Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

Seven Studies for a Memorial, 2010, installation view, courtesy: the artist and Loock Galerieplu membru al publicului în acest teatru cu personaje reale pe care-l presupuneprocesul de contrafacere a istoriei. Distanfla, dacæ existæ, constæ în transformareape care sînt forflat s-o fac de la nivelul øi identitatea politicæ naflionalæ la identitateade artist øi de desenator de tribunal, întrucît aceastæ identitate simplificæ interacfliuneamea cu tribunalul. Asta îmi permite sæ negociez un alt limbaj de comunicare cu procesul,un limbaj care are pretenflia de a reprezenta ceva nobil, limbajul desenului.¬ Acest limbaj al desenului pare sæ reziste la o simplæ traducere a unei realitæfli înalta; el pare adesea sæ aibæ propriile legi de funcflionare. În multe privinfle, este vocabularulvizual cel mai apropiat de scris (de mînæ) øi, ca atare, se situeazæ la granifla dintresemanticæ øi formæ. Atît în lucrarea Visitor [Vizitator] cît øi, mai recent, în G-Series[Seria G], desenul øi scrisul coexistæ, fuzioneazæ øi se joacæ cu caracterul evaziv al uneisemnificaflii care trebuie încorporatæ într-o urmæ, într-o marcæ. G vine de la genocid, darøi de la Grubanov; este un semn, o figuræ abstractæ, element al nonfigurativului. În desene,cu toate acestea, el capætæ o autonomie carnavalescæ, generînd tot mai multe urmeøi linii, pînæ cînd forma cuvintelor øi relaflia lor sfideazæ controlul deplin. Consideri cæ aceastæserie e o potenflialæ mærturie a unei mai profunde incompatibilitæfli între realitatea aøacum se desfæøoaræ ea øi ceea ce sîntem capabili sæ spunem despre ea?în acest purgatoriu care a fost procesul a fost, probabil, o cale prin care judecætorii ausubliniat materialitatea justifliei (øi o întrupare a vinei)? Sau este aceasta o declarafliede distanflare øi înstræinare, un pas înapoi faflæ de propria ta istorie (øi, pînæ la un punct,a lui Milošević)?√ Pe de o parte, ecusonul de „vizitator“ este un permis de intrare în vidul undeidentitæflile oficiale se îmbinæ în nofliunea de „internaflional“, adicæ OrganizafliaNafliunilor Unite, justiflie internaflionalæ øi tribunal internaflional. Trebuie sæ-fli prezinflicartea de identitate naflionalæ la intrare, ca øi cum ai pætrunde pe un teritoriu suveran;ea îfli este apoi luatæ øi înlocuitæ cu ecusonul de „vizitator“ – noua ta identitateîn acest nonspafliu transnaflional, superficial. Acfliunea are drept scop, probabil, presupusaobiectivitate a tribunalului øi conceptele de transnaflional øi internaflional. Pe dealtæ parte, titlul de „vizitator“ subliniazæ ambiguitatea pozifliei mele, a implicærii meledirecte în evenimentele discutate în sala de judecatæ, transformîndu-mæ într-un siminingthe situation between the artist and his model on the semanticand visual levels. John Berger wrote that drawing documents notwhat you’ve seen, but what you’ve become. Drawing is an interactionwith the subject; even more, it’s an introjection of the subjectuntil you incorporate it to the point that the fusion of the subject andyour own cognitive apparatus starts coming out of your hand andyour pen. The drawings I made in the courtroom situate me not justin relation to the visual particularities I am considering while drawing,but also to the entire historical and political backdrop of thetrial. Moreover, this backdrop happens to be my personal history,hence my involvement is multi-faceted. I am not merely an observer,but an active participant in the process of recapitulating differentemotional narratives in the official history. My drawings record aprocess of coming to terms with the contradictory aspects of myinvolvement in this troubling chapter of history as well as my implicitinvolvement in the trial.¬ Along with your sketches of the prosecuted, the judges, and theoverly present décor (lights, headphones, video-cameras etc.), youalso present the “Visitor” badge granting you access to court, as wellas stills from the TV coverage of the hearings, in which you can beseen as part of the audience. Is this a way of emphasizing the needfor proof of physical presence, in the same way in which holdingMiloševic’ in the limbo which was the trial was perhaps a way for thejudges to emphasize the materiality of justice (and an embodimentof guilt)? Or is it a declaration of distance and estrangement, a stepback from your own (and up to a point Miloševic’‘s) history?√ On the one hand, the “Visitor” badge is a pass to enter the voidwhere formal identities merge into the notion of “international,”i.e. United Nations, international justice, and international tribunal.You need to present your national identity card at the entrance, asthough you were entering sovereign territory; it is then taken awayfrom you and replaced with the “Visitor” badge – your new identityin this transnational, superficial non-place. An action aims, perhaps,at the supposed objectivity of the tribunal and the concepts of transnationaland international. On the other hand, the title “Visitor”emphasizes the ambiguity of my position, of my direct involvementin the events discussed in the courtroom, making me a mere memberof the audience in this reality theater engaged in the process of forginghistory. The distance, if there is any, is contained in the transformationthat I am forced to make from my own national and politicalidentity into the identity of an artist and court draftsman, since thisidentity simplifies my interaction with the tribunal. It allows me tonegotiate a different language of communicating with the process,a language with a noble claim to what it represents, the languageof drawing.¬ This language of drawing seems to resist a mere translationof one reality into another; it often appears to have its own laws ofoperation. In many ways, it’s the closest visual vocabulary to (hand)-writing, and as such it situates itself at the border between semanticsand form. Both in the work Visitor and, more recently, in theG-Series, drawing and writing coexist, merge into one another, andplay with the elusiveness of a meaning that has to be embodied in atrace, a mark. G-stands for genocide, but also for Grubanov;it is a sign, an abstract figure, proof of non-representability. In thedrawings, however, it acquires a carnivalesque autonomy, generatingmore and more traces and lines until the shape of the words andtheir relationship to one another defy full control. Do you regardthese series as potential testimonies to a deeper incompatibilitybetween reality as it unfolds and what we are capable of sayingabout it?√ The drawings I make are documents of locating and signifyingunofficial and illegitimate truths about their subject. They recordevents as my attention towards the subject reaches a multi-facetedconclusion or imposes a crucial question. They are algorithms of variousdifferent mechanisms of identification; they dwell on the natureand cause of this identification. The G-Series records such a mecha-100