Estetski aktivizam kao uvjet obnavljanja vlastite slobode / Aesthetic Activism as a Necessity in Renewing One’s Own Freedom

 Petra Zanki

Kada je 1948. g. Tito rekao čuveno “ne” Staljinu, taj se “ne” nepovoljno odrazio na cjelokupnu ekonomsku situaciju u bivšoj SFRJ: industrijski napredak bio je zaustavljen, a proizvodnja i izvoz oslabljeni. Ekonomska stabilnost cijele zemlje bila je dovedena u pitanje. Komunistička partija Jugoslavije odlučila je tada dotadašnji SSSR-ov model planske proizvodnje, tzv. rusku petoljetku (пятилетка), zamijeniti novim modelom – i uvela samoupravljanje. Samoupravljanje je bilo zamišljeno tako da su se tvornice i organizacije organizirale na način kao da njima upravljaju radnici i bilo je uređeno ZUR-om ili "Zakonom o Udruženom Radu". Prema tom zakonu pojedinac se nije zapošljavao u nekoj tvrtki ili kompaniji nego je vlastiti rad “pridruživao” OUR- u. Na OUR-ima, (skraćenica od Organizacija udruženog rada) i drugim sličnim oblicima privrednog samoupravljanja, počivala je nova ekonomija SFRJ i takva, u formalnom smislu, opstala sve do raspada Jugoslavije. Sama jedinica upravljanja OUR, kasnije je raščlanjena na Osnovne organizacije udruženog rada – OOUR-e.

Malo više od deset godina po raspadu Jugoslavije, točnije 2003. godine, grupa umjetnika osniva umjetničku organizaciju istovjetnog imena, u sasvim novim političko-društvenim okolnostima.

Umjetnici su predstavnici generacije koja je rođena 70-ih godina XX. stoljeća u zemlji koja više ne postoji i sistemu koji se nije održao. Odrastali su u vrijeme rata[1], ali ga se sjećaju vrlo površno, jer su bili ili premladi ili predaleko, kao što su bili premladi da bi se uistinu sjećali vremena socijalizma, osim posredno, preko priča roditelja i starijih rođaka. No njihov je rad kao i rad njihovih kolega iz iste generacije itekako omeđen teritorijem i novijom prošlošću koji su proizveli današnji socijalno-ekonomski okvir. Taj okvir čine duh socijalizma, sadašnjost neoliberalizma te mnogobrojna previranja i nemiri.

Kada govorimo o djelovanju autorske grupe OOUR i drugih autora njihove generacije, govorimo o umjetničkom djelovanju dvadeset godina nakon propasti samoupravnog socijalizma, djelovanju koje se razvija i nastaje u okvirima divljeg, neoliberalnog kapitalizma koji se implementira i koristi „od oka“, i koji se na ovim prostorima javlja uz bok i nakon rata na Balkanu.

Općenito govoreći, rad koji nastaje na ovim prostorima nema zaleđe niti onu povijesnu tradiciju na koju bi se mogao s olakšanjem osloniti. Nestabilan i nesiguran, uvijek pod prismotrom, osuđen je na odnos s prošlošću koja je nepoćudna, susjedstvom koje je nedostižno i budućnošću koja je neizvjesna. Odlike su to svih oblika rada u svim segmentima proizvodnje na ovim prostorima pa tako i umjetnosti. Sada, nekad i sutra, (u socijalizmu je bilo bolje/gore, sada je bolje/gore nego što će biti u Europi, kapitalizam je bolji/lošiji od komunizma, etc.) vremenske kategorije, stopljene s onima mjesta na kojem se događaju, poprimaju monstruozan oblik bića kojeg se ne da zanemariti i s kojim je potrebno svakodnevno pregovarati kako bi se moglo djelovati.

O nizu sraslih kontradiktornosti situacija u kojima su autori OOUR-a prisiljeni stalno se iznova postavljati i djelovati, najbolje možda govori i samo ime grupe: OOUR. Autori ga i sami istovremeno čitaju i tumače dvojako, kao direktan prijevod engleskog „our“ - kao u eng. (kapitalist.) naše, privatno i kao posuđenicu iz socijalizma „OOUR“ –naše, zajedničko. Ova prividna kontradiktornost vrlo točno opisuje prostor, sličan prostoru između navodnih znakova i zagrada, unutar kojeg ovi umjetnici djeluju: prostor našeg u „našem“, OOUR-a u „OOUR-u“[2].

Stoga ne čudi ni da je bavljenje umjetnošću grupe autora OOUR uvelike i prisilno vezano upravo uz uvjete rada, modele i  promjene u načinima proizvodnje s kojima se svakodnevno susreću. Tu, na zatrtom bojnom polju, privatiziranoj pustoj zemlji, raskopanom javnom dobru za temelje neke nove privatne investicije, ti umjetnici stvaraju, žive i rade, danas.

***

No tko je zapravo OOUR i koje su odlike i specifičnosti ove grupe autora?

Grupu čine dvije izvedbene autorice - plesačice, glazbenik i dizajnerica te brojni suradnici od kojih su neki videoumjetnici, dramaturzi, redatelji, itd. Svi oni ističu horizontalno donošenje odluka i jednakopravno sudjelovanje u kreativnom procesu kao jedan od primata vlastitog djelovanja. Iako pod istim imenom neki autori rade češće od ostalih, (Selma Banich, Sandra Banić Naumovski, Ana Banić i Adam Semijalac) grupa uključuje i one autore koji su pozvani na suradnju po pojedinim projektima. Tako npr. redatelj Oliver Frljić, videoumjetnik Sebastijan Vukušić i performerica Mila Čuljak, autorski surađuju na više različitih projekata i njihovi estetski potpisi također su vidljivi u onim radovima grupe na kojima su surađivali.

Shvaćajući OOUR kao model kroz koji mogu raditi na isključivo vlastitim idejama u raznorodnom polju interesa, a da taj rad ne doživljavaju kao pogon za proizvodnju proizvoda, ovi autori prostor zajedničkog shvaćaju prvenstveno kao poligon za istraživanje i eksperimentiranje, ne želeći se baviti proizvodnjom specifične umjetnosti namijenjene tržištu. Svjesni činjenice da će ono što prikazuju vrlo često ostati nerazumljivo širokoj publici, oni također ne žele podilaziti estetskim kriterijima gradeći predstave po modelu onog što misle da bi moglo biti poželjno ili privlačno prestižnim europskim festivalima. OOUR je autorima, budući da svi rade na nekim drugim projektima i u nekim drugim kompanijama, prvenstveno prostor slobode za kreiranje onih odluka i procesa koji nisu uvjetovani od strane ekonomije i isplativosti.

Odustajanje od tržišta, regrupiranje u uvijek nove, efemerne kolektivitete po pojedinom projektu, odbijanje imenovanja predstavnika grupe pa čak i označavanja OOUR-a kao grupe, zatim odustajanje od razumljivosti, deklarativna poroznost estetskih odrednica (jer se novo u jednom radu zamjenjuje novim i uvijek drugačijim u sljedećem), sve su to odlike rada umjetnika koji rade kroz OOUR ili se njemu pridružuju.

S obzirom na to da OOUR ne djeluje po principu proizvođač – proizvod - kupac, izlišno je i razmišljati u kategorijama kojima se inače mogu opisivati pojedini umjetnički radovi umjetnika namijenjeni umjetničkom tržištu.

