space of work and reflection for a small number of people, would generate some kind of revelatory or transformative experience for some of them. This less conventional educational formats are important in order to challenge the main frame. Instead of trying to petition academies and asking them to change their ways of working and curricula, we can create our own academies which people can choose, and this is good. There was a similar philosophy behind creating WHW and creating something like Foksal Gallery Foundation back then. They are not comparable, but in the intention of getting some hold on your means of productions, they’re similar. You want to be a part of the entire process and not only employee of some larger structure that alienates you. These are small steps towards hopefully non- or less alienated labour. Whether this project will survive or not, we’ll see. Instead of being authors, curators of exhibitions and animators of projects, WHW are starting to pass their experience to others. It feels good to distribute that, to bring people in and then send them back into their contexts and societies.

KP: Which of the art fields do you expect to change the most under the influence of new technologies and new ways of communication?

Well, I don’t have a coherent theory on this, but I think for many people who are able to enter this new kind of world or ways of communicating it means more independent access to knowledge. It might be a possibility of shaping things individually or in occasional alliances and not going through hierarchically organized structures, but there’s a lot of open questions. This kind of accessibility sometimes feels as a potential, but is not actually lived. Everything is accessible and that’s enough. Sometimes reading one book over and over again also reveals a lot because you can study something in a very intensive way. Sometimes you can do a lot with limited means. I think this access and mobility which have been packaged and sold as attractions of mainstream culture are also collateral fictions of this phase of capitalism. Of course, people can make different use of that, but overall I’m not sure if this is not the new face of ideology covering the bare reality of capitalism which is to be treated with suspicion. And technology… I don’t expect that much of it, to be honest. Communication technologies change, but I don’t think technology produces essentially new content.

KP: What are the development possibilities of experimental exhibitions today?

Endless. Exhibition is an unexplored genre. I use the word genre because I don’t think it’s just a format or a form of presenting content. I think a lot can be done with organization of space and time in a form of experience. It is an interesting genre that doesn’t have its rules written yet. They can mutate or be often modified, from exhibitions that are large amorphous projects like documenta, to more pointed short statements. In a way, it’s an all-encompassing genre in which other arts can be incorporated. There is a potential in working with literature, film, theatre, music, or the digital sphere and new forms of communication. This is super interesting because these things might be included as part of the experience of exhibition, as much as lectures, conferences or discursive stuff. Exhibition can be all-encompassing place, which is beyond specialization of artistic disciplines and discursive fields. In that sense a lot can still be invented and changed.

There is something about this temporariness of an exhibition and the fragility of singular experience of visiting and then having a memory of being there, then, rather than retaining something to keep at hand you can always consult. That makes it special. Theatre plays can be replayed many times on the stage. Exhibitions open and close and that’s it. Sometimes they don’t even open.

Predavanje pod naslovom documenta 14: 6. travnja – 17. rujna 2017. održava se ususret drugoj obljetnici izvedbe koja je otvorila documentu u Ateni te nešto više od godinu i pol od kad je druga iteracija projekta završila u Kasselu, nakon čega je uslijedila žestoka rasprava o dugu i krizi. 

Ovaj zajednički napor brojnih umjetnika, pisaca i kustosa, kojem je prethodilo nekoliko faza javnih manifestacija u oba grada, bio je ogroman i višeslojan poduhvat koji nastavlja odjekivati radovima njegovih protagonista i onih koji su ga pratili. “Izbjegavajući logiku singularnog događanja, documenta 14 pokušala se otvoriti temporalnostima, omogućiti drugačije načine razumijevanja lokacije i prostora, ponuditi mogućnosti nastanjivanja dugog trajanja – u višestrukosti fragmentarnih iskustava, intervala i razasutih percepcija”, navodi se u najavi događaja.

Adam Szymczyk,umjetnički direktor documente 14 u Ateni i Kasselu 2017., boravi u Zagrebu kao jedan od profesora na WHW Akademiji, a nedavno je imenovan i predavačem na projektu Principle of Equality – Open Studio na Akademiji lijepih umjetnosti u Beču.