SECOND NATURE ANDREA PALAŠTI and THE CULTURE OF MEMORY /MARIJA RATKOVIĆ AND DEJAN VASIĆ/
Second Nature is questioning the policies that form the cultural memory of a community through documenting places (landscapes) of burial sites and indexing objects found on places of mass graves, camps and private objects from the period of the World War II in Serbia (Yugoslavia). Researching the incomplete and personal - small histories of people who have disappeared, the series of photographs presents an index of what lies hidden and out-of-view within the memories of the World War II. Second nature is a combination of nature, language, culture, society and economy, through which we can only perceive an environment. Second nature functions as a textual and visual deconstruction of dominant narratives of past and present, and thus makes visible the processes of forming a cultural memory of the World War II.
_THE CULTURE OF MEMORY: PRESENT OF THE PAST Dejan Vasić and Marija Ratković
“If the present is actually distinguishable from the future and the past, it is because it is presence of something, which precisely stops being present when it is replaced by something else” Gilles Deleuze A set of projects named The Culture of Memory points out the importance of the cultural memory concept as an important factor of cultural identity. From its very beginning in 2010, the work of The Culture of Memory in Sabac is focused on fostering youth selforganization, active reflections on the past and engaged activities within the public sphere. The focus of this year’s project The Culture of Memory: Present of the Past is reconsidering the dominant history and reactualization of discarded and forgotten, i.e. Other pasts and their politics. Within the theoretical concept of The Culture of Memory, we wish to try through collaborative approach with the participants - lectures, workshops and discussions to re-politicize collective memories on several topics related to WWII. It starts from the assumption that memory is different from history, which is primarily longitudinal, in that the memory tends to keep within the events, to remain init, and to deepen the knowledge, and reach it from within (Gilles Deleuze). The Present of the Past concept re-examines policies which form the cultural memory of the community, because neither memory nor forgetting processes are isolated from political realities of the society, at the time when the memory is created. The ways in which communities and individuals remember the past and
construct cultural memory, are deeply political because they can substantially determine ways of representing that community in the present. The Present of the Past is nothing else but the past in the present, or what is otherwise called “memory”. Our work is related to the studies of incomplete histories of WWII, mapping time images, and the production of knowledge about the past that is not part of public memory and public history. In addition, all the remains, physical evidence and artifacts from the period of the WWII, although few and subjected to manipulation, make the material dimension of culture memories, and therefore they are an important part of our project, reflections, curatorial practice and theoretical work. Through consideration of Kladovo transport, public visits to places of mass executions, as well as sites of struggle and resistance in WWII and by examination issues raised by the restitution process, we would like to pose the question “What happened after the War?”, and crucially – to establish the Discourse of present for the pasts we deal with.
_INTERVIEW BY DANA MAKSIMOVIĆ, RADIO ŠABAC 4. December 2012. 11h
Past of the present, present of the past, culture of memory, or official and unofficial politics in the region, artist’s status and the question of the extent to which an artist can remain outside of reality due to his/her art, or become an active participant of the existing reality, but also of the past that is behind us. Recurrences of the past: is this what happens to us because we did not confront our past earnestly enough in this region? What is the price that we have to pay for it now? We are going to talk about all these things with young, yet so mature artists, the artists with a specific perspective on reality, art and life in the region. There are actually three exhibitions going on at the moment. We have to note that the exhibition in the Town’s Cultural Centre will be closed tomorrow, while the exhibition in the Library of Sabac will be opened until December 12th. This is the reason to have our guests this morning in the studio of the Sabac Radio, Ms Marija Ratković, theoretician and Mr Dejan Vasić, art historian. Welcome. It is my pleasure to have you in our studio, Marija, once again after quite a long time. You came here the last year when we talked about the Golden Age of Šabac, while now we shall focus on a story with a much more bearing on our everyday life: recurrences of the past, official and unofficial politics. To what extent do you, as a young theoretician, agree to reality that surrounds you and to the past that’s behind you, to the official and unofficial versions of it, and all this, of course, a propos the project
entitled The Culture of Memory, providing that you and Dejan are the curators of these exhibitions? M: We started from the fact that we have to acknowledge the political reality that we live in to a certain extent, and so we named our project in this way – Present of the Past, dealing with the echo of the past that can be identified in the present in which we live. This year in our Culture of Memory project, we decided to deal with the memories of the World War II, i.e. the things we had to forget and the things we remembered. Main themes of the project are the relicts of what we remembered and the contents that served as a basis to form the memories of the World War II. We have dealt with a number of topics this year, the Kladovo Transport being one of them, and then of course the sights of suffering and sights of struggle and of resistance in the World War II. We have invited three female artists this year, Andrea Palašti, Milica Tomić and Vahida Ramujkić. We did a research with Andrea and we had a few study visits to different localities, because we connected our work made for Šabac with the work we had presented on the Pančevo Art Biennale, in September and October in Pančevo. On that occasion, we visited the locations in Šabac where the participants of the Kladovo Transport had been accommodated, we visited the locations of mass shootings in Zasavica and Jabuka near Pančevo, and we went to Kladovo to research the details related to the ship Tsar Nicolay the Second, the ship that brought the Jews from all over the Europe that were escaping Nazism, to our country and our town, in the eve of the WWII.