***

OOUR- ove predstave rađene su kolektivno – novi je smjer vidljiv u svakom novom radu, ovisno o začetnoj ideji koja može doći od bilo kojeg člana grupe. Važnije je stoga, umjesto da svaki pojedini rad grupe objašnjavamo zasebno, gledati na OOUR kao na umjetnički rad / jedinicu za sebe, smatrajući pojedine predstave integralnim dijelom te jedinice.

Umjetnici svoj umjetnički rad definiraju kao princip, jedan od oblika «javnog iskaza» provedenog kroz formu kazališne predstave. Taj «javni iskaz» postaje ključan u definiranju onog što inače označavamo predstavom ili umjetničkim produktom. Njihov «javni iskaz» njihovo je i javno djelovanje i stoga se mora promatrati s obzirom na način rada, vrijeme i mjesto u kojem nastaje i biva izveden.

Svakom novom procesu autori ne pristupaju polazeći od neke zadane ideje koja je upisana u neku teoriju, estetiku ili politiku na temelju koje onda razvijaju određeni materijal, nego kreću od vlastitih autorskih pozicija i rada, interpretirajući te pozicije kako bi kreirali novi rad.

Vlastita percepcija vlastitog bivanja u stvarnosti ovdje je opravdana i odmiče se od gledanja u vlastiti pupak. Propitivanje vlastitih pozicija uvjetovano situacijom udaljava se od «narcizma vlastitog bivanja u svemiru», i postaje područje nužnog kreiranja slobode s jedne, te polje definiranja vlastitih identiteta s druge strane.[3]

Estetska opna OOUR-a propusna je i porozna: formira se svakog puta kad se OOUR kao jedinica rada uspostavi - iz godine u godinu. Na neki način, estetski potpis pojedine predstave uključuje estetike i etička načela pojedinaca koji se u pojedini rad uključuju. Nekoherentnost se stoga unutar grupe smatra vrijednošću, a ne nedostatkom.

Rad je shvaćen kao nešto što treba uvijek i iznova pravdati: svako interesno polje koje se otvori u jednom projektu otvara mogućnost za novo polje interesa: svaki je rad nastavak proteklog, ali kao da kreće ponovno iz početka. Metatekstura rada ostaje nepromijenjena – ona je opet i uvijek ista: uvijek i iznova se propituje vlastiti rad, vlastita pozicija unutar grupe[4]. Stalnost procesa koji prethode odluci onog što će na kraju biti pokazano zapravo postaje temeljnim predmetom umjetničke preokupacije.

Ako bismo pak krenuli imenovati ono što se kao lajtmotiv provlači kroz sve radove grupe OOUR, bez obzira na njihovu tematsku nekoherentnost i raznorodnost interesa, onda bi to na neki način bila borba protiv različitih  institucionalizacija estetskih i drugih struktura stvaralaštva, od institucionalizacije same grupe do institucionalizacije polja interesa, tj. izbjegavanje svih zajedničkih nazivnika pod koje bi se mogao podvući njihov rad pa time i institucionalizirati.

Radikalnost s kojom inzistiraju na poroznosti vlastitog rada, balansirajući između samoponištenja i održivosti na rubu, autori OOUR-a dovode u krajnost svoje pozicije te naginju situaciji u kojoj ga više ne mogu niti braniti niti artikulirati - i to rade svjesno. Svako potvrđivanje vlastitih vjerovanja vezuju uz kreiranje neke nove ideologije, a to pod svaku cijenu žele izbjeći.

Stoga je razumljiva i njihova potreba da se bude na rubu svega pa i na rubu vlastitih očekivanja. Postojanje na rubu ekonomskog i estetskog kod OOUR-a postaje ključno i proizlazi iz potrebe nužnog redefiniranja polja estetičke i umjetničke slobode. Tu smo da opslužujemo određen koncept koji se zove «pravljenje umjetnosti». Pravimo neku našu umjetnost. Naša sposobnost djelovanja mora biti takva da je jednako fragilna kao i ona umjetnost koju ćemo raditi.[5]

Na neki način umjetnici koji djeluju kroz OOUR, u namjeri rada s umjetnošću i rada na umjetnosti, svjesno zadiru u polje nekog novog aktivizma čije djelovanje ne ostaje u okvirima estetskog. Njihov je rad nemoguće proučavati samo kroz plesnu ili izvedbenu umjetnost. Prije bismo mogli reći da je njihova umjetnost umjetnost aktivnih tijela koja sama sebe proizvode i potvrđuju kao aktivna radeći umjetnost, a čija se vidljivost obznanjuje u pojedinom javnom iskazu. U javnom iskazu OOUR-a uvijek je dominantno ono tijelo, čija se uloga može prepoznati kao dominantna s obzirom na zastupljenost u pojedinom iskazu. Stoga je dominantno tijelo pojedinog javnog iskaza koji put više likovno, drugi put glazbeno, više puta plesno-izvedbeno, ovisno o zastupljenosti i angažmanu pojedinih autora-generatora kolektivnog javnog iskaza na nekom projektu.

Ono po čemu se može istaći vrijednost ove grupe jest opstanak na rubu uz neprestano pomicanje granica vlastitog poništavanja. Autori koji rade na pronalasku strategija obnavljanja rada per se, svjedoci su agoničnog nastojanja umjetnosti ovih prostora da bude samoodrživa, ostane samoupravljačka i da se odupre uvjetima u kojima nastaje, koristeći pritom svejedno resurse tržišta, da bi se prema njima potom postavila neprijateljski.

Umjetničke radove OOUR grupe možemo tumačiti kao nastojanje jednog takvog opiranja, hrabar čin i preduvjet za preživljavanje. Sloboda postoji onoliko koliko joj je potrebno da se uspostavi.  Dok je god prisiljena obnavljati se, sloboda OOUR-a to sigurno jest.

---

[1] Ovdje prvenstveno mislim  na Domovinski rat u Hrvatskoj, od 1991. do 1995., ali i na nemire na Kosovu 1989., odcjepljenje Slovenije, rat u Bosni i Hercegovini, bombardiranje Beograda, ukratko sve ono što je 90-ih označeno ratovima na Balkanu.

[2] The space of (o)ours in “(o)ours”.

[3] Uz razasutost zajedničkog identiteta prouzrokovanu ratom na ovim prostorima, nepostojanje drugog, isključivo umjetničkog, identiteta vezano je uz posljedičnu poslijeratnu tranziciju: „Toliko smo marginalizirani da se moramo baviti nizom drugih stvari kako bismo stvorili ikakve uvjete da se ipak posvetimo kreativnom procesu. Govorim o pravu na svakodnevni plesački trening, jer većina mojih kolegica taj dio dana provodi u organizaciji, pregovorima, lobiranju. Mislim na plesačko pravo da budemo koncentrirani na sebe, a ne na politiku.” cit. Selma Banich u razgovoru s Ivom Nerinom Gattin, KULISA. 5. svibnja 2008. http://www.kulisa.eu/

[4] Iz snimke razgovora s umjetnicama Selmom Banich i Sandrom Banić Naumovski, Zagreb, 20. veljače 2010.

[5] Ibid. 

