Goran Petercol: Conventions by MMSU Rijeka

Publisher: Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art Krešimirova 26c, Rijeka, Croatia www.mmsu.hr

For the publisher: Slaven Tolj

Editor: Sabina Salamon

Texts: Sabina Salamon, Chris Sharp, Miško Šuvaković, Vladimir Vidmar

Interview with Goran Petercol: Sabine Schaschl

Introductory chapter texts and artwork descriptions: Goran Petercol

English translations: Lidija Toman, Žarko Cvejić, Martin Mayhew

Croatian copyediting: Gordana Ožbolt, Lidija Toman

English copyediting: Kate Foley

Photographs: Zoran Alajbeg, Boris Cvjetanović, Damir Fabijanić, Jim Frank, Miha Fras, Dejan Habicht, Ivan Marinković, Tanja Draškić Savić, Nataša Radović, Dubravka Rakoci, Jasenko Rasol, Ratko Restek, Marcus Schneider, Nino Semialjac, Robert Sošić, Deni Šesnić, Goran Trbuljak, Milisav Vesović

Photographs on pages 100-101, and 135-137 courtesy of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb

All other photographs courtesy of Goran Petercol, Gregor Podnar, Berlin

Graphic design: Željko Serdarević

Scans: Fini print Zagreb, Miho Karolyi Printed by: Kerschoffset, Zagreb Cat.no.: 392 Print run: 1000 ©MMSU, Rijeka, 2019

ISBN 978-953-8107-28-3

CIP zapis dostupan u računalnom katalogu Sveučilišne knjižnice Rijeka pod brojem 140817034.

This publication has been funded with support from the City of Rijeka, Rijeka 2020 – European Capital of Culture, Ministry of Culture of Croatia and Ministry of Tourism of Croatia

Published in conjunction with the retrospective by Goran Petercol entitled Don’t worry about poetics, they will arrive on their own (November 22, 2019 − January 5, 2020), held at the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka.

Curator: Sabina Salamon Assistant curator: Katerina Jovanović Exhibition set-up: Goran Petercol Technical set-up: Filip Beusan, Vanja Pužar, Anton Samaržija Wooden objects manufacturer: Miljenko Čanak Super 8mm ﬁlms digitization: Dubravko Badalić Film editing and postproduction: Sara Salamon, Hrvoje Spudić Graphic design: Željko Serdarević

Public relations: Jelena Androić Museum educator: Ivana Lučić Accountancy: Stošija Baljak Gržančić, Ivan Moher Professional associate: Tamara Medač Medija

Thanks to: Darija Žmak Kunić

Courtesy: Goran Petercol and Gregor Podnar, Berlin Project partner: Gregor Podnar, Berlin

REPUBLIKA HRVATSKA Ministarstvo Turizma

GORAN PETERCOL CONVENTIONS

The beginning and the end are two arbitrary poles of will, and what stands between them is called a‘work of art’, even when it .leaves the frame.

Symmetries, 2009 · Glass, mirror, concrete · 21×15×15 cm Collection Luisa Malzoni Strina, São Paulo

27 29

Introduction

Sabina Salamon 30 41

A warehouse of possibilities A conversation between Sabine Schaschl and Goran Petercol 42 45

Goran Petercol’s economy of being Chris Sharp 46 53

One hand clapping Vladimir Vidmar 54 63 ,Shadows, signiﬁers, and optical texts absent/present light Miško Šuvaković 64 73

Is Goran Petercol an unconventional artist? Sabina Salamon 74 237 Works by Goran Petercol

239 241

Uvod Sabina Salamon 242 250

Skladište mogućnosti Razgovor Sabine Schaschl i Gorana Petercola 251 252

Ekonomija postojanja Gorana Petercola Chris Sharp 253 256 Pljesak jednog dlana Vladimir Vidmar 257 262 Sjene, označitelji i optički tekstovi odsutna/prisutna svjetlost Miško Šuvaković 263 269

Je li Goran Petercol nekonvencionalan umjetnik? Sabina Salamon 270 287

Biography & bibliography

Folded Paper Corner, 1977· Paper 29×20.5 cm Top paper corner folded with the right hand.

INTRODUCTION

Sabina Salamon

Coinciding with the ﬁrst retrospective exhibition of works by Goran Petercol, the purpose of this monograph is to clarify the areas of interest that the artist has pursued in his work from the 1970s to the present. The idea was not to showcase his oeuvre in its entirety, but rather to condense and isolate its basic concepts and provide the reader with guidelines for understanding. One should add that Petercol’s explorations arose from his study of painting, which we touch upon only in passing, leaving a more thorough engagement with that for another occasion.

The aggregate of concepts that have preoccupied Petercol includes some 70 or so themes that intersect, complement each other, vary, and occasionally actualize one another, offering new answers to the fundamental question that life imposes on the artist: how to make art?

The notion of convention featured in the title refers the reader to another question that Petercol poses indirectly: is the domain of creation marked by a succession of conventions and, if every artist must stake out their own position, is it not paradoxical to teach anyone how to make art?

Since monographs are likewise conventions in and of themselves, this one, too, begins by asking a conventional question: what is so special about Goran Petercol as a protagonist on the neo-avant-garde scene of 1970s Zagreb, given that there were many who lashed out at old principles and ways of doing things at the time, and that waging battles with depleted media forms was a commonplace occurrence as well? The answer to that would be the following: Petercol is unique because he attacked conventions not just declaratively and by dismissing them a priori, but by knocking them down in his work process. He proves them right or wrong as if deriving a formula in physics. When following a convention, his pursuit draws him away from expected results and towards unforeseen variances, because he ultimately never really obeys the convention, but rather seeks to expose its contractual (conventional) nature. If we take the most classical example of creativity, observing a motive, Petercol certainly observes, but not in any conventional way, rather, he sees what conventional observation would fail to notice: the edges of the paper format instead of its central area, the inter-space between a pillar in the exhibition space and an artwork exhibited therein, shadows instead of objects. Ostensibly applying a rational method of scientiﬁc proof, Petercol manages to conceal the point where he deliberately turns and refutes the formula. This move is performed imperceptibly, while the procedure whereby the work comes into being remains hidden and irrelevant to the viewer anyway. The point is elsewhere,

because opposing convention is a productive act in itself that supplies ﬁrm foundations for creativity, and any thought of changing and breaking with outdated forms must originate from the inside. That is also the driving idea behind this monograph.

We are introduced to its contents by way of Sabine Schaschl’s interview with Goran Petercol, which, through its 20 comprehensive questions, maps out the wider context of his work, from his early activities on Zagreb’s dynamic art scene, which played an important part in his formative years, to the cultural context of Yugoslavia. In addition to highlighting Petercol’s work procedures and initial stimuli, it also prepares the reader for the material that follows.

Chris Sharp offers insight into Petercol’s exemplary creative economy, which is characterized by unpretentiousness and an ascetic reserve. In contrast to theories of indifference to the subject of authorship, Sharp detects a tendency toward self-afﬁrmation, centering his discussion on the question of the author’s presence, which in Petercol’s case moves from one extreme to the other — from total withdrawal to a need for self-afﬁrmation.

Implying the need for a different kind of reception that transcends cognitive processes and activates intuition to allow every individual to ﬁnd answers of their own, Vladimir Vidmar bases his text on identifying parallels between Petercol’s workand the confounding coded messages of Zen Buddhism and its koans. Using the metaphor of one-hand clapping, Vidmar suggests to the viewer a hidden contradiction informing the basis of Petercol’s work procedures.

Miško Šuvaković discusses works employing light, wherein the key role is played by the phenomenon of shadow. As an instrument for understanding the system behind Petercol’s installations involving light, Šuvaković foregrounds semiological analysis as a means of providing shadow and the activity of the optical with a systematic framework for generating meaning. A shadow is not just a conﬁguration of light that we may see, but also a non-verbal optical text that we may read by correlating it to other models and texts.

In line with the monograph’s four main chapters, in my own text I lay out the basic ideas that shape Petercol’s work processes, concluding with a rhizome thicket of concepts that keeps sprouting, not along a developmental trajectory from simpler to more complex works, but persevering in a rather non-evolutional sort of production. Thus in different versions, certain topics from Petercol’s early period are equally relevant today.

The survey of visual material following the textual-interpretive part of the book is divided into four chapters, which, disregarding the logic of chronological ordering, document the repetitive rhythm of the emergence of new works that revolve around certain concepts.

The ﬁrst chapter, Restricted Spaces, refers to Petercol’s starting motto that artists create art out of necessity, contrary to the conventional opinion that they do it out of inspiration. The focus is on the limitations that one’s conditions of work inevitably impose, be it the format of the surface that the work occupies or the reach of the artist’s hand. This chapter, like the remaining three chapters, features works in various

media and from various periods, implying that this media diversity is pervaded by the same sets of problems. Thus the theme of creating art out of necessity is present in Petercol’s works from the series Reaches as much as in his installations involving light. Although belonging to different media, both shadow and the reach of hand generate forms deﬁned by range; both of them involve regularity and measure, afﬁrming that the artist does not have to come up with (new) forms, because they are already there.

Building on the topic of starting from a set of givens, the second chapter broaches the subject of freedom. Titled I, or: Where is the Author?, it introduces works that reflect on the problem of the author as an unavoidable convention of modernism and, related to it, the uniqueness of creation and the original.

The chapter To Make Things Visible refers to the convention of the hierarchy between relevant and irrelevant in artistic creation, which may be recognized as a uniquely Petercolian topic. If the heading of relevant may be extended to cover all that the history of art has brought to the institution of ﬁne art, including everyday and obscene objects, the possibilities are not thereby exhausted. In addition to including objects, one might venture further, in the direction of embracing otherwise unremarkable phenomena, such as the space separating two exhibits, or, again, shadow as an extension of the object that casts it. By making a turn, as described above, Petercol questions everything that is normally considered irrelevant. To make things visible means to make them relevant.

Finally, the fourth chapter, Rows, summarizes and brings together themes discussed in the preceding chapters, such as interspace, the impossibility of initiating creation out of nothing, the demise of hierarchies, the arbitrariness of taste and decisionmaking. It outlines how this multitude of interconnected concepts keeps branching out, producing new variants within existing concepts.

AWAREHOUSE OFPOSSIBILITIES

A conversation between Sabine Schaschl (SSCH) and Goran Petercol (GP), August 2019

Negative , 1994 · Light installation · Aluminum, mirror, spotlight

SSCH: The ﬁrst exhibition I saw of yours was at Grita Insam Gallery in Vienna, which must have been in the mid-1990s. I still vividly remember a series of wall “sculptures” — you refer to them as light installations — consisting of light, brass sticks and steel wires mounted directly onto the wall. What immediately caught me was the minimalistic character of these works, using such a reduced amount of material and yet bringing out such a sensual experience, which differed also according to where the spectator was standing. Although these are not your earliest works, I was wondering if you consider these pieces as core pieces within your work or pieces that form a special knot on the red thread of your entire body of work.

GP: Yes, I feel them as a kind of turning point. The use of light changed the reception of my works, and also gradually opened up space for new concepts. Generally speaking, in the 1980s there were not many artists working with light. I started to work with light and shadow in 1985 and exhibited these works at a solo exhibition at the Gallery of Contemporary Art in Zagreb, and then Trigon in 1989 when I met Grita Insam, and had the ﬁrst solo exhibition at her gallery in Vienna in 1990. The ﬁrst ten years I used to call all the works with light Sjene (Shadows), although they were based on different concepts. I didn’t translate that title into English, I used it as a name. I wanted to reduce the power of the word shadow because I felt it depleted, which repelled me. And regarding the use of light itself I felt ambivalent: I was attracted to it as it allowed me to create an order for which I was not responsible and at the same time its excessive seduction, from which I could not escape, repelled me. But to tell the truth, in some cases I liked to use it.

SSCH: I find this ambivalence interesting — light is an interesting immaterial material, seductive in many cases, but maybe from a certain perspective also quite efficient in terms of handling. When you talk about order, I would like to know more about this process. If I correctly understand it, you define geometrical, systematical points where you apply the metal sticks

or shaped wires, and then the cast shadows become integral conceptual parts. In some of your texts you talk about elements that cast no shadow.Don’t all objects or elements cast shadows? Isn’t the positioning of light responsible for the existence of a shadow, with the positioning of the light deﬁned by you?

GP: Although I sometimes use an existing light source, in most cases I set it up myself. So first, I fix the light, and then I place an object inside the illuminated space, producing a shadow that could change depending on the distance from the light source. I accept the obtained directions of the stretch of the shadow, its shape and length, as the distance between the two elements. In fact, I accept a kind of self-organization of the work that frees me from deciding everything. After these initial assumptions, I leave aside the decisions as to when and how to complete the work. When it comes to shadows that appear as dark lines, I finish them myself by placing a metal stick on the end point of the shadow (line), which I tilt so it no longer produces shadow. In a way, I interrupt the reasons for further self-organization of the work. Within the Sjene series, I have about ten concepts, within which I treat work items differently. In a series in which I arrange the elements along the contours of an imaginary geometric figure (rectangle, circle, triangle, etc.), I sometimes draw a geometric figure with shadows, and sometimes halfway through, I stop and finish the work by joining the ends of the shadow with a string forming an arc. That way I do not have a shadow that I could continue because it does not extend any further. In a series of shadowless works, I place for example a wire in the field of light, and then line up the metal rods in positions where they do not produce shadows. At first glance, the viewer is unsure whether the shadow he or she sees belongs to the wire or the rods. Of course, one can discover the truth very quickly, because there was no intention of fraud either.

SSCH: The aspect of self-organization of the work is very interesting. How is it then possible to do preparatory drawings of light interventions? There are draw-

ings of installations whose shadows have different colors. Does this mean that you can plan and conceptualize the form of the shadows and their colors beforehand? Does chance play a part in this process?

GP: These are sketches for light installations with colored shadows. When two complementary colors of light overlap, the illuminated background is more or less white, with the shadows of the object appearing in two colors (red and turquoise). When these shadows overlap, then the overlapped shadow loses color, becoming almost black. When setting this up, I used sketches to reconstruct the idea. I can compare these sketches with music notation. At my worktable with the elements in hand, I would try out the shadows created by the two lights of complementary colors and draw their positions on paper. I needed this pre-setup. While I could imagine a work done with

one light, in color shadow work I really couldn’t do it, they were too complicated for me. Relationships and shadow lengths change with each performance, but that does not affect the idea. Due to the different positions of the light, we perceive their proper regularity as a coincidence.

SSCH: I saw in your biography that you attended the Maritime College and that you sailed on navy ships before you started with the arts. Was there a special moment, a cut, to leave behind sailing to go study art or was this a slow transition? Also, since I read this, I cannot stop thinking about your sailing experience when I look at some of your drawings and light installations. The reﬂections of light and the shapes of shadows especially give me the impression that the visual experiences from sailing found a way into your art. Is there any truth in this?

Light installations, 1990 · Installation view, Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna

Rovinj, 1963· Photography· 29.5×42 cm· First printed 2012

GP: I was attracted to seeing New York, Rio de Janeiro, Yokohama, Casablanca... and at that time, when I was eighteen years-old, this was only possible as a seaman. At the same time, I was drawn to art, but I didn’t know to which field. I never meant to stay on board. Surely, I had some experience staying at sea, there may be a feeling of empty space, of space in between, but I can only speculate about this. I can also assume it might be the feeling of a journey from point A to point B, i.e. that every journey must end somewhere. I act similarly in my work, starting from something concrete I go in a certain direction and at some point I turn in another direction, into something else... and finally, I stop. In works with shadows, this trajectory gets materialized in shadows that create a finite sequence. Although the shadow is static, it contains movement, in the direction of the extension. When that journey is over, I let it know, I quit making

shadows. I’m not sure about the direct connection between navigation and the Sjene series. When you talk about the atmosphere you feel, I can also say thatit may be connected to the fact that I lived in a small provincial town, where at night public lighting was modest. I recorded these views of the city over two nights in 1963 (and never before or after that). A few years ago, I found these negatives, developed the photographs and realized that I was shooting light. In some ways the photos conﬁrmed that my interest in light was not a coincidence.

SSCH: I was looking at some of your early works, which you did during your studies at the Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb. There were two methods I found very interesting because they were there from the beginning and in my opinion they are still an integral part of your work. The ﬁrst thing I noticed is your

stylistic diversity when you draw. The minimal style effectuating a portrait with a few lines, and the compact style ﬁlling up the shape of a face with several densely driven circular lines; both co-exist. A second observation was that the contrast between light and darkness was something evident in your early work. The painting Untitled (1976) immediately made me think of Goya’s fresco with the drowning dog, where the contrast of light and dark is responsible for the underlining of emotional drama. Where any art historical references of interest for you?

GP: Drawing with black on white paper or contrasting shadow and light are the procedures that make it visible. Such a procedure produces a contrast that bears some kind of drama. I used it in student artwork (the 1976 painting you refer to still belongs to my body of student artwork). However, after 1975, I worked to reduce drama. I separated forms from conventionally attached meanings. For example in the series of drawings Copying (winter 1975/76), I copied previously made gestures to make new ones that only formally resembled them, as if they were created within the concept of gestural painting. The copying process deprived them of associated energy, spontaneity, and any kind of expressiveness. In Stylizations, I performed the stylization so formally that it lost its meaning by reducing the stylized form to its visual essence. Sometimes I made the ﬁrst shape in black and stylized it with white and sometimes with black on black on a white background. I have sought to contain this emotional drama stemming from the nature of opposition at the level on which things are simply seen. I tried to subtract or at least reduce that which might suggest something more. Except within the work itself, I could use the method of putting together oppositions to exit one type of formal problem and open up another. After a series of variants, the new work contained some opposite assumption. It may be more about resisting saturation after working too long within one concept and losing motivation to pursue something similar than wanting to go into the new. This may have been the reason for the stylistic changes in

the drawings mentioned. In Negatives, for example, I illuminated the shadows by transforming them into shapes of illuminated surfaces, and then in Light², I further illuminated the shapes of light.

After turning the shadow into a form of light I continued to convert the light into a stronger light; I treated it as a shadow even though it was light. In fact, I am reacting to my works that, at one point or another start to build a convention, so I then need new work that would, let’s say, heal me. As for art historical references, somehow, I was not consciously tied to anything. Not even when I studied and loved the work of an artist or the idea of an art movement, or was within a speciﬁc work problem, it did not affect my artistic position. I spent a great part of my life in Zagreb, which is why I felt the local art tradition so close to me. I even thought about trying to come up with something that would speak about the environment itself, because the scene produced it, at least I thought so. Sometimes I was drawn to the works of artists with whom I could not ﬁnd any visible links. Also, for a period of ten years, during the 1970s and 1980s, I intensively socialized with artists from the Podrum and PM Space, exhibition spaces hosted by these artists and myself.

SSCH: So, I suppose that the “healing” process is a lifelong process — just like the artistic process. It seems that you went from figurative drawing and painting into abstraction and non-figurative work. The year of this change was 1975. Were the collages you did in 1974 a kind of bridge from the figurative to the abstract?

GP: What interested me at the Academy was figuring out what painting is. Not all of it, as I unconsciously traced some path that related it to me. Through practice, I confirmed whether I truly understood the concept within which I was painting. Usually after a dozen pictures within a series, something moved, and then I moved on. Even though I was moving from one concept to another, newer one, I would always find myself working within the familiar in art. That is

why I did not feel my painting was an art that I could exhibit. I didn’t exhibit. That’s how I felt. I was practicing. At the end of my studies, I came to abstract painting, which even then I did not feel as art but still as an exercise within my studies.

Though I was aware of working in a realm of depleted concepts, I was learning them anyway. I couldn’t skip them because they came from my practice. Skip to what? I was patient and knew I wouldn’t stay inside them. It was only after the Academy that I got the feeling that I could exhibit the series Copying. I did not feel a significant difference between figuration, collage and abstraction. The collages were created with the idea that when I paint, if I apply the substanceof oil paint on a substrate, then I can also glue papers, newspapers... because they are also matter, which also has its own color. I didn’t feel much difference. Still, no time was lost at the Academy. On the contrary, I can say that I learned a lot, not techniques, making paintings... but finding the thought within the subject matter of art. Raul Goldoni, whose class I graduated from, in addition to leading the internship also fostered awareness in each student of their own work. He used to tell us to write a few lines about what we do, and that we did not have to show it to anyone, but just write about it.

SSCH: You have mentioned before that you were hosting exhibitions at the Podrum and PM Space together with artist-colleagues. I guess that today we would call them artist-run spaces. Could you tell me more about it? You had the role of a curator or cocurator, if I correctly understood. Who were your colleagues? What kind of exhibitions did you do? When and why did these initiatives end?

GP: In the 1970s, due to the emergence of conceptual art, classical media ceased to be at the forefront. At Podrum we exhibited conceptual art, performance, visual poetry, photography, video, and primary or analytical works. I list here the names from the poster of the ﬁrst exhibition: Boris Demur, Vladimir Dodig, Ivan Dorogi, Ladislav Galeta, Tomislav Gotovac, Vla-

do Gudac, Sanja Iveković, Željko Jerman, Željko Kipke, Antun Maračić, Vlado Martek, Dalibor Martinis, Marijan Molnar, Goran Petercol, Rajko Radovanović, Mladen Stilinović, Sven Stilinović, Josip Stošić, Goran Trbuljak, Fedor Vučemilović. This art was only occasionally exhibited and its position was marginal. That is why artists of different artistic interests had a reason to gather. There was no dominant orientation because these artists had previously deﬁned artistic positions. There were no co-producers, and curatorial proposals, as far as I remember, were accepted only for two thematic exhibitions. After one year of intensive work, we had to return the space to the colleagues who allowed us to use it. After that experience, we looked for another option. We found it within the Association of Croatian Visual Artists in Zagreb. At the board meeting, we ﬁrst introduced new media in addition to painting, graphics and sculpture, and then we got our own space, the Expanded Media Space. I had been invited to join the Podrum, while I initiated the PM Space with my colleague Damir Sokić and the help of the artist Stevan Luketić from the Association. While the informal membership of the Podrum was more closed, the PM Space was open for the participation of others, under the condition that no classical media was exhibited. Although I was formally managing the exhibition space with Sokić, the management consisted of hanging a blank piece of paper on which interested artists listed their names for the future exhibition. Interestingly, no outsider ever applied. Every Monday there was an opening, the exhibition lasted until Wednesday and so it went on for three years, and then Mladen Stilinović took charge of the program. The PM Space has been maintained to this day as the Extended Media Gallery, and moved to another space, with a curator.

SSCH: In a lot of your works you were experimenting with the different possibilities given by a parameter, which was set by you. In Color on Surfaces (1978), you painted a square on a rock with your right hand and then another square with the left and right hand, in Folded Corner of Paper (1977), you folded a corner

with your right hand, once at the top right corner and once at the bottom right corner. In a very recent series of works, Halves (2015), you drew a form, but erased half of it, and in a site-speciﬁc work, Halves (2016), you illuminated half of Castle Münster. How can these works be considered: as potentialities within a chosen language, or as variations of a theme?

GP: I wanted to avoid setting boundaries according to my feelings. In fact, with that I avoided any creation that I felt belonged to tradition. So, I used the reach of my hand, which used to tell me when to drawthe line, what shape it would paint on the surface, or what the operation on paper would look like. Measuring produced similar results. I will describe the procedures in the 2015 Halves drawing. With my hand on a piece of paper I draw a line without moving the position of the hand; my reach determines its curvature and completion. I cannot know the length of the reach in advance, which is why it is only on completion that I measure half, and then delete it, because in this drawing I am working with halves. I continue a similar process with another reach of the line.Then, with a ruler, I draw the line toward one corner of the paper and stop halfway. I do not have to delete half of it because I know the distance in advance. I ﬁnish the drawing with a similar procedure to the second corner. Or, in another example, I lit the facade of the Münster Castle halfway. Suppose I lit the building by feeling. I can’t even imagine how little sense that would make. The measured half allows the work to be felt. If I had worked on feeling, I would have created a shape on the facade. Also, I am drawn to the spaces between things. I do not designate these spaces, although I use them in my works. They are given as such. I could conclude that it is not a matter of variations but of conﬁrming the potentials within the chosen language.

SSCH: You treat the spaces in between two things like other artists would use paint or another material. So, the negative and the positive or absence and presence are equal artistic means in your concepts. You treat the space in between in a “concrete” way. Coming from

the background of Museum Haus Konstruktiv I recall Theo van Doesburg, who deﬁned “concrete” in his writing from 1930 as “nothing is asconcrete as a line, a color, a surface”. In your case onewould need to add a few more categories such as light, shadow, space.

GP: Working with the space between the wall and the door I regard as I would any classic material, they are equivalent. To repair a faucet in the bathroom, a repairman has a list of materials necessary, on which each item is equally important, because without one of them he cannot ﬁnish the work. When space and some classic material are viewed from the outside, outside the work process, of course they look like different things. I believe Theo van Doesburg deﬁned a concrete result as being within the work process. It doesn’t matter if it’s a piece of concrete, an imaginary line, a part of space, a shadow, or a written word. If I reach for them, they become concrete. Otherwise I would not be able to capture them, and somehow move them into an artwork.

SSCH: You mentioned before the process of choosing a form from something that is already there, such as a gesture from a drawing/painting, as a process that was done in an automated condition and without conscious awareness. After this you meticulously copied this form, or you found a shadow, which you then photographed and projected and reproduced several times in different places. Do you use these methods in order to hand over the deﬁnition and selection of shapes and forms to chance?

GP: The forms that were taken over have their own logic of origin, in that sense they are not accidental, they are part of a reality that I did not want to change. Although I more or less randomly selected them, I did not feel randomness was important. I was attracted to their belonging to reality, even if I was not responsible for the emergence of their forms, or when it came to gestures, the fact that they are something that belong in the past and exist in reality as something complete, much like a shadow. I was curious

In & Out, 2003 · Light installation· Blut & Honig, Sammlung Essl, Klosterneuburg, Vienna

about a basis from which I could just begin my work. I moved them into my work ﬁrst. When I wanted to change them, I did not reshape them (except in the Copying series). That is, I did not want them to be the result of my creation, but I did it in order for them to remain what they were. For example, I would increase them by ﬁve centimeters, or I would reduce them by half. The difference between my part and the part I had taken is visible.

SSCH: You mentioned before that you have spent your life mostly in Zagreb. In one work — In & Out (2003), which you did for the exhibition Blut & Honig at the Essel collection in Klosterneuburg you created an additional space to the existing exhibition space, a new “box”, and you wrote that you are an artist from the Balkans who does not make Balkan art. Have you felt that living and working in Zagreb implied neglect from the international art scene?

GP: There is a lot of humor in the statement that “I am an artist from the Balkans who does not create Balkan art”. I responded to my observation that the art from the territory of the Former Yugoslavia is viewed as art marked by the local context, and that the international scene expected of artists from this territory certain attitudes and topics, as though we do not share a common artistic tradition with Western European artists. In particular, it is as if the European artistic tradition belongs only to the West, and we have lost the right to it. Not to go deeper into the subject, I would only mention this perception of the situation in Zagreb at the time of the socialist regime,which many people have forgotten today for ideological reasons, I can oppose because I was living there at the time. The Music Biennalebegan in Zagreb in 1961, with international guest performances by composers including Stockhausen, Stravinsky, Cage, Berio, Maderna, Globokar, Kagel, Nono, Reich. From 1961 to

1973 editions of New Tendencies were held, to which sections for computers and visual research were introduced in 1968 and a section for conceptual art in 1973. Foreign theorists such as Argan, Kulterman, Nake, Moles, and the artists Zero, GRAV, Nul, Manzoni and Colombo attended. I am not even mentioning that artists from Zagreb, some of the Gorgona members, artists who participated in New Tendencies, and the Zagreb School of Animation, were already internationally recognized. I want to say that when I came to Zagreb in 1970, all this influenced my work. I felt a sense of community and closeness to this art no matter where it came from. To get back to the installation of In & Out, a capsule I added to the Essl Collection building, I moved five centimeters away from its façade, now I think I may have unconsciously spoken about the isolation imposed on the Balkans. Why five centimeters? Starting with myself, the word “pet” in Croatian means five and at the same time it is the first syllable of my last name... so this is a measure that I adhered to.

SSCH: You have mentioned some very important things here. The movement New Tendencies, with all the artists from different European countries who united in order to reﬂect on common ideas, is internationally important. I suppose that the background of the socialistic regime and its attitude towards the arts had driven artists and curators into action and especially into conceptual, political and technological transformations. Would you say that the series of exhibitions known as New Tendencies inﬂuenced your artistic approach?

GP: I would not say that. Although New Tendencies created a positive climate, they did not inﬂuence my work because they were focused on a different type of research, and the optical aspects did not appeal to me. I came to Zagreb at the end of the New Tendencies movement, and somehow it already felt like history. It was only later that I discovered Knifer, Kristl, Srnec, Morellet, etc. To return to the regime — it’s important to know that Tito broke with Stalin very early,

so there was no Soviet style repression in socialist Yugoslavia. This is a peculiarity of this region. I would like to bring up the phenomenon of state monuments to the victims of WWII, which were built in abstract modernist style. Research in the ﬁeld of abstract art began very early, with the EXAT51 group, which was recognized as progressive. In 1952 the group was invited to participate in the International Salon of New Realists in Paris to represent Yugoslavia. There were also four exhibitions called Salon (1954, 1956, 1959, 1961) organized by the Modern Gallery (today the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art) in Rijeka, which were launched as an overview of the latest research in art, and of abstraction in art.

SSCH: Because of my background working with Museum Haus Konstruktiv I am often confronted with questions about the political impact of non-ﬁgurative works. I absolutely disagree that non-ﬁgurative works have no political importance and would like to hear your view on this — especially given the political background you are coming from.

GP: There are many ways in which the political can be expressed. The easiest way is to stick to something that clearly expresses political messages. I notice that in art today, instead of the image, with which ﬁgurative art has traditionally been used to send political messages, text is used. In fact, it is often said that some work is non-political, but it is impossible to do a nonpolitical work. Everything is consciously or unconsciously involved in creation, including the relationship with society. Personally, I see political responsibility in what I do, and I am not concerned with political impact, as it is always, more or less, present.

SSCH: In the early 2000s you began to use everyday objects as material for your installations. A chair in After Reﬂection (2007) is part of a work where you illuminated the space between the chair and the wall. Or, in another work in the same series you used a broken ceramic plate and you sort of extended the line of the broken object by ﬁlling it with a thick line

of a ﬁller material called acrystal. For Symmetry (2009) you used a wine glass ﬁlled with concrete and placed it in front of a mirror. In a way it seems that you shifted from the immaterial materiality of light and shadow and very light materials such as wire and metal rods to more substantial materials found in your daily life. Would you agree on that and could you explain your choice of this material?

GP: Yes, I would agree. On the one hand, after much consecutive use of light, I had enough of it, and at one point the use of light began to feel like a convention that stopped being exciting to me. On the other hand, if I materialize some ideas with light within a concrete concept, it does not mean that there is no longer space to work in other materials that are concrete. If I couldn’t, it would mean that I did not understand or comprehend the breadth that concept allows. I mean, if I accept the shape and color of a shadow as material, the reason for not accepting an object as material would have no logical justiﬁcation, except by some reason hidden in my ego. I felt as if that decision would have governed my taste and I don’t like that. As for the choice of material, I was guided, on the one hand, by the criteria that it is easy to handle and is suitable for the realization of the idea, such as wires and metal rods in Sjene, on the other, that they are ordinary, irrelevant, and do not send big messages. In the 1970s I worked with craft paper because I felt that quality papers bought at specialist art stores dragged me into the ﬁeld of classical art. I was attracted to the plainness of this paper, it gave me freedom, and with that attitude I chose this paper.

SSCH: A lot of your works are works within a series. This thinking in series — is it a method in order to explore variations on a given theme, and you already have several possibilities in your head when you begin work on it, or does a series evolve in the making? I read somewhere that you spoke about works evolving out of existing works. So maybe a series consists of works emerging from questions or possibilities evoked by the previous work.

GP: I develop the series by performing. Practice puts me in unpredictable situations, but on reflection I have the feeling that I am revolving around inside a field of my own knowledge that is limited. Of course, this is difficult to separate out, but mostly I came up with new concepts either through a perception of reality or the work performed. I don’t feel like these are different things, because when the work is done, it crosses an invisible border and becomes part of reality. In a way, I do not see it as something of my own, but something that I have added to the body of everything that surrounds me. So, I could, for example, take an old drawing and paint it with the appropriate stylization. With this process, the drawing is no longer visible, but the stylized shape is not a fictional shape either. The previous work is not visible, but it is present in its impact.

SSCH: A recurring theme, or rather method in your work is the copying of a form and either repeating it or transforming it into something else. I was wondering if this method of copying also is a form of liberation from searching for or generating form.

GP: Yes, the background of my use of repetition is that I’m not searching for a new form, and this repetition is never literal, it is more about variations within a single concept. I maintain my position until a change to another position appears. I’m so certain this moment will come that waiting for me has become a normal method of creation. First, I live and work with some concept, and I don’t know what direction I can take, and I don’t care, but I know that I can go on. It would be arrogant and unrealistic to expect that change will follow after the completion of each work.

SSCH:In another series, Stylizations, you thematize the process of searching for form. You spoke about stylization meaning to give the illusion of a form reduced to its essence. I am not sure if I understand this. In order to have an illusion of a form, doesn’t the form need to be ﬁgurative, in order to generate an illusion?

GP: In Stylizations I create the illusion that I support the convention of a stylization process of some form. It’s a painting process. For example, when a painter draws a model, what he sees he reduces to the main lines and draws them. Details are lost, but the relevant remains. I literally took on this process here. I have a model, which is spilled paint, a drawing or a character that I stylize. It doesn’t matter if the shape is ﬁgurative or abstract, I use the prominent points that allow me to stylize it, which fulﬁlls the meaning of the performance. But I do not want to bring a form closer to its visual essence. I don’t want to stylize.

