Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship - autonomous ...

the social under socialism
II. Slovakia: Permanent Manifestations
The provocative forms of witting and unwitting participation initiated by
Knížák in Prague can be contrasted with artistic events in Bratislava during
the same period. If Knížák’s early work was resolutely avant- garde, seeking
disruption as a means to higher consciousness of everyday experience,
then the Slovakian artist Alex Mlynárčik was more interested in consensual,
optimistic and vernacular forms of collective activity that had their
roots in rural tradition. 34 The documentation of his works bear a striking
resemblance to recent socially engaged art, although today Mlynárčik is
something of a controversial fi gure (as is Knížák, but for different reasons). 35
He is also overlooked historically, as a younger generation of Slovakian
artists have found a greater affi nity with his contemporaries Stano Filko
(b.1937) and Július Koller (1939– 2007). 36
Mlynárčik began working in the early ’60s, making unremarkable
mixed- media compositions on wood. On first visiting Paris in 1964 he
found an immediate affi nity with Nouveau Réalisme (César, Arman, Saint
Phalle, Christo), the impact of which can be seen in the development of his
‘permanent manifestations’ (1965 onwards), three- dimensional assemblages
overlaid with public graffi ti as a kind of consumer palimpsest. 37 It
can also be seen in Happsoc I (a neologism of ‘happenings’, ‘happy’, ‘society’
and ‘socialism’) by Mlynárčik, Stano Filko and the theorist Zita
Kostrová. The trio announced a series of ‘realities’ to take place in Bratislava
during the week of 2– 9 May 1965. On 1 May, the three members
wrote a manifesto explaining their planned artistic action and idea of art,
which was founded upon the then current vogue for nominalism, that is,
excising an experience or event from the fl ow of everyday life and declaring
it to be a work of art. 38 In this particular instance, it was the whole city
of Bratislava and its society that was announced as an exhibition. However,
the manifesto also went beyond the reductiveness of neo- Duchampian
nominalism by including a parody of a national census that had taken
place the previous month, listing twenty- three types of object and their
number to be found in Bratislava: one castle, one Danube, 142,090 lampposts,
128,729 television aerials, six cemeteries, 138,936 females, 128,727
males, 49,991 dogs, and so on. The manifesto and data were sent to 400
people in the form of a printed invitation to Happsoc I, which designated
the city of Bratislava during the week of 1– 9 May as a work of art. This
period was framed by two public holidays: Workers’ Day, a key event in
the socialist calendar, and 9 May, which commemorated the liberation of
Slovakia by the Soviet Army in 1945. 39 It seems evident that this framing
sought to draw attention to two types of participation: offi cial parades, on
the one hand, and the artists’ creation of an invisible, involuntary and
imaginary participation, on the other.
Interpretations of Happsoc I somewhat depend upon one’s translation of
141