Ivan KoæariÊ is always in charge, butnever in a hurry.

That is the source of his attitudetowards the world, towards himself and hiswork. Everything is always usable, butnothing is ever definite. His view, alwaysnew, is free to render the old experience rel-ative. No form is ever too sacred to him, heis never too pathetic towards an achieve-ment of his own not to dethrone it by usingit as just another detail in some new con-stellation. At the same time, he will nothesitate to give an aura of art to a piece ofgarbage.

Every segment of a way is at the sametime its goal. The goal is never final. Onecan pass the same way a number of timesand still it will not be the same. There is noprogress, but no stagnation either; neitherend, nor boredom. KoæariÊ walks his wayand blesses again and again all that hemeets there. With his look, his touch andthe gleam of his childlike expression, heputs a layer of gold onto things, trees, tho-ughts ...

There is no hierarchy, no priority, mo-ments are not bricks for a future building,they are the building itself.

KoæariÊ will always destroy somethingfinished in order to use it for building some-thing else, but not because he is nervousabout it - rather for the sake of ventilation.Things must always remain young, he doesnot recognize tyranny of age and experi-ence: “One must always keep the continu-ity of disagreement with oneself.”

Still, he does not hate - neither him-self, nor the world with which he is not sat-isfied, but regards it as capable of better-ment, since he does not impute it a GreatPurpose.

When you meet with KoæariÊ’s work,you are bound to be struck by the feeling ofexciting imperfection, a whiff of ozone. It isalways a surprise, pulsating with life, a sen-sation of space and new chances.

KoæariÊ lives in a modest apartment atthe ground floor, with his eyes lifted up tothe skies. He does not like to teach others,but he is constantly learning, since he neverbelieves that he is on top of the world. Thatis why one can learn a lot from him.

KoæariÊ respects the fact that thingsalways have different appearances andmeanings and therefore he can not makemistakes in his work. Still, there is no self-

Ivan KoæariÊ je stalno deæuran, a nika-mo ne æuri.

Iz toga proizlazi njegov odnos spramsvijeta, spram sebe i vlastita djela. Sve jeuvijek upotrebljivo, a nikad niπta nije defini-tivno. KoæariÊev uvijek novi pogled slobo-dan je da relativizira staro iskustvo. Nikadmu nijedna forma nije previπe sveta, nikadnije patetiËan prema nekom svom dostignu-Êu da ga ne bi detronizirao upotrebljavajuÊiga tek kao detalj u nekoj novoj konstelaciji.Istovremeno, otpatku Êe mirno dodijeliti au-ru umjetnine.

Svaki segment puta istovremeno je icilj. Cilj nikada nije neka konaËnost. Istimse putem uvijek moæe ponovo proÊi, a da onne bude isti. Nema progresa, ali ni mirova-nja; nema svrπetka, ali ni dosade. KoæariÊkoraËa iznova blagosiljajuÊi sve πto se naena putu. Pogledom, rukom i fleπom infan-tilnog izrijeka on pozlaÊuje predmete, sta-bla, misli ...

Nema hijerarhije, nema prioriteta, tre-nuci nisu cigle za buduÊu graevinu, oni suveÊ graevina sama.

KoæariÊ Êe uvijek sruπiti neπto veÊnapravljeno da bi od toga ponovno gradio,ali ne iz nervoze, nego radi provjetravanja.Stvari moraju uvijek ostati mlade, nemamaltretiranja staæom i iskustvom: “Trebauvijek zadræati kontinuitet neslaganja sasamim sobom.”

A da pri tom ne mrzi - ni samog sebeni svijet s kojim, doduπe, nije zadovoljan,ali ga smatra popravljivim, jer mu neimputira Veliku Svrhu.

Doæivljaj uzbudljive nedovrπenosti, za-pah ozona, redovno Êe pogaati pri susretus KoæariÊevim radom. Uvijek iznenaenje,æivo pulsiranje, osjeÊaj prostora i πanse.

KoæariÊ æivi u skromnom parteru spogledom uprtim u nebo. Nesklon je pou-Ëavanju, ali neprestano sam uËi, ne misleÊinikad da je uhvatio Boga za bradu. Stogadjeluje pouËno.

KoæariÊ poπtuje Ëinjenicu da stvari uvi-jek imaju drugi izgled i smisao i zato nemoæe napraviti pogreπno djelo. Ali, nemasamozadovoljstva, penzije, nema patine,plijesni, mahovine. KoæariÊ je rolling stone.Nema kontinuiteta, nema razvoja, nemastila - postoji samo vjeËni, blagotvorni pro-puh, vedra sizifovπtina.

Odvaænost neprekidnog kretanja indu-cira æivot kojeg ima i za poklanjanje. Imahumora, ima zajebancije. Ima prisutnosti u

8

t lantunmaraËiÊ

ivan koæariÊzasluæuje svojusreÊuivan koæariÊdeserves his happiness

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 8

1

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 9

satisfaction in him, no retirement, patina,mold, moss. KoæariÊ is a rolling stone.There is no continuity, no development orstyle - only eternal, soothing draught, onlythe cheerful air of Sysiphus.

He draws the courage to move on with-out stopping from his own life, which hepossesses in abundance. He has humour,likes fooling around. He is fully present atany moment, he feels gratitude for beingalive and obligation to be that way.

He is modest, self-mocking, ambigu-ous: “I am not an artist, but therefore I ama bad sculptor. Through my search, I cameto the point when I can say that I am aboutto discover art, and I am content with that.”

Ivan KoæariÊ deserves his happiness.

Drawings-TextsThe drawings-texts of Ivan KoæariÊ are

a trembling testimony of observed mental,spiritual, and creative states, of moods andsparkles of his worldview. It is no wonderthat written thoughts, exclamations, andslogans very often accompany preciselythose graphic reflections that could be con-

svakom trenutku, zahvalnosti πto je æiv iosjeÊaja obveze da se takav stalno bude.

Ima skromnosti, samopodsmijeha, dvo-smislenosti: “Ja nisam umjetnik, ali sam za-to loπ kipar. IstraæujuÊi, doπao sam do togada mogu reÊi da sam na tragu umjetnosti, ito mi je dosta.”

Ivan KoæariÊ zasluæuje svoju sreÊu.

Crteæi-tekstovi Crteæi-tekstovi Ivana KoæariÊa titrava

su sinusoida zabiljeæenih duπevnih, du-hovnih i stvaralaËkih stanja, raspoloæenja isvjetonazornih iskrica. Nije Ëudo da sezapisane misli, uzvici i slogani veoma Ëestojavljaju upravo uz autoportretne crtaËkerefleksije: lik i trag autora istodobno, sinkro-no - æivot i miπljenje sebe. Relacija æivot-umjetnost sa svojim kompliciranim i kapri-cioznim manifestacijama ovdje se hitro ipolivalentno objelodanjuje.

