Ako vzniklo samotné dielo, ako ste sa dopracovali k použitiu vlajky?
Celá téma sa rozbehla v roku 2012 s inými projektmi. Nakoľko žijem v Prahe, tak sa na mňa nabaľujú rôzne signály. Často je to banalita, dajme tomu dieťa príde domov a donesie domácu úlohu: vymaľuj českú vlajku. A pritom kedysi sme to robili ako československú vlajku. Takýchto signálov, s ktorými som sa stretával, bolo viac a človek nad tým začne rozmýšľať. Prečo zrazu je tá vlajka česká, keď bola československá. K žiadnej zmene v jej forme neprišlo.
V rámci tejto témy som mal niekoľko projektov v ateliéri „Výroba českej vlajky v roku 1993“, performance na letisku v Milovicích u Prahy „Vlastenec“, následne jeden veľký projekt „Hľadanie českého vlastenca pod československou vlajkou“ – stožiar, ktorý bol inštalovaný na Námestí Jána Palacha pred Rudolfinom. Jednalo sa o kinetické dielo, kde som československú vlajku rozdelil do základných prvkov. Československá vlajka vlastne vznikla tak, že červená a biela symbolizujú český prvok a modrý trojuholník odkazuje na Slovensko. Ja som tie prvky oddelil, čiže trojuholník na stožiari bol fixne ukotvený a česká časť, červeno – biela bikolóra, sa pohybovala vo vetre s odkazom na „Kade vietor tade plášť“. Jednalo sa o obdobie prvej priamej voľby prezidenta ČR a spúšťanie nacionalistických vášní v kampani.
S týmto dielom sa počítalo, že by malo byť vystavené v cykle Privátny nacionalizmus, ale zavrhli sme to kvôli inštalačným možnostiam v Košiciach. Takže som do projektu vstúpil novým dielom CZ_SK_HU_D_PL_, historickou československou vlajkou, užívanou pred rokom 1993. V roku 2013 vzniklo na výtvarnej scéne viacero projektov, ktoré odkazujú na československú vlajku, či spoločné zdieľané obdobie. Reakcie ľudí na ne mi však neboli moc známe. Aj samotný stožiar, ktorý bol na očiach a všetci o tom vedeli, tak sa k tej téme, problému duality vlajky, nikto nevyjadroval.
Preto táto vlajka v rámci Privátneho nacionalizmu hľadala podstatu v reakciách divákov. Preto bola nainštalovaná do priestoru ako prekážka, kde človek má voľbu či na ňu stúpi, alebo ju obíde, čo vychádza z toho, akú skúsenosť s tou vlajkou má, či k nej má nejaký vzťah.
Československo nebolo pre nás na začiatku 90. rokov prekážkou? Porazil ju náš spoločný nacionalizmus a dnes porazená vlajka, ktorá leží na zemi v galérii, nás zaskočí ako prekážka? Väčšina ľudí môže byť pobúrená, ale keď vlajka išla dolu zo stožiaru neurobili voči svojím politickým reprezentáciám nič… Som ironický a kritický, ale nie je nutné sa urážať, skôr zamyslieť sa. Názov diela odkazuje na skratky krajín, ktoré vstúpili do projektu Privátny nacionalizmus. Mali zámer sledovať pohyb diela v rámci výtvarného projektu. Čím ďalej bude vlajka od domáceho kontextu, o to viac sa ľudia budú k dielu inak správať.
Vaším cieľom teda bolo spraviť dielo, ktoré stále vychádza z československej témy, ale čo najviac interaktívne?
Áno, vynútiť reakciu od diváka. V Prahe napríklad jedna slečna vedela o akú vlajku ide, vedela ju zaradiť, tak ju preložila. Zámerne, aby sa po nej nestúpalo, s odkazom na jej deda. Lenže zároveň, ako ju preložila, zástava bola úplne nečitateľná, takže ľudia čo chodili v galérii, po nej nakoniec stúpali. Na záver do galérie prišla skupina mladých ľudí z Letenskej pláne, kde bol počas Olympiády v Soči Český olympijský stánok. Začali sa do zástavy baliť a stotožňovali sa s ňou tak, ako na športových zápasoch. Následne im bolo vysvetľované, že sa nejedná o českú zástavu.
Pri výstave v Prahe sa ale okolo vlajky nestrhlo nič také, ako potom tu v Košiciach.
