Private nationalism: A story of a state representation causing distortion of collective memory

Fond pre MVO

Czechoslovak flag exhibited in Košice Kunsthalle last year definitely rocked the boat. Its placement in the gallery entrance was perceived as defamation of the Czech national flag, design of which is concordant with the Czechoslovak one. This way, Dalibor Bača’s piece turned out to be a pretext for removal of grant support approved for the international exhibition project titled Private nationalism. Its addendum is currently taking place in Open Gallery in form of a cycle of exhibitions and discussions with the same title. Private nationalism is being gradually tackled by 46 artists and 16 discussion participants over a period of four weeks. The second exhibition from a cycle of 4 rounds will be opened on February 17 including Dalibor Bača’s piece, or better to say, the case around the flag. To find out more about Bača’s intention and reasons for this substitution of the two flags, read our interview with the artist.

What is the story behind creation of this masterpiece and why did you use the flag?

The entire story started of its journey in 2012 along with other projects. Since I live in Prague, I receive various signals. Often they are trivial – let us say a child comes home with a homework to colour the Czech flag. And I remember the times, when it was a Czechoslovak flag. I have encountered more signals of this kind and they make you think. Why is that flag a Czech flag if it used to be our Czechoslovak flag. Nothing about its form has changed.

I have had several projects in my studio which correlated with this topic „Production of the Czech flag in 1993“, performance at the Milovice airport near „A patriot“ . Subsequently, one large project „Looking for the Czech Patriot under the Czechoslovak Flag“ – a pole installed at Ján Palach square in front of Rudolfinum. It was a kinetic piece which divided Czechoslovak flag into fundamental elements. The Czechoslovak flag actually originates from the idea that red colour represents Czech element and blue triangle refers to Slovakia. I have separated these elements, i.e. the triangle was anchored on the pole and the Czech part, a red-and-white bicolour, moved in the wind with a message saying „The coat flies where the wind blows“. This was a time of first direct presidential elections and patriotic emotions started to burst in campaign. This piece was supposed to be exhibited as part of Private nationalism in Košice, but display options did not allow for it. So, I decided to join the project with a new piece CZ_SK_HU_D_PL_, a historic Czechoslovak flag used prior to 1993. In 2013, several projects were born on our fine arts scene which point out to the Czechoslovak flag and jointly shared era. At the end of the day, I do not really know what the response from people was like. The pole itself was very visible and everybody knew about it and no one actually commented on the issue of flag duality.

Thus the point of the flag being part of Private nationalism cycle was to seek its substance in spectators‘ response. It was installed into the space as an obstacle for this very reason. Everybody was confronted with a choice of either stepping on it or going round it based on their personal experience with the flag or personal relationship with the flag.

Was not Czechoslovakia an obstacle for us all at the beginning of 90-ies? Was it defeated by our joint nationalism and the flag which lies now defeated on the gallery floor takes us by surprise as an obstacle? Most people are appalled now, but when they pulled the flag down from the pole, none of these people had said a word to their political representation… I am being ironic and critical now, but there is no need for hurt feelings, we should rather reflect on these facts. The piece is titled after countries joining the Private nationalism project. Its aim was to monitor movement of a master piece, i.e. the further it is from its original domestic context, the more diverse is the attitude of people towards this piece.

So, your goal was to put together a piece which is very much tight to the topic of former Czechoslovakia, but make it as attractive as possible?

Yes, I wanted to induce people’s reaction. For instance, in Prague, there was a young woman who could discern the flag, so she folded it. Intentionally, so that no one would step on it, with a legacy of her grandpa. But, at the same time, as she folded it, the flag ceased to be legible for others, thus people walking in the gallery ended up stepping on it, anyway. Finally, a group of young people from Letná plain came, where Czech Olympic stand was installed during Olympics in Sochi. They started wrapping themselves up in the flag as in the sports events, they identified themselves with it. Subsequently, someone explained to them that it was not a Czech flag.