SSCH: You participated at the Venice Bienniale 1995 with the work Negative. For this series of works you used a negative showing a speciﬁc part of a space and you projected this negative into this same space, putting reality and ﬁction in dialogue. What do you

choose when you have a space you work with, the little things that usually are overlooked? Architectural details? For the Venice Bienniale installation, you created some sort of columns of light — could you tell me more about what you were looking for?

GP: In Negatives, clear shadows in space were important, in order to cover them with the same shapes made of light, that is, in order to turn shadows into shapes of light. What was I looking for? I made this shadow process visible. I created the event by changing the amount of light inside the shadows, while leaving the shapes as I found them. Later, I installed a light source in the space and introduced elements into the illuminated part of the space so that I could turn shadows there into light. In Venice, daylight entered through a large window along whose edges, within a narrow vertical band, and alongside the left and right edges

Negative, 1995 · Light installation in situ · Croatian Pavilion, 46th Venice Biennial, Venice

of the windows, were shadows. When I projected light into those shadows, I got those columns of light.

SSCH: In further versions with projected slides as motives you photographed the shadow of something that you found in a particular exhibition space and projected this image into that particular space, or in another method you “annuled” the creation of a shadow with a reﬂection using a mirror. How do you choose each particular method?

GP: The works in which I removed the shadow with the mirror preceded the Negatives. In fact, it’s the same concept, I just replaced the mirrors with the projection of the shape using a slide projector. Later, I also called these mirror works Negatives. In Flashes I separated the shape of the shadow from the object and projected it as a form of light with some other existing form of light, for example a window. This way one form of light was given another form of light, a form that previously was a shadow; the light was given an extension, just as an illuminated object is extended by a shadow. I kept the mechanism of the object-shadow relationship, while in this case the light-dark contrast was of no interest to me. When I moved the existing form to another location, I created a new event.

SSCH: In your most recent works one can observe the different methods that you have used in previous works applied to a single work. Symmetry and StylizationReduced to Half (2013) is such an example, or Symmetry,Stylization (2014). In another body of works, which you call Rows you also applied different shapes, quantities and methods. It seems — and you have formulated them all yourself — that you can choose from a warehouse of possibilities. Do you think there is a limit to all the different possibilities?

GP: With the light installation Symmetry and Stylization Reduced by Half and with other works of a similar kind shown at Gregor Podnar Gallery in 2013 in Berlin, I wanted to show works that were formed of different concepts as if they were completed works, that

were then executed one over the other. In Rows they are mostly lined up without spaces. Within one “Row” they may be executed on top of one another and partially over one another. Both cases stem from the same kind of thought, which so to speak, pervades my entire creation. I really choose different shapes, quantities and methods as if from some repository of experience. The question of how to limit these choices from a multitude of possibilities deals with creation itself. For example the state of being worn out, satiated with some work procedures, attracted to or repulsed by some random material, or acceptance of the space or other materials introduced into the work, or the logic of handling the materials and then letting go of certain decisions related to artistic or social context — all these feelings are not suppressed, but rather they have formal positions and are equally involved in creating work. On a case-by-case basis, everything listed above limits or encourages choice within a wide range of options. Given that, I develop a sense of work that somehow diminishes the role of formalism. I do care about what type of paper I draw on, though when viewing it formally, it should all be the same. Sometimes it doesn’t really matter. As in life, despite a large number of formal acquaintances, we share our emotional lives with a limited number of people. I mean that the methods that are derived within pure models for this kind of formalism make it possible to understand the work in one direction. However, within the creation process, these feelings above also participate, they exist and at the same time lead the comprehension of the work in another direction. This was always important to me because it gave me the strength not to be afraid of formal interventions that could, for their simplicity, lead me to banality. In order to defend myself against this, I started to look in another direction. Only then did the work as a whole make sense.

SSCH: Thank you very much dear Goran for this interesting conversation.

GORANPETERCOL’S ECONOMYOFBEING

Chris Sharp

Sjene, 1992 · Light installation on wall Aluminum, light Dimensions variable

Sjene. The Croatian word for shadow. Anyone who encounters the work of Goran Petercol is going to come across this word a lot. It would seem to be pretty simple and straightforward, and in a way, it is, as is the majority of what Petercol does, at least ostensibly. The variety and multifariousness, however, that he manages to extract from this immaterial substance, and its opposite, light, is astonishing. It’s as if he set out, with encyclopedic application, to exhaust all of the possibilities of light and darkness, presenting them in every possible permutation. And yet, the intrinsic modesty and economy of Petercol’s practice would never allow him engage in the hubris of the encyclopedic. What he makes, although ambitious, is marked by an almost exemplary humility — a humility which, incidentally, becomes all the more exemplary in our time of ecological crisis.

This alleged humility can be located in the humbleness of his often everyday materials, the general ephemerality of his interventions, and his commitment to operating within the size of a given material, or the parameters determined by his own body. His is a practice which thrives on restriction, adhering to it with an almost fanatical zeal, while continually pushing up against its self-imposed boundaries. Indeed, his work could be seen to vacillate between a radical self-negation while nevertheless afﬁrming the self. No matter how narrow, reductive, or procedural he renders the process, the fundamental idiosyncrasy of the self always shines, so to speak, through. This is of course most evident in works that feature mark making, but can also been seen through the entire practice by virtue of its reliance on procedure. If anything unites every aspect of the practice, it is less conceptualism or ideation than its commitment to procedure as a generative principle. It governs the production of everything Petercol makes from his humblest drawing to his symmetrical sculptures to the light installations.

Take for instance the artist’s paintings from the late 70s such as Craft Paper (1977), or Rotations from the same year. Painting on paper with acrylic, marks are made on the paper according to their systematic division and subdivision of the scale of the paper. Any so-called “creativity” is outsourced to or bracketed within delineation of the procedure. Creativity and its ego function, authorship are, at least ostensibly, subsumed in a preconceived course of action which is meant to preclude the assertion of the self. And yet, the application of the mark, in this case, the paint on the paper, nevertheless testiﬁes to the presence of the human hand. Through the imperfect and uneven application of the line, the fact that it, the line, possesses an author becomes undeniable despite the relative detail of authorship.

That said, these so-called paintings are not about Petercol as an author, artist or personality. The work is a byproduct of his almost complete withdrawal from its process, that which reduces the importance of his authorship to an absolute, yet human minimum. Collaborations from the same period push this virtual repudiation of authorship even further, to the point of absurdity. I am thinking of Dots (1979), where Petercol invited seven colleagues to place a dot on a piece of paper, exhibiting all eight together with attributing authorship to the dot, or say Line, in which Petercol invited seven colleagues to draw a continuous line in chalk on the sidewalk. In both instances, the particular dissolves in the general, and yet, the general, in order to function as such,

requires the particular. It is the radical anti-monumental or anti-heroic humility of the gesture, and its means, that stays with me. This remains, for the most a constant though the entire practice.

The artist’s interest in temporary, if ﬂeeting modiﬁcation goes all the way back to his “water paintings” on stone surfaces or rocks, again to the late ‘70s in Rovinj. These consist of the application of water-based paint on natural surfaces in the most rudimentary forms, such as a square and a circle. Located outdoors and exposed to the elements, their life span is necessarily brief, going on to exist only in photographic documentation of the intervention, long after it has disappeared — never mind the fact that these rudimentary interventions speak to the most fundamental and timeless impulse of art making.

Significantly, as if these modifications weren’t fleeting enough, Petercol would go on to find an even more fugacious material and way of making art, light and shadow. Here his material, as it were, is truly immaterial. Petercol’s light installations and Sjene works, run the gamut from the small, coat-hanger sized arabesques, to prodigious, building-size interventions. Sculptures are known to be activated by everything from the most negligible every day materials to large-scale light projections in a space. The small Sjene works are typically fashioned from malleable metal or small brass rods and specifically projected light and shadow. Liable to be drawings as much as they are sculptures, these works can describe lines on walls or cast no shadow at all, depending on the throw of light. Other works are known to illuminate a given architecture surface which is typically eclipsed or in the shadows. For what is the artist’s most monumental work, Halves (2016), he did nothing more than illuminate half the of the Schloss in Münster. At once circumscribing the monumental through sheer size and ultimately undermining it through the economy of means, this work modifies the building and our perception of the building upon which it takes place without permanently changing or adding anything at all.

Curiously, while the general economy of the work comes off as ecologically friendly, this is less a political position than it is a natural byproduct of a more spiritual course of action that dates back to the very origins of the work. In other words if the work seems ecologically mindful and low impact, it is not because it is trying to be that per se, but because of something else that takes place before that kind of speciﬁc personal politics is put into operation. And this is an ever present impulse to not assert the self, to deny, as humanly as possible, the ego and its desire to be celebrated at any cost. At the risk of presenting Goran Petercol as some kind of guru, I think there is much to be learned from this modus operandi. Not only learned, but perhaps even imitated, at least by many artists working today.

Sjene, 1992

Light installation

Stand, aluminium, light Dimensions variable Roupen Kalfayan / Irene Panagopoulos collection, Athene

ONEHAND CLAPPING

Vladimir Vidmar

Stylizations, 2013 Glass, lamp-shade, oil paint · 15×16×12 cm

Weallknowwhattwohandsclappingsoundslike. Butwhatisthesoundofonehandclapping?

This is one of the best-known traditional koans, attributed to Hakuin Ekaku, the great Japanese master of the Rinzai school of Zen Buddhism. What is actually the point of these paradoxical, often absurdly coded sayings? Traditionally, koans were used as a method of training young (and old) Buddhist practitioners in order to confront them with a cognitive wall and thus encourage a leap, a search for new cognitive dimensions. This famous fragment is an excellent example of the ancient practice that leads us from derisive rejection through confusion onward to confrontation, with the need to deviate to other experiential registers, and for those courageous enough, to go even further. This koan is also an appropriate introduction to a discussion of Goran Petercol’s work. The trajectory for “decoding” a koan begins with confronting it as a foreign, closed object that we have to penetrate in order to reach our goal. After time spent attempting to do that to no avail, we slowly begin to understand that a koan is not only a dictum on paper, but also a dynamic search for an answer. Therefore, a koan is both an object that we seek to grasp, and the activity of endless pursuit. Goran Petercol’s practice, alongside any encounter of his works, coincides in many ways with the experience of “solving” a koan. In his works we witness a sudden destabilization, a tense confrontation with the gap that lies between our knowledge of the world and the perceptive-cognitive puzzles that the artist sets out before us, thus halting thought, and forcing us into reexamination and a detour.

By exhausting analytical intellectual abilities (and thereby egoistic will), a koan leads us to reprogram the mind, deviating our thought process towards intuition and other methods of confronting the problem. This process is eventually manifested as a problem of the fragility of reality and the sensitivity of its capture, and provides another key to Petercol’s work. Central to his practice are material and method. For him, material is that which is most directly available in our definition of reality, be it physical fragments, objects, physical laws or the systems that we arrange them in. The basic trajectory in Petercol’s works is this: to take a fragment of reality and, under certain conditions, transform it into art. Art in this case also signifies a methodological twist, beginning with the selection criteria and method of subsequent elaboration. Whether we talk about Shadows, Stylizations, Rows or any other of Petercol’s many series, the structure of his intervention is binary: first, he follows one system, then, at a certain point and with a seemingly arbitrary gesture, he denies it and replaces it with another. The elaborate structures of his Shadows are built with ephemeral drawings that initially follow a principle of continuity by adding a new object that casts a shadow at a place where the previous shadow ends, then, at a certain point the object that heretofore extended the line is now left shadowless, thus interrupting the line of continuity. This binary method is also present in his earlier works, for example the series At a Right Angle where the geometric principle dividing a rectangular piece of paper eventually begins to systematically “regulate” spatial relationships. However, series such as the

Stylizations are also based on the same trajectory of the binary method, only in reversed order. There, the beginning is impulsive — spilled paint; the continuation, conversely, is analytically exact, and that is precisely its paradox. What does an exact analysis of this case mean? It sounds like another koan.

By focusing on material and method, Goran’s works are devoid of any referentiality and literariness, they are the complete opposite of literary tropes. They act with an immediacy that in no way alludes to the possibility of directly accessing reality, but rather speak of it as constantly eluding our conceptual apparatus. The immediacy of Petercol’s works resists the metaphorization of artistic activity/language, whereby something always stands as a proxy for something else. He is interested in what is right in front of him and what he does with it, therefore art as an activity that takes fragments of reality and changes the conditions of their ability to exist, asking how much of that reality and its effects we are able to understand. How can we influence it? Petercol’s answer is not a form of solipsism, but a radical contextuality of form that does not signify the creative principle ex nihilo, but rather accentuates the possibility to occupy entities and to control them. For Petercol, form is a unit of measurement that denotes elements he appropriates from an endless sea of phenomena around us, that he then uses to intervene into the dynamics of that endless flow. The sensitivity of form to movement and changes of its framework, present Petercol with an underlying premise on the basis of which he develops a true material reflection. He does not permit the

Sjene, 1993 Sketch for in situ installation Rupe Museum,

Dubrovnik

At a Right Angle, 1984

Indian ink, pencil on paper · 71×100 cm

Private collection

artist to be the author of form because it has always already been created, and waits to become an element dynamizing the situation. This is what Stylizations speaks of: spilled paint becomes an object of formalization so that he uses a straight line to connect prominent points of an organic form created by the spilling of paint, thus stylizing it. But, Petercol’s “technical” motivation for stylization signals an ironic reading. What does this technical treatment of organic form created by spilled paint imply? Perhaps its mathematization, through which one approaches its archetype? This would be difficult to confirm since the original form is drowned in stylized form. It seems that formal play here speaks of its contextuality: form is not neutral in its abstraction. Depending on what type of systematization it was subjected to, we read it either as a “free”, organic phenomenon, an accidental product, or as a product of regulation, of submission to rules. Petercol continues to develop this line of thinking in the aforementioned series At a Right Angle, where he encloses spilled ink in a coordinate system, which is why these series can be recognized more as an affirmation of the creative process than an ironic commentary on a system of conceptualizing the world. At a Right Angle series shows that even an accident is a type of regularity, i.e. that in some circumstances an accident can confirm regularity, while the circumstances of that process are stipulated by the artist himself.

Petercol’s works are emphatically based on experience, a direct stimulation of our perceptive and cognitive apparatus. As with the koan practice, his “language” is deliberately direct, experiential and unpretentious. A koan consciously avoids the difficulty of the philosophical terminology of the Mahayana path and instead of using terms like the void, impermanence, and un-differentiation, it uses images from nature and parables from daily life. What is Buddha? Three pounds of flax. Petercol’s process is similar. The basic physical phenomena and objects borrowed from the immediate environment are his artillery. Shadows, symmetries, reflections, glasses, dishes, furniture and pipes construct series of works that introduce tension into our daily processing of the world. In his consistent development of works as series, we can also find parallels with the koan practice wherein practitioners, confronted with initial impenetrability, engage in repetition in an attempt to rid themselves of the prejudices of analytical thinking and specific cognitive frameworks. This does not mean that they prefer the irrational over the rational, but rather it speaks to the inter-conditionality of intuitive and conceptual ways of thinking. In the words of another classical koan: “One slash of the sword cuts into one.” The situation in which the blade of a sword severs an object, which remains in one piece, can be recognized in Symmetry from 2014. A light projection in the form of a trapezoid, whose one side is affixed to a vertical, pencil drawn axis, while on the other side of the axis, where according to the logic of the title, we expect to find the same symmetrical form repeated, we instead first encounter

Symmetry, 2014 Light instalation Slide projector, pencil, felt pen on wall Dimensions variable

an empty space, and then, a bit further on, a shorter vertical line drawn in black felttip pen. In both examples, what was supposed to happen did not, at least according to the law of symmetry. The opposite of what needed to happen occurred, something as yet unexplained that we have to process by abandoning our habitual understanding, without going into the soteriological implications of answering the question of how to sever something, yet keep it whole. Going back to Symmetry; the part that Petercol copied is the edge that marks the outer limit of the entire form. The feeling that something is missing here and that meaning still eludes us after applying habitual cognitive systemic thinking, signals its limitation; moreover, it deﬁnes reality not as a cause, but a fragile result of our cognitive system. Thus, these forms as fragments of reality that we can retain, albeit for an instant, become a litmus test for contextual transition from one register to another.

The tension between experience and its conceptualization is ubiquitous in his work, in the form of a constant subversion of any purity of conceptual structures, and stems from an internal resistance of lived experience against rules of abstract thought.

When young Buddhist monks are faced with a koan presented to them by their teacher, they use a practice called jakugo, a type of explication of koans in a pictorial language of experience. Human experience articulated in form is ubiquitous in Petercol’s work, especially in the series Rows. As in the jakugo practice, Petercol does not abstract human experience into concepts, but implements a parallel meta-narrative whereby experience speaks of experience. He speaks of the experience of art through (personal) experience of art. Accordingly, a row, essentially an inﬁnite mathematical term, is concretized in Petercol’s work as a ﬁnal form of an entirely idiosyncratic “mathematics”, culminating in Hierarchical Rows, which confronts the viewer with a developed system of integration into rows impenetrable to the principles of positivist thought. Why are some lines or an angle in a row repeated more than others? Why did this precise point in a row take precedence over another? These are questions that can only be answered within the closed system of the artist’s thinking and creation. And like the monks in jakugo practice, who do not respond to enigmatic koans in universal terms, but in images and parables from experience, so Petercol’s “jakugo training” follows a similar principle: he answers universal principles with a particular truth.

In the famous section of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein claims that what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about — an entire spectrum of the aesthetic, religious, ethical — he considers inaccessible. He does not claim those areas are pointless, but only that any statement about the inaccessible is pointless. Perhaps this is the “nonsense” that we are faced with in Petercol’s works where the collision of different systems prevents the unencumbered movement of our cognitive apparatus. Futility in his work refers to the limits of language, not only of natural language but of other sign systems. However, his insistence on the non-linguistic, experiential level of these works is only anti-linguistic at ﬁrst glance: the point of his artistic gesture is in the fact that other systems that “regulate” reality, which are also essentially sign systems, are likewise proven inadequate to represent anything more than an agreed upon deﬁnition of the impermanent and protean chaos that we call reality.

Reality as a controlled and regulated system is the result of a creative human process, an instinct for classification. Consequently, the ultimate question of Petercol’s practice is that of a creation that does not happen according to the divine principle ex nihilo, but rather by adopting the same fragments and phenomena that are not based on the positivist tradition of European science but on the paradoxical affirmation of the fragility of a system that constantly calls for new proposals for regulation. Petercol evokes this fragility by using the aforementioned binary methodology that articulates the tension between the need to find measure and the arbitrariness of procedures. The question of measure is not just a methodological spiritus movens, but a central conceptual question in Petercol’s practice. Even though at first glance Rows, Symmetries and Shadows are perhaps more indicative of the relationship between the exact and the arbitrary, works from the series Reaches create this tension in a more far-reaching and emphatic manner by defining the measure determined by the human body. More precisely, measure determined by the body of the artist himself, literally and devoid of any of the pathos of classical art historical implications: the reach of hand is determined by the wrist, metacarpus, elbow, shoulder, while the writing instrument (pencil, paintbrush, spray) draws the endpoint of its reach, and accordingly the radius of its activity. Since we expect that the artist’s hand will not grow further, reach is something absolutely exact, a permanent measure, and simultaneously a completely contingent matter, just as all of us, as human beings, are the products of many coincidences.

Sjene, 1995 Light installation on wall · Brass sticks 4 × (1=15 cm), light Private collection

Thus, Reaches subtly suggests that measure is more a question of coincidence than it appears at first glance, but also that coincidence is both objective and binding. Reaches also evokes the famous claim by the Sophist Protagoras that of all things the measure is man, and confirm that art is incommensurable with any other activity. Overly long and awkward, the word “incommensurable” is necessary here because it denotes Petercol’s fundamental premise: that art cannot be reduced to any other measure than the one posited by itself, that it is irreducible to the measures and criteria of other fields. The confrontation of different systems in Petercol’s works illustratesthis statement regarding the inability of reducing artistic activity to the measure of other systems. This statement is like a koan whose non-sense points to the limits of meaning and the agreed upon nature of systems that preserve meaning; the measure that art introduces into those systems points to the reverse side of the common- sense argumentation, which is not the irrational, but rather a field in which the rational and the irrational are interchangeable.

SHADOWS,SIGNIFIERS,ANDOPTICALTEXT —ABSENT/PRESENTLIGHT

Miško Šuvaković

Expansionof Form. Three Supports, from the Sjene series, 1988 Light installation Bricks, wooden boards, light

1. Concepts

There is an initial element, then a process emerges. As an aspect of a work in art, process is an important component of Goran Petercol’s work. The process is the “mean time” between the non-existence and the being-there of an object, installation, ambient. The process, although it is material, appears as the absence of a ﬁnished, inscribed, produced, and present materialized piece. Petercol posits the concept of the process as follows:

Process is the basis on which I organize my work. Although an individual layer of the work is closed in terms of form and content and may diverge from the next layer all the way to negation, solutions to the problem of space come close to the idea of continuity. I treat coincidence like another kind of regularity, which is somewhat close to G. Ligeti’s insight that “total determinacy comes to be identical with total indeterminacy”.

Petercol accumulates into visual space the illusion (association) of immaterial sensibility. The object by itself (its visual form) is not a sculpture; rather, it is light together with the object (the installation comprising light and the object). Light, or the absence of light (shadow, shadows, the structuring of shadows) deprives the object of the appearance of being-there, relocating it to the domain of illusions (optical presence) and mirages (experiential and mental representations). An object deprived of the appearance of being-there is analogous to a signiﬁer. In Lacanian terms, the signiﬁer is here taken as materiality freed from all meaning and open in all kinds of arbitrariness to possible potential meanings. Petercol writes:

A shadow on a wall, on an object... within and underneath them, as well as in the air. Isolated as form, it is closer to a readymade than to a form. In each individual case, it also has a history of its own: what came before (the object), and also includes the direction of propagation, a tendency, the place where I might be able to continue the event. Taking light as the starting point, the shadow becomes the ﬁnal domain of the event, the locus of the end or a new construction.

He begins by selecting the signifiers (the shadow and the object are analogous to a signifier) in order to open a field of arbitrary possibilities of variation (the production of effects). The shadow and the object, whatever their formal visual combinations, invariably form a chain (chaining up and stretching all the way to a potential binary pair of “material” and “immaterial”).

Petercol’s installations from the Sjene series (Expanded Form (1988), Expansion of Form. Three Supports (1988), Extended Shadow, Two Supports (1986), Returning the Direction (1988), Extending and Arresting the Shadow (1986–88), Sjene (1989), and Sjene Cities (1993)) feature ambivalent solutions: (1) working with modernist reductive relations between material and energy (zero phenomenological degree, radical reduction-

ism); (2) working with readymade strategies of using (whatever, whatever kind of) phenomenon as a visual template, rather than visually shaping the piece (the relation between shadows and objects is recognizable when compared to the Duchampian gesture); (3) working with mental representations of order as an illusion, a mirage, and concrete presence (being post-analytic in character, since they do not bring the modus of cognitive work to the cognition of an episteme, as in analytical painting or conceptual art, which belongs to Petercol’s early history, but to a spatial, material, optical, and mental effect); (4) working with notions pertaining to language games in Lyotard’s sense — a language game is a game that is simultaneously played according to multiple groups of rules. Material objects and their relations in a lit environment do not generate meaning with their visual aspects/effects, nor with the semiotic values of the material or light turned into a sign, but through the language game that frames them together (for Petercol’s installations, signiﬁcation value is not the cause of meaning, but its consequence). Meaning emerges at the moment when the material or light (as signiﬁers) penetrate the rules of the language game. Language games become variants of various rules that may not necessarily be entirely fathomed or indeed fathomable. Petercol does not construct a single/singular system of rules (a project) of constructing and historically revalorizing constructivism. He generates multiple equally valuable systems of rules (projects of generating) and thereby opens possibilities for varying (producing variants):

Sjene, 1994

Light installation

Colored light, wire, brass Dimensions variable EVN collection, Wien

By means of a construction, which I eventually abandon or retain, despite the initial idea, within the material givens or change of the idea of construction, I actually betray the deﬁnition of the project.

Betraying the project’s deﬁnition or transforming it into the deﬁnitions of possible and potential rules of possible and potential language games is a Lyotardian motto that emerges in his moving away from the work (modernism) to a situation (postmodernism). Petercol betrays the constructive and analytical poetic mode of his work not by means of an external statement, but within the “constructive idea” or “within analytical methodology” by means of the implemented deconstruction (by incompleteness, variance, the dominance of experiential effect over the episteme).

To perceive an object-light installation by Petercol means to see SOMETHING out THERE. To see SOMETHING out THERE does not mean to ﬁx a single Gestalt (visual form), but to participate in an event that transforms the objects themselves, becoming a space where light propagates and its information is selected. Visual perception of any of the installations is an interpretation of the polysemous and multilayered stimulus reaching the eye. But the eye is also a body, a body engaging in performance by gazing and mastering a space (the eye moves in its socket, but the eye also moves along with the head against the rest of the body standing still, the eye moves in the socket with the head and the body in motion, tracing complex paths, or trajectories of sight). But the eye is also guided by “another motion”, behind and over the body immersed in the order of the signiﬁer (the optical unconscious, optical subjectivity, optical rationality).

Petercol’s installations are located precisely at the limit of the activity of the optical unconscious, optical subjectivity, and optical rationality. The optical unconscious is structured as a visual language (a language game played by the artist, but also played with the artist by various rules, which may not be initially or invariably known). Optical subjectivity is structured as a visual text (behaving, acting, doing, and feedback effects on the artist inside a language game). Optical rationality is the power to construct exact spatio-temporal situations involving light and object with minimal means (a minimalist economy of work-order). The optical unconscious appears, in Lacanian terms, as the Not-Whole of the work that is ambivalent and plays by open sets of unspoken rules that change and adapt to speciﬁc cases, excluding the personal representative or expressive character of a grounded SELF. The artist’s SELF is always excluded, and this lack is turned toward the Other observing the work (engaging in an optical performance before the work). Optical subjectivity enables endless variation, which exhausts the initial idea, or transforms it into another idea, or a chain of ideas. Variation and the production of variants enable the work to appear invariably as a process (an unﬁnished work) that produces possibilities of the phenomenality and appearance of other works. Variation and the production of variants also enable the separation of the subject (the artist’s hypothesis) from the non-identity of the optical unconscious, because it always becomes it by, nonetheless, choosing (selecting, acknowledging, one or two variants) out of a myriad of possibilities:

By repeating operating procedures, I accept an order within which one may predict the elements that follow. The idea of a single series stretches into inﬁnity, but in realization it is already limited by the material itself, or by the concrete space. The necessity of breaking one type of activity broaches the question of continuing. If I continue... then it is a variant of my presence inside the work. Breaking becomes part of the basis.

Commentary: according to the traditional concept of Western art, a painting-sculpture may resemble the world, but the world may never resemble a painting. According to the 20th-century modernist concept, a painting-sculpture may consist of the world and of an image, but may never look like the world, or like a painting. Petercol uses the (readymade strategy of) objects and energies of the world as the material (arte povera) for turning art as well as the world into a language game of hypothetical relations in the ﬁeld of perception. Art does not imitate nature, because nature is a product of art and discourse (Nelson Goodman), but that does not mean that art may be made with the materials and codes of nature, art, and discourse.

2. Art and the language of shadows

When establishing meanings, a work of art does not establish meanings in a way that is essentially different from the way language does. Familiarity with the codes and visual procedures of painting differs from familiarity with linguistic codes by virtue of primarily comprising a speciﬁc type of perceptive knowledge and the experience of painting itself. Acquiring this type of knowledge is no less complex than learning a language. Constructing spaces with light and objects, Petercol builds micro-anthropological worlds of “acquiring knowledge” about worlds that might be. The idea of a possible world of knowledge emerging from teaching about building, or from the reception of a work, is one of the codes of 20th-century art.

3. The phenomenology of shadows

The basic condition of seeing the visual world is a physical surface that reflects light and projects it onto the retina. Light stimulation is determined by four types of invariants: (1) invariants related to changes in light, (2) invariants resulting from changing the point of view, (3) invariants resulting from overlapping samples, (4) invariants accompanying local refractions of structure. Information is simply lying all around us, easily accessible and in endless supply in the flow of energy surrounding us. Harvesting them occurs in a lit environment.

An exhaustive description of any light environment by Goran Petercol is a description of the invariants that make up a piece of light information surrounding the eye and body facing an object and its surrounding (ambiance) light.

Sjene inside of Restricted Space, 1993 Light installation in situ, Galerija Dante Marino Cettina, Umag (A work with holes which remain after removing a previously exhibited work.)

4. Perception

Perception involves two components: (1) perception of the spatial world (the world of surfaces, shadows, edges, shapes, interspaces, colors, textures) and (2) perception of the world of things endowed with meanings (the world of objects, places, people, signals, written symbols). Is it possible to deﬁne light in Petercol’s works as “language” and shadow as “writing”? The relation between language and writing constitutes the difference (gap) between the light and shadow of objects in the ﬁeld of light.

5. The semiology of shadows

The semiology of shadows, or the pictorial semiology of shadows is the meta-linguistic method of describing and explaining shadows as a speciﬁc pictorial and semantic expression. In the semiology of shadows, the important question is not what is art, but what is the light that produces an image. The question is not what is artistic about a shadow, but what is the work, i.e. what is the shadow that covers the surface and ﬁlls the space. I have developed the semiology of shadows by reading the semiologies of painting by the Swiss semiologist Louis Marin, the French philosopher Jean-Louis

Schefer, the French art historian Marcelin Pleynet, and the Slovenian sociologist of culture Braco Rotar, and applied this to Goran Petercol’s light installations withshadows. The semiology of shadows is a system that condenses formulations and conceptualizations from the history of art, iconology studies, and fine arts studies by means of linguistic, semiotic, structuralist, and psychoanalytical methods. But one may also find in there a rather personal non-theoretical experience of shadow as “that other world” that yields to the gaze but eludes desire. The semiology of shadows is meant to enable the most exhaustive possible description of the structure of shadow and its relation with other texts (or images) of culture. According to Marin, the task of pictorial semiology is to describe pictorial meanings and explain the mechanism of their articulation in the creative act, in the process of reading and decoding, i.e. in the act analogous to the aesthetic contemplation of a picture (“pleasing the eye”, in Poussin’s words). The semiology of shadows is meant to show how shadow, from Duchamp to Turrell to Petercol, generates a gap between the appearance of an object in the field of light and the meanings that emerge from it or from its disturbance. The pictorial semiology of shadows accomplishes the enigmatic operation of reading the visible and seeing the comprehensible, i.e. understanding the meaning of artworks with shadows (from paintings with shadows to shadow and color play to environmental light artworks).

Sjene Cities (Dubrovnik), 1994 Light installation Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb

The ﬁrst problem of the semiology of shadows is the question of whether the structure of shadows is a language, and there are two distinct answers: (1) in hypothetical terms, working with shadows is a language, although in the analysis of shadows one does not use linguistic schemes, but explores the speciﬁc linguistic character and laws of light phenomena (their phenomenality, appearance, and meanings); and (2) one explores to what degree the structure of shadows is or is not a language, that is, by determining that it is not a language and that it is beyond the domain of language, one establishes its relation with linguistic languages and the linguistic models of language.

One of the solutions to the problem of the linguistic character of the structure of shadows rests on asserting that working with shadows does not make a language. This means that structures involving shadows do not operate as verbal speech. The concept of speech comes from structural linguistics, i.e. from distinguishing between language (langue: an abstract set of rules) and speech (parole: a concrete application of language). Shadows are not speech but discourses (textual or pictorial establishments of meaning unconnected to words). Non-narrativity or fragmentary narrativity, i.e. the fact that the structure of shadows neither presents nor relates a narrative, but only an optical sequence of a narrative event, is a consequence of the essence, or nature, of the ﬁgural system (its evolution from an image/picture to a light environment). The structure of shadows is not organized by narrative (narrative is subordinated to the pictorial order of painting or photography or ﬁlm/cinema, but not to the pictorial order of a light environment), but on one hand, it shapes the complex multi-sided signifying order of the transformation of the pictorial order of shadows into meaning, as well as semantic and cognitive meaning into the meaning of the pictorial order of the spatial (ambiental) structure of shadows.

On the other hand, the elaboration of working with shadows as a specific language begins from the hypothesis that the structure of shadows is a system of projecting (multiplying in multiple mirrors) the system of language or at least articulations of space and light. The system of working with shadows establishes a “realm of the sign” (linguistic sign) and then also its reduction to the level of the activity of the sense of sight. Schefer introduces the important semiological concept of lexie or lexia, a macroscopic unit meant to determine all levels of reference and understanding of the referential relations of a text, image, or structure of shadows (light environment). A lexie is the act of understanding the system that stems from its own elements, i.e. it is a communication act of the system itself. A lexie offers the possibility of a related presentation of the system (structure) of an image/picture or shadow as a process of endless multiplication in multiple mirrors “from” the system of language and its sensory logic. It allows one to demonstrate that the process of constructing a notion, as well as a notion itself, are entirely abstract figures closed off in the system of language. Unlike an image/picture, which is a system of explicit lexies, the structure of shadows is a system of implicit lexies. The notion of figure (not the figure of painting, but the figure-shadow) is not an arbitrary order of signifiers and signifieds, but a causal order of signifiers with an arbitrarily added order of signifieds. A shadow always retains a causal link with the object casting it. It is signifier-caused and therefore has an order

analogous to language, which exists before we reach it, in our symbolic development, as an object of symbolization.