Uglavnom, tekst je spontana, neplani-rana pojava uz crteæ, “inkopatibilna” s nje-govim sadræajem. No, tako apostrofiranamisao na odreen se naËin nuæno povezujes grafizmom rukopisa - geste autora kojiistiËe svoju prisutnost i stav.

10

sl.2: KoæariÊev atelijer u MeduliÊevoj 12 / The Studioof Ivan KoæariÊ in 12 MeduliÊeva Street, Zagreb,1993.

2

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 10

Idejnost teksta u fuziji manuskriptnog,grafiËkog i koloristiËkog sloæeniji je, ali iekonomiËniji i snaæniji iskaz.

Sumnja, dilema, briga, nezadovoljstvo,autokritiËka konstatacija, bojazan..., ali idobra slutnja, nada, sigurnost, pa i naglaπe-na svijest o vlastitoj vrijednosti i misiji - te-me su i kategorije koje se u razliËitim, Ëestolucidnim, plodno paradoksalnim i humor-nim formulacijama ispisuju kao nepredvie-ni refleks, “dopuna” ili “nusprodukt” nacrta-nog ili pak u obliku osamostaljene tekstual-ne strukture.

Te crtaËke i tekstualne komponente,ako na prvi pogled i ne pokazuju prepoz-natljivu, meusobno smislenu podudarnost,sadræe isti znaËaj karakteristiËnog KoæariÊe-vskog fleπa neposrednog izrijeka. Osim to-ga, svjeæa misao i “nedovrπeni” crteæ hrabrorazotkrivaju intimu i radnu tehniku, omogu-Êuju uvid u autorovu nagost koju on, kaoπto je dobro poznato, odluËno proklamirakao vlastito æivotno-stvaralaËko naËelo. Sdruge strane, KoæariÊ jednako zastupa otvo-renost i nezavrπenost rada koji uvijek podli-jeæe samoosporavanju i reviziji.

Mi se, doduπe, u susretu s ovim dje-lom, najËeπÊe neÊemo sloæiti s autorovimizraæenim nezadovoljstvom njim samim.Naprotiv, uz moralnu veliËinu, hrabrost (ikonaËno, sasvim izuzetni talent!) koje Êemoprepoznati, svjedoËit Êemo uzbudljivoj tran-sparentnosti otvorenog djela koje uslijedtolike koliËine solidnih pretpostavki ne uspi-jeva (p)ostati loπe.

©toviπe, KoæariÊevi listovi koje obiljeæa-va organiËna, spontana manifestnost, pred-stavljaju dragocjenu moguÊnost da se pou-Ëimo o Umjetnosti. Da priemo bliæe uzbu-enju procesa njena stvaranja. Da osjetimoæivu pokrenutost duha koji je generira. Jer,dobre vibracije izmeu nacrtanog i napi-sanog nezaËepljene su glazurama, lakovimai persuazivno raskoπnim okvirima koji - u“art-produkciji” πto nas dnevno sa svihstrana zapljuskuje - nestrpljivo i naprasno,u duhu s graanskim i komercijalnim kon-vencijama, pokuπavaju ubrzati promocijuskromnog radnog pokuπaja putem materi-jalno i dekorativno definiranog artefakta.No, koliko preskoËenosti, nezrelosti i nepo-πtenja bazdi pritom ispod nasilno skrutnutei lakirane povrπine!

Upravo neobaziranje na zavrπni uËinaku KoæariÊevu sluËaju ima za posljedicuumjetnost. Umjetnost kao pulsirajuÊu æivot-

sidered self-portraits: figures and traces ofthe author himself, simultaneously, sin-chronically - life and thinking of the self.There the relationship between life and art,with its complicated and capricious mani-festations, is being brought into light in aquick and polyvalent way.

The text is mostly a spontaneous,unplanned occurrence joined to the graphicand “incompatible” with its content. Ho-wever, a thought which is thus accentuatedsomehow necessarily relates to the graphichandwriting/gesture of an author emphasiz-ing his presence and his attitude.

The conceptuality of the text within thefusion of the manuscriptive, the graphical,and the coloristic, represents a more com-plex, but at the same time more economi-cal and more powerful way of expression.

Doubt, dilemma, disquietude, dissatis-faction, self-critical statement, fear ..., butalso good foreboding, hope, certainty, andeven underlined consciousness of one’s ownvalue and mission - these are the themesand categories which are written out in var-ious, often lucid, productively paradoxical,and humorous formulations, as an unfore-seen reflex, “addition” or a “by-product” ofthat which is drawn; or, again, in the formof an independent textual structure.

These graphical and textual compo-nents, even if at first glance not revealing arecognizable, mutually meaningful corre-spondence, have the features of directexpression that is characteristically Ko-æariÊ’s. Besides, a fresh thought and an“unfinished” drawing daringly disclose inti-macy and creative technique and permit usto look into the author’s nakedness, whichhe - that is well-known - resolutely pro-claims as the motto of his own life and art.On the other hand, KoæariÊ equally endors-es the openness and the imperfection of hiswork, which is always subject to self-denouncement and revision.

Certainly, in contact with his work, wewill most likely not subscribe to the author’sexplicit dissatisfaction with himself. On thecontrary, besides his moral greatness,courage (and, last but not least, his quiteexceptional talent!) that we are bound torecognize, we will be witnesses of the excit-ing transparency of an open work of artwhich, built upon so many solid presump-tions, can not possibly be(come) bad.

Moreover, KoæariÊ’s graphics, whichare marked by limited, spontaneous mani-

11

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 11

festness, represent a precious chance for usto learn about Art. To come closer to theexcitement of its process of creation. To feelthe living motion of spirit that generates it.For the good vibrations between the drawnand the written are unobstructed by coat-ings, varnish, or persuasively glamorousframes which - in the “art-production” whi-ch leaps on us daily from all sides - impa-tiently and aggressively, in concordancewith middle-class and commercial conven-tions, try to speed up the promotion ofmodest creative attempts by means ofmaterially and decoratively defined arte-facts. But there is so much missing, there issuch immaturity and fraud stinking fromunder that forcefully hardened and var-nished surface!

It is precisely the refusal to care aboutthe end product that, in the case of KoæariÊ,results in art. Art as pulsating livelinesswhich does not block, but offers opportuni-ties. We might say that KoæariÊ invites usfor a fruitful coming together, not for acheap bargaining session.

Drawings from the ©ok(Shock) Cycle

The reasons for KoæariÊ’s capriciouschanges can also be induced from his excit-ingly concise statement: “Life should al-ways be made dynamic, since it alwaystends towards death; therefore, beat deathby life!”

