umetnost u javnom prostoru

BELGRADE:NONPLACES / art in public space

Salon Muzeja savremene umetnosti i javni prostori u BeograduSalon of the Museum of Contemporary Art and public spaces in Belgrade

31 / 07 – 06 / 09 / 2009

2:BE

OGR

AD:N

EMES

TA

Beograd:Nemesta. Od:doProjekat Beograd: Nemesta realizovan je dok je zgrada Muzeja savremene umetnosti u Beogradu pod rekon-strukcijom. Takva situacija činila se kao zanimljiv pokretač, oki-dač ili simboličan trenutak u kome je moguće, iz pozicije kustosa i umetnika, promišljati različite kategorije umetnosti, institucio-nalnosti, javnosti, publike, pa i samog autorstva.

Trinaest umetnika iz zemlje i inostranstva pozvano je da se oslo-ni na koncept koji se navodi u podnaslovu ovog projekta, “umet-nost u javnom prostoru”, a koji simbolično proizlazi iz konkret-nog, zatvorenog, institucionalnog prostora, same zgrade Muzeja na Ušću. Umetnici su pozvani da, dramatično rečeno, na ruševi-nama muzeja osmisle svoje delovanje i same aktivnosti usmere izvan galerijsko-izlagačkog prostora koji, istovremeno na više nivoa — fizički, namenski i fenomenološki, može da bude ograni-čavajući i opterećujući.

U ovom slučaju, kao jedan od mogućih oblika izlazaka umetno-sti iz njenih institucionalnih rezervata, nudi se urbana situacija, javni prostor iz kojeg autori izložbe sa umetnicima, zatim lokal-nim javnim i korporativnim sektorom, a sami umetnici radovima, započinju dijalog sa društvom i okolinom. Stoga ovaj projekat, kao način konfrontacije ili istraživanja, uslovljen je složenošću — kako unutar same umetnosti i društva, tako života jedne grad-ske sredine — i više predstavlja događaj nego izložbu.

Zatvorena zgrada Muzeja savremene umetnosti na Ušću, u proce-su rekonstrukcije, iako bez neke evidentne namere, ipak je tokom celog rada na projektu predstavljala spiritus movens i nametala se pomalo kao spomen mesto sa jakom istorijskom, kulturološkom i društvenom aurom. Zapravo, kao nekakav prostor memorije ona je postala tabula na kojoj su upisana sva obeležja prošlih događa-ja, skup simboličnih prostorno-vremenskih znakova i sva njihova značenja. Osnivanje i delovanje Muzeja tokom 1965. godine blisko je povezano sa sudbinom modernističkog pokreta u posleratnom razdoblju SFRJ i predstavlja kako institucionalnu potvrdu pokreta koji vlada u likovnim umetnostima krajem pedesetih godina XX veka, tako i sveopšti modernistički kurs tadašnje državne kultur-ne politike. Politika opšte reforme, prosperiteta i izgradnje druš-tva koju država u tom periodu zastupa, reflektuje se i na svest o umetnosti kroz sakupljanje, sjedinjavanje, koncept povezivanja različitosti u jedinstven i za sve razumljiv kontekst. Muzej, po osnivanju, njegov program, kadrovska organizacija, pa čak i arhi-tektura trebalo je da upućuje na “moderno shvatanje o jedinstvu umetnosti, prirode i života”.1 Takođe, u modernizmu se načelno razmišlja o svakoj zgradi, konstrukciji prostora i njegovoj nameni (primer je i zgrada Muzeja), o koncepciji grada kao celine ili kako bi Anri Lefevr (Henri Lefebvre) naznačio — kontrola nad celim je u sre-dištu pažnje.2 Interpretacije celosti kao nužne racionalizacije pre-poznaju se i u oblasti arhitekture i vizuelne umetnosti. Međutim, već je modernizam kao umetnička ideologija napravio iskliznuće iz fizičkog u simbolični, a zatim i u apstraktni prostor. Slikarstvo i skulptura tokom ovog perioda kretali su se u kategorijama od sagledivih, konkretnih, materijalnih karakteristika do apstraktnih, koje su vodile do dekonstrukcije, kako formalnih, tako i diskurziv-nih vrednosti samog mesta.

Hodočašće, skulptura Reiđira Vade (Reijiro Wada), izgrađena u parku kod Muzeja savremene umetnosti, poseduje sve formalne karakteristike visokomodernističke skulpture (str. 21).3 Ona nije vidljiva sa veće udaljenosti, nema postolje, a forma spirale inkor-porirana u unutrašnjost zemlje može da se vidi jedino ukoliko se nagnete nad njom. Pogled u nešto nalik na bunar ili tunel pred-stavlja zamku za posmatrača. Stapajući se sa nivoom tla, ova skulptura briše svaku karakteristiku spomeničkog obeležja i na-meru komemorativne spomeničke funkcije prema mestu, govori prevashodno o sebi samoj ne uspostavljajući više tradicionalne relacije prema prostoru, pejzažu, arhitekturi. Ulazimo u prostor onoga što bismo mogli nazvati negativnim stanjem koje nastupa kada jedno negira drugo. Rušeći norme klasičnog predstavljač-kog, dolazimo do kombinacije isključivosti, ne-skulptura jedna-ko formira kategorije ne-mesta i ne-arhitekture.4 Vrlo specifično, strogi principi modernističke skulpure u krajoliku modernističkih obeležja uvode nas u koncept nemesta i njegovog raznorodnog

definisanja, od konkretnog spomeničkog iskustva sa okolinom ka simboličnom odnosu individualnog i socijalnog u kategoriji prostora i mesta, pa do samog rezultata pravljenja mesta kroz proces ponašanja i egzistencije.

Nepostojanje ili nestanak mesta česta je konstatacija vezana za današnjicu, naročito za savremeni gradski prostor. Grad postaje dinamičan konstrukt koji se iznova menja, razlaže, preoblikuje upravo u sve prisutnijem kontinuitetu prometa, informacije, ko-munikacije. Žan Bodrijar (Jean Baudrillard) govori o savremenoj arhitekturi u kontekstu kulture potrošnje, informacije i komuni-kacije i navodi: “Stiče se utisak da javne građevine, često predi-menzionirane, nose utisak praznine, a ne prostornosti, dok dela i ljudi koji kroz njih prolaze izgledaju poput virtuelnih objekata. Oni kao da tu uopšte nisu potrebni, zbog te prazne funkcional-nosti, funkcionalnosti beskorisnog prostora”.5 Tako i Ože (Marc Augé) pojam nemesta, u svojoj knjizi Nemesta. Jedna moguća antropologija supermoderniteta definiše kao prostore otuđenja, prostore bez identiteta, memorije, istorije, kao prostore koji na-staju posledicom postindustrijskog i umreženog informacijskog društva.6 Međutim, ma koliko ovi prostori bili otuđeni, ispražnje-ni, preoblikovani, oni jesu realni, socijalno definisani. Organski sadržaj mesta u nestajanju kreira polje tenzije između realno praznog i imaginarno punog, između nemesta i utopije. Unu-trašnji napon takvih bipolarnih prostora može da dovede do ne-kontrolisanog pucanja i oslobađanja, pri čemu se otvaraju polja potencijala — prostori mogućih, privremeno ostvarivih utopija u kojima su društvene nelogičnosti i ispadi iz nametnutih i/ili pri-hvaćenih sistema dozvoljeni. Skicirane utopije u okviru izložbe Beograd:Nemesta mogu postati katalizatori heterogenih mikro-polotičkih sredina, ali i nestabilni konstrukt, čiji je neuspeh una-pred prihvaćen i neizbežan. Ponuđena utopija Milorada Mlade-novića CartonCity (str. 15) nudi drugi pogled, ona je istovreme-no predlog mogućnosti, ali pre svega privremeni spomenik koji nestaje pre nego njegov subjekt. Upravo propadanje i konačnost instalacije jesu uslov da rad funkcioniše. Anahronizam postaje očigledan: navedeni smo da se sećamo budućnosti.

Kao rezultat nestabilnosti društvenih, istorijskih, ličnih okvira gde “stanovnik antropološkog mesta ne pravi istoriju, već živi u njoj”7 došlo je do promene modela i strategija komemoracije, spomenik je postao privremen — otvorio se prolaz od objekta ka odsustvu istog. Ponovnim izmeštanjem beogradske Terazijske česme kod Topčiderske crkve, Irena Kelečević radom U među-vremenu (str. 12) istovremeno aktivira mikroistoriju prostora i objekta. Trodimenzionalnim iscrtavanjem česme u privremenom (prošlom) prostoru realnih dimenzija, gde je kontura sačinjena od skela, preklapaju se dve naizgled nepovezane lokacije, mesto se prevodi u nemesto i obrnuto. Monumentalna i transparentna, ova spomenička, site-specific instalacija ne postiže svoje potpu-no premeštanje.

U isto vreme Vojčeh Giljevič (Wojciech Gilewicz) radi u prosto-ru mutiranog identiteta, gde je prvobitna istorijska identifikacija zaboravljena ili napuštena. Obelisk — Spomenik Prvom samitu Pokreta Nesvrstanih kod Brankovog mosta sada je tranzitno mesto, kao i mesto susreta. Nove, paralelne vrednosti potisnu-le su stare u pozadinu ne ukidajući ih. Došlo je do preklapanja, pri čemu su nataloženi identiteti ostali podjednako validni. Uvi-devši da je “individualna produkcija smisla neophodna više nego ikad”,8 Giljevič se neprimetno, samoinicijativno uključuje u tok mesta svojom ilegalnom intervencijom — obnovom spomenika (str. 11) koji jeste pozitivni impuls individue. U procesu realizacije rada stalni korisnici ovog prostora postali su primarna publika, koja nastavlja da prati autonomni razvoj izmenjenog Obeliska.