Nebolo to médiami zaznamenané. Keď si pozrieme galériu Divus, čo to je za inštitúciu, tak to je úplne iná štruktúra divákov a typ takýchto výstav sa tam očakáva. V Košiciach to rezonovalo nakoľko Kunsthalle má ďaleko širšie štruktúrovaných divákov. Spúšťačom „konfliktu/kauzy“ bola česká menšina žijúca v Košiciach. Svoju mylnú a nepravdivú interpretáciu diela začali rozposielať inštitúciám, ktoré boli partnerom projektu. Prebudil sa v nich latentný nacionalizmus, na ktorý práve výstavný projekt chcel poukázať.
Poďme trochu zhrnúť, čo sa vlastne udialo s vlajkou a celým Privátnym nacionalizmom.
Český spolok so svojou interpretáciou začal informovať veľvyslankyňu Klausovú a ostatné inštitúcie. Pritom samotné dielo nevideli, len cez okno, keď galéria bola zavretá. Keď rozmýšľam nad tým, prečo bola z ich strany taká reakcia, samozrejme asi tomu celému nerozumejú a nehľadali príčiny hlbšie. Taktiež si myslím, že chceli poukázať na svoje opodstatnenie. Rok pred výstavou bolo zrušené České kultúrne centrum v Košiciach. Pani Takácsová, predsedníčka Českého spolku v Košiciach, je členkou Rady pre národnostné menšiny na Úrade vlády. Na základe jej interpretácie diela Rada zaujala stanovisko a odobrala už pridelené financie na projekt Privátny nacionalizmus. A nie len tento grant, ale aj ďalšie dva granty, ktoré nesúviseli vôbec s projektom Privátny nacionalizmus. Taktiež už boli odsúhlasené a vôbec sa nevie, či Kassakovo centrum intermediálnej kreativity (pozn. spoluorganizátor projektu Privátny nacionalizmus) nebude na čiernej listine ďalší rok. Naše žiadosti o stretnutie na Úrade vlády boli bojkotované.
Veľvyslankyňu Klausovú si do úradu presadil Miloš Zeman ako odmenu za jej podporu v prezidentských voľbách. Prístup veľvyslankyne tiež skôr poukazuje o nutnosti vykazovať činnosť pre domácu pôdu a nie hľadanie riešenia danej situácie. Jej odmietanie stretnutia s kurátormi a autorom ide úplne proti zmyslu vedenia tohto úradu. Následne sa spustil kolotoč – Klausová napísala všetkým inštitúciám, ktoré finančne podporili PN a tí už konali. Výšku možnej kritiky a irónie autora stanovil minister kultúry Maďarič odobratím už pridelenej finančnej dotácie projektu. Následne odmietanie osobného stretnutia deklaruje neochotu si vypočuť názor druhej strany a tým pádom podporil stanovisko veľvyslankyne.
Myslíte si, že tá hysterická reakcia na vaše dielo je viacej o neschopnosti vnímať súčasné umenia alebo je to skôr problém intolerancie a šovinizmu v spoločnosti?
Úplne prvotný problém je, že naozaj tú vec nikto nevidel osobne. A to si myslím, že je úplne podstatné, pokiaľ chcem o niečom hovoriť, asi by bolo dobré si to pozrieť. To sa neudialo a médiá preberali interpretáciu tretej osoby a tam začal naozaj ten šovinizmus, nacionalizmus. Stačilo vlastne len prenášať mylné interpretácie, zo situácií, ktoré čitateľ nezažil a následne v diskusii vzbudili vášne. Čítanie súčasného umenia? K tomu je nutná ochota a tá je asi úmerná návštevnosti galérii.
Aktuálna výstava je snahou o uvedenie faktov na pravú mieru, pokračovanie cyklu, alebo čo pre Vás znamená?
Je to diskusia a je to pokračovanie cyklu. Práce z roku 2012 aj túto diskusiu vnímam ako jeden celok. Predstava kurátorov bolo vystaviť čo najväčšiu škálu dokumentácie, chronologicky usporiadanú. V rámci výstavy tak je nainštalovaná kompletná dokumentácia, ktorá vznikla s následným doplnením mediálnych záznamov. Snahou je dať do súvislosti túto kauzu s kauzami, ktoré sa odohrali v minulosti u nás či v Čechách.
Z vašej osobnej skúsenosti aký máte pocit, že má takáto kauza dopad na umelca? Vnímate zmenu ako je vnímaná vaša tvorba, alebo to nejako mení vaše vlastné myslenie, uvažovanie ako realizovať veci, ak umenie nemá podporu v kľúčových zdrojoch ako je MK SR?
