Brad Downey, 2023.
I AM YOU, YOU ARE ME
Tekst napisali Antonelli & Marziani
„I ‘Alisa u zemlji čudesa’ i ‘Alisa iza zrcala’ uključuju kategoriju vrlo osobitih stvari: događaje, čiste događaje. Kad kažem „Alisa raste“, želim reći da ona postaje veća nego što je bila. No samim time ona postaje i manja nego što je sada. Naravno, ona nije veća i manja u isto vrijeme. Ali u isto vrijeme to postaje. Ona je veća sada; bila je manja prije. No u isto vrijeme, u isti mah, postajemo veći nego što smo bili i manji nego što postajemo. To je istodobnost postajanja kojoj je svojstveno da izmiče sadašnjosti. Utoliko što izmiče sadašnjosti, postajanje ne podnosi odjeljivanje ni razlikovanje onoga prije i onoga poslije, prošlosti i budućnosti. U samu bit postajanja spada to da se ono kreće, da povlači istovremeno u oba smjera: Alisa raste samo tako što se smanjuje i obratno.“ (2015, Deleuze, Logika smisla, Sandorf & Mizantrop, 1).
Jedan od najznačajnijih koncepata Gillesa Deleuzea je ideja postajanja, što je središnje mjesto njegove filozofije. U svojoj knjizi Kapitalizam i shizofrenija – Tisuću platoa (2013., Sandorf & Mizantrop) Deleuze i njegov suautor Felix Guattari objašnjavaju da postajanje nije imitiranje niti nametanje forme samome sebi; to je pokret stvaranja koji se kontinuirano odvija, nikada nije dovršen i uvijek je u procesu ostvarivanja. Postajanje je spoj svih ovih linija, sila i putanja koje čine pojedinca u određenom trenutku u vremenu. Postajanje je stvaranje novih veza i intenziteta. Za Deleuzea, postajanje nije pokušaj da se postane nešto drugo ili kopiranje tuđih postupaka ili misli. Suprotno tome, postajanje je kontinuirani proces stvaranja novih veza i intenziteta koji čine pojedinca. Znamo da bismo trebali pisati o umjetničkoj izložbi Brada Downeyja, ali ovaj se projekt bavi postajanjem puno više nego bivanjem, a nitko nije istražio koncept postajanja poput Deleuzea. Brad Downey je američki umjetnik sa sjedištem u Berlinu čija se djela mogu smatrati praktičnom primjenom Deleuzeove filozofije postajanja. Downeyjeva umjetnost često subvertira i propituje konvencionalne načine razmišljanja o javnom prostoru i urbanom okruženju,
potičući promatrače da preispitaju svoj odnos prema svojoj okolini. Pritom utjelovljuje Deleuzeovu ideju o moći virtualnog da transformira stvarno. Downeyjevu umjetnost karakterizira upotreba svakodnevnih predmeta, koje često prenamjenjuje na neočekivane i ponekad duhovite načine. U tom se smislu njegov rad može promatrati kao izraz Deleuzeovog koncepta „manjinskog”, koji se odnosi na subverzivni potencijal svakodnevnog života i sposobnost marginaliziranih da izazovu dominantne načine razmišljanja i djelovanja. U središtu Downeyjeve umjetnosti je želja za stvaranjem dijaloga između urbane sredine i njezinih stanovnika. Ovaj dijaloški pristup u skladu je s Deleuzeovim naglaskom na važnosti različitosti i mnogostrukosti. Downeyjev rad poziva promatrače da preispitaju značenje i svrhu prostora koje zauzimaju te da razmotre alternativne načine zamišljanja i nastanjivanja tih prostora. Sve u svemu, umjetnost Brada Downeyja može se promatrati kao manifestacija Deleuzeove filozofije postajanja. Subvertiranjem i transformacijom svakodnevice, on otvara nove mogućnosti za razmišljanje i djelovanje te nas poziva da zamislimo alternativne budućnosti za sebe i naš svijet.
Movement 1
Iako bi naslov sugerirao rad na drugotnosti, s Bradom Downeyjem nikada ne možete vjerovati svojim intuicijama. Naime, izložba koju američki umjetnik sa sjedištem u Berlinu dovodi u Meštrovićev paviljon rezultat je ‘prisilnih suradnji’ s drugim umjetnicima, kako mi je on to opisao. U tom smislu, I AM YOU, YOU ARE ME. Kada sam ga pitao što podrazumijeva pod prisilnim suradnjama, odgovorio je: „Pa, surađujem s drugim umjetnicima, radim na njihovim radovima, neki se slažu, neki ne, neki su mrtvi i stoga ne mogu ništa ni reći.“
Postulate 1
Umjetnost ne pripada domeni kulture, već izražavanja; ona postaje kulturom tek uokvirena historicističkom perspektivom. Bilježenje izražavanja svrha je čovjeka, a ne umjetnosti. To znači bilježiti izražavanje onoga što čovjek predstavlja, jer je izražavanje opažaj, a ne koncept. Kako bismo ga komunicirali, izumljujemo stabilne forme koji proizvode značenje. Iako je verbalni jezik stabilan oblik proizvodnje značenja, umjetnički jezik nije stabilan i zajednički oblik, ali može izraziti stvari koje verbalni jezik ne može izraziti na načine koje jezik ne poznaje.
Movement 2
Ono što zanima Brada Downeyja, i što prožima sve njegove rado-
ve, jest zastupati ono što se nalazi između, izraziti to, ono što nije ni A ni B, ni ovdje ni tamo. A to je stoga što Downey zna da život nije sačinjen od postignuća, već od projekata koji trebaju nešto postići, život je „između“. „Sve je u mom životu između,“ rekao mi je preko telefona.
Insert 1
Ljudi žive u sustavu; sustav je organizacija funkcija i ponašanja koja objašnjava stvarnost (koja ako nije sistematizirana ostaje izokrenuta) čineći je estetskom. Što mislimo pod ‘estetikom’? Mislimo na to da sustav postaje vidljiv, upravljiv i razumljiv tako što ga organiziramo na razini vremena. Tako stvarnost postaje teritorij i daje ekološku vrijednost zemlji (a što smo pomiješali s antropološkom).
Movement 3
„Zašto ti umjetnici? Kako ste ih odabrali?“ Pitam ga. „Neki od njih su moji heroji, a neki su izbori temeljeni na vanjskim čimbenicima“, odgovara smiješeći se. Kad ga pitam kakva motivacija stoji iza ovog projekta, odgovara da je to želja približiti se tim umjetnicima. Tako mi je rekao, ali mislim da to nije istina. Vjerujem da Brad želi manipulirati tim djelima kako bi modernizirao i proširio njihov diskurs, sinkronizirajući ih u suvremenom statusu umjetnosti.
Postulate 2: C=fS
Ako razmišljamo o povijesti, ono što nam pada na pamet je da povijest stvaraju ljudi. Je li to istina? Ako bolje pogledamo, povijest se pojavljuje kao funkcija sustava u kojem ljudi žive (bez sustava, nema povijesti), a kultura se pojavljuje kao funkcija povijesti (bez povijesti, nema kulture), a ne ljudi. Iz toga slijedi da kulturu ne proizvode ljudi, već sustav, struktura, kultura je povijesna funkcija. Evo formule, gdje C predstavlja kulturu, f funkciju, a S sustav:
C=fS
Razumjeti da kulturu proizvodi sustav, a ne ljudi, od ključne je važnosti za razumijevanje Downeyjeve perspektive u umjetnosti, jer Downey upravo hakira taj sustav kroz izražavanje kako bi nanovo ispisao kulturu.
Movement 4
Downeyjev rad nas prisiljava da više preispitujemo nego razmiš-
ljamo:
1. Preispitivanje subjekta: subjekt se rastapa u interakciji.
2. Preispitivanje prostora: francuski matematičar Henri Pointcarré predlaže da prostor treba mjeriti potencijalnim djelovanjem, a ne u centimetrima. To je prostor koji morate pretpostaviti kao prostor promatrajući Brada Downeyja.