What is your culture of memory? What are your memories of the things you learned in school, and are those memories in conflict with the reality that surrounds us, or the past that’s behind us? M: It is very important to say that we, working on this project, adopted a better term than culture of memory, which is politics of memory. It is because during our
research, we realized that dominant politics always have a major impact on the culture of memory, but also that the culture of memory may induce politics. The culture of memory is thus a mix of the things that we learned in school, which represents the dominant, adopted version of the history, and the things that we got to know privately, through family histories and the stories of the people we cooperated with. I believe this to be important since the balance has to be stricken between the histories and, what I believe to be even more important, the politics need to be produced in this process.
The present moment is actually ideal for you to give us a short recount of two stories, two events related to the work of Andrea Palašti, the story of the golden purse and story of the book. I think that these events will be quite sufficient to emphasize our discussion about memory and about denial of the reality, rejection of the possibility that evil might also happen to us. This is highly important in these times, because of everything that is happening. M: Andrea’s exhibition depicts the landscapes and objects found on locations and related to the locations of suffering in the World War II. The exhibition opens with the photograph of a book, the book entitled “The Eroded Village” by a Hungarian author Deszo Szabo, to which an interesting story is related. That book belonged to Lujza Stajic, a friend of Andrea’s grandmother, and Mrs Lujza is a book collector and book lover. During her childhood, she lent this book to a girlfriend of hers who was Jewish. Their careless life was interrupted by the war. “The Novi Sad raid”, the massacre happened in Novi Sad on January 1942, our listeners might have read about it, Danilo Kis wrote of it – his father went missing then, and similar destiny was in store for all the Jews in Novi Sad, including Lujza’s friend. Lujza wanted to reclaim that book so she went to her friend’s house, but she had already been taken away. As she knew German, Lujza spoke to the soldiers who told
her that there was no one in the house and that she had no business being there. She asked them to let her search for her book, and they allowed it so the book was once again in her possession. (‌) Only this artefact illustrates a whole spectrum of politics that were involved and later on resulted in one girl’s being left dead in a river, while the other remained and was able to tell us this story. And she kept this book. This also bears significance when we talk about what was remembered and what was forgotten. In the official versions, published in newspapers, this was presented as a story on how war had separated two girls, but we believe that it points to an underlying problem of Otherness and of the exclusion of that someone that we recognize as Other, thereby not having enough solidarity, or simply enough power, to do something about what happens as citizens. The other story concerns a golden purse which belongs today to the family owning the Mojse jewellery store in Novi Sad. The golden purse has been with them since 1941, I think, while it had been previously owned by an anonymous Jewish family. This is just one from the whole range of stories about property changing owners, conditioned by a set of legislation that Dejan has mentioned. This is also a story about the people who had to start selling off their assets due to their difficult financial situation. These events still happen daily, but in the pre-war period they enabled a whole community to survive. The golden purse is one of the few objects that remained as they were; it was not melted down, as it usually happens with old gold pieces. This fact makes it a paradigm of all those objects that perhaps weren’t precious enough to be kept, which also tells us something about museum culture, the fact that only a mere fraction of all things is being kept, and that valuables share the destiny of all other regular objects, but also of the everyday practices that sink into oblivion.