In methodological terms, the semiology of shadow is characterized by the transfer of linguistic methods to the act of describing an image/picture and modifying its meaning to correspond to its structure, that is, by transferring the methods of the semiology of painting to the semiology of shadows. The aim of a semiological operation is to characterize the structure of shadows and to name its structural objects. The main problem of the semiology of shadows is how to construct approaches to the signifying totalities of shadows, since there is no established (codified) technical meta-language of painting or environment art. Whereas poetry, architecture, music, and dance have elaborate and codified technical meta-languages (descriptions, canons, rules of expression, notation systems, normative poetics), painting and working with shadows are not similarly endowed. There are only individual and isolated indications that are valid only in individual cases. That is why semiology addresses the pictorial object of a shadow only within a system, i.e. only when it belongs to a problematized research framework. Semiological theory provides shadow with its systemic framework. Semiological analysis establishes “correlations” between a shadow and cultural texts (rhetoric, literature, ideology, aesthetics), which is why it is defined as an inter-pictorial and inter-textual descriptive theoretical practice.

The semiology of shadow is characterized by the following problems pertaining to non-linguistic systems of signification: (1) studying formal structures whose different rules relate to visual and optical effects; (2) detecting and describing meanings that arise from the optically determined formal structures of an image/picture; (3) describing general signification (semiotic) structures of shadows; (4) analyzing the semantic changes and levels in a work of environment art involving light as a structure that generates meaning and sense. A light environment/ambiance may be defined as a text comprising information in light. The structure of shadows is a figurative, light, and thus also an optical text in which the visible and the legible are tied together. The structure of shadows is a figurative (the optical figure of shadows) text and system of reading. To read a structure of shadows means to glance over a group of light effects in space and thus define the text. It is simultaneously observed with a single glance and read through multiple glances (with a glance that traverses the surfaces and space occupied by the shadows). Semiological analysis articulates different times of view. The structure of shadows also involves different degrees of compression. In the structural order of shadows based on analogical appearance, that allows for an illusionist organization of a plastic space. The idea of compression arises from the power of presenting and seeing, that is, from the fact that the structure of shadows does not reproduce real objects and spatial relations, but stems from forms that originate themselves from a paradoxical linking of the world of objects with the world of light into the effects of an illusion comprising illusionist as well as real elements. That is why the structure of shadows derived thereof is the boundary where one may note — index — an epistemological text: a boundary where one may establish an episteme with perceptive references within the aesthetic space of re-examining an inscription or construct.

Goran Petercol, Instalacije Skulpture, Galerija suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb, 1989.

Goran Petercol, Crteži i instalacije 1990–1993, Galerija Dante Marino Cetina, Umag, 1993.

“Goran Petercol”, 22nd Sao Paulo Biennale, Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, 1994.

Žan-Luj Šefer, “Nizovi, uloge, ﬁgure” (s komentarima Ljube Gligorijevića), Umetnost br. 15, Beograd, 1968.

Jean-Louis Schefer, “Scénographie d’un tableau”, Seuil, Paris, 1969.

Jean-Louis Schefer, “Zapis o reprezentativnih sistemih”, Razprave Problemi br. 98-99, Ljubljana, 1971.

Jean-Louis Schefer, “Lecture et systeme du tableau” iz Julia Kristeva (pr.) Essais de semiotique, Mouton, Den Haag – Paris, 1971.

Jean-Louis Schefer, “Slikovna semiologija” i “Slika; smisao koji joj se daje” iz Dragan Bulatović (pr.) “Ka načelima

Literature

tumačenja slikarstva” (temat), Gledišta br. 3-4, Beograd, 1988.

Braco Rotar, Likovna govorica, Založba Obzorja Maribor, DSZ Ljubljana, 1972.

Braco Rotar, “Vprašanje statusa družbenih ved i semiotike”, Razprave Problemi br. 115, Ljubljana, 1972.

Braco Rotar, “Sociologija kulture in semiotika”, Razprave Problemi br. 121122, Ljubljana, 1973.

Braco Rotar, “Logika transformiranja signiﬁance je logika materijalističnega

koncipiranja sistemov reprezentacije”, Razprave Problemi br. 128-132, Ljubljana, 1973.

Braco Rotar, “Govoreče ﬁgure – eseji o realizmu”, Analecta, Ljubljana, 1981.

Braco Rotar, “Figure zatvaranja” i Louis Marin “Elementi za slikovnu semiologiju”, Dometi br. 7-9, Rijeka, 1981.

Louis Marin, Etudes Semiologiques, Ecritures, Peintures, Paris, 1971.

Louis Marin, “Kako čitati sliku” iz Nenad Miščević, Milan

Zinaić (pr.) Plastički znak – zbornik tekstova iz teorije vizualnih umjetnosti, IC Rijeka, 1981.

Marcelin Pleynet, “Osnovna protivurečnost. Speciﬁčna protivurečnost. Podražavanje slikarstva” i “Slikarstvo i ‘strukturalizam’” iz Ogledi o savremenoj umetnosti, Muzej savremene umetnosti, Beograd, 1985.

Dragan Bulatović, “Jean-Louis Schefer i pokušaj iscrpnog opisa slike” i intervju s J. L. Scheferom, Moment br. 3-4, Beograd, 1986.

ISGORANPETERCOLAN UNCONVENTIONALARTIST?

Sabina Salamon

Reflection (Mould), 2002 · Light installation Mirror, light projection, wooden board

Dimensions variable Installation view, Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb

Given that art is a system of conventions for Goran Petercol, the questions he has posed ever since his academy of arts graduation could be formulated in this way: what is creation and what are its premises? If the purpose of creation is to achieve something new, then how can one move away from acquired knowledge and learned procedures?

At times dry and terse, at times seductive, Petercol’s visual language is built on the deconstruction of artistic conventions, namely, authorship and the uniqueness of the artist’s signature; the originality of an artistic act (gesture); the creation of the new; the contradiction between coincidence and predetermination; the hierarchy of the relevant and the irrelevant in the process of creation; the convention of relational form (creation based on feeling) and finally the conventions of motifs (genre), format and composition (predetermined formats and respect for gravity). The conclusions arising from these deconstructive processes became fuel for Petercol’s creative solutions, which he employs to this day. These are the solutions that have guided him since 1975, leading him to adopt a rather peculiar method of work, evidenced in these unpublished notes: “To use gained experience. To annul gained experience.” Despite this contradiction, Petercol never comes to a dead end; on the contrary, he always findshis way out by employing his own procedures, thanks to which he occupied a unique position on Zagreb’s neo-avant-garde scene of the 1970s. Corresponding to the climatein which such analytical explorations of art (mainly in painting and sculpture) intertwined with New Art Practice, Petercol’s skepticism towards any self-explanatory aspects of creation goes much deeper into the question and purpose of art than a first glance might suggest. By conducting a radical examination of formal principles (“a canvas is not made for painting”) he casts doubt on the incontestability of art as an area of specific knowledge and skills. By doing so, Goran Petercol reinforces the position of the author — and takes aim at conventions.

From edge to edge

One of Petercol’s favorite targets is gesture and the gestural, the modernist convention of unrestricted creation and expressivity. Adopting a simple attitude that accepts the world as enough, rather than following any philosophical strategies that seek to penetrate various principles, Petercol dealt with gesture in his earliest series of drawings called Copying (1975/76) and thereby suggested that art is not the result of inspiration, but rather it arises from an encounter with the world that the artist sees through his own eyes. Moreover, for Petercol a work of art is not just a result, an object, an artifact; a work of art is also a process. In the aforementioned series, Petercol veriﬁes gestures by drawing them on a sheet of paper and then copying them one by one onto another sheet of paper. The blasphemy of such an act indicates that Petercol is playing a joke on us; however, even though the act of replicating a gesture is contradictory in itself, no one can forbid it. No one can say that gesture itself cannot become an object of observation and painting, and no one can deny that a copy of a gesture is also the fruit of inspiration. Petercol says that he reiterates the feeling, not the form (contradiction).

This gives him the right to postulate that if a gesture is a type of form representing the inimitable expression of its creator, why in the process of creating, are some objects considered good motifs and others not? In other words, why be a slave to the convention of the motif? Or, who would object to the replication of a gesture, if gesture is a fact that we can see, challenging the convention of mimesis?

Following this line of thought, Petercol arrives at a conclusion that deﬁnes his heretical outlook in art: “The thing that comes before, from which I proceed, determines the course of further work by providing me with the basis for further work: for example, the size of the paper (working surface), which was not intentionally made for the content of my drawing and which is not neutral, as it affects the proportions of what I am going to draw...” In the spirit of analytic painting, which overtook Zagreb’s art scene at the time, Petercol devotes attention to every element of his work. One of the most important among them is restriction: in accord with strict materialism, he considers restriction a prerequisite of any process of creation and takes it as a starting point for an entire series of works called Reaches, which he began creating in 1977, both on paper and in the form of actions in public space. Driven by the intention to avoid any form of expression, he resorts to ‘creation by necessity’, paying respect to the physical limitations of the paper’s edges, the extensibility of his own body, of his own hand, of a paintbrush. Any possibility reduced to necessity eliminates choice; consequently, it eliminates creation based on feeling (the convention of relational form).1

Left: Copying (1975/76) Indian ink on paper 155×146 mm · Right: Templates for Copying

1 There is an unwritten rule that a painting surface is always treated based on a model controlled by author and his feeling (impressionism, cubism, and every -ism relies on a model that is based on creation by feeling).

2 Craft paper came folded from the factory, and the retailer folded it few more times so it can be carried more easily.

3 In his description of his work Extended Line, Petercol deﬁnes theduration of drawing of the line:‘within hand’s reach+a little bit more’. The work was performed as part of a group exhibition named Lines, held in Podrum (Mesnička 12, Zagreb, 7 – 13 December 1979), which also included Željko Jerman, Željko Kipke, Antun Maračić, Marijan Molnar, Darko Šimičić and Raša Todosijević, curated by Branka Stipančić.

4 Roland Barthes’essay Death of the Author (Aspen Magazine, no 5/6, 1967) and Michel Foucault’s essay Qu’est ce qu’un auteur (Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie, 63e année, no 3, 1969) are still considered the most inﬂuential discussions about the author.

Folded Paper Corner (1977) is a silent conversation with gesture: by folding the edge of a paper, Petercol produced a change in the amount of light on the paper’s surface, thus proving that the problem of light and shadow can be treated irrespective of traditional painting technique using paints and brushes. Although they may seem banal, Folded Paper Corner and Filled Surface (1978), as well as several works performed in public space at the time such as Surfaces on Color (1977), Colored Surfaces (1978) and Lines (1978) promote a free-ﬂowing transition from one medium to another, undermin-ing the convention of prioritizing the painting’s surface.

Around the same time, Petercol created a smaller series of paintings on paper, Rotations (1977), in which he deals with art governed by the law of gravity (the convention of composition) by indirectly attacking the convention of imitating reality (mimesis). In human perception, as well as in the world of objects, there is “up” and “down”, but what about a world that lacks both of those? Does art necessarily operate by the laws of physics? Petercol’s response is as follows: “Rotate it as much as you like, 90 degrees, 270 degrees... as far as it goes.” Even though this monograph does not cover the topic of Petercol’s painting practice, it is worth mentioning that he used traditional oil on canvas technique up until the end of the 1980s, but he examined the authenticity of its concepts, just as he had done with other media. In order to avoid the use of predictable painting procedures, he tested the possibility of transgression according to his own rules: he never cleaned the brush.

One of the more rigid conventions is that of form (the convention of what is drawn, painted, modelled), which Petercol views as the result of the processes that preceded it. In Craft Paper (1977), he plays with a folded sheet of craft paper, covering the folds with paint as if he wanted to examine all its wrinkles and pores. In the second version, he cuts the paper along the creases, however both versions emphasize the readymade form of the work (convention of the readymade), suggesting that nonartistic material in the artist’s hands determines the ﬁnal result (the convention of creating from nothing).2

Where is the author: from edge to edge+a little bit more 3

What makes an author? What makes an original work? These are a few of the questions Petercol asks to stir up the system of conventions. In spite of the numerous developments that occurred in art following social changes in the twentieth century, the system did not discard the founding ﬁgure of the author, even though the ground under the author’s feet was shaken. Philosophical debates of the 1960s greatly affected existing standpoints of art, and continued to do so long into the seventies, in terms of conceptual and analytic orientation.4 Defending himself from an unsubstantiated analyticity, Petercol developed his observations through his experience of creation, searching for “himself as an author”. In the work I Give Paper, which he performed on a street in Zagreb in 1979, he gave passers-by sheets of paper smudged with black — it was a print of his palm smeared with graphic paint, functioning as a signature.

However, this signature was the complete opposite of what a traditional signature represented. Instead of strengthening his identity, the signature-smudge overshadowed any aura of authorship. By performing such an act, did Petercol introduce a stuntauthor in place of a knowing author? If the author was a name, could that author be nameless? Or did he imply that originality, even in the form of a smudge on paper, is what makes an author? The act of reaching for a pile of papers with the right hand is not a univocal act; in the absence of a proper name (the convention of a signature) it may account for the weakening of the notion of an author and, referring to Reaches, it may support the position of one’s own limitations. In other words, it may direct attention toward the author, who begins from nothing and doesn’t create anything new. Abandoning the traditional belief that “the author is a creative instance that emerges from the work of art that he, profusely and generously, places in the world of meanings”,5 Petercol renounces the “author-work” unity on which this statement is based; the paper from the aforementioned work was bought in a stationer’s shop, and Petercol was simply handing it out, spreading it further. After all, Petercol is a “Duchampist” at heart, with the “readymade” always present. In his own unique way, operating on multiple levels, Petercol poses the question: what does an artist actually give?6

When examining the concept of authorship, it is impossible to skip over the subject of collective authorship. Line, which Petercol performed on a street, together with seven fellow artists and an unknown person, followed the principle “it doesn’t matter who draws it”,7 and was permeated with Fluxus-like plurality and processua-

A Dot for a Paper, 1979 Chalk on ground, Zagreb

5 Michel Foucault, Što je autor? [What is An Author?], Jesenski i Turk, Zagreb, 2015, p. 64.

6 In the subtitle of his work The Written Line (1978) from the Manuscript series, there is an instruction that says: ‘Thinner when drawn from self and thicker when drawn towards self’. (see p. 119)

7 In the aforementioned essay, Foucault cites a character from Samuel Beckett’s Unnamable (1953), which introduces plural authorship.

8 Ibidem, p. 39; even though Foucault refers to writers, his note on indifference towards the author may also apply here: In an indifference such as this we must recognize one of the fundamental ethical principles of contemporary writing. It is not simply ‘ethical’ because it characterizes our way of speaking and writing, but because it stands as an immanent rule, endlessly adopted and yet

never fully applied. As a principle, it dominates writing as an ongoing practice and slights our customary attention to the ﬁnished product.

9 By enlarging and reducing volume, Petercol provides an answer to the question of how much to give (to the viewer or to art). An important representative of such procedures in sculpture is Ivan Kožarić — his Seated Man from 1954, for instance, has an overly > extended hand. The need to change volume can also be related to the process of crumpling a piece of paper or aluminum foil. Back in the 1940s Antun Motika accidentally put his keys on an episcope and got a multiply enlarged projection, also became interested in reﬂections in light and media, and subsequently experimented with dia projectors. An interesting example of increasing and decreasing volumes is Alice in Wonderland, where Alice’s growing and shrinking happen randomly, without revealing the logic of the changes.

10 A citation from the artist’s notes.

11 The convention to use color to materialize ‘empty space’ and the space occupied by objects, i.e., to devote an equal amount of attention to every detail of a work of art, comes from traditional painting.

lism. This was a participatory work that rejected the author in favor of the aesthetical form of the collective, even though the attribution of the work to Goran Petercol is unquestioned.8

“At some point”, says Petercol, “I earned authorship status as an artist of light.” However, the meaning of authorship in Petercol’s context should not be limited to such a presumption; instead, it should encompass a more elemental and perhaps democratic view; the author is reﬂected in an act of arbitrariness, in a creative decision, which takes place at the very beginning (questioning what to begin with) and at the very end (questioning when to stop). The beginning and the end are two poles of arbitrariness, and what stands between them is called a ‘work of art’, even when it leaves the frame, as in A Dot for a Paper (see page 68). In other arbitrary acts, Petercol extended the shadow of an object (Extended Shadows) and enlarged or reduced its volume (Halves, 2015).9

It would be inappropriate to place Petercol among destroyers of convention, because he uses conventions to form himself as an author (by conducting a two-fold operation of deconstruction and construction). Moving from the restrictions imposed by his own body (Reaches) into an exploration of freedom in the process of creation (challenging the concept of author), Petercol tries to determine the true extent of the possibilities of choice at hand. It seems that the author’s ultimate gesture is to extend beyond the brink, but he decides to restrict himself: starting with a ﬁngerprint on a sheet of paper (illiterate and nameless author), and ﬁnishing with an anti-heroic act — Up, Right, Down, Left, By a Finger Length (1979).

Amidst the impossibility of foreseeing any choice, and whether choice would ever happen, the author’s performance can take any possible course: it may unexpectedly go beyond, or suddenly back away (see page 124).

Following Foucault’s idea that the author is an ideological product, conditioned by context and thereby subject to changes, Petercol says: “The system of art is constantly changing. The hierarchy of the media that form its body is also changing. The entire ﬁeld of art is constantly increasing. My position cannot remain ﬁxed.”10

Interspaces

By acknowledging that the world is inevitably limited and conditioned, Petercol thinks that it is impossible to start from nothing, or not to start from anything, and, likewise, that it is impossible to start from something irrelevant. When it comes to the selection of motifs in traditional painting and sculpture, the status of the irrelevant is commonly attached to the foot of a chair, for instance, or a light switch (in contrast to a landscape, a portrait, or a third genre). However, as he was developing as an artist at a time when art refused to pledge loyalty to the motif (external content) as its primary objective, Petercol felt the need to move away from these conventions. This took him into the realm of interspaces, where he conﬁrmed, again and again, that knowledge will not be the basis for creation.11

By abandoning postulates that do not suit him and adopting ones he can develop further, Petercol searches for things that exist beyond the confines of mundane observations. He takes everything that is secondary or inconsequential and puts it in focus. Just as he does with other concepts, he threads interspaces through different media, from painting, drawing and collage to objects and installations. His first work called Interspaces dates from 1983, which was followed by Interspaces (1985) and Extended Sjene (1986). In all of these works, he revealed his subject of interest: a physically and materially inferior body-form, which survives on generic and descriptive terminology, as “the space between”, or “the interspace”, and is subjected to a stable, solid body, next to which it exists as a random, insignificant, intangible entity. He continued to explore this subject in his famous series Sjene Cities during the 1990s, as well as in Flashes, Symmetries and Extensions in the 2000s. There are so many things that our perception fails to grasp, and Petercol reveals them to us. Perceiving the lighting of dark corners, or the shadows a radiator casts, or the interior of a mug, all are the result of these efforts.12 Petercol brings to the foreground the spaces we never actually see. For example, if we inserted such a random perspective into our daily routines, perhaps it would make the distance between passengers in a bus or between tables in a restaurant more visible, or perhaps we would show our guests to the foyer or the pantry instead of the living room.

12 Other authors who dealt with interspaces are Ivan Kožarić (Forms of Space, 1963), who made a cast of the interior of a fridge, and Bruce Nauman with his Platform Made Up of the Space between Two Rectilinear Boxes on the Floor (1966) and A Cast of the Space Under my Chair (1966). Petercol learned of these works much later.

Wall Lamp, 2011 Glass, polyurethane 61×15×16 cm

13 The procedure belongs to the concept of increase. The number of cuts is proportional to the number of possible solutions.

14 In Waldinger Gallery in Osijek (2010) and Klović Gallery in Zagreb (2011) Petercol arranged the works side by side, eliminating interspace. In Gregor Podnar Gallery in Ljubljana in 2007, and Shanaynay Gallery in Paris in 2012, he combined his works with architectural elements found on site.

15 Kovač, Leonida, ‘Pogovor prostorima digresije’, Radna monograﬁja, MSU, Zagreb, 2003, p. 191.

16 Processualism was one the important topics of the period, characterized by explorations in performative, conceptual and non-objective art and critiques of the market and commodiﬁcation of art. The relationship between chance and determination runs imperceptibly through many works created at the time.

17 The stylization convention in traditional painting is a selfexplanatory procedure based on imitation; with an intention to transfer the observed motif onto the canvas, the painter stylizes it, trying to reduce its form to the most important characteristics.

Petercol’s contribution to this topic is evidenced in his rehabilitation of what we fail to notice, by giving it the status of a fact. However, as with other concepts, he does not treat these facts separately, but rather he connects them. Referring to limitations inherent to art making tools, in his Interspaces series Petercol cuts the paper, or the canvas, thus increasing the number of existing (pre-determined) corners.13 By adding new corners, he produces a new condition, which he accepts as something that imposes new limitations, but that also offers new possibilities. In other words, he creates a new interspace within which he can work (the convention of the freedom of creation).

However, upon seeing that an interspace remains unnoticed unless it is placed in the foreground, Petercol deals with this issue by eliminating the interspace.14 This is where his work most consistently turns to perception. There is no doubt that, by directing attention to the edges of events, Petercol exits the zone of authority and its commands, avoiding the entrapment of falling into any clichés of creation. In this sense, interspaces can be interpreted as spaces of (conditional) freedom.

Open links

Bearing in mind that Petercol’s visual language is extremely non-representational, one cannot help but ask how he deals with form. What is form, if it is not a gesture, a text or a trace of real objects? What is it, if it is not conventional? Petercol offered an answer to that question long ago: “Form is an effect of process.”15

He offers the examples of the Surrealists and Dadaists, for whom form was not the subject of work, but the effect. He also stresses that form is always preceded by another form, a form which already existed, and which is deﬁned by its context. When he says context, he means the totality of factors that affect this state of affairs, including the attention of the observer (referring primarily to himself). He deﬁnes several starting points: the world is packed with forms (readymade, gesture, geometric shape) from which he proceeds to create similar, but not new, forms — and isn’t that an unspoken truth of traditional painting? The need to emphasize the fact that he does not create “from nothing” reveals his closeness to process and processualism, which covers both poles — chance and determination.16 These two notions differ in terms of procedure (chance is uncontrollable, unlike determination), but this difference is reconciled by the direct experience of the working process, which consists of several consecutive phases. Form is the result in Strictly Determined Work (1980), and the Stylization series (1981–82).

As an example of how the process usually unfolds, the “accidental” spilling of paint (Petercol knocks over the container with his foot) creates a sloshy stain, which Petercol shapes into a new (similar?) form using the convention of stylization.17 Given the many approaches to interpretation of visual art phenomena, this analysis typically contains a triadic scheme: world – interpretation – artist. However, in this case we cannot speak of representation, as there is no object or being that Petercol chooses to represent. Instead, there is a thinking process that yields results, by means of an invisible

logic of connections. This is a process that permeates the world in its incomprehensibility, wherein the whole can only be used as a descriptive term for an unconquerable ﬁeld ruled by movement of phenomena and relations. Accordingly, Sjene, Negatives and Stylizations form a network of connections with the world: a light with a metal stick, the stick with a shadow, the shadow with a city (Sjene Cities). These works do not convey a picture of the world (they are not its copy), so the question of form is secondary when compared to processes of movement, which are typical of a rhizomatic model, where any element (an object, a procedure, a state) can merge into an environment among elements of a different kind.

This rhizomatous impenetrability of connections and the obscurity of the logic of their connection is best explained in Hierarchic Rows (2017). Petercol says that “in order to escape the randomness of taste” (the convention of immeasurability), he created this work based on a ﬁctional regime of order and systematization, thus establishing a contradiction: what looks like a mathematical sequence in the eye of the observer is in fact the result of arbitrariness in his decision making process; the causal relationship is just an illusion, as arbitrariness in and of itself is unpredictable and immeasurable. In this sense, the paradigm of Petercol’s art might be deﬁned as a system of manifold, erratic lines.18

A map of concepts, which Petercol has created for the purpose of this monograph (see pages 74-75), mark the territory occupied by his art, and explains how ideas were transmitted from one concept to another.19 We can read it through the intensities in which the topics manifest themselves, expanding in their variants: (Limited Quantities, Doubled Quantities) and (Sjene Without Shadows, Colored Sjene, Extended Sjene). They branch out in a transversal manner: (Measurements Halves At a Right Angle Reaches), or more differently: an industrially made work (readymade), “my work” (author’s work) as well as “audience” and “passers-by” (the convention of exhibition). The concepts do not evolve, they just appear, and from time to time they are redirected and thereby changed.20 It would be imprecise to call them wholes. Let us call them, at least temporarily, plateaus, which co-exist and thereby change the map proportionate to growth in the number of lines. The broken chains form open links, and the potential connections in other instances for conveying concepts. Serving to orient us in the determination of the course of these lines, the map indicates that Goran Petercol’s art prefers to experiment with reality. Petercol treats reality as his source of motivation, but he never reproduces it, because there is no template (a picture) that he would care to follow. In a similar manner, there is no rhizome of the unconscious from which he would potentially draw inspiration. On the contrary: his art creates the unconscious.21

18 Leonida Kovač has already considered, although not directly, territorialization and deterritorialization as the characteristics of a rhizome, in her investigation of the relationship between object and shadow. When she says ‘digression’, perhaps she refers to a rhizome. Cf: Radna monograﬁja, MSU, 2003, p. 184.

19 According to its initial design, the map shows a model mildly resembling a tree, which Petercol did unintentionally, in accordance with our psycho-perceptive apparatus and the need for a stable foothold, for putting down roots. Links of concepts joined by different codes show something different, a non-hierarchical network of concepts from which, as with rhizomes, lines of movement spread out.

20 The best example of non-evolutionary art in Croatia is the painting of Julije Knifer.

21 These are all paraphrases of Gilles Deleuze’s and Felix Guattari’s Capitalism and Schizophrenia 2, a Thousand Plateaus [Kapitalizam i shizofrenija, tisuću platoa], Sandorf and Mizantrop, Zagreb, 2013.

Folded Paper Corner, 1977· Paper 29 ×20.5 cm Bottom paper corner folded with the right hand.

1RESTRICTED SPACES

It is impossible to start from nothing because there is always something around me or in me that moves me. However, it is possible to start from the irrelevant, from the things which are too insignificant to be noticed. I endeavor to work like that, to start from the irrelevant and continue onwards. The insignificant starting point nonetheless influences how I proceed. For example, the size of paper isn’t neutral — it defines the proportions of what I draw on it.

I do not care about form because an amount of form is always there. Quantity interests me — the reaches of perception, the limits of the working material, the limits of ownership (of money or working space). Taking experiences of limitation as a starting point, I developed concepts around the reaches of the body, around halves of a certain quantity and the increases or reductions of certain quantities.

I created works that use the arm’s reach as a measure, or works on surfaces with edges that are hard to deﬁne (pavements, rocks, street walls, ﬂoors...). Works that are the result of a series of decisions through which I reduced the possible down to the necessary. To a freedom to which my own reasons lead me. What drew me to such procedures? The lack of drama.

Line, 1978 · Spray paint on paper · 225×180 cm

78 REACHES

Filled Surface, 1978 · Spray paint on paper · 226×180 cm

79 REACHES

Surfaces on Color, 1977 · Water color painted on rock · Quarry at the Golden Cape, Rovinj A square painted with the right hand, followed by a square painted with the left and right hand simultaneously.

Complete series of 3 photographs · 29×29.5 cm · Photo: Dubravka Rakoci

80 REACHES

81 REACHES

82 REACHES

83 REACHES

Colored

Complete series of 6 photographs · 28.2×28.2 cm · Photo: Dubravka

84 REACHES

Surfaces, 1978 · Water color painted on rock · Quarry at the Golden Cape, Rovinj A circle painted with the right hand, followed by a circle painted with the left and right hand simultaneously. Rakoci

85 REACHES

86 REACHES

87 REACHES

88 REACHES

89 REACHES

Spiral, 1978 · Spray paint on rock · Rovinj

Complete series of 4 photographs · 29.5×30 cm · Photo: Dubravka

90 REACHES

Rakoci

91 REACHES

92 REACHES

93 REACHES

Lines, 1978 · Spray paint on wall · Heinzel Street, Zagreb

Complete series of 3 photographs · 29.5×39.5 cm · Photo: Dubravka Rakoci

94 REACHES

95 REACHES

96 REACHES

Measurement I, 1978 · Polycolor on ground Student Cultural Center, Beograd Super 8 mm color, 1'40'' · Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

97 REACHES

A series developed inside the boundaries of a pre-determined space, between the edges of the surface. I take craft paper, folded in two in the production process and additionally folded by the seller. I unfold the paper and cut it up with a knife or cover the readymade folds with paint.

I apply paint to some of the borders the surface edges, the limits of my reach range or the preexisting paper folds.

98 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

LEFT

Craft paper, 1977 · Paper · 8×(31.5×47.5 cm)

Paper folds cut through with a knife.

TOP

Craft paper, 1977 · Paper · 2×(63×95.5 cm)

Paper folds cut through with a knife.

99 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Craft paper, 1977 · Acrylic, paper · 126×95,5 cm Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, collection Paper folds painted over with a brush.

100 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Craft paper, 1977 · Acrylic, paper · 126×95,5 cm Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, collection Paper folds painted over with a brush.

101 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Rotation, 1977 · Acrylic paint on paper · 29×20.8 cm

102 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Rotation, 1977 · Acrylic paint on paper · 29×20.8 cm

103 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Rotations, 1977 Acrylic paint on paper · 4×(29×20.5 cm)

104 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

90˚ 180˚

Paint applied from the centre of the left edge of paper up to the center of paper. The paper turns: a) 90˚, b) 180˚, c) 270˚, d) 360˚. Paint is then applied from left to right.

270˚

360˚

105 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

106 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Colored Sjene, 1998 · Light, brass sticks · Dimensions variable

107 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Sjene, 1994 · Projection of transparency, brass sticks · Dimensions variable

Sjene Inside of Restricted Space, 1990 · Light installation

Lead (13×7 cm), brass, light · Dimensions variable

108 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Hole, 2007· Wall lamp 20×20×20 cm

109 INSIDE OF RESTRICTED SPACE

Dot, 1977 · Pencil on sphere · ø =40 mm

2I, OR: WHERE IS THE AUTHOR?

I learned this from Marcel Duchamp: art is a complete realm. To introduce something into the context of art is to enlarge the entirety of art. The introduced aspect may become dominant for a period; however, it does not disappear afterwards — it just conforms to a conventional meaning and becomes unattractive. Familiarity breeds repulsion.

I want to be free from such prejudices, free to work with used forms, exposing myself to the potential faux pas of conformity, of belonging to the past. I want to be free to use old works or concepts as a starting point for new work, safe in the knowledge that with every such beginning I am presented with manifold options of continuation or termination of the work. When I introduce something into the context of art, it is not new by intention — it is new according to the time of its creation, its emergence into shared reality.

I learned this from Julije Knifer: the realm of creation is deﬁned by the artist’s existence. Or, in the words of Piero Manzoni: “the artist’s breath, not just his everyday respiration”. By taking the artist’s existence as a structural element of creation, the I is given a constructive role in the process. Why I? Because after me, after anyone, a space is not the same anymore.

111

112 MANUSCRIPTS

Black/white photography· 13×18 cm with graphic paint· 30×21×3 cm

113 MANUSCRIPTS

114 MANUSCRIPTS

Line, 1979· Male medijske forme, Koprivnica Eight authors in succession draw a line on the pavement.

Participants: B. Demur, B. Jurjević, S. Stilinović, M. Molnar, Ž. Jerman, V. Martek, G. Petercol and an unknown person.

Performance, chalk on ground· Photography· 5×(12×17.5 cm)

115 MANUSCRIPTS

116 MANUSCRIPTS

117 MANUSCRIPTS

118 MANUSCRIPTS

LEFT

Written Line, 1978· Chalk on ground Nova street, Zagreb· Super 8 mm, color, 24''

Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

TOP

Written Line (Thinner when drawn from self and thicker when drawn towards self), 1978 Pencil on paper· 29×20.6 cm

119 MANUSCRIPTS

Part of the 200 m Long Line, 1978 Felt pen on paper Published in the art magazine MAJ 75 B-1978

120 UNPREDICTABILITY

121 UNPREDICTABILITY

Residue of the 200 m Long Line, 1978 · Felt pen on paper · 29.1×100.2 cm

122 UNPREDICTABILITY

123 UNPREDICTABILITY

124 UNPREDICTABILITY

LEFT

Lines in Window, 1978 Student Center Gallery, Zagreb· Photograph

TOP

Lines in Window, 1978 Spray paint on paper· 2×(63×95.5 cm)

125 UNPREDICTABILITY

Dot for a Step Forward, 1979 Chalk on ground, Zagreb Complete series of 2 photographs · 29.3×39.4 cm

Photo: Dubravka Rakoci

126 DOTS

127 DOTS

Dot, A Finger Up to the Right, Down to the Left, 1979 Pencil on paper · 4×(20.5×29 cm)

128 DOTS

129 DOTS

130 DOTS

131 DOTS

Dots, 1983 · Felt pen on paper 2×(29×20.4 cm) from a series of 9

132 DOTS

133 DOTS

Sjene / 139, 1994

Project for 22nd São Paulo Biennale Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, collection

Installation on floor and walls of exhibition space (8 ×9×4 m). Four aluminium elements (5×1× 0.3 m each), four metal rods (0.5 m) and three alternating one minute-long illuminations: a) a single white light from the entrance wall; b) a pair of colored lights; c) a single white light opposite the entrance.