3. Preispitivanje vremena: kao u Shakespeareovom Hamletu, „vrijeme je razglobljeno” u Downeyjevom radu, što mu dopušta da trči gore-dolje kroz povijest umjetnosti i dezintegrira njezinu kronologiju.
4. Preispitivanje jezika: djelima umjetnika koji su prisiljeni surađivati manipulira dezintegrirajući njihov jezik. Ove modifikacije subjekta, prostora, vremena i jezika potrebne su kako bi Downey bio između, na primjer između povijesti i ne-povijesti umjetnosti, duboko osporavajući tvrdnju Arthura Dantoa kako je umjetnost povijest umjetnosti.
Insert 2
Promatrajući Downeyjev rad, jasno je da ono što nazivamo umjetnošću nije povijest umjetnosti, već ono što kao takvo razumijemo. Naša ideja umjetnosti zapravo je pokret razumijevanja umjetnosti, a to je Downeyeva odrednica, kao i Duchampova, Joyceova i Schoenbergova. Razgradnjom jezika, lišavanjem sustava razumljivih funkcija, kakvo ponašanje dobivam? Koliko sam u stanju testirati razumijevanje umjetnosti? Je li to slučaj? U suvremenosti, dakle, umjetnost nije povijest umjetnosti, već razumijevanje umjetnosti.
Movement 5 – IA MA YOU, YOU ARE ME
„Dospjeti ne dotle da se više ne kaže ja, već dotle da više nije važno kaže li se ili ne kaže ja. Više nismo mi sami. Svatko će prepoznati svoje. Nama se pomoglo, nas se upilo, umnožilo.“ (2013., Deleuze i Guattari, Tisuću platoa)
Brad Downey, 2023
I AM YOU, YOU ARE ME
by Antonelli & Marziani“Alice and Through the Looking-Glass involve a category of very special things: events, pure events. When I say “Alice becomes larger,” I mean that she becomes larger than she was. By the same token, however, she becomes smaller than she is now. Certainly, she is not bigger and smaller at the same time. She is larger now; she was smaller before. But it is at the same moment that one becomes larger than one was and smaller than one becomes. This is the simultaneity of a becoming whose characteristic is to elude the present. Insofar as it eludes the present, becoming does not tolerate the separation or the distinction of before and after, or of past and future. It pertains to the essence of becoming to move and to pull in both directions at once: Alice does not grow without shrinking, and vice versa” (1990, Deleuze, Logic of Sense, Columbia University Press, 1).
One of Gilles Deleuze’s most notable concepts is the idea of becoming, which is central to his philosophy. In his book A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (1987, University of Minnesota Press), Deleuze and his co-author Felix Guattari explain that becoming is not imitating, nor is it imposing a form on oneself; it is a movement of creation that is always taking place, never finished, and always in the process of being actualised. Becoming is the conjunction of all these lines, forces and trajectories that comprise an individual at a given moment in time. Becoming is the creation of new connections and intensities. For Deleuze, becoming is not about trying to become something else or copying someone else’s actions or thoughts. Instead, becoming is an ongoing process of creating new connections and intensities that make up. We know we should write about Brad Downey’s art exhibition, but this project is deeply about becoming less than to be, and no one has explored the concept of becoming like Deleuze.
Brad Downey is a Berlin-based American artist whose works can be seen as a practical application of Deleuze’s philosophy of becoming. Downey’s art often subverts and challenges conventional ways of thinking about public space and the urban environment, encouraging viewers to rethink their relationship to their surroundings. In doing so, he embodies Deleuze’s idea of the power of the virtual to transform the actual. Downey’s art is characterised by its use of everyday objects, which he often repurposes in unexpected and sometimes humorous ways. In this sense, his work can be seen as an expression of Deleuze’s concept of the ‘minor’, which refers to the subversive potential of everyday life and the capacity of the marginalised to challenge dominant modes of thought and action. At the heart of Downey’s art is a desire to create a dialogue between the urban environment and its inhabitants. This dialogical approach is consistent with Deleuze’s emphasis on the importance of difference and multiplicity. Downey’s work invites viewers to question the meaning and purpose of the spaces they occupy, and to consider alternative ways of imagining and inhabiting those spaces. Overall, Brad Downey’s art can be seen as a manifestation of Deleuze’s philosophy of becoming. By subverting and transforming the everyday, he opens up new possibilities for thought and action, and invites us to imagine alternative futures for ourselves and our world.
Movement 1
While the title would suggest a work on otherness, with Brad Downey you can never trust your intuitions. In fact, the exhibition the Berlin-based American artist brings to the Meštrović Pavilion is a work on “forced collaborations” with other artists, as he described it to me. In this sense, I AM YOU, YOU ARE ME. When I asked him what he meant by forced collaborations, he replied, “Well, I collaborate with other artists, work on their works, some agree, some don’t, some are dead and therefore cannot say anything.”
Postulate 1
Art does not belong to the domain of culture but to that of expression; it becomes culture only when framed by the historicist perspective. Capturing expression is the purpose of man, not art. It is to capture expression that man represents, since expression is a percept and not a concept. To communicate it, we invent stable forms that produce meaning. While verbal language is a stable form of meaning production, artistic language is not a stable and shared form but can
express things that verbal language cannot express in ways that language does not know.
Movement 2
What interests Brad Downey, which runs through all his work, is to represent what is in between, to express what is neither A nor B, neither here nor there. This is because Downey knows that life is not made of achievements but of projects, to have things to achieve, as life is ‘in between’. “Everything in my life is in between,” he tells me on the phone.
Insert 1
Humans live in a system; a system is an organisation of functions and behaviours that explains reality (which, if not systematised, remains bent), making it aesthetic. What do we mean by ‘aesthetic’? We mean that the system becomes perceptible, navigable, and intelligible by territorialising it on the plane of time. This is how reality becomes territory and confers ecological value on the earth (which we have mistaken for anthropological).
Movement 3
“Why these artists? How did you choose them?” I ask him. “Some of them are my heroes and some are choices based on external factors,” he replies, smiling. When I ask him what kind of desire animated this project, he replies that it is the desire to be close to these artists. This is what he tells me, but I don’t think it’s true. I believe that Brad wants to manipulate those works to update and extend their discourse, synchronising them in the contemporary status of art.
Postulate 2 C=fS
If we think of history, what comes to mind is that history is made by men. Is this true? If we look closer, history appears as a function of the system where humans live (without system, there’s no history), and culture appears as a function of the history (no history, no culture), not of men. Then it turns out that culture is not produced by men but by the system, the structure, culture is a history function. Here is the formula, where C is culture, f is function, S is system:
C=fS
To understand that culture is produced by the system and not by men is fundamental to understand Downey’s perspective in art, because
Downey precisely hacks the system through expression to rewrite culture.
Movement 4
Downey’s work forces us to rethink more than to think:
1. Rethink subject: subject dissolves in interaction.
2. Rethink space: French mathematician Henri Pointcarré suggests that space must be measured in potential actions, not in centimetres. This is the kind of space you have to assume as space observing Brad Downey.
3. Rethink time: as in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “time is out of joint” in Downey’s work, allowing him to run up and down the history of art and disintegrate its timeline.
4. Rethink language: forced-to-collaborate artists’ works are manipulated by disintegrating their language. These modifications of subject, space, time and language are necessary for Downey to be in between, an example in between history and non-history of art, deeply challenging the determination of Arthur Danto when he affirms that art is the history of art.
Insert 2
Observing Downey’s work, it is evident that what we call art is not the history of art but what we understand as such. Our idea of art is in effect the movement of understanding art, and this is the determination of Downey as well as Duchamp, Joyce and Schoenberg. By disintegrating language, depriving the system of intelligible functions, what kind of behaviour do I exhibit? How much am I able to test the understanding of art? Is this the case? In modernity, then, art is not the history of art but the understanding of art.
