10

Video pieces of art that Braco Dimitrije-viÊ made in 1971 in St Martin’s School

of Art in London are considered to be the fir-st video works of the Croatian artists. Thirty-two years later, no gallery or museum insti-tution in Croatia holds the possession ofanything that would even remotely resemblethe video art collection.

This text was inspired by my experi-ence in compiling the historical outline ofCroatian video art which had been orderedfrom the New Media Scotland in Edinburgh.The programme was edited in 2002 by thename Frame by Frame, and designed forthe evening showing that introduced 26 ar-tists with the same number of works of artwithin the three-hour period of time (in thistext, video stills used for the catalogue areshown).

The programme covers the twenty-se-ven year period of time and because of itspracticality conditioned by its educationalpotential, it represents exclusively single-ch-annelled video art that makes its projectingsimple and attractive both technically andorganizationally. Within six months the pro-gramme had been introduced to seven citiesin Croatia, Gdansk, Krakow, Warsaw, Bu-dapest and Glasgow. Obviously, the interestfor our historical video art record exists.

In the introduction of the catalogue Iemphasized the fact that the programmeshould both remind our audience, and pro-vide information for the foreign audienceabout the tradition and the richness of thepresent-day Croatian video production. Mywords proved to be true. Our video art ispractically unknown outside the strictly pro-fessional circles abroad, whilst our audiencecomprised of my colleagues and artists havenever seen most of the introduced works ofart for the reason as simple as the non-exis-tence of an institution that would be contin-uously involved in the video production ba-sed on the museological principles for colle-cting, preservation, interpretation and exhi-bition of such collections.

I became painfully aware of this prob-lem immediately after starting drawing theoutlines for the programme. Not being tooambitious about it and hoping that somecompilations had already existed, I figuredthat the simplest way of putting together theoutline which aims towards the presenta-tion of the widest period of time when qual-ity and quantity of the production are con-cerned would be by putting it together fromalready existing outlines concerned with the

Videoradovi koje je 1971. godine BracoDimitrijeviÊ napravio u londonskoj St.

Martin’s School of Art smatraju se prvimvideoradovima hrvatskog umjetnika. Tride-set i dvije godine poslije, niti jedna galerij-ska ili muzejska institucija u Hrvatskoj neposjeduje niπta πto bi se makar pribliænomoglo nazvati zbirkom videoumjetnosti.

Ovaj tekst potaknut je mojim iskustvomkompiliranja povijesnog pregleda hrvatskevideoumjetnosti koji je naruËio New MediaScotland iz Edinburga. Pod nazivom Frameby Frame program je montiran 2002. godi-ne, a u trajanju od 3 sata, predvienom zadvije cjeloveËernje projekcije, predstavlja26 umjetnika s isto toliko radova (ovaj tekstopremljen je kadrovima koriπtenim za tisakkataloga). Program obuhvaÊa vremenski ra-spon od dvadeset i sedam godina te zbogpraktiËnosti uvjetovane njegovim obrazov-nim potencijalom predstavlja iskljuËivo je-dnokanalnu videoumjetnost πto njegovo pri-kazivanje Ëini u tehniËkom i organizacij-skom smislu jednostavnim i pristupaËnim.U pola godine program je predstavljen u 7gradova u Hrvatskoj te Gdanjsku, Krakovu,Varπavi, Budimpeπti i Glasgovu. OËito je dazanimanje za povijesni pregled naπevideoumjetnosti postoji.

U uvodnim rijeËima predgovora katalo-ga naglasio sam da je program podsjetniknaπoj, a informacija inozemnoj publici o tra-diciji i bogatoj sadaπnjosti naπe videopro-dukcije. Te su se rijeËi pokazale viπe negotoËne. Izvan uskih struËnih krugova u ino-zemstvu naπa videoumjetnost gotovo je ne-poznata, a naπa publika, ukljuËujuÊi umjet-nike i moje kolege, veÊinu predstavljenih vi-deoradova nije nikad vidjela iz jednostavnograzloga πto ne postoji institucija koja bi nasebe preuzela zadatak da se sustavno bavivideoprodukcijom po muzeoloπkim principi-ma prikupljanja, Ëuvanja, obrade i izlaganjatakve zbirke.

Ovog problema postao sam bolnosvjestan odmah nakon πto sam se prihvatiokoncipiranja programa. BuduÊi da moje am-bicije nisu bile velike i vjerujuÊi da nekekompilacije veÊ postoje, smatrao sam da Êepregled s ciljem predstavljanja πto veÊegvremenskog razdoblja u smislu kvalitete ikvantitete produkcije, biti najjednostavnijesastaviti iz veÊ postojeÊih pregleda koncen-triranih na njene pojedine estetske, diskur-zivne, kronoloπke itd. aspekte odnosno se-gmente. Ispostavilo se da mi nekoliko pos-tojeÊih programa koji se mahom bave pro-dukcijom iz vremena svog nastanka, a koji

brankofranceschi

zbirke videoumjetnosti u hrvatskoj

collections of the croatian video art

t l

2 11

production’s particular aesthetic, discourse,chronological etc. aspects and segments. Itturned out that few of already existing pro-grammes mainly dealing with the produc-tion dating from the time of their creation,and which were also made as the orders byinternational manifestations directly to mycolleagues, couldn’t be of much help.

The only thing left was to contact theactual artists, who suggested contacting Hr-vatski filmski savez/Croatian film associa-tion, the institution that not only possessedthe works of art in the form acceptable forthe technical edition, but also had the will-ingness to do it for us free of charge. Aftercompleting their own primary programme-related tasks, of course. As Croatian film as-sociation did not have most of the recentvideo art work productions which I had col-lected directly from the authors, we realizedthat we have mutual goals. Furthermore,Video art in Croatia programme which Cro-atian Film Association published in its pub-lication Hrvatski filmski ljetopis 18/1999 isthe only outline of the complete Croatian vi-deo art. Marijan Susovski gave the historicaloutline, Janka Vukmir the outline of therecent productions of those times, Aleksan-dra OrliÊ wrote an essay about the installa-tion of video pieces, while the editor of thepublication, Hrvoje TurkoviÊ, provided thebiographical and bibliographical data aboutthe authors. In comparison, I would like tomention that the SCCA in Ljubljana the sa-me year published the book of essays calledVideodokument /A Video Document, as wellas the thorough catalogue about the Slove-nian artists and its works of art. Moreover,in 1999 SCCA in Belgrade published thebook called Video umetnost u Srbiji /The Vi-deo Art in Serbia, which had the secondedition in 2000 expanded in outline of me-dia happenings and events.

The question imposed here is whetheror not is the Croatian film association, withits all good will, the institution which shoulddeal with the video art or, considering thefact that the video art is primary a part ofthe visual art, should that particular role begiven to the institutions that are made sole-ly for the purposes of modern and contem-porary art. Debating this problem in theforeword in the catalogue of the Frame byFrame programme, I used the syntagm“back door” through which has the video artbeen let into the institutions, treated as astep-child, as something nobody wants tofully get involved with. The question whose

su takoer napravljeni kao narudæbe sinozemnih manifestacija izravno mojim ko-legama (Janka Vukmir, Silva KalËiÊ, AnaDeviÊ …), ne moæe puno pomoÊi.

Preostalo mi je kontaktirati same um-jetnike koji su me pak sa svoje strane uputilina Hrvatski filmski savez kao instituciju kojane samo πto posjeduje radove u formatupogodnom za tehniËki prihvatljivu montaæu,nego razumijevanje i dobru volju da taj po-sao i besplatno obavi. Dakako, u vremenunakon πto obave programske poslove koji suim primarni zadatak. Kako Hrvatski filmskisavez u svojoj kolekciji nije imao veÊinu ra-dova recentne videoprodukcije koju sam japrikupio izravno od njenih autora, naπi cilje-vi su se odliËno poklopili.