 

Aesthetic Activism as a Necessity in Renewing One’s Own Freedom

Petra Zanki

In 1948, when Tito said his famous “no” to Stalin, that “no” had disadvantageous repercussions on the entire economic situation of Yugoslavia: industrial progress was halted, production and export weakened. The economic stability of the entire country was in question. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia decided to supplement the former Soviet model of planned production, the so-called Five-Year Plan (пятилетка), with a new one – thus introducing self-management. The idea of self-managing socialism, in which workers were to rule all factories and organizations, was regulated by ZUR (Joint Labour Act). According to that law, a person was not employed by the company, but rather “joined” his or her labour to an OUR (abbreviated from Joint Labour Organization). These OURs and other, similar forms of economic self-management were the keystones of the new self-managing economy that formally survived until the fall of Socialist Yugoslavia. As one of its units, OUR was later subdivided into Basic Joint Labour Organizations – OOURs.

Somewhat more than ten years after the fall of Yugoslavia, in 2003, a group of artists founded an art organization of the same name, albeit in completely different political and social circumstances.

Its members are representatives of a generation that was born in the 1970s, in a country that no longer exists, in a system that could not persist. They grew up during the war[1], but remember it rather vaguely, either because they were too young or because they were far away from it, just as they were too young in socialism to be able to remember it today, except indirectly, from stories told by their parents and elder relatives. Nevertheless, their work and work of their colleagues from the same generation is directly determined by the territory and time that generated the current socio-economic frame. The spirit of socialism, the current dominance of neo liberalism, and a good amount of turbulences and unrests define that frame.

Speaking about the work of artistic group OOUR and other artists of their generation, we are also speaking being an artist twenty years after the collapse of self-managing socialism. Their engagement has evolved and taken form in the framework of rampant, unrestrained capitalism which has in this region been implemented and used „approximately“, and which emerged during and after the civil wars on the Balkans.

Generaly speaking, work that is generated in this region finds no backing in a historical tradition that it could rely on with relief. Unstable and uncertain, always under surveillance, it is doomed to a relationship with a past that is undesirable, a neighbourhood that is unreachable, and a future that is unforeseeable. These are the features of all forms of activity in all segments of production, so art is no exception. Now, before and tomorrow (in socialism it was better/worse, now it is better/worse than it will be in Europe, capitalism was better/worse than communism, etc.) are temporal categories that, fused with the place where they occur, acquire a monstrous shape of a ghostly creature that cannot be ignored and that needs negotiating with on a daily basis if one wants to be allowed to act.

The combined, although contradictory circumstances in which the OOUR artists are forced to reassert themselves and act is perhaps best revealed by the very name of the group. The authors themselves like to read and interpret the name OOUR in two ways, as a direct loan from English (“our” as in capitalist “our, private”) and as a term with the connotations of “ours, common” (as in ex-Yugoslav “OOUR” ). This apparent contradiction describes very precisely the space of their action, similar to the space between the quotation marks and brackets: the space of (o)ours in “(o)ours”.

Therefore, it is small wonder that the artistic work of OOUR is largely and forcibly linked to the working conditions and daily changes in modes of production.

The obliterated battlefield, the privatized wasteland, the public good that has been bulldozed in order to make foundations for yet another private investment – these are the grounds on which these artists work and their performances come into being.

***

But who exactly is OOUR and what are its features and specificities?

The group consists of two performing artists-dancers, a musician, and a designer, as well as numerous collaborators: video-artists, dramaturges, theatre directors, etc. All of them emphasize horizontal decision-making and equal rights when participating in the creative process as one of the primary principles of their work. Even though some authors are more active under the name of OOUR than others (Selma Banich, Sandra Banić Naumovski, Ana Banić, and Adam Semijalac), the group also includes those authors that are invited to collaborate on particular projects. Thus, for example, theatre director Oliver Frljić, video-artist Sebastian Vukušić, and performer Mila Čuljak collaborate on different projects and their aesthetic handwriting is quite visible in those performances on which they worked as collaborators.

Understanding OOUR as a model through which they can work on their own ideas within a manifold field of interests, without experiencing it as a factory for producing commodity, these authors take the common space primarily as a polygon for research and experimentation, refusing to produce a specific type of art intended for the art market. Aware of the fact that their performances will often remain incomprehensible to the broader public, they nevertheless refuse to subject themselves to the aesthetic canon or build their performances according to a model of what they think might be acceptable or attractive to prestigious European festivals. Since OOUR’s authors are all engaged in other projects and work for other theatre companies as well, the group is for them primarily the space of freedom for living out those decisions and processes that are not determined by the economy or guided by profitability.

Ignoring the market, regrouping into always new and ephemeral collectivities from one project to another, not having outspoken representatives, and even refusing to define OOUR as an art group, rejecting the mandate of comprehensibility, and opting for the declarative porosity of aesthetic determinants (since what is new in one performance is supplanted by something even newer and always different in another) – these are the features that mark the work of those who collaborate in OOUR or join their work to it.

Regarding the fact that OOUR does not function according to the producer-commodity-consumer principle, it is also superfluous to think about their artworks in categories in which artworks intended for the market are commonly thought.

***

OOUR’s performances are done collectively – a new direction is visible each time, depending on the initial idea that can come from any of the group’s members. Rather than describing each performance of the group separately, it is more important to look at the OOUR unit as an artwork per se, considering their shows as the integral part of that unit.

The artists define their artistic work as a principle, a form of “public statement” realized through the form of theatre performance. That “public statement” is essential in defining what we commonly describe as a performance or an artistic product. In other words, their “public statement” is an activity that must be viewed with respect to the specific time and place in which it is created and performed.

The authors approach each new process not by starting from a predefined idea, inscribed in a theory, aesthetics, or politics, in order to elaborate on a given material; instead, they start from their own artistic positions and work, interpreting those positions in order to create something new.

A personal perception of one’s own existence in the real world is here justified and far from being perceived as a simple gaze into one’s own bellybutton. Questioning one’s position in accordance with the living situation, opposite to the “narcissism of one’s existence in the universe”, becomes the area of necessary creation of freedom on the one hand, and the field of defining identity on the other.[2]

The aesthetic membrane of OOUR is permeable and porous: it is formed anew each time when OOUR is re-established as a unit of labour – from one year to another. In a way, the aesthetic signature of a particular performance includes the aestheticisms and ethical principles of individuals that join a particular project. Therefore, incoherence within the group is considered an advantage rather than deficiency.

Every new project or work on the material is regarded as something that must be questioned and justified again and again: Every interest field that opens up in a project creates the possibility of a new field of interest: therefore, each piece is a continuation of the previous one, yet beginning anew at the same time. But the metastructure of work remains unchanged – it is the same, again and still: questioning one’s work and one’s position within the group, again and again.[3] The constancy of processes that precede the decision on what will eventually be performed actually becomes the basic object of artistic concern.

And yet, should we venture into identifying something that permeates all performances of the group as a red thread, regarding their thematic incoherence and diversity of interests, then it would certainly be struggle against various institutionalizations of aesthetic and other structures of creative work, beginning with the institutionalization of the group as such and ending with the institutionalization of the interest field; in other words, it is avoiding all those common denominators that might be assigned to their work in order to institutionalize it.

Radically insisting on the porosity of their work, balancing somewhere between self-annihilation and survival on the edge, the authors of OOUR take their positions to the extreme, tending towards a situation in which they could neither defend nor articulate their work– and they do it on purpose. Any assertion of one’s personal convictions is linked to the creation of a new ideology, which is what they want to avoid at all cost.

