Report_Issue 1/2009 - Jubiläum/ 20 Jahre Mauerfall

Manuela Hötzl: You say that with the fall of
the Iron Curtain, a “Pandora’s box of political
nightmares” was opened for Croatia. At the
same time, a significant development in the
direction of independence had already started
under Tito. What is the situation in Croatia at
present?
Vedran Mimica: In the fifties, sixties and seventies
Yugoslavia differed in a number of respects
from other Eastern European countries behind
the former Iron Curtain. This was primarily
because Tito was not comparable with other
political representatives of that time such as
Brezhnev, Ceaus¸escu or Honecker. These politicians
were completely dominated by the Soviet
block, whereas Tito, as is well known, was
not. However, preventing the democratisation
of the economy cost him political legalisation in
Europe and was what first introduced developments
in this country that created the state in
which it finds itself today. At the same time in
its role as a buffer zone between East and West
Yugoslavia was economically most successful,
which Tito as a kind of political genius – that he
most certainly was – also defined and exploited
for his own ends.
What significance did the integrationist and yet
international policies of Tito have for the cultural
scene in former Yugoslavia?
The collapse of the country was fatal for the cultural
scene in Yugoslavia. One should not forget
that under Tito artistic freedom was a possibility.
An avant-garde – like say under Stalin – did
not “develop”, it was always there. At the time
when in East Germany or in the Soviet Union
Stalinist Realism was viewed as the most important
movement, Joseph Beuys held a workshop
in Belgrade. This is an indication of the
great difference.
Were cultural differences and identities – say,
for example, the differences between Slovenia
and Croatia not so important at that time?
Naturally such differences always existed, Yugoslavia
was never a homogeneous state. Slovenia
and Kosovo cannot be compared with each
other. Different histories, languages, economies
and culture were always linked to each
other in Yugoslavia. I compare former Yugoslavia
with the EU today. The differences between
Portugal and Ireland, for example, could hardly
be greater. This doesn’t mean that this is a bad
thing. Tito's idea was that the better-developed
nations would help the less developed ones and
that both could profit from each other. This is
precisely the “argument” of the EU today. The
great difference lies in the success of the EU
and Yugoslavia’s lack of success.
Vedran Mimica (born 1954), Croatian architect and director of the Dutch Berlage Institute, still maintains close ties with
his native country. Although in 1979 he moved abroad, he is still actively committed to his country. In an interview he
analyses the significance of Tito and the drama of Milošević for the cultural scene of present-day Croatia. However new
processes are developing, and a committed scene made up of independent associations is taking the cultural development
of the country in hand.
— Manuela Hötzl talks to Vedran Mimica —
Were the individual identities of the different
nationalities previously supported?
No, these identities were suppressed. Not entirely,
but partly.
In Croatia today is the Tito era ignored or idealised?
Idealised? In Croatia not so much. It is more
the case that my Croatian friends are almost all
nationalists. Clearly there exists in this country
a historically based tragedy that developed
largely during the Second World War and that
split the Croatians into fascist nationalists and
federal communists. I personally am proud that
my father was a “Tito-ist” but others are proud
of the fact that their fathers were Croatian nationalists.
This ideological separation still exists.
It is not that we Croatians believe that the
Second World War isn't over yet, but the theme
is still present in public debates.
Does this nationalism have a vision?
I tend to answer no. What happened is – curious
or not – that in the post-socialist landscape
during the nineties, when the war was
still very much present, a kind of structuralist
discourse started up. Croatian intellectuals regarded
themselves as left-wing, however they
meant left-wing in the sense of the Frankfurt
School or Sartre. These intellectuals and their
ideas never prevailed at any time; instead they
encouraged a curious national romantic vision
of a new state. Boris Groys has also commented
on this theme. The gist of what he says is: if one
simply extinguishes one’s history (in the case
of Croatia its socialist and communist history)
then one is behaving like a Stalinist. It was the
Stalinists who negated the Russian avant-garde
in order to return to a new, pure starting point.