Dodatno, prilog Videoumjetnost uHrvatskoj koji je Hrvatski filmski savez obja-vio u svojoj ediciji Hrvatski filmski ljetopis18/1999. jedini je pregled cjelokupne hr-vatske videoumjetnosti. Marijan Susovskidao je povijesni pregled, Janka Vukmir pre-gled tada recentne produkcije, AleksandraOrliÊ esej o videoinstalacijama, a biografskei bibliografske podatke o svim autorima pri-kupio je urednika Ëasopisa Hrvoje TurkoviÊ.Radi usporedbe napomenuo bih da je ljub-ljanski SCCA iste godine pod nazivom Video-dokument objavio knjigu eseja i opseæankatalog o slovenskim umjetnicima i njihovimradovima, beogradski SCCA 1999. godineknjigu Video-umetnost u Srbiji, a 2000. go-dine njen drugi dio s pregledom medijskihdogaaja i dogaanja.

NameÊe se pitanje je li Hrvatski filmskisavez, uz svu svoju dobru volju, uopÊe insti-tucija koja se treba baviti videoumjetnosti ilibi to, s obzirom da se videoumjetnost prven-stveno smatra dijelom vizualne umjetnosti,trebale biti ustanove kojima je moderna isuvremena umjetnost razlog postojanja. Ra-zmatrajuÊi ovaj problem u sklopu svog pred-govora katalogu Frame by Frame programaposluæio sam se sintagmom “mala vrata”kroz koja je videoumjetnost pripuπtena u in-stitucije, svuda u statusu pastorka, neËegËime se nitko ne æeli u potpunosti baviti. Pi-tanje Ëiji bi to posao zapravo bio ostajeotvoreno.

Nakratko Êu se osvrnuti i na s naπomtemom povezan problem produkcije video-umjetnosti koja po svojoj tehniËkoj i multi-disciplinarnoj prirodi zahtijeva veÊu logistiË-ku podrπku od veÊine vidova suvremenogumjetniËkog izraza. Za sada su, kao i napoËecima, umjetnici prepuπteni svojoj spo-sobnosti snalaæenja u rjeπavanju vrlo skupih

12

1. S. IvekoviÊ, Make Up-Make down, 1976.

2. D. Martinis, Open Reel, 1976.

poslova vezanih uz produkciju videoradova.Rade usporedbe izdvojit Êu primjer sara-jevskog SCCA Ëija je ravnateljica Dunja Bla-æeviÊ iskoristila inozemne donacije za osni-vanje samostalnog multimedijalnog studijaObala art centar, koji je duæan pruæati te-hniËke usluge vizualnim umjetnicima. Re-zultat ovog poteza bio je doslovno stvaranjescene videoumjetnosti u gradu koji je dotada gotovo nije imao i njeno brzo plasiranjena internacionalnu scenu (selekciju njiho-vog programa predstavio sam 2000. godineu sklopu izloæbe Made in Sarajevo u GalerijiMiroslav KraljeviÊ u Zagrebu i Malom salo-nu u Rijeci)

Pitanje je uopÊe koliko se problem vi-deoumjetnosti moæe izdvojiti od stava odgo-varajuÊih administrativnih tijela prema su-vremenoj umjetnosti u cjelini. PraktiËno, onjoj se ni u jednom segmentu obrazovanjane govori, a stalan i sustavan muzejski po-stav suvremene umjetnosti u Hrvatskoj nepostoji. Joπ uvijek je nemoguÊe studirati vi-deoumjetnost na akademijama. ZaËeci Mul-timedijalnog odsjeka na zagrebaËkoj Akade-miji izgleda odumiru, a u Splitu takvo zani-manje maskira se Odsjekom za dizajn vi-zualnih komunikacija. Na katedri za povijestumjetnosti o videoumjetnosti tek se stidljivogovori.

Paradoksalno, videoumjetnost je zbogoËitog produkcijskog pritiska izrazito prisut-na na izloæbama i manifestacijama, πto omo-guÊuje i sve bolja tehnoloπka opremljenostnaπih institucija. Muzejsko-galerijski prosto-ri predstavljaju je od samih poËetaka, a sasve viπom razinom tehniËke opremljenostisve viπe i sve ËeπÊe. U sklopu 1997. godineobnovljenog Meunarodnog festivala novogfilma u Splitu videoumjetnost je zasebnakategorija, a od proπle godine, iako nauπtrbtermina emisije Transfer posveÊene suvre-menoj umjetnosti, HTV prikazuje emisijuVideodrom posveÊenu domaÊem i inozem-nom jednokanalnom videu po selekciji Vla-dislava KneæeviÊa i Simona BogojeviÊa Na-ratha.

UzimajuÊi u obzir sve navedene faktorezanimljivo je zaπto nema adekvatne muzeo-grafske obrade videoumjetnosti jer bez bazepodataka, pristupaËnosti materije struËnja-cima i publici ova nadasve snaæna umjet-niËka disciplina u hrvatskoj suvremenoj um-jetnosti, koja je dala i neke od naπih naj-veÊih meunarodnih umjetniËkih zvijezda,doima se potpuno inferiornom i nevaænom.Ovaj neobavljeni posao i nenadoknadivipropust daljnjim razvojem tehnoloπki bazi-

job would that actually be remains unan-swered.

I will briefly discuss the problem close-ly linked to our topic - production of videoart, which by its technical and multi-disci-plinary nature demands better logistic sup-port than most of the modern art ways ofexpressions. For the time being, just as atthe very first beginning, the artists are left totheir own devices in finding the financialsolutions for the very expensive details con-nected to the video art production. Forexample, I will point out the case of SCCAin Sarajevo where the director DunjaBlaæeviÊ used the international donationsfor founding the independent multi-mediastudio Obala art centar, which is obliged toprovide technical help to visual artists. Asthe result of this, the video art scene and itsfast and high placing in the internationalscene developed in the city which up to thattime did not have the scene at all (the selec-tion of their programme I presented in 2000as the part of the Made in Sarajevo exhibi-tion in Miroslav KraljeviÊ Gallery and in Malisalon in Rijeka).

The question is whether it is possibleor not to separate the video art from the atti-tude of the certain administrative bodiestowards contemporary art as such. Not inone segment of education is contemporaryart spoken of, not to mention that perma-nent and systematic museum exhibition ofcontemporary art does not even exist inCroatia. Video art cannot yet be studied atthe academies. The roots of the Multi-me-dia department at the Academy of Fine Artseem to be dying while in Split the interestfor that area operates under cover of Depar-tment of design of visual communication.The Faculty of History of Art speaks of itsheepishly.

Paradoxically enough, video art is,because of the obvious production pres-sures, vividly present at the exhibitions andmanifestations, which is enabled by themore and more advanced technical equip-ment of our institutions. Video art has beenpresented by the museum and gallery spa-ces from the very beginning and with the hi-gher level of technical equipment it has be-come more frequent as well. As a part of theInternational festival of film, renewed in1997 in Split, video art became an autono-mous category. Since last year, although atthe expense of the broadcasting time of theTransfer programme, HTV (Croatian nation-al television) has been broadcasting the

13

3. G. Trbuljak, Bez naziva 1&2/Untitled 1&2,

1976.

4. A. BoæaniÊ, Niti/Bands, 1977.

Videodrom programme dedicated to theCroatian and international single-channelledvideo, edited by Vladislav KneæeviÊ and Si-mon BogojeviÊ Narath. Taking all the men-tioned factors into consideration, it must besaid that it is interesting that we haven’t gotthe adequate museological interpretation ofvideo art. The fact is that, without the data-base and the accessibility of the subjectmatter to the experts and the audience, thisvery powerful artistic discipline in the Cro-atian contemporary art, which gave some ofour greatest worldwide known artistic stars,seems completely inferior and unimportant.There could be the possibility that there isno point in continuing working on this unfin-ished business as on a separate category,especially considering the future develop-ment of the arts based on the technology.Technological and media development hasoverpowered the video art, therefore its mo-st effective interpretation could function asa part of the future collections of the multi-media arts which should be immediatelycreated in order to prevent the case similarto the video art.

Having tackled all these problems inmy work, and not being employed in theinstitution of a museum kind, for the sake ofthis text and as an attempt to at leastencourage the thinking towards that partic-ular direction, I have written the question-naire and sent it to the addresses of Croa-tian galleries, future museums of contempo-rary art and institutions which are involvedin video art by their profile.