In view of that, one can understand their need to be on the edge of everything, including their own expectations. Existence on the edge of economy and aestheticism is crucial for OOUR and originates in their need of redefining the field of aesthetic and artistic freedom. “We are here to serve a particular concept, and that is called ‘making art’. We make some sort of personal art. Our capacity for action must be equally fragile as the art we are about to make.”[4]

In a way, artists that are active in OOUR, with their intention of working with art and working on art, are consciously encroaching upon the field of some new aesthetic activism, the activity of which does not remain within the borders of the aesthetical. Their work cannot be studied only through dance or performing arts. We may rather say that their art is the art of active bodies that reinvent and assert themselves as active by making art, their visibility proclaimed in each particular public statement. In the public statement of OOUR, the dominant body is always the one whose role can be recognized as dominant with regard to its prevalence in that statement. That is why the dominant body of a statement is sometimes purely visual, at other times musical, often related to dance and performance, depending on the prevalence and engagement of particular authors/generators of collective public statement in a particular project.

What one might extol as the special value of the group is its survival on the edge, with permanent shifting of the borders of one’s own annihilation. Its authors, who are inventing the strategy for the renewal of work as such, testify to the desperate efforts of art in this region to become self-sustainable and to remain self-manageable, resisting the circumstances in which it has come to life, first using the resources of the market, but then adopting a hostile stance towards them.

OOUR’s art can be interpreted as an attempt at such resistance, an act of courage, and a precondition of survival. Freedom persists as long as the time the freedom needs to be established – as long as it is forced to renew itself, the work of OOUR most certainly is one.

---

[1] What I have in mind here is primarily the Croatian Liberation war, which lasted from 1991-1995, but also the Kosovo unrests of 1989,  the separation of Slovenia, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the bombing of Belgrade, briefly all that was defined as the 1990s wars on the Balkans.

[2] Beside the dispersion of collective identity caused by the war, the non-existence of another, purely artistic identity is linked to the consequent post-war transition process: We are so marginalized that we must engage in a number of other things if we wish to create any conditions that would enable us to dedicate ourselves to the creative process. What I am talking about is the right to have dance trainings on a daily basis, given the fact that most of my colleagues spend that part of the day organizing, negotiating, lobbying. I am talking about the dancer’s right to focus on himself or herself, rather than on politics. Interview with Selma Banich, Iva Nerina Gattin, KULISA. 5 May 2008. http://www.kulisa.eu/

[3] From the recording of an interview with Selma Banich and Sandra Banić Naumovski, Zagreb, 20 February 2010.

[4] Ibid.

Bez naslova - analogne forme

2009

koncept, realizacija i produkcija / concept, realization and production: OOUR

fotografije / photos: Selma Banich

Kompleksno promišljanje plesa / Thinking of Dance in a Complex Way

Ivana Slunjski

Razmišljajući o oourovcima, prije svega o plesnim umjetnicama Selmi Banich i Sandri Banić te o glazbeniku Adamu Semijalcu, koji se od formiranja skupine nameću kao OOUR-ova pokretačka jezgra, o njihovim mijenama, vještini autorskoga ekvilibriranja, balansu, disbalansu ili rastu u proteklih pet godina, mnoge opaske završavaju u kontradikciji, jedna drugu čak i izuzimaju, da bi odmah potom tim izuzimanjem jedna drugu pojašnjavale. Mnogo se toga opet može činiti kao jednostrano iščitavanje neke ne pretpostavljene, već scenskim čitanjem izvježbane svijesti. No u jedno sam posve sigurna – uvijek se nekako događalo, bilo da se to prelamalo kroz opterećenost vlastitom egzistencijom ili je bilo potaknuto osobnim krizama i dvojbama o smislu pisanja o plesu u kulturi nesklonoj toj umjetnosti, da o OOUR-u nisam pisala onoliko koliko bih željela ili koliko bi o njihovu djelovanju valjalo pisati.

Od prvih izvedbi do danas, u OOUR-ovu se radu može prepoznati nekoliko konstanti. Na prvom bih mjestu izdvojila odnos s publikom, koji se mnogima, manje upućenima, ali i upućenima u ples činio vrlo problematičan. Naime, mnogi su propitivanje relacija s publikom zapravo doživljavali kao neodnos, prije se odlučujući za bezizlaznu hermetičnost negoli za komunikativnost. Na meti OOUR-ova traženja našla se perceptivnost gledatelja koja ne prinosi isključivoj konzumaciji gotovog umjetničkog proizvoda. Umjesto toga, oourovci nude gledatelju mogućnost aktivna sudjelovanja u izvedbenom procesu, navodeći ga da u naoko nebitnim ili možda njemu nedokučivim scenskim akcijama izabire vlastite projekcije koje će posvajanjem organizirati u jedinstveno i cjelovito značenje. Gledatelj se tako obvezuje na odgovornost prema činu tvorbe određene strukture koja se u širem smislu prenosi na društvenu sliku. Iako se prosječan gledatelj, gledatelj nenaviknut na učestalo uranjanje u teško prohodnu plesnu građu, mogao naći u nedoumici kako pristupiti OOUR-ovim predstavama, nastojanja oourovaca išla su u drugom smjeru. Izjednačujući, ako ne i pretpostavljajući gledatelja izvođaču, budući da gledatelj, iako nepripremljen kao izvođači, ima konačni uvid u scensko zbivanje, oourovci ne uljuljkuju gledatelja u lažnu sigurnost predstave, ne obećavaju nikakve eskapizme, neobvezujuće rasplesane sekvence koje bi nas udaljile od zbilje. Gledatelj je taj koji ples postvaruje objektifikacijom. Stoga ne bih rekla da je riječ o isključivosti ili mistifikaciji plesa njegovim podvođenjem pod, mnogo puta osporavanu, konceptualnost. Promišljanje odnosa prema publici i prozivanje gledatelja kao suodgovornog u zajedničkom kreiranju konačne recepcije dane plesne građe možda je najočitije u radovima Stvarajući Eve i Salon, koji se na određen način međusobno i nadopunjuju, te u radovima Chew i OK. Potonje dvije predstave razlikuju se od prvih dviju razinom čitljivosti citatnih naslaga, gustoćom asocijativnih slojeva, brojnih implikacija nametnutih medijskih i društvenih konstrukata, koje treba razgrnuti ne bi li se došlo do sama komunikacijskog kostura. U Stvarajući Eve izvedbena je građa ponuđena u nagovještajima mogućega scenskog tijeka, no kratke naglo odrezane slike gledatelju ne nameću ni jedan konkretan smjer razmišljanja. U Salonu je, rekla bih, još radikalnije uskraćeno scensko zbivanje. Dugotrajno postavljanje sitnih objekata nalik domino kockama iscrpljuje gledatelja u iščekivanju događanja, a tada ga iznenadnim obratom, gotovo sizifovskim ritmom sakupljanja kockica, a da iščekivani cilj nije dosegnut, izvođači prepuštaju samom sebi. Može se reći da je raščlanjenošću građe ili pak prikrivenošću građe naslagama konotacija kulminiralo u četirima navedenim predstavama, ali propitivanje percepcije gledatelja i naglašavanje doživljajnog plana osjetno je i u ranijim radovima the black box, the first box te u radu to be confirmed, pa i radu u orangecut. Orangecut zaokuplja razlamanjem sekvence i raslojavanjem građe na što jednostavnije elemente, a preuzimanje tih smjernica vidljivo je i u to be confirmed. Autorice u to be confirmed prednost daju osjetilnom planu doživljajnog, što se razaznaje iz dominantnih mantričkih glazbenih obrazaca koji aludiraju na ekstatičko uživljavanje, premda je gledatelj izložen analitičkoj dekonstrukciji izvedbene građe njezinim osipavanjem u niz sitnih pokreta, koji su tek minimalno različiti od svakog prethodnog. Zadana izvedbena forma istodobno se suprotstavlja aformalnom, autorski dovršenom djelu izmiču konačna određenja. U tom procesu gledatelj sam postaje plesač transformirajući plesnu aktivnost u mentalnu aktivnost gledatelja. Prva inačica orangecuta, pozivajući se na modifikaciju zapisa na osnovi kojeg reprodukcija postaje ključ konceptualizacije, dvostruko problematizira perceptivnost. Izvedba plesačica iz jedne se prostorije prenosi u drugu putem digitalnog zapisa. Taj zapis nije samo obična snimka izvedbe, u snimku su intervenirali sekundarni izvođači, glazbenik i videoumjetnik, ubacujući u snimku projekcije vlastita sjećanja izvedbe. Drugi pomak u percepciji događa se intervencijom gledatelja koji ima uvid u izravnu izvedbu i u posredovanu izvedbu i aranžira vlastitu doživljajnu cjelinu. 