The display in Prague was much calmer, nothing remotely resembling the havoc in in Košice, actually occurred there.

Media did not notice it. If we look at Divus gallery and the type of institution it is, one can see a completely different structure of visitors, those people expect this kind of exhibitions. It stirred the interest in Košice since Kunsthalle there has a broader range of visitors. The „conflict/case“ was driven by the Czech minority in Košice. They started sharing their deceptive and deceitful interpretation of the piece to project partner institutions. The point of this masterpiece was to point out to latent nationalism hidden in people, which it actually managed to rouse.

Let us briefly summarize what happened to the flag and the entire Private nationalism project.

Finally, the Czech association shared its interpretation with the Ambassador Mrs. Klausová and other institutions. They were not much bothered with the fact that they did not actually see the piece, just peeked through the window when gallery was closed. When I think back of their reaction, I believe they just failed to understand and seek deeper sense. Also, I think they used the the opportunity to justify their existence. Since the Czech cultural centre was abolished in Košice just one year prior to the exhibition. Mrs. Takácsová, the Chairwoman of the Czech Association in Košice, is a member of Council for national minorities at the Government’s Office. Based on her interpretation of the piece, the Council decided to withdrawn the money which were already approved for Private nationalism project. Moreover, it withdrew two other grants which were completely unrelated to Private nationalism. That amount of funding was already approved and no one knows whether Kassak’s centre of intermedia creativity (note: co-organiser of Private nationalism project) will or will not be on the black list in the year to come. Our requests for meetings at the Government’s Office were denied.

Ambassador Klausová was appointed to her office by Miloš Zeman as an act of gratitude for her support in presidential elections. The Ambassador’s approach is pointing out to the inevitability of proving some proactivity when it comes to Czech issues rather than seeking sound solutions. She refused to meet the curators and authors, which completely undermines the point of having such office. After that, a havoc started with Klausová writing every single institution supporting Private nationalism and they started acting. The amount of criticism and mocking of author was defined by action of the Minister of Culture Maďarič who withdrew a grant support once approved. Subsequent refusal to meet in person and listen to the opinion from the other side, only confirmed Ambassador‘s standpoint. Finally, the Czech association shared its interpretation with the Ambassador Mrs. Klausová and other institutions. They were not much bothered with the fact that they did not actually see the piece, just peeked through the window when gallery was closed. When I think back of their reaction, I believe they just failed to understand and seek deeper sense.

Also, I think they used the the opportunity to justify their existence. Since the Czech cultural centre was abolished in Košice just one year prior to the exhibition. Mrs. Takácsová, the Chairwoman of the Czech Association in Košice, is a member of Council for national minorities at the Government’s Office. Based on her interpretation of the piece, the Council decided to withdrawn the money which were already approved for Private nationalism project. Moreover, it withdrew two other grants which were completely unrelated to Private nationalism. That amount of funding was already approved and no one knows whether Kassak’s centre of intermedia creativity (note: co-organiser of Private nationalism project) will or will not be on the black list in the year to come. Our requests for meetings at the Government’s Office were denied.

Ambassador Klausová was appointed to her office by Miloš Zeman and in return, he expects her support in presidential elections. The Ambassador’s approach is pointing out to the inevitability of proving some proactivity when it comes to Czech issues rather than seeking sound solutions. She refused to meet the curators and authors, which completely undermines the point of having such office. After that, a havoc started with Klausová writing every single institution supporting Private nationalism and they started acting. The amount of criticism and mocking of author was defined by action of the Minister of Culture Maďarič who withdrew a grant support once approved. Subsequent refusal to meet in person and listen to the opinion from the other side, only confirmed Ambassador‘s standpoint.

Do you think the hysteria around your piece of art reflects incapability to grasp contemporary arts or is it rather a demonstration of intolerance and chauvinism in society?