Movement 5 - I AM YOU, YOU ARE ME
“Do not arrive at the point where you no longer say I, but at the point where saying or not saying I no longer has any importance. We are no longer ourselves. Everyone will recognize their own. We have been helped, inspired, multiplied.” (1980, Deleuze & Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus)
Umjetnost je pitanje…
Tekst: Anne Vieth
Godine 1972. Ben Vautier je izjavio „Umjetnost je samo pitanje potpisa i datuma” u obliku sitotiska na papiru, pokušavajući ironično definirati umjetnost kroz tekst i sliku, kao što je često činio sa svojim tekstualnim radovima. Kada mi je Brad Downey pričao o svom izložbenom konceptu za Galeriju Bačva, ovaj Vautierov rad mi je pao na pamet, jer i Vautierova grafika i Downeyjeva izložba beskrupulozno propituju kanonizirane ideje umjetnosti. Vautier je svoju ideju konceptualne umjetnosti izrazio kratko i jezgrovito kroz svoj rad, dok Downey proširuje ovaj koncept kroz niz dirljivih radova koji se vrte oko pitanja autorstva - tj. „potpisa” - i temporalne lokacije kroz datiranje djela.
Svojim načelom „prisilne suradnje” Downey se referira na radove drugih umjetnika. No, on to ne čini na način koji je karakterističan u svijetu umjetnosti. Odnosno, on se ne referira na drugu umjetničku poziciju koja pokazuje umjetnikovo pretpostavljeno potrebno poznavanje povijesti umjetnosti, niti implicira želju da vlastiti rad smjesti unutar tog referentnog sustava. Umjesto toga, Downey namjerno prelazi „crte razgraničenja” drugih umjetničkih djela. Služeći se djelima kolega kao polazištima za nove radove, i to pažljivo, te razotkrivajući i postavljajući to prisvajanje kao strategiju, proširuje i relativizira pojam umjetničkog autorstva.
Ta relativizacija vidljiva je i kod datiranja i signiranja radova. To je vidljivo u angažmanu Brada Downeyja oko serije grafika Dietera Rotha. Downey je nabavio nekoliko grafika na kojima se Roth potpisivao različitim imenima - ponekad Diter Rot, ponekad Heinrich Schwarz, ponekad Dieter Roth, a također je priložio različite datume, točnije 1977. i 1992. Ovaj Rothov pristup jasno daje do znanja da nije pridavao posebnu važnost ideji jedinstvenog umjetnika ili umjetničkog djela. Naprotiv, njegov cjelokupni opus u prvi plan stavlja podatne i kontinuirano nadilazeće granice tradicionalnih koncepcija umjetnosti. Downey slijedi ovaj pristup dodajući dodatne slojeve Rothovoj grafici, koji dodatno pojačavaju proces rastakanja značenja potpisa i datacije. Stvorio je nove tiskarske ploče na temelju kupljenih Rothovih grafika,
potpisao dobivene grafike kao Henry Black i datirao ih 2023. Tako su imena nekoliko umjetnika i različiti datumi sažeti u neku vrstu himere koja također testira predodžbe suvremenih promatrača umjetnosti.
Trenutak slojevitosti ili preklapanja na izložbi se događa i u obrnutom smjeru. Downey je obnovio zidni mural tanjura za večeru, koji je izradio Luc Tuymans, a uklonjeni materijal, koji se nekoć nalazio na muralu, proglasio „slomljenim tanjurom”. Ovaj se rad također distancira od još uvijek prevladavajućeg pojma linearnog razvoja. Prošlo vrijeme ovdje fizički ulazi u prostor, postaje vidljivo. Kao da se zasebne „vremenske zone” spajaju u kontinuum. One su dio konteksta kojim se Downey bavi u njegovom senzibiliziranom tretmanu izložbenog prostora, što se očituje i u radu „Znak dolara”, koji se temelji na dobro istraženoj povijesti Meštrovićevog paviljona. On odabire simboličnu lokaciju iznad ulaza u Galeriju Bačva gdje umjetnik zorno demonstrira da svaki kontekst donosi specifične prostorne, vremenske, diskurzivne i institucionalne uvjete te nije statičan, već fluktuira. Taj impuls prate i drugi radovi na izložbi: korištenje stupa koji je dizajnirao Jože Plečnik za stvaranje novog skulpturalnog stupa; restauracija Banksyjeve slike, ali i portret bolesnog prijatelja, umjetnika autsajdera i suradnika, Maxija, što se može čitati kao poticaj da se više pozornosti posveti međusobnoj uvjetovanosti, odnosno isprepletenosti, te da se veze ne sagledavaju samo u linearnoj strukturi. Možda je umjetnost prije svega pitanje rizomatskog povezivanja...?
Art is a question of …
Text: Anne ViethIn 1972, Ben Vautier circulated the statement “Art is only a question of signature and date” in the form of a silkscreen on paper, making an ironic attempt to define art through text and image, as he often did with his text-based works. When Brad Downey told me about his exhibition concept for the Bačva Gallery, this work by Vautier came to mind, as both Vautier’s graphic and Downey’s exhibition both irreverently question the canonized ideas of art. Vautier expressed his idea of conceptual art briefly and succinctly through his work, whereas Downey expands on this concept through a series of poignant works that revolve around the questions of authorship - i.e. “the signature”and temporal location by the dating of the work.
With his principle of “forced collaboration,” Downey refers to the works of other artists. However, he does not do so in the way which is characteristic of the art world. That is, he doesn’t refer to another artistic position that demonstrates the artist’s supposed necessary knowledge of art history, and implies the desire to locate their own work within this reference system. Instead, Downey intentionally crosses the “demarcation lines” of other artworks. By using the works of colleagues as starting points for new works and doing so in a careful manner, and by revealing and deploying this appropriation as a strategy, he expands and relativizes the concept of artistic authorship.
This relativization can also be seen with the dating and signing of works. This is evident in Brad Downey’s engagement with a series of graphics by Dieter Roth. Downey acquired several prints on which Roth signed with different names, sometimes Diter Rot, sometimes Heinrich Schwarz, sometimes Dieter Roth, and also attached different dates, namely 1977 and 1992. This approach by Roth makes it clear that he did not attach particular importance to the idea of the unique artist or artwork. On the contrary, his entire oeuvre foregrounded the malleable and continuously surpassed boundaries of the traditional conceptions of art. Downey pursues this approach by adding additional layers to Roth’s graphics, which further strengthen the process of dissolution of the meaning of signature and date. He created new
printing plates based on the acquired Roth graphics and signed the resulting prints as Henry Black and dated them 2023. Thus, several artists’ names and various dates are condensed into a kind of chimera that also tests pre-conceptions held by contemporary art viewers. The moment of layering or overlaying also occurs in reverse in the exhibition. Downey restored a wall mural painting of a dinner plate by Luc Tuymans, and declared the removed material which once lay on top of the mural to be a “Broken Plate.” This work also distances itself from the still prevalent notion of linear developments. Time past physically enters the space here, becoming visible. It is as if separate “time zones” are merging into a continuum. They are part of the context that Downey addresses in his sensitive treatment of the exhibition space, as also evident in the work “Dollar Sign.” This work is based on a well-researched history of the Meštrović Pavilion and chooses a symbolic location above the entrance to the Bačva Gallery where the artist vividly demonstrates that each context brings specific spatial, temporal, discursive, and institutional conditions and is not static but in flux. This impulse is followed by further works in the exhibition: the use of a Jože Plečnik designed bannister to create a sculptural column, the restoration of a Banksy image, and also the portrait of the sick friend, outsider artist and collaborator Maxi can be read as an impetus to pay more attention to mutual conditionality, that is, being interwoven, and to perceive the connections not only in a linear structure. Perhaps art is most of all a question of rhizomatic linking...?
Dollar Sign/Znak dolara, 2023.
