Hungarian
art criticism handles Lóránd Hegyi’s newest grandiose exhibition,
which attempts to summarize the art of the last fifty years of the indeterminable
Central European region, more or less with kid gloves. The only writing
of a daringly critical tone originates in the pen of József Vadas
(József Vadas: „Szenzibilis panoráma” (Sensible
Panorama). Magyar Hírlap (Hungarian daily newspaper), Budapest,
15.04.2000, p. 12.), who puts forth the following: “Just let us not believe
that this was the past half-century. With Lóránd Hegyi’s
visionary panorama, at most, the possession of imperfect (half-past) art
has begun.”
Truly, s/he who perchance expected more from this must have been greatly
disappointed.
Danilo Kis compares Central Europe especially to a sort of dragon that has been sighted by many, though no one is able to describe how it looks. Behind this conception lies the fact that Central Europe is definable first and foremost as a cultural region upon which interferences are symptomatic. In his statement given to Catherine Millet, Hegyi also speaks of a multicultural region „struggling with numerous identities”, in which the existence of ethnic and religious minorities is constituted on the one hand of sources of conflict, and on the other, expresses itself in terms of specific creativity. If we accept as a given that Central Europe is principally a cultural-intellectual category, then the inclusion of several countries in this exhibition becomes problematic. Not to mention that within the individual countries, the combination in some cases is, lightly put, catastrophic.
To what am I referring? Two hundred kilometres from Budapest, in Voivodina, the historical perception that the southern perimeter of Europe was described by the natural border created by the Sava and the Danube rivers, and that that which fell south of this border belonged to the Balkans, always reigned. With full knowledge of the character study of cultures and mentalities, as well as the history, which is perceptible in both the lower (southern) and upper (northern) regions of this natural border, the comprehension of a moment ago may be said to be undeniably true. If not the centre, if we consider things from the viewpoint of the political and cultural hegemony of Belgrade, it is obvious that Serbia can only be classified within the Central European region thanks to its fortunate linkage with Voivodina; Montenegro and Macedonia, meanwhile, only as coupled with Serbia, leaning upon Voivodina. Thus, from the cultural aspect of Yugoslavia, the singular bridging-position and drawing-role of the multinational and multicultural Voivodina is incontestable; this is threatened in our times by the methodical annihilation of the current Serbian politics with its aspirations of homogenization. It is distressing that this political direction prevails even in terms of art history as represented in the exhibition entitled Aspects/Positions.
The exhibition catalogue writes off (in the pejorative sense of the word) Voivodina with the following footnote-like ascertainment: „Prior to the younger generations, in 1969, in Voivodina (Bosch+Bosch group from Subotica, and the KOD group, established in 1970 in Novi Sad), and later in Belgrade, called attention to itself”. In connection with my grievance is the fact that as a result of this Belgrade-centric mentality, an extremely characteristic segment of Central Europe has been omitted from this show; moreover, one which, in the given context, would have been able to function with credible value, and would have even provoked a surprise within the field of the favored Serbian authors, who are, in fact, less relevant in view of the concept of the exhibition. Furthermore, it is not exclusively geographical subordination, but rather concrete artistic accomplishment which results in the Central European spirituality and temperament that surges from within. (The intellectuality of Apsolutno, established in 1993 in Novi Sad and appearing in the exhibition as an insignia, is unfortunately lacking in the specific Central European approach and sensibility, not to mention that the group does not yet possess such a history that would merit the displacement of relevant artistic achievements.) Therefore, and justifiably so, the question arises as to which aspects predominated in this event: geopolitical, or cultural-intellectual? It has come to light, in any case, that Belgrade is closer to Central Europe than Subotica, and Macedonia, too, is closer than, for instance, Transylvania. What is certain: the oft-emphasised multinationalism and multiculturalism has not prevailed, even intentionally, in the exhibited material of today’s Yugoslavia, as opposed to Slovakia’s. It is Hegyi’s great negligence that has allowed this, and with this he has inevitably served current Serb politics based upon the policies of ethnic cleansing. Albeit if there is someone who should know what happened thirty years ago in Voivodina, then by all means, Hegyi should. Naturally, certain historical facts have gotten lost in this exhibition that aims to summarize. Frankly put: the first relevant production of the candidate of today’s Yugoslavian region was estimated with a one-sentence fact-like declaration.
We should consider, therefore, that in the case of such a slightly relative geopolitical-cultural unit as Central Europe, how much significance there is in the operative borders, and how much those regions like Voivodina and Transylvania, in view of their histories, intellectuality and cultures, still belong to (Central) Europe. Moreover: the former was always held up as an ornate European example of multinationalism and multiculturalism.
Central European art can by no means be pigeonholed within national borders; this time, however, those responsible did not recognise this.
There is no justification for the fact that its intellectual authors repeatedly stress that this retrospective does not strive for completeness. This is truly evident likewise with respect to the exhibiting artists, if we ask ourselves whether an authoritative Polish selection is imaginable without Józef Robakowski, Riszard Wasko, Adam Klimczak or Andrzej Jonasewski. Or, if we think in terms of tendencies: where are the Hungarian representatives of Pop Art, Actionism, Fluxus or Conceptualism? Similar breaches are experienced at the same time in the Czech material, too. But what should be truly subject to criticism is the fact that even the surveys to be read in the catalogue cannot be referred to as aspiring to completeness, as they rather reflect almost exclusively upon the deficient exhibition material.
It is indisputable that this time a distorted picture of the last half-century of Central European modern art has been assembled. In beholding this, nevertheless, it is also evident that the manipulations of certain professionals in art-policy put off even further the arrival of the moment when the countless inadequacies experienced here may be remedied.
Or, by then will there not even be a Central Europe?