Thus, the accentuated consciousnessof permanent invasion of nothingness doesnot result for him in existentialist explana-tions of negative emotions. At the subtextu-al level of the realization of the fragility ofexistence, this artist reacts by dynamic vi-tality of incessant change: creation and re-newal of the already created. However, farfrom neurotic anxiety and panic, far fromoverwhelming “speed”. Proud to have awatch, he makes sure that he has plenty oftime for thorough consummation of thewealth of information offered by life. He willtherefore realize a production that, despiteits formal perturbation and “inconsistency”,strongly suggests that it is grounded uponexperience by emanating peace, serenity,and irresistible humour at the same time.

With his organically adopted method“beat death by life”, KoæariÊ not only resto-res his own gesture, sanctifies a piece ofgarbage, or revises his style, but also inno-

nost koja ne blokira, veÊ nudi moguÊnosti.KoæariÊ nas, dakle, poziva na plodonosnodruæenje, a ne na jeftinu kupoprodajnu se-ansu.

Crteæi iz serije “©ok”Razlozi KoæariÊevih hirovitih mijena

mogu se naslutiti i u uzbudljivo lapidarnojizreci: “Æivot treba uvijek dinamizirati jer onuvijek tendira prema smrti; dakle, æivotompo smrti!”

Tako izraæena svijest o neprestanomnadiranju niπtavila kod KoæariÊa ne rezulti-ra egzistencijalistiËkim eksplikacijama ne-gativnih osjeÊaja. Na podtekstu saznanja okrhkosti opstojanja ovaj Êe autor reagiratidinamiËnim vitalizmom neprestane prom-jene: stvaranja i obnavljanja veÊ stvorenog.Daleko, meutim, od neurotiËne brige iuspaniËenosti, bez hipertrofiranog “spida”.Ponosan πto ima sat na ruci, on Êe si osi-

12

3

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 12

gurati obilje vremena za temeljitu konzu-maciju bogatstva koju æivotni podaci pruæa-ju. Stoga Êe realizirati produkciju koja ipored svoje formalne perturbiranosti i“nedosljednosti” snaæno sugerira iskustvenuutemeljenost emanirajuÊi istovremeno mir,vedrinu i neodoljivi humor.

Organski usvojenom metodom “æivo-tom po smrti” KoæariÊ ne samo da Êerestaurirati vlastitu gestu, sakraliziratiotpadak ili revidirati stil, veÊ Êe i egzistenci-jalistiËki obrazac par excellence neduænoupotrijebiti dajuÊi mu sasvim svjeæi, svoj,karakteristiËni peËat. Moæemo protumaËiti ikao Ëistu drskost njegovu odluku da prolije-va tuπ po papiru bez ikakvog dodatnogizraza distance, intervencije ili “primjedbe”koja bi predstavljala ispriku povijesnimpraktikantima dripinga, angaæiranim eks-presionistima koji su s patosom apostrofiraliteæinu svog Ëina ... Nema u toj jednokratnojgesti ni znaËenja postmodernistiËkog citata,ni heretiËke ironije prema izvornim prolje-vaËima na æivot i smrt. Ma koliko da ih jetaj pomalo tromi pokret (KoæariÊ ga jedemonstrirao pred TV-kamerom) izbacivanjatuπa iz posebne mjerice na papir prikucanna zidu, uz sabrano lice koje ipak kao dahini ozbiljnost naËas uËinio smijeπnima. Iotkud povodom poznatog jednostavnog Ëinajedna posebna senzacija iznenaenja kojuinaËe donosi novost, ako ne iz magijeobnovljenog pogleda i pokreta koja se pre-nosi na promatraËa. Iz bijele magije kojamoguÊi akt oËajanja prevodi u izraznemuπtog nestaπluka Ëija je teæina u moÊianimacije onoga koji je veÊ mislio da takoneπto nije moguÊe, a ni dopuπteno izreÊi.

Umjetnost maksimalne prostornosti - ZagrebaËko nebo II

PoËetkom osamdesetih godina IvanKoæariÊ je snimio niz “monokromnih” polaro-ida neba i ti su se snimci pokazali kaonehotiËne skice za slikarsku seriju nastalutoËno deset godina kasnije. Slike pod nazi-vom ZagrebaËko nebo prvi put su izloæene uveljaËi 1991. u Galeriji proπirenih medija.Kako ga opsesija nebom otada nije napuπta-la, KoæariÊ je nastavio s varijacijama istogmotiva, pa otuda i potreba da se ZagrebaËkonebo 1999. godine ponovi i postavi u svojojdrugoj verziji u Galeriji Beck.

Tema neba - koja bi mnoge plaπila svo-jom pretencioznoπÊu i proteænoπÊu znaËe-

cently uses the existentialist pattern parexcellence by giving it an entirely fresh,characteristic stamp of his own. We canregard as pure impertinence his decision tospill ink on the paper without any addition-al expression of distance, intervention or“remark” that would represent an excusefor historical users of the dripping tech-nique, for engaged expressionists who havepathetically emphasized the weight of theiract ... In this one-time gesture there is nei-ther character of a post-modernist quota-tion, nor heretical irony about the originallife-and-death drippers. However much thissomewhat languid movement appearedfunny for a moment (KoæariÊ demonstratedit in front of the TV-camera by spilling inkfrom a specially devised container on a pie-ce of paper nailed to the wall, with a con-centrated expression of his face which nev-ertheless seemed to feign seriousness). Andhow can we explain a particular feeling ofsurprise, otherwise incited by novelty, atsuch an ordinary and simple act, if not bythe magic of renewed look and movementtransferred to the observer. By the whitemagic that translates a possible act of des-pair into an expression of dull mockery, theweight of which lies in the power of anima-tion of a person who has been at the vergeof thinking that it is not possible, let alonepermitted, to say something like that.

The Art of Maximal Space -ZagrebaËko nebo II(Sky above Zagreb II)

At the beginning of the 80s, IvanKoæariÊ made a series of “monochromatic”polaroid shots of the sky and those shotsbecame unintentional sketches for a seriesof paintings that he made exactly ten yearslater. Paintings entitled Sky above Zagrebwere first exhibited in February 1991 in theGalerija proπirenih medija (Gallery of expan-ded media). As the obsession with the skyhas not left him since, KoæariÊ continuedwith variations on the same motif, hencealso the need to repeat the exhibition of Skyabove Zagreb in 1999, in a different ver-sion, in the Beck’s Gallery.

The topic of the sky - which wouldscare many by its pretentiousness andextensity of meaning on one side, and itsformal minimalism and possible triviality ofcontent on the other - is, so to say, earthlyclose to Ivan KoæariÊ. As an urban animal to

13

4

5

sl.3-5: I. KoæariÊ, Crteæi-tekstovi / Drawings-Texts,foto / photo: D. Bavoljak

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 13

which space is domain as well as longing,this sculptor-painter, with his eyes lifted upto the skies, absorbs the life-giving blue ofthe reduced urban sky, in order to reinter-pret its fragmentation in the parallelogramsof his monochromatic paintings.