Materijali: boja u spreju na Laibachovoj slici/ Materials: spray paint over Laibach painting
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 205 x 170 cm
Impozantna građevina Meštrovićevog paviljona (Dom Hrvatskog društva likovnih umjetnika) na današnjem Trgu žrtava fašizma u Zagrebu bilježi bogatu i turbulentnu povijest, čiji se tragovi pronalaze i dan danas u elementima izvorne stolarije, ornamentike iz doba džamije, tragova nekadašnjih otvora na vanjskom zidu, pozlaćenog mihraba (otkriven prilikom radova 2002. ispod zazida)1 ili murala Ede Murtića (iz 1952., naslikanog na zazidu mihraba)2 i sl.
O povijesti njene gradnje i prenamjena mnogo se pisalo pa u kontekstu ovog malog pregleda, nećemo ulaziti u pretjerane detalje, tek toliko da oblikujemo kontekst važan za promatranje jednog malog dijela građevine – prostora iznad ulaza u današnju galeriju Bačva, koji je svojom pozicijom, nasuprot glavnom ulazu, postao simbolično mjesto političkih i ideoloških mijena u povijesti Paviljona, ali i države. Brad Downey, posljednjom intervencijom u taj prostor, koji je za sobom ostavila skupina Laibach, objedinjuje svu njegovu povijest te postaje komentator sadašnjeg ekonomsko-političkog trenutka u Republici Hrvatskoj, otvarajući dijalog s njegovim prethodnicima u prostornom, ali i širem, umjetničkom smislu, referirajući se na rad Aleksandra Brenera.
Vratimo se nakratko u povijest. Godine 1930. Odbor za podizanje spomenika kralju Petru I. Velikom Osloboditelju raspisao je Natječaj za dizajn kraljevskog spomenika. Ivan Meštrović, veliki hrvatski kipar i, u to vrijeme, predsjednik HDLU, prepoznao je priliku te predložio
1 Mihrab je demontiran, prenesen, restauriran i izložen u prostorima nove džamije, u: Dom likovnih umjetnika Ivan Meštrović (ur. Radovan Ivančević), HDLU, Zagreb, 2003., str. 82, 114-117
2 Mural je uklonjen uz dozvolu umjetnika, u: Dom likovnih umjetnika Ivan Meštrović (ur. Radovan Ivančević), HDLU, Zagreb, 2003., str. 82, 114-117
izgradnju novog doma umjetnosti - grandiozne građevine, umjesto statue te podizanje „spomenika - reljefa“ kralju unutar građevine, što je u konačnici i prihvaćeno te je Dom izgrađen 1938.
Reljef kralja Petra I. Oslobodioca „(…) premda smješten u centralnoj osi ponad ulaznih vrata u središnji izložbeni prostor (…) nije i u središtu pozornosti. Da bi ga se sagledalo, trebalo je poprilično zabaciti glavu, istegnuti vrat i pogledom dosegnuti i razabrati konture bijelog reljefa na bijeloj kvadratičnoj kamenoj podlozi koja se stapala s oplošjem unutarnjeg kružnog zida zgrade (…).“3
Spomenuti reljef nije novost u Meštrovićevu opusu. Reljef iste tematike izradio je već 1924. prema Narudžbi za podizanje spomenika među Vratima od Pila u Dubrovniku. Taj je reljef imao 10m2 i uklonjen je 1941. u Nezavisnoj državi Hrvatskoj, nakon čega je prenesen u Palaču Banca (danas umjetničku galeriju) te potom zazidan.4 Sličnu sudbinu doživio je i reljef u Paviljonu. Godine 1941. Dom HDLU pretvoren je u džamiju, Društvo je moralo iseliti u roku od 3 dana, a unutrašnjost je preuređena u skladu s novom funkcijom, dok su izvana izgrađena tri minareta, fontana i pristupno stubište. Sve promjene učinjene su za vrijeme Nezavisne države Hrvatske, temeljem odluke Ante Pavelića. Džamija je svečano otvorena u srpnju 1944. godine, kad se iznad ulaza s vanjske strane postavio cvjetni grb NDH. Eksterijer džamije izveden je prema projektu arhitekta Stjepana Planića, a radove je izvela građevinska tvrtka Zorislava Franetića. Na kupoli su pak postavljeni mjesec i zvijezda (U doba Muzeja revolucije, s prednje strane krova, pojavit će se crvena zvijezda). Godine 1942. započela je obnova unutrašnjosti prema projektu Zvonimir Požgaja, koja je bila obložena zelenim talijanskim mramorom, a orijentalna orna-
3 BARBARA VUJANOVIĆ, Meštrovićev paviljon i paviljoni: mijene građevine kao odrazi vremena i prostora, u: Meštrovićev znak u Zagrebu – arhitektura. 80 godina Meštrovićeva paviljona, Zagreb, 2018., 47–64.
4 SUAD AHMETOVIĆ, Meštrovićev gigantski reljef kralja Petra 73 godine skriven u bunkeru Umjetničke galerije, u: Dubrovački vjesnik, 08.03.2014., str. 4-7
mentika s kaligrafskim arapskim slovima stihova iz Kur’ana temeljila se na starohrvatskim motivima pletera5, na čemu je radilo 12 klesara.6
Unutrašnjost je doživjela i niz drugih preinaka, kako bi prostor odgovarao potrebama i novoj funkciji. Na ulazu u džamiju (vjerojatno na mjestu reljefa Petra I., koji je uklonjen ili zazidan te čija sudbina do danas nije poznata), postavljena je mramorna spomen-ploča s natpisom:
„U slavu i u znak ljubavi spram Allaha Boga Jedinoga, te u znak pažnje prema muslimanima, podiže poglavnik Dr. Ante Pavelić ovaj velebni hram u glavnom gradu Zagrebu da odani sinovi vitežkog naroda hrvatskoga, iskreni sljedbenici uzvišene vjere Islama, skrušenom molitvom jačaju pregalačke snage u borbi za obranu i napredak lijepe svoje domovine Nezavisne Države Hrvatske, koja da bi vazda sretna bila.“7
Nažalost, cjelokupna tehnička dokumentacija džamije završila je u jednom fotostudiju u Varaždinu, koji je bio angažiran da registrira radove na adaptaciji Doma 1943., gdje joj se gubi trag.8 Tako ne možemo sa potpunom sigurnošću potvrditi pretpostavljenu lokaciju9 spomenute spomen-ploče.
5 ZVONIMIR POŽGAJ, Graditeljske osobitosti i ukrasi zagrebačke džamije. 1. Unutrašnjost bogomolje, u: Džamija u Zagrebu. U spomen otvorenja: Zakladni odbor za izgradnju džamije u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 1943., str. 50-53
6 Ministarstvo prometa i javnih radova odobrilo je 7.10.1941. za modeliranje reljefa 500.000 kn. „Kiparski radovi“ u interijeru trajali su 10.5.-10.11.1942., u: TOMISLAV HRUŠKOVEC, Dokumenti. Argumenti. Meštrovićev Dom likovnih umjetnosti 1930–1990., HDLU, Zagreb, 1991., str. 15, 92-93, 169-170
7 Kronogram džamije, u: Džamija poglavnika Ante Pavelića, Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, Acta 1941 - 1945, Niz “Domovina”, Madrid 1988., str. 35
8 ŠEVKO OMERBAŠIĆ, Islam i muslimani u Hrvatskoj, Mešihat islamske zajednice u Hrvatskoj, Zagreb, 2010.