Along with the supplementary letter whichexplains the purpose of the questionnaire,eight easy questions are asked:

l Do you own the collection of art video?Croatian, international? (1)l How many pieces do you hold? Croatianartists? International artists? Precisely? Ap-proximately? (2)l In what way do you keep your collectionin a functional state? (3)l Do you expand your collection intentional-ly? New pieces? Updating the old ones? (4)l Is it possible for your collection to be stud-ied professionally? (5)lDo you occasionally present your art video col-lection in public? When did you do it last? (6)l What are the basic problems in makingthe concept of the working and working onthe art video collection? (7)l Do you find the existence of the indepen-

ranih umjetnosti moæda viπe nema ni smis-la zasebno raditi. Razvoj tehnologije i medi-ja progutao je videoumjetnost te bi moædanjena najefikasnija obrada bila u sklopu bu-duÊih zbirki multimedijalnih umjetnosti kojebi trebalo odmah poËeti osmiπljavati kakose sluËaj videoumjetnosti ne bi ponovio.

S obzirom da sam se u svom radu do-takao svih ovih problema, a sam ne radim uinstituciji muzejskog tipa, za potrebe ovogteksta i kao pokuπaj da barem malo po-taknem razmiπljanje u ovom pravcu, sasta-vio sam jednostavan upitnik i uputio ga naadrese hrvatskih galerija i buduÊih muzejasuvremene umjetnosti te institucija koje sepo svom profilu videoumjetnoπÊu bave.

Uz popratno pismo koje objaπnjava svrhuupitnika, postavljeno je osam lakih pitanja:

n Da li posjedujete zbirku umjetniËkog vi-dea? Hrvatskog, inozemnog? (1)n Koliko naslova imate u posjedu? Hrvatskihautora, inozemnih autora? ToËno, prib-liæno? (2)n Na koji naËin zbirku odræavate u funkcio-nalnom stanju? (3)n Da li planski πirite zbirku? Novi naslovi,aæuriranje starih naslova? (4)n Da li je moguÊe struËno prouËavanje vaπezbirke? (5)n Da li periodiËno publici predstavljate svo-ju zbirku umjetniËkog videa? Kada ste tonapravili posljednji put? (6)n Koji su osnovni problemi uspostave i radasa zbirkom umjetniËkog videa? (7)n Da li smatrate potrebnim postojanje neza-visnog referalnog centra/institucije za priku-pljanje/arhiviranje/prouËavanje umjetniËkogvidea? (8)

S izuzetkom Instituta za suvremenuumjetnost u Zagrebu, od kojih sam odgovordobio sutradan, veÊini je trebalo viπe tjeda-na i mjeseci, nekoliko telefonskih poziva iponovnog slanja upitnika da bih dobio bilokakav odgovor. Galerije u Puli i Varaædinunisu odgovorile. Prvi dojam koji sam stekaopo ignoriranju upita, nepridræavanju zamol-jenog roka, gubljenju pa ponovnom gu-bljenju preporuËenih poπiljki, faxova te e-mailova, dugotrajnog putovanja pismaunutar ustanove do odgovarajuÊeg kustosa,izostanka bilo kakvog odgovora nakon πtosu sva sredstva komuniciranja iscrpljena, au nekim sluËajevima i obeÊanja dana u iz-ravnom telefonskom razgovoru neodræana(Galerija umjetnina Slavonski Brod i Gale-

14

5. B. Beban, H. HorvatiÊ, Zemljopis/Geography,

1989.

6. I. L. Galeta, Pismo/Letter, 1995.

rija umjetnina Split); pokazuje da pitanje iproblemi zbirka videoumjetnosti ne potiËuzanimanje naπih, blago reËeno, indolentnihinstitucija. Moæda ta osobina najtoËnijeobjaπnjava sadaπnji status (ne)postojanjazbirki videoumjetnosti u nas.

Ponovno usporeujuÊi, uz zamjenupojma “hrvatski video” sa “slovenski video”ista pitanja uputio sam i Modernoj galerijiu Ljubljani.

(1) Da li posjedujete zbirku umjetniËkogvidea? hrvatskog, inozemnog?

n Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti,Rijeka: Bivπa Moderna galerija, Rijeka -MMSU nema zbirku umjetniËkog videa, alise u videodokumentaciji oformljenoj po-Ëetkom devedesetih godina Ëuvaju umjet-niËki videoradovi.n Galerija umjetnina Narodnog muzeja,Zadar: Jedino πto posjedujemo su umjet-niËki videozapisi koje su umjetnici ostaviliGaleriji umjetnina nakon izloæbe ZvijezdaDanica 1988. godine. To se ne moæe naz-vati zbirkom. n Moderna galerija, Zagreb: Fundus Moder-ne galerije zahvaÊa stilska razdoblja 19. i20. stoljeÊa i obuhvaÊa umjetniËka djelahrvatskih autora te autora koji djeluju napodruËju Hrvatske ili Ëiji je rad vezan zadomaÊu sredinu. NajveÊim djelom, fundusobuhvaÊa djela moderne umjetnosti te uneπto manjem opsegu suvremena umjet-niËka djela. Odjel novih medija najmlai jeodjel zbirki. U okviru Odjela novih medijaModerna galerija posjeduje i zbirku umjet-niËkog videa. n Galerija likovnih umjetnosti, Osijek: Ne.n Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb:Da.n Institut za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb:Institut nema zbirku, nego dokumentaciju.Naπe trake nisu otkupljeni videoradovi namasterima, nego VHS kopije radova kojeumjetnici odluËe dati kao ogledne uzorke udokumentaciju. One se ne mogu prikazi-vati osim za studijske svrhe ili nekuprezentaciju. Nije ih moguÊe izlagati, nitikoristiti na druge ili komercijalne naËine.Zapravo, za svako ozbiljno prikazivanje tihtraka potrebno je zatraæiti suglasnostumjetnika, i po moguÊnosti novu kopiju,jer su naπe trake stalno u upotrebi i izli-zane su. Za dokumentaciju dovoljno, ali nei za zbirku.n UmjetniËka galerija, Dubrovnik: Ne.n Moderna galerija, Ljubljana: Moderna

dent documentation and reference center anecessity in the process of collecting / de-positing / interpreting video art? (8)

With the exception of the Institute forContemporary Art in Zagreb that providedtheir answer the next day, it took severalweeks and months, several phone calls anda repeated questionnaire mail order for mo-st of the others to answer. Galleries fromPula and Varaædin didn’t answer at all. Thequestionnaire and the deadlines were igno-red, registered mail, faxes and e-mails werelost, found and lost again, it took for lettersa long time to travel within the institution tofind its way to the right curator, answersweren’t given after exhausting all possiblemeans of communication and, in some ca-ses, promises given directly over the phonewere broken (Art Gallery from SlavonskiBrod and Art Gallery from Split). The impre-ssion I got was that all that displayed a totalindolence and a lack of interest for the videoart collection in our institutions. Thus, may-be this attitude provides an accurate expla-nation for a present-day status of (non)exis-tence of video art collections in our country.

For the benefit of the furthermore com-parison, I addressed Museum of Modern ArtLjubljana with the same question, only slig-htly rephrasing it by changing “Croatian vi-deo art” into “Slovenian video art”.

(1) Do you own the collection of art video?Croatian, international?

l Museum of Modern and ContemporaryArt, Rijeka: does not own art video collec-tion, but the video-documentation collectedat the beginning of the 1920s comprises ofsome art video works.l The Art Gallery of the National Museum,Zadar: we only possess art video recordingswhich the artists left to Galerija umjetninaafter the Zvijezda Danica exhibition in1988. This is not considered a collection. l Museum of Modern Art, Zagreb: Museumof Modern Art collection comprises the artperiods of the 19th and 20th century andthe Croatian artists’ works of art as well asthe works of art belonging to the authorsworking on the Croatian territory or whosework is connected to Croatian environment.The collection mostly includes modern artpieces and a small number of contemporaryworks of art. The New Media Department isthe youngest collection department. In theframework of the New Media Department,

15

7. V. Petek, Tronic, 1997.

8. V. ZrniÊ, Carinarnica vremena/Borders of Time,

1994.