Smaller formats of hardboard or can-vas are filled with thin, sometimes as muchas transparent, light layers of amblematicblue, while the sporadic unpainted piecesof white background represent the left-outobstacles of architecture or trees, whichobstruct the view of the earthly observer.Sometimes there are graphic telephonelines, white stripes of jet-plane traces orpictorial remnants of an already used basiclayer, which accentuate the ground per-spective and the reality of the medium,while a yellow spot might hint at the pres-ence of a celestial body.

All those elements are simply derivedsigns, with no substantially illusionist pre-tensions. When the sculptor Ivan KoæariÊpaints, he equally applies his characteristictransparent singleness of the process.Therefore, however clearly exposed is hisextra-painting motivation, it will not preventthe fact that his canvases are almost anexample of primary painting: of the nakedstroke of the brush, of accentuated textureof colour and surface. At the same time -despite the apparently extreme limitation ofthe possibilities of expression, on which theauthor appears to have condemned himselffrom the very start - one remains truly fas-cinated with the dynamics of style andexpression, as well as the versatility of real-ization between one painting and another.

Nevertheless, it is only in the fusion oftwo components, the motif and its realiza-tion, that the paintings will gain their fullvolume of meaning. Although it mightappear as a paradox, the accent upon thematerial and the process of realization willenable the mediation of the spatial andthe ethereal. Far from being illustrative inany way, these paintings are a specificmaterial equivalent of the spiritualityembodied by the idea of the sky.Informally speaking, they are nothing buta “grounded sky”.

At the exhibition one could also see athree-dimensional painting from the begin-ning of the 70s - a hemisphere of uneven,graphic surface of its spherical part and asmooth circular intersection that hasrecently been painted blue by the artist:

nja s jedne, ali i formalnim minimalizmomte moguÊom sadræajnom trivijalnoπÊu sdruge strane - Ivanu KoæariÊu je, rekli bi-smo, zemaljski prisna. Kao urbana æivotinjakojoj je prostor domena i Ëeænja, ovaj kipar--slikar s pogledom uvis upija æivotvorno pla-vilo gradski reduciranog neba, da bi potomreinterpretirao njegovu fragmentiranost upaËetvorinama svojih monokroma.

Manji formati lesonita ili platna ispu-njeni su tankim, katkad upravo lazurnim,lakim slojevima amblematskog plavila, amjestimiËno neoslikani dijelovi bijele pod-loge predstavljaju izostavljene preprekearhitekture ili stabala koja promatraËu sazemlje zaklanjaju pogled. Katkad Êe grafiz-mi izvuËenih linija telefonskih æica, bijeletrake traga mlaænjaka ili pak pikturalniostaci veÊ rabljene slikarske podloge nagla-siti prizemni rakurs i stvarnost medija, aæuta mrljica naznaËit Êe prisutnost nebes-kog tijela.

Svi ti elementi jednostavno su izvedeniznakovi, bez bitno iluzionistiËkih teænji. Kadkipar Ivan KoæariÊ slika, on jednako primje-njuje sebi svojstvenu, transparentnu jed-nokratnost postupka. Stoga, ma koliko da jeizvanslikarski motiv jasno istaknut, to neÊesmetati da ova platna budu gotovo prim-jerom primarnog slikarstva: ogoljelogpoteza, naglaπene tvarnosti boje i podloge.Pritom - unatoË prividno krajnjoj ograni-Ëenosti izraæajnih moguÊnosti na koju kaoda se autor osudio veÊ u samom startu -upravo fascinira dinamiËnost duktusa i fak-ture, raznolikost ostvarenja od slike do slike.

No ipak, tek u spoju dviju komponena-ta, motiva i izvedbe, radovi Êe zadobiti svojpuni znaËenjski volumen. Naizgled paradok-salno, naglasak na materijalu i procesuizvedbe omoguÊit Êe posredovanje spacijal-nosti i eteriËnosti. Daleko od svake ilustra-cije, ove su slike specifiËni materijalni pan-dan duhovnosti koju ideja neba utjelovlju-je. Ili, govoreÊi neobaveznije, one su samo“prizemljeno nebo”.

Na izloæbi je prikazan i jedan trodi-menzionalni rad s poËetka sedamdesetih -polukugla neravne reljefne povrπine svogsfernog dijela i glatkog kruænog presjekakoji je recentno umjetnik obojao plavo:Povrπina mora, koja preslikava boju neba.Krug se pojavljuje i na jednom novijemplatnu, ali u teæem, crnom, ekspresivnomobliku.

Ekspresivnu deklinaciju u odnosu napoetiËnost ostatka izloæbe Ëini joπ jedno

14

6

sl.6: I. KoæariÊ, Rupa u galeriji / Hole in a Gallery,L’Ollave, Lyon, 1992.

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 14

reciklaæno KoæariÊevo predomiπljanje. To jejedno Nebo iz 1995. udareno maljem pookviru 1999. Rezultat je kvrgavost ruba iiπËaπenost povrπine platna. Uz to, hipertro-firani potpis bijelim pastelom preko Ëitaveplave plohe dodatna je gesta kojom autordeklarira svoj slobodarski eros. Razbijeniokvir i rukopisno apostrofiranje autorske pri-sutnosti. Svojevrsni concetto spaziale uKoæariÊevoj verziji.

Prostorni koncept radikalizira se uodnosu Neba i rada pod nazivom Mlake kojije KoæariÊ izveo za izloæbu Trigon u Grazu1971. godine. RijeË je o ogledalima ruËnorezanim u razliËitim geometrijskim oblicimai postavljenim na tlo, koja evociraju mlakevode nakon kiπe.

Mlake su medij projekcije neba unultu parternu razinu. Uspostavljaju ampli-tudu zemlja-nebo, ali i viπe od toga. Kao πtonebo seæe daleko dalje od prividne opneplave povrπine, tako i ogledalo na zemlji,odraæavajuÊi njegov beskraj, silazi slikomduboko ispod razine tla. Probijeni su okviri,uklonjene granice, ostala je tek konvencijanjihovih naznaka: opipljiva tvarnost povrπi-ne platna i povrπine ogledala.

I tako se KoæariÊ predstavlja kao umjet-nik prostornog maksimalizma, kao kiparkoji je to i onda kada ne barata opipljivommasom. Kipar, prije svega po sveobuhvat-noj spiritualnosti kojom povezuje i demisti-ficira sve vrste udaljenosti i razlika.

Drvo i prostorU svojoj nesvakidaπnjoj familijarnosti s

najrazliËitijim materijalima - glina, kerami-ka, kamen, æeljezo, aluminij, staniol, gips,bronca, fiberglas, poliester itd., Ivan Koæa-riÊ oduvijek je koristio i drvo: kao sirovimaterijal za konvencionalnije kiparenje, kaoreciklaæni materijal u obliku razliËitih dasa-ka i letava od kojih je stvarao ludiËku arhi-tekturu svojih spontanih skulptura ili pakkao gotovu, pronaenu konstrukciju (zidar-skog kozliÊa, primjerice) koju je potpisivaokao vlastito djelo.