Kao sljedeću važnu odrednicu OOUR-a, koja je već djelomično nagrižena prethodnim razmatranjima, naglasila bih probijanje granica plesnosti, odnosno onoga što se prihvaća kao ples. Često sam se i sama suočila s komentarima kao što su zašto oni ne plešu ili kak tak nekaj mogu nazvati plesom. Nakon pojave postmodernoga plesa ili postdramskoga kazališta, tako uopćavati ples zapravo se čini besmislenim. U obranu oourovaca ponovit ću po ne znam koji put, suvremeni ples nastaje u trenutku recepcije, ne virtuoznim plesanjem ni nemuštim bacakanjem na sceni, nego promišljanjem izvedbene građe. Prepuštajući gledateljskoj percepciji izbor, pojednostavljivanjem izvedbene građe sve do scenske neaktivnosti, OOUR aktivnost prebacuje na gledatelja koji ples konceptualizira životnim, uključujući i plesnim, iskustvom. Prijenosom nedjelovanja na sceni na razinu aktivnosti uma, otvara se prostor novom događanju, interpretaciji viđenoga kao posve drugačije slike, rasterećene plesnih ili društvenih kodifikacija. Na taj se način potkopava stabilnost autorskih pozicija kao manipulativne sile, a s druge strane potkopava se i jednostranost interpretacija. Takvo poimanje plesa vodi nas sljedećoj bitnoj odrednici OOUR-a, društvenom angažmanu. Osvrnem li se na Chew ili na OK, nagomilavanje različitih konotativnih slojeva ne može izbjeći upisivanju svih postojećih konstrukata tijela, stereotipna zaziranja od tjelesnosti, nevrijednosti tijela u odnosu na misaone procese, tjelesnost konzervativno poimanu ženskim atributom, pornografskoga tijela, tijela drukčijih mogućnosti ili sposobnosti, upisivanju homoseksualnosti, submisivnosti, repetitivnosti koja često upućuje na represiju, društveno poželjnih tjelesnih identifikacija. Gledatelju se nude konotacije s kojima se mora nositi, mora iznaći način kako da ih procesira, da okorjele konstrukcije razloži na prihvatljivije ili da ih uzurpira, ali ne i odbaci. Odbacivanjem postojećih konstrukata stvorio bi se paralelan sustav vrijednosti, no to ne znači da bi se prethodni sustav ukinuo. Opcija koja nam preostaje jest gerilsko nagrizanje postojećega sustava i njegovo prevrednovanje. Razmicanjem konotativnih slojeva dolazimo do posljednje odrednice koja je obilježila OOUR-ovo dosadašnje djelovanje, a to je autentičnost tijela. U okviru posljednjih radova, Chew i OK, kritika je dosta govorila o fenomenu zastrtosti (Sibila i Govedić). Autentično tijelo kakvo oourovci predlažu ne tiče se isključivo autentičnosti izvedbe, odnosno autentičnosti plesnoga izraza; autentičnost se odnosi i na izvođačevo postojanje na sceni kao stvarne osobe. Premda se ples događa u trenutku recepcije dvostrukim procesima, autorskim ispisivanjem i gledateljskim iščitavanjem, plesu ne možemo osporiti tijelo kao medij prijenosa informacije. Međutim, tijelo je podložno kulturalnim upisivanjima, ali nije svedeno na razinu prazne plohe, nego samo postaje subjekt proizvodnje značenja. Procesi identifikacije tijela u pokretu nikada nisu definitivni, tijelo neprestano izmiče uokvirivanjima. U tom se smislu ples i izvedbeno/izvođačevo tijelo približavaju performansu. OOUR skreće pozornost na stvarnog čovjeka u trenutku njegova kreativnog izražavanja, s njegovim stvarnim potrebama, emocijama, ranama i nadanjima, koji nešto izvodi, ali i postavlja pitanje zašto to izvodi na način koji je izabrao.

Krećući se unutar tih odrednica, OOUR je bitno izmijenio sliku hrvatske suvremenoplesne scene. Njihovo odricanje od plesa put je ka novoj plesnosti. Vitalni opstanak u uvjetima nerazmjernoga financiranja institucionalne i neinstitucionalne kulture pravo je umijeće, te oourovcima u sljedećih pet godina iskreno želim preraspodjelu snaga postojećih reprezentacijskih modela kulture.

Thinking of Dance in a Complex Way

Ivana Slunjski

Thinking about OOUR – primarily about dance artists Selma Banich and Sandra Banić, as well as musician Adam Semijalac, who has imposed himself as the moving core of the group from the very outset – thinking about their transformations, their skill of artistic balancing, disbalancing, and growth during the past five years, many remarks will end in contradiction or even exclude each other, only to be elucidated in the next moment through that very exclusion. Much of it may seem as some sort of one-sided interpretation of a mind that has been trained through theatrical reading, rather than preset. However, one thing is completely sure: be it because of overlapping with my own existence or triggered by personal crises and doubts regarding the sense of writing about dance in a culture that is hostile to that sort of art, somehow it always happened that I did not write about OOUR as much as I would have liked or as much as their activity should be written about.

