Photo property of AP

As Russia’s election nears, protests meet counterprotests meet little white balloons, tied on cars circling the Garden Ring. With an exercise in mass hand-holding scheduled for this Sunday, critic and openspace editor Katya Degot has paused to warn protesters that such lyrical gestures can dilute the message of the protest.

Today, Degot outlined her argument in an article for the Russian newspaper Vedomosti, economically titled “Less Art!”  This article was written in Russian, but as it has ignited quite a debate among the Russian art community, we have decided to offer our own translation here, for the purposes of this blog.

To be clear: what follows is Baibakov Art Project’s own translation of the article for the purposes of this blog and this conversation and should not be quoted as a translation approved by the author or the original source, which can be found here.

Less Art!

This Sunday, many of us will get up off of the couch and, as is becoming the habit these days, go stand a while, only this time holding hands. I will go too.

This will no doubt be an enjoyable experience. Whether or not it will actually be effective remains to be seen, but perhaps it was not intended to be effective. The act of standing around the Garden Ring should not advance a particular position. It should have no other purpose than to be worthwhile in and of it itself, as a type of true art.

Art is the key word here. Many have already observed that it will resemble a collective performance, a flash mob. If it were summer, I’m sure the mobilized masses would show up in swim trunks and bikinis, if not entirely naked, like with the thousand-person actions of Spencer Tunick.

To make an artistic gesture is to do something interesting, something original and, in the end, beautiful. It is also to do something not entirely in full earnestness.

Another purely artistic gesture can be found in these white-ballooned trips around the Garden Ring. Much of how this has evolved from the protest developed in the space of the symbolic and the unreal – from which also sprung the ruling party’s wish “to thaw under the rays of the spring sunshine.” All very creative.

As far as one can tell, this depoliticization of the protest gesture is not coming from the leaders of the protest movement (who could then be suspected of being bribed into disarming the masses.) It is largely the will of the movement itself, or at least of the part that is always trying to take the full credit for the movement. This is an educated, financially stable, young creative class, working in fields like mass culture, entertainment, advertising, media and the like. Their pretensions are more informed by aesthetics and taste than anything else. Power for them is something anonymous, gray and entrenched.

This creative class (of which there is quite a lot in Moscow and other major cities, especially if one includes those who aspire to this class) has until only recently shunned general politics – for instance, the Strategy 31 demonstrations – in the same way, as something too colorless and un-artistic. It still to this day secretly despises the economically disadvantaged lower classes, as well as pointed financial demands, on which they assume the position of the left. To make an artistic gesture is something interesting, something original (and therefore not obliged to proclaim membership to any group this class feels may be beneath its principles), something, in the end, beautiful. It is to do something not entirely in full earnestness. This leaves a loophole. A genuine, straightforward gesture never leaves this type of out for itself.

While it is still difficult to imagine that we might have something like what just happened in Madrid – a million people taking to the streets for a very concrete reason, in all earnestness, pointlessly and persistently protesting against one article of the Labor Code. Such specificity is still jarring to most Russians. Even the spontaneously protesting creative class is constantly torn away from areas of ethics, economics and politics, and into aesthetics. It’s more familiar and safer there. What’s more, this aesthetic zone offers a sense of superiority; in our country, culture is historically understood as a guarantee of elitism, a sort of surrogate capital, as there really wasn’t that much to go around to begin with.

It was for this very reason that a year ago the actions of the group Voina were elevated to a cult status. In Voina, what we saw is not artists entering into the realm of the social, but rather, society itself taking on the mantle of artistic intention to make the necessary gesture of protest.

That’s how it was a year ago, and Voina served as a symptom of powerlessness – a powerful and frightening symptom. But the situation has radically changed since, and now there is a chance for political power, not just for the powerless. Today there is no justification for the constant retreat into the area of artistic expression.

Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has called art one of the major areas for the rejection of the social, a factory for its destruction. Any artist knows that he holds in his hands the weapons of depoliticization, decontextualization and decoration, and for this very reason, the relationship of the true artist to art is always complex and ambivalent. Today it is the artists who are calling upon the others to be more careful with the lighter side of creativity. Now is one of those moments when the added injection of art can prove to be deadly.