Komunikacija između već prisutnih korisnika prostora i gosta pro-dubljuje se u radu Grad i njegova estetika — Lične poruke kao javna svojina Maje Radanović (str. 17). Labavi okviri nemesta popuštaju, dozvoljavajući neometani upad, okupaciju teritorije i izazivajući pri-vremeni prekid zatečenog stanja. Uokvirivši već postojeće grafite, Radanovićeva postaje gost — simbiont ili parazit9 — i privremeno naseljava prostor. U ovom radu prostor — domaćin jeste aktivan subjekt koji podstiče uzajamnu razmenu. Radanovićeva spontano

Ma šta značili prostor i vreme, mesto i prilika znače više. Jer prostor čovek sagledava kao me-sto, a vreme doživljava kao niz prilika, događaja. [Aldo van Ajk (Aldo van Eyck), arhitekta]

Una Popović i Dušica Dražić

Una Popović (1978, Split) je istoričarka umetnosti iz Beograda. Od 2005. radi kao kustos Muzeja savreme-ne umetnosti u Beogradu. Tokom 2008. boravila je na praksi u Vitni muzeju američke moderne umetnosti u Njujorku. Kao saradnik i samostalni kustos organizova-la brojne izložbe: It’s Not a Schooner — It’s a Sailboat (2004), Poscards (2006), Umetnost ka slobodi (2007), Differentiated Neighbourhoods of New Belgrade (2007), Političke prakse (post-)jugoslovenske umetnosti (2008). // una@msub.org.rs

Dušica Dražić (1979, Beograd) je 2006. magistrirala na odseku Umetnost u javnom prostoru i nove strategije na Univerzitetu Bauhaus u Vajmaru. 2005/2006 bila je DAAD stipendista. Radno iskustvo, pored individualne umetničke prakse uključuje: asistent belgijskog video-umetnika Davida Claerbouta (2007) kao i koncept i re-alizaciju projekta SLUM-TV u Beogradu i Novom Sadu i izlozbe Ljubav i drugi zločini (zajedno sa Stefanom Ar-senijevićem). // www.dusicadrazic.wordpress.com

1 N.N, “Više nego muzej”, Telegram, Zagreb, 19.maj. 1967.2 Lefevr, Anri. Sociologija svakidašnjeg života, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1988, str. 228-251.

3 Skulptura Reiđira Vade je poklon Muzeju savremene umetnosti u Beogradu.

4 Krauss, Rosalind. “Sculpture in the Expandid Field”, October, br. 8, proleće 1979, MIT Press, Njujork, str. 30-44.

5 Baudrillard, Jean. Istina ili radikalnost arhitekture, Europski gla-snik, HDU, Zagreb, 2001, br. 6, str. 831.

6 Augé, Marc. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Su-permodernity. Verso: London & New York. 1995.

7 Ibid. str. 55.8 ibid. str. 37.9 Simbiont — jedan od dva različita entiteta koja imaju uzajamno korisan odnos; Parazit — eksploatator koji uzima od drugog, a ni-šta ne daje za uzvrat.

10 Careri, Francesco. Land & Scape Series: Walkscapes. Walking as an aesthetic practice. Editorial Gustavo Gili, SL: Barcelona. 2002. str. 106.

11 Iako nam je Kovačevska dala ulogu vodiča, ona svojim uput-stvom, odabirom polazne tačke i sužavanjem našeg pogleda na novoizgradjene objekte ograničava nam moć. Ko je vodič, a ko vo-đen ne može se odrediti.

12 Augé, Marc. ibid, str. 57.13 Bašlar, Gaston. Poetika prostora, Alef: Čačak, Gradac: Beograd, 2005, str. 196.

3:BELGRADE:N

ON

PLACES

Beograd:Nemesta. Od:douspostavlja polje igre, bez čvrstih pravila, šireći ga na prostor inter-neta (Facebook). Iniciranjem razmene i saradnje uspešno širi mrežu aktivnih učesnika izložbe Beograd: Nemesta.

U radu 25 x 15 m Predraga Terzića polje igre (str. 20) označava prostor slobodnog kretanja i eksperimenta. Teren, tranzitno me-sto između solitera u Bloku 63 na Novom Beogradu, predstavlja mesto povratka detinjstvu. Terzić slikarskom intervencijom spaja polje ličnog, intimnog s terenom. Slika predstavlja napad, tačnije pozicije svih igrača oba tima u trenutku šuta. Ovom slikom Terzić nudi jednu mogućnost koja nije ništa drugo do stimulans, motiva-cija za dalju igru u kojoj se “namerno ruše pravila i pronalaze nova i kreativna, aktivnost se oslobađa od društveno-kulturnih ograniče-nja i konstruiše se estetska i revolucionarna aktivnost koja podriva ili izbegava društvenu kontrolu”.10

U trenutku igre vraćamo se u detinjstvo, u imaginarni prostor prošlosti, prostor bez dimenzija i vremena. Rad Marije Šujice pod nazivom Zadržan... (str. 19) sastoji se od sedam crteža koje pridržava pedeset helijumskih balona postavljenih na travnjaku Kalemegdanskog parka. Oni kao da predstavljaju neku trenutnu sanjariju, fatamorganu bajkovitog mesta, ali ova instalacija u metaforičnom smislu poziva na oprez, budi svest i sadrži dozu lucidnosti. Novom i sasvim specifičnom strategijom u kontekstu priče o mestu i nemestu, Šujica svojom instalacijom izmešta i prepliće prostore sećanja i iskustva koje je nemoguće razdvojiti. Prostori prošlosti i iskustva ovde su vizuelizovani u vidu artefa-kata detinjstva i onim predmetima koji te nepostojeće prostore opisuju i prizivaju.

Još jedan model rada gde je polazište igra jeste i rad Naći mesto Verice Kovačevske (str. 13). Odabravši Novi Beograd, kao prostor koji je doživeo drastične promene u kratkom vremenskom razdo-blju, ona nas poziva u šetnju i razgledanje grada. Kovačevska nas u šetnji vodi kroz paralelni grad, jedan u virtuelnom svetu mape Google Earth u kome je publika, i drugi realan, fizički, u kome je sama umetnica.11 Ovaj jednočasovni performans suočava nas s galopirajućom promenom istorije mesta i našom dvojakom ulo-gom, kao posmatrača i učesnika.

Dok šetamo Novim Beogradom, lako uočavamo geometriju grada, konstruisanog od elementarnih formi “linije, preseka linija, i tačke preseka”.12 Ovi elementi čine mrežu urbanog toposa po kome se krećemo i unutar koje se umrežavamo. U specifičnim dimenzija-ma, karakterističnim za konkretno, fizičko mesto s privilegijom pogleda ili telesno materijalnog, uvodi se praksa umrežavanja, a posledično i umeštanja ili oprostoravanja (spacing). Oprostora-vanje podrazumeva davanje funkcije mestu kroz kontekst radnji koje se na tom mestu dešavaju, uslovljavaju i vremenski određuju. Vanesa Majora (Vanessa Mayoraz) u radu Po Rejliju (str. 14) bavi se spontanim umrežavanjem stanovnika. Razmenjujući sa poseti-ocima u galeriji plavu sijalicu, umetnica postaje žarište. Donešene sijalice koje potiču iz privatnih, intimnih prostora i obeležene lo-kacije istih (tačke) na mapi Beograda u Salonu Muzeja savremene umetnosti jesu materijalni dokaz nevidljive mreže koja se proširu-je i naseljava prostor iznad grada.

Pravljenje mesta kroz proces ponašanja i egzistencije uočljiv je u radu Mirjane Bobe Stojadinović, grupe diSTRUKTURE, Marije Đorđević i Erin Obradović, kao i Milene Putnik. Upućivanje ljudi da se samostalno snalaze po mestu postaje poseban deo pro-cesa izgradnje prostora. Svako od nas uvodi telesne prakse u prostor, ali će u velikoj meri naš odnos prema nepoznatom me-stu biti rutina koja proizlazi iz dosadašnjeg iskustva susreta sa nepoznatim mestima. Otkrivanje, proučavanje, posmatranje ne-poznatog mesta postaje sada performativni proces unutar spo-menutih rutina.

U jednoj od novoizgrađenih zgrada u Beogradu, Mirjana Boba Stojadinović u svom radu Stan stvara dihotomiju odnosa čove-ka prema mestu, ali i čoveka prema čoveku. Konkretan stan, kao polje potencijalnog privatnog prostora za posetioca predstavlja mesto otvorenog i nepoznatog, samim tim postaje javno mesto. Kako se “... u stanu nalazi nekoliko mogućih okidača asocijacija

i interakcije sa drugim posetiocima koji su bili i koji će tek biti u istom prostoru” (str. 18), posetilac stiče svest pre o tuđem delo-vanju ili bivstvovanju drugog nego o samom mestu. Funkcija uvo-đenja drugog u odnosu na ja ruši moguću konzistentnost mesta, ono sada postaje samo nekakva lokacija ili prostor prelaza suko-bljenih identiteta koji ne uspevaju da oforme prostor ostavljajući sâmo mesto na raskrsnici polariteta unutra/spolja, ovde/tamo, privatno/javno. Po Gastonu Bašlaru (Gaston Bachelard) odnos unutra/spolja podrazumeva polje rastrzane dijalektike kao i od-nos između da/ne, bivstva/nebivstva, a u kontekstu simbolično-duhovnog epiteta ovaj odnos možemo prevesti na nivo razlike između reda i haosa, prostora kontrole i prostora nekontrole.13 Prevodeći ovo na savremeni jezik društva, diSTRUKTURA stavlja pod video nadzor napušteno, neugledno mesto u samom centru grada (str. 9). Video nadzor simbolično upućuje i na savremeni opšteprisutni i sve češći monitoring odnos koji se stvara između građana i prostora grada. U znaku kontrole međuljudskih sveto-va, sada virtuelni ili nestvarni međuprostor strukturalne fluidno-sti u funkciji prenosa, prijema, slanja, memorisanja i skladištenja

podataka, operiše nematerijalizovanom informacijom, a kroz to i de-teritorijalnom javnošću.

Zajednički rad Marije Đorđević i Erin Obradović Ponašaj se kao da si kod kuće (str. 10) takođe se bavi beleženjem i pre-nosom apstraktnog iz jednog u drugi konkretni prostor. Đorđe-vićeva i Obradovićeva upadanjem u svakodnevicu određenog privatnog prostora kradu zvuk mesta, kao jednu od skrivenih formi njegovog identiteta. Ton sobe ili room tone jeste termin za zvuk prazne prostorije, bez pokreta, dijaloga koji se koristi u filmovima kao pozadina primarnom zvuku scene. Proces bele-ženja oprostoravanja kroz zvučno tj. apstraktno i efemerno, bez elemenata vizuelnog, svodi se na hvatanje trenutka. Zapisom zvučne informacije, koji se postavlja u Salonu MSU, upućuje se na neko tamo mesto koje sada na nivou zabeleške postaje lokacija ili mapirana teritorija.