Moderna Galerija possesses the art videocollection as well. l Gallery of Art, Osijek: No.l Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb:Yes.l Institute for Contemporary Art, Zagreb:The Institute holds documentation, yet nota collection. Our video collection is notcomprised of acquisitions of original mastertapes, but of VHS copies of the works thatartists donated as samples for the docu-mentation. They are not to be projectedexcept for the study or the presentation pur-poses. They are neither to be exhibited norto be used in any commercial way whatso-ever. As a matter of fact, for any seriousprojection of the tapes the artists’ consentand preferably a new copy should beacquired, for our tapes have been in use allthe time and therefore are in quite poor astate. Sufficient enough for the documenta-tion, yet not for the collection. l Museum of Modern Art, Dubrovnik: No.l Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana: Muse-um of Moder Art holds the art video collec-tion. Until recently, we were buying videoand similar art works rarely and unsystem-atically. In 1999 we have started the for-mation of the department or curatorial teamfor media art with a clear intention for moresystematic approach towards preservationand presentation of such specific works ofart. Copyrights for the Slovenian video artpieces are included in the acquisition con-tract within a regular acquisition policy ofcontemporary art collection, while interna-tional video art collection is included in theacquisition policy of the new collection2000 + Arteast Collection with a specialemphasis on the East European works ofart.

(2) How many pieces do you hold? Croatianartists? International artists? Precisely?Approximately?

l Museum of Modern and ContemporaryArt, Rijeka: our video documentationholds about fifteen tapes of the Croatianand international authors. Few tapesinclude several art video works, i.e.Reference to Difference - Croatian Video1994/1996, or authors’ and/or experi-mental films transferred onto a videotape: Sarajevski ratni film/ Sarajevo warfilm, Filmovi grupe ©estorice / Films of theGroup of Six and Vladimir Petek’s films. l The Art Gallery of the National Museum,

galerija Ljubljana posjeduje zbirku umjet-niËkog videa. Donedavno smo video i srod-na umjetniËka djela otkupljivali veomarijetko i nesustavno. 1999. godine poËelismo formirati odjel odnosno kustodijat zamedijsku umjetnost, s namjerom sustavni-jeg pristupa problematici Ëuvanja i prezen-tiranja tih specifiËnih djela. Slovenskivideo otkupljujemo u okviru redovitih otku-pa domaÊih autora nacionalne zbirke su-vremene umjetnosti, a inozemni u okvirunove zbirke 2000+Arteast Collection saposebnim naglaskom na djelima iz IstoËneEvrope.

(2) Koliko naslova imate u posjedu?Hrvatskih autora, inozemnih autora?ToËno, pribliæno?

n Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti,Rijeka: U videodokumentaciji posjedujemopetnaestak naslova domaÊih i inozemnihautora. Nekoliko naslova obuhvaÊa viπeumjetniËkih videoradova, npr. Referenceto Difference - Croatian Video 1994/1996,ili autorske i/ili eksperimentalne filmoveprebaËene na videovrpcu: Sarajevski ratnifilm, Filmovi grupe ©estorice, filmovi Vla-dimira Peteka.n Galerija umjetnina Narodnog muzeja,Zadar: Fiona Tan Linnaeus Flower Clock,Sandra Sterle True stories, Dan Oki TheHouseholder i Federico D’Orazio O. Osimtoga Galerija posjeduje umjetniËki vide-ofilm Vlade ZrniÊa UliËni dogaaji braÊeBrkan, koji je producirao Narodni muzej.n Moderna galerija, Zagreb: Zbirka, zasada, broji desetak naslova hrvatskih auto-ra i autorica. Zbirka umjetniËkog videa ina-ugurirana je 1993. godine otkupom radaSanje IvekoviÊ i Dalibora Martinisa TheBride, The Bachelors-Even (1992.). n Galerija likovnih umjetnosti, Osijek:Imamo nekoliko videoradova, ali bezikakve sustavne obrade.n Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb:(opaska autora teksta) Po Popisu filmova ivideoradova iz zbirke MSU koje sam dobiou privitku odgovora, Muzej je u posjedu 87naslova u obje kategorije na razliËitim for-matima.n Institut za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb:Oko 250 naslova, uz napomenu da 2002.godina nije u cijelosti aæurirana.n UmjetniËka galerija, Dubrovnik: Galerijaposjeduje 4 videorada koje su poslije iz-loæbe donirali umjetnici. n Moderna galerija, Ljubljana: Premda je

16

9. M. Bukovac, Umnoæavanje/Multiplication,

1994.

10. Z. Kopljar, Ljubavni pucanj/Love Shot, 1996.

naπa zbirka mala, imamo reprezentativanizbor desetorice najvaænijih slovenskih auto-ra svih generacija (Nuπa i SreËo Dragan, Ma-rina GræiniÊ i Aina ©mid, Zemira AlajbegoviÊi Neven Korda, Laibach, Marko KovaËiË,Apolonija ©uπterπiË, Nika ©pan, Vuk ∆osiÊ,Igor ©tromajer, …) i dvadesetak radova ino-zemnih autora (Jerzy Beres, Ion Grigorescu,Sanja IvekoviÊ i Dalibor Martinis, Oleg Kulik,Via Levandowsky, Andrei Monastirsky, PaulNeagu, Adrian Paci, Jozef Robakowski,Alexander Roitburd, Milica TomiÊ, …).

(3) Na koji naËin zbirku odræavate u fun-kcionalnom stanju?

n Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti,Rijeka: Ne primjenjuju se posebni postupciodræavanja u funkcionalnom stanju, osimËuvanja u suhom, hladnom, mraËnom i re-lativno zaπtiÊenom prostoru/ormaru.n Moderna galerija, Zagreb: Zbirka umjet-niËkog videa pohranjuje se u zasebnom za-mraËenom, suhom prostoru unutar drve-nog ormara na temperaturi od oko 18˚C.Kasete su vertikalno postavljenje. n Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb:Zbirka se zajedno s ostalim dijelovima fun-dusa MSU Ëuva u depoima, a presnimcina VHS formatu Ëuvaju se u AV centru.n Institut za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb:Stalnim predstavljanjem videoradova doma-Êim i inozemnim kustosima, studentima,doktorantima..., javnim prikazivanjem. n Moderna galerija, Ljubljana: Zbog povi-jesnog opsega zbirke, originalni formativariraju i Ëesto predstavljaju problem zaodræavanje i konzerviranje. Premda se for-mat Betacam SP potvrdio kao uspjeπan ipristupaËan za produkciju i pohranjivanjeu muzejskom kontekstu, sve radove nasto-jimo prenijeti u digitalni format. Laserskidiskovi (DV) predstavljaju moæda idealniformat za izloæbe i dobar format za arhivi-ranje, ali je zbog cijene njihova primjenaza sada ograniËena.

(4) Da li planski πirite zbirku? Novi naslovi,aæuriranje starih naslova?

n Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti,Rijeka: Broj naslova autorskog videa usklopu videodokumentacije πiri se uglav-nom razmjenom ili donacijom autora. n Galerija umjetnina Narodnog muzeja,Zadar: Smatram da bi i naπa Galerija tre-bala raditi na uspostavi zbirke. Ne znamkada Êe to doÊi na red.

Zadar: Fiona Tan’s Linnaeus Flower Clock,Sandra Sterle’s True Stories, Dan Oki’s TheHouseholder and Federico D’Orazio’s O.Besides, the Gallery owns Vlado ZrniÊ’s artvideo film UliËni dogaaji braÊe Brkan/ TheBrkan Brothers Street events.l Museum of Modern Art, Zagreb: For thetime being the collection consists of aboutten titles belonging to various Croatianauthors. The art video collection was inau-gurated in 1993 by the acquisition of theSanja IvekoviÊ’s and Dalibor Martinis’s TheBride, The Bachelors -Even (1992).l Gallery of Art, Osijek: we have severalvideo works but without any systematicinterpretation.l Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb:(note of the text’s author) According to thelist of films and video works from the MSUcollection which came as a supplementaryletter with the answer, the Museum owns87 titles in various formats and in both cat-egories. l Institute for Contemporary Art, Zagreb:about 250 titles, notifying that the collec-tion hasn’t been fully updated for 2002.l Museum of Modern Art, Dubrovnik:Galerija holds 4 video works donated by theartists after their exhibition. l Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana: Altho-ugh our collection is rather small, we havea representative selection of the ten mostprominent Slovenian authors of all gener-ations (Nuπa i SreËo Dragan, Marina Græi-niÊ and Aina ©mid, Zemira AlajbegoviÊand Neven Korda, Laibach, Marko Kova-ËiË, Apolonija ©uπterπiË, Nika ©pan, Vuk∆osiÊ, Igor ©tromajer...). Moreover, thereare about twenty works belonging to inter-national authors (Jerzy Beres, Ion Gri-gorescu, Sanja IvekoviÊ and Dalibor Mar-tinis, Oleg Kulik, Via Levandowsky, AndreiMonastirsy, Paul Neagu, Adrian Paci,Jozef Robakowski, Alexander Roitburd,Milica TomiÊ...).