9 LJUBOMIR ŠKRINJAR, Hrvatska svjetla i tame. Šegrt Hlapić srušio džamiju u Zagrebu, na: Portal Hrvatskoga kulturnog vijeća, 13. studenoga 2011. (URL: https://www.hkv.hr/ reportae/lj-krinjar/9562-egrt-hlapi-sruio-damiju-u-zagrebu.html)
Ploča je uklonjena 1946., s novom promjenom političke i društvene paradigme pa je zgrada Doma nakratko dana na korištenje likovnim umjetnicima (Godine 1948. održana je izložba Udruženja likovnih umjetnika Hrvatske u Domu, tada nazivanom
Okrugli paviljon na Trgu žrtava fašizma). Samo godinu dana kasnije u Dom se useljava Muzej narodnog oslobođenja (kasnije (1955.) nazivan Muzej narodne revolucije (čiji se istoimeni natpis našao na istom onom mjestu gdje je stajao grb NDH na otvorenju džamije), a potom i Muzej revolucije naroda Hrvatske (1962.)). Pritom su srušene sve prigradnje te je uklonjena sva dekoracija, koja je podsjećala na džamiju.10
Autor projekta bio je Vjenceslav Richter, koji je, kako bi prostor prilagodio novoj, muzejskoj, namjeni, odlučio „paralizirati rotaciju“11, umetanjem dodatne etaže montažnog tipa, time osiguravajući povećanje površine izložbenog prostora. Pritom je osvjetljenje prostora potpuno ukinuto, jer je kupola u cjelini prekrivena tankim slojem bitumena, a nešto kasnije i aluminijskog lima12 što je donijelo brojne izazove pri obnovi Paviljona u periodu od 2001. do 2003.13 O tome što se našlo na mjestu spomen-ploče, nema puno podataka, iako zasigurno postoji prostor za dodatna istraživanja. Godine 1956. tu se nalazio uvećani reljef ordena „partizanske spomenice iz 1941. godine”, izrađen prema prvoj originalnoj spomenici koju je izradio kipar Antun Augustinčić. Posljednja informacija potječe od jednog od svjedoka, koji tvrdi da je na tom mjestu bila zvijezda petokraka, uklonjena u adaptacijama pri vraćanju Paviljona u ruke umjetnika 1993., kad mu se vraća i izvorna svrha.
10 ANDRIJA MUTNJAKOVIĆ, Meštrovićev Dom umjetnosti: građenje, razgrađivanje i obnavljanje, u: Art Bulletin 61, HAZU, razred za likovne umjetnosti, arhiv za likovne umjetnosti, Zagreb, 2011., str. 90
11 Ibid
12 TOMISLAV HRUŠKOVEC, Dokumenti. Argumenti. Meštrovićev Dom likovnih umjetnosti 1930–1990., HDLU, Zagreb, 1991., str. 134
13 Provoditelj je bio kuratorij HDLU, koji čine predsjednik HDLU - Robert Šimrak, Zlatan Vrkljan, Aleksander Laslo, Radovan Ivančević i Feđa Vukić.
Sve faze Meštrovićevog paviljona, u svoje su vrijeme izazivale kontroverze zbog različitih razloga: od svoje veličine i političkih konotacija
1930-ih, preko nagle promjene u džamiju, zatim Richterovih intervencija, inicijalno rađenih bez građevinske dozvole, a onda i nerealizirane ideje o prenamjeni prostora u Panteon hrvatskih velikana ili osnivanja noćnog kluba u podrumskim prostorijama. U novije vrijeme, kontroverze su izazvali radovi na uređenju okoliša oko Paviljona, s željom da se Trg vrati u prvotno stanje, iz vremena Ivana Meštrovića, lišeno svih naknadnih intervencija.
„Dom hrvatskih likovnih umjetnika (1938.) simbol je domišljenosti i superiorne kulturne razine tadašnjeg Zagreba. … To je prvi okrugli izložbeni prostor u svijetu (10 godina prije Guggenheima u New Yorku), jedinstveni spomenik moderne arhitekture, projekt zagrebačkih arhitekata.”14 To je spomenik vremena i povijesti jednog naroda i Grada pa uz sva imena velikana koji su na Paviljonu ostavili svoj trag „(…) sveukupnošću konstrukcije i dekonstrukcije svoje forme i značenja čini fenomen u povijesti hrvatske i svjetske arhitekture.15 Stoga ne čudi da je njegova povijest toliko kompleksna i bogata.
Godine 2011. multidisciplinarna i performerska grupa Laibach nakon 28 godina vratila se u Galeriju PM, gdje je njihova izložba 1983. zbog političkog pritiska, prijevremeno prekinuta i zatvorena. Pod naslovom AUSSTELLUNG LAIBACH
KUNST 1980. – 2011. CECI N’EST PAS MALEVICH, u cjelokupnom prostoru Paviljona predstavljena je ključna poetika njihovog razvoja od prve dekade 1980-ih. Tom je prilikom u prostoru iznad galerije Bačva naslikan motiv crnog križa, ukrajinskog avangardnog slikara Kazimira Maleviča, utemeljitelja suprematizma. Laibach Kunst od početka je poznat po svojoj provokativnoj ikonografiji, buđenju kontroverzi i šokiranju, posebice u Trebovlju, gdje je skupina utemeljena. Ona, ali i Komunistička Partija Slovenije.
14 RADOVAN IVANČEVIĆ, Blitzkrieg za Muzej koštanih figura, u: Feral Tribune, 833, 1. rujan 2001.
15 BARBARA VUJANOVIĆ, Meštrovićev paviljon i paviljoni: mijene građevine kao odrazi vremena i prostora, u: Meštrovićev znak u Zagrebu – arhitektura. 80 godina Meštrovićeva paviljona, Zagreb, 2018., 47–64.
Aleksandar Davidovič Brener je u siječnju 1997. godine zelenim autolakom naslikao znak dolara na Malevičevoj slici „Bijeli križ“, izloženoj u Muzeju moderne umjetnosti Stedelijk u Amsterdamu. Iako je umjetnik svoju akciju nazvao dijalogom s Malevičem i protestom protiv korupcije i komercijalizma u umjetničkom svijetu, „razapevši“ dolar kao Isusa, osuđen je na deset mjeseci zatvora.
Krajem 2022. Brad Downey, koji svojom samostalnom izložbom uspostavlja dijalog s drugim umjetnicima i njihovim radom na različite načine: aproprijacijom, nadogradnjom, prisilnim kolaboriranjem, ali i suradnjom, na mjestu, sad već prebojanog Laibachovog, ili Malevičevog, križa, koji se tek naslućuje u nanosima niza slojeva bijele boje iz kasnijih vremena, ucrtava predimenzionirani znak dolara. Istovremeno, ta Brenerovska, pomalo subverzivna gesta, vremenski se poklapa i s novom lokalnom društveno-ekonomskom situacijom, ukidanjem kune, u korist nove nacionalne valute – eura, što je sa sobom donijelo niz rasprava o kapitalizmu, nacionalnom identitetu i dr.
Tekst: Nika Šimičić
The impressive building of the Meštrović Pavilion (Home of the Croatian Association of Fine Artists) on today’s Trg žrtava fašizma in Zagreb records a rich and turbulent history, the traces of which can still be found today in the elements of the original carpentry, ornamentation from the time of the mosque, traces of former openings on the outer wall, the gilded mihrab (discovered during the works in 2002 under the wall)1 or the mural by Edo Murtić (from 1952, painted on the wall of the mihrab)2, etc.
Much has been written about the history of its construction and repurposing, so in the context of this small review, we will not go into excessive details, just enough to shape the context important for observing a small part of the building - the space above the entrance to today’s Bačva gallery, which, due to its position, opposite the main entrance, became a symbolic place of political and ideological changes in the history of the Pavilion, but also of the country. Brad Downey, with the last intervention in that space, on the basis left behind by the Laibach group, unites all its history and becomes a commentator of the current economic and political moment in the Republic of Croatia, opening a dialogue with his predecessors in a spatial, but also in a broader, artistic sense, referring on the work of Alexander Brener. Let’s briefly go back in history. In 1930, the Committee for Erecting a Monument to King Peter I the Great Liberator announced a Competition for the design of the royal monument. Ivan Meštrović, the great Croatian sculptor and, at that time, the president of the HDLU, recognized the opportunity and proposed the construction of a new home of art - a grandiose building, instead of a statue, and erecting a “monument - relief” to the king inside the building, which was ultimately accepted and the Home of HDLU was finally built in 1938.