Well, no more oblivion, at least while we are concerned. And since we are nearing the end of our talk today, I would like to conclude with the story of the firing ranges. To what extent
these stories and these analogies emphasize reality for you, and to what extent do they in fact induce ambivalence in you, as artists and as human beings? Dejan, to what extent are you able to separate your profession – which is art – from yourself as a person, from that humanity and warmth that you carry in you? To what extent were you appalled or horrified, and do you think that it might be your advantage, or even disadvantage professionally? What is the moral of these stories and to what extent does it reflect reality? D: I would like to add that, apart from these two exhibits that Marija mentioned, there are also a set of ten photographs that are exhibited together with the interposed texts. The texts contribute to better understanding of the entire exhibition, as well as of the photos themselves. The exhibition is entitled “Second Nature”, which actually invokes a thesis by Theodor Adorno that after genocide, nature appears in a different form. We cannot exclude history of an object or a place, and observe them just as beautiful objects, or landscapes. The three of us have travelled during our research which lasted approximately for three months, and whenever we arrived to different location, such as Zasavica, Jabuka or Kladovo, we would interact with the local population. We actually wanted to find out how much the local population knew about the events that had taken place in their environment. When we went to Zasavica, the three of us would stop in front of almost every house and ask “Excuse me, where is the location of the 1941 mass shooting?” or “Where is the monument to the people shot here in 1941?” At first, absolutely no one was able to tell us where those places were, where the monument was, and it is actually located at the very entrance to the village. They sent us to a monument to hajduks, to a WWI monument, anyone who had some notion about where some monument was, would send us there, and we strayed around in circles. We were wandering until a man, hearing our question, asked “Do you mean the Jews?” we avoided asking “Where were
the Jews shot?” because we assumed that when we asked about the people being shot in 1941 that it also included the Jews and the Roma. We then realized that the exclusion through Otherness is very much alive today. In our research, we tried to deconstruct this dominant narrative. We read in a newspaper that the field belonging to certain Lazar Ljubičić, where the mass grave was located, and where people had actually been shot on October 13th and 14th 1941, has never been cultivated since, because it was soaked in blood. When we went to that field, we found corn there two metres high. That narrative about uncultivated field persisted due to the fact that people usually go there in October, when all the crops being grown there are already picked. Our facing with a number of places of suffering during our research, resulted in the question: “What is our attitude to all that?” On the location of the former Concentration Camp on the river Sava, today we have recreational shooting range. It is the same in the village of Jabuka, that is, at the execution site in the village Jabuka near Pančevo. On the monument that had been set up in 1981 and represents an awarded piece of landscape architecture, the alterations were made in 2002 and a concrete outlet was added to facilitate the launching of clay pigeons. There’s a whole series of questions that we have to ask ourselves: What is our attitude to these events and in what way do we treat these places? Could these firing ranges be elsewhere than at the locations of mass killings? Why these recreational shooting ranges are located exactly at the places of executions? So much for coincidences… (…)
The book of Lujza Stajić, Szabó Dezső - Az elsodort falu, Novi Sad, 2012.
Zasavica I, 2012.
Zasavica I, 2012.
Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), Provincial Secretariat for the Protection of Nature, Novi Sad, 2012.
Execution site, Field Poloj - Land of Lazar Ljubičić, Zasavica II, 2012.
Memorial grave to the victims of fascism killed in Zasavica, Zasavica II, 2012.
Corn (Zea mays), Field Poloj - Land of Lazar Ljubičić, Zasavica II, 2012.
Golden bag, since 1941. in the possession of family Mojse, Jewelers Mojse, Novi Sad, 2012.
Bullets, Shooting Club CER Ĺ abac - shooting range, Barracks on the Sava River, Ĺ abac, 2012.
The old mill, Ĺ abac, 2012.
Target, Shooting Club CER Šabac - shooting range, Barracks on the Sava River, Šabac, 2012.
Memorial to the victims of fascism killed in Jabuka, Stratište, near the village of Jabuka, 2012.
Execution site – Stratište, near the village of Jabuka, 2012.
Clay pigeons, Stratište, near the village of Jabuka, 2012.
Execution site – Stratište, near the village of Jabuka, 2012.
Shotgun bullets, Stratište, near the village of Jabuka, 2012.
Memorial to the victims of the Kladovo transport, Kladovo, 2012.
Photograph of the Car Nikolaj II steamboat, from the box: Kladovo transport JIM 2002, The Jewish Historical Museum, Belgrade, 2012.
Memorial candle, Kladovo, 2012.
Fence, Shooting Club CER Šabac - shooting range, Barracks on the Sava River, Šabac, 2012.
Cemetery of The Liberators of Belgrade, Belgrade, 2012.