Prilikom odræavanja izloæbe Drvo uMuzeju suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu1999. godine, u fokusu interesa bilo je drvou svom elementarnom obliku, u svojojnaglaπenoj, goloj bîti, odnosno energetskomekstraktu, πto jasno najavljuje golemi, pret-potopno moÊni trupac postavljen uspravno,poput amblema na ploËnik, pred samimvratima izloæbenog prostora.

Povrπina mora (Surface of the Sea), reflect-ing the colour of the sky. The circle reap-pears on another, more recent canvas, butin a heavier, black, expressive form.

An expressive decline from the poeticsavour of the rest of the exhibition occurswith another of KoæariÊ’s recycling vacilla-tions. It is a Sky from 1995, its frame hit bya hammer in 1999. The results are thebulginess of the edge and the dislocation ofthe canvas surface. Moreover, the artist’soversized signature painted in white pastelcolour across the entire blue surface is anadditional gesture with which he declareshis liberal eros. A broken frame and a sig-nature as the emphasis on the author’spresence. A concetto spaziale of a sort, inKoæariÊ’s version.

The spatial concept is radicalized inthe relationship between the Sky and apainting entitled Mlake (Puddles), whichwas presented by KoæariÊ at the Trigonexhibition, Graz in 1971. It consists ofhand-cut mirrors in various geometricforms, which are laid upon the floor andevoke puddles of rain.

Puddles are a medium for the projec-tion of the sky onto a zero level, groundlevel. They establish the amplitude earth-sky, but also more than that. Just as thesky reaches further than the apparent mem-brane of the blue surface, the mirror on theground descends deeply under the groundlevel by reflecting the sky’s endlessness.Frames are broken, limits crossed, whatremains is the mere convention of hinting atthem: the tangible texture of the surfaces ofthe canvas and the mirrors.

Thus KoæariÊ presents himself as theartist of spatial maximalism, as a sculptorwho remains sculptor even when he doesnot deal with tangible material. Sculptor,above all through his all-encompassingspirituality, by which he links and demysti-fies all sorts of distances and differences.

Wood and spaceIn his unusual familiarity with most

versatile materials - clay, ceramics, stone,iron, aluminium, tinfoil, plaster, bronze,fibreglass, polyester, etc. - Ivan KoæariÊ hasalways used wood as well: as the rawmaterial for more conventional sculpturing,as well as the recycling material in the formof various boards and laths, out of which hehas created the playful architecture of his

15

7

8

sl.7: I. KoæariÊ, Pinklec / Bundlesl.8: I. KoæariÊ, Zlatna kugla / Golden ball, 1971. foto / photo: E. TurkoviÊ

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 15

spontaneous sculptures; or again as aready-made, discovered construction (amason’s trestle, for example), which hewould sign as his own work of art.

At the time of the exhibition Drvo(Wood) in the Museum of Modern Art,Zagreb in 1999, the focus of his interestwas wood in its most elementary form, inits accentuated, naked essence, that is, inits energetic extract, which was openlyannounced by a huge, primordially power-ful trunk placed upright on the pavement asan amblem, right in front of the entrance tothe exhibition.

On the surface of this piece of wood,the author intervenes by a single minimaloperation - an incision or a longitudinal cut.This gesture, as the athor came to knowonly later, coincides with the first operationin the technological processing of a woodentrunk and is called the “opening”. Indeed,by demonstrating so concisely his commu-nication with the material, KoæariÊ opensup the possibility of its speech. In otherwords, by announcing his own presence,the sculptor brings forward the very natureof wood.

The trunk that has been touched or“opened up” that way, is then promotedinto a sculpture or its unit, an elementwhich is then repeated in various interrela-tions. Linked by iron hooks-clips, the verti-cal and the horizontal lines of the trunksrepresent simply organised forms, whosemaximally economical structure is at thesame time the condition and the solution ofits own static. The form and its stability areone and the same.

Since they have come into being on thespot, in the gallery, these sculptures involverelationship towards concrete space fromthe moment of their conception, eventhough without imposing efforts. Not onlytowards dimensions and configuration, butalso towards its material components, thestructure. Thus, the raw rusticity of thetrunk perceptively brings forth various, pri-marily wooden, finely processed parts ofthe ambience: the spacious, flat parquetrysurface, the wide cassette-like door frames,the window constructions. Moreover,through its dimensions, the impressivecurving and the verticality of the phallus-like trunk stands in comparative relationtowards the vertical cylinder of the whiteceramic stove, as well as in complementa-ry symbolic relation towards the “tunnel” of

Na povrπini komada drva autor inter-venira jednokratnim, minimalnim zahvatom- zasjekom ili uzduænim rezom. Ta gesta,kako je autor naknadno saznao, koincidira sprvim zahvatom u tehnoloπkoj obradi drve-nog trupca i naziva se “otvaranje”. Uistinu,demonstrirajuÊi krajnje saæeto svoju komu-nikaciju s materijalom, KoæariÊ otvara mo-guÊnost njegova govora. Odnosno, objav-ljujuÊi vlastitu prisutnost kipar naglaπavasamu prirodu drva.

Tako dotaknut, “otvoren”, drveni tru-pac promoviran je u skulpturu ili u njezinujedinicu, element koji se ponavlja u razli-Ëitim meuodnosima. Povezane æeljeznimkukama-spojnicama, vertikale i horizontaletrupaca Ëine jednostavno organizirane obli-ke Ëija je maksimalno ekonomiËna struktu-ra u isti mah uvjet i rjeπenje vlastite statike.Forma i njezina stabilnost jesu jedno te isto.

BuduÊi da su nastale na licu mjesta, usamoj galeriji, te skulpture veÊ u svom za-Ëetku, iako bez nametljiva nastojanja, uklju-Ëuju odnos prema konkretnom prostoru. Nesamo prema dimenzijama i konfiguraciji,veÊ i prema njegovim materijalnim sastav-nicama, strukturi. Tako Êe sirova rustikadebla percepcijski izluËiti razliËite, ponajpri-je drvene, fino obraene dijelove ambijenta:veliku podnu parketnu povrπinu, πiroke ka-zetaste okvire vrata, konstrukciju prozora.Nadalje, dimenzijom impresivna oblina iokomitost falusoidnog trupca komparativnose postavlja prema vertikalnom valjku bijelekeramiËke peÊi, a komplementarno simbo-liËki prema “tunelu” izduæenog galerijskogprostora koji markiraju repetirani okvirivrata.

OpÊenito, izloæeni sadræaj i izloæbeniprostor meusobno pronalaze svoje razli-Ëitosti i suprotnosti, kao i dodirne toËke, teobostrano, bez primisli meusobna kro-Êenja, jedan drugome potvruju legitimitet iomoguÊuju vidljivost. RijeË je o plodnojkoegzistenciji zateËenog i doneπenog, obogatoj sadræajnoj i asocijativnoj interakcijikoju moæe izazvati samo Ëisto i Ëvrsto kon-cipiran rad.