The relief of King Peter I the Liberator “(...) although located in the central axis above the entrance door to the central exhibition space (...) is not at the center of attention. In order to look at it, you had to throw your head back quite a bit, stretch your neck and with your eyes reach and make out the contours of the white relief on the white
1 The mihrab was dismantled, transferred, restored, and exhibited in the premises of the new mosque, in: Home of Fine Artists Ivan Meštrović (ed. Radovan Ivančević), HDLU, Zagreb, 2003, p. 82, 114-117
2 The mural was removed with the permission of the artist, in: Home of Fine Artists Ivan Meštrović (ed. Radovan Ivančević), HDLU, Zagreb, 2003, p. 82, 114-117
square stone base that merged with the surface of the inner circular wall of the building (...).”3
The mentioned relief is not new in Meštrović’s oeuvre. He made a relief of the same theme as early as 1924 according to the order for the erection of a monument between the Pile Gate in Dubrovnik. This relief was 10m2 and was removed in 1941 in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), after which it was transferred to the Banca Palace (now an art gallery) and then walled up.4 The relief in the Pavilion suffered a similar fate. In 1941, the Home of HDLU was turned into a mosque, the Association had to move out within 3 days, and the interior was remodeled in accordance with the new function, while three minarets, a fountain, and an access staircase were built outside. All changes were made during the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), based on the decision of Ante Pavelić. The mosque was solemnly opened in July 1944, when the floral coat of arms of the NDH was placed above the entrance on the outside. The exterior of the mosque was designed by the architect Stjepan Planić, and the works were carried out by the construction company of Zorislav Franetić. A moon and a star were placed on the dome (During the time of the Museum of the Revolution, a red star will appear on the front side of the roof). In 1942, the renovation of the interior began according to the project of Zvonimir Požgaj. The interior was lined with green Italian marble, and the oriental ornamentation with calligraphic Arabic letters of verses from the Qur’an was
3 BARBARA VUJANOVIĆ, Meštrović pavilion, and pavilions: changes of the building as reflections of time and space, in: Meštrović’s sign in Zagreb - architecture. 80 years of the Meštrović Pavilion, Zagreb, 2018, 47–64.
4 SUAD AHMETOVIĆ, Meštrović’s gigantic relief of King Peter hidden in the bunker of the Art Gallery for 73 years, in: Dubrovački vjesnik, March 8, 2014, p. 4-7
based on old Croatian wicker motifs5, on which 12 masons worked.6 The interior also underwent a number of other changes, in order to make the space fit the needs and the new function. At the entrance to the mosque (probably on the site of the relief of Peter I, which was removed or walled up and whose fate is still unknown), a marble memorial plaque was inserted with the following inscription:
“In glory and as a sign of love towards Allah, the One God, and as a sign of attention towards Muslims, the chief Dr. Ante Pavelić, erected this magnificent temple in the capital city of Zagreb, that the loyal sons of the knightly nation of Croatia, sincere followers of the lofty faith of Islam, with contrite prayer strengthen the mighty forces in the fight for the defense and progress of their beautiful homeland, the Independent State of Croatia, let it be happy always.”7
Unfortunately, the entire technical documentation of the mosque ended up in a photo studio in Varaždin, which was hired to document the works on the adaptation of the building in 1943, where it was lost.8 Thus, we cannot confirm with complete certainty the assumed location9 of the mentioned memorial plaque.
The plaque was removed in 1946, with a new change in the political and social paradigm, so the building was briefly given back to artists (in 1948, an exhibition of the Association of Croatian Fine Artists was held in the Pavilion, then called the Round Pavilion on the Square of Victims of Fascism). Just one year later, the Museum of National Lib-
5 ZVONIMIR POŽGAJ, Architectural features, and decorations of the Zagreb mosque. 1. The interior of the place of worship, in: The Mosque in Zagreb. In commemoration of the opening: Foundation Committee for the Construction of a Mosque in Zagreb, Zagreb, 1943, p. 50-53
6 The Ministry of Transport and Public Works approved on October 7, 1941. HRK 500,000 for relief modeling. “Sculptural works” in the interior lasted from May 10 to November 10, 1942, in: TOMISLAV HRUŠKOVEC, Documents. Arguments. Meštrović Home of Fine Arts 1930–1990., HDLU, Zagreb, 1991, p. 15, 92-93, 169-170
7 Chronogram of the mosque, Mosque of Chief Ante Pavelić, Independent State of Croatia, Acta 1941 - 1945, Series “Domovina”, Madrid 1988, p. 35
8 ŠEVKO OMERBAŠIĆ, Islam and Muslims in Croatia, Mešihat of the Islamic Community in Croatia, Zagreb, 2010.
9 LJUBOMIR ŠKRINJAR, Croatia lights, and darkness. Apprentice Hlapić demolished a mosque in Zagreb, on: Portal of the Croatian Cultural Council, November 13, 2011. (URL: https://www.hkv.hr/reportae/lj-krinjar/9562-egrt-hlapi-sruio-damiju-u-zagrebu.html
eration (later called the Museum of the People’s Revolution (1955), and inscription of the same name was found in the same place where the coat of arms of the NDH stood at the opening of the mosque, later the Museum of the Revolution of the People of Croatia (1962.) moved into the building. At the same time, all the outbuildings were demolished and all the decorations reminiscent of the mosque were removed.10 The author of the project was Vjenceslav Richter, who, to adapt the space to a new museum purpose, decided to “paralyze the rotation”11 by inserting an additional prefab floor, thus ensuring an increase in the exhibiting area. At the same time, the lighting of the space was completely abolished, because the dome as a whole was covered with a thin layer of bitumen, and a little later with aluminum sheet 12, which brought numerous challenges during the renovation of the Pavilion in the period from 2001 to 2003.13 There is not much information about what was found at the place of the memorial plaque, although there is certainly room for additional research. In 1956, there was an enlarged relief of the Order of the “Partisan Monument from 1941”, made according to the first original Order made by the sculptor Antun Augustinčić. The last information comes from one of the witnesses, who claims that there was a five-pointed star in that place, removed in the adaptations when the Pavilion was returned to the hands of the artists in 1993, and it´s original purpose was restored.
All phases of Meštrović pavilion caused controversies in their time due to various reasons, from its size and political connotations in the 1930s, through the sudden change into a mosque, then Richter’s interventions, initially done without a building permit, to the unrealized idea of repurposing the space into The Pantheon of Croatian great
10 ANDRIJA MUTNJAKOVIĆ, Meštrović Home of Art: construction, demolition and restoration, in: Art Bulletin 61, HAZU, The class for fine arts, the archive for fine arts, Zagreb, 2011, p. 90
11 Ibid.
12 TOMISLAV HRUŠKOVEC, Documents. Arguments. Meštrović Home of Fine Arts 1930–1990, HDLU, Zagreb, 1991, p. 134
13 It was implemented by the curatorship of the HDLU, which consisted of the president of the HDLU - Robert Šimrak, Zlatan Vrkljan, Aleksander Laslo, Radovan Ivančević and Feđa Vukić.
men or the establishment of a night club in the basement. In recent times, controversies have been caused by landscaping works around the Pavilion, with the desire to return the Square to its original state, from the time of Ivan Meštrović, devoid of all subsequent interventions.
“The Home of HDLU (1938) is a symbol of inventiveness and the superior cultural level of Zagreb at that time. ... It is the first round exhibition space in the world (10 years before the Guggenheim in New York), a unique monument of modern architecture, a project of Zagreb architects.14 It is a monument to the time and history of a nation and a city, so along with all the names of the great men who left their mark on the Pavilion “(...) the totality of construction and deconstruction of its form and meaning makes it a phenomenon in the history of Croatian and world architecture.15 Therefore, it is not surprising that its history is so complex and rich.