_ANDREA PALAŠTI obtained her BFA and MFA degree from the Academy of Arts in Novi Sad at the department of Photography. Since 2006 she has been exhibiting widely and working together with other artists, artistic collectives and initiatives. In 2013 she was awarded the 54th October Salon Award for her work Balkan Disco. As a stipendist of the Ministry of Science of the Republic of Serbia, she is currently a PhD fellow at the University of Arts, at the department for Art and Media Theory in Belgrade. She is working across artistic and curatorial boundaries that centers on context-specific uses of art, with particular attention to socio-cultural processes. (www.andreapalasti.com) _DEJAN VASIĆ is art historian by education, working as indenpendent curator, theorist and cultural worker. Currently acting as a member of the Working group “Four Faces of Omarska” and Culture of memory platform. He is one of the founders of Initiative for Contemporary Art and Theory in Belgrade. His focus of interest is in the field of politics of memory and contemporary art as critical and political practice. _MARIJA RATKOVIĆ is an art and media theorist based in Belgrade. Her work is related to culture and politics of memory, politics of everyday life and (in)visible institutional and state violence. As an independent art worker, she participates in a diverse range of projects, on the one hand, as a (co)initiator, (co)coordinator/ (co)leader, researcher, lecturer or (co)organizer of conferences, workshops, cultural events, public discussions, and on the other hand, as a curator, theoretician, (co)editor and (co)author of exhibitions, artworks, publications. She collaborates with many artists and art collectives wordwide. Co-founder of the Initiative for Contemporary Art and Theory and the new media platform AWOL (always online http://awol.rs).
_THE CULTURE OF MEMORY: Present of the Past Project The Culture of Memory: Present of the Past is finalized in partnership of The Culture of Memory Group and Association Light, supported by the Municipality of Šabac and Ministry of Culture and Information of Republic Serbia, as well as the Pančevo Biennale of Arts 2012.
_SPECIAL THANKS TO: Vladimir Miladinović, Milan Radanović, Ana Vilenica, Nikola Dedić, Vera Mevorah, Jelena Petrović, Aneta Stojnić, Boris Šribar, family Ljubičić from Zasavica, the Jewish Association from Belgrade, the Jewish historical museum Belgrade, Pančevo Town Archive, and gallery Open Systems Vienna
_KULTURA SJEĆANJA: SADAŠNJOST PROŠLOSTI Dejan Vasić i Marija Ratković
Ako se sadašnjost razlikuje od budućnosti i od prošlosti, to je zato što predstavlja prisustvo nečega što prestaje biti prisutno kad je zamijenjeno nečim drugim. /Gilles Deleuze/ Skup projekata pod zajedničkim nazivom Kultura sjećanja ukazuje na značaj koncepta kulture sjećanja kao važnog činitelja kulturalnog identiteta grada. Od svog nastanka 2010. djelovanje Kulture sjećanja u Šapcu usmjereno je na poticanje samoorganizacije mladih, aktivnog promišljanja prošlosti i angažiranog djelovanja u javnoj sferi. Fokus je ovogodišnjeg projekta Kultura sjećanja: Sadašnjost prošlosti na repolitizaciji zajedničkim radom sa sudionicima projekta, putem predavanja, radionica i diskusija, sjećanja sugrađana na nekoliko tema vezanih uz Drugi svjetski rat. U tome polazimo od teze da se sjećanje razlikuje od povijesti koja je prvenstveno longitudinalna, po tome što sjećanje teži da se zadrži unutar događaja, da u njemu ostane, produbi znanje i da dođe do njega iznutra /Gilles Deleuze/. Koncept Sadašnjost prošlosti preispituje politike koje formiraju kulturalno sjećanje zajednice, jer ni pamćenje ni zaboravljanje nisu procesi koji su izolirani od političke realnosti društva, u vremenu u kojem sjećanje nastaje. Načini na koje se zajednice i pojedinci sjećaju prošlosti, odnosno konstruiraju kulturalno sjećanje, duboko su politični jer u velikoj mjeri mogu odrediti načine prezentacije te zajednice u sadašnjosti. Sadašnjost prošlosti nije ništa drugo do prošlost prisutna u sadašnjosti, odnosno ono što
se drugačije naziva sjećanjem. Naš se rad odnosi na istraživanje nepotpunih povijesti Drugog svjetskog rata, mapiranje izostavljenih slika vremena, produkciju znanja o prošlostima koje nisu dio javnog sjećanja i javne povijesti. Pri tome, svi ostatci; materijalni dokazi i artefakti iz perioda Drugog svjetskog rata, iako malobrojni i podložni manipulaciji, čine materijalnu dimenziju kulture sjećanja i stoga su značajan dio našeg projekta, promišljanja, kustoskih praksi i teorijskog rada. Razmatranjem Kladovskog transporta, obilascima mjesta stradanja, borbe i otpora Drugom svjetskom ratu, kao i otvaranjem pitanja koja pokreće proces restitucije, želimo postaviti pitanje „Što se dogodilo nakon završetka rata?“ i ključno – da uspostavimo diskurs sadašnjosti s prošlostima o kojima se govori.