Mapiranje mesta najčešće se sprovodi kroz formu turističkog, ko-gnitivnog pogleda i bihevioralne prakse kao prakse hoda, šetnje. U ovom odnosu stoji rad Milene Putnik Privremeni vidikovci

(str. 16). Putnikova je tokom pet dana za vreme trajanja izložbe organizovala alternativne obilaske grada vodeći građane kroz specifične prostore, vrste platformi (privatni stanovi, napušte-ne građevine itd) sa kojih se pruža dobar pogled na Beograd. Iz pozicije susreta sa privatnim, kako bi se uspostavio odnos prema javnom, stvara se sinteza svega već navedenog, per-formativne prakse istraživanja, proučavanja, a kroz to prak-sa smeštanja i oprostoravanja. Samo proglašavanje prostora privremenim vidikovcem transformiše namenu, a samim tim i identitet mesta. Putnikova poziva na potpunu statičnost u datom trenutku, staložen pogled na realno, na sredinu koja nas okružuje. Ovo ponovno otkrivanje nečega što je pored nas, a čega ustvari nismo svesni, menja naš odnos prema mestu i tom prilikom mi ga punktiramo, beležimo u daljoj mapi našeg kretanja. Proces, od pukog kognitivnog mapiranja prostora, ide ka osećaju vezanosti za mesto tj. posredstvom mesta mi sada upisujemo ili ispitujemo lični identitet, postajemo svesni da smo njegov deo.

Zatvaramo krug i šetnju gradom završavamo u gale-rijskom prostoru Salona Muzeja savremene umetnosti. Tokom celog trajanja izložbe i aktivnosti u javnom prostoru, Salon MSU predstav-lja tačku susreta ili informaciono mesto odakle se kreće ka ostalim prostorima u gradu. Na taj način simbolično umrežava sve spoljašnje fleksibilne prostore. Postavka u samoj galeriji predstavlja vizuelnu belešku onoga što se dešava po privatnim i javnim prostorima. To-kom trajanja izložbe postavka se menja, modifikuje — informaciono mesto je transformisano u arhiv tragova trinaest radova realizovanih tokom avgusta i septembra 2009. godine. Galerijski prostor Salona MSU, ovom prilikom, postaje mesto labilnih identiteta.

Izložba Beograd:Nemesta predstavlja pokušaj da se mapiraju fluidni prostori koji su iskliznuli iz stabilne istorije grada i, isto-vremeno, poziva da se grad sagleda iznutra.

www.belgradenonplaces09.wordpress.com

4:BE

OGR

AD:

NEM

ESTA

Belgrade:Nonplaces. From:ToThe project Belgrade:Nonplaces was com-menced when the building of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade (MoCAB) was under reconstruction. From curators’ and artists’ point of view this seemed like an interesting actua-tor, trigger or even a symbolic moment that enabled reflection of different categories of art, institutionalism, public, audience, and authorship itself.

Thirteen artists from Serbia and abroad have been invited to rely on the concept quoted in the subtitle of this project ,“art in public space”. This notion symbolically derives from concrete, closed, in-stitutionalized space — the Museum’s building in Ušće. The artists have been invited to, at the museum’s ruins, so to speak, conceive their activities and to direct those activities outside gallery-exhibi-tion space, that can often be limiting and encumbering at several levels — physically-wise, utility-wise and phenomenon-wise.

In this instant, one of possible options for art to exit its institu-tional reservations is an urban situation, a public space where the authors of the exhibition with the artists, and consequently with the local public and corporate sector, and the artists with their own works, commence their dialogue with society and their sur-rounding. Therefore, this project, as a means of confrontation or research, which involvedness is stipulated by complexity whether by a situation within art itself and society, or the complexity of life within a certain urban environment, corresponds to happen-ing, rather then a mere exhibition.

During its reconstruction process, the closed building of the Mu-seum of Contemporary Art at Ušće, though with no false pretences and throughout the work on the project, nonetheless signified spir-tius movens and imposed itself a bit as commemorative place with a strong historical, cultural and social aura. In fact, as some sort of reminiscence space it turned into tabulae inscribed by traits of past events, a set of symbolic spatial-time signs and their compre-hensive meanings. Foundation and activities of the MoCAB during 1965, were in close connection with destiny of modernist movement in SFRY post-war period that corresponds to both institutional ac-knowledgement of the movement that dominated fine art in the end of the fifties and general modernist course of the state culture politics of that time. The politics of the overall reform, prosperity and creation of society that country of that time represented was reflected on perception of art through assembling, aggregation and concept of diversity linking into one unique context that was comprehensible for everyone. When the Museum was founded, its program, personnel management, and even its architecture, were supposed to demonstrate “modern comprehension regarding the unity of art, nature and life”.1 What's more, a manner of principal in modernism is to take into consideration each building, construction of space and its purpose (good example is the museum’s building), conception of the city on the whole, or, as Henri Lefebvre would point out, control over entirety is the focus of attention.2 Interpre-tation of entirety as of rationalization necessity can be recognized in area of architecture and visual arts. Modernism, as an art ideol-ogy, had already made derailment from physical into symbolic, and subsequently, into abstract space. During this period, both fine art and sculpture were shifting between categories from instigated concrete, material characteristics to abstract ones that led to de-construction of formal, but also discursive values.

Sculpture titled Pilgrimage by Reijiro Wada was constructed in the park at Ušće, near the Museum of Contemporary Art, has all formal characteristics of highly modernist sculpture (page 21).3 It is not visible from afar and it has no pedestal; this incorporated spiral form inside the ground can only be seen if you lean over it, at which point, the view towards something resembling a well or tunnel becomes a trap for the viewer. Blending with the ground level, this sculpture wipes away every characteristic of the monu-ment and the intention of a commemorative monument to the place. It speaks predominantly of itself, freed from traditional relations towards space, surrounding and architecture. We enter the space of something we could equate with negative state that occurs when one thing negates the other. Annihilating norms of classical presentation we come to the point of exclusiveness

combination — non-sculpture equally forms non-places and non-architecture categories.4 In a very specific manner, strict principles of modernistic sculpture in the landscape of modernist features, lead us into the concept of nonplaces and their diverse defining — from concrete monument experience with its surrounding, to symbolic relationship of individual and social in the scope of space and place categories, up to actual place creation through the pro-cess of conduct and existence.

Place non-existence or place disappearance is a common remark, especially nowadays when it comes to contemporary city. It be-comes a dynamic construct that constantly changes, disinte-grates, and transforms in accordance with more and more ubiq-uitous continuity of turnover, information and communication. Jean Baudrillard speaks on contemporary architecture in context of consumer culture, information and communication: “one gets an impression that public buildings, often oversized, have an effect of emptiness, rather than spatiality, while artworks and people who pass through them look like virtual objects. They seem superfluous because of that blank functionality, function-ality of useless space”.5 Marc Augé also writes about concept of nonplaces in his book Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, defining spaces of alienation, spaces without identity, memories or history, as spaces that occur consequently as a result of postindustrial society and networked information society.6 Yet, as much as those spaces were alienated, unoc-cupied, or transformed, they are quite real and socially defined. Organic contents of disappearing place create a field of anxiety between real-empty and imaginary-full, between nonplace and utopia. Inner tensions of such bipolar spaces can lead to uncon-trolled breach and liberation, while other fields of potential unbolt — spaces of feasible, temporarily achievable utopias where social discomfort and outbursts from imposed and/or adopted systems are allowed. Sketched utopias, within the Belgrade:Nonplaces exhibition, can become catalysts of heterogeneous micro-polit-ical environments, but also a volatile construct whose failure is beforehand acknowledged and inevitable. Presented utopia by Milorad Mladenović, CartonCity (page 15) suggests a differ-ent point of view — an implication of possibility, but first of all, a temporary monument that vanishes before its subject. Decom-position and definitiveness of the installation are preconditions for this work to function. Anachronism becomes obvious: we are induced to remember the future.

As a result of unstable social, historical and personal scopes where “inhabitant of anthropological place is not making history, but is living it”,7 brought about altered models and strategies of com-memoration where the monument became temporary — it opened up a gap from the object towards the absence of that same object. By yet another relocating of Terazije Fountain near Topčider Church, Irena Kelečević simultaneously activates micro-history of space and object through her work In the Meantime (page 12). A three-dimensional drawing of the fountain in temporary (former) space, in real dimensions, with the outline made of scaffoldings, overlap two apparently unconnected locations, place translates into non-place and vice versa. This monumental and transparent site-specif-ic installation does not achieve its entire displacement.

At the same time, Wojciech Gilewicz works in space of mu-tated identity where the original historic identification has been either forgotten or abandoned. Obelisk — monument to the First Non-Aligned Movement Summit next to Branko’s Bridge is now both a transit place and a place of incidental meetings. New, parallel values have suppressed the old ones to the background, not annulling them though. In the meantime, the overlapping occurred, but still, accumulated identities have remained equally compelling. Realizing that “individual pro-duction of meaning is now needed more than ever”,8 Gilewicz imperceptibly and self-initiatively, engages himself in course of the place by his illegal intervention — revival of the monument (page 11) which is in fact a positive impulse of an individual. In the process of the work’s realization, regular users of this space have become the primary audience who continue to follow the autonomous development of the altered Obelisk.

Whatever space and time mean, place and occasion mean more. That is because men per-ceive space as place and time as succession of occasions, events. [Aldo van Eyck, architect]

Una Popović & Dušica Dražić

1 N.N. “More than Museum”. Telegram. Zagreb. May 19, 1967.2 Lefevr, Henry. Sociology of everyday life. Naprijed: Zagreb. 1988. p. 228–251.

3 Pilgrimage, sculpture by Reijiro Wada is donated to Museum of contemporary Art, Belgrade.

4 Krauss, Rosalind. “Sculpture in the Expandid Field”. October. No. 8. Spring 1979. New York. p. 30–44.

5 Baudrillard, Jean. “Truth or Radicality of Architecture”. Europski glasnik. No. 6. Zagreb. 2001. p. 831.

6 Augé, Marc. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Su-permodernity. Verso: London & New York. 1995.

7 ibid. p. 55.8 ibid. p. 37.9 Symbiont — one of two different entities who have mutually ben-eficial relationship; Parasite — exploiter who takes from others, and gives nothing in return

10 Careri, Francesco. Land & Scape Series: Walkscapes. Walking as an aesthetic practice. Editorial Gustavo Gili: SL, Barcelona. 2002. p. 106.

11 Although Kovčevska gave us the role of guides, her instructions, selection of the starting point and nerrowing of our view towards newly-built objects, she is restricting our powers. One is not able to define who is the guide, and who is led.

12 Augé, Marc. ibid. p. 57.13 Bachelard. Gaston, Poetika prostora [The Poetics of Space], Alef: Čačak, Gradac: Beograd. 2005. p. 196.