(3) In what way do you keep your collectionin a functional state?

l Museum of Modern and ContemporaryArt, Rijeka: no special procedure is appliedfor conservation of the collection, apartfrom storing it in a cool, dry, dark and rela-tively sheltered place/cupboard.l Museum of Modern Art, Zagreb: art videocollection is stored in a special, dark, drywooden cupboard at about 18 degrees.The tapes are stored vertically.

17

11. Z. MustaÊ, Buket/Bouquet, 1996.

12. D. Oki, Dinamis, 1996.

l Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb:the collection is stored in depots along withthe rest of the MSU collection. The VHSformat copies are kept in the AV (audio-visual) department.l Institute for Contemporary Art, Zagreb: Bythe constant presentation of video works toCroatian and international curators, stu-dents, candidates for a doctor’s degree ...by public projections.l Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana: Be-cause of its historical volume, the originalformats of the collection vary and are oftendifficult to store and preserve. AlthoughBetacam SP format proved to be successfuland attractive for production and storing inthe context of a museum, we are trying toput all the works onto a digital format.Laser discs (DV) are almost ideal format forthe exhibitions and filing, but because ofthe price, their usage is limited for the timebeing.

(4) Do you have a planned policy for expan-sion of the collection? Any new pieces? Doyou update the old ones?

l Museum of Modern and ContemporaryArt, Rijeka: Authorial video titles includedin the video documentation are increasingin number mainly through exchange orauthors’ donations. l The Art Gallery of the National Museum,Zadar: In my opinion our Gallery also sho-uld work on making a collection. Neverthe-less, I am not sure about when we’ll havetime for this.l Museum of Modern Art, Zagreb: For theautumn 2003, Modern Gallery is planninga new display which will present, amongall, contemporary works of art. In addition,an intentional broadening of the video col-lection which would, within the new frame-work, systematically present Croatian artvideo, is also expected. l Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb:Yes. l Institute for Contemporary Art, Zagreb:Yes.l Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana: A thor-ough approach to the media art problems isnecessary in planning a coherent acquisi-tion policy. Because of the lack of funds foracquisition, long “waiting lists” of the worksof art that should be bought, and finally,because of the prominent position of theold masters and classic media, broadeningof the collection is additionally made diffi-

n Moderna galerija, Zagreb: Moderna gale-rija za jesen 2003. planira novi postav kojiÊe, izmeu ostaloga, predstaviti i djela su-vremene umjetnosti. Vezano za novi po-stav predvia se i plansko πirenje zbirke vi-dea koje Êe unutar novog postava sustavnopredstaviti hrvatski umjetniËki video. n Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb:Da.n Institut za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb:Da.n Moderna galerija, Ljubljana: Cjelovitpristup problematici medijske umjetnostineophodan je i u planiranju smislene poli-tike otkupljivanja. Zbog pomanjkanja sred-stava namijenjenih otkupljivanju, dugaËkih“lista Ëekanja” radova za otkupe te uslijedprioritetnog poloæaja starijih majstora iklasiËnih medija πirenje zbirke je, u ta-kvim okolnostima, oteæano. Situaciju na-stojimo iskoristiti za aæuriranje, prouËava-nje i predstavljanje starih naslova.

(5) Da li je moguÊe struËno prouËavanjevaπe zbirke?

n Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti,Rijeka: U knjiænici ustanove moguÊe je pro-uËavati sve naslove videodokumentacijeustanove.n Moderna galerija, Zagreb: OrganiziranjestruËnog prouËavanja zbirki moguÊe je naosnovu pisanog zahtjeva i uz struËnu po-moÊ kustosa zaduæenog za zbirku.n Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb: Uzprethodnu najavu zainteresirani mogu po-gledati naslove koji ih zanimaju.n Institut za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb:Da.n Moderna galerija, Ljubljana: StruËno pro-uËavanje je moguÊe u za to opremljenomInformacijskom centru Moderne galerije,koji osim kopija svih djela iz zbirke zastudijske namjene posjeduje joπ tristoti-njak VHS kopija autorskih i dokumentar-nih videoradova. Za struËno savjetova-nje na raspolaganju je kustos za medijskuumjetnost Igor ©panjol i muzejski odjel zadokumentaciju.

(6) Da li periodiËno publici predstavljatesvoju zbirku umjetniËkog videa? Kada steto napravili posljednji put?n Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti,Rijeka: Iako nije formirana zbirka umjet-niËkog videa, niti je ta vrsta umjetniËkihradova planski otkupljivana, umjetniËkivideo mladih hrvatskih autora sustavno je

18

13. I. Kuduz, Dobro doπli na vrhunac

inteligencije/Welcome to the Peak of the

Intelligence, 1995.

14. S. BogojeviÊ Narath, Ruka gospodara/Hand of

the Master, 1995.

prikazivan na izloæbama u organizaciji us-tanove: od kraja osamdesetih na Bijenali-ma mladih, Rijeka; videoradovi hrvatskih iinozemnih umjetnika na Bijenalima mla-dih Mediterana, Rijeka, 1993. - 1997.; uinozemstvu na Bijenalima mladih Europe iMediterana 1990.-2000. (Marseille, Va-lencia, Lisabon, Torino, Rim, Sarajevo).Takoer su od poËetka devedesetih svakegodine organizirani cjeloveËernji programiumjetniËkog videa inozemnih i hrvatskihautora, Ëesto popraÊeni predavanjima ikomentarima gostujuÊih kustosa/kritiËaraili samih autora. Videoprograme je urei-vala i vodila kustos - muzejski pedagog Mi-lica –ilas. Uz posljednji program Crna ku-tija - suvremeni britanski video, Mali sa-lon, 2000., realiziran je i edukativni pro-gram za uËenike i studente Video - medijsuvremenih umjetnika. n Moderna galerija, Zagreb: BavljenjeumjetniËkim videom otpoËeto je otkupomradova s izloæbe Nova hrvatska umjetnostkoju je Moderna galerija organizirala1993. Za potrebe novog postava, planirase sustavnije predstavljanje umjetniËkogvidea koji do sada nije bio ukljuËen ustalne postave zbirki. Serijama projekcijapokuπat Êe se opseænije predstaviti pro-dukcija umjetniËkog videa. n Galerija likovnih umjetnosti, Osijek: Nepredstavljamo videoradove kao dio zbirke,ali predstavljamo videoumjetnost ako je toizloæbena jedinica.n Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb:Da, upravo je u planu izrada programavideo-projekcija u suradnji s Galerijom VN.n Institut za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb:Da, a posljednji put 21. 11. 2002. uColumbusu, Ohio, SAD. Odnedavno publi-ci HTV-a stalnom suradnjom s Video-dromom.n Moderna galerija, Ljubljana: Redovitojedanput mjeseËno organiziramo projekcijevidea u okviru kojih predstavljamo zbirku uobliku minijaturnih retrospektiva u njojzastupljenih autora. Osim toga, radove izzbirke redovito predstavljamo na izloæba-ma, festivalima i specijaliziranim televi-zijskim programima.

(7) Koji su osnovni problemi uspostave irada sa zbirkom umjetniËkog videa?

n Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti,Rijeka: Nedefiniran odnos spram sta-tusa takvog umjetniËkog djela u procesuvrednovanja / odabira / otkupa / Ëuvanja

cult. Under the circumstances, we are try-ing to, at least, update, study and presentthe old titles.

(5) Is it possible for your collection to bestudied professionally?

l Museum of Modern and ContemporaryArt, Rijeka: The institution library is openedfor studying all titles of its video documen-tation. l Museum of Modern Art, Zagreb: At thewritten request and under the supervisionof the curator-in-charge, the professionalstudy of the collection can be organized. l Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb:When given a notice, we are willing to pre-sent the works to those who are interestedin them. l Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana:Professional study is possible in the appro-priately equipped Informacijski centarModerna galerije/ Modern Gallery Informa-tion Center, where the copies of all theworks from the collection needed for thepurposes of study can be found along withthree hundred more VHS copies of theauthorial and documentary video works.The media art curator Igor ©panjol and themuseum documentary department areavailable for professional advice.