In 2011, the multidisciplinary and performance group Laibach returned to the PM Gallery after 28 years, where their exhibition in 1983 was prematurely terminated and closed due to political pressure. Under the title AUSSTELLUNG LAIBACH KUNST 1980 – 2011 CECI N’EST
PAS MALEVICH, the entire space of the Pavilion presented the key poetics of their development since the first decade of the 1980s. On that occasion, the motif of the black cross by the Ukrainian avant-garde painter Kazimir Malevich, the founder of Suprematism, was painted in the space above the Bačva gallery. From the beginning, Laibach Kunst has been known for its provocative iconography, arousing controversy and shock, especially in Trebovlje, where the group was founded, and where the Communist Party of Slovenia was founded as well.
In January 1997, Aleksandar Davidovich Brener painted a dollar sign with green spray on Malevich’s painting “The White Cross”, exhibited at the Stedelijk Museum of Modern Art in Amsterdam. Although the artist called his action a dialogue with Malevich and a protest against
14 RADOVAN IVANČEVIĆ, Blitzkrieg for the Museum of Bone Figures, in: Feral Tribune, 833, September 1, 2001.
15 BARBARA VUJANOVIĆ, Meštrović pavilion, and pavilions: changes of the building as reflections of time and space, in: Meštrović’s sign in Zagreb - architecture. 80 years of the Meštrović Pavilion, Zagreb, 2018, 47–64.
corruption and commercialism in the art world, by “crucifying” the dollar like Jesus, he was sentenced to ten months in prison.
At the end of 2022, Brad Downey establishes a dialogue with other artists and their work in different ways: appropriation, upgrading, forced collaboration, but also cooperation. At the place of Laibach’s, or Malevich’s, cross, which has now been painted over, and which is only just hinted at in the application of a series of layers of white paint from later times, he paints an oversized dollar sign. At the same time, this Brenerian, somewhat subversive gesture coincides with the new local socio-economic situation, the abolition of the kuna in favor of the new national currency – the euro, which brought with it a series of discussions about capitalism, national identity, etc.
Text: Nika Šimičić
Izvori fotografija/Photo resources
• Brad Downey, Ivan Meštrović, 2023./Brad Downey, Ivan Meštrović, 2023 (str./p. 2)
• Fotografija / photo: Brad Downey - intervencija, foto: Šimun Bućan / Brad Downey - intervention, photo: Šimun Bućan (str./p. 11)
• Ben Vautier, Art is only a question of signature and date, 1972., sitotisak na papiru/ Ben Vautier, Art is only a question of signature and date, 1972, silkscreen on paper (str./p. 12)
• Brad Downey, Interdimensional Composition (from Heinrich to Henry), 1977-19922023, etching on paper/Brad Downey, Interdimensional Composition (from Heinrich to Henry), 1977-1992-2023, bakropis na papiru (str./p. 17)
• Jedina poznata fotografija reljefa kralja Petra I. Oslobodioca iznad vrata u izložbenu dvoranu. Foto: Griesbach i Knaus, 1938., Institut za povijest umjetnosti, Zagreb/The only known photo of the relief of King Peter I the Liberator above the door to the exhibition hall. Photo: Griesbach and Knaus, 1938, Institute of Art History, Zagreb (str./p. 19)
• Fotografija/photo: Otvorenje džamije 18. kolovoza 1944. Public Domain/Opening of the mosque on August 18, 1944. Public Domain (str./p. 20)
• Fotografija/photo: Muzej narodnog osolobođenja, 1953. Izvor: Facebook grupa: Zagreb - Kakav je bio nekada (Foto/Video). Objavio: Mario Borg Sarac/National Liberation Museum, 1953. Source: Facebook group: Zagreb - Kakav je bio nekada (Foto/ Video). Posted by: Mario Borg Sarac (str./p. 21)
• Laibach intervencija (isječak videa)/AUSSTELLUNG LAIBACH KUNST -- CECI N’EST
PAS MALEVICH, Dom HDLU, Zagreb, 6.-30.5.2011. Snimanje i obrada: Beno & Vesna/ Laibach intervention (video clip), from: AUSSTELLUNG LAIBACH KUNST -- CECI
N’EST PAS MALEVICH, Dom HDLU, Zagreb, May 6-30, 2011. Filming and editing: Beno & Vesna (str./p. 22
• Fotografija originalne intervencije Aleksandra Brenera/Photo of the original intervention by Aleksandar Brener (str./p. 23)
• Brad Downey - Intervencija na kovanici od 5 kuna, 2023. / Brad Downey - Intervention on the 5 kuna coin, 2023 (str./p. 23)
• Fotografija/photo: u: FRANKO MIROŠEVIĆ, Dubrovački kotar u Nezavisnoj Državi Hrvatskoj, Udruga antifašista, Dubrovnik, 2016., str. 73/ in: FRANKO MIROŠEVIĆ, Dubrovnik District in the Independent State of Croatia, Anti-Fascist Association, Dubrovnik, 2016, p. 73 (str./p. 25)
• Fotografija Nacionalne zastave SFR Jugoslavije. Public Domain/Photo of the National Flag of SFR Yugoslavia. Public Domain (str./p. 27)
• Dozvola Aleksandra Brenera Jakovu Prijatelju za reprodukciju intervencije sa znakom dolara/Aleksandar Brener’s permission to Jakov Prijatelj to reproduce the intervention with the dollar sign (str./p. 29)
• Dozvola Jakova Prijatelja Bradu Downeyu za reprodukciju intervencije sa znakom dolara/ Jakov Prijatelj’s permission to Brad Downey to reproduce the intervention with the dollar sign (str./p. 29)
• Fotografija / photo: Brad Downey - intervencija, foto: Šimun Bućan / Brad Downey - intervention, photo: Šimun Bućan (str./p. 31)
Dollar Sign/Znak dolara, 2023.
Materijali: sprej na prostorno-specifičnoj Laibach intervenciji/
Materials: spray paint over site-specific Laibach intervention
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 205 x 170 cm
Seeds, Mud, Wood, Plastic, Salt Crystals, Kerosene, Rocks, Water, 2022
digitalni video: 5 min 3 s/digital video: 5min 3sec
Interdimensional Composition (from Heinrich to Henry), 1977. - 1992. - 2023.
Materijali: bakropisi na papiru, crni tuš, cinčane matrice/
Materials: etchings on paper, black ink, zinc printing plates
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 53 x 39 cm, 58 x 42 cm, 22 x 30 cm
4
Homage to the Roman Empire, 2011.
Materijali: modificirani bicikl, lokot za bicikl, traka, pismo Romana Signera, digitalni video u trajanju od 2 minute i 24 sekunde/Materials: modified bike, bike lock, tape, letter from Roman Signer, digital video: 2 minutes 24 seconds
Dimenzije/Dimensions: promjenjive/variable
5
Zig Urat Zag Urat, 2023.
Materijali: originalni Plečnikov stup, betonske Plečnikove replike, okovi za montažu, metal, staklo, žarulja, električna oprema/Materials: original Plečnik column, concrete Plečnik replicas, mounting hardware, metal, glass, bulb, electrical hardware Dimenzije/Dimensions: 130 x 150 x 570 cm
What Lies Beneath, 2003. – 2023.
Materijali: restaurirana, fragmentirana i srušena Banksyjeva instalacija, preimenovana u What Lies Beneath, izvorno postavljena u Kunstraum Kreuzberg Bethanien u Berlinu u Njemačkoj/Materials: restored, fragmented and demolished
Banksy installation, retitled What Lies Beneath, originally installed at Kunstraum Kreuzberg Bethanien, Berlin, Germany
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 62 x 52 cm
Melania, 2019.
Materijali: spaljeni fragment s Melanijinog spomenika/
Materials: burned fragment from the monument Melania
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 38 x 49 x 167 cm
Portrait of Maxi, 2023. (U suradnji s Anom Žerjal)/(In collaboration with Ana Žerjal)
Materijali: cedrovina/Materials: cedar tree
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 78 x 80 x 280 cm
Broken Plate, 2023.