Una Popović (1978, Split) is an art historian from Belgrade. Since 2005 she works as a curator at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade. During 2008 she had curatorial internship at Whitney Museum of American Modern Art in New York. As curator she organized numerous exhibitions: It’s Not a Schooner — It’s a Sailboat (2004), Postcards (2006), Art of the Freedom (2007) and as assistant curator Differentiated Neighborhoods of New Belgrade (2007) and Political Practices of (Post-)Yugoslav Art (2008) // una@msub.org.rs

Dušica Dražić (1979, Belgrade) holds an M.F.A. from the Public Art and New Artistic Strategie s program at the Bauhaus University Weimar (2006) and received DAAD Scholarship in 2005/2006. Her working experience besides individual art practice includes: Assistant of Belgian artist David Claerbout (2007); concept and realization of projects: SLUM-TV in Belgrade and Novi Sad, Exhibition Love and Other Crimes (together with Stefan Arsenijević). // www.dusicadrazic.wordpress.com

5:BELGRADE:N

ONPLACES

Belgrade:Nonplaces. From:ToCommunication between already present space users and the guest deepens in the work City and Its Esthetics — Personal Messages as Public Property by Maja Radanović (page 17). Loose edges of nonplace slacken, letting undisturbed intrusion and territory occupation, bringing about a temporary interrup-tion of the given state. Framing already made graffiti, Radanović becomes a guest — symbiont or parasite9 — who temporarily in-habits space. In this work space — host is an active subject that instigates mutual exchange. Radanović spontaneously, without firm rules, establishes a play field, expanding it to Internet space (Facebook). By initiating exchange and cooperation she success-fully broadens the network of active participants in the exhibition Belgrade:Nonplaces.

In the work 25 x 15 m, by Predrag Terzić, play field (page 20) symbol-izes the space of both free movement and experiment. The court-yard between two buildings in Block 63 in New Belgrade municipality corresponds to place of return to childhood. By a painting interven-tion on the basketball court Terzić makes a connection between the personal and intimate with a terrain. The painting represents the Cleveland offensive, the position of players in both teams at the moment of the shot. Terzić presents one possibility which is noth-ing more but a mere stimulus, a motivation for the game forward

— “breaking the rules and inventing your own, to free creative activity from socio-cultural restrictions, to design aesthetic and revolution-ary actions that undermine or elude social control”.10

At the moment of play we return to childhood, imaginary space of the past, space freed from dimensions and time. The work by Marija Šujica entitled Withheld… (page 19) consists of sev-en drawings, clinging on 50 helium balloons, set on the lawn in Kalemegdan Park. Descriptive as such, they resemble a sort of temporary delusion, mirage of a fairytale-like place, but at the same time, metaphorically speaking, this installation calls upon caution, consciousness and lucid measures. With this new and quite specific strategy, in the context of the story about place and nonplace, in her installation Šujica moves and intertwines spaces of recollection and experience that are impossible to separate. Past and experienced spaces are visualized in the form of certain childhood artifacts and by objects that describe and conjure those non-existent spaces.

Another example where play is a starting point of the work is Trace Place by Verica Kovačevska (page 13). Choosing New Bel-grade as a space of drastic change in a short period of time, she invites us for a walk and sightseeing. Her walk takes us through a parallel city, a city in the virtual world of Google Earth where the audience is, and a second one, a real one, where the artist is physically.11 This one-hour long performance confronts us with galloping change of the history of the place and our dual role of both the viewer and the participant.

While walking down New Belgrade it is easy to catch sight of the city’s geometry, constructed out of basic forms, “the line, the intersection of lines, and the point of intersection”.12 These ele-ments make a net of urban paths that we move through, and inside which we get networked. In specific dimensions, charac-teristic for concrete, physical place with the privilege of view or corporal-material, the practice of networking is introduced with further practice of placing or spacing. Spacing implies providing function to the place through set of actions occurring at that spe-cific place. Those actions are mutually stipulated and they define place in terms of time. In her work According to Rayleigh (page 14), Vanessa Mayoraz entertains the idea of spontaneous popu-lation networking. By exchanging a blue light bulb with visitors in the Salon of the Museum of Contemporary Art, the artist becoms the source of networking. Brought light bulbs that originate from private, intimate spaces and marked locations (dots) of those spaces on the map of Belgrade in the MoCAB Salon, are in fact material evidence of an invisible network that spreads and inhab-its the space above the city.

Making of place through the process of conduct and existence is perceptible in the work by Mirjana Boba Stojadinović, diSTRUK-TURA group, Marija Đorđević and Erin Obradović, as well as in the

work by Milena Putnik. Making people find their way round the place becomes a particular part of the process in space forming. A certain style of bodily practice is introduced into a place by each one of us, but substantially, our relation towards the unknown place will depict routine behavior that originates from former ex-perience with them. Discovering, investigating and observing of unknown place now becomes a perfomative process within the scope of the mentioned routines.

In one newly erected building in Belgrade, Mirjana Boba Stojadi-nović with her work Apartment creates relation dichotomy be-tween man and place, but also between man towards man. This particular apartment, as potentially private space is a symbol of an open, unknown and impending public place for the visitor. Since the “apartment has several potential association and interaction triggers with other visitors who have already been, or are about to come to this very space” (page 18), the visitor comprehends someone else’s activities or others existence rather than the place itself. The function of introducing the other in correlation with I, disrupts a potential consistency of the place; it now becomes a mere location or transition space of conflicting identities, unable to form a space, leaving the place in question on the crossing of polarities inside/out, here/there, private/public. According to Gaston Bachelard the relation inside/out comprehends the scope of disrupted dialectics, as does the relation between yes/no, ex-isting/non-existing and in the context of a symbolically-spiritual epithet we can interpret this relation as a relation between order and chaos, space of control and space of non-control.13

Translating this into contemporary language of society, di-STRUKTURA puts under video surveillance an abandoned, in-significant place that is located in the city center (page 9). Video surveillance symbolically refers to contemporary, quite common and frequent monitoring relation that is established between citizens and city space. In the notion of interpersonal world con-trol, virtual or unreal interspace of structure fluidity in function of transmission, reception, sending, memorizing and storageing of data, now operates with immaterialized information, and by it, with deterritorial public.

The joint work by Marija Đorđević and Erin Obradović under the tittle Make yourself at home (page 10) is also about recording and relocation of the abstract from one concrete space into another one. By barging into certain private space, Đorđević and Obradović steal the sound of that place which is some kind of hidden form of the place’s identity. The room tone is a term for sound of an empty room. It is freed from all the movements and dialogues, and used in the movies as a background to primary scene sound. The process of recording of space by means of audio, i.e. abstract and ephemeral, without the element of visual, comes down to seizing of the moment. Recording of sound information that is set in MoCAB Salon refers to some place that, after it has been recorded, becomes a location or mapped territory.

Mapping of the place is often conducted by means of tourist cognitive view and behavioral practice, i.e. practice of walk. The work by Milena Putnik, Temporary Viewing Platforms (page 16) explores these relations. During five days, Putnik has orga-nized alternative city tours, taking citizens to specific sites and platforms (private apartments, abandoned constructions etc.) which enabled a good view of Belgrade. From the position of the encounter with private, in order for one to establish a certain relation towards public, what occurs is a synthesis of everything mentioned above, a performative research and investigative practice, a practice of placing and spacing. The very proclaiming of the space for a temporary viewing platform transforms both its purpose and the identity of the place. Putnik suggests abso-lute immovability and steady view towards the real and the en-vironment. This revelation of something that is near us, some-thing we are not actually aware of, alters our relation towards that place — at that point, we punctuate that place and make a note of it in the map of our further whereabouts. The process from the mere cognitive mapping of space goes towards the feeling of attachment to place i.e. by means of place we register or question personal identity. We become aware that we are a part of it.

We close the circle and conclude our walk in the Salon of the Museum of Contemporary Art. During the exhibition period and activities in public space, MoCAB Salon was a meeting point or information place where everyone started a walk towards other spaces in the city, symbolically creating a network of outer

spaces. The exhibition at the Salon itself represents a vi-sual recording of what happens around private and public spaces. During the course of the exhibition the display is altered, modi-fied — information place is transformed into an archive of traces left behind thirteen works realized during August and September 2009. In this instance, the MoCAB Salon became a place of un-stable identities.

The exhibition Belgrade:Nonplaces is an attempt to map fluid spaces that have slid out from the stable history of the city, but at the same time, this exhibition addresses public to observe the city from the inside.

www.belgradenonplaces09.wordpress.com

Konkretni prostoriConcrete Spaces

6:BE

OGR

AD:N

EMES

TA

Izložba Beograd:Nemesta preispituje kako odnos po-jedinca, tako i grupe prema određenom mestu, prostoru grada. Sa ciljem konkretnije saradnje sa stanovništvom i lokalnom zajednicom ostvarili smo saradnju sa nevladinom organizacijom KulturKlammer iz Beograda. Tokom prošle godine organizacija KulturKlammer je or-ganizovala seminar na temu aktivizacije grada, prevashodno revalori-zacije napuštenih industrijskih nasleđa za potrebe kulturnih dešava-nja, a ove godine realizuje projekat pod nazivom Konkretni prostori.

KULTURKLAMMER —Centar za kulturne interakcije

Lokacija: Beogradski pamučni kombinat,Đure Đakovića 90, Beograd

Period: 25.08 –

Projekat Konkretni prostori ukazuje na značaj industrijskog nasleđa Beograda kao važnog činioca njegovog urbanog i kulturnog identiteta i usmeren je na podsticanje aktiviz-ma i angažovanog odnosa mladih u menjanju i poboljšanju životnog okruženja.

Polazeći od činjenice da umetnost poseduje veliki potencijal kao pokretač društvenog razvoja i da može doprineti poveziva-nju i zajedničkom delovanju građana u cilju poboljšanja posto-jećih okolnosti, projekat je zamišljen kao community art akcija čiji će krajnji rezultat predstavljati umetnička intervencija u javnom prostoru u čijoj pripremi i realizaciji, uz podršku umetnika i kulturnih operatera, ključnu ulogu imaju mla-di. Osnovnu aktivnost projekta predstavlja multidis-ciplinarni edukativni program Moj zid, moj kraj, moj grad! koji se realizuje kroz set interaktivnih radionica i završnu akciju izrade murala u tehnici grafita na spoljnim zidovima nekadašnjeg fabričkog kom-pleksa Beogradskog pamučnog kombinata (Đure Đakovića 90, Beograd). Izrada murala će pred-stavljati akt angažovanog građanskog delovanja usmerenog na transformaciju javnog prostora i ostvarivanje pozitivnog uticaja na dati prirodni i socio-kulturni kontekst.

Zagovarajući nužnost odgovornijeg odnosa prema životnom okruženju i kulturnom nasleđu, projekat istražuje neaktivne javne prostore i objekte u gradu, njihovu specifičnu energiju i atmosferu, kao i njihov ne-kadašnji i mogući značaj za lokalnu zajednicu. Pored toga, preispitujući moguće efekte i doprinos različitih umetnič-kih praksi u sprovođenju kvalitativnih promena, oblikovanju i oživljavanju javnog prostora, projekat otvara prostor za puno ostvarivanje društvene uloge i angažovanje umetnika u ra-zvijanju svesti o značaju proaktivnog delovanja građana i participaciji u unapređenju životnog okruženja.