Ekaterina Degot, Vedomosti, No 7 (289), 24 February 2012

Translation Kate Sutton, Baibakov Art Projects

According to a statement sent out yesterday:

The “012 Baku Public Art” Festival will feature the work of twenty-one of the finest emerging and established artists in Azerbaijan. Each has been given the task of creating a visual reinterpretation of a setting that holds significance for them within the city. Working alongside local historians, they have made a detailed study of their chosen location, whether a building, park or balcony. The Festival will launch with a temporary exhibition of the sketches, notes, photographs and films made during this creative process. These materials will be on public display between the 25 February and 1 March 2012 at the “UNS Creative Stage”.

From 9 March 2012 one public art work will be unveiled, every Friday, over twenty one weeks, on the site which inspired their creation. This will allow the work of each artist to be celebrated individually, as though in a solo exhibition, but in fact as part of a city-wide festival. By bringing their work into the public sphere, the artists will gain creative freedom and will achieve a higher level of exposure without the constraints imposed by a gallery or museum.

All events are free and open to the public. For more information about the festival, please contact info@yarat.az or check the festival’s Facebook page.

Dan Perjovschi. “Damien,” 2012. Drawing, variable dimensions, variable technique. Courtesy the artist.

We posted earlier about the Kyiv Biennale which will open this May with David Elliot’s project “The Best of Times, The Worst of Times. Rebirth and Apocalypse in Contemporary Art.” Today, the Biennale announced its Discussion Program, which has been assembled by Ekaterina Degot under the title “What Is and What Should Never Be: Art After the End of the World.”

According to a statement sent out through e-flux, the program revolves around the thesis that “Art is quite comfortable with the idea of the end of art. But how can art deal with the end of the world?”

The utopian tradition of the artistic reinvention of society has become a political necessity today. The basic question of the platform and the accompanying publication—”What is and what should never be?”—is addressed not to professional politicians and economists, but rather to artists, philosophers, activists and theoreticians. We expect that the answers to this question will contribute to the process of inventing our postapocalyptic world anew, with a particular focus on the situation of “art after the end of the world.” We are aware of the pivotal role of the institution of contemporary art within neocapitalism—contemporary art with its logic of innovation and postindustrial immaterial practice, with its spirit of resistance (so often defeatist) and its critical attitude (so easy to domesticate).

All events will take place in Kyiv’s Mystetskyi Arsenale (which has also proved “easy to domesticate” – up until recently the Arsenale was the site of livelier projects like the artist-initiated Gogolfest.)

The schedule includes lectures by freelance curator Simon Sheikh (February 29), e-flux founder artist Anton Vidokle (March 23), theorist Franco Berardi (May 7), critic Boris Groys (May 14), and philosopher-sociologist Renata Salecl (May 25.) On April 6-8, the biennale will host a conference with participation from  Zygmunt Bauman, Boris Buden, Ilya Budraitskis, Vasyl Cherepanyn, Sebastian Cichocki, Maria Hlavajova, Aleksandra Jasinska-Kania, Artem Magun, Oleksiy Radynski, Gerald Raunig, Slawomir Sierakowski, and Oksana Timofeeva, to name a few.

For more information and updates, check the site.

The Museum will exist in two iterations. The permanent collection will reside in a bomb shelter on site at ArtPlay. The second collection will be installed within a specially-outfitted bus, and then driven to neighboring cities outside the capital, with an earnestness that almost seems anachronistic in the internet era (though according to the site, hyper-designed by the Dutch LAVA group,  it’s “AHEAD OF ITS TIME!”)

The telegraph room at the Polytechnical Museum

Considering Moscow’s wealth of marvelous museums (from the Borodinsky Panorama to the Military Museum to the wondrous Museum of the Cosmonauts), it is quite perplexing why Moscow has not had a design museum before (although to be fair, the Soviet juggernaut, the Polytechnical Museum, perhaps eclipsed the need with its anything-goes displays, which are currently getting a very modern facelift.) A recent attempt was made with MOD “The Center of Modern Design and Innovation”, until it was discovered that the space amounted to little more than the foyer to a mini-mall specializing in oriental carpets and interior knickknacks. (The Moscow Times still has footage of MOD‘s innovative first exhibition – Karim Rashid.)

We look forward to learning more about what this new museum can do for Moscow.

Installation view of Identity, Artists Space, 2011. Photo Daniel Perez.

In a noteworthy extended piece for the Observer, writer Andrew Russeth talks with Stefan Kalmár, the former director of the Kunstverein Munich who since 2009 has served as the director for New York’s alternative art space pioneer, Artists Space.