_KAKO, ZAŠTO I ČEGA SE SJEĆAMO KADA SE SJEĆAMO PROŠLOSTI? Marija Ratković
Kultura sjećanja polazi od teze da je sjećanje uvijek motivirano sadašnjošću i njezinim politikama, s obzirom da u sadašnjem trenutku odabiremo koji će događaji iz prošlosti ući u tijelo našeg sjećanja, a koji će - nasuprot tome - biti potisnuti i na kraju - zaboravljeni. Tema ovogodišnjeg projekta Kultura sjećanja je sjećanje na Drugi svjetski rat. Sam projekt smo nazvali Sadašnjost prošlosti, referirajući se na Deleuzeovu tezu da se svi vremenski trenutci sustižu u sadašnjosti koja jedina nudi prostor djelovanja. Baveći se Drugim svjetskim ratom, odlučili smo ovu temu produbiti izvan onoga što smo mogli saznati prateći longitudinalni tok povijesti. Dotaknuli smo se tema: - Čega se sjećamo - materija sjećanja na Drugi svjetski rat: dokumenti, artefakti, povijesni napisi i svjedočanstva. - Kako se sjećamo – istraživanje metodologije nastave povijesti, procesa memorijalizacije i medijskog govora o prošlosti. Da bismo na kraju pokušali odgovoriti na pitanje: - Zašto se sjećamo - da to sjećanje dekonstruiramo, prekomponiramo – upravo odgovorima na pitanja zašto se sjećamo onoga čega se sjećamo, što smo sve zaboravili u toku 70 godina koje su prošle i za što nam je sjećanje bitno u sadašnjosti. Još od prvog projekta 2011., kada smo se aktivno prisjetili 19. st. i vladavine
Jevrema Obrenovića prozvane “Zlatno doba Šapca”, dekonstruirali smo tijelo već formiranog sjećanja na Šabac kao “Mali Pariz” i otkrili da je to sjećanje sastavljeno u istoj mjeri od povijesnih kao i od nepotpunih, osobnih sjećanja koja nisu niti provjerena niti točna, ali su nastavila živjeti i u sadašnjosti se obnavljaju. Saznali smo tako da šabački “prvi klavir” nije bio prvi, ali da su postojale prve žene (kćeri Jevrema Obrenovića) koje su svirale klavir i gitaru, a koje su i pored svoje povlaštene uloge u društvu nailazile na neodobravanje svojih sugrađana. Također, u Šapcu tog vremena, za razliku od danas, bilo je više različitih zajednica. Daljnjim istraživanjem došli smo do perioda Drugog svjetskog rata, perioda borbe i stradanja, ali i perioda nestanka jedne od šabačkih zajednica; židovske zajednice, koja je između ostalog, ovaj grad pretvorila u trgovačko i kulturno središte tog dijela Srbije. Iako smo se željeli, kao autori projekta, baviti izvannacionalnim diskursima, jer smo osobno i politički protivnici identitetskih politika, veći dio ovogodišnjeg projekta posvetili smo sjećanju na židovsku zajednicu u Šapcu, koja je u periodu Drugog svjetskog rata potpuno uništena, upravo na području grada Šapca. Željeli smo, kako bismo mogli sagledati povijest izvan depolitiziranog govora “znamo da je Židova bilo i da ih sada nema i da je to loše”, detaljno istražiti događaje od početka tridesetih godina XX st. do kraja Drugog svjetskog rata. U društvima na čijem se tlu dogodio ovaj zločin uočili smo tri moguća diskursa; tri oblika javnog govora o Holokaustu. Prvi oblik ovog govora bio bi rad na utvrđivanju odgovornosti – intervencija u politike negiranja, zaborava i šutnje, kao i umanjivanja posljedica zločina. Zatim, kada se uspostavi klima u kojoj je o zločinu moguće govoriti, kada se uspostavi minimum konsenzusa; priznanje da se on dogodio, moguć je oblik govora koji Jaspers naziva “odgovornošću svakog poštenog čovjeka” o Holokaustu kao zločinu protiv cijele ljudske vrste, a ne samo jedne izolirane zajednice. Tek