Učesnici/e u projektu: Aleksandra Petković (umetnica); Aleksandar Slivnjak (umetnik); Slavica Radišić (istoričar-ka umetnosti); Snežana Krstanović (menadžerka u kul-turi); Dušica Dražić (umetnica); Aleksandra Cvetanovski (učenica Škole za dizajn, Beograd); Ana Toljić (učenica Arhi-tektonske tehničke škole, Beograd); Bojana Obradović (apsol-ventkinja Visoke tekstilne strukovne škole za dizajn, tehno-logiju i menadžment); Iva Kolundžija (studentkinja Fakulteta primenjenih umetnosti, Beograd); Miloš Đuran (učenik Škole za dizajn, Beograd); Nataša Stojanović (apsloventkinja Viso-ke tekstilne strukovne škole za dizajn, tehnologiju i menad-žment); Nemanja Halilović (učenik Arhitektonske tehničke škole); Ognjen Kostić (učenik Arhitektonske tehničke škole, Beograd); Saša Popović (učenik Arhitektonske tehničke ško-le, Beograd); Stefan Begović (učenik Arhitektonske tehničke škole, Beograd).

Realizacija: KULTURKLAMMER-centar za kulturne interakci-je / Saradnja: Kancelarija za mlade Gradske opštine Palilula, BEOGRAD:NEMESTA – međunarodna izložba Muzeja savremene umetnosti Beograd / Podrška: Sekretarijat za kulturu Grada Be-ograda, GO Palilula, ERSTE Bank a.d. Novi Sad / Zahvalnost za ustupanje zida za oslikavanje: DELTA Real Estate

The exhibition Belgrade:Nonplaces re-ques-tions relationships between individuals and groups of citizens on one hand and a certain place or a city space on another. With the aim to more closely work with citizens and a local commu-nity, we started a cooperation with the NGO KulturKlammer from Belgrade. During the last year organization KulturKlammer organized a seminar on the subject of activation of the city, re-valorisation of industrial heritage for cultural benefits, and this year it organizes the project entitled Concrete Spaces.

KULTURKLAMMER —Center for cultural interaction

Location: Beogradski pamučni kombinat,Đure Đakovića 90, Belgrade

Period: 25.08 –

The Project Concrete Spaces is aimed at awareness rais-ing on industrial heritage of Belgrade as important

component of its urban and cultural identity and at inciting youth activism and engagement in changing and improving their living surroundings. The Project is based on the premise that art has great potential as generator of societal develop-ment and that it can contribute to connecting and joining people in actions that are directed towards improving conditions and quality of life. Therefore, the Project as a whole is envisaged as community-based art action that is being conceptualized, pre-

pared and implemented by group of young people supported by artists and cultural operators and that

will result in a public art intervention.

The main project activity is a multidisciplinary edu-cational program My Wall, My Neighbourhood, My City!

which is realised through a set of interactive workshops and painting of two graffiti murals on the walls of vacant

industrial building of the Belgrade cotton factory (Beogradski pamučni kombinat). Painting of the murals will represent act of civic engagement aimed at public space transformation and achieving positive change in existing environmental and socio-cultural context.

By advocating necessity for responsible attitude of individuals and communities towards their surroundings and cultural her-itage, the Project explores inactive public spaces and buildings in the city, their particular energy and atmosphere and signifi-cance they had or may have for the community. Together with this, by examining possible effects and contribution of differ-

ent artistic practices in changing, transforming and enlivening the public space, the Project opens space for fulfilment of social

role of artist in awareness raising on the need for proactive social engagement of all individuals and their participation in improve-ment of their living surroundings.

Project participants: Aleksandra Petković (artist); Aleksandar Slivnjak (artist); Slavica Radišić (art historian); Snežana Krstanović (cultural manager); Dušica Dražić (artist); Aleksandra Cvetanovs-ki (student at the High school for design, Belgrade); Ana Toljić (student at the High school for architecture, Belgrade); Bojana

Obradović (final year student at the College for textile design, technology and management, Belgrade); Iva Kolundžija (stu-

dent at the Faculty of Applied Arts, Belgrade); Miloš Đuran (student at the High school for design, Belgrade); Nataša

Stojanović (final year student at the College for tex-tile design, technology and management, Belgrade);

Nemanja Halilović (student at the High school for architecture, Belgrade); Ognjen Kostić (student at the High school for architecture, Belgrade); Saša Popović (student at the High school for architec-ture, Belgrade); Stefan Begović (student at the High school for architecture, Belgrade).

Realisation: KULTURKLAMMER-centre for cul-tural interactions / Cooperation: The Palilula Mu-nicipality Youth Office; BELGRADE:NONPLACES

— International exhibition of Museum of Con-temporary Art Belgrade / Support: Secretariat for

Culture of the City of Belgrade, Palilula Municipality, ERSTE Bank a.d. Novi Sad / Acknowledgement for al-

lowing usage of the walls for painting graffiti murals: DELTA Real Estate

www.kulturklammer.org

7:BELGRADE:N

ONPLACES

Predrag Terzić

Verica Kovačevska

Reijiro Wada

Milorad Miša Mladenović

Irena Kelečević

8:BE

OGR

AD:

NEM

ESTA

Marija Šujica

Wojciech Gilewicz

Maja Radanović

KulturKlammer

Milena PutnikdiSTRUKTURA

Mirjana Boba Stojadinović

Vanessa Mayoraz

Marija Đorđević &Erin Obradović

9:BELGRADE:N

ONPLACES

diST

RUKT

URA

Milica Milićević (1979) i Milan Bosnić (1969) magistrirali na odseku za slikarstvo Fakulteta likovnih umetnosti, Univerziteta umetnosti, Beograd. Od 2005. rade na zajedničkim projektima pod nazivom diSTRUKTURA i istražuju intiman i javni prostor lične i umetničke zajednice. Žive i rade u Beogradu. // Milica Milićević (1979) and Milan Bosnić (1969) both MA’s of Departments of Painting, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Arts, Belgrade. Since 2005 they have been working on joint projects under name diSTRUKTURA trying to explore an intimate and public space of their personal and artistic union. They live and work in Belgrade. // www.distruktura.com

Tu i tamo

Lokacija: Andrićev venac 6, Beograd; SalonPeriod: 31.07 – 6.09.2009.

Da bi aktivirali nemesto na Andrićevom vencu 6 u Beogra-du, diSTRUKTURA stavlja objekat pod video nadzor, 24 časa dnevno, tokom izložbe.

Koristeći jezik savremenog društva, diSTRUKTURA podiže vrednost ovog napuštenog i neuglednog mesta (očekuje se da samo objekti od velike vrednosti, poput banaka, trž-nih centara, ambasada, ... — budu pod nadzorom).Natpis “Ovaj prostor je pod video nadzorom” dominira i skreće pažnju na mesto. Prolaznik postaje pasivni učesnik.

Slika s lokacije se tokom trajanja izložbe uživo emituje u Salonu MSU.

Here and There

Location: Andrićev venac 6, Belgrade; SalonPeriod: 31.07 – 6.09.2009.

In order to activate a nonplace in Andrićev venac 6 in Bel-grade, during the exhibition a 24h video-surveillance is placed around the building. In everyday language of con-temporary society the value of this abandoned and neglect-ed place is increased (it is expected that only high-valued objects — such as banks, shopping malls, embassies… — need to be secured). A passer-by’s attention is attracted by a serious security system, emphasized with a sign “Ob-ject is under surveillance”. The passer-by becomes a pas-sive participant.

Live stream of this 24h surveillance will be displayed in the MoCAB Salon.

&

10:B

EOGR

AD:N

EMES

TA

Marija Đorđević& Erin Obradović

Ponašaj se kao da si kod kuće

Lokacija: Grad BeogradPeriod: 31.07 – 6.09.2009.

U filmu Živeći u zaboravu Toma Dičila, postoji jedan napet trenutak od 30 sekundi kada čujemo samo zvuk prostorije (room tone). Cela glumačka i filmska ekipa uspeva da ostane nečujna i da se ne pomera, što za rezultat ima kadar koji izgleda skoro kao da je zamrznut.

To je jedna od najzapaženijih (filmskih) uloga koje su date zvuku prostorije. Zvuk prostorije — sobna tišina je stalan element u svim studijskim i živim zapisima zvuka koji su u stvari podloga kompletnoj audio-filmskoj produkciji. Taj zapis stvara zvuk autentičnosti u svetu dokumentarnog filma, pomoću njega se stvara utisak neprekidnosti preko montiranih kadrova, prelazi su uklopljeni tako da čine celinu, a samo u trenucima pro-mene možemo da opazimo neujednačenost, jer je zvuk u nekom zatvorenom prostoru direktno povezan sa veličinom, akustikom, strukturom i kompaktnošću tog prostora. U tom smislu, kada bi zvučna traka reprodu-kovala tišinu, publika bi istu shvatila ne kao tišinu, već kao kvar u ozvučenju.

U ovom projektu, mi nalazimo sobe širom grada koje se iznajmljuju i tretiramo ih kao moguće lokacije za snima-nje filma, odnosno zvuka. Ove sobe su u stvari privremena i kratkotrajna rešenja. Oglas u novinama znači da u suštini svako može da dođe i pogleda taj prostor, što samim tim, privatni prostor na trenutke pretvara u javni. Svaka lokacija ima svoj karakterističan zvuk koji zavisi od ambijenta i eha koji se stvara na baš toj lokaciji. Mi-krofon koji je postavljen u dve različite (prazne) sobe će snimiti različit sobni zvuk u zavisnosti od toga u kojoj je sobi bio postavljen. Zvučni zapisi prikupljeni na ovaj način, biće arhivirani u Salonu tokom avgusta i činiće zbirku koja će predstavljati mapu grada sa maršrutom zapisanom isključivo zvukom.

Marija Đorđević & Erin Obradović

Make Yourself at Home

Location: The city of BelgradePeriod: 31.07 – 6.09.2009

There is a tense moment in the film Living in Oblivion by Tom DiCillo while the sound mixer re-cords thirty seconds of the room tone. The entire cast and crew manages to remain silent and still, making the shot look almost frozen.

That is one of the most exposed film roles given to the room tone. Room tone is the con-stant element in all recorded and live sound material that provides background to entire audio film production. It creates the sound of authenticity in a documented world, it pro-vides continuity across edits, smoothes out constructed transitions, and just sometimes, we can notice a change when there is a shift — as a room tone relates intimately to the size, acoustics, structure and solidity of the space. The soundtrack “going dead” will be perceived by the audience not as silence, but as a failure of the sound system.