Kao drugu markantnu komponentuizloæbe KoæariÊ instalira Ëitavu jednu ready-made kuhinju. VeÊim svojim dijelom kuhinj-ski namjeπtaj je proizveden od drveta, tetako figurira tehnoloπki kontrapunkt siro-vom trupcu. No, to suprotstavljanje nije jedi-ni razlog njezine nazoËnosti. Kao i obiËnokada je o ovom umjetniku rijeË, u pozadinise nalazi “skriveni” osobni motiv koji si on,

16

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 16

u karakteristiËnoj praksi slobode, dopuπtaobjelodaniti u uvijek dovoljno iznenaujuÊojformi. Raspon i voluminoznost znaËenja ko-ji se pritom induciraju nisu rezultat pred-umiπljajne spekulacije, veÊ njegovana do-sluha s primarnim stvaralaËkim impulsom.Premda je - moæda i u latentno ironiËnomsmislu - prezentirana u svom najsuvremeni-jem izdanju, kuhinja nuæno implicira svojearhetipsko znaËenje - ideju skroviπta, soci-jalnosti i restauracije. Zapravo, rijeË je oekvivalentu ognjiπta koje pak upuÊuje na joπjedan aspekt znaËenja osnovnog materijaladrveta - aspekt goriva, uvjeta vatre i topline.Tu se priprema hrana koja omoguÊuje pre-æivljavanje. Ali ne manje vaæna Ëinjenicajest i proces njene pripreme. Radi se o(al)kemijskoj pretvorbi sirovih elemenata unovu kvalitetu koja nije tek njihov pukizbroj. A to je pandan samom umjetniËkomËinu, pretvorbi ideja i materijala u artistiËkikonstrukt. Nije stoga Ëudo da boravak i radu kuhinji KoæariÊ cijeni barem onoliko koli-ko i onaj u atelijeru.

Sadræaj koji ispunjava prostoriju ispredkuhinje predstavlja svojevrsnu tampon zonuizmeu organiËkog i tehnoloπkog dijela izloæ-be ili, joπ bolje, mjesto gdje se mijeπaju dva

the elongated space of the gallery, markedby the repeated door frames.

Generally speaking, the exhibited con-tent and the space in which it is exhibiteddiscover their respective similarities and dif-ferences, as well as their touching points. Inthis way, with no second thought of mutu-al taming, they reassert legitimacy to oneanother and enable each other’s visibility.We are speaking here of a fertile coexis-tence of the found and the brought, of richinteraction between content and associa-tions, which can be created only by a pure-ly and firmly conceived work of art.

As another striking component of theexhibition, KoæariÊ installs an entire ready-made kitchen. Most of the kitchen furnitureis made of wood and thus figures as thetechnological counterpart to the raw tree-trunk. Nevertheless, this counterposition isnot the only reason for the presence of thekitchen. As is always the case with thisartist, there is a hidden “personal” motivein the background that he, in his character-istic habit of freedom, permits himself toreveal in a form that is always sufficientlysurprising. The range and the voluminosity

17

sl.9: I. KoæariÊ, Hrpa / Heap, Biennale, Venecija /Venice, 1976.

9

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 17

of meaning, which are being induced bythis, are not the result of a pre-meditatedintention, but a cultivated conspiracy withthe primary creative impulse. Even thoughpresented in its most modern variant - pos-sibly in a latently ironical sense - thekitchen necessarily implies its archetypalcharacter - the idea of a hideaway, ofsociability and restoration. As a matter offact, we are speaking of an equivalent ofthe fireplace, which again points to anothercharacteristic aspect of the basic material,that is wood - the aspect of fuel, fire andwarmth. Kitchen is the place where food isprepared, and food means survival. Still, anequally important fact is the process of itspreparation. It is the (al)chemical transfor-mation of raw elements into a new quality,which is not merely their total. And thatcorresponds to the very act of the artist, thetransformation of ideas and materials intoan art construct. Small wonder that KoæariÊappreciates sitting and working in thekitchen at least as much as doing the samein his atelier.

The content that fills the room in frontof the kitchen represents a sort of tampon-zone between the organic and the techno-logical part of the exhibition or, better said,

naËela. RijeË je o srediπnjoj ulaznoj pros-toriji galerije u kojoj zatjeËemo najmanjereprezentativan prizor: odloæeni “neu-potrijebljeni” materijal, stolice, alat... a nazidu - amblematiËnu kantu za smeÊe, jedanod lajtmotiva koji se provlaËi KoæariÊevimizloæbama. Smetliπte, dakle, kao drski, ple-bejski manifest. Naime, sasvim protivnoopÊoj predodæbi beznadnog posljednjegmjesta, za KoæariÊa i u njegovoj interpre-taciji, smetliπte je fertilno podruËje moguÊ-nosti, rasadiπte potencijalno novih oblika ivrijednosti, πansa kontinuiteta. Cijelom svo-jom dosadaπnjom praksom duhovne i mate-rijalne (auto)reciklaæe KoæariÊ dokazuje dje-lotvornost takvog programskog polaziπta.Onoliko koliko vjeruje u moguÊnosti stanjaamorfnosti i kaosa, toliko je skeptiËan pre-ma iskristaliziranom obliku koji po svemusugerira dovrπenost i intaktnost. Briæno nje-gujuÊi “kontinuitet neslaganja sa samimsobom”, on Êe i svoja povijesno usvojena,enciklopedijski zapeËaÊena djela vraÊati ukontekst bezliËne gomile te ih tako pokaza-ti i na najreprezentativnijim umjetniËkimpriredbama (npr. na Biennalu u Veneciji1976.). Ili Êe ih u isto druπtvo smjestitineselektivnom pozlatom svega πto mu senae u blizini. U tom Êe sluËaju istodobno

18

10

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:48 Page 18

izvrπiti akt promocije i degradacije. Zapra-vo, u njegovoj prisutnosti umanjuju se gra-nice izmeu kategorija, statusa, vrijednostistvari. (Materijalno svjedoËanstvo te ma-giËne osmoze jest njegov atelijer u kojemugranice izmeu umjetniËkih djela i obiËnihpredmeta ne moæemo jasno utvrditi.)

Sam u neprestanom pokretu, rollingstone na koji se ne hvata mahovina, prim-jenjujuÊi na najbolji moguÊi naËin fluksus-dijalektiku, KoæariÊ odræava neprestanocirkuliranje znaËenja. StavljajuÊi u pitanjepovijesno djelo, a u neuglednom predmetumetaforiËki pronalazeÊi zlato, KoæariÊ sepredstavlja kao veliki ekumenist, ali i eko-log, obnovitelj stvari i slika. Imun na pre-drasude o potroπenim sadræajima, s pogle-dom bez zamora i dogme, on uspijeva pro-naÊi novu æivotnost u iscrpljenom prizoru.Intenzitet njegova vienja prati snaga uo-bliËenja koje blagotvornim uËinkom ozon-skog punjenja napada naπu inertnost i razo-bliËuje ukruÊeno i smrknuto znanje.

