Marina Griznic: Marina Grzinic: the analysis of the case of Sanja Ivekovic

[anna balint]

   The following text will be published in Croat language in ZAREZ, Zagreb in
   a special selection of texts about Sanja Ivekovic case, a selection
   coordinated by Natasa Ilic



   Marina Grzinic, Ljubljana




   SANJA IVEKOVIC: A FIGHT FOR THE ARTIST’S INTEGRITY


   The case of the Croat artist Sanja Ivekovic, who was first selected by
   Leonida Kovac and then afterwards rejected by the same curator for the
   biennial of Sao Paulo 2002.

   This text is motivated by two statements published recently in Croatia;
   first is the statement for the mass media about the case by Leonida Kovac
   herself. The second is the text published in Feral Tribune, Croat monthly
   critical magazine, by Mr. Zvonko Makovic, art historian and critic from
   Zagreb, who is writing in support of Leonida Kovac. Both
   letters-texts-statements open a wider field of possible analysis of the
   whole situation. Both, the statement for the public by Leonida Kovac and
   Z. Makovic text came after the reaction and pressure of an interested
   public from Serbia, Slovenia, and the world, written and signed by
   artists, intellectuals, critics, from the domestic and international art
   culture scene in favor of Sanja Ivekovic. See http://anart.no/~syndicate/
   coordinated by Anna Balint and Claudia Westermann.


   The Makovic text was published as a reaction to these statements, giving
   ferocious support for Leonida Kovac’s action, as I named it, being ‘an act
   of pure misery’.

   Ivekovic’s participation at the Sao Paulo Biennial 2002 is now cancelled
   and accepted as a fait accompli, demagogically and publicly canonized by
   Makovic’s institutionally imposed letter. The Ministry of Culture, who is
   giving the money for the presentation, silently benedicted the case,
   meanwhile the mass media has taken this as a new way to raise new external
   income. The Museum of Contemporary Art in Zagreb, that is the producer of
   the project, until now did not release any statement. This is why I
   decided to write an analysis of what seems a case for history. For now it
   reveals a new disturbing situation, one of persecution and the future
   penalization of the artist Sanja Ivekovic.


   Nobody should have the power to pass over such immediate and active
   persecution on any one – what is precisely the final goal of the
   letter/text by Zvonko Makovic along with the naive and ill informed
   reasoning proposed by Leonida Kovac. What we see here is an organized and
   constructed scenario of blame via a persecution policy against Ivekovic. I
   want to declare this worrying and negative strategy that is deliberately
   using such methodology.

   FIRST: In one part of the letter Makovic is giving a detailed summary of
   money used to cover the projects of Sanja Ivekovic. He is telling this to
   us also to convince us of the “huge support and good working conditions”
   supplied for Sanja Ivekovic’s work in Croatia. He displayed in front of
   the reader a very detailed budget that had been invested for several
   productions of art works for Sanja Ivekovic, implying first and foremost
   how much she “stole” from the poor Croatian taxpayer community. Although
   the amounts are here to shock us, saying ‘you see who is stealing money
   from you? You poor taxpayers’, I was astonished first and foremost by the
   accuracy of this money data supposedly invested in recent Sanja Ivekovic
   works and presentations in Zagreb. It now seems that Makovic’s role is not
   as an art critic or an intellectual, he is a policeman. Who else can get
   such a detailed budget investment listing? This also means that the
   institutions involved in these productions and presentations were quickly
   and willingly provided to him with statistics. If not maybe a police data
   archive, that collects such detailed investment for the contemporary
   artists, which is somewhere hidden, waiting to be used when it is
   appropriate.


   After such accuracy it is obvious that the tax payers (half starving in
   Croatia, demolished economically by the last decade of political and
   social turmoil in Croatia) will not want to invest into art and culture,
   especially not in the future works of Sanja Ivekovic. The rhetoric, using
   witch hunting tactics, thus declaring future censorship is what is
   effective here. The despotic and over the top punishment imposed by the
   art establishment is merciless in defending its curatorial methodology,
   showing a level of repressiveness that is as repressive as the state
   apparatuses. Sanja Ivekovic will of course feel the result of the
   harshness and she will be used as a scapegoat by this supposed art
   critic’s ‘policeman like’ antics. The listings ‘falsly’ transform Sanja
   Ivekovic into somebody who is stealing what is the most precious from us –
   money. We can not find in Makovic letter not a single note of the
   importance of her projects for the international reputation and for the
   history of contemporary art and culture of Croatia.

   DIALING HISTORY: It is obvious that it is not Sanja Ivekovic that is
   vulgar, as Makovic is implying. When giving also to the reader a series of
   quotations from a personal letter written by Sanja Ivekovic to Leonida
   Kovac, or better to say Makovic’s brutality and vulgarity, is something
   that is without border. It serves as one sole purpose, to destroy the
   artist who dares to raise a critical voice. Furthermore I would like to
   draw attention to the fact that Leonida Kovac gave to Z. Makovic a
   personal letter to be used publicly, an act that confirms the misery of
   both, Kovac and Makovic. It reminds me of another case that was conducted
   about a decade ago, of destroying another personality of the art
   contemporary world - Davor Maticevic. He was dying from AIDS in Zagreb and
   the mass media was using this to destroy the Museum of Contemporary Art in
   Zagreb, where Maticevic worked, publishing parts of his diary-letters and
   personal testimonies, presenting Maticevic as an amoral, vulgar and sexual
   perverted person. So you can see the sort of people that we are dealing
   with here, backward non-progressive types who do not challenge their own
   presumptions, whilst ignorantly ruining other people’s possible freedoms.