(6) Do you occasionally present your art videocollection in public? When did you do it last?

l Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art,Rijeka: Although art video collection has notyet been formed, nor are those types of artworks liable to systematic purchase, youngCroatian authors’ art video works have no-netheless been systematically presented onvarious exhibitions organized by the institu-tion. Just to mention few: since the end of1980s on Rijeka Youth Biennial, video wor-ks of Croatian and international artists onRijeka, Mediterranean Biennal 1993-1997Mediterranean and Europe Youth Biennal1990-2000 (Marseille, Valencia, Lisbon,Torino, Rome, Sarajevo).

In addition, since the early 1990s eve-ry-year evening showings of Croatian and in-ternational art video have been organizedoften accompanied by the lectures and co-mments of the guest critics and curators oreven authors themselves.

Video programmes have been orga-nized and edited by the curator and muse-um pedagogue Milica –ilas.

19

15. R. Poljak, Ja, domaÊica!/I, the Housewife!,

1996.

16. S. Sterle, Istinite priËe, PriËa 1/True Stories,

Story 1, 1997.

In the latest programme Crna kutija -suvremeni britanski video / The Black Box -Contemporary British Video, Mali salon,2000, educational programme for pupilsand students Video-medij suvremenihumjetnika/Video-Contemporary Artists Me-dia was organized. l Museum of Modern Art, Zagreb: Workingwith art video started by the acquisitionworks from the Nova hrvatska umjetnost /New Croatian Art exhibition organized in1993 by Moderna galerija. For the newexhibition demands, it has been planned tosystematically present art video that hasnot been included in regular exhibition ofthe collections until now. We’ll try to morethoroughly present the production of artvideo by a series of projections. l Gallery of Art, Osijek: We do not presentvideo works as integral parts of the collec-tion, but we do present video art if it is anexhibit itself. l Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb:Yes, we are just working on the programmeof video projections together with GalerijaVN. l Institute for Contemporary Art, Zagreb:Yes, and our latest presentation was heldon 21st of November 2002 in Columbus,Ohio, SAD. Recently we have establishedthe continuous cooperation with Videodromprogramme on Croatian Television (HTV) topresent the works to the audience. l Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana: Once amonth we organize video projections inorder to present the collection in the form ofminiature retrospectives of the authors pre-sented by the particular video work.Besides, the video works are regularly pre-sented on various exhibitions, festivals andin specialized television programmes.

(7) What are the basic problems in makingthe concept of the working and the actualworking on the art video collection?

l Museum of Modern and ContemporaryArt, Rijeka: The indefinite and unclear atti-tude towards the work of art in the processof valuating/choosing/ acquisition/storingand protecting it in the process of includingit in the traditional system of media divisionof museum objects as well as the problemof original and the copy. l The Art Gallery of the National Museum,Zadar: there are numerous problems in ma-king the concept of working with the videoart collection. They include protection and

i zaπtite i njihovog ukljuËivanja u sustavtradicionalne medijske podjele muze-jskih predmeta te spram problemaoriginala i kopije.n Galerija umjetnina Narodnog muzeja,Zadar: Bilo bi zanimljivo znati i cijeneotkupa umjetniËkih videoradova.n Moderna galerija, Zagreb: Brojni su pro-blemi uspostave rada sa zbirkom umjetniË-kog videa, a oni zahvaÊaju kako problemezaπtite i arhiviranja, pitanje autorskih pra-va i ovlaπtenih kopija, tako i sustavno od-reivanje otkupnih vrijednosti. Uvjeti arhi-viranja i pohrane povezani su s problemi-ma oËuvanja djela suvremene umjetnostikoja Ëesto zbog svog specifiËnog, tempo-ralnog karaktera nije jednostavno pohranji-vati i odræavati u funkcionalnom stanju.Rjeπavanje navedene problematike mo-guÊe je ostvariti putem podizanja svijesti oizuzetnoj ugroæenosti i “krhkosti” razliËitihaudiovizualnih nosaËa, sustavnom edu-kacijom koja bi muzejsko-galerijske djelat-nike povezala s razliËitim struËnjacima uprocesu produkcije i prezentacije umjet-niËkog videa. Problemi dugotrajnije po-hrane i zaπtite videomaterijala ponajprijesu povezani s relativno kratkim æivotnimvijekom VHS materijala (od 15 do 20 god-ina u idealnim uvjetima uz obavezno pre-motavanje najmanje jednom godiπnje),nameÊe pitanje prebacivanja na drugenosaËe i zaπtitu originalne (BETACAM)vrpce. n Galerija likovnih umjetnosti, Osijek: For-malno, Galerija nema zbirku videoumjet-nosti niti zbirku bilo kojeg medija izvanstatutom definiranih zbirki: slikarstvo,grafika, skulptura.n Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb:OËuvanje videotraka te prebacivanje rado-va na jedinstveni, optimalan format kakobi ih bilo jednostavnije pohranjivati te pre-gledavati.n Institut za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb:Odræavanje traka tijekom godina, kopira-nje, katalogiziranje i naravno financiranje.n Moderna galerija, Ljubljana: OsimtehniËkih problema konzervatorske i izla-gaËke prirode (koji nisu nerjeπivi i Ëije jestruËno razmatranje sastavni dio diskursanovomedijske umjetnosti), glavni problemiproizlaze iz nerazumijevanja, prije svegasredine i nadleænih institucija, problema-tike i specifiËnosti medijske umjetnosti.Tako smo svjedoci mistificiranja fenomenakoje je utemeljeno na suvremenim evo-lucionistiËkim mitovima tehnoloπkog na-

20

17. V. KneæeviÊ, Konvergencija/Convergence,

1997.

18. A. FloriËiÊ, Bez naziva/Untitled, 1998.

pretka i produkcije povijesti zasnovane naizjednaËavanju osobnog i javnog pamÊe-nja, odnosno prekrajanju i brisanju osob-nih pamÊenja. Medijska umjetnost je joπuvijek shvaÊena kao neprovjereno, pro-lazno novatorsko podruËje eksperimenta iekscesa u domeni “alternativne” i “neovis-ne” kulturne produkcije. UpravljaËi pro-raËunskih financija, zateËeni intenzitetomzanimanja za (novo)medijske umjetniËkeprakse, poteπkoÊe nestruËnog suoËavanjas fenomenima intermedijalnosti rjeπavajuarbitrarnim ekskluzivizmom i potiskiva-njem produkcije u sferu performativnihumjetnosti.

(8) Da li smatrate potrebnim postojanjenezavisnog referalnog centra/institucije zaprikupljanje/arhiviranje/prouËavanje um-jetniËkog videa?

n Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti,Rijeka: Referalni centar za prikupljanje /arhiviranje / prouËavanje umjetniËkogvidea bio bi iznimno koristan, bez obziradjeluje li neovisno ili u sklopu neke pos-tojeÊe ustanove. Takoer bi bilo dobro dase takav centar bavi produkcijom i dis-tribucijom umjetniËkog videa.n Moderna galerija, Zagreb: Zbog izuzetnobogate tradicije te æive recentne produkci-je hrvatskog videa i eksperimentalnog fil-ma, potrebna je uspostava nezavisnog is-traæivaËkog centara/arhiva koji bi razliËitugrau objedinio i sistematizirao te omo-guÊio njeno kontinuirano javno predstav-ljanje. Uspostava takvog referalnog centrai stvaranje jedinstvene baze podataka umnogome bi doprinijela ne samo podiza-nju razine vidljivosti, veÊ i edukaciji na πi-rem planu. n Galerija likovnih umjetnosti, Osijek: Na-ravno, zbirka videoumjetnosti, ali i svihdrugih medija (digitalna slika, fotografija,performans, eksperimentalni film, doku-mentacija performansa) koji se predstav-ljaju i produciraju u izloæbenom programugalerije trebali bi biti zastupljeni u muzeo-loπkom tretmanu poput ostalih tzv. “klasi-Ënih” medija. No, zbirka formalno (kodnas) ne postoji jer se ta graa ne moæeinvertirati i evidentirati po muzeoloπkimzakonima i naËelima. Zato u strogo muze-oloπkom smislu ta umjetnost kao da i nepostoji, πto je naravno apsurdno obziromna notornu Ëinjenicu kako je upravo taumjetnost dominantan medij u svijetusuvremene umjetnosti. Navedena institu-