134 GIVING MORE OR LESS

135 GIVING MORE OR LESS

136 GIVING MORE OR LESS

137 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Sjene (Shadow enlarged by 5 cm), 1988 Light installation· Brass, clay, light

138 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Sjene / Expanded Shadow, 1986

Light installation Stone (60×50×10 cm), light, bricks Dimensions variable

139 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Glass, 2009· Glass, concrete· 10.5×32×33 cm

The shadow of a glass enlarged by 5 cm.

140 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Bottle, 2009· Glass, concrete· 19×19×29.5 cm

A bottle enlarged to the width of a tube 20 cm in diameter.

141 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Sjene Without Shadows, 1991· Light installation on wall Piece of stainless steel, 4 brass sticks (15 cm each), light

142 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Sjene Without Shadows, 1993· Light installation on wall 2 brass sticks (15 cm each), light

143 GIVING MORE OR LESS

TOP

Aluxia, 2003 Light installation in situ Galerija Otok, Dubrovnik

RIGHT

Aluxia, 2019 Wood, paint · Dimensions variable Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka

144 GIVING MORE OR LESS

145 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Shadow, 2002

Light installation · Plinth, metal sheet, lamp Klovićevi dvori, 2011, Zagreb

146 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Lamp, 2007

Site-specific installation · Gallery spotlight, plinth Klovićevi dvori, 2011, Zagreb

147 GIVING MORE OR LESS

Symmetries, 2007 · Glass, glue · 23×6.7×6.7 cm

3MAKE THINGS VISIBLE

I’m at a table. I raise a glass, take a sip and put the glass down. In between is a journey. It is about the things which I do not notice, as though they don’t exist. It’s not that they are obscured, but rather that they are too insigniﬁcant to attract attention, or difﬁcult to observe due to their substance. The following group of works was created with the intention of making those things visible, both to myself and others.

If I do not want to concoct something new, but I do want to go beyond what is already available, I start by repeating it. I am drawn to the process of precise copying, of the advancement toward a known destination. I use processes of reflection and symmetry, or relocate existing shapes to a new context. I cover the façade of a building with the luminous form of another façade. I place a light next to another source of light, a shadow next to another shadow.

The object in front of a mirror and its reflection are similar but not identical. Reflection is both illusion and reality. Even when we are not dealing with a reflected image, but with two seemingly identical forms, there is always a difference— in the time of their origin, in the relation of each element to its surroundings or in the simple fact that one is the original and the other just a copy.

149

150 INTERSPACES

LEFT

Interspaces, 1985 Indian ink, cuts on wallpaper · 50×300 cm Private collection, Samobor

TOP

Interspaces, 1985 Cuts, pencil on paper 20.7×30 cm

151 INTERSPACES

Interspaces, 2001 Light installations in situ PM Gallery, Zagreb

152 INTERSPACES

153 INTERSPACES

154 INTERSPACES

LEFT

After Reflection, 2007

Light installation · Chair, electric bulb ARTER, Istanbul

BOTTOM

Halves, 2012 Painted wood, glass 9×20×300 cm

155 INTERSPACES

Sjene Cities (Dubrovnik, Rotterdam), 1994 Light installation · Neuberger Museum of Art, Purchase, New York

156 SJENE CITIES

Sjene Cities (Dubrovnik, Rotterdam), 1994 Light installation ·École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, Paris

157 SJENE CITIES

158 SJENE CITIES

Sjene Cities (Dubrovnik), 1994 · Light installation Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig, Vienna

159 SJENE CITIES

Sjene Cities (Dubrovnik, Rotterdam), 1994 Light installation · Palau Scala, Valencia

TOP

Box, 1996 · Object · 25×25×90 (+ 10) cm Museum of Contemporary Art –Ludwig Museum, Budapest, collection

RIGHT

Mould, 2009 · Light installation Spotlight, aluminum · Height: 300 cm (destroyed) Unlimited Art Fair, Basel

160 EXTENSIONS

161 EXTENSIONS

BOTTOM

Fork, 2011

Object · Metal, polyurethane 37.5×3.5×3.5 cm

RIGHT

Fan, 2011

Object · Fan, polyurethane 38×37×19.5 cm

162 EXTENSIONS

163 EXTENSIONS

Island, 1994 · Light installation Chapel of the Church of the Rosary, Dubrovnik

164 DISPLACEMENTS

165 DISPLACEMENTS

TOP Island ·Installation at Škuc Gallery, Ljubljana, 1997 BOTTOM Island ·Installation at Mali Salon, Rijeka, 1998

TOP

166 DISPLACEMENTS

Flashes, 2002 · Light installation Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb RIGHT Flashes, 2002 · Light installation Museum of Fine Arts collection, Split

167 DISPLACEMENTS

Angle I, 1997 · Light installation Lamp on wall · Private collection, Berlin

168 DISPLACEMENTS

Angle II, 1997 · Light installation

Metal sheet, projected light · Private collection, Berlin

169 DISPLACEMENTS

Blocks, 2002 · Light installation in situ Projection on facade · Mastekranen, Copenhagen

170 DISPLACEMENTS

Blocks, 2002 · Light installation in situ

Projection on facade · Glyptotheque, Zagreb, 2004

171 DISPLACEMENTS

Reflexions, 2005 · Light installation in situ

Projections on facades of Dverce and Lotrščak,Zagreb

Complete series of 3 photos · 28×38 cm

172 REFLECTIONS

173 REFLECTIONS

Reflexions, 2005 · Light installation in situ Barutana (Powder magazine), Osijek Complete series of 2 photos · 28×38 cm

174 REFLECTIONS

175 REFLECTIONS

Reflexions, 2005 · Projection on chair

Complete series of 2 photos · 28×38 cm

176 REFLECTIONS

177 REFLECTIONS

Negatives, 1998 Light installation in situ Ifa-Gallery, Bonn

178 NEGATIVES

179 NEGATIVES

Negatives, 1995 · Light installation in situ Church of St. Irene · 4th International Istanbul Biennial, Istanbul Projection of light shapes, electric bulb, drawplates

180 NEGATIVES

181 NEGATIVES

Negative, 1995 · Light installation in situ · Zagreb

Negative, 1995 · Light installation in situ, a corridor, Zagreb Light from one of two spaces, light projection

182 NEGATIVES

183 NEGATIVES

Negative, 1995 · Light installation in situ Croatian Pavilion, 46th Venice Biennial, Venice

Negative, 1995 · Light installation Croatian Pavilion, 46th Venice Biennial, Venice Electric bulb, aluminium, light projection on wall

184 NEGATIVES

Negative, 1995 Light installation in situ Gallery M6, Riga

185 NEGATIVES

Light², 2001 · Light installation in situ Modern Gallery, Josip Račić Studio, Zagreb

186 LIGHT 2

187 LIGHT 2

Entrance/Exit, 2004 Light installation in situ Diocletian’s basements, Split

188 LIGHT 2

189 LIGHT 2

Symmetries, 2009 · Object Glass, concrete · 15.5×25×25 cm Private collection, Paris

190 SYMMETRIES

Symmetries, 2014

Projection, wallpaper, pencil on wall Dimensions variable

191 SYMMETRIES

Symmetry, 2009 Pencil, Indian ink, cut paper 29.6×22 cm

192 SYMMETRIES

Symmetry, 2012 · Wooden mask, pencil, plastic bonet · 75×56×4 cm (variable) Leonora and Jimmy Belilty collection, Caracas

193 SYMMETRIES

194 SYMMETRIES

Symmetry, 2008 Lamp, wallpaper, pencil on wall, 72×26.5×30 cm Roupen Kalfayan / Irene Panagopoulos collection, Athene

195 SYMMETRIES

Sjene, 1991 · Light installation Aluminum, light · Dimensions variable

Lately, I’ve taken to exhibiting my works in a row, one next to another. Placed like this, the exhibitbecomes a composite of units where one work creates new meanings in another work, or changes the way the viewers perceive it. Complexities arise when a unit of the row isn’t an artwork but, for example, an architectural element of the gallery space.

A column in the gallery space should remain just a column under any circumstances, just as a wall remains just a wall even after I’ve placed a picture on it. And yet, including a column as part of a row of artworks imbues it with a new meaning, pointing to my acceptance of given conditions.

Observing an artwork displayed on a pediment we only notice the artwork, although the pediment is displayed as well. The viewers’ awareness of the function of the pediment typically surpasses their perception of it. If I don’t share that awareness, I can observe the pediment itself as an object of art. Both possibilities attract me.

197

4ROWS GP

BOTTOM

Strictly Determined Work, 1980

Colored paper confetti on floor Dimensions variable

RIGHT & OVER

Strictly Determined Work, 1980

Colored paper confetti, cellophane tape on wall · Length: 100 cm

198 POLYCHROME

199 POLYCHROME

200 POLYCHROME

201 POLYCHROME

Stylization, 1981 · Outdoor performance, Rovinj Black / white paint on ground Complete series of 3 photographs, 13×18 cm

Photo: Dubravka Rakoci

202 STYLIZATIONS

203 STYLIZATIONS

204 STYLIZATIONS

Stylization, 1984 · Paint on wall Student Centre Gallery, Zagreb Super 8 mm, color, 1'11'' Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

205 STYLIZATIONS

Stylization, 1982 · Black / white paint on floor Student Centre Gallery, Zagreb

Complete series of 4 photographs, 25×25 cm · Photo: Ratko Restek

206 STYLIZATIONS

207 STYLIZATIONS

208 STYLIZATIONS

209 STYLIZATIONS

Stylization, 1981 · Black paint on paper Complete series of 4 photographs, 13×18 cm

Photo: Dubravka Rakoci

210 STYLIZATIONS

211 STYLIZATIONS

Sjene, 1986 Installation sketch

212 RESUMING & STOPPING

Sjene, 1986 · Light installation Brass elements (15 cm each), light

213 RESUMING & STOPPING

Sjene, 1990 Installation sketch

214 RESUMING & STOPPING

Sjene, 1990 · Light installation on wall 4 pieces of stainless steel, brass, light· Private collection, Milano

215 RESUMING & STOPPING

TOP

Sjene, 1986 · Light installation

Stainless steel wire, brass, light Dimensions variable

RIGHT

Sjene, 1986 · Light installation

Stainless steel wire, brass, light · Dimensions variable Installation view at 20er Haus, Wien, 1999

216 RESUMING & STOPPING

217 RESUMING & STOPPING

Sjene, 1993 · Light installation Aluminum plates, brass, light Dimensions variable

218 RESUMING & STOPPING

219 RESUMING & STOPPING

220 RESUMING & STOPPING

Sjene (Continuation), 1989 · Light installation · Paint, iron, light · Dimensions variable Installation view at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, 1989

221 SHIFTING

At a Right Angle (Sjene), 1985 · Light installation · Paint, concrete, light Installation view at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb, 1989

Spot, Dots and Interspace, 1992 Indian ink, ink, pencil on paper · 21×18 cm

222 SHIFTING

Spot, Gestures, Dots and Interspaces, 1993 Indian ink, ink, pencil on paper · 20.8×17.6 cm

223 SHIFTING

TOP

Symmetry, Stylization and Symmetry, 2012 Pencil, Indian ink on paper 42×30 cm

RIGHT

Three Halves and Stylization, 2013 Light installation at Gregor Podnar Gallery, Berlin Light projection, tape, Indian ink on wall Dimensions variable

224 SHIFTING

225 SHIFTING

Symmetry and Interspace to the Dot, 2019 Light installation · Autoadhesive foil, electric bulb, pencil on wall Dimensions variable

226 SHIFTING

Symmetry and Stylization Reduced to Half, 2013 Light installation at Gregor Podnar Gallery, Berlin Light projection, wallpaper, Indian ink on wall Dimensions variable

227 SHIFTING

TOP

Symmetry, Stylization, 2014

Light installation at the Museum of Fine Arts, Split Light projection, wallpaper, Indian ink on wall Dimensions variable

RIGHT

From the Gallery Wall into Hierarchical Row, 2017

Installation in situ · Škuc Gallery, Ljubljana Self-adhesive foil on wall · Vertical lines (5×) / crowded lines (3×) / dots (1×)

228 SHIFTING

229 HIERARCHICAL ROWS

Hierarchical Row from Projected Light (7×, 5×, 3×, 1×), 2017 Light installation · Projected light, self-adhesive foil, pencil on wall · Dimensions variable

230 HIERARCHICAL ROWS

Five Halves, Three Gestures, One Light, 2018 Light installation in situ · Academia moderna, Zagreb Autoadhesive foil, lead (3 stains), electric bulb · Dimensions variable

231 HIERARCHICAL ROWS

Two Symmetries, 2019 · Light installation in situ Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka · Paper, scotch tape, glass, plinth, electric bulb · 120×60×28.5 (without pillar)

232 ROWS WITH GIVEN CONDITIONS

Row, 2012 · Light installation in situ · Shanaynay, Paris

From left to right: Interspace (2011), Half (2012) Plinth, electric bulb, plastic tube, paper · 100×30×50 cm (without pillar)

233 ROWS WITH GIVEN CONDITIONS

From Chair Into Hierarchical Row (5×, 3×, 1×), 2019 Installation in situ · Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka Chair, wood, self-adhesive foil on floor · 44×35×133 cm (without pillar)

234 ROWS WITH GIVEN CONDITIONS

To Two Places, 2019 · Installation in situ Wood, paint, concrete · 125×25×73 cm (without pillar) Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka

235 ROWS WITH GIVEN CONDITIONS

236 ROWS WITH GIVEN CONDITIONS

Two Halves and Symmetry of the Place, 2019

Half of a chair, half of a ruler, glass, autoadhesive foil (+ iron cast pillar)

44× 50× 107 cm (without pillar)

Installation in situ at the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka

237 ROWS WITH GIVEN CONDITIONS

Koincidirajući s prvom retrospektivom Gorana Petercola, monograﬁja nastoji pojasniti interesna područja kojima se ovaj umjetnik bavi od sredine sedamdesetih do danas. Ideja nije bila pokazati umjetnikovo stvaralaštvo u svim njegovim segmentima, već sažimanjem doći do osnovnih pojmova i čitatelju dati smjernice za razumijevanje.Treba navesti da je Petercolovo istraživanje proizišlo iz studija slikarstva, kojeg smo se samo usput dotaknuli pa ostaje za neku sljedeću obradu.

Agregat koncepata kojima je autor zaokupljen dostiže sedamdesetak temata koji se međusobno križaju, nadopunjuju, variraju, dodiruju i s vremena na vrijeme aktualiziraju, nudeći nove odgovore na opće životno pitanje koje je umjetniku nametnuto: kako stvarati umjetnost?

U naslovu istaknut pojam konvencija upućuje čitatelja i na pitanje koje autor indirektno postavlja: je li polje stvaranja obilježeno nizom konvencija, i ako se svaki umjetnik mora zauzeti za vlastitu poziciju, nije li paradoksalno učiti kako stvarati umjetnost?

Kako su i monografije same po sebi konvencije, tako je i ova započeta konvencionalnim pitanjem: u čemu je posebnost Gorana Petercola kao jednog od protagonista neoavangardne zagrebačke scene sedamdesetih, s obzirom na to da su se na stare principe u to vrijeme obrušavali mnogi i da su bitke s potrošenim medijskim formama bile opće mjesto? Odgovor bi bio sljedeći: Petercol je poseban po tome što se s konvencijom ne obračunava deklarativno i apriori je odbacuje, već je obara u procesu rada. Dokazuje ju ili ruši poput izvoda fizikalne formule. Dok pokušava slijediti konvenciju, put ga odvodi od očekivanog rezultata k nepredviđenim varijetetima, jer konvenciju nikada uistinu ne ispoštuje, već dokazuje njenu dogovornu (konvencionalnu) prirodu. Uzmemo li najklasičniji primjer stvaranja po gledanju motiva, Petercol itekako gleda, ali ne gleda konvencionalno, već vidi ono što se po konvenciji gledanja ne zamjećuje: rub formata papira umjesto njegove središnje površine, međuprostor između stupa izlagačkog prostora i umjetničkog rada, sjene umjesto predmeta. Prividno se rukovodeći racionalnom metodom dokazivanja, Petercol uspijeva prikriti točku na kojoj po vlastitoj volji izvede zaokret i obori formulu. Taj postupak izveden je neprimjetno, a procedura kojom rad nastaje ionako ostaje skrivena i gledatelju nevažna. Smisao je negdje drugdje, u činjenici da je suprotstavljanje konvenciji produktivan čin koji gradi čvrste temelje za stvaranje, jer misao o promjeni i prekidu sa zastarjelim formama mora nastati iznutra. To je ujedno i glavna misao ove monografije.

U sadržaj nas uvodi razgovor Sabine Schaschl s Goranom Petercolom, koji kroz opsežnih dvadeset pitanja podastire širi kontekst umjetnikovog djelovanja, od početaka

239

UVOD Sabina Salamon

aktivnosti na živoj zagrebačkoj sceni, koja je odigrala važnu ulogu za formativne umjetnikove godine, do kulturnog konteksta u Jugoslaviji. Osim što osvjetljava radne procedure i poticajna ishodišta koje umjetnik koristi, čitatelja priprema za nadolazeći materijal.

Chris Sharp donosi misao o Petercolovoj uzornoj ekonomiji stvaranja koju karakteriziraju nepretencioznost i asketska suzdržanost. Nasuprot ravnodušnosti spram teme autorstva, Sharp prepoznaje težnju za samoaﬁrmacijom uvodeći u središte rasprave pitanje prisustva autora koje se kod Petercola kreće po amplitudi krajnosti, od posvemašnjeg povlačenja do potrebe za samopotvrđivanjem.

Naznačujući potrebu za drugom vrstom recepcije koja nadilazi kognitivne procese i aktivira intuiciju koja svakog pojedinca dovede do pronalaska vlastitog odgovora, Vladimir Vidmar svoj tekst zasniva na zapažanju podudarnosti između Petercolovog rada i zen-budističkih zbunjujućih kodiranih poruka, koana. Metaforom pljeska jednog dlana, Vidmar gledatelju sugerira skrivenu kontradikciju koja stoji u podlozi Petercolovih radnih postupaka.

Miško Šuvaković razmatra radove sa svjetlom u kojima ključnu ulogu zauzima fenomen sjene. Kao instrument razumijevanja sustava Petercolovih svjetlosnih instalacija ispostavlja semiološku analizu čime sjena i djelovanje optičkog dobivaju sustavni okvir za nastanak smisla. Sjena nije samo svjetlosna ﬁgura koju vidimo, nego i nepripovjedni optički tekst koji iščitavamo postavljajući ga u korelaciju s drugim modelima i tekstovima.

Podudarno s četiri poglavlja monograﬁje u svom tekstu iznosim temeljne ideje koje određuju autorove radne procese, zaključno podcrtavajući da je riječ o rizomskoj razgranatosti koncepata koji neprestano bujaju, ne slijedeći putanju razvoja od jednostavnijih do složenijih radova, nego ustrajavajući pri izrazito neevolutivnoj proizvodnji. Tako su teme iz početnog razdoblja stvaranja u raznim inačicama aktualne i danas.

Pregled vizualnog materijala koji slijedi tekstualno-interpretativnom dijelu raspoređen je u četiri poglavlja koja mimo logike kronološkog slijeda evidentiraju ponavljajući ritam nastajanja radova zaokupljenih pojedinim konceptima.

Prvo poglavlje Ograničeni prostori odnosi se na Petercolov polazišni moto da umjetnik stvara po nužnosti, suprotno konvencionalnom mišljenju da umjetnik stvara iz nadahnuća. U središte interesa dovodi ograničenja koja uvjeti rada neminovno zadaju, bilo da je to format površine na kojoj rad ili je to domašaj umjetnikove ruke. Ovo poglavlje, kao i svako sljedeće, predstavlja radove iz raznih medija i razdoblja, naznačujući kako se unutar medijske raznolikosti provlače iste problemske cjeline. Tako je tema stvaranja iz nužnosti jednako prisutna u radovima iz serije Dosega kao i u svjetlosnim instalacijama. Premda pripadaju različitim medijima, i sjena i domašaj ruke stvaraju forme deﬁnirane dosegom; oboje imaju pravilnost i mjeru što umjetniku daje potvrdu da ne mora izmišljati (novu) formu jer je ona već tu.

Nadovezujući se na temu započinjanja od zadatosti, drugo poglavlje otvara temu slobode. Pod nazivom Ja, ili: gdje je autor? predstavlja radove koji reflektiraju pitanje autora kao nezaobilaznu konvenciju modernizma i s njim povezane neponovljivosti stvaranja i originala.

240

Poglavlje Učiniti stvari vidljivim odnosi se na konvenciju hijerarhije bitnog i nebitnog u umjetničkom stvaranju, što možemo prepoznati kao jedinstvenu petercolovsku temu. Ako pod bitnim možemo smatrati sve što je povijest umjetnosti donijela u instituciju likovne umjetnosti, uključujući svakidašnje i skaredne predmete, mogućnosti nisu iscrpljene. Osim prihvaćanja predmeta može se ići dalje u smjeru prihvaćanja nezamjetljivih pojava kao što je prostor između dvaju eksponata, ili opet, sjena kao produžetak predmeta. Prije spomenutim zaokretom Petercol dovodi u pitanje sve što se podrazumijeva kao nebitno. Učiniti svari vidljivim znači učiniti ih bitnim.

Napokon, četvrto poglavlje Nizovi rezimira i objedinjuje temate koji su već zastupljeni u prethodnim poglavljima, poput međuprostora, nemogućnosti da stvaranje započne od ničega, ukidanje hijerarhija, arbitrarnost ukusa i odluke. Naznačuje kako mnoštvo međusobno povezanih koncepata nastavlja grananje proizvodeći nove varijante unutar postojećih.

241

SKLADIŠTE MOGUåNOSTI

Razgovor Sabine Schaschl (SSCH) i Gorana Petercola (GP), kolovoz 2019.

SSCH: Prva tvoja izložba koju sam imala prilike vidjeti bila je ona u Galeriji Grite Insam u Beču, negdje sredinom 1990-ih. Još se uvijek živo sjećam serije “skulptura” na zidu — ti ih nazivaš svjetlosnim instalacijama — sastavljenih od svjetla, mjedenih štapića i čeličnih žica izravno postavljenih na zid. Pažnju mi je odmah privukao minimalistički karakter tih radova, upotreba toliko reducirane količine materijala koji opet uspijeva proizvesti tako osjetilni doživljaj koji se razlikuje ovisno o tome gdje promatrač stoji. Iako ovo nisu tvoji najraniji radovi, zanima me smatraš li ih ključnima u svome djelovanju ili pak djelima koja oblikuju poseban čvor na crvenoj niti kompletnog opusa.

GP: Da, osjećam ih kao neku prekretnicu. Svjetlo je promijenilo recepciju mojih radova i otvaralo mi postupno prostor za nove koncepte. Općenito, osamdesetih je malo umjetnika radilo sa svjetlom. Radove sa svjetlom i sjenama započeo sam 1985., a izložio sam ih na samostalnoj izložbi u Galeriji suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu i na Trigonu 1989. Tada sam sreo Gritu Insam i u Beču kod nje 1990. imao prvu samostalnu izložbu. U prvih deset godina sve sam radove sa svjetlom, iako su nastajali na različitim konceptima, nazivao Sjene. Taj naziv nisam prevodio na engleski, tretirao sam ga kao ime. Htio sam umanjiti snagu riječi sjena jer sam je osjećao potrošenom, što me odbijalo. I samo svjetlo doživljavao sam ambivalentno, privlačilo me jer mi je omogućavalo stvaranje nekog reda za koji nisam bio odgovoran, a odbijala me njegova prejaka zavodljivost od koje nisam mogao pobjeći, ali, istina, u nekim sam je slučajevima volio upotrijebiti.

SSCH: Zanimljiva mi je ta ambivalentnost — svjetlo je zanimljiv nematerijalni materijal, u mnogim slučajevima definitivno zavodljiv, ali iz određene perspektive i prilično učinkovit, što se tiče uporabe. Kada govoriš o redoslijedu, željela bih znati malo više o tom procesu. Ako sam ispravno shvatila, definiraš geometrijske, sustavne točke na koje postavljaš metalne štapiće ili oblikovane žice, nakon čega nastale sjene postaju integralni konceptualni elementi. U nekim svojim tekstovima spominješ elemente koji ne proizvode sjene. Ne bacaju li svi predmeti ili elementi sjenu? I nije li položaj svjetla odgovoran za postojanje sjene, a taj položaj definiraš ti?

GP: Iako katkad koristim postojeći izvor svjetla, u većini ga slučajeva postavljam iznova. Dakle, najprije bih ﬁksirao svjetlo, zatim bih u osvijetljenom prostoru postavio neki objekt pri čemu je nastala sjena koja se, ovisno o udaljenosti od izvora svjetla, mogla mijenjati. Prihvaćao sam dobivene smjerove protezanja sjena, njezine oblike, duljine kao razmak između dvaju elemenata. Zapravo, prihvaćao sam neku vrstu samoorganizacije rada koja me oslobađala da o svemu odlučujem. Nakon početnih pretpostavki sam sam odlučivao kada i kako dovršiti rad. Sjene koje su se vidjele kao tamne crte dovršavao sam tako da sam na krajnju točku takve crte postavljao metalni štapić nagnuvši ga u položaj u kojem više nije stvarao sjenu. Na neki sam način prekidao razloge za daljnju samoorganizaciju rada. U seriji Sjena imam desetak koncepata unutar kojih sam različito tretirao radne elemente. U seriji u kojoj sam elemente slagao duž kontura zamišljenoga geometrijskog lika (pravokutnik, krug, trokut itd.), katkad bih taj lik iscrtao sjenama,

242

katkad bih stao na pola puta i dovršavao rad spajajući krajeve sjene žicom koja tvori luk. Na taj način nisam dobio sjenu koju bih mogao nastaviti jer se nije protezala dalje. U seriji radova bez sjene, u polje svjetla postavio bih, na primjer, žicu, zatim bih po crti njezine sjene postavio metalne štapiće u položaj u kojemu ne stvaraju sjenu. Na prvi pogled gledatelj nije bio siguran pripada li sjena koju vidi žici ili štapićima. Dakako, vrlo je brzo mogao otkriti istinu jer ga se i nije namjeravalo prevariti.

SSCH: Aspekt samoorganizacije rada vrlo je zanimljiv. Kako je onda moguće izraditi pripremne crteže za svjetlosne intervencije? Postoje crteži instalacija čije su sjene u boji. Znači li to da možeš unaprijed planirati i koncipirati oblike sjena i njihove boje? Je li i slučaj imao ulogu u tom procesu?

GP: Riječ je o skicama za svjetlosne instalacije sa sjenama u boji. Kada se dva svjetla komplementarnih boja preklope, osvijetljena je podloga više ili manje bijela, na njoj se sjene objekta pojavljuju u dvije boje (crvena i tirkizna). Ako se te sjene preklope, preklopljena sjena gubi boju, postaje skoro crna. Pri postavljanju koristio sam se skicama kako bih mogao rekonstruirati ideju. Skice bih mogao usporediti s ulogom notnog zapisa. Obično bih na stolu, držeći elemente u ruci, isprobavao sjene nastale pomoću dva svjetla komplementarnih boja i ucrtavao njihove položaje na papir. To mi je prethodno postavljanje bilo potrebno zato što sam rad s jednim svjetlom mogao zamisliti, a u radovima sa sjenom u boji uglavnom to nisam mogao, bili su mi prekomplicirani. Sa svakom se izvedbom mijenjaju odnosi, duljine sjena, ali to ne utječe na ideju. Zbog različitih pozicija svjetla, njihove pripadajuće pravilnosti doživljavamo kao slučajnost.

SSCH: Iz tvoje biograﬁje doznala sam da si pohađao Pomorsku školu i plovio na brodovima trgovačke mornarice prije nego što si se počeo baviti umjetnošću. Je li se u određenom trenutku dogodio rez? Kada si ostavio pomorstvo iza sebe i počeo studirati umjetnost? Ili je taj prijelaz bilo postupan? Nakon što sam

to pročitala, gledajući neke tvoje crteže i svjetlosne instalacije nisam prestala razmišljati o iskustvu plovidbe. Svjetlosni odrazi i oblici sjena naročito ostavljaju dojam da je vizualno iskustvo plovidbe našlo put u tvoju umjetnost. Ima li u tome istine?

GP: Privlačili su me New York, Rio de Janeiro, Yokohama, Casablanca... U ono vrijeme, i još s osamnaest godina, to sam mogao jedino kao pomorac. Istodobno me privlačila umjetnost, nisam ni znao koja. Nisam mislio ostati na brodu. Sigurno da sam boravkom na moru stekao određeno iskustvo, možda pojačan osjećaj za prazan prostor, za prostor koji je između nečeg, to mogu tek nagađati. Isto tako, mogu pretpostaviti da je to osjećaj putovanja od točke A do točke B, to jest da svako putovanje negdje mora završiti. U radu postupam slično, polazim od nečega konkretnog pa od toga idem u nekom određenom smjeru, zatim na nekome mjestu skrećem u nešto drugo... i na kraju stanem. U radovima sa sjenama ta se putanja materijalizira u sjenama koje stvaraju konačan niz. Iako je statična, sjena ipak sadrži kretanje, smjer protezanja. Da je putovanje završilo dajem do znanja tako da zaustavim proizvodnju sjene. Nisam siguran u izravnu vezu plovidbe i Sjena. Kada govoriš o atmosferi, koju kažeš da osjećaš, jednako tako mogu reći da je možda povezana s time što sam živio u malome provincijskom mjestu sa skromnom noćnom javnom rasvjetom. Te vizure grada snimio sam tijekom dviju noći 1963. (ni prije ni nakon toga). Negative sam pronašao prije nekoliko godina, razvio fotograﬁje i shvatio da sam snimao svjetlo. Na neki su način te fotograﬁje potvrđivale da moje zanimanje za svjetlo nije bilo slučajno.

SSCH: Proučavala sam tvoje rane radove nastale za vrijeme studija na Akademiji likovnih umjetnosti u Zagrebu. Dvije metode su mi se učinile vrlo zanimljivima jer su postojale od samog početka, a, prema mome mišljenju, i dalje su sastavni dio tvog rada. Prvo što sam primijetila bila je stilska raznolikost u crtežima. Minimalistička izvedba portreta s tek nekoliko linija koegzistira s kompaktno usmjerenim gustim kružnim linijama koje ispunjavaju oblik lica.

243

Druga opservacija odnosi se na prisutnost kontrasta svjetla i tame u tvojim ranim radovima. Slika Bez naziva (1976.) odmah me podsjetila na Goyinu fresku sa psom koji se utapa, u kojoj kontrast svjetla i tame naglašava emocionalnu dramu. Jesu li te zanimale povijesno-umjetničke reference?

GP: Crtati crnim na bijelom papiru ili suprotstaviti sjenu i svjetlo, postupci su koji čine učinjeno vidljivim. Takvim postupkom dobiva se kontrast koji nosi neku vrstu dramatike. Koristio sam je u studenskim radovima (slika iz 1976. koju navodiš još uvijek pripada duhu studentskih radova). Nakon 1975., međutim, radio sam na umanjivanju dramatičnosti. Forme sam odvajao od njihovih konvencionalno pripadajućih značenja. Na primjer, crteži Preslikavanja (zima 1975./76.) u kojima sam preslikavao prethodno izvedene geste na način da im nove tek formalno nalikuju, kao da su nastale unutar koncepta gestualnog slikarstva. Postupkom preslikavanja oduzeo sam im pripadajuću energiju, spontanost, određenu ekspresivnost. U Stilizacijama sam postupak stiliziranja izveo toliko formalno da je izgubio svoj smisao u svođenju stiliziranog oblika na svoju vizualnu bit. Katkad bih prvi oblik izveo crnom bojom, a stilizirao ga bijelom, katkad crno s crnim na bijeloj podlozi. Tu sam emocionalnu dramatičnost, koja proizlazi iz prirode suprotstavljanja, nastojao zadržati u sloju u kojem se stvari jednostavno vide. Ono što bi moglo upućivati na nešto više, nastojao sam oduzeti ili bar umanjiti. Osim u samome radu, metodom suprotnosti znao sam se koristiti kako bih izašao iz područja jedne vrste radne problematike i otvorio drugu. Nakon niza varijanti, novi rad sadržavao je neku suprotnu pretpostavku. Možda je u osnovi više riječ o zasićenjunakon predugog rada unutar istog koncepta nego o želji za novim, o gubitku motivacije za nastavljanje sličnog. To je mogao biti razlog promjene stila u spomenutim crtežima. U Negativima sam, na primjer, sjene osvjetljavao pretvarajući ih u oblike osvijetljenih površina, a nakon toga sam u Svjetlu² oblike svjetla dodatno osvjetljavao. Nakon što sam sjenu pretvarao u oblik svjetla, nastavio sam s pretvaranjem svjetla u jače

svjetlo, tretirao sam je kao sjenu iako je bila svjetlo. Zapravo reagiram na vlastite radove koji ponavljanjem u jednom trenutku počinju graditi konvenciju, zato mi je bio potreban novi rad od kojega bih, recimo to tako, ozdravio. Što se tiče povijesno-umjetničkih referenci, nekako, nisam se svjesno vezivao ni za što. Čak ni kada sam studirao i volio rad nekog umjetnika ili ideje nekog umjetničkog pokreta. Ili je to bilo vezano uz neki konkretan radni problem, ali nije utjecalo na moju umjetničku poziciju. U Zagrebu sam proveo velik dio života, to je i razlog što u njemu nalazim tradiciju meni bliske umjetnosti. Čak sam o tome razmišljao pokušavajući doći do nečega što bi govorilo o samoj sredini, jer je ona to proizvela, bar sam tako mislio. Katkad su me privlačili radovi umjetnika s kojima nisam mogao naći vidljive poveznice. Također, u desetak godina, između sedamdesetih i osamdesetih, intenzivno sam se družio s umjetnicima iz Podruma i Prostora proširenih medija, izlagačkih prostora koji su vodili umjetnici i ja s njima.