   Makovic confidentiality with power and money is also visible when in the
   letter he is listing names of artists and philosophers who stood up in
   defense of Ivekovic. Milica, Trsa and Marina are without the family names,
   as Mr. Makovic knows perfectly that in Croatia, in Zagreb, he is the one
   who is making order, he is cutting heads and he is the bloody king of the
   province. We can learn here very precise method of manipulating with data,
   names, and bodies.

   But beware: if we are just to normalize such a situation, soon more
   artists will be subjected to the same political methodology.


   SECOND: The level of function performed by the institution of art and
   culture, and the logic of the curator’s work, the way and how the art
   system is dealing with contemporary art when producing an art work and the
   ways of installing them in different collections, is what is at stake
   here. It is not just having to simply deal with everyday politics but also
   with the internal political and strategies of the Institution of art in
   the public field. I would rather not comment on the populist opinion of
   Makovic regarding Slavoj Zizek’s work in the letter, disqualified. The
   same is possible for Sanja Ivekovic’s work that has been totally
   disqualified as well. Maybe it is normal enough for the ‘policeman’
   Makovic, that the quality of the work of Ivekovic, put forward by Leonida
   Kovac herself, as the most important reason why Ivekovic was selected,
   vanished here, and is not important any more. Leonida Kovac stated in her
   statement: Ivekovic was selected because of her international reputation
   and importance.

   Three points are taken as a strong alibi for the rejection: The delay in
   the production process, the “abundant” honorarium to Sanja Ivekovic that
   would be paid, and Sanja Ivekovic’s rejection to sign a producer contract.
   Ivekovic refused to sign this contract as in the contract is implied that
   Ivekovic must give one copy of the work to the Museum of Contemporary Art,
   Zagreb, being the producer of the whole project. The work will be
   therefore with such a signed contract automatically part of the Museum
   collection.


   I am not surprise that the time delay is put forward, as one of the
   “reasons” why Kovac has to cancel the project of Sanja Ivekovic. Is
   Leonida Kovac having a clue of how today the work of arts are constructed,
   produced and realize? The work is finalized always and solely at the point
   of displaying! There in Sao Paulo it would achieve a total form, until
   then it is all in fragments, it is installation – media- conceptual work
   that lives in discontinuity.

   Sanja Ivekovic, it is mention’s, in both letters, would received a sum of
   32.000 HRK as a honorarium. Strange enough and not under discussion is the
   honorarium of the curator, the equal amount as to be given to Leonida
   Kovac. The works of both are disproportionate, but the money is equal!
   Ivekovic work is far more demanding: developing the idea of the work, the
   process of realization and its actual realization!


   The amount given as an honorarium in not the same as the amount that would
   be paid for the art work within the art market. The value of the artwork
   is something else; it is part of the mechanism that is connected with the
   history of the artist work, with his or her status, and the work reception
   and interpretation within the international arena. The Museum of
   Contemporary Art’s contract insisting that it gets a free copy of the
   artwork for the collection of the Museum is not legal. With signing such a
   producer agreement Sanja Ivekovic would legalized the confiscation of her
   work for the purpose of the collection. The artist is forced to give over
   the work of art, but with a benediction of his or her signature, being
   just and solely paid for his work and services. Donating a work of art to
   the Museum is only possible as a free decision of the artist!

   The question is how many other artists were forced to give the work of art
   for the collection with signing similar contracts, as a “thankful” gesture
   of being invited to present the state in this or that situation or
   manifestation.


   CONCLUSION: From my point of view both letters-texts-statements
   reconfigure an understanding of the whole cultural process that is
   currently taking place, demonstrating the dangerous actions and path of
   cultural politics in Croatia. Plus its terrifying way in which it acts
   with and via institutions of art, creating a new pattern that can only be
   seen and named as ‘witch hunting’. The two letters-statements throw light
   on the situation of how art and institutional politics is presently
   functioning, and how it is possible to ‘cover up’ almost methodically, the
   rejection of Ivekovic while at the same time preparing a terrain for her
   terminal expulsion from the Croat art scene in the very immediate future.
   How many other artists will be imposed such a regime and onslaught of such
   uncaring decisions on their practice? Last but not least the two
   letters/texts also reveal a dangerous discourse of how the institutions of
   contemporary art and the state is functioning in post-socialism, getting
   works of art almost for free, and how the ideology of power is proposing
   almost a ferocious sentencing of artists whilst supporting the new
   ‘irresponsible’ face and methodology of the critic, curator transformed
   into a culturalized enforcer.

   Ljubljana, 20. January, 2002


   I would like to express all my gratitude to Marc Garrett from the
   independent artists group furtherfield.org for a collaborative and
   editorial support.