We are finding rooms within already existing homes around the city, that are advertised for rent and we are treating them as potential film sets or recording sound sets. These rooms are provisional and transitory. The ad in the newspaper means that anyone can come and visit those partially dwelled homes, which therefore make a private space tem-porarily public. Every location has a distinct presence of subtle sounds created by a mix-ture of ambient sound sources and the reverberation of those sounds within the location. A microphone placed in two different, empty, rooms will produce a different room tone in each of them. Tones collected like this will make an archive in the Salon during August — a collection creating a map of the city with a route marked purely by sound.

Marija Đorđević & Erin Obradović

Erin Obradović je interdisciplinarna umetnica iz Čikaga. Trenutno je na završnoj godini Instituta za umetnost u Čikagu. Bavi se pitanjem roda, pitanjem promenljivih/provizornih identiteta, kretanjem i ambivalentnim/graničnim prostorima. / Marija Đorđević je rođena u Beogradu 1980. Živi i radi u Beogradu. Diplomirala je na Fakultetu primenjenih umetnosti u Beogradu i na Likovnoj akademiji u Pragu. Magistrirala je na Hochschule für Bildende Kunst u Drezdenu. Umetnice Erin Obradović i Marija Đorđević započele su saradnju 2008. // Erin Obradović is an interdisciplinary artist living in Chicago. She is currently a graduate student at the School of the Art Institute Chicago. Her work often approaches issues around gender, shifiting/provisional identities, movement and liminal/borderland spaces. / Marija Đorđević was born in Belgrade in 1980. She lives and works in Belgrade. Đorđević graduated at Faculty of Applied Arts in Belgrade and at Academy of Fine Arts in Praha. Obtained MA Fine Art, Hochschule für Bildende Kunst, Dresden. Erin Obradović and Marija Djordjevic have been collaborating since 2008. // erin.obradovich@gmail.com / www.marijadjordjevic.wordpress.com

11:BELGRADE:N

ONPLACES

WojciechGilewicz

Obelisk

Lokacija: Obelisk — Spomenik posvećen Prvom samituPokreta nesvrstanih, kod Brankovog mosta

Period: 31.07 –

Odnos stanovnika prema Obelisku (podignut 1961. godine) posvećenom Prvom samitu Pokreta nesvrstanih kod Brankovog mosta je doveo do po-tiskivanja njegovog istorijskog, komemorativnog značenja u drugi plan. Ta uzvišica, sa Obeliskom u centru je postala mesto slučajnog susreta grafitera, vlasnika pasa, prolaznika i beskućnika. Giljevič se priključuje nekontrolisanom kretanju unutar samog mesta, reagujuću na zatečeno.

Ovaj slikarski projekat umetnika utapa se u okruženje, poigravajući se s njegovim istorijskim i savremenim kontekstom simbolizovanim u verti-kalnoj moći obeliska i u intervencijama u vidu grafita. Svojim ilegalnim delovanjem, Giljevič ulaže u mesto, ističući njegov potencijal.

Prepuštajući slike okruženju, Giljevič dopusta njihovo utapanje, a zatim i neminovno nestajanje.

ObeliskLocation: Obelisk — Monument to The First Non-Aligned Movement Summit,

next to Branko’s BridgePeriod: 31.07 –

In public perception, the historical and commemorative meaning of Obelisk, erected in 1961 and dedicated to The First Non-Aligned Movement Summit next to Branko’s Bridge, has been suppressed. Now, that mount with Obelisk in the center, became a place for incidental meetings of graffiti artists, dog owners, passers-by and the homeless. Gilewicz joins that uncontrolled movement, reacting to what he has found.

His project blends into its surrounding while being aware of both its historical and contemporary context represented by vertical power of the obelisk and random graffiti interventions. Using the original color of the monument, he had prepared several paintings and installed them at the empty space of the plinth where the granite plates used to be. With his illegal act, Gilewicz invests into the place and emphasizes its potential.

By leaving the paintings behind unsupervised, Gilewicz is letting them being absorbed by their surrounding. Without trying to control or obstruct their inevitable merge with the environment, they finally become it and disappear into it.

Wojciech Gilewicz (1974) poljsko-američki slikar, fotograf, autor instalacija i video radova diplomirao je na fotografiji i magistrirao na slikarstvu na Likovnoj akademiji u Varšavi (1999). U radu Gilewicz obicno kombinuje sve navedene discipline, istražuje fenomen iluzije kao i nejasne granice između realnog i njegove umetničke reprezentacije. // Wojciech Gilewicz (1974) Polish American painter, photographer, author of installations and videos graduated from Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw (1999) obtaining a Master’s Degree in Painting (Minor in Photography). In his works, which usually combine all these disciplines, Gilewicz explores the phenomenon of illusion and the blurring of distinctions between reality and its artistic representation. // www.gilewicz.net

12:B

EOGR

AD:N

EMES

TA

U međuvremenu

Lokacija: Topčiderska crkva — ugao Teodora Drajzera i Bul. Vojvode Putnika; Terazijska česmaPeriod: 31.07 – 6.09.2009.

Zaintrigirana urbanističko — arhitektonskom prošlošću Terazijske česme, tačnije njenim premeštanjem zbog rekon-strukcije prvobitnog lokaliteta koje je omogućilo ovom istorijskom spomeniku tri različita života (1860–1912, 1912–1976, od 1976. do danas) kroz drugačije topografske i društveno-istorijske okolnosti, Irena Kelečević rekonstruiše Terazijsku česmu od građevinskih skela u prirodnoj veličini, a na privremenom mestu kod Topčiderske crkve.

Cilj instalacije je ne samo da inicira premeštanje posmatračeve pažnje na staro novo mesto, već da u prvi plan stavi sam objekat koji svojim prisustvom određuje ili menja prostorne situacije, i već sam po sebi može oprav-dati epitet mesta i nemesta.

In Between

Location: Topčider church — Corner of Teodor Drajzer Street and Bul. Vojvoda Putnik;Terazije Fountain

Period: 31.07 – 6.09.2009

Being intrigued by the urban-architectural past of Terazije Fountain, its dislocation during reconstruction of the first locality and its three lives (1860–1912, 1912–1976, 1976 to present) that have occurred due to different topo-graphic and socio-historical circumstances, Kelečević has decided to reconstruct Terazije Fountain on its tempo-rary location, next to Topčider Church. The site-specific installation will be made out of scaffoldings in real size.

The goal of the installation is to initiate a shift of the viewers’ attention to old new place and to bring the object into the foreground. The object defines and changes the circumstances and is identified by its existence and the epithet of being somewhere at the same time, place and non-place.

Irena Kelečević

Irena Kelečević rođena je 1975. u Rijeci, živi i radi u Beogradu. Diplomirala (2002) i magistrirala (2006) na Fakultetu likovnih umetnosti u Beogradu. Kelečević istražuje istoriju mesta realizujući svoje radove u javnom prostoru. // Irena Kelečević was born in Rijeka in 1975. She lives and works in Belgrade. Kelečević obtained BA (2002) and MA (2006) from Faculty of Fine Arts, Belgrade. She explores history of place and often realizes works within public space. // soliter2@eunet.rs

13:BELGRADE:N

ONPLACES

Verica Kovačevska

Trace Place | Interactive Media Performance

Period: 31 July 2009, 7.30pm-8.30pm Trace Place was a one-hour live interactive performance, taking place simultaneously in New Bel-grade and the Salon of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade, Serbia, on 31 July 2009.

In Trace Place, the artist performed a walk in the central part of New Belgrade where currently most of Belgrade’s construction activity is taking place. During her walk, she was navigated by the audi-ence in the Salon which was able to follow her position in real-time on a Google Satellite View of New Belgrade. During the walk, she also took pictures of new buildings (that are not yet visible on the Google Satellite View) with her mobile phone, and sent them in real-time to the Salon.

The performance was documented by video, which was later shown in the Salon.

Trace Place is a complex piece that reflects on New Belgrade’s history and urban development, as well as the power and limitations of modern technology.

New Belgrade was long ‘no-man’s-land’, caught between the borders of two empires — the Otto-man’s Orient and the Austro-Hungarian Occident. Therefore, urban planning was not hindered by existing developments. When such planning was realised in the 1960s and 1970s, it became a city area dedicated to housing, also known as the sleeping room. The housing function followed the ideological premise that ‘a place of residence is not only a commodity, but a universal right to the common public good’. As a consequence, New Belgrade remained an ‘economic, social and physical void’, and depended entirely on state intervention.

In the past six years, however, New Belgrade transformed into a genuinely new city, attracting attention to itself and creating a new identity without compromises. Nowadays, it is the city’s most favourable area for construction, primarily because of its excellent infrastructure and certainty regarding property rights. Many building structures that were missing, such as banks, hotels, business and trade centres, shopping malls, churches and luxury residential and business housing areas are quickly filling the empty spaces in the old residential blocks of New Belgrade. While some critics welcome this change, others call it ‘the crisis of a non-concept’, because the new developments follow no urban planning philosophy.

However, as New Belgrade continues to grow, many of its changes are not documented or digitally pre-served. Large-scale buildings such as the Ušće shopping mall, the University Village — Belville, or the construction of the Aqua Park, are absent from city maps or web mapping services such as Google Maps and Google Earth. On the one hand, this is the case because the changes in New Belgrade are rapid and persistent; on the other, maps are updated only so often — and too slowly for a place like New Belgrade.

By putting herself in the role of a tool, the artist aims to bridge this gap and link the past with the present, the real with the virtual, and the visible with the invisible. With the help of an active audi-ence, she highlighted the differences between Google’s view of New Belgrade and reality, and in doing so partly traced and archived New Belgrade’s present.

Trace Place is part of The Walking Project, a series of live media performances — walks that take place in various cities around the world — www.thewalkingproject.net

Verica Kovačevska

Naći mesto| Interaktivni medijski performans

Period: 31. avgust 2009. (19:30 – 20:30h)

Naći mesto je jednočasovni živi interaktivni medijski performans Verice Kovačevske koji se simultano odvi-ja na Novom Beogradu i u Salonu Muzeja savremene umetnosti u Beogradu, Srbija, 31. jula 2009. godine. U radu Naći mesto Kovačevska šeta centrom Novog Beograda gde je izgradnja najaktivnija. Tokom setnje publika koja se nalazi u Salonu je navodi kuda treba da ide i uzivo prati njenu poziciju preko satelitske slike Novog Beograda na Google Earth. Tokom šetnje ona fotografise nove zgrade (koje jos uvek ne postoje na mapi Google Earth) i salje ih putem mobilnog telefona u Salon. Performans je dokumentovan i prikazan u Salonu od druge polovine avgusta.

Naći mesto je kompleksan rad koji odražava istoriju i urbani razvoj Novog Beograda.