kada se zna kako je do zločina došlo, tko ga je, kada i pod kojim uvjetima počinio, možemo razgovarati o tome kako je moguće spriječiti njegovo ponavljanje, odnosno konstatirati da je Holokaust, zbog svoje lake izvodivosti i esencijalne banalnosti tog zla, problem čovječanstva. Treći i posljednji diskurs govora o Holokaustu, bio bi dalja razrada teze o banalnosti zla koje stoji iza zločina, i odnosi se na događaje koji nisu tako stravični kao masovne egzekucije i logori smrti - zakonske odredbe, oduzimanja imovine i porezni nameti, ali koji konsekventno vode do potpunog, dostatnog uništenja jedne, manje vrijedne grupe ljudi. U okviru ovog diskursa ne postoje slike leševa, ne postoje prizori nad kojima se “pošteni građani” mogu zgroziti i prestraviti, postoje samo gomile dokumenata i pogled na “mirne pejzaže” i obične zgrade koje su mjesto druge vrste zločina. Saznanje koje bismo željeli podijeliti s generalnom publikom jest da zlo nema inherentan pojavni oblik, da ljudi koji ubijaju nisu samo vojnici-monstrumi i luđaci, već i službenici, arhitekti, novinari i pjesnici, a da mjesta zločina nisu uvijek ograđena visokim zidovima i bodljikavom žicom, već su to i državne kancelarije, bolnice i škole, kafane i osunčani proplanci i parkovi prirode, obale na kojima se kupamo. Mi želimo reći da je zločin genocida uvijek i katastrofalan i monstruozan čin, ali nije nastao neočekivano i niotkud poput zemljotresa ili udara groma, i ovo saznanje treba da bude poziv na budnost i djelovanje, kako ponovo ne bi došlo do zločina tih razmjera i tih posljedica. Odluku o izlasku iz nostalgije, žaljenja ili samoviktimizacije, vidimo kao osnovni pokretač borbe i otpora zlu, čije tragove vidimo i u sadašnjosti, iako mijenja svoj oblik u odnosu na ono što nam je poznato. Sadašnjost kroz ovaj projekt vidimo kao koncentrirani – najsabijeniji dio prošlosti i prostor za naše aktivno djelovanje. Fellini je rekao da smo mi “sagrađeni u sjećanju” i da ga parafraziram dalje - istovremeno smo i otpor i nemoć, i borba i stradanje, i šutnja i kolaboracija. Zbog toga u sjećanju vidimo emancipacijsku praksu u odnosu na pojam povijesti kao depolitiziranog govora u kojem nismo u stanju prepoznati svoju ulogu. Pančevo, 15. rujna 2012.
IMPRESUM Nakladnik / Publisher | Hrvatsko društvo likovnih umjetnika / Croatian Association of Fine Artists, Trg žrtava fašizma 16, 10 000 Zagreb, hdlu@hdlu.hr, www.hdlu.hr | Za nakladnika / For the publisher Josip Zanki, predsjednik /president | Upravni odbor HDLU / Executive board of HDLU Josip Zanki (predsjednik / president), Tomislav Buntak ( zamjenik predsjednika / vice president), Fedor Vučemilović (zamjenik predsjednika / vice president), Gordana Bakić, Ivan Fijolić, Koraljka Kovač Dugandžić, Anita Kuharić Smrekar | Ravnateljica / Director Ivana Andabaka | Umjetnički savjet Galerije PM / Artistic board of PM Gallery Nataša Bodrožić, Ivan Fijolić, Tea Hatadi | Stručna suradnica / Associate Tea Hatadi | Predgovor / Preface Marija Ratković, Dejan Vasić | Prijevod na engleski / English translation Milan Marković, Nikola Rajačić | Prijevod na hrvatski / Croatian translation Mirna Vidić | Lektura / Proofreading Olga Dimitrijević | Likovni postav / Exhibition design Andrea Palašti i Tea Hatadi | Grafičko oblikovanje i prijelom kataloga/ Design Ivan Palašti | Fotografije / Photographs Andrea Palašti | Urednica / Editor Tea Hatadi | Tisak / Printed by Cerovski Print Boutique | Naklada / Copies 40
Izložba je omogućena uz novčanu potporu Ministarstva kulture Republike Hrvatske / The exhibition has been kindly supported by funding from the Ministry of Culture of The Republic of Croatia CIP zapis dostupan u računalnome katalogu Nacionalne i sveučilišne knjižnice u Zagrebu pod brojem 887103. ISBN 978-953-6508-84-6 / A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the National and University Library in Zagreb under 887103 ISBN 978-953-6508-84-6