First and foremost, nobody really saw the piece personally. And I believe it is by far the most important thing to do if you want to discuss the piece. That did not happen and media just took over an interpretation from a third person, which started off the chauvinism and nationalism. All it took was to transfer misinterpretations from situations that nobody experienced and subsequently start all that havoc. Reading contemporary arts? You need willingness first and that is probably measurable by the number of gallery visitors.

Is present exhibition an attempt to put things in a prospect, is it a continuation of the cycle or what does it actually mean to you?

It is a discussion and continuation of the cycle. My pieces from 2012 along with this discussion mean one thing to me. The curators‘ aim was to present the largest possible scale of documentation in a chronological order. Thus, the exhibition contains complete documentation complemented with media recordings. Our attempt is to present this case with reference to other situations occurring in Czech and Slovak Republic in the past.

What is the impact of a case like this on an artist from your personal perspective? Do you feel that your pieces are being perceived in a different light or had it actually changed your own perception and contemplations about future creation if arts is not supported by key sources such as Ministry of Culture SR?

I have never been relying on grant support. I have even put together that pole myself, although it was costly. So, I have never gone this way. As for myself, one is surely under pressure, that is not to be denied. But I had my share of experience after Fico (note: controversial Bača’s bust of Doc. JUDr. Robert Fico, CSc. installed in a public space which was studiously covered and dismantled 5 hours after its installation), so I was taken aback by the fact that media were not even interested in author’s opinion. Czech media took over that misleading information about flag being used as a door mat. This is the kind of information Czech media shared without asking authors or curators what they have to say. However, that did not stop me from seeking interesting topics even if it is critical again. My intention has never been to cause artificial confrontation or provocation. So, something else may occur which may or may not be reflected. It surely is not my primary objective to generate conflict.

What is appealing about Czech-Slovak topic to you?

I think it came as a puzzle built on confusions which I perceive, since I live here. And they are confusions: when we celebrate Czechoslovakia’s anniversary, what flag do people stand under? I have found a memorial to Czechoslovak soldiers from the World War II. in France. Where is the Slovak flag there? And the other one is which? It is either Czech or Czechoslovak. Then, we should have had three flags – Czech, Slovak and Czechoslovak one. That is the first package of questions one starts to collect and then contemplates.

Those state symbols are just being defined by the state representation, citizens approve it and deal is done. No one ever cares for its logics or connotations. It is similar to the situation with Public pedestal Antikulich 1 and Antikulich 2 (note: protests against the statue of Svatopluk on Bratislava castle). At that time, our representations served us something and we responded. But they served us wrong information, we are not remnants of Old Slovaks. The representation is feeding us something which is not true and expects us to believe it. This is a similar situation; state representatives decide that that flag becomes the Czech flag and nobody protests, the society automatically takes the fact and goes on.

Do you think that split of Czechoslovakia still echoes in people? Do Czechs and Slovaks care about their mutual relations?

Older generation is still sensitive about this issue, but younger people do not care, some of them were born to separate republics, already. And they probably do not respond to state symbols any more. A pole in 2013 was actually a commemoration of 20th anniversary of our split. So, the original idea was to remind ourselves about the split and its gradual evolvement into the flag being displayed in Kunsthalle, it is just the way it developed. I do not know, if people are interested, so I reminded them. I think it is a distortion of collective memory and displacement of a group of people and this is what I respond to. That interests me. The exhibition will be opened by a discussion on state symbols, freedom of arts and the case on February 17th at 5.30 pm in Open Gallery at Baštova 5. Discussants: artist Dalibor Bača, art historian Daniel Grúň, artist Jozef Jankovič and theoretician and curator Jiří Ptáček. Facilitator: Lenka Kukurová.

Authors: Dalibor Bača, Anca Benera – Arnold Estefan, Mira Gaberova – Katarína Morháčová, Guma Guar, Tibor Horváth, Jozef Jankovič, Szabolcs KissPál, Nemere Kerezsi, Tamara Moyzes, Rafani, Kornél Szilágyi (Igor Buharov)

Photo: author’s archive, Tomáš Halász