filing problems, copyrights and copies, aswell as the systematic acquisition policy.The deposit and filing conditions are con-nected with problems of preserving the con-temporary art works, which is not alwaysan easy task because of the works’ specifictemporal character. The solution could bereached through raising the consciousnessabout the extremely endangered and “frag-ile” structure of various audio-visual aids aswell as through a systematic education thatwould bring the museum-gallery workerscloser to various experts involved in theprocess of production and presentation ofthe video art. Problems of the long-termdeposit and protection of the video materi-al are primarily linked with the relativelyshort life expectancy of the VHS material(from 15 to 20 years in the ideal conditionswith an obligatory rewinding at least once ayear). Therefore the question of transferringit onto another aid and of protecting theoriginal (BETACAM) tape emerges. l Gallery of Art, Osijek: Formally, Galerijadoes not hold the video art collection or thecollection of any other media apart from thecollections defined by the statute, such aspainting, graphic art and sculpturing. l Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb:conservation of the videotapes and transfer-ring the works of art on the unique, optimalformat so that the deposit and overviewcould be simpler.l Institute for Contemporary Art, Zagreb:conservation of the videotapes throughoutthe year, copying, filing and, of course,financing. l Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana: Apartfrom some technical problems connected toart-conservation and display (which are notunsolvable but are included in the newmedia art discourse), the main problemsemerge from the unsympathetic social envi-ronment and the attitudes of the institu-tions in charge towards the specific prob-lems of media art. Therefore we witnessmystification of a phenomenon that hasbeen founded on the grounds of modernevolutionary myths of the technologicalprogress and on the history productionbased on the equalizing the individual andpublic memory, or on the tailoring and eras-ing the individual memory.

Media art is still perceived as theunverified, temporary novelty experimentoperating within a domain of the “alterna-tive” and “independent” cultural production.Those responsible for estimating the costs,

21

19. T. GoliÊ, Ultrazvuk/Ultrasound, 1998.

20. K. Koæul, A. ©imiËiÊ, M. Raos, Bez naziva br.

1/Untitled No. 1, 1998.

caught by surprise by the intensity of inter-est for this (new) media art, are trying tosolve the problems of facing the intermedialphenomenon in an unprofessional way byusing arbitrary exclusivism and by pressur-ing the production into a domain of the per-forming arts.

(8) Do you find the existence of the inde-pendent documentation and reference cen-ter a necessity in the process of collecting/depositing/interpreting video art?

l Museum of Modern and ContemporaryArt, Rijeka: Reference center for collecting,depositing and interpreting video art wouldbe extremely useful regardless of its inde-pendent or incorporated field of work. Also,it would be good if such center could dealwith the production and distribution of artvideo.l Museum of Modern Art, Zagreb: Becauseof the extremely old tradition and vividrecent production of the Croatian video artand experimental film, it is necessary toestablish an autonomous research cen-ter/archive which would unite and classifythe subject matter of various kinds andenable their continuous public presenta-tion. Establishing such reference center andcreating a unique database would greatlycontribute to both raising the level of con-sciousness and to a broader education. l Gallery of Art, Osijek: Absolutely, video artcollection and the other media collectionswhich are presented and produced withinthe exhibition framework of the gallery (dig-ital picture, photography, performance,experimental film, performance documen-tation) should be equally presented in themuseum treatment which has been grantedto, so called, “classic” media. Yet, the for-mal collection does not exist (in our gallery)because such subject matter cannot under-go the museum laws and principles proce-dure. Thus, strictly museologically speak-ing, this art does not exist, which is, ofcourse, an absurdity considering the factthat it is this particular art which is themost dominant media in the contemporaryart world. The mentioned institution wouldbe handy but beforehand each gallerywould have to put their collections in orderand in this way create the inner structure ofsuch a center. l Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb:Yes, within the MSU.l Institute for Contemporary Art, Zagreb:

cija bila bi dobrodoπla, ali prethodno bisve galerije trebale same usustaviti svojezbirke πto bi bila “infrastruktura” takvomcentru.n Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb: Da,u okviru MSU.n Institut za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb:I da i ne. Da, samo u idealnim okolnosti-ma. Video je na takav naËin povezan iintegriran s ostalim umjetniËkim discipli-nama da bi bilo jako teπko odrediti πto gdjeprestaje ili poËinje. Kako bi zvuËalo danpr. kaæemo: “Ovo je referalni centar samoza slikarstvo?” Ili: “U obzir dolazi samoumjetniËki video, ali ne trake iz instalaci-ja.” ©to onda s njima? Previπe za jednopitanje.n Moderna galerija, Ljubljana: Podræalibismo nastanak takvog specijaliziranogcentra. Veliki posao na tom podruËju je ulokalnom kontekstu obavio nekadaπnji So-rosov centar za suvremenu umjetnost(SCCA-Ljubljana) dokumentacijskim, ar-hivskim i istraæivaËkim projektom Video-dokument - video umetnost v slovenskemprostoru 1969-1998. Od zavrπetka togprojekta na raspolaganju nam je katalogautora i radova, knjiga eseja, CD-rom iVHS arhiv za obraeno razdoblje. Naæa-lost, uslijed promjena financiranja, ustrojai politike djelovanja novoustanovljenogZavoda SCCA-Ljubljana upitan je nastavakprojekta i razvoj u smjeru nezavisne insti-tucije. MoguÊnost i potrebu postojanja re-feralnog centra vidimo u okviru buduÊegmuzeja/institucije za suvremenu umjetnostu muzejskom kompleksu Metelkove.

Za primjer kako su u nekoj ne samobogatijoj, veÊ i briæljivijoj sredini, osmiπ-ljene zbirke videoumjetnosti, moæe namposluæiti izlaganje Frédérique Baumgar-tner, Centar Pompidou, pod nazivom Odjelnovih medija: zbirka, aktivnosti, izloæbeniprostori i suvremeni naËini zaπtite i izla-ganja odræanom na Meunarodnom sim-poziju ©to suvremena umjetnost zahtjevaod svojih institucija?, 1. - 2. 3. 2003. uModernoj galeriji Ljubljana. U skraÊenomobliku prenosim, za naπu temu indikativnestavove i realizaciju naËina rada sa zbir-kom videoumjetnosti.

Odjel je, iako je inauguriran 1984.godine, otpoËeo formirati svoju kolekcijuod 1977. godine kada je Centar Pompidouotvoren. Ono πto je otpoËelo kao zbirkavideoumjetnosti danas pod nazivom Odjelza nove medije u svom rasponu od povi-

22

21. D. Fritz, Kraj poruke (Potpuna arhiva)/End of

the Message (Total Archives), 1999.

22. K. Leko, Njen 25802. dan/Her 25802nd Day,

2000.

jesnih do recentnih umjetniËkih djela obu-hvaÊa 1000 videoradova, audioradova,CD-romova i websiteova te 55 instalacija.Kolekciju stvaraju struËna tijela sastavljenaod kustosa specijaliziranih za pojedinapodruËja, koja dvaput godiπnje odluËuju oakvizicijama s meunarodne umjetniËkescene. Odjel organizira samostalne i te-matske izloæbe, producira umjetniËke rado-ve te objavljuje publikacije vezane zaizloæbe i dogaanja. Od 1998. godine teæn-ja je da se tradicionalne publikacije zami-jene online verzijom. Zbirka se predstavljana Ëetrnaest za te potrebe osmiπljenih rad-nih stanica, koje su postavljene u galerija-ma odreenim za stalni postav suvremeneumjetnosti. Prve Ëetiri stanice posveÊenesu umjetniËkim CD-romovima i Enciklope-diji novih medija koja kombinira kratke is-jeËke videa s esejima, æivotopisima umjet-nika, bibliografskim podacima, informaci-jama o recentnim dogaanjima itd. Na osamstanica moæe se razgledati cjelokupna vi-deozbirka, a preostale dvije posveÊene suaudioradovima. Dodatno, u prostoru VideoLounge moæe se pogledati program novihakvizicija, koji se polugodiπnje mijenja.Instalacije su predstavljene kroz sve pros-tore namijenjene suvremenoj umjetnosti,mijenjaju se jednom godiπnje, a 20-30 ihje iznajmljeno institucijama u Francuskoj.Odræavanja kolekcije zahtijeva konstantanrad zbog neprekidnog razvoja tehnologije.Svi videoradovi prebaËeni su na digitalnibeta-format. Digitalizacija omoguÊuje pred-stavljanje zbirke publici pomoÊu kompjuto-ra πto donosi prednosti interaktivnog raz-gledavanja uz koriπtenje tekstualnih infor-macija najËeπÊe upotrebom hyperlinka,Ëime se postiæe πire razumijevanje i inter-pretacija rada, nelinearno razgledavanje iviπestruka istovremena pristupaËnost zbirkete homogeno upravljanje. Za buduÊnost di-gitalizacija otvara moguÊnost razgledavanjana daljinu, ali s druge strane joπ uvijek sunerijeπena pitanja kvalitete slike (posebnolow-tech radova iz 60-tih i 70-tih), copy-righta (potpuno gubljenje kontrole nad sli-kom kad je jednom na webu) i financiranjazbog visokih troπkova adekvatne obrade.