From their earliest performances until today, a number of constant elements have been discernible in their work. First of all, I would like to emphasize their relationship with the audience, which has always seemed problematic to those who are not experts on dance, but also to those who are. Many have experienced OOUR's exploration of their own relationship with the audience as an actual lack of relationship, as opting for a hopeless hermeticity instead of communicability. But the target of that quest is the perceptiveness of the spectator, which does not lead to exclusive consummation of a ready-made artistic product. Instead, OOUR offers to the spectator the possibility of actively participating in the process of performance, challenging him to choose his own projections in seemingly unimportant or perhaps impenetrable stage acts, and to organize them into a unique and complete meaning by appropriating them. Thus, the spectator accepts his or her responsibility in creating a particular structure, which is then broadened to include the social picture. Even though an average spectator, who is not used to being repeatedly plunged into a barely passable dance material, might face certain doubts as to the right way of approaching OOUR's performances, the efforts of the group have taken a different direction. By equalling, if not preferring the spectator to the performer, since the spectator, although not prepared as well as the performers, has the final insight into the stage events, OOUR does not lull the spectator into a fake feeling of safety in their show; they promise no escapisms or casual dancing sequences that might get us away from the reality. The spectator is the one who realizes the dance by objectifying it. Therefore, I would not consider it exclusion or mystification of dance by subjecting it to some often disputed conceptuality. This reflection upon the relationship with the audience and inviting the spectator to be co-responsible in the joint creation of the final reception of the dance material is perhaps most evident in Creating Eve and The Salon, which even complement each other in a way, yet it is also present in Chew and OK. The two latter shows differ from the former ones in the level of transparency of the quotation layers and the denseness of association layers, as well as in numerous implications of the imposed media and social constructs, which must be cast aside in order to reveal the very skeleton of communication. In Creating Eve, the performance material is offered in hints of the possible flow of stage action, but the short, abruptly cut images do not impose any particular direction of thought upon the spectator. In The Salon, I would say, the stage action has been abolished even more radically. The prolonged placement of tiny objects resembling dominoes tends to exhaust the spectator who expects some happening, after which he is left to himself after a sudden twist, consisting in an almost Sisyphus-like collecting of dominoes before the expected goal has been reached. One might say that the principle of analyzing the material or concealing it behind the sediments of connotations has reached its pinnacle in the four mentioned performances, but the same type of testing the spectator's perception can be found in the earlier pieces of OOUR: the black box, the first box, and to be confirmed, as well as in orangecut. Orangecut catches the attention by cutting up sequences and analyzing the material into the simplest possible elements, a tendency that can also be observed in to be confirmed. In the latter performance, the authors have preferred the sensual level of experience, which can be discerned in the dominant mantric musical patterns, alluding to ecstatic immersion, even though the spectator is exposed to analytic destruction of theatrical material through its dissipation into a series of tiny movements, each of them only slightly different from the previous one. The given form of performance is at the same time opposed to the aformal, artistically completed work avoids all final definitions. In the process, the spectator becomes a dancer himself, transforming the dance activity into a mental one. The first version of orangecut, referring to the modification of recording that turns reproduction into the key of conceptualization, problematizes perceptiveness in two ways. The dancers' performance is transferred from one room into another through digital recording. That recording is not merely a recording of the performance, since the secondary performers – the musician and the video-artists – have intervened into it by inserting their own memories of the performance. The second shift of perception occurs through the intervention of the spectator, who has an insight both into the direct performance and into the mediated one, thus arranging his or her own unit of experience. 

As the next important determinant of OOUR, although partly eroded by the previous reflections, I would mention their breaking of the boundaries of danceability, of what is accepted as dance. I have frequently come across commentaries such as why aren't they dancing or how can anyone call this dance. With the emergence of postdramatic dance and postdramatic theatre, generalizing dance in this way actually seems pointless. In defence of OOUR, I will repeat for a hundredth time that contemporary dance comes into existence at the moment of reception, rather than in masterful dancing movements or silly hopping around the stage – it happens in the reflection on the performed material. By leaving the choice to the spectator's perception, by simplifying the material down to sheer inactivity on stage, OOUR transfers the activity to the spectator, who is expected to conceptualize dance with his experience of life, including that of dance. By transferring the inactivity on stage to the level of the activity of mind, some space is opened for a new event, an interpretation of the seen as an entirely different picture, freed from dance-related or social codifications. Thus, the stability of artistic positions as a manipulative force is undermined, but so is the one-sidedness of interpretations. Such understanding of dance leads us to the next crucial determinant of OOUR, which is social engagement. Looking back at Chew or OK, I may say that the accumulation of different layers of connotation cannot escape the inscription of all possible constructs of the body, stereotypes of aversion to the corporeal, unworthiness of the body with respect to mental processes, corporality that is conservatively understood through female attributes, the pornographic body, the body of different possibilities or capacities, the inscription of homosexuality, submissiveness, repetitiveness that often indicates repression, socially desirable bodily identifications. The spectator is presented with connotations that he must deal with; he must find a way of processing them, of analyzing petrified constructions down to more acceptable ones, or else to usurp them without rejecting them. Rejecting the existing constructs would create a parallel system of values, but that does not mean that the previous system would be abolished. The option that we are left with is a guerrilla-like corrosion of the existing system and its pre-evaluation. By pushing apart the layers of connotation, we reach the last determinant that has defined OOUR's activity so far, which is corporeal authenticity. In the context of these latter pieces, Chew and OK, art critics have often mentioned shroudedness (Sibila and Govedić). The authentic body that OOUR proposes does not concern only the authenticity of performance, or rather the authenticity of dance expression; it also refers to the performer's existence on stage as a real person. Even though dance takes place in the moment of reception through a double process, namely the artistic inscription and the spectator's interpretation, dance cannot be denied the body as the medium of information transfer. The body may be subject to cultural inscriptions, but it cannot be reduced to the level of an empty plane; it becomes the subject in the production of meaning. Processes of identifying the body in movement are never definite and the body permanently avoids being set into a frame. In that sense, dance and the performing/performer's body come close to performance. OOUR draws attention to the real person in the moment of his or her creative expression, with his or her genuine needs, emotions, wounds, and hopes, the person who performs something, but also asks the question why she performs it in the way that she has chosen.

Moving between these determinants, OOUR has crucially changed the picture of the Croatian scene of contemporary dance. Their rejection of dance has paved the way to a new danceability. Bare survival in the circumstances of disproportional financing of institutional versus non-institutional culture is a true skill and what I truly wish to OOUR for the next five years is to witness a restructuring of power in the existing models of cultural representation.

OK

2008

koncept i koreografija / concept and choreography: Selma Banich, Sandra Banić Naumovski, Nino Bokan & Pravdan Devlahović

izvedba / performance: Nino Bokan & Pravdan Devlahović

skladatelj / composer: Adam Semijalac

dizajn / design: Ana Banić & Maša Vukmanović / offstudio

scenografija, kostimi i produkcija / set, costumes and production: OOUR

fotografije / photos: Damir Žižić

Whitebox

2008

koncept / concept: OOUR

realizacija / realization: Selma Banich, Ana Banić, Sandra Banić, Mila Čuljak & Adam Semijalac

oblikovanje zvuka i glazba / sound design and music: Adam Semijalac

oblikovanje prostora / space design: Ana Banić
dizajn / graphic design: Ana Banić / offstudio
produkcija / production: OOUR

fotografije / photos: Maša Vukmanović 

Korak u prazninu - pukotine u koreografiji / A Step into the Void: Cracks in Choreography

Ivana Ivković

iz: "A Step into the Void: Cracks in Choreography", /The Art of Making Dances/, ur./ed. Chase Granoff, Jenn Joy, The Kitchen, New York, 2009.

 

Koreografski solo Chew Selme Banich (produkcija koautorske inicijative OOUR) poziva se na rad američke fotografkinje i redateljice Cindy Sherman. U plavoj perici, s velikim crnim sunčanim naočalama i štitnicima na koljenima, Banich poput kakve junakinje B-filma uhvaćene objektivom Cindy Sherman staje pred publiku u tišini, okrenuta profilom, nepomična. Tek nakon nekoliko minuta kreće vrlo, vrlo sporo spuštati glavu i ruke prema podu, zatim se spušta na dlanove i koljena i u tom položaju ostaje drhtavo nepomična nekoliko minuta. Kada se napokon počne kretati naprijed, klizanje dlanova i koljena po plesnom podu se ritmički izmjenjuje s pauzama, duljim periodima nepomičnosti, nakon kojih slijedi kretanje unatrag do početne pozicije, pa naprijed, i tako više puta, ritmizirano, usporeno, uz nalete intenziteta i napetog mirovanja naizmjence. S vremenom se kretanje usporava, kratke pauze gube, a dulji periodi mirovanja na početnoj točki produžuju.