Materijali: fragmentiran mural Luca Tuymansa/
Materials: fragmented mural by Luc Tuymans
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 400 x 400 cm
* rad 1/work 1 ——— str./p. 18
Seeds, Mud, Wood, Plastic, Salt Crystals, Kerosene, Rocks, Water, 2022 digitalni video: 5 min 3 s/digital video: 5min 3sec
Rad Spiral Jetty Roberta Smithsona uvijek mi je na pameti. Nakon tjedan dana provedenih ondje, osjećao sam da je rad više mjesto, no skulptura. K tome, otkrio sam da ga ptice koriste za navigaciju.
Tekst: Brad Downey
Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty is always on my mind. After spending a week there, I felt that the work is more place than sculpture. Additionally, I discovered that birds use it as a navigational tool.
Text: Brad Downey
Interdimensional Composition (from Heinrich to Henry), 1977. - 1992. - 2023.
Materijali: bakropisi na papiru, crni tuš cinčane matrice/Materials: etchings on paper, black ink, zinc printing plates
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 53 x 39 cm, 58 x 42 cm, 22 x 30cm
Ovo djelo istražuje kako je Karl-Dietrich Roth postao Diter Rot, zatim Heinrich Schwarz, pa Dieter Roth, pa Henry Black i na kraju...
Godine 2008. saznao sam da je Dieter Roth svoje grafike tijekom procesa otiskivanja često potpisivao pseudonimom Heinrich Schwarz, kako to u svojim tekstovima spominje Dirk Dobke, kustos Zaklade Dieter Roth u Hamburgu. Od tog sam trenutka usputno tražio grafike sličnog izgleda na kojima su se izmjenjivali potpisi Heinricha Schwarza i Dietera Rotha. Kupio sam nekoliko grafika iz različitih serija ploča u različitim stanjima i na različitim lokacijama.
Koristeći dvije vrste procesa prijenosa fotografije, izradio sam nove tiskarske ploče koristeći slike na grafikama. S tim novoizrađenim tiskarskim pločama nastavio sam raditi na crtežima Dietera Rotha, stvarajući nove grafike tijekom procesa otiskivanja koje potpisujem s Henry Black, kao varijantom imena Heinrich Schwarz. Originalne grafike Dietera Rotha već imaju kronološke potpise iz 1977. i 1992. godine. Moji su radovi tiskani 2023., čime umeću grafike koje unose zbrku u kronologiju: 1977., 2023., 1992.
U jednom sam slučaju tiskao izravno preko originalnog djela Dietera Rotha i potpisao ga s Brad Downey.
Tekst: Brad Downey /
This piece explores how Karl-Dietrich Roth became Diter Rot, then Heinrich Schwarz, then Dieter Roth, then Henry Black, and finally...
In 2008, I learned that Dieter Roth often signed his in-between-process prints with the pseudonym Heinrich Schwarz, as mentioned in texts by Dirk Dobke, the curator of the Dieter Roth Foundation in Hamburg. Since then, I have casually searched for similar-looking prints with alternating signatures by Heinrich Schwarz and Dieter Roth. I purchased several prints from a series of plates in various states from different locations.
Using two types of photography transfer processes, I recreated new printing plates from the images on the prints. With these newly-made printing plates, I continued to work on the drawings of Dieter Roth, creating new in-between states of the print for which I signed Henry Black as a variant of Heinrich Schwarz. The original prints from Dieter Roth already have two signed timelines from 1977 and 1992. My works are printed in 2023, adding in-between prints that confuse the timeline: 1977, 2023, 1992.
In one instance, I printed directly over the original work from Dieter Roth and signed it under Brad Downey.
Text: Brad Downey
4
Homage to the Roman Empire, 2011. Materijali: modificirani bicikl, lokot za bicikl, traka, pismo Romana Signera, digitalni video u trajanju od 2 minute i 24 sekunde/Materials: modified bike, bike lock, tape, letter from Roman Signer, digital video: 2 minutes 24 seconds Dimenzije/Dimensions: promjenjive/variable
Godine 2009. pozvan sam da sudjelujem na izložbi u Krakowu u Poljskoj, gdje sam imao zadovoljstvo raditi s Romanom Signerom. Za vrijeme zajedničkog ručka pitao sam bi li mi dopustio da posudim njegov rad “Bicycle with Rubber Band” iz 1982. godine. Htio sam iskoristiti njegovo umjetničko djelo za novi performans u U-Bahnu u Berlinu. Ideja mu se svidjela, ali je to umjetničko djelo već bio prodao jednom muzeju u Švicarskoj. Obećao je poslati zahtjev tom muzeju i povratno mi se javiti. Nekoliko mjeseci kasnije poštom sam primio razglednicu.
“Dragi Brad Downey,
Hvala na Vašem pismu. Kunstmuseum St. Gallen ne želi da se bicikl koristi za događaj na otvorenom u Berlinu. Možda možete sami nabaviti bicikl i izraditi traku za označavanje radova (nije teško).
S poštovanjem, Roman”
Uz njegov blagoslov, izradio sam bicikl modificiranog dizajna koji je omogućio da se traka kotrlja izravno s kotača na pod.
Tekst: Brad Downey
In 2009, I was invited to participate in an exhibition in Krakow, Poland, where I had the pleasure of working alongside Roman Signer. During lunch with him, I asked if he would let me borrow his artwork Bicycle with Rubber Band from 1982. I wanted to use his artwork to create a new performance on the U-Bahn in Berlin. He liked the idea but had already sold the artwork to a museum in Switzerland. He promised to make a request to the museum and get back to me. A few months later, I received a postcard in the mail.
“Dear Brad Downey,
Thank you for your letter. The Kunstmuseum St. Gallen does not want the bicycle to be used for an outdoor event in Berlin. You may be able to get a bike yourself and make the construction band (it’s not difficult).
Sincerely, Roman”
With his blessing, I remade the bicycle with a modified design that allowed the tape to roll directly off the wheel onto the floor.
Text: Brad DowneyZig Urat Zag Urat, 2023.
Materijali: originalni Plečnikov stup, betonske Plečnikove replike, okovi za montažu, metal, staklo, žarulja, električna oprema/Materials: original Plečnik column, concrete Plečnik replicas, mounting hardware, metal, glass, bulb, electrical hardware
Dimenzije/Dimensions: 130 x 150 x 570 cm
Godine 2020. upoznao sam Slovenca (koji želi ostati anoniman) koji je tvrdio da ima pravi arhitektonski stup Jože Plečnika. Nekoliko dana kasnije dogovorio sam kupnju tog stupa. Podrijetlo stupa nije bilo jasno. Kada sam došao u posjed stupa, odnio sam uzorak Damjanu Vengustu na Institutu Jožef Stefan u Ljubljani. Damjan je proveo niz testova koji su uključivali difrakciju X-zraka za identifikaciju minerala i elektronsku disperzijsku spektroskopiju za ispitivanje elementarnog sastava, čime je napravio analizu materijala elementa i usporedio moj uzorak s tri uzorka Plečnikova rada: Stadionom Bežigrad, Tromostovjem i Plečnikovom kućom u Ljubljani (svi sadrže isti Plečnikov stup).
Nakon što smo potvrdili autentičnost elementa, odlučio sam ga koristiti kao komponentu skulpture, nekoliko puta okomito ponavljajući njegov oblik.
Tekst: Brad Downey
In 2020, I met a Slovenian man (who prefers to remain anonymous) who claimed to have a real architectural column from Jože Plečnik. A few days later, I negotiated an arrangement to acquire the column. The column had no clear provenance. Once it was in my possession, I took the sample to Damjan Vengust at the Jožef Stefan Institute in Ljubljana. Damjan conducted a series of tests involving X-ray diffraction for mineral identification and electron dispersive spectroscopy for elemental composition, made a material analysis of the element, and compared my sample to three samples of Plečnik’s work: Stadion Bežigrad, Triple Bridge, and Plečnik’s House in Ljubljana (all of which contain the same column by Plečnik).
Once we confirmed the authenticity of the element, I decided to use it as a component for a sculpture, repeating its form several times vertically.
Text: Brad Downey