Novi Beograd je dugo godina bio ničija zemlja, zarobljen između granica dva carstva, turskog na istoku, i austrougarskog na zapadu. To je uticalo na činjenicu da tadašnja gradnja i razvoj nisu bili opterećeni ur-banističkim planiranjem. Kada je urbanistički plan Novog Beograda realizovan tokom 60-ih i 70-ih godi-na XX veka, preovladala je izgradnja stambenih blokova, poznatih kao spavaonice. Funkciju stanovanja pratila je ideološka pretpostavka da “mesto stanovanja nije samo stvar komoditeta, već univerzalno pravo na opšte javno dobro”. Kao rezultat, Novi Beograd je “ostao ekonomska, društvena i konačno fizička praznina” koja je u potpunosti zavisila od “intervencije države” (Blagojević 2004: 1). U poslednjih šest godina Novi Beograd je prerastao u pravi novi grad, privlačeći pažnju na sebe i stvarajući novi identitet bez kompromisa. Danas je to jedno od najzahvalnijih i najboljih područja za gradnju, prvenstveno zbog svoje izuzetne infrastrukture i čiste situacije kada su u pitanju prava vlasništva. Mnogi objekti koji su nedostajali na ovom prostoru kao što su banke, hoteli, poslovni i tržni centri, šoping molovi, crkve i luksuzne stambene i poslovne jedinice, ubrzano se grade i popunjavaju prazne prostore u starim novobeogradskim blokovima. Strane i domaće kompanije investiraju milione u izgradnju poslovnih zgrada najviše kategorije, čime u potpunosti menjaju lice Novog Beograda. Dok neki kritičari pozdravljaju ovu promenu, drugi je pak nazivaju krizom bez koncepta, jer razvoj ne prati nikakvu filozofiju urbanističkog planiranja. Ipak, kako Novi Beograd nastavlja da se širi i razvija, njegove mnogobrojne promene nisu zabeležene i dokumentovane, ili pak, sačuvane u digitalnom formatu. Impozantne zgrade kao što su šoping cen-tar Ušće, Univerzitetsko selo — Belville, ili izgradnja Akva parka, nisu ucrtane na mapama grada ili na internet kartografskom servisu kao što su Google Maps ili Google Earth. S jedne strane uzrok tome su ubrzane i konstantne promene koje se odvijaju na teritoriji Novog Beograda, a sa druge, Google servis ažurira svoje mape samo s vremena na vreme, što je za mesto kao što je Novi Beograd čitava večnost.

Stavljajući sebe u ulogu alatke, umetnica ima za cilj da premosti jaz i poveže prošlost i sadašnjost, stvarno i virtuelno, vidljivo i nevidljivo. Uz pomoć aktivne publike, umetnica će istaći razlike izme-đu slike Novog Beograda koju pruža Google i stvarnosti, a samim tim, zabeležiće i dokumentovati sadašnjost Novog Beograda.

Naći mesto je deo Projekta Šetnja (The Walking Project) — serije živih medijskih performansa–šet-nji, koje se odigravaju u raznim gradovima širom sveta. www.thewalkingproject.net

Verica Kovačevska

Verica Kovačevska rođena je u Skoplju 1982. godine. Diplomirala je na odseku vizuelnih umetnosti (pozorište i gluma) na Plimot Univerzitetu u Velikoj Britaniji 2004. Iste godine, i to u Fondaciji Antonio Rati u Komu pohađala je 10. viši tečaj vizuelnih umetnosti koji je vodio Džimi Duram. Magistrirala je umetnost, kulturu i pedagogiju, na Univerzitetu Kembridž 2007, kada joj je dodeljena jednogodišnja specijalizacija na ondašnjem Krajsts Koledžu. // Verica Kovačevska was born in Skopje in 1982. In 2004 she graduated from the University of Plymouth in BA (Hons) Visual Art with Theatre and Performance. The same year she attended the 10th Advanced Course in Visual Arts led by Jimmie Durham at the Fondazione Antonio Ratti, in Como. In 2007 she graduated from the University of Cambridge in MPhil Arts, Culture and Education, and was awarded a one-year art residency at Christ’s College, University of Cambridge. // www.kovacevska.net

VanessaMayoraz

Vanesa Majora rođena je 1977. godine u Švajcarskoj, a živi i radi u Njujorku i Ženevi. Majora istražuje granice između ličnog, subjektivnog s jedne strane i kolektivnog s druge. U rascepu između studijske prakse i rada u javnom prostoru, kreće se u polju efemernih instalacija i radova koji se slobodno distribuiraju. // Vanessa Mayoraz was born in Switzerland in 1977. She lives and works in NYC and Geneva, Switzerland. She explores the limits between the personal and subjective on the one hand, and the common and shared on the other. Divided between studio practice and public art practice, Mayoraz’s work often takes the form of ephemeral installations or distributable pieces. // www.vanessamayoraz.com

Po Rejliju

Lokacija: Salon; Grad BeogradPeriod: 31.07 – 6.09.2009.

U radu Vanese Majore Po Rejliju, aktivno učešće publike je sastavni deo procesa nastajanja rada. Posmatrač je pozvan da izvrši zamenu svoje sijalice u stanu sa plavom sijalicom dobijenom od umetnice. Na mapi u Salonu MSUB označava mesto gde žive, tj. gde je upaljena plava sijalica.

Jednostavnim upadom u njihovu svakodnevicu i kreiranjem nove sredine, stvara se blago izmenjena realnost i rad postaje deo života i imaginacije posetioca. Umesto prozora osvetljenih TV-ekranima, stanovi se boje u plavo, stvarajući nevidljivu (pla-vu) mrežu iznad grada.

Rejli, engleski fizičar, je otkrio fenomen koji objašnjava zašto je nebo plavo — plavi talasi imaju najdužu talasnu dužinu.

According to Rayleigh

Location: Salon; The city of BelgradePeriod: 31.07 – 6.09.2009

In the work According to Rayleigh by Vanessa Mayoraz the active participation of the viewer is an integral part of the process. The viewers are invited to exchange a light bulb somewhere in their home with a blue light bulb that is given to them. On a city map in the MoCAB Salon they can indicate the future location of the blue bulb.

A simple switch in an everyday-life gesture, and perceptions of the environment become slightly altered. Windows lit up at night by TVs are colored in blue, creating invisible (blue) net above the city.

Rayleigh, English physicist, demonstrated the law that explains why the sky is blue — the blue waives have the longest waive length.

14:B

EOGR

AD:N

EMES

TA

15:BELGRADE:N

ONPLACES

Milorad Miša

Cartoncity

Location: A park on the right side of Gazela bridge, New Belgrade directionPeriod: 31.07 - 6.09.2009

Places and Nonplaces: CartonCity

Crossing the bridge, like in the movie Saturday Night Fever, can be both social and cultural event, a kind of transcendent moving from one world to another. Projecting is ought to develop in scope of space within similar transcendent concepts.

Today, Belgrade Bridge Gazela symbolizes the border between the place and nonplace, or the space of transcen-dent vicinity: Place is the space of liberal capitalism with a clear social and ideological background or function,

how ever this function was open, potent and transparent, under those rules by which business premises of liberal capitalism were projected. They do not prejudice their use, but they have a clear social direction. Palace Usce has become a sublimation of these directions when it was set free from its political and monumental function and turned into an expensive capacity for hire. Now it became a trendy, but irrelevant monument to new ideology of capital. Sava Centar is a cultural-politics tendency landmark of liberal-capital society, behind which string up art-vise dubious, but socially acceptable space forms.

Nonplace is Cartoncity, space that doesn’t exist under any city planning pa-rameter, nor at any cartographic depiction. That is the space of utter insta-bility, such like a combat zone that still has none, nor it will ever have, any

winners. That is the space of settling and displacing for refugees, newcomers, the ones who hide as criminals and ones who occupy this space cause they have no where else to go; place of complete absence of any defined compatible social plans and political ambitions. The society is trying to annul it or hide it (as during the Universiade), but it keeps resisting as a result of its regeneration power, by pure unavoidable and destined living. Cartoncity is space deprived of ideology, na-tion, politics, culture or architecture, because it is a nonplace. Everything there is susceptible to waste and fragmentation, destruction and new use. Each rain destroys and revives the nonplace.

The only important thing for me at this moment is the method society is employingin in order to organize their nonplaces. It has institutions in charge of and remunerated to produce places, and there is nothing moot about that. What I see and feel as arguable is the way society comprehends and espouses conventions regarding the concept of place. For society, the place represents space of social, production and cultural admissibility. Society covets to set examples while determining the levels of acceptability, not considering who these places are produced for nor whom they are supposed to determine cultural and social conducts of life to.

This belief drives me to think that the problem of architecture and art should become a problem of research and affirmation of sustainable space, which is in fact, a confrontation with transcendent space revealing. There is no politics or cultural ideology in this notion, just a sheer intention to position art and architectural practice towards solutions in scope of this transcendent space. Nowadays, when everyone is talking about the world crises of capital, architects are not requested, nor they are obliged to, come up with new ideologies, but they should strive for solutions that benefit life and turn nonplaces into places. They should produce new utopias, because those utopias prejudice potential futures as hopes into sustainable and feasible living futures.

Installation Cartoncity symbolizes an act of warning. It was projected when Cartoncity as a nonplace was supposed to become physically cleared space in the name of the existing ideology of place. For that reason, the installation was designed as a monument to that change. The monument was created in such manner so it could decompose in the rain, or with an aim for people who collect recycling material to use it for their social utility process. For me, Cartoncity is utopian imputation of volatil-ity monument into the place of organized socially acceptable space. An incomplete and almost burlesque project is merely a sentence of a probable transition that eludes from conventional and socially acceptable urbanism. Therefore, I am convinced that if we want it to, a new Cartoncity can also be a place, even if it was a place of admonition or just mere witty utopia.

Milorad Mladenović

Cartoncity

Lokacija: Park sa desne strane Gazele,kada se krećete ka Novom Beogradu

Period: 31.07 – 6.09.2009.

Places and Nonplaces: CartonCity

Prelazak mosta, kao u filmu Saturday Night Fever, može da bude socijalni i kulturni događaj, kao transcedencija iz jednog u drugi svet. Projektovanje bi moralo da se razvija u okviru prostora sličnih transcedencija.

Beogradski most Gazela danas predstavlja granicu između mesta i nemesta, ili pro-stor transcedencije: Mesto je prostor liberalnog kapitalizma, sa jasnom socijalnom i ideološkom potkom ili funkcijom, ma kako ta funkcija bila otvorena, potentna i transparentna, po onim pravilima po kojima su projektovani poslovni prostori libe-ralnog kapitalizma. Oni ne prejudiciraju svoje namene ali su jasno društveno usme-reni. Palata Ušće je postala sublimat ovih usmerenja onda kada je razdevičena od svoje političke i spomeničke funkcije i pretvorena u skupu kubaturu za rentiranje. Sada je postala pomodni ali nevažni spomenik nove ideologije kapitala. Sava cen-tar je reper usmerenosti kulturne politike tog liberalno kapitalističkog društva iza koga se nižu likovno sumnjivi ali društveno prihvatljivi oblici prostora.