Tek nakon tridesetak minuta izvođačica se diže na noge, kratko nepomično stoji, zatim izlazi sa scene i vraća se s velikim crnim naočalama i mikrofonom u ruci. Namješta žicu mikrofona u niz kolutova dijagonalno preko scene poput linije vrludavog puta, da bi zatim napustila taj zadatak, polako sjela na pod i (pretpostavljamo, jer velike naočale nam zaklanjaju njezine oči) nastavila gledati u publiku. Nepomičnost, napeto mirovanje, dah, glasno kruljenje želuca, namatanje žice mikrofona oko gležnjeva.

Svaka promjena položaja na sceni, trenutak skoka ili ritmično zibanje tijela u repetitivnosti brišu dojam da se tijelo uistinu kreće - sve se zaustavlja u vibratilnom gibanju udova, pa i čitavog tijela. Uspravno tijelo ne gubi kvalitete onog položenog na pod - repetitivnost koraka jednostavno zamjenjuju udarci šaka kroz zrak, a klizanje dlanova na podu lateralno njihanje bokova.

Mirovanje (i kada je riječ o aktivnom titranju ili repetitivnosti) kao koreografska strategija omogućuje koreografiji poput Chew da iskorači iz polja reprezentacije u drugačiju ekonomiju prisutnosti.

A Step into the Void: Cracks in Choreography

Ivana Ivković
from: "A Step into the Void: Cracks in Choreography", /The Art of Making Dances/, ur./ed. Chase Granoff, Jenn Joy, The Kitchen, New York, 2009

Chew, a choreographic solo by Croatian choreographer Selma Banich (production of the OOUR co-authorial initiative) draws on the work of American photographer and filmmaker Cindy Sherman. In her blond wig, wearing large sunglasses and kneepads, resembling a B-film heroine caught in the photographic lens of Cindy Sherman, Banich steps before the audience in the dark, her profile turned toward them, motionless. It is only a few minutes later that she begins to lower her head and hands toward the floor very, very slowly, after which she goes down on her hands and knees, remaining in that posture for a few minutes, tremulously inert. When she finally begins to move forward, her sliding on hands and knees along the dance podium rhythmically alternates with spells of standstill, rather long at times, after which she moves backward to the initial position, then forward again; and that goes on and on, rhythmically, in slow motion, with alternating gushes of intensity and tensed stillness. With time, Banich’s movements become slower, the short breaks are missing, while the longer static periods spent at the initial point are prolonged.

It is only after thirty minutes that the performer gets up on her feet and, having stood still for a moment, exits the stage, only to return with a microphone in her hand. She adjusts the wire in several loops across the stage, diagonally like a winding path, but then abandons the project, slowly sits down on the floor, and fixes her gaze on the audience (presumably, that is, since we cannot see her eyes behind the large sunglasses). What remains is her motionless, tensed stillness, her breathing, and the audible growling of her stomach while she wraps the microphone wire around her ankles.

Every change of posture on stage, the jumping moment or the rhythmical rocking of the body, erases the impression that the body is actually moving, owing to its repetitiveness – everything stops in the vibratile motion of the limbs, or even the entire body. The erect body does not lose the qualities of the body laid down on the floor – the repetitiveness of steps is merely substituted by the beating of fists through the air, while hands sliding along the floor are exchanged for the lateral swinging of hips.

Stillness (both as active tremor and as repetitiveness) is a choreographic strategy that makes it possible for a choreography like Chew to step out from the well-known field of representation into a different economy of presence.

Chew

2007

autorica i izvođačica / author and performer: Selma Banich

glazba / music: Dolly Parton, The Beatles
svjetlo / light: Mario Vnučec
dizajn / design: Ana Banić & Maša Vukmanović / offstudio
produkcija / production: OOUR

fotografije / photos: Damir Žižić 

Salon

2007

koncept i koreografija / concept and choreography: Selma Banich, Sandra Banić, Ana Banić, Oliver Frljić & Adam Semijalac

izvedba / performance: Selma Banich & Sandra Banić

dramaturgija / dramaturgy: Oliver Frljić

skladatelj / composer: Adam Semijalac

dizajn / design: Ana Banić & Maša Vukmanović / offstudio

mentor / mentorship: Litó Walkey

produkcija / production: OOUR
fotografije / photos: Damir Žižić

Od gledanja izvođenja do izvođenja gledanja / From Viewing the Performance to Performing the Viewing

Oliver Frljić

Dvije produkcije OOUR-a, Stvarajući Eve (2006) i Salon (2007), na kojima sam radio kao dramaturg, pokušale su naći mehanizme kojima se naglasak s primarne izvedbe gledanog seli na sam čin izvođenja gledanja i gledateljsku zajednicu. Ono što ni u jednoj ni u drugoj produkciji nije niti u izvedbenoj, niti u diskurzivnoj sferi artikulirano jeste to što u ovakvom mišljenju reprezentira gledateljska zajednica. Ukoliko i sami izvođači, uz sve ostalo, izvode i određeni čin gledanja, te ulaze u određenu ekonomiju gledanja, pitanje je koju vrijednost dobiva njihovo izvođenje čina gledanja te kako taj čin mijenja vrijednost gledanog unutar dominantnih reprezentacijskih modela.

I u jednoj i u drugoj izvedbi kao izvođačice su nastupile Sandra Banić i Selma Banich. Obje predstave su se bavile pozicijom ženskog subjekta kroz naglašavanje režima objektificirajućeg gledanja. Stvarajući Eve je u nekoliko navrata proizvodila prekid u tom režimu kroz naglašeno izvođačko fokusiranje gledatelja. Međutim, taj prekid, koji je bio jedan od osnovnih dramaturških otponaca u predstavi Fleshdance Nikoline Bujas Pristaš, i kroz koji se uspostavljala dijalektika gledanja od izvođačkog subjekta na sceni, preko redukcionističkog gledanja, koje je izvođačke subjekte svodilo na promatrane objekte kroz koje se konstituirao sam gledateljski subjekt, do samog naglašavanja bispektakularnosti izvedbe i reverzibilnosti čina gledanja, u Stvarajući Eve se događao sporadično. Ukoliko je određena politika gledanja samim činom izvođačkog gledanja bila destabilizirana, ona se defokusiranjem restaurirala, ojačavala i dobivala novu legitimaciju.

Banić i Banich su u dugim intervalima izlagale svoja tijela nereflektiranom objektificirajućem gledanju, ne predlažući nikakve jasne perceptivne i interpretativne strategije, ostavljajući samim gledateljima, a onda i  gledateljskoj zajednici, da odluči o načinu na koji može kreativno strukturirati svoju želju na podloženim tijelima. Međutim, gledateljska zajednica, ili barem ono što se pojavilo kao njezin reprezentant, izostanak recepcijsko-interpretativnog diktata nisu shvatili i uzeli kao mogućnost vlastite aktivacije, nego kao nedostatnost: “U rodnom smislu, predstava Stvarajući Eve mogla bi se shvatiti i kao esej o momentu variranja rodnog identiteta, jer jedno od ponovljenih kretanja izvođačica uključuje zgrčenost i preokretanje tijela na podu, najprije s istaknutim obilježjima ženskog tijela te kasnije s umetanjem u gaćice predmeta nalik penisu, no ni ova interpretacijska linija nije dostatno razrađena, nego tek nabačena.”