Russeth uses Artists Space’s plans to extend its program (and its real estate holdings, with a new Soho address in the works) as a jumping point for a discussion on the role of alternative spaces today. Institutions like the Independent Art Fair continue to blur boundaries in how a nonprofit behaves, and, as Kalmár points out, the market’s (albeit often speculative) attention to younger talent means that emerging artists no longer look to nonprofits as their only platform for exhibiting.  In a quote from Russeth’s article:

People still saw Artists Space as a sort of advocacy organization that should promote young artists’ careers, that we should essentially test run artists for the market, and I don’t think that’s what we should do. Our thing is to make a program…

Unlike any other organization, we are the space for artists. But we are not necessarily the space for artists by showing them.

Not everyone agrees with this. Kalmár and crew faced criticism earlier in October, when a misguided branch of the Occupy movement decided to try its luck squatting in one of the few non-profits that has worked steadfastly to secure artists’ rights.

Indeed, Artists Space has a committed partnership with WAGE (Working Artists and the Greater Economy), a group advocating artists’ rights and fair compensation for artists’ work (not just the kind that hangs on the wall, but an entire range of services from artists’ talks to the reproduction of images.)

This winter, WAGE kicked off a series of town-hall style meetings at Artists Space to establish a universal Artists Contract that would ensure artists’ rights are protected within institutions, revisiting earlier examples (like the Art Workers Coalition or, more recently, Andrea Frasier’s “How to Provide an Artistic Service“.)

Fischli&Weiss, "How to Work Better" (1991)

Russeth cites a number of other case studies, including Hunter College’s The Artist Institute, headed up by Anthony Huberman. In particular, Russeth draws from Huberman’s text “Take Care”, which applies the guidelines given in Fischli&Weiss’  ”How to Work Better” (1991) to the world of art institutions.

While these mainstream or commercial structures might take risks with what they show, few take risks with how they work. In most cases, they produce exhibitions, one after the other, and strategically compete for larger audiences and for more widespread recognition. The challenge for a contemporary alternative space or curatorial approach is to behave differently.

Huberman’s resolution is to take care. The Artist Institute splits each year into two seasons, each devoted to one artist. According to its model, the Artist Institute will show only one piece at a time, giving visitors the time to really contemplate and explore the artist’s works. Occasional events will highlight other practices or offer other perspectives. (Last week, curator Beatrix Ruf kicked off the current season with a talk on featured artist Rosemarie Trockel.)

It should be interesting to see how other nonprofits respond (particularly those who do not enjoy the same situation as New York, with its plethora of exhibition spaces and support systems for artists.)

Read the entire article here.

Nominees for Work of Art include projects by Andrei Kuskin, who was recently featured in Performa’s 33 Fragments of Russian Performance, alongside other relative newcomers MishMash and Kuda Beguyut Sobaki (Where the Dogs Run) as well as Alexander Brodsky and Vitas Stasyunas.

Still from Olga Chernysheva, Trashmen, 2011, featured at Auditorium Moscow

No surprise, nominees for Curatorial Projects are plucked straight from the Moscow Biennale roster: Marina Zvyaginsteva and Yuriy Samodurov’s “South Butovo: Dormitory District”, Katya Degot and David Riff’s Auditorium Moscow: A Sketch for Public Space”, Olesya Turkina’s Necrorealism (whose catalogue is also nominated under the Theory, Criticism and Art History catagory) and Victor Misiano’s “Impossible Community.”  A pleasant addition is Andrei Smirnov’s “Generation Z”, which explores the sound experiments of the 1910-1930′s.

Taus Makhacheva, The Fast and the Furious, 2011

Of course, we always enjoy the New Generation nominees, particularly as we have had the pleasure of working with many of the artists, including Alexey Buldakov (nominated alongside Anastasya Ryabova for the clever video ATTENTIONWHORES) and Valery Shtak, nominated for his Bits of Truth project. Other nominees include Roman Mokrov, Alexander Gronsky, and Taus Makhacheva for her “The Fast and Furious” project, featured in the main project of the Moscow Biennale.

We congratulate all of the nominees and look forward to the exhibition!