SSCH: Pretpostavljam, dakle, da je proces “ozdravljenja” cjeloživotni proces — baš kao i umjetnički. Čini se da si od figurativnog crteža i slikarstva prešao na apstraktni i nefigurativni rad. Promjena se dogodila 1975. Jesu li kolaži iz 1974. na neki način premostili prijelaz od figuracije prema apstrakciji?

GP: Ono što me na Akademiji zaista zanimalo bilo je shvatiti što je to slikarstvo. Ne baš sve, nesvjesno sam trasirao neki put koji mi je bio blizak. Praksom sam potvrđivao jesam li uistinu razumio koncept u okviru kojega sam slikao. Obično se nakon desetak, katkad i više slika u jednoj seriji, nešto pomaknulo, išao sam dalje. Iako sam se kretao prelazeći iz koncepta u novi koncept, uvijek bih se našao u situaciji da radim unutar poznatog u umjetnosti. Zato svoje slikanje za vrijeme studija nisam osjećao kao umjetnost koju bih mogao izlagati. Nisam ni izlagao. Tako sam osjećao. Vježbao sam. Na kraju studija došao sam do apstraktnog slikarstva koje i dalje nisam osjećao kao umjetnost, već kao vježbu. Bio sam svjestan da radim u području potrošenih koncepata, svejedno sam ih učio.

244

Nisam ih mogao preskočiti jer su proizlazili iz moje prakse. Preskočiti — u što? Bio sam strpljiv i znao sam da neću ostati unutar njih. Tek sam nakon Akademije, s Preslikavanjima stekao osjećaj da mogu izlagati. Nisam osjećao bitnu razliku između ﬁguracije, kolaža i apstrakcije. Kolaži su nastali s idejom da ako slikajući nanosim materiju uljene boje na podlogu, mogu lijepiti i papire, novine... jer su materija koja također ima svoju boju. Nisam osjećao veliku razliku. Ipak, na Akademiji nisam gubio vrijeme. Dapače, puno sam naučio, ne tehnike, raditi slike... već naći misao u materiji umjetnosti. Raul Goldoni, u čijoj sam klasi diplomirao, osim što je vodio praksu, poticao je svijest svakog studenta o vlastitom radu. Znao je reći da napišemo nekoliko redaka o tome što radimo, da napisano ne trebamo nikome pokazati, ali da napišemo.

SSCH: Spomenuo si da si s kolegama umjetnicima vodio izlagačke prostore galerije Podrum i Prostora PM. Pretpostavljam da bismo to danas nazvali prostorima kojima upravljaju umjetnici. Možeš li reći nešto više o tome? Radio si kao kustos ili kokustos, ako sam ispravno shvatila. Tko su ti bili kolege? Kakve ste izložbe postavljali? Kada i zašto se prestalo s time?

GP: U sedamdesetima su klasični mediji pod utjecajem konceptualne umjetnosti prestali biti u prvom planu. U Podrumuse izlagala konceptualna umjetnost, performansi, fotograﬁje, vizualna poezija, video i primarni ili analitički radovi. Prepisujem imena s plakata prve izložbe: Boris Demur, Vladimir Dodig, Ivan Dorogi, Ladislav Galeta, Tomislav Gotovac, Vlado Gudac, Sanja Iveković, Željko Jerman, Željko Kipke, Antun Maračić, Vlado Martek, Dalibor Martinis, Marijan Molnar, Goran Petercol, Rajko Radovanović, Mladen Stilinović, Sven Stilinović, Josip Stošić, Goran Trbuljak, Fedor Vučemilović. Iako se ta umjetnost povremeno izlagala, ipak je njezina pozicija bila marginalna. Zato su umjetnici različitog umjetničkog interesa imali razlog za okupljanje. Nije bilo neke dominantne struje jer su ti umjetnici već imali deﬁnirane umjetničke pozicije. Nije bilo koproducenata, a, koliko se sjećam, prijedlozi kustosa pri-

hvaćeni su samo za dvije tematske izložbe. Prostor smo, nakon godine intenzivnog rada, morali vratiti kolegama koji su nam omogućili da se njime služimo. Nakon tog iskustva tražili smo drugu mogućnost. Našli smo je u Hrvatskom društvu likovnih umjetnika u Zagrebu. Najprije smo uz slikarstvo, graﬁku i kiparstvo uspjeli uvesti nove medije, a zatim smo dobili svoj prostor, Prostor proširenih medija. U Podrum sam bio pozvan, a Prostor PM-a sam organizirao zajedno s kolegom Damirom Sokićem, uz pomoć umjetnika Stevana Luketića iz Društva. Dok je Podrum s neformalnim članstvom bio više zatvoren, Prostor PM-a bio je otvoren za izlaganje, uz uvjet da se ne izlažu klasični mediji. Iako sam uz Sokića formalno vodio izlagački prostor, to se vođenje sastojalo u tome da smo izvjesili prazan papir na koji su se zainteresirani umjetnici zapisivali za izložbu. Zanimljivo je da se nisu javljali autsajderi. Svaki je ponedjeljak bilo otvorenje, izložba je trajala do srijede i tako tri godine, zatim se program nastavio s voditeljem Mladenom Stilinovićem. Prostor PM-a održao se do danas kao Galerija proširenih medija, preseljena u drugi prostor, s kustosom.

SSCH: U mnogim si djelima eksperimentirao s različitim mogućnostima unutar parametra koji si sam sebi postavio. U Obojene površine (1978.) desnom rukom si naslikao kvadrat na stijeni, zatim još jedan kvadrat lijevom i desnom rukom, a u Presavijenom uglu papira (1977.) ugao si presavio desnom rukom, jednom u gornjem desnom uglu i jednom u donjem desnom uglu. U seriji recentnih radova, Polovice (2015.) nacrtao si oblik, ali si onda polovicu izbrisao, a u prostorno speciﬁčnom radu Polovice (2016.) osvijetlio si dvorac u Münsteru dopola. Kako se ti radovi mogu tumačiti: kao mogućnosti u odabranom jeziku ili varijacije na temu?

GP: Htio sam izbjeći određivanje granica prema vlastitom osjećaju. Zapravo time izbjeći stvaranje za koje sam osjećao da pripada tradiciji. Zato sam koristio doseg ruke koji mi je određivao kada stati s povlačenjem crte, koji će oblik imati bojenje površine ili

245

kako će izgledati zahvat na papiru. Slično sam dobivao i mjerenjem. Opisat ću postupke u crtežu Polovice iz 2015. Položenom rukom na papiru povlačim crtu ne pomičući ruku; doseg mi određuje njezinu zakrivljenost i završetak. Dužinu dosega ne mogu znati unaprijed pa zato tek kada je dovršen mogu izmjeriti polovicu, brišem je, jer u ovom crtežu radim s polovicama. Nastavljam sličan postupak s još jednim dosegom crte. Zatim ravnalom povlačim crtu prema jednom uglu papira i na polovici stanem. Tu nemam polovicu koju bih trebao brisati jer mi je razmak poznat. Dovršavam crtež sličnim postupkom prema drugom uglu. Ili, u drugom primjeru, pročelje dvorca u Münsteru osvijetlio sam dopola. Zamislimo da sam zgradu dvorca osvijetlio po nekom osjećaju. Ne mogu ni zamisliti koliko bi to bilo besmisleno. Mjerena polovica omogućuje da se osjeća rad. Da sam radio po osjećaju, stvorio bih neki oblik na pročelju. Privlačili su me i razmaci između stvari. Ne određujem te međuprostore iako ih koristim u svojim radovima. Oni su dani. Mogao bih zaključiti da nije riječ o varijacijama, već da potvrđujem potencijale u odabranom jeziku.

SSCH: Prostore između dviju stvari tretiraš kao što bi neki umjetnici boju ili koji drugi materijal. Dakle, negativno i pozitivno ili odsutnost i prisutnost jednakovrijedna su umjetnička sredstva u tvojim konceptima. Međuprostor tretiraš na “konkretan” način. Dolazeći iz ambijenta Museuma Haus Konstruktiv, prisjećam se Thea van Doesburga koji je deﬁnirao “konkretno” u manifestu iz 1930., u kojem navodi da “ništa nije konkretnije nego neka linija, neka boja, neka površina”. U tvom slučaju trebalo bi dodati još nekoliko kategorija kao što su svjetlo, sjena, prostor.

GP: Rad s prostorom između zida i vrata izveo bih jednako kao s klasičnim materijalom, jednakovrijedni su. Kad majstor popravlja slavinu u kupaonici, ima popis potrebnog materijala na kojemu je svaka stavka jednako važna, jer bez bilo koje od njih ne može dovršiti posao. Kada netko gleda prostor razmaka i neki klasičan materijal sa strane, izvan radnog procesa, naravno da mu izgledaju kao nešto različito.

Vjerujem da je Theo van Doesburg razmišljao o konkretnom u kontekstu radnog procesa. Svejedno je radi li se o komadu betona, zamišljenoj liniji, dijelu prostora, sjeni ili napisanoj riječi. Ako posegnem za njima, postaju konkretni. Inače ih ne bih mogao obuhvatiti i na neki način preseliti u rad.

SSCH: Spomenuo si postupak odabira forme iz nečega što već postoji, poput geste iz crteža/slike, kao proces koji je izveden automatizmom, nesvjesno. Nakon toga si pažljivo preslikavao tu formu ili pronašao sjenu koju si onda fotograﬁrao i projicirao te reproducirao nekoliko puta na različitim mjestima. Koristiš li se tim metodama kako bi odabir oblika prepustio slučaju?

GP: Preuzete forme imaju svoju logiku nastanka; u tom smislu nisu slučajne, dio su stvarnosti koju nisam želio mijenjati. Iako sam ih više ili manje slučajno odabrao, nisam to osjećao kao nešto bitno. Privlačilo me to njihovo pripadanje stvarnosti, pa i to da nisam odgovoran za nastanak njihovih formi ili, kad je riječ o gesti, činjenica da je gesta nešto što pripada prošlosti i postoji u stvarnosti kao nešto dovršeno, slično kao i sjena. Zanimalo me nešto od čega tek mogu započeti svoj dio rada. Najprije sam ih preselio u svoj rad. Kad sam ih htio mijenjati, nisam ih preoblikovao (osim u Preslikavanjima). To jest, nisam htio da postanu rezultat moga stvaranja, već sam to činio tako da ostanu to što jesu. Na primjer, povećao sam ih za pet centimetara ili bih ih umanjio za polovicu. Razlika između mog dijela i dijela koji sam preuzeo vidljiva je.

SSCH: Prije si spomenuo da si većinu života proveo u Zagrebu. U jednom radu — In & Out (2003.) za izložbu Blut & Honig u Essl Museumu u Klosterneuburgu izradio si dodatni prostor uz postojeći izložbeni prostor, novu “kapsulu” i napisao da si umjetnik s Balkana koji ne stvara balkansku umjetnost. Jesi li osjećao da život i rad u Zagrebu podrazumijeva zapostavljenost od međunarodne umjetničke scene?

GP: U izjavi da sam “umjetnik s Balkana koji ne stvara balkansku umjetnost” ima puno humora. Reagirao

246

sam na svoje opažanje da se na umjetnost s prostora bivše Jugoslavije gleda kao na umjetnost obilježenu lokalnim kontekstom i da međunarodna scena od umjetnika s ovih prostora očekuje određenu vrstu stavova i tema, kao da ne dijelimo zajedničku umjetničku tradiciju s umjetnicima sa zapada Europe. Konkretno, kao da europska umjetnička tradicija pripada samo zapadu, a mi smo na nju izgubili pravo. Da ne ulazim dublje u temu, naveo bih samo situacijuu Zagrebu u vrijeme socijalističkoga društvenog poretka koji danas iz ideoloških razloga mnogi zaboravljaju, čemu se mogu protiviti jer sam to vrijeme živio. U Zagrebu se 1961. počeo održavati Muzički bijenale na kojem su uz domaće kompozitore gostovali Stockhausen, Stravinski, Cage, Berio, Maderna, Globokar, Kagel, Nono, Reich. Od 1961. do 1973. održavale su se manifestacije Novih tendencija unutar kojih je 1968. uvedena sekcija za kompjutore i vizualna istraživanja, a 1973. sekcija konceptualne umjetnosti. Od stranih teoretičara tu su sudjelovali Argan, Kulterman, Nake, Moles, a od umjetnika grupa Zero, GRAV, Nul, Manzoni i Colombo. Zagrebačke umjetnike i ne spominjem, iako su neki pripadnici grupe Gorgona, umjetnici koji su sudjelovali u Novim tendencijama, i Zagrebačka škola crtanog ﬁlma već tada bili međunarodno priznati. Hoću reći da je sve to, dolaskom 1970. u Zagreb, utjecalo na moj rad. Osjećao sam zajedništvo i bliskost s tom umjetnošću, bez obzira na to odakle dolazi. Da se vratim na instalaciju In & Out. Kapsulu koju sam dodao zgradi Essl kolekcije, odmaknuo sam za pet centimetara od njezina pročelja. Kad sada razmislim o tome, možda sam nesvjesno progovorio o toj izolaciji koja je Balkanu nametnuta. Zašto pet centimetara? Polazio sam od sebe; riječ “pet” na hrvatskom znači broj 5, a ujedno je to i prvi slog mog prezimena … tako da je to mjera koje sam se držao.

SSCH: Ovdje si spomenuo nekoliko bitnih stvari — pokret Novih tendencija koji je od međunarodne važnosti jer su se umjetnici iz različitih europskih zemalja ujedinili kako bi promišljali zajedničke ideje. Pretpostavljam da je pozadina socijalističkoga društvenog poretka i njegova stava prema umjetnosti

potaknula umjetnike i kustose na akciju i, naročito, na konceptualne, političke i tehnološke transformacije. Bi li mogao reći da je serija izložbi poznatih kao Nove tendencije utjecala na tvoj umjetnički pristup?

GP: Ne bih to rekao. Iako su Nove tendencije stvorile pozitivnu klimu, nisu izravno utjecale na moj rad jer je riječ o drukčijoj vrsti istraživanja, usmjerenost na optičko nije me privlačila. Budući da sam u Zagreb došao pri kraju Novih tendencija, nekako sam ih tako i osjećao, kao povijest. Tek sam poslije otkrivao Knifera, Kristla, Srneca, Morelleta i druge. Da se vratim na društveni poredak. Važno je znati da u Jugoslaviji nije postojala represija socrealizma sovjetskog tipa jer je Tito raskrstio sa Staljinom vrlo rano. I u tome je posebnost ovog područja. Spomenut ću fenomen državnih spomenika posvećenih žrtvama Drugoga svjetskog rata koji su bili apstraktnoga modernističkog stila. Istraživanja na polju apstraktne umjetnosti započela su vrlo rano; spomenimo EXAT51 koji je bio prepoznat kao napredan. Godine 1952. grupa je kao predstavnica Jugoslavije pozvana na međunarodni Salon Novih realista u Pariz. Tu su i četiri izložbe pod nazivom Saloni (1954., 1956., 1959. i 1961.) organizirane u Modernoj galeriji (današnji Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti) u Rijeci, koje su pokrenute kao smotra najnovijih istraživanja u umjetnosti, mislilo se na apstraktni jezik umjetnosti.

SSCH: Zbogmog rada u Museumu Haus Konstruktiv često sam suočena s pitanjima o političkom utjecaju neﬁgurativnih radova. Uopće se ne slažem da neﬁgurativna djela nemaju nikakvu političku važnost i zanima me tvoje mišljenje — osobito zbog političke okoline iz koje dolaziš.

GP: Puno je načina na koji se može izraziti političnost. Najjednostavnije je svrstavanje uz nešto što jasno iskazuje političke poruke. Primjećujem da se danas u umjetnosti koristi tekst kao zamjena za slikovnu priču kojom se ﬁgurativna umjetnost tradicionalno koristila kako bi slala političke poruke. Zapravo, unutar umjetnosti govori se više o mjeri političke važnosti

247

jer je nemoguće napraviti nepolitičan rad. U stvaranju svjesno ili nesvjesno sudjeluje sve, uključujući i odnos prema društvu. Neﬁgurativni radovi su, što se toga tiče, u mnogo čemu slični s političkom važnosti glazbe. Osobno, izraz političkog stava vidim u odgovornosti za ono što činim, a o političkom utjecaju se ne brinem, njega ima više ili manje.

SSCH: U ranim dvijetisućitim godinama počeo si upotrebljavati svakodnevne predmete kao materijal za svoje instalacije. Stolica u Nakon reﬂeksije (2007.) dio je rada u kojem osvjetljavaš prostor između stolice i zida. Ili, u drugom radu iz iste serije, upotrijebio si razbijen keramički tanjur i nekako proširio liniju razbijenog predmeta tako što si je ispunio debelom linijom materijala za punjenje koji se zove akristal. U Simetriji (2009.) si upotrijebio vinsku čašu ispunjenu betonom i stavio je ispred zrcala. Čini se da si na neki način prešao s nematerijalnog materijala poput svjetla i sjene te vrlo laganih materijala poput žice i metalnih štapića na čvršći materijal koji si našao u svakodnevnom životu. Bi li se složio s tim i možeš li objasniti izbor materijala?

GP: Da, složio bih se. S jedne strane nakon uzastopnog korištenja svjetla došlo je do zasićenja. U jednom trenutku korištenje svjetla počeo sam osjećati kao konvenciju koja mi je prestala biti uzbudljiva. S druge strane, ako unutar konkretnog koncepta materijaliziram neke ideje sa svjetlom, to ne znači da više nemam prostora za ideje u drugim materijalima koji su konkretni. Kad to ne bih mogao, značilo bi da nisam razumio ili prihvatio širinu koju omogućuje taj koncept. Hoću reći, ako prihvaćam oblik i boju neke sjenekao materijal, razlog da ne prihvatim neki objekt kao materijal ne bi imao logičnog opravdanja, osim da je razlog skriven u mom egu. Tako sam osjećao, kao da tom odlukom upravlja moj ukus. To ne volim. Što se tiče izbora materijala, vodio sam se s jedne strane idejom da se njime lako rukuje i da je pogodan za realizaciju ideje, kao na primjer žice i metalni štapići u Sjenama; s druge, da su obični, nebitni, da ne odašilju velike poruke. U sedamdesetima sam radio s pakpa-

pirima jer sam osjećao da su kvalitetni papiri kupljeni u specijaliziranim umjetničkim dućanima odvlačili rad u područje klasične umjetnosti. Privlačila me običnost papira, davala mi slobodu; s tim sam stavom odabirao papir.

SSCH: Puno tvojih radova izvedeno je u serijama. Je li razmišljanje u serijama metoda kojom se koristiš kako bi istražio varijacije na određenu temu, a da već u glavi imaš nekoliko mogućnosti kada započinješ s radom, ili serije evoluiraju dok ih stvaraš? Negdje sam pročitala da govoriš o radovima koji se razvijaju iz već postojećih radova. Stoga se serija možda sastoji od radova koji proizlaze iz pitanja ili mogućnosti evociranih prethodnim radom.

GP: Serije razvijam izvedbom. Praksa me dovodi u nepredvidive situacije, dok s razmišljanjem imam osjećaj da se vrtim u polju vlastitog znanja koje je ograničeno. Naravno da je to teško razdvajati, ali uglavnom sam do novih koncepata dolazio ili percepcijom stvarnosti ili izvedenog rada. Ne osjećam da su to različite stvari jer kad je rad gotov, prelazi nevidljivu granicu i postaje dio stvarnosti. Na neki način ne vidim ga kao nešto svoje, već nešto što sam dodao tijelu svega što me okružuje. Zato sam, na primjer, mogao uzeti neki stari crtež i prebojiti ga pripadajućom stilizacijom. Tim se postupkom crtež nije više vidio, ali stilizirani oblik nije bio izmišljeni oblik. Prethodnog rada nema, ali je prisutan svojim utjecajem.

SSCH: Tema ili, točnije, metoda koja se u tvom radu ponavlja jest preslikavanje neke forme i ponavljanje ili mijenjanje u nešto drugo. Zanima me je li ta metoda preslikavanja ujedno i oblik oslobađanja od traženja ili generiranja forme.

GP: Da, u pozadini ponavljanja stoji to da ne tražim novu formu. I ponavljanje nikad nije doslovno, više je riječ o varijacijama unutar istog koncepta. Na neki način tako održavam svoju poziciju do trenutka kada mi se otvara izlaz u promjenu, u drugu poziciju. Toliko sam siguran da će taj trenutak doći, da mi je to čekanje

248

postalo uobičajena metoda stvaranja. Najprije s nekim konceptom živim i radim, i ne znam u kojem smjeru mogu dalje, i nije me briga, ali znam da se može dalje. Bilo bi bahato i nerealno očekivati da će promjena uslijediti nakon svakoga dovršenog rada.

SSCH: Druga serija radova u kojoj tematiziraš proces traženja forme su Stilizacije. Spominješ stilizaciju, što znači stvoriti iluziju forme svedenu na svoju suštinu. Nisam sigurna razumijem li to.

GP: U Stilizacijama stvaram iluziju da podržavam konvenciju postupka stiliziranja nekog oblika. To je postupak iz slikarstva. Na primjer, kada slikar crta po modelu, to što vidi svodi na glavne crte i njih crta. Gube se detalji, a ostaje bitno. Taj sam postupak ovdje doslovno preuzeo. Imam model, a to je prolivena boja, crtež ili znak koji stiliziram. Svejedno je da li je oblik ﬁgurativan ili apstraktan, koristim njegove istaknute točke koje mi omogućuju stiliziranje, što zadovoljava smisao izvedbe. Ali time ne želim oblik približiti svojoj vizualnoj suštini. Ne želim stilizirati.

SSCH: S radom Negativ si 1995. sudjelovao na Venecijanskom bijenalu. U toj seriji radova koristio si negative koji prikazuju speciﬁčan dio nekog prostora i projicirao ih u taj isti prostor, postavljajući stvarnost i ﬁkciju u dijalog. Što odabireš kada imaš prostor s kojim radiš? Sitnice koje su obično previđene? Arhitektonske detalje? Za instalaciju na Venecijanskom bijenalu izradio si svojevrsne svjetlosne stupove — možeš li reći nešto više o tome što si tražio.

GP: Kod Negativa bitne su jasne sjene u prostoru kako bih ih mogao prekriti istim oblikom svjetla, tj. sjene pretvoriti u oblike svjetla. Što sam tražio? Tim sam postupkom sjene učinio vidljivima. Stvarao sam događaj samo promjenom količine svjetla u sjeni, a oblike sam ostavljao onakvima kakve sam zatekao. Poslije sam u prostor postavljao izvor svjetla i u osvijetljeni dio uvodio elemente kako bih njihove sjene mogao pretvoriti u svjetlo. U Veneciji je danje svjetlo ulazilo kroz veliki prozor uz čiji su lijevi i desni rub uskoga

vertikalnog pojasa bile sjene. Kada sam na te sjene projicirao svjetlo, dobio sam te svjetlosne stupove.

SSCH: U daljnjim verzijama projekcije dijapozitiva kao motiva, fotograﬁrao si sjenu nečega što si pronašao u određenom izložbenom prostoru i projicirao tu sliku na to isto mjesto ili, drugom metodom, “poništio” si sjenu reﬂeksijom uz pomoć zrcala. Kako odabireš metodu?

GP: Radovi u kojima sam zrcalima poništio sjenu prethodili su Negativima. Zapravo, riječ je o istom konceptu, samo što sam zrcala zamijenio projekcijom oblika pomoću dijaprojektora. Poslije sam i te radove sa zrcalima nazvao Negativima. U Fleševima sam oblik sjene odvajao od predmeta i projicirao ga kao oblik svjetla uz neki drugi postojeći oblik svjetla, na primjer uz prozor. Na taj je način jedno svjetlo dobilo drugi oblik svjetla, oblik koji je prethodno bio sjena; svjetlo je dobilo produžetak, kao što je osvijetljeni predmet produžen sjenom. Zadržao sam mehanizam odnosa objekt-sjena, ali me u ovom slučaju suprotnost svjetlo-tamno nije zanimala. Postojeći oblik selio sam na drugo mjesto, čime sam stvarao novi događaj.

SSCH: U tvojim najnovijim radovima zapažaju se različite metode kojima si se koristio u prethodnim radovima, primijenjene na jedan rad. Simetrija i stilizacija umanjena za polovicu (2013.) jedan je takav primjer, ili Simetrija, stilizacija (2014.). i u drugom korpusu radova pod nazivom Nizovi koristiš različite oblike, količine i metode. Čini se — a sve si ih sam formulirao — da možeš birati iz skladišta mogućnosti. Misliš li da su te mogućnosti ograničene?

GP: Svjetlosnom instalacijom Simetrija i stilizacija umanjena za polovicu i drugim sličnim radovima u Galeriji Gregor Podnar, 2013. u Berlinu, htio sam pokazati radove u kojima su oblici različitih koncepata, kao da je riječ o dovršenim radovima, izvedenima jedan preko drugoga. U Nizovima su većim dijelom poredani jedan do drugog bez razmaka. Katkad su u istom Nizu izvedeni dijelom jedan preko drugoga, a

249

dijelom jedan do drugoga. U oba je slučaja riječ o istoj vrsti misli koja, tako reći, prožima cjelokupno moje stvaranje. Različite oblike, količine i metode zaista biram kao iz nekog skladišta iskustva. Pitanje kako ograničiti njihov izbor u mnoštvu mogućnosti, ulazi u samo stvaranje. Na primjer, potrošenost, zasićenost nekim radnim postupkom; privlačnost ili odbojnost prema nekome radnom materijalu; prihvaćanje datosti prostora ili materijala koje uvodim u rad ili logike rukovanja materijalom; prepuštanje neke odluke umjetničkom ili društvenom kontekstu — sve su to osjećaji koje ne potiskujem, oni uz formalne postavke ravnopravno sudjeluju u stvaranju rada. Od slučaja do slučaja, sve navedeno ograničuje ili potiče izbor između velikog broja mogućnosti. Time gradim smisao rada, koji na neki način umanjuje ulogu formalizma. Nije mi svejedno na kojoj vrsti papira crtam,

premda, gledajući formalno, trebalo bi biti svejedno. Katkad to zaista nije ni bitno. Kao i u životu, usprkos velikom broju formalnih poznanstava, emotivni život dijelimo s ograničenim brojem osoba. Hoću reći da metode koje su izvedene unutar čistih jezičnih modela omogućuju da s tom vrstom “formalizma” razumijevanje rada ide u jednom smjeru. Međutim, u stvaranju sudjeluje i prije navedeno, ono postoji i istodobno razumijevanje rada vodi u drugom smjeru. To mi je uvijek bilo bitno jer mi je davalo snagu da se upustim u formalne zahvate koji bi me zbog jednostavnosti mogli odvesti u banalnost. Da bih se od toga obranio, razumijevanje sam krenuo tražiti u drugom smjeru. Tek tada je cjelina rada dobivala smisao.

SSCH: Puno hvala, dragi Gorane, na ovom zanimljivom razgovoru.

250

EKONOMIâNOST POSTOJANJA GORANA PETERCOLA

Chris Sharp

Sjene. Svatko tko se susretne s radom Gorana Petercola susrest će se i s ovom riječju. Čini se prilično jednostavnom i jasnom, i ona to na neki način jest, kao i većina onoga što Petercol radi, barem na prvi pogled. Međutim, bogatstvo i raznolikost što ih Petercol uspijeva izlučiti iz ove nematerijalne tvari i njezine opreke, svjetla, doista zadivljuje. Kao da je naumio, enciklopedijskim pristupom, iscrpiti sve mogućnosti sjene, svjetla i tame, predstavljajući ih u svakoj mogućoj permutaciji. S druge strane, suštinska skromnost i ekonomičnost Petercolove umjetničke prakse nikad mu ne bi dopustila da primjenjuje oholu enciklopedičnost. Ono što Petercol stvara, iako ambiciozno, obilježeno je gotovo uzornom poniznošću — poniznošću koja, igrom slučaja, postaje sve uzornija u naše doba ekološke krize.

Ova pretpostavljena poniznost otkriva se u nepretencioznosti materijala što svakodnevno okružuju Gorana Petercola, u sveopćoj efemernosti njegovih intervencija i njegovoj predanosti radu unutar zadanih parametara ili parametara koje određuje njegovo vlastito tijelo. Petercolova praksa razvija se na restrikcijama, štoviše, ona se priklanja restrikcijama s gotovo fanatičnim zanosom, a istodobno pokušava probiti vlastite samonametnute granice. Doista, njegov rad kao da fluktuira između radikalne samonegacije i samoaﬁrmacije. Ma koliko se njegov proces doima jednostavnim, reduktivnim ili proceduralnim, ono što je svojstveno sebstvu uvijek na neki način prodire na površinu. Ovo je, naravno, očitije u radovima koji uključuju ostavljanje traga na podlozi, ali vidljiva je u čitavoj njegovoj praksi, upravo zavaljujući vlastitoj ovisnosti o procesu. Ako išta ujedinjuje sve aspekte Petercolove umjetnosti, to će prije biti predanost procesu, kao principu stvaralaštva, nego predanost idejama. Predanost procesu upravlja cjelokupnim Petercolovim stvaralaštvom, počevši od njegovih najskromnijih crteža pa sve do njegovih simetričnih skulptura i svjetlosnih instalacija. Uzmimo, na primjer, umjetnikove slike s kraja 1970-ih — Pak papir ili Rotacije iz 1977. Kod slikanja akrilom po papiru tragovi se stvaraju u skladu s vlastitim sistematskim podjelama površine papira. Svaka takozvana kreativnost predaje se u ruke procesu ili podliježe njegovim zakonitostima. Kreativnost i njezina funkcija isticanja ega, odnosno autorstva, barem se prividno uključuje u unaprijed osmišljenu radnju čija je svrha onemogućiti aﬁrmaciju sebstva. Međutim, primjena traga, u ovom slučaju boje na papiru, ipak svjedoči o prisustvu ljudske ruke. U nesavršenom i nejednakom apliciranju linije neospornom se pokazuje činjenica da linija obuzima autora i njime ovladava, unatoč relativnom postojanju autorstva. Prema tome, ove takozvane slike nemaju veze s Petercolom kao autorom, slikarom ili ličnošću, nego su one nusproizvod

251

njegovog gotovo potpunog povlačenja iz procesa, što svodi važnost autorstva na apsolutan, ali ljudski, minimum. Umjetničke suradnje što ih je Petercol u tom razdoblju ostvarivao odvode ovo virtualno nijekanje autorstva još dalje, do točke apsurda. Pritom mislim na Točku iz 1979., gdje Petercol poziva osam kolega da stave točku na komad papira te autorstvo pripisuje upravo točki, ili, recimo, Liniju, gdje umjetnik poziva sedam kolega da vuku neprekinutu liniju kredom po pločniku. U oba primjera pojedinačno se rastvara u općem, a opet, da bi uopće moglo funkcionirati kao takvo, opće treba pojedinačno. Upravo ova radikalna antimonumentalna ili antiherojska poniznost geste i njezinih sredstava ostavlja najsnažniji dojam i ostaje nešto što se provlači kroz čitavu Petercolovu praksu. Interes ovog umjetnika za privremenu, prolaznu modifikaciju seže još u doba njegovih “vodenih slika” na kamenim površinama i stijenama, nastale krajem 1970ih u Rovinju. U ovim slikama Petercol aplicira boju na bazi vode na prirodne površine, i to u najrudimentarnijim oblicima, poput kvadrata, kruga i spirale. Budući da se nalaze na otvorenom, gdje su izložene silama prirode, životni vijek ovih slika neizbježno je kratak, ali one nastavljaju postojati u fotografskoj dokumentaciji intervencije još dugo nakon što nestanu — bez obzira na činjenicu da se te elementarne intervencije obraćaju najiskonskijem, bezvremenskom nagonu stvaranja umjetnosti. Štoviše, kao da ove modifikacije nisu dovoljno prolazne, Petercol pronalazi još kratkotrajniji materijal i još kratkotrajniji način stvaranja umjetnosti — svjetlo i sjenu. Ovdje se njegov materijal doista pokazuje nematerijalnim. Petercolove svjetlosne instalacije i Sjene obuhvaćaju čitav jedan spektar, od arabeski veličine vješalice do intervencija veličine zgrade. Poznato je da Petercolove skulpture može aktivirati bilo što, od najobičnijih svakodnevnih materijala do golemih svjetlosnih instalacija u prostoru. Male Sjene najčešće su izrađene od savitljivog metala ili manjih mjedenih šipki te neobične projekcije svjetla i sjene. Ovi radovi, koji mogu biti i crteži i skulpture, mogu opisivati linije na zidovima ili uopće ne bacati sjenu, ovisno o tome kako pada svjetlo. Drugi radovi osvjetljavaju određenu arhitekturnu površinu koja je obično skrivena u sjeni. Naime, u svojem najmonumentalnijem radu, Polovicama iz 2016., Petercol nije učinio ništa drugo nego osvijetlio polovicu dvorca u Münsteru. Opisujući monumentalno njegovu veličinu, i istodobno ga podrivajući ekonomičnom upotrebom sredstava, ovaj rad modificira i građevinu i našu percepciju nje; upravo na našoj percepciji rad i počiva, i pritom ne mijenja i ne dodaje ama baš ništa. Zanimljivo, dok se općenita ekonomičnost ovog rada doima ekološki prihvatljivom, ovo nije političko stajalište nego prirodni nusproizvod duhovne radnje koja seže u sam početak rada. Drugim riječima, ako se rad doima ekološki osviještenim, to nije zato što on to pokušava biti, nego zbog nečega drugog što se odvija prije negoli se takva vrsta specifične osobne politike stavi u pogon. Ovdje je prisutan vječan poriv negiranja sebe, vječan poriv da se na najhumaniji mogući način suzbije ego i zatomi njegova želja da bude slavljen pod svaku cijenu. Pod rizikom da ću Gorana Petercola predstaviti kao kakvog gurua, tvrdim da se iz njegovog modusa operandi može mnogo naučiti. Štoviše, može ga se i oponašati.