Ja som nikdy nerealizoval svoje veci s nejakou finančnou grantovou podporou. Aj ten stožiar, ktorý bol finančne náročný, som realizoval z vlastných finančných zdrojov. Takže toto išlo vždycky mimo mňa. A čo sa mňa týka, tak samozrejme človek je pod tlakom, to sa nedá hodiť za hlavu. Ale moja skúsenosť po Ficovi (pozn. kontroverzná Bačova busta Doc. JUDr. Robert Fico, CSc. osadená vo verejnom priestore, bola už po 5 hodinách zahalená a následne demontovaná) už bola nejaká, takže skôr som bol zaskočený z toho, že médiá v podstate ani nezaujímalo vyjadrenie autora. České média preberali mylnú informáciu o využívaní vlajky ako rohožky. Tieto interpretácie si české médiá preberali a vôbec ich nezaujímalo vyjadrenie autora alebo kurátorov. Ale že by ma toto nejako zastavilo ďalej hľadať nejakú tému, ktorá ma zaujíma a ktorá znova môže byť kritická, to nie. Lebo ja som nikdy do týchto projektov nešiel s tým, že sa chcem nejako umelo konfrontovať, zbytočne provokovať. Takže možno vznikne niečo ďalšie a možno to znova bude reflektované, a možno vôbec. Ale nie je mojím cieľom, aby z toho bol konflikt.
Čím je pre vás práve téma Česko-Slovensko zaujímavá?
Myslím si, že sa to postupne skladalo z takých zámien, ktoré sledujem, lebo tu žijem. Lebo to sú zámeny: keď je výročie Československa, tak pod akou vlajkou to ľudia stoja? Našiel som napríklad aj vo Francúzsku nejaký pamätník československým vojakom v II. svetovej vojne, kde visí slovenská vlajka a tá druhá je aká? Je buď česká alebo československá. Potom by tam mali byť tri, česká, slovenská a československá. To bol taký ten prvý balíček, čo sa človeku postupne skladá a začne nad tým rozmýšľať.
Tie štátne symboly sú také, že si štátna reprezentácia povie aké budú a občania povedia, že dobre a tým pádom je to pre nich jasné. A nikto sa nezaujíma o to, či to má nejakú logiku, alebo nie, či to na niečo naráža. Je to podobná problematika, ako keď sme robili s Verejným podstavcom Antikulich 1 a Antikulich 2 (pozn. protestné akcie proti soche Svätopluka na Bratislavskom hrade). Že tiež nám reprezentácia niečo vnútila a my sme reagovali. Sú to mylné informácie, my nie sme nejaký pozostatok Starých Slovákov. Štátna reprezentácia vnucuje niečo, čo nie je pravda a čaká sa, že sa spoločnosť s tým stotožní. A toto je vlastne tiež niečo podobné, štátna reprezentácia sa rozhodla, že tá vlajka bude česká, nikto nereaguje, spoločnosť to automaticky prijala a išlo sa ďalej.
Máte pocit, že rozpad Československa v ľuďoch ešte rezonuje? Zaoberajú sa Česi a Slováci vzájomným vzťahom?
Ľudia zo staršej generácie to rozdelenie stále vnímajú, kým mladá generácia už vôbec, niektorí sa už vlastne narodili do republík. A či reagujú na tie štátne symboly, to asi už nie. Stožiar v roku 2013 bol vlastne pripomenutie 20. výročia rozdelenia. Takže pôvodne to bola pripomienka toho rozdelenia. Že to prerástlo aj do tejto vlajky, čo bola vystavená v Kunsthalle, tak to sa len ďalej vyvíjala téma. Neviem, či to ľudí zaujíma, ale mňa to zaujíma, tak som to pripomenul. Je to deformovanie kolektívnej pamäte, vytesnenie skupiny ľudí a ja na to reagujem. To ma zaujíma.
Výstavu otvorí diskusia Štátne symboly, sloboda umenia, kauza 17.2. o 17:30 v Open Gallery na Baštovej 5. Diskutujú umelec Dalibor Bača, historik umenia Daniel Grúň, umelec Jozef Jankovič, teoretik a kurátor Jiří Ptáček. Moderuje Lenka Kukurová.
Vystavujú: 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)
Foto: archív autora, Tomáš Halász[:en]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[:]