Iskustvo rada na Stvarajući Eve, način na koji se fokus prebacio s objektno orijentirane proizvodnje u plesu na proizvodnju zastoja u prostoru u kojem se događaju različite izvedbe čina gledanja, postao je dominantan u radu na produkciji Salona. Ukoliko je Stvarajući Eve još uvijek nudila jedno šire problemsko polje, koje je uključivalo i pitanje scenskog konstruiranja različitih identiteta (rodnog, izvođačkog...), statusa kolektivnog autorstva, prostora upisivanja hijerahija u izvedbi koje su u procesu, deklarativno i, donekle, praktično, bile dokinute, Salon je problemsko polje pokušao ograničiti na politike gledanja. Taj pokušaj mu je u bitnom odredio i formu i sadržaj. Banich i Banić cijelo vrijeme izvode jednostavne repetitivne svakodnevne radnje (slaganje i raslaganje kućica, rukovanje, hopsanje...). Ideja korištenja ovakvih radnji bila je neproduktivnost ili minimalna proizvodnja estetskih višaka, bilo čega što bi moglo preuzeti ornamentnu funkciju. Jednostavni zadaci od kojih je sastavljen Salon i konzekventnost u njihovu izvođenju, te njihovo trajanje koje je ukidalo ikakvu mogućnost progresije ili narativne organizacije scenske građe, bili su mišljeni kao mogućnosti naglašavanja izvedbe samog čina gledanja i njegovih konstitutivnih elemenata, kao i postavljanja pitanja zašto sam čin gledanja, kao ono što ostaje konstitutivno u izvedbi (nešto dobiva status izvedbe jer ulazi u specifičan režim gledanja), u većini izvedaba nema vidljivost ili tek minimalnu i sporadičnu. Čin gledanja i iznevjeravanje njegovih očekivanja u okvirima najšire postavljene objektne konzumacije unutar logike neoliberalnog umjetničkog tržišta, mišljeni su kao mogućnost gledateljske autorefleksije samog gledanja. Na onaj način na koji dokida/ukida/minimalizira dominatne reprezentacijske modele u izvedbenoj sferi (utrajavanje, svakodnevne repetitivne radnje, izostanak narativnog minimuma, itd. ne proizvode potrebnu kritičnu masu u kojoj bi scenska stvarnost postala adekvatan reprezentant vanscenskog), Salon problematizira i reprezentaciju gledateljske zajednice. Na koji način gledatelji uopće postaju zajednica? Koji je njihov zajednički interes koji ih određuje kao zajednicu i koji model reprezentacije adekvatno zastupa taj interes? Može li naglašavanje verifikatorske uloge gledateljske zajednice, koja upravo činom gledanja nešto potvrđuje ili diskvalificira kao izvedbu, postati zajednički nazivnik njezinog interesa? I, ukoliko da, postaje li Salon kao izvedba reprezentant tog interesa?

Ovaj tekst je nastao s intencijom da se pozabavi ne konkretnim učincima dviju produkcija OOUR-a u kojima sam i sâm sudjelovao, nego onim što se kroz rad na njima i kroz izvedbe koje su uslijedile pokazalo kao njihova daljnja mogućnost. Pisanje ovog teksta vidim prvenstveno kao njihov nastavak kroz diskurzivnu izvedbu.

From Viewing the Performance to Performing the Viewing

Oliver Frljić

The two productions of OOUR in which I collaborated as the dramaturge – Creation of Eve (2006) and Salon (2007) – sought to find mechanisms that would transfer the accent from the primary performance of the viewed to the very act of performing the viewing and the community of spectators. What is not articulated in either of the productions, be it in the sphere of performance or in that of the discourse, is what the community of spectators represents in this sort of thinking. If the performers, beside everything else, also perform an act of viewing, thus entering a sort of economy of viewing, the question is what value can be ascribed to their performance of the act of viewing and how that act alters the value of the viewed within the prevailing models of representation.

Sandra Banić and Selma Banich featured in both performances and both performances were about the position of the female subject, emphasizing the regime of objectifying viewing. Creation of Eve generated a gap in that regime on several occasions by emphasizing the way in which performers brought the spectators into the focus. Although that gap, which had been among the main dramaturgical triggers in Fleshdance by Nikolina Bujas Pristaš, establishing the dialectics of viewing between the performing subject on stage, the reductionist viewing – which reduced the performing subjects to viewed objects that constituted the very subject of the spectator – and the very emphasis on the bi-spectacular character of the performance and the reversibility of the viewing act, it occurred only sporadically in Creation of Eve. Whenever an established policy of viewing was destabilized through the very act of the performers’ viewing, it was subsequently restored by defocusing, thus gaining power and new legitimization.

Banić and Banich were exposing their bodies to a non-reflexive, objectifying viewing through long intervals of time, not suggesting any clear strategies of perception and interpretation, but leaving it to the spectators, to the community of spectators, to decide on the way in which they could creatively structure their desire on the subjected bodies. However, that community of spectators, or at least what appeared as its representative, did neither understand nor use the lack of dictate regarding reception and interpretation as a chance for their own activation, but saw it rather as a deficiency: “In terms of gender, Creation of Eve might be understood as an essay on the moment of varying gender identity, since the performers are repeatedly rolling on the floor in convulsions, first with the accentuated forms of the female body and then with something resembling a penis placed into their panties; and yet, even this line of interpretation is insufficiently elaborated and remains merely a hint.”

The experience of working on Creation of Eve, the way in which the focus shifted from an object-oriented production in dance to the production of suspension in space in which various performances of the act of viewing occur, became the dominant feature while working on the production of Salon. While Creation of Eve was still offering a broader field of problems, which included the question of constituting various identities (gender-related, performing, etc.) on stage, the status of collective authorship, the space of inscribing hierarchies of performance that were declaratively and to some extent even practically abolished in the process, Salon sought to limit that field of problems to the policies of viewing. That quest essentially defined both its form and its content. Banich and Banić continuously perform simple, repetitive everyday actions (assembling and disassembling small houses, shaking hands, hopping around). The idea behind using such actions has been minimal or zero production of aesthetic surpluses, of anything that might acquire an ornamental function. The simple tasks that constitute Salon and their consistent performance, as well as their duration, which abolishes any possibility of progression or narrative organization of stage material, are conceived as the possibilities of emphasizing the performance of the very act of viewing and its constitutive elements, as well as asking the question why the very act of viewing, as that which remains constitutive in the performance (something gains the status of performance because it becomes part of the specific regime of viewing), has no visibility in most performances, or only minimally and sporadically. The act of viewing and the betrayal of its expectations in the framework of very broadly set consummation of objects within the logic of the neoliberal art market, are thought as the possibility of self-reflection on the very viewing on the side of the spectator. In the way in which it abolishes/negates/minimalizes the dominant models of representation in the sphere of performance (endurance, everyday repetitive actions, lack of a narrative minimum, etc. do not produce a critical mass in which the reality of performance would become an adequate representative of the extra-performative), Salon questions, among other things, the representation of the community of spectators. In what way do the spectators become a community in the first place? What is their common interest, which defines them as a community, and which model of representation does adequately stand for that interest? Can emphasizing the verificatory role of the community of spectators, which acknowledges or disqualifies something as a performance precisely through the act of viewing, become the common denominator of its interest? And if so, does Salon as a performance become the representative of that interest?

I have written this text not with an aim of analyzing the concrete results of the two productions of OOUR in which I have participated, but with that of dealing with those things that emerged as a possibility during our work on these productions and the ensuing performances. Thus, I consider my writing about them primarily as their continuation through discursive performance.