252

PLJESAK JEDNOG DLANA

Vladimir Vidmar

Svi znamo kako zvuči pljesak dva dlana. Ali kako zvuči pljesak jednoga?

Ovaj tradicionalni koan jedan je od najpoznatijih, a pripisuje se Hakuinu Ekaku, velikome japanskom misliocu Rinzai škole budizma. Što je zapravo poanta ovih paradoksalnih, često i apsurdno kodiranih izreka? Tradicionalno se koane upotrebljava kao svojevrsnu metodu vježbanja mladih (i starih) praktikanata budizma da bi ih se suočilo sa spoznajnim zidom i tako potaknulo na preskakanje, traženje novih dimenzija spoznaje. Ovaj slavni fragment sjajan je primjer te drevne prakse koja nas vodi od posprdnog odbacivanja preko zbunjenosti do suočavanja s potrebom skretanja u druge iskustvene registre... a one hrabrije i dalje od toga. Ovaj je koan i oportuni uvod u govor o radu Gorana Petercola. Krivulja “odgonetavanja” koana kreće se od suočavanja s njim kao stranim, zatvorenim objektom u koji moramo proniknuti da bismo dosegnuli svoj cilj. Nakon što to neko vrijeme bezuspješno pokušavamo, polako počinjemo shvaćati da je koan ne samo dictum na papiru već i dinamična aktivnost traganja za odgovorom. Koan je, dakle, i objekt kojemu težimo i sama aktivnost neprestane potrage. Praksa Gorana Petercola, kao i susret s njegovim radovima, u mnogočemu se podudara s iskustvom “rješavanja” koana. U njegovim smo radovima svjedoci neke iznenadne destabilizacije, napetog suočavanja s jazom između znanja o svijetu i perceptivno-misaonih čvorova koje nam autor servira te time zaustavlja misao, prisiljavajući nas na ponovno preispitivanje i zaobilazni put.

Iscrpljujući mogućnosti analitičkog intelekta (a time i egoistične volje), koan vodi ka reprogramiranju uma, skretanju u intuitivne i druge načine suočavanja s problemom, što se naposljetku iskazuje kao problem krhkosti stvarnosti i osjetljivosti njezina zahvaćanja, a što je još jedna poveznica s Petercolovim radom. U središtu njegove prakse nalaze se materijal i metoda. Materijal je za njega ono najneposrednije dostupno u našoj definiciji realnosti, bilo da je riječ o njezinim fizičkim fragmentima, predmetima, fizikalnim zakonitostima ili sustavima u koje ih slažemo. Temeljna je krivulja Petercolovih radova sljedeća: uzeti neki isječak realnosti i pod određenim uvjetima prenijeti ga u umjetnost. Umjetnost pritom znači i metodološki zaplet, počevši s kriterijima odabira i metodom daljnje obrade. Bilo da je riječ o Sjenama, Stilizacijama, Nizovima ili bilo kojoj od brojnih Petercolovih serija, struktura njegove intervencije je dvojna: najprije slijedi jedan sustav da bi ga u određenom trenutku, naizgled proizvoljnom gestom, zanijekao ili zamijenio drugim. Elaborirane konstrukcije njegovih Sjena grade efemerni crtež koji isprva slijedi načelo kontinuiteta tako što na mjesto nakojem pret-

253

hodna sjena završava dodaje novi predmet koji stvara sjenu, da bi u određenom trenutku predmet koji je do tada produžavao liniju ostao bez sjene i time prekinuo liniju kontinuiteta. Ovakva dvojnost metode prisutna je i u ranijim radovima, kao u seriji Pod pravim kutom gdje geometrijsko načelo dijeljenja pravokutnog oblika papira u određenom trenutku počinje sustavno “uređivati” prostorne odnose. No i serije kaošto su Stilizacije utemeljene su na istoj krivulji dvojne metode, samo je slijed obrnut. Tamo je početak impulzivan — prolivena boja, nastavak pak analitički egzaktan, i upravo u tome je njegov paradoks. Što znači egzaktna analiza slučaja? Zvuči kao još jedan koan. Fokusirajući se na materijal i metodu, Goranovi radovi lišeni su svake referencijalnosti i literarnosti, potpuna su suprotnost literarnih tropa. Djeluju u neposrednosti koja nipošto ne aludira na mogućnosti izravnog pristupa realnosti, već govori o njezinu neprestanom izmicanju našem konceptualnom aparatu. Neposrednost Goranovih radova otpor je metaforizaciji umjetničkog djelovanja/jezika, pri čemu nešto uvijek stoji samo kao proxy za nešto drugo. Njega zanima upravo ono što je pred njim i ono što radi s time, dakle umjetnost kao djelatnost uzimanja fragmenata stvarnosti i mijenjanja uvjeta mogućnosti njezina postojanja, pitajući se pritom što od te stvarnosti i njezina djelovanja možemo spoznati. Kako na nju možemo utjecati? Goranov odgovor nije solipsizam, već radikalna kontekstualnost forme koja ne označava stvaralački princip ex nihilo, već ističe mogućnost zaposjedanja entiteta i našeg upravljanja njima. Forma je za Petercola mjerna jedinica koja označava elemente koje on izrezuje iz nepreglednog mora fenomena kojima smo okruženi i koje upotrebljava da bi intervenirao u dinamiku te nepregledne mase. Osjetljivost forme na gibanje i mijenjanje svojih okvira, za Petercola predstavlja temeljnu premisu na čijoj osnovi razvija iskonski materijalnu reﬂeksiju. Ne dopušta da umjetnik bude autor forme jer je ona uvijek već stvorena i čeka da postane element dinamiziranja situacije. O tome govore i Stilizacije u kojima prolivena boja postaje predmet formalizacije tako da istaknute točke organskog oblika nastalog prolijevanjem boje povezuje ravnom linijom i time ga stilizira. No Petercolova “tehnička” motivacija za stiliziranje signalizira ironično čitanje. Što znači to tehniciranje organske forme prolijevanjem boje? Njezinu matematizaciju, približavanje njezinu arhetipu? To bismo teško mogli potvrditi s obzirom na to da je prvobitna forma utopljena u stiliziranoj formi. Čini se da igra s formom ovdje govori o njezinoj kontekstualnosti: forma u svojoj apstraktnosti nije neutralna. Ovisno o tome kojem je tipu sistematizacije podvrgnuta, čitamo je ili kao “slobodnu”, organsku pojavu, produkt slučaja, ilikao produkt uređivanja, podređivanja pravilima. Petercol tu liniju razmišljanja razvijai dalje, u već spomenutoj seriji Pod pravim kutom, u kojoj razlivenu boju tuša omeđuje koordinatnim sustavom. I zato ove serije radova prije možemo prepoznati kao aﬁrmaciju stvaralačkog procesa, nego kao ironičan komentar sustava osmišljavanja svijeta. Serija Pod pravim kutom pokazuje da je i slučaj svojevrsna pravilnost, odnosno da u određenim okolnostima slučaj može potvrđivati pravilnost, a okolnosti tog procesa uvjetuje sam umjetnik.

Petercolovi radovi emfatično su utemeljeni u iskustvu, neposrednom podražavanju našega perceptivnog i kognitivnog aparata. Kao i u prakticiranju koana, njegov je “jezik” namjerno neposredan, iskustven i nepretenciozan. Koan svjesno izbjegava

254

otežanost filozofske terminologije Mahayane i umjesto pojmova praznine, nestalnosti, nediferenciranosti, upotrebljava slike iz prirode i prispodobe svakodnevice. Što je Buda? Tri kilograma lana. Petercol je sličan. Osnovni fizikalni fenomeni i predmeti posuđeni iz neposredne okoline njegova su artiljerija. Sjene, simetrije, odsjaji, čaše, posuđe, pokućstvo i cijevi grade serije radova koje u naše svakodnevno procesuiranje svijeta unose napetost. I u dosljednosti serija možemo pronaći paralelu s prakticiranjem koana koji praktikanti, suočeni s početnom neprobojnošću, ponavljaju i time se pokušavaju osloboditi predrasuda analitičkog mišljenja ili određenoga kognitivnog okvira. To ne znači da prednost daje iracionalnom pred racionalnim, već govori o međusobnoj uvjetovanosti intuitivnog i konceptualnog načina mišljenja. Uzmimo još jedan klasični koan: “Jedan udarac mačem siječe u jedan komad.” Situaciju u kojoj oštrica mača presijeca neki predmet, a da taj ostaje u jednom komadu možemo prepoznati u Simetriji iz 2014. Svjetlosna projekcija trapezoidnog oblika jednom se stranicom drži okomite, olovkom povučene osi, a na drugoj strani osi, tamo gdje bismo po logici naslova očekivali da će se isti oblik simetrično ponoviti, nalazimo najprije prazan prostor, a onda, malo dalje, kraću vertikalnu liniju povučenu crnim flomasterom. U oba primjera nije se dogodilo ono što bi se moralo dogoditi, barem po zakonu simetrije. Dogodilo se nešto što nuždi proturječi, nešto za što još nema objašnjenja i što moramo procesuirati tako da napustimo uobičajeno shvaćanje, a da pritom ne ulazimo u soteriološke implikacije odgovora na pitanje kako nešto presjeći, a održati cjelovitim. Vratimo se Simetriji; dio koji Petercol preslikava brid je koji označava vanjsku granicu oblika cjeline. Osjećaj da tu nešto nedostaje i da nam primjenom uobičajenog sustava mišljenja smisao izmiče, signalizira njegovu granicu; štoviše, određuje realnost ne kao uzrok, već kao krhki rezultat sustava unutar kojega promišljamo. Tako forme kao fragmenti stvarnosti koje barem načas možemo fiksirati, postaju lakmus-papir za kontekstualna prelaženja iz jednog registra u drugi.

Napetost između iskustva i njegove konceptualizacije, u Petercolovu radu sveprisutna u obliku stalne subverzije čistoće konceptualnih struktura, proizlazi iz unutarnjeg otpora živog iskustva pravilima apstraktnog mišljenja.

Kada se mladi budistički monasi suočavaju s koanom koji im je učitelj zadao, služe se praksom zvanom jakugo, što je svojevrsna eksplikacija koana u slikovitom jeziku iskustva. Ljudsko iskustvo artikulirano u formi sveprisutno je u Petercolovu radu, posebno u seriji Nizova. Kao u praksi jakugo, Petercol ljudsko iskustvo ne apstrahira u koncepte, već provodi neko paralelno metapripovijedanje, pri čemu iskustvo govori o iskustvu. O iskustvu umjetnosti govori kroz (osobno) iskustvo umjetnosti. Tako se i niz, u ideji beskonačan matematički pojam, u Petercolovu radu konkretizira u konačnoj formi neke posve idiosinkratske “matematike” koja kulminira u Hijerarhijskim nizovima u kojima se gledatelj zatječe pred razrađenim sustavom uvrštavanja u niz, nedokučivom principima pozitivističkog mišljenja. Zašto su neka linija ili neki kut u nizu ponovljeni više puta u odnosu na druge, zašto upravo ova točka ima prednost u nizu pred drugima, pitanja su na koja se odgovori nude jedino unutar zatvorenog sustava umjetnikova razmišljanja i stvaranja. I kao što monasi u praksi jakugo na enigmatične koane ne odgovaraju univerzalnim terminima, već slikama i prispodobama iz

255

iskustva, tako i Petercolovo “vježbanje jakuga” slijedi sličan princip: na univerzalne principe odgovara partikularnom istinom. Na slavnome mjestu u Tractatus Logico-Philosophicusu Wittgenstein tvrdi da sve što se može izreći, može se izreći jasno, a sve što je izvan dosega tog izjavljivanja — cijeli dijapazon estetskog, religioznog, etičkog — smatra nedostupnim. Time ne tvrdi da je to područje besmisleno, već samo da je besmislena svaka izjava o nedostupnom. Možda je riječ o “nesmislu” s kojim nas suočavaju i Petercolovi radovi u kojima sudaranje različitih sustava onemogućava nesmetano kretanje našega spoznajnog aparata. Besmisao unutar Petercolovih radova označava granicu jezika, ne samo prirodnog jezika već i drugih znakovnih sustava. Međutim, njegovo ustrajavanje na nejezičnoj, iskustvenoj razini radova samo je na prvi pogled protujezično: poanta je njegove umjetničke geste u tome što se i drugi sustavi “uređivanja” realnosti, koji su u krajnjoj točki također znakovni sustavi, pokazuju nedostatnima da bi predstavljali išta više od dogovornog fiksiranja nestalnog i prevrtljivog kaosa koji zovemo stvarnost. Stvarnost kao kontroliran i uređen sustav stvar je kreativnoga ljudskog procesa, nagona za klasifikacijom, pa je i ultimativno pitanje Petercolove prakse pitanje stvaranja koje se ne događa po božanskom principu ex nihilo, već preuzimanjem istih fragmenata i fenomena koji se ne temelje na pozitivizmu europske tradicije znanosti, nego na paradoksnoj afirmaciji krhkosti sustava koji neprestano nudi nove prijedloge za uređenja. Tu krhkost Petercol priziva pomoću prije spomenute dvojne metodologije koja artikulira napetost između potrebe za pronalaženjem mjere i arbitrarnosti postupaka. Pitanje mjere nije samo metodološki spiritus movens, već i središnje konceptualno pitanje Petercolove prakse. Iako su Nizovi, Simetrije i Sjene možda na prvi pogled indikativniji za promišljanje relacije egzaktnog i samovoljnog, radovi iz serije Dosezi tu napetost otvaraju dalekosežnije i emfatičnije tako što definiraju mjeru koju određuje ljudsko tijelo, točnije, tijelo samog umjetnika (doslovno i lišeno patetike klasičnih povijesno-umjetničkih implikacija): doseg ruke fiksira zglob, zapešće, lakat, rame, a pisaljka (olovka, kist, sprej) zacrtava krajnju točku njezina dosega te samim time i područje njezina djelovanja. Budući da očekujemo da umjetnikova ruka više neće rasti, doseg je nešto potpuno egzaktno, stalna mjera, a istodobno i posve kontingentna stvar (kao što smo i svi mi kao ljudska bića produkt mnogih slučajnosti).

Dosezi tako suptilno sugeriraju da je mjera možda mnogo više pitanje slučajnosti nego što se to na prvi pogled čini, ali da je slučajnost i objektivna i obvezujuća. Evociraju i slavnu izreku soﬁsta Protagore o čovjeku kao mjeri svih stvari te potvrđuju da je umjetnost inkomenzurabilna s bilo kojom drugom aktivnošću. Predugačka i nezgrapna, riječ inkomenzurabilno ovdje je nužna jer označava temeljnu Petercolovu premisu: misao da se umjetnost ne može svesti ni na koju drugu mjeru osim one koju si sama postavlja, da je nesvodiva na mjere i mjerila drugih područja. Suočavanje različitih sustava u Petercolovim radovima služi izjavi o nemogućnosti redukcije umjetničkog stvaranja na mjeru ostalih sustava. Ta je izjava poput koana čiji ne-smisao ukazuje na granice smisla i dogovornu prirodu sustava koji područje smisla održavaju; mjera koju u te sustave unosi umjetnost, upućuje na drugu stranu zdravorazumske argumentacije koja ne predstavlja iracionalno, već polje gdje su racionalno i iracionalno zamjenjivi.

256

SJENE,OZNAâITELJIIOPTIâKITEKSTOVI —ODSUTNA/PRISUTNASVJETLOST

Miško Šuvaković

1. Koncepti

Postoji početni element, zatim nastaje proces. Proces kao aspekt umjetničkog rada bitna je komponentarada Gorana Petercola. Proces je “međuvrijeme” između nepostojanja i TU prisustva predmeta, instalacije, ambijenta. Proces, premda materijalan, izgleda kao odsustvo završenog, upisanog, proizvedenog i prisutnog materijaliziranog komada. Petercol propozicionira koncept procesa sljedećim riječima:

Osnova na kojoj organiziram rad je proces. Iako je pojedini radni sloj formalno i sadržajno zatvoren i može se do negacije razlikovati od susjednog, rješenja prostora unutar rada bliska su ideji o kontinuitetu. Odnosim se prema slučajnosti kao prema drugoj pravilnosti, što je donekle blisko zapažanju G. Ligetija prema kome “apsolutna determinacija koja izražava da sve i konačno posjeduje istu važnost, da ništa ne traje izvan konteksta, konvergira s apsolutnom slučajnošću”.

Petercol akumulira u vizualni materijalni prostor iluziju (asocijaciju) imaterijalnog senzibiliteta. Predmet po sebi (po likovnoj formi) nije skulptura, nego su to svjetlost i predmet zajedno (instalacija svjetlosti i predmeta). Svjetlost ili odsustvo svjetlosti (sjena, sjene, strukturacije sjena) predmetu oduzimaju izgled TU prisutnosti, pomičući ga u domenu iluzija (optička prisutnost) i privida (iskustvene i mentalne reprezentacije). Predmet kome je oduzet izgled TU prisutnog analogan je označitelju. Lacanovski govoreći, označitelj je ovdje shvaćen kao materijalnost oslobođena svakog značenja i otvorena u svim arbitrarnostima mogućim potencijalnim značenjima. Petercol zapisuje:

Sjena na zidu, predmetu... unutar i ispod njih ali i u zraku. Izdvojena kao forma, bliža je readymadeu nego formi. Ona u svakom pojedinačnom slučaju ima i vlastitu povijest: ono što je prethodilo (predmet), a također sadrži i smjer protezanja, tendenciju, mjesto gdje bih događaj eventualno mogao nastaviti. Polazeći od svjetla kao ishodišta, sjena postaje krajnje područje događaja, mjesto kraja ili nove gradnje.

On na samom početku selekcionira označitelje (sjena i predmet su analogni označitelju) da bi otvorio polje arbitrarnih mogućnosti variranja (proizvodnje učinaka). Sjena i predmet, ma kakve bile formalne vizualne kombinacije, uvijek grade lanac (ulančavaju se i protežu se sve do potencijalnog binarnog para “materijalnog” i “nematerijalnog”).

257

Petercolove instalacije iz serije Sjene (Širenje forme, (1988.), Širenje forme, Tri podloge (1988.), Proširena sjena, Dvije podloge (1986.), Vraćanje smjera (1988.), Produženje i zaustavljanje sjene (1986.–88.), Sjene (1989.) ili Sjene Cities (1993.)) su ambivalentna rješenja: (1) rade s modernističkim reduktivnim odnosima materijala i energije (nulti fenomenološki nivo, radikalni redukcionizam), (2) rade s readymade strategijama upotrebe (bilo koga, bilo kakvog) fenomena kao vizualnog predloška, a ne s vizualnim oblikovanjem komada (odnos sjene i predmeta je prepoznatljiv u usporedbi s duchampovskom gestom, (3) rade s mentalnim predodžbama poretka kao iluzije, privida i konkretne prisutnosti (imaju postanalitički karakter, budući modus spoznajnog rada ne dovode do spoznaje/episteme kao u analitičkom slikarstvu ili konceptualnoj umjetnosti, što pripada Petercolovoj ranoj povijesti), već do prostornog, materijalnog, optičkog i mentalnog učinka), i (4) rade sa zamislima jezičkih igara u Lyotardovom smislu — jezička igra je igra koja se igra po više grupa pravila istovremeno. Materijalni predmeti i njihovi odnosi u svjetlosnom ambijentu ne proizvode smisao svojim likovnim aspektima-efektima, ali ni semiotičkim vrijednostima materijala ili svjetla koje postaje znak, već jezičkom igrom koja ih uokviruje (za Petercolove instalacije znakovna vrijednost nije uzrok smisla, već njegova posljedica). Smisao nastaje u trenutku kada materijal ili svjetlost (kao označitelji) prodiru u pravila jezične igre. Jezične igre postaju varijante različitih pravila koja se ne moraju i ne mogu do kraja dokučiti. Petercol ne konstruira jedan sustav pravila (projekt) konstrukcije i historijskog revaloriziranja konstruktivizma. On generira više jednakovrijednih sustava pravila (projekata generiranja) i time otvara mogućnosti za variranje (produkciju varijanti):

Konstrukcijom od koje u jednom trenutku odustajem, ili početnoj ideji usprkos ostajem unutar materijalnih zadatosti, ili mijenjam ideju gradnje, zapravo izdajem deﬁniciju projekta.

Izdaja deﬁnicije projekta, ili njen preobražaj u deﬁnicije mogućih i potencijalnih pravila mogućih i potencijalnih jezičnih igara je Lyotardovski moto koji se pojavljuje u kretanju od djela (modernizam) ka situaciji (postmodernizam). Konstruktivni i analitički poetički modus rada Petercol ne iznevjerava deklarativno, već unutar “konstruktivne ideje” ili “unutar analitičke metodologije” sprovedenom dekonstrukcijom (nedovršenošću, varijantnošću, prevagom iskustvenog učinka nad epistemom).

Percipirati Petercolovu predmetno-svjetlosnu instalaciju znači vidjeti NEŠTO negdje TAMO. Vidjeti NEŠTO negdje TAMO ne znači ﬁksirati neki gestalt (likovnu formu), već učestvovati u događaju koji preobražava sam predmet postajući prostor svjetlosnog prostiranja i selekcije svjetlosnih informacija. Vizualna percepcija bilo koje od instalacija je interpretacija višesmislenog i višeslojnog podražaja koji stiže do oka. Ali, oko je i tijelo, tijelo koje izvodi performans gledanjem i savladavanjem prostora (oko se kreće u očnoj čašici, ali oko se kreće i s glavom u odnosu na mirujuće tijelo, oko se kreće u očnoj čašici s glavom i tijelom u pokretu oblikujući složene putanje /trajektorije vida/). Ali, oko je vođeno i “drugim kretanjem” iza i preko tijela koje je uronjeno u poredak označitelja (optičko nesvjesno, optička subjektivnost, optička racionalnost).

258

Petercolove instalacije su locirane upravo na granici djelovanja optičkog nesvjesnog, optičke subjektivnosti i optičke racionalnosti Optičko nesvjesno je strukturirano kao vizualni jezik (jezična igra koju igra umjetnik, ali i koja se igra s umjetnikom po različitim pravilima koja ne moraju biti od početka i uvijek poznata). Optička subjektivnost je strukturirana kao vizualni tekst (ponašanje, djelovanje, činjenje i povratni učinci na umjetnika u okviru jezične igre). Optička racionalnost je moć konstruiranja egzaktnih prostornih, vremenskih, svjetlosnih i predmetnih situacija minimalnim sredstvima (minimalističkom ekonomijom rada reda). Optičko nesvjesno se pokazuje, lacanovski rečeno, Ne-Cijelim djela koje je ambivalentno i igra po otvorenim skupovima prešutnih pravila koja se mijenjaju i prilagođavaju speciﬁčnim slučajevima ispuštajući osobni reprezentativni ili ekspresivni karakter utemeljenog JA. Umjetnikovo JA je uvijek ispušteno, a manjak je okrenut ka Drugom koji gleda djelo (izvodi optički performans pred djelom). Optička subjektivnost omogućava beskrajno variranje koje iscrpljuje polaznu ideju, ili je preobražava u drugu ideju, ili lanac ideja. Variranje i proizvodnja varijanti omogućava da se rad uvijek ukazuje kao proces (nedovršeno djelo) koji proizvodi mogućnosti pojavnosti i izgleda drugih radova. Variranje i proizvodnja varijanti omogućava i to da se subjekt (hipoteza umjetnika) izdvoji iz neidentiteta optičkog nesvjesnog, jer on uvijek postaje on tako što ipak bira (selekcionira, priznaje, jednu ili dvije varijante) od bezbroj mogućnosti:

Ponavljanjem radnih zahvata prihvaćam red unutar kojeg se mogu predvidjeti elementi koji slijede. Ideja jednog niza proteže se u beskonačnost, ali je u realizaciji ograničena već samim materijalom, ili konkretnim prostorom. Nužnost prekida jedne vrste djelovanja otvara pitanje nastavka. Ako nastavljam... to je onda moja drugačija prisutnost unutar rada. Prekid postaje dio osnove.

Komentar: po tradicionalnom konceptu zapadne umjetnosti slika-skulptura može izgledatipoput svijeta, ali svijet nikada ne može izgledati poput slike. Po dvadesetstoljetnom modernističkom konceptu: slika-skulptura može biti načinjena i od svijeta i od slike, ali nikada ne može izgledati poput svijeta, ili poput slike. Petercol koristi (readymade strategiju) predmete i energije svijeta kao materijal (arte povera) da bi umjetnost kao i svijet preobrazio u jezičnu igru hipotetičkih odnosa u polju percepcije. Umjetnost ne imitira prirodu, jer je priroda proizvod umjetnosti i diskursa (Nelson Goodman), ali to ne znači da umjetnost može biti načinjena od materijala i kôdova prirode, umjetosti i diskursa.

2. Umjetnost i jezik sjena

Kada uspostavlja značenja, umjetničko djelo ne uspostavlja značenja na principijelno različit način od jezika. Poznavanje slikovnih kôdova i likovnih postupaka, razlikuje se od poznavanja jezičnih kôdova po tome što se primarno sastoji u speciﬁčnoj vrsti perceptivnog znanja te u iskustvu samog slikanja.

259

Stjecanje ove vrste znanja nije manje složeno od učenja jezika. Gradeći prostore sa svjetlom i predmetima, Petercol gradi mikro-antropološke svjetove “stjecanja znanja” o svjetovima koji mogu biti. Ideja mogućeg svijeta znanja koji nastaje iz učenja građenja, ili recepcije djela, jedna je od šifri umjetnosti dvadesetog stoljeća.

3. Fenomenologija sjena

Osnovni uvjet viđenja vizualnog svijeta je ﬁzička površina koja reflektira svjetlost i projicira na retinu. Svjetlosna stimulacija je određena s četiri vrste invarijanti: (1) invarijante pri promjenama osvjetljenja, (2) invarijante uslijed promjene točke promatranja, (3) invarijante nastale preklapanjem uzoraka, (4) invarijante koje prate lokalna razlaganja strukture. Informacije su jednostavno u okolini, na raspolaganju, dostupne i neiscrpne u energetskom toku oko nas. Njihovo prikupljanje se obavlja u svjetlosnom ambijentu.

Iscrpni opis bilo kojeg svjetlosnog ambijenta Gorana Petercola je opis invarijanata koje grade svjetlosnu informaciju u okruženju oka i tijela ispred predmeta i okolne (ambijentalne) svjetlosti.

4. Percepcija

Percepcija ima dvije komponente: (1) percepcija prostornog svijeta (svijet površina, sjena, ivica, oblika, međuprostora, boja, tekstura) i (2) percepcija svijeta stvari koja imaju značenja (svijet objekata, mjesta, ljudi, signala, pisanih simbola). Da li je u Petercolovim radovima svjetlost moguće odrediti kao “jezik”, a sjenu kao “pismo”? Odnos jezika i pisma gradi razliku (zijev) između svjetla i sjene predmeta u polju svjetlosti.

5. Semiologija sjena

Semiologija sjene, ili slikovna semiologija sjene metajezična je metoda opisivanja i objašnjavanja sjene kao speciﬁčnog slikovnog i značenjskog izraza. Za semiologiju sjene nije bitno pitanje što je umjetnost, već pitanje što je svjetlost koja proizvodi sliku. Nije u pitanju šta je umjetničko u sjeni, već što je djelo, tj. što je sjena koja prekriva površinu i ispunjava prostor. Semiologiju sjene sam razvio čitajući semiologije slikarstva švicarskog semiologa Louisa Marina, francuskog ﬁlozofa Jeana Louisa Schefera, francuskog povjesničara umjetnosti Marcelina Pleyneta i slovenskog sociologa kulture Brace Rotara1 i primijenio je na svjetlosne instalacije sa sjenama Gorana Petercola. Semiologija sjena je sustav koji sažima formulacije i konceptualizacije povijesti umjetnosti, ikonoloških studija i nauke o likovnoj umjetnosti posredstvom lingvističkih, semiotičkih, strukturalističkih i psihoanalitičkih metoda. Ali, tu se može pronaći i vrlo osobno ne-teorijsko iskustvo sjene kao “onog drugog svijeta” koji se pruža pogledu, 1Vidi popis literature na str. 63 (op.ur).

260

a izmiče želji. Semiologija sjene treba omogućiti što iscrpniji opis strukture sjene kao i relacije sjene s drugim tekstovima (ili slikama) kulture. Po Marinu slikovna (pikturalna) semiologija ima zadatak opisati slikovna značenja i razjasniti mehanizam njihove artikulacije u stvaralačkom činu, u procesu čitanja i dešifriranja, tj. u činu koji odgovara estetskoj kontemplaciji slike (po Poussinu “uživanju oka”). Semiologija sjene treba pokazati kako sjena od Duchampa preko Turrella do Petercola proizvodi zijev između izgleda predmeta u polju svjetlosti i značenja koje iz njega ili njegovog poremećaja nastaju. Slikovna semiologija sjene ostvaruje enigmatsku operaciju čitanja vidljivog i viđenja razumljivog, tj. razumijevanja smisla umjetničkih radova sa sjenama (od slike sa sjenama, preko kazališta sjena i kazališta boja do ambijentalnih svjetlosnih radova). Prvi problem semiologije sjene je pitanje da li je struktura sjena jezik, a razlikuju se dva odgovora: (1) rad sa sjenama je u hipotetičkom smislu jedan jezik, a pritom se u analizi sjena ne primijenjuju lingvističke sheme, već se istražuju osobiti jezični karakter i zakonitosti svjetlosnih fenomena (pojavnosti, izgleda i značenja), i (2) istražuje se mjera u kojoj struktura sjena jeste ili nije jezik, odnosno, kroz utvrđivanje da ona nije jezik i da je izvan područja jezika, pokazuje se u kom je odnosu sa lingvističkim jezicima i lingvističkim modelima jezika.

Jedno od rješenja problema jezičnog karaktera strukture sjena je osnovano na konstataciji da rad sa sjenama ne gradi jezik. To znači da strukture sa sjenama ne funkcioniraju kao usmeni govor. Pojam govora je uzet iz strukturalne lingvistike, tj. iz razlikovanja jezika (langue: apstraktni zbir pravila) i govora (parole: konkretna primjena jezika). Sjene nisu govor već su diskursi (tekstualna ili slikovna uspostavljanja značenja nepovezana s riječima). Ne-narativnost ili fragmentarna narativnost, tj. činjenica da struktura sjena ne prikazuje i ne izriče pripovijest, već samo jednu optičku sekvencu pripovjednog događaja, posljedica je suštine, ili prirode likovnog sistema (njegove evolucije od slike do svjetlosnog ambijenta). Struktura sjena nije organizirana pripoviješću (pripovijest je podređena slikovnom poretku slikarstva ili fotograﬁje ili ﬁlma, ali ne i slikovnom poretku svjetlosnog ambijenta), ali zato oblikuje kompleksan mnogostrani označavajući poredak preobražaja slikovnog poretka sjena u značenje, kao i značenjskog i saznajnog u smisao slikovnog poretka prostorne (ambijentalne) strukture sjena.

S druge strane, razrada rada sa sjenama kao speciﬁčnog jezika polazi od hipoteze da je struktura sjena sistem odslikavanja (umnožavanja u više ogledala) sistema jezika ili barem prostorno-svjetlosnih intencionalnih artikulacija. Sistem rada sa sjenama uspostavlja “carstvo znaka” (lingvističkog) a zatim i njegovu redukciju na nivo aktivnosti osjeta vida. Schefer uvodi važan semiološki pojam leksije, makroskopske jedinice čiji je cilj odrediti sve nivoe referiranja i razumijevanja referentnih relacija teksta, slike, ili strukture sjena (svjetlosnog ambijenta). Leksija je akt razumijevanja sistema koji proizlazi iz njegovih elemenata, tj. ona je komunikacijski akt sistema. Leksija nudi mogućnost povezanog izlaganja sistema (strukture) slike, ili sjene kao procesa beskrajnog umnožavanja u više ogledala od sistema jezika i njegove osjetilne logike. Ona omogućava da se pokaže kako je proces izgradnje predodžbe kao i sama predodžba sasvim apstraktna ﬁgura zatvorena u sustav jezika. Struktura sjena za razliku od slike koja je sustav eks-

261

plicitnih leksija, sistem je implicitnih leksija. Predodžba figure (ne figure slikarstva, već figure-sjene) nije arbitrarni poredak označitelja i označenih, već je uzročni poredak označitelja s arbitrarno pridodanim poretkom označenih. Sjena uvijek zadržava uzročnu vezu s predmetom iz kojeg potječe. Ona je označiteljski uzrokovana i zato ima poredak analogan jeziku koji postoji prije nego što u našem simboličkom razvoju dođemo do nje kao objekta simbolizacije.