Tako Êe, na primjer, s mirom i sigur-noπÊu djeËje uobrazilje, crtu kredom ili ko-mad plavoga platna proglasiti nebom i obil-jeæiti njime zatvoreni, artificijelni prostorgalerije. Ispod neba, od dva panja i na njihpoloæene neobraene daske, sastavit Êe je-dnostavnu rustiËnu klupu. Bez straha odprofaniranja KoæariÊ je tako skulpturu “spu-stio” na razinu utilitarnog predmeta, a“ærtvujuÊi” umjetniËki status predmeta pre-tvorio je uski galerijski hodnik u mjesto evo-kacije i mirne kontemplativnosti.

Stog sijenaKoæariÊev dubrovaËki Stog sijena joπ je

jedna u nizu kiparevih javnih skulptura--intervencija o kojima se ne moæe razgo-varati bez ukljuËivanja reakcije publike nanjihovu pojavu. ©toviπe, upravo preko javnerecepcije tih skulptura moguÊe je naslutitinjihovo autentiËno znaËenje.

Stog je ponovno omoguÊio spoznajuKoæariÊevih djela kao stvarnih, vidljivih pred-meta. U stvaranju umjetnosti to nije takoËesta pojava kako se rutinski podrazumije-va. Naime, mnoge tone bronce, kamena isliËnih fiziËkih drastiËnosti uobliËenih naovaj ili onaj naËin ne uspijevaju u svojojteænji da pobijede vlastitu prozirnost.Naprotiv, postav KoæariÊeve skulpture ujavnom prostoru Ëin je otkrivanja, odnosnouspostavljanja srediπta, markiranja i aktivi-ranja akupunkturne toËke prostora, uz-

the place where the two principles arefused. It is the central entrance space of thegallery, in which one can find the least dis-tinguished scene: the “unused” material putaside, chairs, tools... and on the wall - theamblematic waste bin, one of the light-motifs that pervade KoæariÊ’s exhibitions.Waste disposal, so to say, as a daring, ple-beian manifesto. Namely, in direct opposi-tion to the general image of the hopelessfinal resting place, for KoæariÊ and in hisinterpretation the waste disposal is a fertilearea of opportunities; the hotbed of poten-tially new forms and values, a chance forcontinuity. By his entire hitherto prevailingpractice of spiritual and material (self-)recycling, KoæariÊ has proved the effec-tiveness of such a programmatic starting-point. As much as he believes in the pos-sibility of the state of shapelessness andchaos, he is also sceptical towards thecrystallised form, which in all respectssuggests completeness and intactness.Carefully cultivating his “continuity of dis-agreement with himself”, KoæariÊ willreturn even his historically absorbed andencyclopedically sealed works of art intothe context of formless heap, exhibitingthem in this way even at the most distin-guished art festivals (for example, at theBiennale of Venice in 1976). Or, again, hewill place them into the same context bygilding everything that he finds close athand. In that case, he at the same timeperforms acts of promotion and degrada-tion. As a matter of fact, his presencemeans the reduction of borderlines be-tween categories, statuses, values ofthings. (A material testimony of this magicalosmosis is his atelier, in which one couldnot precisely define borderlines betweenworks of art and everyday objects.)

Always on the move himself, a rollingstone on which moss doesn’t grow, apply-ing in the best possible way the dialectics offlux, KoæariÊ retains the incessant circula-tion of meaning. By questioning a historicalachievement, while at the same timemetaphorically finding gold in any humbleobject, KoæariÊ presents himself as a greatecumenist, as well as ecologist, restorer ofthings and images. Immune to prejudiceconcerning spent contents, with a lookshowing no saturation or dogma, he man-ages to find fresh vivacity in an exhaustedscene. The intensity of his vision is accom-panied by the power of formation thatattacks our sluggishness and decomposes

19

sl.10-12: I. KoæariÊ, Stog sijena / The Haystack,Dubrovnik, 1996/2001., foto / photo: A. MaraËiÊ

11

12

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:49 Page 19

our stiffened and darkened knowledge withthe mild effect of an ozone filling.

Thus he will, for example, with sereni-ty and certainty of a child’s imagination,take a stroke of chalk or a piece of blue can-vas and proclaim it a sky, using it in orderto mark the closed, artificial space of thegallery. Under this sky, he will produce asimple rustic bench out of two tree-trunksand an unprocessed log placed over them.Knowing no fear of profanation, KoæariÊ hasin this way “lowered” the sculpture to thelevel of an utilitarian object, whereas by“sacrifying” the art status of an object heturned the narrow corridor of the galleryinto a place of evocation and serene con-templation.

The Haystack KoæariÊ’s Stog sijena (Haystack)

installed in Dubrovnik is another amongmany public sculptures-interventions aboutwhich one can not speak without mention-ing the reaction of the audience to theirappearance. Moreover, it is preciselythrough this public reception of the sculp-ture that it is possible to divine theirauthentic character.

The Haystack again made it possible tograsp KoæariÊ’s works of art as real, visibleobjects. In artistic creation it is not as rou-tine a phenomenon as one might think.Tones of bronze, stone, and similar physicalextremes formed in one way or another donot succeed in fulfilling their aim by defeat-ing their own transparency. Contrary tothat, the installation of KoæariÊ’s sculpturein public space is an act of revelation, thatis, of establishing the centre, of markingand activating the acupuncture point ofspace, of stirring up its energetic line offorce. Independently of stylistic label, mate-rial, or dimension, be it the classical figura-tion of the aluminium Matoπ sitting on thebench, be it the absolute geometry of thegilded fibreglass Prizemljeno sunce(Grounded Sun), or the ready-made instal-lation of the haystack at Dubrovnik - ineach single case there is a common denom-inator of the same adequately formed andcontextualised vitalistic substance, whichdetermines its magnetism.

There is an ultra-rich documentationabout the most various aspects of commu-nication with Matoπ at the Upper Town.People sit down next to him, talk to him,embrace him, put socks on his feet and

burkavanja njegovih energetskih silnica.Neovisno o stilskoj oznaci, materijalu ili di-menziji, bilo da se radi o klasiËnoj figuraci-ji aluminijskog Matoπa na klupi, o apsolut-noj geometriji pozlaÊenog fiberglasa Prizem-ljenog sunca ili ready-made-u dubrovaËkogstoga sijena - u svakom pojedinom sluËajuprisutan je zajedniËki nazivnik prigodno uo-bliËene i kontekstualizirane, iste vitalistiËkesupstance koja odreuje njegov magneti-zam.