Nemesto je Cartoncity, prostor koji ne postoji ni po jednom urbanističkom parametru, ni na jednom kartografskom prikazu. To je prostor totalne nestabilnosti, kao što to može biti prostor bojišta na kome još uvek nema niti će biti pobednika. To je prostor nase-ljavanja i raseljavanja, izbeglica, došljaka, onih koji se skrivaju kao kriminalci i onih koji prostor zauzimaju jer drugi nemaju, mesto potpunog odsustva bilo kakve određenosti kompatibilne društvenim planovima i političkim ambicijama. Društvo pokušava da ga ukine, ili da ga sakrije (kao za vreme Univerzijade), a ono se odupire svojim moćima regeneracije iz svoje puke životne neminovnosti i usuda. Cartoncity je prostor lišen ideo-logije, nacije, politike, kulture ili arhitekture jer je nemesto. Tu je sve podložno rasipanju i fragmentaciji, uništenju i prenameni. Svaka kiša uništava i ponovo oživljava nemesto.

Sve što je za mene bitno u ovom trenutku jeste način na koji društvo pokušava da uredi svoja nemesta. Ono ima institucije koje su zadužene i plaćene da proizvode mesta, i u tome ne postoji ništa sporno. Ono što vidim i osećam kao sporno jesu načini na koje društvo razume i usvaja konvencije o pojmu mesta. Za njega je me-sto prostor socijalne, produkcione i kulturne prihvatljivosti. Društvo želi da daje primere i određuje nivo ovih prihvatljivosti nezavisno od toga za koga se ta mesta proizvode i kome treba da određuju kulturne i socijalne uslove života.

Zbog ovog uverenja za mene problem arhitekture i umetnosti treba da bude pro-blem istraživanja i afirmacije održivog prostora. To je suočavanje sa otkrivanjem prostora transcedencije. U tome nema politike i nema kulturne ideologije, već samo namera da se iskustvo umetnosti i arhitekture kreće ka rešenjima u pome-nutom prostoru transcedencije. Danas, u vreme kada svi govore o svetskoj krizi kapitala arhitekti nisu pozvani niti dužni da propisuju nove ideologije već da se bore za rešenja u korist života kojim od nemesta postaju mesta. Oni treba da proizvode nove utopije, jer te utopije prejudiciraju moguće budućnosti, i to kao nade u održive i moguće žive budućnosti.

Instalacija Cartoncity predstavlja jedan čin upozorenja. Projektovana je u trenut-ku kada je Cartoncity kao nemesto trebalo da postane fizički ispražnjen prostor u ime važeće ideologije mesta. Zato je instalacija projektovana da bude spomenik toj promeni. Spomenik je napravljen tako da se raspadne na kiši ili da ga ljudi koji sku-pljaju materijale za reciklažu upotrebe za svoj društveno koristan proces. Cartoncity je za mene utopijska imputacija spomenika nestabilnosti u mesto uređenog druš-tveno prihvatljivog prostora. Jedan nedovršeni i gotovo karikaturalni projekat samo je rečenica moguće transpozicije koja izmiče konvencionalnom i društveno prihvat-ljivom urbanizmu. Dakle, ja sam ubeđen da je novi Cartoncity, ako to želimo, moguć i kao mesto, makar to bilo mesto upozoravajuće ili čak samo duhovite utopije.

Milorad Mladenović

Milorad Mladenović je rođen u Beogradu 1966. godine. Diplomirao je na Fakultetu likovnih umetnosti u Beogradu (1994) i na Arhitektonskom fakultetu u Beogradu (1996). Magistrirao je iz oblasti Crtež na Fakultetu likovnih umetnosti u Beogradu (1999). Profesionalnu aktivnost započinje nizom likovnih intervencija u galeriji Studentskog kulturnog centra u Beogradu 1994/1996. godine. // Milorad Mladenović was born in Belgrade in 1966. He graduated at Faculty of Fine Arts in Belgrade (1994) and at Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade (1996). Obtained MFA in Drawing at Faculty of Fine Arts in Belgrade (1999). Mladenović began his professional activities with art interventions in the Gallery of Student Cultural Center in Belgrade (1994/1996). // www.miloradmladenovic.com

MladenovićMilorad Mladenović, CartonCity, instalacija u blizini Sava centra / installation near Sava CenterMilorad Mladenović (re//al) & Luka Mladenović, arh., projekat CartonCity (jedna utopijska verzija) / CartonCity (a utopian version) project

16:B

EOGR

AD:

NEM

ESTA

Milena PutnikMilena Putnik je rođena 1976. godine u Beogradu. Diplomirala je i magistrirala na Fakultetu likovnih umetnosti u Beogradu 2006. Dobila nagradu Mangelos za mladog umetnika 2005, boravila u ISCP u Njujorku 2005. i programu Kulturkontakta u Beču 2007. // Milena Putnik was born in Belgrade in 1976. She graduated and received her Master from Belgrade Faculty of Fine Arts in 2006. Received the 2005 Mangelos Award for Young Artist in Serbia, and residencies at ISCP, New York in 2005 and Kulturkontakt, Vienna in 2007. // milenaputnik@gmail.com

TEMPORARY VIEWING PLATFORMS

Location: The city of BelgradePeriod: 20.08, 21.08, 24.08, 25.08, 26.08.2009

from 6PM until 8PM

The work Temporary Viewing Platforms by Milena Putnik is an alternative offer for touring guides that will be organized during the last week of August in cooperation with Tourist organization of Belgrade. Tourists/visitors would have a unique opportunity to see Belgrade from points that are not usually available, but would be open for this occasion. These places could be flat roofs of public buildings, balconies of private flats or some other constructions from which one can have a view of the city.

ThE PrOGrAM of Temporary Viewing Platforms:ThUrSDAy 20th AUGUST 27. marta Street, roof terrace, 17 th floor Volgina Street, Astronomic Ob-servatory Sveti Stratonik Street, unfinished construction Zrenja-ninski put, Krnjaca, 8th floor FrIDAy 21st AUGUST Block 37, roof terrace, 8th floor Block 62, roof, 14th floor Vantage point from Bežanija The Tower of Sibinjanin Janko (Gardos), Zemun MOnDAy 24th AUGUST Museum 25th May Julino brdo, terrace, 15th floor Vidikovac, roof terrace, 16th floor Vantage point from Susedgradska Street TUESDAy 25th AUGUST Vojvode Stepe Street, high-rise building High-rise building at Banjica, roof terrace “Avala” Hotel, at Avala Mountain top WEDnESDAy 26th AUGUST Kosančićev venac, terrace Studentski trg, 6th floor Bussiness Center “Ušće”, 25th floor Pop Lukina Street, roof terrace, 8th floor

Privremeni vidikovci

Lokacija: Grad Beograd Period: 20.08, 21.08, 24.08, 25.08, 26.08.2009. od 18:00 do 20:00

Rad Milene Putnik Privremeni vidikovci jeste niz organizovanih alternativnih poseta gradu u posled-njoj nedelji avgusta, a u saradnji sa Turističkom organizacijom Beograda. Privremeno bi se otvarao pristup mestima koja pružaju dobar pogled na grad Beograd, ali u uobičajenim okolnostima nisu uvek pristupačna. Ova mesta mogu biti ravni krovovi javnih zgrada, terase privatnih stanova, ili neke druge konstrukcije koje omogućavaju posmatranje sa visine.

PrOGrAM nesvakidašnjih tura koje nude posve novi pogled na Beograd je: 20. AVGUST (čETVrTAK) Ulica 27. marta, krovna terasa 17. sprat Volgina ulica, Astronomska op-servatorija Ulica Svetog Stratonika, nezavršena konstrukcija Zrenjaninski put, Krnjača, 8. sprat 21. AVGUST (PETAK) Blok 37, krovna terasa 8. sprat Blok 62, krov 14. sprat vidik sa Bežanije Kula Sibinjanin Janka (Gardoš), Zemun 24. AVGUST (POnEDELjAK Muzej 25. maj, Julino brdo, terasa 15. sprat Vidikovac, krovna terasa 16. sprat vidik iz Susedgradske ulice 25. AVGUST (UTOrAK) Voždovac, soliter u Vojvode Stepe soliter na Banjici, krovna terasa hotel “Avala” na vrhu Avale 26. AVGUST (SrEDA) Kosančićev venac, terasa Studentski trg, 6. sprat PC “Ušće”, 25. sprat Pop Lukina, krovna terasa 8. sprat

Foto

grafi

je s

prvo

g da

na o

bila

ska

/ Ph

otog

raph

s fro

m th

e to

ur o

n th

e fir

st d

ay o

f the

pro

ject

17:BELGRADE:N

ONPLACESMaja Radanović

Grad i njegova estetikaLične poruke kao javna svojina

Lokacija: Grad BeogradPeriod: 31.07 –

Maja Radanović ističe poruke lične prirode, gradske ukrase, koji su vremenom nastali i tako postali evidentan deo estetike grada, kao što su ispisana imena, crteži, grafiti, znakovi i uramljuje ih baroknim ramovima. Na taj način umetnica simbolički briše granicu između umetnosti prihvaćene od strane institucije i ulične umetnosti. Koristeći se klasičnim načinom prezentacije umetničog dela u galeriji (uramljeno umetničko delo), umetnica reaguje na već postojeće i skreće pažnju slučajnim prolaznicima na tagove često nepoznatih autora, ukazujući na njihov značaj u formiranju atmosfere gradskih prostora.

City and Its Aesthetics Personal messages as public property

Location: The city of BelgradePeriod: 31.07 —

Maja Radanović points out personal messages, those city embellishments that have emerged in time and thus became an evident part of the city’s aesthetics: names, drawings, graffiti and signs, by putting them in baroque frames. As a result, the artist is symbolically wiping out borders between the art that is acknowledged by institutions and street art. Classic method of artwork presentation in the gallery (framed artwork) enables the artist to react to something that already exists, therefore calls attention of passers-by to tags left by often unknown artists, while emphasizing their importance in forming of the city areas’ atmosphere.

Ja sam Srpkinja, ne nacionalista; umetnica, ne profitabilna; vajarka, ne ograničena medijem; moji radovi su asocijativani i baš liče na… // I am Serbian, non nationalist; artist, non profitable, sculptor, not bounded by medium; my work is associative and it really looks like… www.zutacrta.com

17:BELGRADE:N

ONPLACES