U metodološkom smislu semiologiju sjene karakterizira prijenos lingvističkih metoda na opisivanje slike i usklađivanje smisla slike s obzirom na njenu strukturu, odnosno, prenošenje metoda semiologije slikarstva u semiologiju sjena. Semiološka operacija ima za cilj karakterizirati strukturu sjena i imenovati njene strukturalne objekte. Suštinski problem semiologije sjena je kako konstruirati pristupe označavajućim cjelinama sjena budući ne postoji utvrđen (kodiran) tehnički metajezik slikarstva, odnosno ambijentalne umjetnosti. Dok poezija, arhitektura, glazba ili ples imaju razrađene i kodificirane tehničke metajezike (opise, kanone, pravila izražavanja, sisteme zapisa, normativne poetike), slikarstvo i rad sa sjenama tako nešto nemaju. Postoje samo pojedinačne i individualne naznake koje važe od slučaja do slučaja. Zato se slikovni (pikturalni) objekt sjene u semiologiji tretira samo u okviru nekog sustava, tj. samo onda kada pripada nekom problemskom okviru istraživanja. Semiološka teorija za sjenu proizvodi njen sistemski okvir. Semiološka analiza uspostavlja “korelacije” između sjene i tekstova kulture (retorike, književnosti, ideologije, estetike), zbog čega je definirana kao interslikovna i intertekstualna deskriptivna teorijska praksa. Semiologiju sjene karakteriziraju sljedeći problemi svojstveni nelingvističkim označavajućim sustavima: (1) izučavanje formalnih struktura čija su različita pravila bila vezana za vizualne i optičke učinke, (2) uočavanje i opisivanje značenja koja proizlaze iz optički određenih formalnih struktura slike, (3) opisivanje općih znakovnih (semiotičkih) struktura sjena, (4) analiza značenjskih promjena i nivoa u ambijentalnom svjetlosnom djelu kao strukturi koja proizvodi značenje i smisao. Svjetlosni ambijent se može definirati kao tekst svjetlosnih informacija. Struktura sjena je figurativni svjetlosni, stoga i optički tekst u kome se vidljivo i čitljivo vezuju jedno s drugim. Struktura sjena je figurativni (optička figura sjena) tekst i sustav čitanja. Čitati strukturu sjena znači prijeći pogledom jednu svjetlosnu skupinu učinaka u prostoru i time definirati tekst. Ona se istovremeno vidi jednim pogledom i čita kroz više pogleda (čita pogledom koji prelazi površine i prostor prostiranja sjena). Semiološka analiza artikulira različita vremena pogleda. Struktura sjena sadrži i različite stupnjeve sažimanja. U strukturalnom poretku sjena utemeljenom na analoškom pojavljivanju koje dopušta iluzionističku organizaciju plastičkog prostora. Zamisao sažimanja proizlazi iz moći prikazivanja i viđenja, odnosno, iz činjenice da struktura sjena ne reproducira realne predmete i prostorne odnose, već da proizlazi iz oblika koji su sami nastali paradoksalnim povezivanjem predmetnog i svjetlosnog svijeta u efekte iluzije koju čine i iluzionistički i realni elementi. Zato je struktura sjena koja iz toga proizlazi granica na kojoj se može zamijetiti/primijetiti — indeksirati — epistemološki tekst: granica na kojoj se može uspostaviti epistema s perceptivnim referencama unutar estetskog prostora propitivanja upisa ili konstrukta.

262

JELIGORANPETERCOL NEKONVENCIONALANUMJETNIK?

Sabina Salamon

Polazeći od stvaranja umjetnosti kao sustava konvencija, pitanja koje Goran Petercol postavlja nakon završene umjetničke akademije mogla bi se formulirati ovako: što je stvaranje i koje su njegove premise? Ako je uvjet stvaranja postignuće novog, kako se odmaknuti od stečenog znanja i naučenih radnih postupaka?

Ponekad suh i oskudan, a ponekad zavodljiv vizualni jezik Petercol je gradio na dekonstrukciji umjetničkih konvencija koje se mogu svesti na nekoliko glavnih: autorstvo i jedinstvenost umjetnikovog rukopisa, neponovljivost umjetničkog čina (geste), stvaranje novog, suparništvo slučaj–predodređenost, hijerarhiju bitnog i nebitnog u procesu stvaranja, konvenciju relacijske forme (stvaranje po osjećaju), konvenciju motiva (žanra), formata i kompozicije (zadanost formata, poštivanje gravitacijske sile). Zaključci proizišli iz tih procesa postali su gorivo za osmišljavanje vlastitih operativnih rješenja kojim se i danas rukovodi, a koja su ga od 1975. nadalje vodila do usvajanja sasvim iznimne metode stvaranja, očigledne u ovim neobjavljenim bilješkama: “Stečeno iskustvo koristiti. Stečeno iskustvo poništiti.” Usprkos kontradikciji koju uvodi, Petercol ne završava u slijepoj ulici, već izlaz pronalazi primjenom vlastitih procedura, zahvaljujući kojima zauzima posebno mjesto unutar neoavangardnih strujanja na zagrebačkoj likovnoj sceni druge polovice sedamdesetih. Korespondirajući klimi u kojoj se istodobno komešaju istraživanja u primarnoj (analitičkoj) umjetnosti (prvenstveno u slikarstvu i skulpturi) te novoumjetničkoj konceptualnoj praksi, Petercolova sumnjičavost spram samorazumljivosti stvaranja produbljuje problematiku smisla umjetnosti puno više nego što prvi pogled dopušta uočiti. Radikalnim pretresanjem formalnih načela — “Platno nije stvoreno radi slikarstva” — dovodi u pitanje neoborivost umjetnosti kao područja speciﬁčnih umijeća i znanja, osnažuje poziciju autora. Na nišanu su konvencije.

Od ruba do ruba

Kao jednu od svojih omiljenih meta Petercol uvodi gestu i gestualno, modernističku konvenciju nesputanog stvaranja i ekspresivnosti. Skloniji naivnom pogledu koji prihvaća vidljiv svijet kao dovoljnost, nego ﬁlozofskoj misli koju zanima proniknuti u načela, razračunava se s gestom već u svojoj prvoj seriji crteža, pod nazivom Preslikavanja (1975.–76.), i time sugerira kako umjetnost nije posljedica nadahnuća, već nastaje u susretu s pojavnim svijetom kojeg umjetnik vidi. Povrh toga, drži da umjetnički

263

rad nije tek krajnji rezultat, predmet, artefakt, već i proces kojim je nastao. Pothvat dokazivanja geste u spomenutoj seriji izvodi tako da na jednom papiru crta geste, i zatim ih jednu po jednu precrtava na drugom papiru. Blasfemičnost ovakvog postupka upozorava nas da nam Petercol sprema neku psinu, no iako je ponavljanje geste samo po sebi kontradiktorni čin, nitko je ne može zabraniti. Nitko ne može zabraniti da gesta sama postane predmet promatranja i slikanja. I nitko ne može poreći da preslika geste nije stvorena u nadahnuću. Petercol kaže da ponavlja osjećaj, a ne formu (kontradikcija). To mu daje za pravo misliti: ako je gesta vrsta forme nastala kao neponovljiv izraz njenog tvorca, zašto se u postupcima stvaranja neke predmete smatra dobrim motivom, a neke ne (zašto robovati konvenciji motiva)? Ili, tko se može protiviti preslikavanju geste ako je ona datost koju možemo vidjeti (konvencija mimezisa)?

Putem dolazi do zaključka koji će odrediti njegov heretični stvaralački svjetonazor: “Stvar koja prethodi, i od koje nastavljam raditi, uvjetuje tijek daljnjeg rada, tako što mi daje neke pretpostavke za daljnji rad, na primjer, veličina papira (radne podloge), koja nije bila stvorena namjerno za sadržaj koji ću na njemu nacrtati, i koja nije neutralna, jer utječe na proporcije i veličinu onoga što ću nacrtati...” U duhu primarnog slikarstva aktualnog na zagrebačkoj likovnoj sceni, Petercol pridaje pažnju svakom pojedinom elementu rada. Jedan od najbitnijih među njima jest ograničenost, koju u smislu najstrožeg materijalizma smatra preduvjetom svakog stvaralačkog procesa te je postavlja za polazište cijele serije radova započete 1977., kako na papiru, tako i u javnom prostoru u vidu akcija, objedinjenih nazivom Dosezi. Poveden namjerom da izbjegne bilo koju vrstu ekspresije, pribjegava radu po nužnosti, uvažavajući ﬁzička ograničenja rubova formata papira, protežnosti vlastitog tijela, dosega ruke, ili kista. Mogućnost svedena na nužnost istiskuje bilo kakav izbor, pa tako i eventualno stvaranje po osjećaju (konvencija relacijske forme).1

Presavinuti ugao papira (1977.) neka je vrsta tihe rasprave s maločas spomenutom gestom: presavijanjem ugla papira, Petercol je na površini izazvao promjenu u količini svjetlosti, dokazujući kako je probleme svjetla i sjene moguće tretirati mimo klasične slikarske tehnike upotrebe kista i boje. Koliko god to banalno izgledalo, Presavinuti ugao papira i Ispunjena površina (1978.), kao i nekoliko radova izvedenih u javnom prostoru 1977.–1978. (Površine u boji, 1977., Obojane površine, 1978., Linije, 1978.) zagovaraju nesmetani prijelaz iz jednog u drugi medij potkazujući konvenciju slikarske podloge.

U isto vrijeme nastaje i manja serija slika na papiru pod nazivom Rotacije (1977.) gdje se razračunava s umjetnošću u kojoj vlada zakon gravitacije (konvencija kompozicije), indirektno se obrušavajući na konvenciju oponašanja stvarnosti (mimezis). Za ljudsku percepciju vrijedi orijentacija gore-dolje, kao i za predmetni svijet, ali što s onim koji to nije? Operira li umjetnost nužno po zakonima ﬁzike? Petercolov odgovor glasi: “zaokreni ga za koliko stupnjeva hoćeš, 90, 270... dokud ide.” Premda će slikarstvo u aktualnoj monograﬁji ostati neobrađena tema, vrijedi napomenuti kako je Petercol slikao u klasičnoj tehnici ulja na platnu do konca osamdesetih, provjeravajući vjerodostojnost koncepata kao i u ostalim medijima: kako bi izbjegao primjenu očekivanih slikarskih postupaka, isprobavao je mogućnosti prijestupa prema vlastitim recepturama. Nije čistio kist.

1U tome se krije nevidljivo pravilo da se slikarska površina uvijek rješava po nekom modelu, kojim i unutar kojeg vlada sam autor, po osjećaju (impresionizam, kubizam, i svaki -izam pretpostavlja neki model koji se temelji na pronalasku rješenja po osjećaju).

264

2Pak papir je tvornički presavinut, a radi lakšeg nošenja prodavač ga je još nekoliko puta preklopio.

3Prilikom izvođenja rada Produljena linija, u opisu radnog procesa Petercol pod trajanjem

Među tvrdokornije spada i konvencija forme (nacrtanog, naslikanog, modeliranog) koju smatra rezultatom procedura koje joj prethode. Igrajući se formatom presavijenog arka pak papira (Pak papir, 1977.), sve njegove pregibe premazuje bojom, kao da provjerava njegove neravnine. U drugoj varijanti ih reže po pregibima, no obje opcije naglašavaju njihovu readymade formu (konvencija readymade), podvlačeći da je papir kao neumjetnički materijal u njegovim rukama odredio konačan rezultat (konvencija stvaranja iz ničeg).2

Gdje je autor: od ruba do ruba+još malo 3

Po čemu je autor autor, koje djelo je autorsko djelo, spada u korpus pitanja kojima je Petercol propuhivao sustav konvencija. Usprkos brojnim promjenama koje su nastupile u umjetnosti uslijed društvenih promjena u 20. stoljeću, sustav nije napustio utemeljujuću ﬁguru autora, premda se tlo pod njegovim nogama ipak poljuljalo. Filozofske rasprave iz šezdesetih godina bitno su utjecale na stavove u umjetnosti i tijekom sedamdesetih, unutar konceptualnog i analitičkog usmjerenja.4 Braneći se od analitičnosti bez pokrića, svoja opažanja Petercol je i inače razvijao kroz iskustvo rada, pa se tako ravnao tražeći sebe-autora. U radu Dajem papir što ga je izveo na zagrebačkoj ulici 1979., prolaznicima je dijelio papire na kojima se nalazila crna mrlja — otisak njegove ruke isprljane graﬁčkom bojom, koja u funkciji potpisa djeluje upravo suprotno tradicionalnoj ulozi potpisa. Umjesto da osnažuje njegov identitet, potpis-mrlja zasjenjuje auru autorstva. Uvodi li Petercol time autora-neznalicu umjesto znalca? Ako je autor vlastito ime, može li biti bezimen? Ili se kriomice izjašnjava da ga autorom čini izvornost, makar to bila mrlja na buntu? Dohvaćanje bunta papira desnom rukom nije jednoznačan čin; u nedostatku vlastitog imena (konvencija potpisa) može govoriti u prilog onemoćalosti ideje autora, i nastavljajući se na Dosege, zastupati stav o vlastitoj ograničenosti. Skretati pažnju na autora koji ne započinje iz ničeg, ne stvara nikakvu “novinu”. Odmičući se od tradicionalnog poimanja po kojem je “autor stvaralačka instanca koja izvire iz djela u koje on, bezgranično obilno i velikodušno postavlja neiscrpni svijet značenja”,5 Petercol se odriče jedinstva autor-djelo koji je pretpostavka ovog navoda. Papir je kupljen u papirnici, a on ga kroz svoje ruke, šalje dalje. Potkožno, Petercol je ipak duchampovac. Readymade je uvijek tu. Na svoj klasičan način, operirajući na više razina, uz mit o davanju u umjetnosti, nalazi priliku pitati, što umjetnik zapravo daje?6

povlačenja linije kredom navodi: ‘doseg ruke+još malo’. Rad je izveden u sklopu grupne izložbe Linije u Podrumu (Mesnička 12, Zagreb, 7. 12.–13. 12. 1979.) na kojoj su sudjelovali i Željko Jerman, Željko Kipke,

Antun Maračić, Marijan Molnar, Darko Šimičić i Raša Todosijević. Kustosica je bila Branka Stipančić.

4I danas se smatra da su najutjecajnije rasprave o autoru donijeli Roland Barthes s esej-

om Smrt autora (‘Death of the Author’, Aspen Magazine, no 5/6, 1967) i predavanje Michela Foucaulta iz 1969. pod naslovom Što je autor? (‘Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?’, Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie, 63e année, no 3, 1969).

5Michel Foucault, Što je autor?, Jesenski i Turk, Zagreb, 2015., str. 64.

6U podnaslovu rada Napisana linija (1978.) iz serije Rukopisa stoji naputak:‘Od sebe tanko, k sebi debelo’.

265

Pretresajući koncept autorstva, nemoguće je bilo preskočiti temu kolektivnog autora. Radom Linija koju su po načelu “nije važno tko povlači”,7 uz jednu nepoznatu osobu, na gradskom asfaltu, zajedno s njim izvela sedmorica kolega umjetnika, odjekuju reference ﬂuxusovske pluralnosti i procesualnosti. Posrijedi je participatorni rad koji pojam autora osujećuje u korist dijaloške estetske forme kolektiva, premda atribucija neosporno ostaje Petercolova.8

“U jednom trenutku”, kaže Petercol za sebe, “stekao sam status autora kao umjetnik svjetla”. No, smisao autorstva u njegovom razmatranju ne treba ograničiti na ovakvo poimanje, nego na primarnije i možda demokratičnije viđenje; autor se ogleda u nastupu samovolje, stvaralačke odluke, koja se pojavi na početku (kao odgovor na pitanje s čim započeti) i na kraju (kada stati). Početak i kraj dva su pola nasumične samovolje, ono između broji se kao rad pa makar prešao rub okvira, kao u Točci za papir (vidi str. 68). Iz samovolje produljuje sjenu predmeta (Produljene sjene), povećava ili smanjuje volumen (Polovice, 2015.).9

Neprikladno bi bilo svrstati ga među rušitelje konvencije autora, jer na njoj gradi sebe-autora (dvostrukom operacijom dekonstrukcije-konstrukcije). Od nužnosti koju mu diktira vlastito tijelo (Dosezi), prelazi na istraživanje slobode stvaranja (koncept autora), domišljajući se dokle sežu mogućnosti izbora... Čini se kako je autorova ultimativna gesta otići preko rubova, ali će se negdje radije suzdržati: započevši s otiskom prsta na papiru (nepismeni i bezimeni autor), završava antiherojskim činom — Za prst gore, desno, dolje, lijevo (1979.).

Uslijed nemogućnosti predviđanja izbora, hoće li se i kada dogoditi, sve opcije nastupa autora su moguće: neočekivanim prelaskom preko, iznenadnim posustajanjem (vidi str. 124).

Na tragu Foucaultovog promišljanja, po kojem je autor ideološki proizvod, kontekstualno uvjetovan i time podložan promjenama, razmišlja i Petercol kada kaže: “Sistem umjetnosti se neprestano mijenja. Hijerarhija medija koji čine njegovo tijelo, također je promjenjiva. Čitava umjetnost se konstantno povećava. Moja pozicija ne može ostati ﬁksna.”10

7Foucault u istoimenom eseju navodi citat protagonista iz dramskog teksta Samuela Becketta, Bezimeni (Unnamable) iz 1953. koji uvodi pluralnog autora.

8Ibidem, str. 39; Opravdano je spomenuti Foucaultovu primjedbu o ravnodušnosti spram autora.

Iako se u navedenom eseju osvrće na pisanje, nalazim shodnim uvažiti ga ovdje: ‘ravnodušnost nije toliko nešto što karakterizira način na koji govorimo ili pišemo, već neka vrsta imanentnog pravila za kojim se uvijek iznova poseže, a koje se nikada potpuno ne primjenjuje, načelo koje ne označa-

va pisanje kao rezultat, nego dominira njime kao praksa’.

9Povećavanjem ili smanjivanjem Petercol odgovara na pitanje koliko dati (gledatelju ili umjetnosti). Referentno ime za tu vrstu postupaka na polju kiparstva je svakako Ivan Kožarić, primjerice Čovjek koji sjedi

iz 1954. čija ruka je pretjerano izduljena. Potreba za promjenom količine može se dovesti u vezu s postupkom gužvanja papira ili aluminijske folije. Nakon što je slučajno metnuo ključeve na episkop i dobio višestruko povećanu projekciju, na polju svjetla i medijskog pomišljanja, proširivanjem i povećanjem ba-

vio se i Antun Motika četrdesetih godina. Kasnije je eksperimentirao s dijaprojektorom. Kao zanimljivu paralelu navedimo primjer bajke Alica u zemlji čudesa, gdje se povećanja i smanjenja njenog tijela događaju stalno, ne otkrivajući logiku promjena.

10Navod iz autorovih bilješki.

266

11Doduše, konvencija da se‘prazan prostor’ materijalizira bojom, kao i prostor kojeg zauzimaju predmeti, to jest da jednaku pažnju treba posvetiti svemu na slici, proizlazi iz klasičnog slikarstva.

Međuprostori

Isto tako, svijest da je neminovno ograničen i nečim uvjetovan daje mu za pravo misliti da je nemoguće započeti od ničeg, ne započeti od nečeg, pa tako i krenuti od nebitnog. Kad govorimo o odabiru motiva u klasičnom slikarstvu i skulpturi, status nebitnog imaju podnožje stolice ili prekidač za struju (naspram pejzaža, portreta ili nekog trećeg žanra). Međutim, stasajući u vrijeme kada umjetnost odriče poslušnost motivu(vanjskom sadržaju) kao primarnoj brizi slike (primarna umjetnost), potreba da se odmakne od konvencija, odvela ga je u područje međuprostora, gdje će opetovano potvrđivati da iz znanja nije moguće stvarati.11

Otpuštajući postulate koji mu ne odgovaraju, a prisvajajući one na kojima može dalje raditi, Petercol se dohvaća stvari izvan domašaja svakidašnjeg opažanja. Sve što je sporedno, stavlja u fokus. Kao i ostale koncepte kojima se bavi, tako i međuprostore provlači kroz različite medije, od slikarstva, crteža, kolaža, do objekata i instalacija. Prvi rad pod tim nazivom datira iz 1983. godine, a ubrzo su uslijedili još jedni Međuprostori (1985.) i Proširene sjene (1986.). U svima njima izravno naznačuje predmet interesa, ﬁzički i sadržajno inferiorne forme-tijela, koje opstaju na generičkom i opisnom nazivlju, kao prostor između, međuprostor, u pravilu podređeni nekom postojanom i čvrstom tijelu, uz koju postoji kao usputan, ništavan, neopipljiv entitet. Nastavak rada na ovoj temi u devedesetim godinama predstavlja poznata serija Sjene gradova, a u dvijetisućitim ciklus Fleševa, Simetrija i Ekstenzija. Upućivanje na sve što naša percepcija može, ali iz raznih razloga ne zapaža, rezultirat će osvjetljavanjem zakutaka, odljevima sjene radijatora, unutrašnjosti šalice.12 U prvom su planu prostori koje zapravo nikada ne vidimo. Ako izmjestimo misao u svakidašnju rutinu, to bi značilo učiniti vidljivim raskorak između putnika u autobusu, ili stolova u restoranu; ili, umjesto reprezentativnih prostora u kući, gostima pokazati predsoblje ili smočnicu. Petercolov doprinos temi očituje se u rehabilitaciji onog što propuštamo, tako što mu poklanja status činjenice. Međutim, kao i ostale koncepte, tako i ovog ne drži zasebno, nego ga povezuje s drugim temama. Osvrćući se na već spomenuta ograničenja koja alati za stvaranje umjetnosti nose, u seriji Međuprostori zarezuje papir ili platno, doprinoseći tako već postojećim (zadanim) rubovima formata.13 Dodajući nove rubove, proizvodi novo stanje koje prihvaća kao nova ograničenja, ali i nove mogućnosti, novi međuprostor unutar kojeg može raditi (konvencija slobode stvaranja).

Zapažajući da međuprostor ipak ostaje neprimijećen ako ga ne postavi u prvi plan, temu privodi kraju ukinućem međuprostora.14 Stoga je ovo tema koja se najdo-

12Autori koji su uvažavali temu međuprostora su Ivan Kožarić (Oblici prostora, 1963.) koji predstavlja odljev unutrašnjosti frižidera, te Bruce Nauman (Platform Made Up of the Space between Two

Rectilinear Boxes on the Floor, 1966. i A Cast of the Space Under my Chair, 1966.), za koje Petercol saznaje mnogo kasnije.

13Taj postupak pripada konceptu pove-

ćanja. Broj posjekotina proporcionalno povećava mogućnosti rješenja.

14U galeriji Waldinger u Osijeku (2010.) i Klovićevim dvorima u Zagrebu (2011.) ra-

dove postavlja jedan uz drugog, ukidajući međuprostor. U Gregor Podnar galeriji u Ljubljani 2007., te u pariškoj Shanaynay 2012. radove sljubljuje arhitekturnim elementima koje zatječe prostoru.

267

sljednije okreće percepciji. Izvjesno je da samim tim što pažnju preusmjerava na ivicu događaja Petercol izmiče prostoru autoriteta i njegovih zapovijedi, a time zaobilazi klopku da upadne u kliše stvaranja. U tom smislu međuprostore možemo prepoznati kao prostor (uvjetne) slobode.

Otvorene karike

Uzimajući u obzir da je Petercolov likovni jezik izrazito neprikazivački, bilo bi logično upitati se kako se odnosi spram forme? Što je forma ako nije ni gesta, ni tekst, ni precrt stvarnih predmeta? Što je, ako nije konvencionalna? Odgovor na to Petercol je dao već odavno: “forma je posljedica nekog procesa”.15

Kao primjer navodi nadrealiste i dadaiste kojima forma nije bila predmet i tema rada, već posljedica. Naznačuje i to da formi uvijek prethodi neka druga, već postojeća i uvjetovana kontekstom. Pod kontekstom misli na ukupnost faktora koji utječu na stanje stvari, među njima i na pažnju opažatelja (misleći prvenstveno na sebe). Deﬁnira nekoliko bitnih polazišta: svijet je napučen formama (readymade, gesta, geometrijski lik) na osnovi kojih stvara slične, ali nipošto nove forme (nije li to prešućena istina tradicionalnog slikarstva?). Potreba da naglasi kako ne stvara “iz ničeg”, otkriva bliskost prema procesu i procesualnosti u kojoj su zastupljena oba pola, i slučaj i determinacija.16 Među njima postoji razlika proceduralne prirode (slučaj je izvan kontrole) koju premošćuje iskustvo radnog procesa sačinjenog od više etapa u uzastopnom nizu. Rezultat je forma. (Strogo određeni rad, 1980., serija Stilizacija, 1981./82.).

Proces ide otprilike ovako: “slučajno” prolijevanje boje (sam Petercol nogom prevrne čašicu s bojom) stvara razlivenu mrlju koju umjetnik zatim oblikuje u novu (sličnu?) formu pomoću konvencije stilizacije.17

Neovisno o pristupu u interpretaciji pojava na polju vizualne umjetnosti, analiza se u pravilu drži trijadne sheme svijet – reprezentacija – umjetnik. Ipak, u ovom slučaju ne možemo govoriti o reprezentaciji, jer ne postoji predmet, ili biće koje Petercol reprezentira. Postoji misleni proces koji daje rezultat, nevidljivom logikom povezivanja, onakav kakav osjećamo da prožima svijet u njegovoj nesagledivosti, pri čemu bi cjelina mogla biti samo opisni pojam za neosvojivo polje kojim vlada kretanje pojava i odnosa. Po tome Sjene, Negativi i Stilizacije stvaraju mrežu poveznica sa svijetom: svjetlo s metalnim štapićem, štapić sa sjenom, sjena s gradom (Sjene gradova). Ti radovi ne prenose sliku svijeta (nisu njegov precrt), pa je pitanje forme sekundarno naspram

15Kovač, Leonida, ‘Pogovor prostorima digresije’, Radna monograﬁja, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb, 2003., str. 191.

16U skladu s tada aktualnim medijskim

istraživanjima na polju performativne, konceptualne, neobjektne umjetnosti, a u dosluhu s kritikom tržišta i komodiﬁkacije umjetnosti, procesualno je jedna od bitnih tema tog vre-

mena. S tim povezana tema odnosa slučaja i determinacije nevidljivo provlači se kroz mnoge radove.

17Konvencija stiliziranja u klasičnom slikarstvu je sama po sebi

razumljiva procedura po modelu oponašanja; u namjeri da se promatrani motiv prenese na platno, slikar ga stilizira, pokušavajući njegovu formu svesti na bitne karakteristike.

268

18Tematizirajući odnos predmeta i sjene, o teritorijalizaciji i deteritorijalizaciji kao odlikama rizoma, već ranije, premda ne doslovno, govori Leonida Kovač. Kada kaže digresija, možda misli

procesa kretanja, karakterističnih za model rizoma, gdje se bilo koji element (predmet, postupak, stanje) može spojiti s bilo kojim drugim elementom različite vrste. Rizomsku neproničnost uspostavljanja veza i nemogućnost pronalaska logike povezivanja, najlakše je razjasniti na primjeru ciklusa Hijerarhijskih nizova (2017.).

“Da bi se izmakao od nasumičnosti ukusa” (konvencija nemjerljivosti), rad gradi na prividnom režimu reda i metodičnosti te time uspostavlja kontradikciju: ono što gledatelju izgleda kao matematički slijed zapravo je rezultat proizvoljnosti njegove odluke; uzročno posljedična veza je privid, jer je proizvoljnost sama po sebi nepredvidiva i nemjerljiva. U tom smislu, kao paradigmu stvaranja Petercolovih radova možemo prepoznati sustav mnogostrukih, nepredvidivih linija.18

Karta koncepata koju je Petercol za potrebe ove monograﬁje izradio kako bi zacrtao teritorij kojim se njegova umjetnost kreće razjašnjava da su se ideje prenosile iz jednog u niz drugih koncepata.19 Čitamo je kroz intenzitete kojima se pojedine teme pojavljuju, i bujaju u varijantama — Ograničene količine, Duplirane količine, Sjene bez sjene, Sjene u boji, Proširene Sjene. Granaju se i transverzalno: Mjerenja Polovice Pod pravim kutom Dosezi. Još drugačije: industrijski proizveden rad (readymade) – moj rad (autorski rad) – publika, prolaznici (konvencija izložbe). Koncepti ne evoluiraju, samo se s vremena na vrijeme pojavljuju, preusmjeruju i stoga mijenjaju.20 Bilo bi ih neprecizno nazvati cjelinama. Nazovimo ih barem privremeno platoima, koji koegzistiraju i spajaju se i tako mijenjaju kartu proporcionalno rastu broja linija (vidi str. 74-75). Pokidani lanci stvaraju otvorene karike, potencijalne spojnice za neke druge prijenose. Služeći kao orijentir u određivanju kursa pojedinih linija, karta pokazuje da je umjetnički rad Gorana Petercola okrenut eksperimentiranju sa stvarnošću, kojoj ovaj umjetnik prilazi kao izvoru poticaja, ali je ne reproducira, jer ne postoji predložak (slika) koju slijedi. Jednako tako, ne postoji ni gomolj nevjesnog iz kojeg bi crpio potencijalne sadržaje. Zamislimo suprotno: njegovo stvaranje proizvodi nesvjesno.21

na rizome. Usp. Radna monograﬁja, Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, 2003., str 184.

19Po načinu kako je na početku graﬁčki riješena, karta pokazuje blago drvolik model,

što je Petercol nesvjesno napravio u skladu s našim psiho-perceptivnim aparatom, i potrebom za stabilnim uporištem, korijenom. Lanci koncepata spojeni različitim kodovima prikazuju suprotno,

nehijerahijsku mrežu, gdje se iz svakog koncepta kao iz gomolja šire linije kretanja. 20Najbolji primjer neevolutivne umjetnosti je slikarstvo Julija Knifera.

21Ovo su sve parafraze Gillesa Deleuza i Felixa Guattarija, Kapitalizam i shizofrenija 2, Tisuću platoa (Capitalism and Schizophrenia 2, a Thousand Plateaus), Sandorf i Mizantrop, Zagreb, 2013.

269

GORAN PETERCOL

Born in 1949, in Pula, Croatia. Graduated in painting in 1975 from the Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb. Lives in Rijeka and Rovinj.