Postoji tako bogata dokumentacijanajrazliËitijih vidova komunikacije s gornjo-gradskim Matoπem. Ljudi sjede uz njega,razgovaraju s njim, grle ga, odijevaju muËarape i stavljaju πalove zimi, ali i πaraju ponjemu i ruæe ga sprejevima. (Dotle gradskikipovi ostalih pisaca, djela drugih autora,unatoË sliËnom prizemnom postavu, mirnoi neometano traju u svojoj neprimijeÊenosti.Ne predstavljaju izazov ni za najmahnitijegrafitiste.)

Nadalje, dobro su poznate strastvenereakcije graana na Prizemljeno sunce nazagrebaËkom kazaliπnom trgu 1971.: lupalisu ga nogom, kitili ga granËicama, plesalioko njega, polijevali ga bojom i na krajuzapalili.

DubrovaËki Stog, kao ni navedeneskulpture, nema u sebi nikakve opscenosti,

20

sl.13: I. KoæariÊ, A.G. Matoπ, Zagreb, 1978.

13

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:49 Page 20

kao ni politiËki iritantne primisli koje una-prijed raËunaju na reakciju. Takoer, neradi se niti o fiziËkom nadmetanju ili atakuna prostor. Naprotiv, tvrdom kamenu kon-trapunktiran je mekani materijal sijena,stoljetnoj trajnosti Grada neπto efemerno ipropadivo; skromna rustika zapravo jepojaËala urbanu gizdavost. Miris sijena,pak, unio je ideju prostora, πirine, razrahliotvrdu, klaustrofobnu opasanost moÊnim zi-dovima. 1

No, opÊa mobilizacija duhova ponovnose dogodila. »uvena estradna pjevaËicadoæivjela je sijeno kao napad na svoj nastupu Kneæevu dvoru i, moæda, na svoje seoskoporijeklo, gradonaËelnik ga je shvatio kaonagrdu “svog dvoriπta”, ali djeca su uæivala,a turisti pronaπli novo mjesto za ovjekov-jeËenje svog posjeta Dubrovniku.

Joπ jedanput, svojim nastupom Ëistihmisli i djetinjom nagoπÊu kao ulogom (Jauvijek idem gol...) KoæariÊ je pokrenuo glo-balni striptiz konteksta u kojem se pojavio. t

Napomena: U tekstu su koriπteni dijelovitekstova i predgovora pisanih povodom Ko-æariÊevih izloæbi: U znaku sunca, GalerijaForum, 1991.; Galerija KovaËka 3, Dubrov-nik, 1994.; Galerija AM-M14F/1-Z, 1990.;Galerija Beck, Zagreb, 1999.; Drvo, MSU,Zagreb, 1999.; Otok, Dubrovnik, 1996.

scarfs around his neck in winter, but alsoscribble on him and spoil him with sprays.(At the same time, urban monuments ofother writers, created by other artists,despite the same ground-level position, per-sist peacefully, undisturbed since unno-ticed. Apparently they do not inspire eventhe most frantic graffitists.)

Furthermore, one remembers very wellthe passionate reactions of citizens to theGrounded Sun at the Theatre Square ofZagreb in 1971: they kicked it, decorated itwith twigs, danced around it, spilled painton it, and eventually put it on fire.

The Haystack of Dubrovnik, as well asother mentioned sculptures, in itself bearsno obscenity and no politically irritating sec-ond thought that would automatically entaila reaction. Moreover, it is no attempt atphysical domination or an attack uponspace. On the contrary, the soft texture ofhay as something ephemeral and corruptivewas counterpoised to the hard stone, to thecenturies-long endurance of the City ofDubrovnik, whereas humble rusticity in factaccentuated the urban flashiness. The smellof hay, again, introduced an idea of space,wideness, it loosened the stiff, claustropho-bic enclosure in powerful city walls. 1

However, one could witness again thegeneral mobilisation of spirits. Certain pop-ular singer understood the hay as anattempt to undermine her concert at theDodge’s Palace (in front of which theHaystack was placed) and possibly even asan allusion to her rural background, where-as the mayor took it as an act of defamationof “his backyard”; still, kids enjoyed them-selves and tourists grabbed the opportunityfor yet another photo that would remindthem of their visit to Dubrovnik.

Once again, with his performance ofpure thoughts and his childlike nakednesstaken as a role (I always walk aroundnaked...), KoæariÊ has initiated a globalstriptease of the context in which he hasmade his appearance. l

Note: The author has made use of parts oftexts and prefaces written for KoæariÊ’sexhibitions: U znaku sunca (In the sign ofthe sun), Galerija Forum, 1991; GalerijaKovaËka 3, Dubrovnik, 1994; Galerija AM-M14F/1-Z, 1990; Galerija Beck, Zagreb,1999; Drvo (Wood), MSU, Zagreb, 1999;Otok (Island), Dubrovnik, 1996.

prijevod / translation: Marina Miladinov21

1 No, s druge strane, πtoviπe, tijelom i oblikom, sijenobaπ kao da sublimira gradsku arhitekturu. Svojompojavom, naime, stog poËinje teËno katalizirati percep-ciju najËeπÊeg arhitektonskog elementa okolnih zdanja- lûka. Lûk se sada otkriva u zadivljujuÊe brojniminaËicama na Dvoru, katedrali, ali i u dvoriπtu dubro-vaËke UmjetniËke galerije gdje je rad, pet godina kasni-je, prilikom autorove samostalne izloæbe u listopadu2001. - rekonstruiran. Tako otkrivamo uistinu neoËeki-vani aspekt pripadnosti stoga ovom ambijentu. Ruralniobjekt, paradoksalno, nameÊe se kao πifra struktureGrada! 1 On the other hand, it appears as if the hay was subli-mating urban architecture by means of its body and itsshape. We might say that the haystack, by its veryappearance, began to act as a smooth catalyst for theperception of the most recurrent architectural elementof the surrounding buildings - the arch. The arch coulddisclose itself in amazingly many variants: at thePalace, the cathedral, as well as in the courtyard of theArt Gallery of Dubrovnik, where this work of art wasreconstructed five years later, at the occasion ofauthor’s solo exhibition in October, 2001. In this way,we could discover a truly unexpected aspect of the con-nection between the haystack and the ambience.Paradoxically, a rural object imposed itself as the struc-tural code of the City!

tl

≥ Antun MaraËiÊ - Zavrπio slikarstvo naAkademiji likovnih umjetnosti u Zagrebu.Umjetnik i kritiËar, ravnatelj UmjetniËkegalerije Dubrovnik. Æivi u Zagrebu iDubrovniku.Antun MaraËiÊ graduated painting at theAcademy of Visual Arts, Zagreb. He isactive as artist and art critic, and he is alsochief manager of Art Gallery, Dubrovnik. Helives in Zagreb and Dubrovnik.

2/maracic-kozaric 19/4/02 14:49 Page 21