Moja intencija bila je da ovim tekstompomoÊu metode “komparativnog” intervjuai prenoπenjem jednog pozitivnog iskustvaukaæem na naπ odnos prema vlastitoj video-umjetnosti u njegovim slabostima i na po-kuπaje da se u nesklonom okruæju te nea-dekvatnim financijskim okvirima baremneπto pokuπa napraviti.

Yes and no. Yes, in the ideal circumstan-ces. Video art is connected to other art dis-ciplines in a way that would make definingthose disciplines very difficult. How wouldit sound if we say, for example, this refer-ence center is only for painting? Or, we’llaccept only video art, not the tapes fromthe installation. What then? It’s too muchfor one question. l Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana: Wewould support such a specialized center. Agreat deal of work in this field was locallydone by the ex-Soros center for contempo-rary art (SCCA-Ljubljana) in a documentary,archive and research project Videodoku-ment - video umetnost v slovenskem pros-toru 1969-1998. Since the end of this pro-ject we hold the possession of the authorsand works catalogue, a book of essays, CD-ROMs and VHS archive for the interpretedperiod. Unfortunately, due to financial,organizational and operating changes of thenewly founded Zavod SCCA-Ljubljana, theproject and its progress towards theautonomous institution are in question.Possibility and a need for creation of such acenter we see within a framework of afuture museum/institution for contemporaryart within the museum complex Metelkova.

We can take the lecture of FrédériqueBaumgartner (Pompidou Center), calledNew media department: collection, activi-ties, exhibition spaces, and current meansof conservation and display, held on theInternational symposium What contempo-rary art demands of its institutions?, March1-2, 2003 in Museum of Modern Art,Ljubljana, in order to set the example of theway in which not only richer, but also morecaring environments plan their video art col-lections. Here I am introducing the abbrevi-ated and for our argument relevantmoments and realization points of the lec-ture when working with video art collectionis concerned.

Although inaugurated in 1984, thedepartment has started forming its collec-tion in 1977 when Pompidou Center wasopen. What started out as a video art col-lection, today comprises of 1000 video artpieces, audio pieces, CD-ROMs, websitesand 5 video installations. The collection ismade by the special professional curatorteam that specializes in particular field ofwork, and twice a year decides on the inter-national art scene acquisitions. The depart-ment organizes individual and team exhibi-

23

23. M. CrtaliÊ, Ju-ra-na molitva/Ju-ra-na Prayer,

2000.

24. S. ©afariÊ, Digitalna mandala/Digital Mandala,

2001.

25: L. RaπËiÊ, 17 katova/17 stories, 2001.

26: D. BardiÊ, Putovanje kroz vrijeme/Time Travel,

2001.

tions, produces art works and publishes var-ious exhibition and event related publica-tions. The tendencies for replacing the tra-ditional publications with the online versionhave started in 1998. The collection is pre-sented on 14 pages designed exclusively tomeet the needs of it and displayed in thegalleries dealing with the continuous dis-play of contemporary art works. The firstfour pages are dedicated to the art CD-ROMs and to Enciklopedija novih medija/Encyclopaedia of New Media which com-bines video short cuts with the essays,biographies of the artists, bibliographies,information about recent events, etc. Thenext eight pages display the complete videoart collection, and the last two are dedicat-ed to the audio works. Also, in the VideoLounge area one can see the new acquisi-tion programme which undergoes a half-term change. The video installations areintroduced throughout all the space dedi-cated to the contemporary art works; theychange once a year, while 20 to 30 havebeen leased out to French institutions.Conservation of the collection asks for aconstant work, due to a continuous technol-ogy development. All the video works havebeen transferred onto a digital base format.Digital record makes the introduction of thecollection in public through the computermedia possible. Furthermore, it opens vari-ous interactive possibilities of viewing thecollection using textual information byhyperlinks. Therefore, wider understandingand interpretation of a piece of art, as wellas of its non-linear viewing and multi-pur-pose synchronous accessibility of the collec-tion and its homogeneous managementhave been achieved. Digitalization opensthe future possibility of remote viewing.However, some problems still remain un-solved, such as the image quality (especial-ly of the low-tech pieces of work dating fromthe 1960s and the 1970s), copyrights(control will have been completely lost oncethe image is put on the web), and highexpenses of the adequate interpretation ofthe art video collection.

My intention was to use this text cre-ated by the method of a “comparative”interview and, by passing over the positiveexperience, to draw attention to our rela-tionship with our own video art and itsshortcomings and to attempt to do some-thing about it in a quite unsympatheticenvironment and within the inadequatefinancial framework.

Zahvaljujem Ani DeviÊ, Milici –ilas,Æeljki Himbele, Vlastimiru Kusiku, AntunuMaraËiÊu, Ljubici Srhoj-»erina, Igoru©panjolu i Janki Vukmir na strpljenju kojimsu odgovorili na moj lapidarni upitnik.Dodatno zahvaljujem Igoru ©panjolu πto mije ljubazno poslao izlaganje FrédériqueBaumgartner uz njezin pristanak da se pre-zentira u izrazito skraÊenom obliku. t

24

Literatura:

Videoumjetnost u Hrvatskoj, Hrvatski filmskiljetopis, 18/1999., Hrvatski filmski savez.

Baumgartner, Frédérique, The New MediaDepartement: collection, activities, exhibi-tion spaces, and current means of conser-vation and display, Meunarodna konferen-cija Kaj sodobna umetnost zahteva od svo-jih institucij?, 1. - 2. 3. 2003., Modernagalerija Ljubljana, Informacijski centar.

Literature:

Videoumjetnost u Hrvatskoj, Hrvatski film-ski ljetopis, 18/1999, publisher: Hrvatskifilmski savez.

Baumgartner, Frédérique, The New MediaDepartment: collection, activities, exhibitionspaces, and current means of conservationand display, Intrnational symposium Whatcontemporary art demands of its institu-tions?, 1 - 2 3/2003, Museum of ModernArt Ljubljana, Information center.

My thanks to: Ana DeviÊ, Milica –ilas,Æeljka Himbele, Vlastimir Kusik, AntunMaraËiÊ, Ljubica Srhoj »erina, Igor ©panjoland Janka Vukmir for their patience inanswering my lapidary questionnaire. Myspecial thanks to Igor ©panjol for kindlysending me Frédérique Baumgartner’s lec-ture with her consent which is presented ina significantly shorted version. l

prijevod / translation: Goran VujasinoviÊ

25

≥ Branko Franceschi - povjesniËar umjet-nosti. Od 1987. godine voditelj je neprofitnei nezavisne Galerije Miroslav KraljeviÊ uZagrebu (http://www.miroslav-kraljevic.hr). Branko Franceschi - art historian. Curatorand manager of the Miroslav KraljevicGallery, non-profit and independentexhibition space in Zagreb, Croatia

27. Video Lounge, Musée National d’art modernefoto / photo: Georges Meguerditchian© Centre Georges Pompidou Paris

28. New Media Space, Musée National d’art moderne, foto / photo: Jean-Claude Planchet© Centre Georges Pompidou Paris

27

28