270

EXHIBITIONS, PROJECTS

1977 Innovations, Karas Gallery, Zagreb

Grey works, Municipal Museum, Rovinj (solo)

Reaches, Quarry at the Golden Cape, Rovinj (outdoor performance)

1978 Reaches, Nova Gallery, Zagreb (solo)

Oral tradition, Nova Gallery, Zagreb

Art in Mind, Podrum Gallery, Zagreb

2nd New exhibition in Podrum, Podrum Gallery, Zagreb

Lines, Heinzel street, Zagreb (outdoor performance)

Lines, Nova street, Zagreb (outdoor performance)

Demur, Kipke, Maračić, Molnar, Petercol, Rašić, Sokić, Gallery of the Ruđer Bošković Institute, Zagreb

1979 Sequences, SKC Gallery, Beograd; MM Center, Zagreb

Values, Podrum Gallery, Zagreb

11th Youth Salon, Art Pavilion, Zagreb

Lines, Podrum Gallery, Zagreb

Papers, Podrum Gallery, Zagreb (solo)

Painting, Podrum Gallery, Zagreb (solo)

I give paper, Student Centre, Zagreb (outdoor performance)

Measurements, Student Cultural Center, Beograd(outdoor performance)

1980 New Photography 3, Salon of Museum of Contemporary Art, Beograd; City Hall Museum, Maribor

1981

Polychrome, Prostor PM, Zagreb (solo)

RZU Zagreb (The Working Community of Artists Podrum), ŠKUC Gallery, Ljubljana

RZU Zagreb(The Working Community of Artists Podrum) exhibition, action, projection, SC OOUR Kultura, Zagreb

15th Youth Salon, Art Pavilion, Prostor PM, Zagreb

The ﬁrst ten years of SKC, SKC Gallery, Beograd

1982 Exhibition of the Year, with Goran Ðorđević, Student Center Gallery, Zagreb Papers, JNA Salon, Zagreb

Innovations in Croatian Art in the 1980s, Gallery of Contemporary Art, Zagreb; Museum of Contemporary Art, Beograd; Collegium Artisticum, Sarajevo

1983

15th Youth Salon, Art Pavilion, Zagreb

271

1984 At a Right Angle, Studio of Contemporary Art Gallery, Zagreb (solo)

16th Youth Salon, Art Pavilion, Zagreb Boris Demur, Goran Petercol, Dubravka Rakoci, Student Center Gallery, Zagreb Towards the Russian avant-garde, Prostor PM, Zagreb

1985 Current Tendencies in Croatian Painting, Museum of Contemporary Art, Skopje

1986 Art Criticism in the Mid-1980s, Art Pavilion, Zagreb; Skenderija Olympic Centre – Collegium Artisticum, Sarajevo Geometric Tendencies Today, Cultural Centre Gallery, Apatin; Modern Gallery, Ljubljana

1987 Yugoslav Documents‘87, Skenderija Olympic Centre –Collegium artisticum, Sarajevo

1988 Painting, Karas Gallery, Zagreb (solo)

Five Plus Five: The New Geometry in Croatian Art, City Gallery Ljubljana

1989 Installations and Sculptures, Gallery of Contemporary Art, Zagreb (solo) Avant-Gardes Yugoslaves, Musée des Beaux Arts, Carcassonne; Musée de l’Abbaye Sainte-Croix, Les Sables d’Olonne, Musée des Beaux Arts, Toulon

Yugoslav Documents‘89, Skenderija Olympic Centre – Collegium Artisticum, Sarajevo Aktuelle Kunst, Trigon‘89, Künstlerhaus, Graz

1990 Geometry, Museum of Contemporary Art, Skopje; Museum of Contemporary Art, Beograd; Art Meeting Gallery, Subotica; Art Gallery, Osijek; Art Gallery, Maribor; City Gallery, Koprivnica; Modern Gallery, Rijeka; Gallery of Contemporary Art, Zagreb; Art Gallery BIH, Banja Luka

Fraction of Yugoslav Culture: from the Collection of the Franciscan Monastery Široki brijeg, Franciscan Monastery, Široki Brijeg; 369 Gallery, Edinburgh

Croatian Art in 1980s, Skenderija Olympic Centre – Collegium Artisticum, Sarajevo Light installations, Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna (solo)

1991 Cetinje Biennial, Blue Castle, Cetinje

DÉJÀ VU, Modern Gallery, Rijeka

1992 Croatian Contemporary Art, Ernst Museum, Budapest

The Fall, ImmoArt Gallery, Antwerpen

Die Idee einer Sammlung, Dorotheum, Vienna

Identität: Differenz, Eine Topographie der Moderne 1940-1990, Trigon, Neue Galerie, Stadtmuseum, Künstlerhaus, Graz

Kroatische Malerei der Gegenwart, Frankfurter Römer, Frankfurt

272

1993

Contrepoint, with Dubravka Rakoci, Atelier des Artistes de la Ville de Marseille, Marseille

Crossing Over (Zagreb in Copenhagen), Ferryboat Kronborg, Copenhagen; Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb

Six Croatian Artists – The Art of Defensive, Neoexistentialism, Zvonimir Gallery, Zagreb

A casa / At Home 1, Calle dei Botteri, Venice

Written Line, Gallery Dante Marino Cettina, Umag (solo)

Sjene Cities, Galerie Grita Insam, Vienna (solo)

Drawings, CEKAO Gallery, Zagreb (solo)

1994 Kommentar zu Europa 1994, Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig, Vienna; École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, Paris; Palau Scala, Valencia

Translucent Writings, Neuberger Museum of Art at Purchase, New York; Contemporary Art Museum, Tampa

Zentrum Zagreb, Wilhem Lehmbruck Museum, Duisburg

Keep the Frequency Clear, Croatian Association of Visual Artists (HDLU), Zagreb

22nd São Paulo Biennial, São Paulo

1995 46th Venice Biennial, Venice

4th International Istanbul Biennial, Istanbul

Raum Annehmen IV, Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna

6th Triennale Kleinplastik, Südwest LB, Stuttgart

Fear, Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb; Croatian Association of Visual Artists (HDLU), Zagreb Zagreb–Riga, with Dubravka Rakoci and Tomo Savić Gecan, Gallery M6, Riga

1996 125 Masterpieces of Croatian Art, Croatian Association of Visual Artists (HDLU), Zagreb

Container 96, Art Across Ocean, Copenhagen

International Symposium of Shadows, West India Quay Warehouses, London

Kunst Wien 96, Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna; MAK, Vienna

Contemporary Croatian Drawing, Working People’s Cultural Palace, Beijing; Bežigrajska Gallery, Ljubljana; Modern Gallery, Rijeka (Antarctica) Brahma, Nächst San Stefan Gallery, Vienna

Multilingual Landscapes, Soros Center for Contemporary Art, Vilnius

Installation, Brod Regional Museum, Slavonski Brod (solo)

Boxes, Medium Gallery, Bratislava (solo)

1997 Schwere-Los, Landesgalerie, Linz; Museum of Contemporary Art –Ludwig Museum, Budapest

United Enemies, Jiri Švestka Gallery, Prague

273

1998

New Croatian Art, Museo de Arte Contemporáneo, Santiago de Chile; Museo de Arte Contemporáneo, Valdivia; Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Buenos Aires; Centri Simon Y Patino, Cohamba

Sélest Art 97, Europe Humanisme, Sélest

Kunst, Energie, New EVN Collection, Ottenstein Frames, ŠKUC Gallery, Ljubljana; Modern Gallery, Rijeka (solo)

Fenster, Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna (solo)

Plastik Akut 5, Kärntner Landesgalerie, Klagenfurt

Sensitivities, Contemporary Art from Central Europe, European Academy for the Arts, London

Spatiale Malerei, Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna 33rd Zagreb Salon, Zagreb

Light installations, ifa-Galerie, Bonn (solo) Challenge of Space, with Vesna Pokas and Tomo Savić Gecan, PM Gallery, Zagreb

1999 Stockholm Connection, ACC Gallery, Weimar

Aspects/Positions – 50 Years of Art in Central Europe 1949 1999, Museum of Contemporary Art – Ludwig Museum Budapest; Fundació Joan Miró, Barcelona; Hansard Gallery, Southampton RevuEs, Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna

ARS AEVI Collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Skenderija Center, Sarajevo Negative, Contemporary Art Centre Spazio Umano, Milan (solo)

2000 There is something you should know, Österreichische Galerie Belvedere, Vienna 2000+ Arteast Collection, Metelkova/Moderna galerija, Ljubljana Concrete Art, Municipal Museum of Art, Gyor Das Trojanische Pferd, Galerie Heike Curtze, Salzburg RUND UM, Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna

2001 41th Poreč Annale, Confrontation and Continuity of New Tendencies, Poreč To Tell a Story, Croatian Academy Glyptotheque (HAZU), Zagreb Kunst Licht, BUWOG, Vienna

2000+ Arteast Collection, Orangerie Congress, Innsbruck

Interspaces, with Damir Sokić, PM Gallery, Zagreb Light ², Modern Gallery, Josip Račić Studio, Zagreb (solo) Interspaces 2, Otok Gallery, Dubrovnik (solo)

2002 Here Tomorow, Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb Monochromes, Art Pavilion, Zagreb Modesty, Pavelhaus, Laafeld

274

Lux Europa, Copenhagen (outdoor project)

Flashes, Museum of Contemporary Art, Zagreb; Museum of Fine Arts, Split (solo)

2003 Light, The Croatian Association of Visual Artists (HDLU), Zagreb Modesty, ŠKUC Gallery and Mala galerija, Ljubljana

Blood & Honey, Essl Collection, Klosterneuburg, Vienna

In the Gorges of the Balkans, Kunsthalle Fridericianum, Kassel

8th Triennial of Croatian Sculpture, Croatian Academy Glyptotheque (HAZU), Zagreb Aluxia, Otok Gallery, Dubrovnik (solo)

Three Islands, Rovinj (outdoor project)

2004 Venture, Galerija Gregor Podnar, Kranj

An Underground Garden, Diocletian Palace Substructures, Split Moria, Moria Gallery, Stari Grad, Hvar (solo)

Drawing, Drawing, with Dan Perjovschi, Galerija Gregor Podnar, Kranj Block, Croatian Academy Glyptotheque (HAZU), Zagreb (outdoor project)

2005 17th Triennial of Croatian Painting, Art Gallery of the National Museum, Zadar

39th Zagreb Salon, Croatian Association of Visual Artists (HDLU), Zagreb

Nothingness, Galerie Eugen Lendl, Graz; Galerija Gregor Podnar, Kranj/Ljubljana

Revolver, Frankfurt am Main Light Art from Artiﬁcial Light, ZKM – Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe Light ², RMIT Gallery, Melbourne (solo)

Reﬂexions, Klovićevi dvori, Zagreb (outdoor project) Hommage to Piero Manzoni, Adris Gallery, Rovinj (outdoor project)

2006 The Sun on the Wall, Pavelhaus, Laafeld; Latvian National Museum of Art, Riga

1st Vukovar Salon, City Museum and Eltz Castle, Vukovar Unplugged, Croatian Academy Glyptotheque (HAZU), Zagreb (solo) Reﬂexions, Barutana Gallery, Osijek (solo)

2007

42nd Zagreb Salon, Croatian Association of Visual Artists (HDLU), Zagreb Central Europe Revisited I, Schloss Esterházy, Eisenstadt

Like to Like, Gregor Podnar Gallery, Berlin

Tišina / Le silence, Kula Lotršćak, Zagreb; Association Les Voûtes, Paris Sketches for Scenographies, Prozori, Library S.S. Kranjčević, Zagreb (solo) After Reﬂections, Galerija Gregor Podnar, Ljubljana (solo)

Side Wind, Suzy Shammah Gallery, Milan (solo)

2008 We Are Here, Museum of Contemporary Art of Istria, Pula Un bel posto per dimenticare, SPAC, Buttrio/Udine

275

2009

Crisis, Museum of Contemporary Art of Istria, Pula

49th Annale, Honor to the Baroque, Poreč

Evidence of the Paranormal, Klaus von Nichtssagend Gallery, New York

Modern (Post)Modern, Museum of Fine Arts, Split; Museum of Contemporary Art of Istria, Pula

15 Views of Glass, Gregor Podnar Gallery, Berlin (solo)

Unlimited, Art Basel, Basel

Reﬂexions, Studio Golo brdo, Rovinjsko selo (outdoor project)

2010

Ellipse/Eclipse, Galerija Gregor Podnar, Berlin; Schleicher+Lange, Paris

Modern (Post)Modern, Museum of Contemporary Art of Istria, Pula

Starter, Arter – Space for Contemporary Art in Istanbul, Istanbul

Roaming, MCBA – Musée cantonal des beaux-arts, Lausanne

Che cosa sono le nuvole, from the Enea Righi Collection, Museion, Bolzano Cimento dell’armonia e dell’invenzione: or, The Drawing Machines, Gregor Podnar Gallery, Berlin

Things, Suzy Shammah Gallery, Milan (solo)

Symmetries, SAM, Cologne (solo)

Two, Two, with Robert Sošić, Gallery Waldinger Gallery, Osijek

Boris Demur, Goran Petercol, Damir Sokić, Academia Moderna, Zagreb

2011 Dialogos, Assab One, Milan

The Present and Presence, MG+MSUM, Ljubljana

Objects, Klovićevi dvori, Zagreb (solo)

Prague Quadrennial of Performance, Design and Space, ScenEGOgraphy: Stage Designer as an Author, Goran Petercol & Numen/For use, National Gallery, Prague, 2011

2012

Who am I? What am I doing here?, Shanaynay, Paris

Turn the Light on, it’s Dark, Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka

The Exact Weight of Lightness, Travesía Cuatro, Madrid

First Act, Museo Tamayo, Mexico City

Halves, Museum Lapidarium, Rigo Gallery, Novigrad (solo)

2013

Tabula Rasa: Primary and Analytical in Croatian Art, Croatian Academy Glyptotheque (HAZU), Zagreb; Museum of Contemporary Art of Istria, Pula

Works on Paper, i8 Gallery, Reykjavík, Iceland

Common Places, Gregor Podnar Gallery,Berlin (solo)

Interspaces, with Aleksandar Garbin, Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka

The Same, Ursula Krinzinger Gallery, Vienna (solo)

276

2014

Drawing in Space, Galleria Monica De Cardenas, Zuoz, St. Moritz

Observation, ŠKUC Gallery, Ljubljana

Franz Graf at the 21th Haus – See What Sees You, Wien

54th Annale, Great Undoing, Poreč

Scenes of Light for Julije, Kazamat Gallery, Osijek

Solo, Gallery Ursula Krinzinger at Art Brussels, Brussels Halves, Academia Moderna Gallery, Zagreb (solo)

One on one, Museum of Fine Arts, Split (solo)

2015

Site, Speciﬁc, Objects, with Marcius Galan, Fernanda Gomes, Gregor Podnar Gallery, Berlin Mainzer Ansichten, Kunsthalle Mainz, Mainz

The Lulennial: A Slight Gestuary, Lulu, Mexico City

2016 15th International Architecture Exhibition, We Need It –We Do It, Venice Biennial, Venice

My Little Lamb, Gallery Nova, Zagreb

Sempre um ponto de identidade, sempre distinção, Galeria Jaqueline Martins, São Paulo

Half, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster (outdoor project)

2017

Hierarchical row, ŠKUC Gallery, Ljubljana (solo)

Icon, Galerie Ursula Krinzinger, Vienna

My Little Lamb, Softić apartment, Zagreb

The Heritage of 1989, Case Study: The Second Yugoslav Documents Exhibition, Modern Gallery, Ljubljana

Antun Motika and the Legacy of Experiment, Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka

2018

Instructions for Watching −What the Body Wants?, Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Rijeka

Recollection –A Journey After 28 Years, Proyectos Monclova, México City Rows, Academia Moderna Gallery, Zagreb (solo)

2019 Negative Space, ZKM – Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe

277

FILMS 1977 - 1984

FILMS WITH WIRE

Goran Petercol: Twiddling Wire, 1977/78 Super 8 mm color, 9'39'' Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

Goran Petercol: No Contact for Wire, 1978 Super 8 mm color, 2'28'' Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

REACHES

Goran Petercol: Colored Surface, 1978

Water paint on ground, Quarry at the Golden Cape, Rovinj Super 8 mm color, 1'46'' Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

Goran Petercol: Line (Right Left Right), 1978 Chalk on ground, Nova Street, Zagreb Super 8 mm color, 22'' Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

Goran Petercol: Lines (Backwards), 1978 Chalk on ground, Nova Street, Zagreb Super 8 mm color, 24'' Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

Goran Petercol: Lines (Heinzlova), 1978

Spray paint on wall, Heinzel Street, Zagreb Standard 8 mm b/w, 1'20'' Camera: Mladen Stilinović

Goran Petercol: Spiral, 1978 Spray paint on wall, Rovinj Super 8 mm, 51'' Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

278

MEASUREMENTS

Goran Petercol: Measurement I, 1978

Polycolor on ground, Student Cultural Center, Beograd Super 8 mm color, 1'40''

Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

Goran Petercol: Measurement II, 1978

Polycolor on ground, Student Cultural Center, Beograd Super 8 mm color, 1'9'' Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

MANUSCRIPTS

Goran Petercol: Written Line, 1978

Chalk on ground, Nova street, Zagreb Super 8 mm, color, 24''

Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

Goran Petercol: Line(Koprivnica), 1979

Eight authors in succession draw a line on the pavement using chalk. Performers: B. Demur, B. Jurjevic�, S. Stilinovic�, M. Molnar, Ž. Jerman, V. Martek, G. Petercol and an unknown person. Chalk on ground, Male medijske forme, Koprivnica Super 8 mm color, 1'35'' Camera: Mladen Stilinović

STYLIZATIONS

Goran Petercol: Stylizations, 1982

Paint on floor, Student Centre Gallery, Zagreb Super 8 mm, color, 2'16''

Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

Goran Petercol: Stylization, 1984

Paint on wall, Student Centre Gallery, Zagreb Super 8 mm, color, 1'11''

Camera: Dubravka Rakoci

279

1978 1979 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Branka Stipančić, “(de)mistiﬁkacija autorstva?”, Polet, 13 December 1978, Zagreb

Goran Petercol, Mesnička 12, Podrum[self-published booklet, edition of 40], Zagreb

Branka Stipančić, “Neanalitička radoznalost” [interview], Studentski list, 23 March 1979, Zagreb

Inovacije u hrvatskoj umjetnosti sedamdesetih godina [catalogue], Galerija suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Marijan Susovski, “Inovacije u hrvatskoj umjetnosti sedamdesetih godina” [“The Seventies in Croatia”, English summary]

15. Salon mladih [catalogue], Hrvatsko društvo likovnih umjetnika, Zagreb —Antun Maračić, “Radovi osmoro umjetnika, relacija s novom slikom”

Pod pravim kutom [catalogue], Studio galerije suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Goran Petercol, “O radovima pod pravim kutom” [“About Works at a Right Angle”], “O tehnici izloženih radova” [“About the Technique of the Exhibited Works”]

Papir kao površina i materijal likovnog izraza [catalogue], Savez hrvatskih društava likovnih umjetnika i Hrvatsko društvo likovnih umjetnika, Zagreb —Zdravko Poznić, “Papir kao površina i materijal likovnog izraza” [“Paper as Surface and Material of Artistic Expression”]

Goran Petercol, Opisi radova 1977/79. [Description of Works 1977/79] [self-published booklet, edition of 100]

Aktualne tendencije u hrvatskom slikarstvu od 1975. do danas [catalogue], Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Skopje —Branka Stipančić [text]

Umjetnost − kritika usred osamdesetih [catalogue], Skenderija Olimpijski centar –Collegium Artisticum, Sarajevo —Branka Stipančić, “Umjetnost− kritika usred osamdesetih” [“Art and Criticism in the Mid Eighties”]

XXILički likovni anale [catalogue], Centar za kulturu − Muzej Like, Gospić —Mladen Lučić, “Geometrijska apstrakcija u novijoj hrvatskoj umjetnosti”

Bez naziva: geometrija [catalogue], Velika galerija Kulturnog centra Novi Sad —Ratomir Kulić [text]

280

Geometrije [catalogue], Hrvatsko društvo likovnih umjetnika, Zagreb —Branka Stipančić [text]

Pet plus pet: Nova geometrija u hrvatskoj umjetnosti [catalogue], Mestna galerija, Ljubljana —Mladen Lučić [text]

Goran Petercol [catalogue], Salon galerije Karas, Zagreb —Ješa Denegri [text]

Slike prostora – prostori slike [catalogue], Savremena galerija, Zrenjanin —Ješa Denegri [text]

Yugoslav Documents ‘89 [catalogue], Skenderija Olimpijski Centar –Collegium Artisticum, Sarajevo —Davor Matičević, “Viđenje desetljeća – osamdesete i kakvim ih upamtiti” [“A View of the Decade, The Eighties – The way to remember them”]

Goran Petercol [catalogue], Galerija suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Branka Stipančić [text] —Goran Trbuljak [interview]

Trigon 89: ‘Aktuelle’ Kunst [catalogue], Neue Galerie/Künstlerhaus, Graz

Goran Petercol [catalogue], Galerija Zavičajnog muzeja, Rovinj —Ješa Denegri [text]

Kolekcija Franjevačkog samostana Široki Brijeg [The Collection of Franciscan Monastery Široki Brijeg, catalogue], Muzej Široki Brijeg, Široki Brijeg —Marina Viculin [interview with Goran Petercol]

Boris Demur, “Goran Petercol”, Moment 18/1990, Beograd Branka Stipančić, “Goran Petercol”, Moment 18/1990, Beograd Susanna Bichler, “Dort, wo der Schatten endet”, Der Standard, 22 August 1990, Vienna

Jan Tabor, “Geometrische Logik: Zartheit der Präzision”, AZ, 20 August 1990, Vienna

Judith Fischer, “Die dunkle Seite des Licht”, Kurier, 18 September 1990, Vienna

Doris Krumpl, “Schatten Dasein”, Falter/37, 1990, Vienna

Friedrich Geyrhofer, “Kunst kühlt”, Wiener/8, 1990, Vienna

Kortars Horvat Muveszet [catalogue], Ernst Museum, Budapest —Davor Matičević [text]

Spazio Umano – Human Space, International Magazine, Book of Art and Literature 1/92, Enrico R. Comi (ed.), Milano

Šest hrvatskih umjetnika – Umjetnost defanzive, neoegzistencijalizam [Six Croatian Artists: Art of Defensive, Neoexistentialism, catalogue], Galerija Zvonimir, Zagreb —Antun Maračić [text]

281

1988 1989 1990 1992 1993

1994

Contrepoint [brochure], Lorette – Ateliers d’artistes de la ville de Marseille, CYPRES – Ecole d’Art d’ Aix-en-Provence, Marseille —Francois Bazzoli [interview with Davor Matičević]

Vođeni crteži [Guided Drawings, catalogue], Galerija CEKAO, Zagreb —Branka Stipančić [text]

Goran Petercol, Crteži i instalacije 1990–1993 [Drawings and Installations 1990–1993, catalogue], Galerija Dante Marino Cettina, Umag —Zvonko Maković, “Analitička priroda Gorana Petercola” [“The Analytical Nature of Goran Petercol”]

Željko Kipke, “Gradovi sjene”, Slobodna Dalmacija, 5 October 1993, Split Ivica Župan, “Pretvoriti sjenu u opipljiv materijal”, Glas Slavonije, 18 November 1993, Osijek

Enes Quien, “Goran Petercol, krotitelj i gospodar sjena”, Kontura 14/15 1993, Zagreb

Goran Petercol [catalogue], Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Branka Stipančić, “Slikarstvo i instalacije 1975–1992” [“Paintings and Installations 1975–1992”]

—Leonida Kovač, “Prostori digresije” [“Spaces of Digression”] —Tihomir Milovac, “O radu” [“On Work”, interview]

Zentrum Zagreb [catalogue], Wilhem Lehmbruck Museum, Duisburg —Želimir Koščević, “Raumkonzepte: Skulptur in Kroatien 1950–1990”

Translucent Writings [catalogue], Neuberger Museum, State University New York at Purchase College; Grita Insam Gallery, Vienna

Kommentar zu Europa 1994 [ A Commentary on Europe 1994, catalogue], Museum moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig Wien, Vienna

22 Bienal de São Paulo [catalogue], São Paulo —Nelson Aguilar, “Ruptura com o suporte” [“Breaking away from support”]

Quinta Essentia [catalogue], Labin Art Express, Labin —Janka Vukmir [text]

Thomas Trenkler, “Im grellen Licht der Leuchtdioden”, Der Standard, 3 February 1994, Vienna

Ivica Župan, “Sjene i riječi”, Slobodna Dalmacija, 26 February 1994, Split

Vesna Kusin, “Dobitnici Ivan Kožarić i Goran Petercol”, Vjesnik, 2 March 1994, Zagreb Željko Kipke, “Između Beča i New Yorka”, Vijenac, 17 March 1994, Zagreb Nada Beroš, “Zenit i sjena”, Vjesnik, 26 March 1994, Zagreb Ivica Župan, “Politika se mora pomiriti s umjetnošću”, Nedjeljna Dalmacija, 4 November 1994, Split

Tihomir Milovac, “Sjena kao materijal”, Vijenac, 10 November 1994, Zagreb Spomenka Nikitović, “Svijet je bio iznenađen” [interview with Želimir Košćević], Večernji list, 22 November 1994, Zagreb

Goran Blagus, “Goran Petercol: Iskustvo iz São Paula”, Vjesnik, 17 December 1994, Zagreb

282

Riječi i slike [Words & Images, catalogue], Soros centar za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb —Janka Vukmir, “Sjene riječi” [“Shadows of Words”]

Konstruktivizam i kinetička umjetnost [Constructivism and Kinetic Art, catalogue], Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Leonida Kovač, “Tendencije: prostori rezonancije”

[“Tendencies: Spaces of Resonance”]

Negativ [Negative, catalogue], Moderna Galerija, Zagreb —Igor Zidić, “Nematerijalno i stvarnost” [“The Nonmaterial and Reality”] —Leonida Kovač, “Memorial” [“Memorial”] —Blaženka Perica, “Opažanje kao disciplina diskrecije” [“Perception as a Discipline of Discretion”]

—Tonko Maroević, “Kretanje po rubovima” [“Moving along the Edge”]

Fear [catalogue], Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Leonida Kovač [text]

Goran Petercol, Krabice [Boxes, catalogue], Galeria Medium / SCCA, Bratislava —Leonida Kovač, “Siedma: medzi srkadlom a premietacou plochou”

[“The Seventh: Between the Mirror and the Screen”]

—Mária Orišková, “Sjene, Negatives, Boxes” [interview]

Tanja Štambuk, “Umjetnost mora slijediti vlastiti cilj”, Glas Istre, 10 January 1995, Pula

Jelena Mandić, “Razbiti marginalnost kao okvir slobode”, Novi list(Mediteran), 1 April 1995, Rijeka

Spomenka Nikitović, “Sve osim prosječnosti”, Večernji list, 11 June 1995, Zagreb Enes Quien, “Dematerijalizacija predmeta svjetlom”, Vjesnik, 21 December 1995, Zagreb

Vladimir Gudac, “Sjene”, Kult, 1/1995, Zagreb

125 vrhunskih djela hrvatskeumjetnosti [catalogue], HDLU, Zagreb

—Leonida Kovač [text]

Goran Petercol [catalogue], Muzej Brodskog Posavlja, Slavonski Brod —Marijan Susovski [text]

Ivica Župan, “Svjetlo kao ishodište”, Državnost, 1996, Zagreb

Gregory Volk, “Between East and West”, Art in America, May 1996, New York Branko Kostelnik, “Kad je sjena važnija od svjetla”, Vjesnik, 3 November 1996, Zagreb

Schwere-Los Skulpturen [catalogue], Landesgalerie, Linz

—Leonida Kovač [text]

Claudia Aigner, “Schatten mit Luftlöchern”, Wiener Zeitung, 15 February 1997, Vienna

Goran Petercol [catalogue], ifa Galerie, Bonn —Andreas Denk, “Schwere und Licht”

283

1995 1996 1997 1998

1999 2000 2001 2002

Okvirji / Okviri / Frames [catalogue], Galerija ŠKUC, Ljubljana; Moderna galerija, Rijeka

—Barbara Borčić, “Premeščanje” [“Transposing”]

—Gregor Podnar, “Spoznanje dr. Charlesa Henryja Maya”

[“The Insight of dr. Charles Henry Maye”]

—Boris Toman, “Okviri za šutnju – stvarnost i njen dvojnik” [“The Framework for Silence – The Reality and its Double”] Christina zu Mecklenburg, “Licht im Schattenreich”, General-Anzeiger, 17 November 1998, Bonn

Heidrun Wirth, “Neue Schatten braucht die Kunst”, Bonner Kultur, 18 November 1998, Bonn

Aspekte/Positionen: 50 Jahre Kunst aus Mitteleuropa 1949–1999 [Aspects/Positions: 50 Years of Art in Central Europe 1949–1999, catalogue], Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig Wien, 1999/2000 —Branka Stipančić [text]

2000+ Arteast Collection / The Art of Eastern Europe [catalogue], Moderna galerija, Ljubljana

Miško Šuvaković: “Sjene, označitelji i optički tekstovi – odsutna/prisutna svjetlost: Goran Petercol”, Point de capiton, izdavači: Darko Šimičić i Božidar Raos, 2000. Zagreb

Svjetlo ² [ Light², catalogue], Moderna galerija, Zagreb —Ana Dević, “Sjena koja se pretvara u svjetlost i svjetlost koja se pretvara u sjenu” [“Shadow that turns into light, light that turns into shadow”]

Ispričati priču [To tell a Story, catalogue], Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Leonida Kovač [text]

Silva Kalčić, “Sinkronizirano ‘plivanje’ svjetlosti i tame”, Zarez, 15 February 2001, Zagreb

Radna monograﬁja [Working Monograph, book], Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Ivana Sajko, “Razgovor s Goranom Petercolom” [“An Interview with Goran Petercol”]

—Leonida Kovač, “Prostori digresije” [“Spaces of Digression”], “Pogovor prostorima digresije” [“Afterword to the Spaces of Digression”]

—Gregor Podnar, “Uvid dr. Charlesa Henryja Maya” [“The Insight of dr. Charles Henry Maye”], “Pod pravim kutom” [“At the Right Angle”]

Monokromi [Monochromes, catalogue], Umjetnički paviljon, Zagreb —Zvonko Maković [text]

Here Tomorow [catalogue], Muzej suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb —Roxana Marcoci [text]

284

Patricia Kiš, “Inovativno gledanje na odnos svjetla i sjene”, Jutarnji list, 17 February 2002, Zagreb

Sunčica Ostoić, “Pitanje stvarnosti”, Zarez, 28 February 2002, Zagreb

Jasna Gluić, “Tko razumije – razumije” [interview], Slobodna Dalmacija, 11 March 2002, Split

Marina Viculin, “Svjetlost ﬂeševa i miris zemlje”, Vijenac, 21 March 2002, Zagreb

Sandi Vidulić, “Sjena, dokaz postojanja”, Slobodna Dalmacija, 8 May 2002, Split

Vinko Srhoj, “Sakrivanje baštine”, Slobodna Dalmacija, 25 August 2004, Split

Petra Skaberne, “Goran Petercol in Dan Perjovschi”, Deloskop, 30 September − 6 October 2004, Ljubljana

Nothingness [catalogue], Galerie Eugen Lendl, Graz; Galerija Gregor Podnar, Kranj/Ljubljana; Revolver, Frankfurt am Main —Lívia Páldi and Gregor Podnar, “Recapturing Illusions” Refleksije [Reflexions, leaflet], Klovićevi dvori, Zagreb —Ana Medić [text] —Ivana Sajko [text]

17 trijenale hrvatskog slikarstva [17th Triennial of Croatian Painting, catalogue], Galerija umjetnina Narodnog Muzeja, Zadar —Ljubica Srhoj Čerina, “Modernizacija moderne (Nova medijska praksa)” [“The Modernization of Modernism (A New Media Practice)”]

_PM_20 [catalogue], Hrvatsko društvo likovnih umjetnika, Zagreb; Umjetnička galerija, Dubrovnik —Marijan Špoljar, “Galerija PM:Vitalnost izložbenog prostora” [“PM Gallery:The Vitality of an Exhibition Area”] —Vlado Martek, “Galerija Proširenih Medija” [“The Extended Media Gallery”] —Antun Maračić, “PM 1981–1989” [“PM 1981–1989”]

Bez struje [Unplugged, catalogue], Gliptoteka HAZU, Zagreb —Ivana Sajko [interview]

Refleksije [Reflexions, leaflet], M-art, Osijek —Ana-Marija Koljanin [text]

Marina Tenžera, “Asketski crteži izvan struje”, Vjesnik, 15 November 2006, Zagreb

Silva Kalčić, “Usmjeravanje pozornosti i premjeravanje prostora”, Zarez, 14 December 2006, Zagreb

Goran Petercol, Landscapes [book], AGM, Zagreb Paola Noe, “Goran Petercol”, Flash Art International, February−March 2008, Milano

285

2005

2004

2006 2008

Michael Wilson, “Critics’ Picks: Evidence of the Paranormal”, Artforum, 2 December 2009, New York

Marina Tenžera, “Poetske ispovijesti o svjetlu”, Vjesnik, 18 August 2009, Zagreb Chris Sharp, “La ligne et son ombre”, Roven, 1/2009, Paris

Predmeti [Objects, catalogue], Klovićevi dvori, Zagreb —Ana Medić, “Propitivanje mogućnosti drugog smjera” [“Testing Out the Possibility of a Different Direction”] —Goran Petercol, “Predmeti” [“Objects”], “O prekidu” [“About Interruption”], “O simetrijama” [“About Symmetries”]

Prague Quadrennial of Performance, Design and Space, ScenEGOgraphy:Stage Designer as an Author, Goran Petercol & Numen/For use [catalogue], Hrvatsko dizajnersko društvo, Zagreb —Ivana Sajko, “Vidjeti je politički čin – o scenograﬁjama Gorana Petercola” [“Seeing is A(n) (Political) Act – On the Scenography of Goran Petercol”] —Jasna Žmak [interview with Goran Petercol]

Silva Kalčić, “O povezanosti egzistencije i predmeta koji me okružuju” [interview], Zarez, 7 July 2011, Zagreb

Upali svjetlo, mrak je [Turn the Light on It’s Dark, catalogue], Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti, Rijeka —Sabina Salamon [text]

Polovice [Metà, Halves, catalogue], Muzej-Museo Lapidarium, Novigrad —Sabina Salamon, “Između polovice i polovice”

[“Tra Metà, e metà”, “Between a Half and a Half”] —Goran Petercol, “Polovice” [“Metà”, “Halves”]

Međuprostori [Interspaces, catalogue], Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti, Rijeka —Sabina Salamon [text]

Ciklus Jedan na jedan [One on One Cycle, catalogue], Galerija umjetnina, Split —Sabina Salamon, “Od puta do puta, cjelina” [“From Path to Path, the Whole”] Tabula rasa [catalogue], Gliptoteka HAZU, Zagreb —Zvonko Maković, “Tabula rasa: Primarno i analitičko u hrvatskoj umjetnosti” [“Tabula rasa: Primary and Analytic in Croatian Art”] Opazovanja [Observations, leaﬂet], Galerija ŠKUC, Ljubljana —Vladimir Vidmar [text]

Janje moje malo [My Little Lamb, booklet], Galerija Nova (Softić Apartment), Zagreb Hierarhična zaporedja [Hierarhical Rows, leaﬂet], Galerija ŠKUC, Ljubljana —Vladimir Vidmar [text]

286

2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2017

Tomislav Gotovac, Anticipator kriza [Tomislav Gotovac, Crisis Anticipator, book], Muzej moderne i suvremene umjetnosti, Rijeka —Goran Petercol, Goran Trbuljak, “Naknadne meditacije o Tomu kako ga se sjećaju Goran Petercol i Goran Trbuljak” [“Meditations in Hindsight About Tom the Way He’s Remembered by Goran Petercol and Goran Trbuljak”]

287

2018

Zoran Alajbeg: 228

Boris Cvjetanović: 60

Damir Fabijanić: 153, 231

Jim Frank: 156

Miha Fras: 168-169

Dejan Habicht: 229

Ivan Marinković: 99-101

Aurélien Mole: 233

Tanja Draškić Savić: 74-75, 78-79, 102-105, 119-123, 125, 212

Nataša Radović: 139, 145, 198-201, 226, 232, 234-237

Dubravka Rakoci: 5, 7-9, 80-97, 112, 114-118, 126-127, 202-205, 210-211

Jasenko Rasol: 18-19, 49, 64, 113, 128-133, 150-151, 166-167, 172-173, 222-223

Ratko Restek: 206-209

Marcus Schneider: 138, 193, 225, 227

Nino Semialjac: 32, 54

Robert Sošić: 16-17, 22-24, 26, 45, 46, 70, 76, 109, 140-141, 146-148, 155, 162-163, 190, 192, 194, 224, 270

Deni Šesnić: 20-21, 187

Goran Trbuljak: 10-11

Milisav Vesović: 56, 218-219

PHOTOS

9789538 107283 ISBN 978-953-8107-28-3 ⁄ 260 KN