Lada Nakonechnaya, Personal Shield

According to a statement from co-curator Serge Klymko:

On February 10, 2012, President of NaUKMA (National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy) Sergey Kvita ordered “Ukrainian Body,” an exhibition that explores the problematics of corporality in Ukrainian society, to be closed only three days after its opening. The entrance to the gallery is now locked. Sergey Kvit explained his action with the following reasoning: “It’s not an exhibition, it’s shit.”
The consequence of such an action, which we consider to be an unacceptable act of censorship, against a public space for dialogue neglects important social and political problems and suppresses critical reflection. The exhibition, which was slated to close on February 28, presents works by Ukrainian artists Anatoly Belov, Eugenia Belorusets, Oksana Bryukhovetsky, Alexander Volodarsky, Nikita Kadan, Volodymyr Kuznetsov, Liubov Malikov, Lada Nakonechna, Mykola Ridnii , and many others.

We can only hope that such a thoughtless act on the part of the university’s administration was the result of a misunderstanding that can be resolved. We are now petitioning to collect signatures to protest against artistic censorship within the walls of NaUKMA. Please, spread this message within the artistic and intellectual communities.

Nikita Kadan, The Corrupt

Among the works included in the exhibition were a series of drawings, “The Corrupt” by artist Nikita Kadan, who was recently awarded the PinchukArtCentre Prize. The drawings combine anatomical sketches with architectural blueprints.

More information about the exhibition is available here. For images from the show, check out the link to Art Ukraine.

Edge of Arabia took a stab at answering, with its homecoming exhibition in Jeddah, candidly titled We Need to Talk. The idea for the cultural initiative sprung from an artist Stephen Stapleton’s 2003 visit to the Al Meftaha Artist Village, in which it became evident that the country lacked the means to promote and integrate Saudi artists into the larger international art world. The first international exhibition launched in London in 2008, and since then, the organization has sent group exhibitions of Saudi and Arab art across the globe, including the first ever pan-Arab presentation at Venice, The Future of a Promise.

We Need to Talk features over 40 artists brought together by co-curators Mohammed Hafiz and Stephen Stapleton. The exhibition is sited in a raw space within the Al Furusya Marina, a magnificent yacht club complex, and the kick-off symposium took place at the nearby university.

For more information, check out this review of the weekend by Baibakov Art Projects’ founder and chief curator, Maria Baibakova, who manages to capture the entire experience – from the various visa hurdles to seating at the symposium to learning the value of saying one’s name. In particular she takes a hard look at the position of female artists like Manal al-Dowayan and what happens when the air kisses of the international art world clash with local customs.

Read it online here, at Art Asia Pacific.

At the "We Need to Talk" opening. Photo by Maria Baibakova.

Ilya Glazunov, Portrait of V. I. Matvienko, 200

In a what would be comical if it weren’t so chilling turn for the Russian art world, painter Ilya Glazunov entreated Vladimir Putin  to take up the case of realistic painters, struggling to eek out a living in the landscape of so-called “contemporary art.” According to Glazunov’s testimony, such painters are forced to forge careers abroad, while “contemporary art” thrives in Russia. As an example, he called up an exhibition in which one work basically consisted of a toilet. (It is safe to assume he wasn’t talking about the Society of Independent Artists exhibition of 1917.) He urged restrictions to be put in place to level the playing field for poor struggling artists like himself, who must get by on little more than his own personal state-funded museum, directly across from the Kremlin.

For his part, Putin agreed with Glazunov, lamenting that important artists like Malevich were forced to go abroad. Putin hastily clarified that Malevich’s Black Square didn’t qualify as “painting in the traditional sense,” but he still counted as an example as everyone knows “he could draw well.”

And while the Premier was clear he is not interested in banning more art – “We’ve already done that” – he did advocate for more support for realism. “Not Socialist Realism, but just Realism.”

Curators, put down your notepads – exhibitions entitled “Just Realism” have already blanketed the social networks.

Starting today, the Victor Pinchuk Foundation will accept online applications for the Future Generation Art Prize, which recognizes artists under 35 years of age with a generous grant towards the production of a work.

Baibakov Art Projects will continue to serve as a Partner Platform for the contest, which was awarded to Cinthea Mircelle in 2010.

More details were revealed today in a press release broadcast internationally.  The $100,000 prize ($60,000 in cash, $40,000 towards the production of a new work) includes a pairing with one of the mentor artists Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, Takashi Murakami or Andreas Gursky, and the winner’s work will be exhibited alongside an exhibition by Gursky.

Applications are available online, from now until March 6. For more information, check the Future Generation Art Prize website.