And this is precisely what intellectuals in Croatia
favoured at the beginning of the 1990s: the
total effacement of the modern tradition and a
return to a romanticism of the 19th century. But
if one wishes to define Croatia as part of Europe
one cannot encounter this new European community
in such a way but only in a way that is
multi-cultural, dynamic and modern.
Milošević the great drama for Yugoslavia and
Croatia …
It was he who initiated the collapse of Yugoslavia
and its disappearance. His politics were those
of destruction. Slavoj Žižek would argue: look,
it is not the Balkan chaos but rather the chaos
of the Western powers that produces figures
like Milošević. They did not support him perhaps,
but created him in the first place. Western
Europe was for a long time divided about how
to deal with the crisis and about the question of
Yugoslavia's future. When they reacted in 2000
it was clearly far too late. The process of disintegration
was nearing its end point in Slovenia,
Croatia and Bosnia. The intervention in Kosovo
brought it to a conclusion, so to speak. In this
sense Milošević was “created by the West”.
How powerful are the institutions of the former
system today?
Ministries, universities, scientific and cultural
institutions behave at times in an even more
“socialist” way than before. If something does
not happen quite soon, it will be extremely
difficult to get new developments of any kind
started. This is true of all countries, not just
Croatia, but also the Czech Republic, Poland or
Hungary.
Does this also apply to museums?
Yes, indeed it does. Parallel to this, however,
one can observe a fantastic involvement of the
“NGOs” in culture and architecture. They have
initiated an interesting, “alternative scene”.
Nevertheless in my opinion it isn't really as
alternative as many people call it. It would be
more correct to describe this unbelievably active
cultural production as urban – and multidisciplinary.
That is to say, it receives support
from all possible sides.
Do these independent associations also collaborate
with state institutions or municipal administrations,
for example in Zagreb? Do they
communicate with each other?
Naturally one should not badmouth everything.
There is always somebody in the ministries
who supports these independent groups and
in fact is also expected that the EU will do this.
But at times communication is difficult because
of people's lack of knowledge, for example in
questions of urban design or regarding strategic
planning.
Do these independent groups at present receive
more support than the somewhat sluggish official
institutions, both regionally and internationally?
Without any doubt these active NGOs represent
everything that is of interest in Croatia
at the moment. But I think that this cannot be
enough. These groups can never replace the
activities required of a government, and most
certainly not when the country is part of the
EU. But they succumb to the belief that this
is precisely what they can do. But I think that
these young people are ultimately too smart to
behave like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza.
Croatia must change in this respect. Its institutions
must be reformed; if this is not done it
would be better to close them down now rather
than to let things continue the way they are at
present.
What role does privatisation play?
The transformation of one system into another,
which is being spread through all the Eastern
European countries by democracy and the
free market, is certainly happening somewhat
too fast and with too little control. But nobody
came or comes up with a better solution. Žižek
wanted to reflect about a “third way”, to find a
middle way between communism and late capitalism
but there was nobody who was in a position
to implement this.
What concept does Croatia have?
At the moment the question is whether it is really
wise to simply incorporate all aspects of
European integration in our policies or whether
it might be possible for us to find a concept better
suited to Croatia – but that would be like a
miracle. I don't see this happening.
What is most lacking?
There is no critical mass in Croatia that seriously
examines the country’s development.
There exists no possibility of breaking out of
this system as it is at present. In this context
I support these free “alternative” associations.
Their activities are good for this country. This
also has implications for Macedonia, Serbia
and Albania. These groups have at least introduced
the international discourse into this
country – which is what we need at the present
moment in time.
Vedran Mimica (born 1954) is director of the Berlage
Institute in Amsterdam (NL). He is educated as an architect,
he was a lecturer at the Faculty of Architecture at
the University of Zagreb and a postgraduate researcher
at the Delft University of Technology. An active writer on
architecture and architectural education, he led the curatorial
team for the International Architecture Biennale
Rotterdam 2007.
Published in “Report” in June 2004 (online)
43