manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic
Since 2002
Works in United States of America

ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Belgrade artists Marija Vauda and Nikola Pilipovic have been
collaborating as MANIK since 1999.Their work reflects the
march of history, sometimes literally outside their studio, and a
dialogue with the international artistic community through
organisations and events such as Rhizome and Free Manifesta. Tiija is
their first weblog piece, their previous work has been in mediums as
diverse as video, performance, happenings, email, painting and
installation.

Discussions (1017) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

ORIGINAL


THIS IS BETTER THAN ORIGINAL
MANIK

DISCUSSION

ORIGINAL


THIS IS BETTER THAN ORIGINAL
MANIK

DISCUSSION

ORIGINAL


THIS IS BETTER THAN ORIGINAL
MANIK

DISCUSSION

onli-ne-maga-zi-ne


onli-ne>>>>>>>>
maga>>>>>>>>>> http://ptrvc.blogspot.com
zi-ne>>>>>>>>>

contact.>>>. ptrvc@eunet.yu

DISCUSSION

WITH THE NAKED EYE-PHOTOGRAPHER PETROVIC


http://www.geocities.com/fotografpetrovic/index

PHOTOGRAPHER PETROVIC

A democratic vision which "defines language and its users by means of an ac=
tivity" (and not through substance) assumes that there are institutions of =
power that represent the weapons of established speech. Language becomes an=
activity. It is active, since once established, the ability to speak absor=
bs every sense thus making language one of the elements in enchaining the i=
nstitutionalised speech.

Accompanying bureaucracy of a multitude o peripheries establishes the newsp=
eak of transitional society. The new language is embraced by the intellectu=
al elite along with the cynicism of their political victory. It is the la=
nguage of a privileged minority class. What happens to the bodies of the pe=
riphery, on the outskirts of the revolving system of government, when they =
are not seen from a cosmic, however never so safe distance? What happens in=
side these limited, yet widespread mechanisms of the groups which also have=
their own technology, their own memory, collective recollection, their own=
foundation, but are as groups exposed to, or occupied, colonised, abused, =
normatively or even violently, by ever growing mechanisms and types of glob=
al domination? What happens when historical hegemony of a legal entity or s=
everal of them in competition, as an authorised version which is written an=
d developed according to the needs, and in function of sovereignty, finds i=
tself opposed to a multitude of comparatively independent and infinitely sm=
all counter-histories? The apologetics of the Sovereign, identities formed =
within current political arrangements and thus totalised, make the authorit=
y revolve, usurp and erase, thus also affecting even the peripheral, capill=
ary authority, in its most local forms and institutions, shaped in haste, s=
tripped off all grammatical processes which could have been built up by spo=
ntaneous subjectivity of a local man. Accelerated modernism defines this st=
rategy as a chaos of sequences of occurrence of novelty by discharging dram=
atised "ethics" from this utopia. Drama is always based on feigned catharsi=
s where the unbearably banished becomes the bearably perverted. Is this the=
origin of the concern of minority groups that they might end up in the sam=
e situation but that in the economic sense, all other types of tolerance ap=
art, they cannot change their current position? Constantly in reforms, the =
language itself becomes a reform in itself. In the light of it all, these S=
erbs are no longer only Serbs, they do not witness their "golden age", they=
do not lament or mourn; but place themselves in the inevitability of globa=
l allocation of percentage of capital share ("nominal capital") in the refl=
ection on one product, one statement/thing. Are you 30 % Serb and the remai=
ning 70% Nokia? And in these 70% how many shares will tomorrow belong to F.=
C.Chelsea...? Often succeeds what is least expected to succeed. Thus seen, =
the surface of things should not take us in with its apparency. Gaping bene=
ath it there is an abyss ...in the paradox of separation pre-conditions for=
progress are met. All successful theories are based on an error. It is not=
necessity that obliges, it is the outcome.

We do not know of societies which, starting from the unity of "theoretical,=
practical and aesthetic" (J. Habermas) remained only on the aesthetic (cul=
tural practices were denoted as the systems of signifying, as practices of =
representing, not as sources which produced beautiful things). But, neither=
we know of societies which managed to build up theory or subjectivity with=
out art as an excess of imagination even if realities/successive paradigms =
keep denying it, produce and split apart the multiplying multitudes and emp=
ty meanings down to human material without attributes, abandoned and stripp=
ed down, to mere posing and helpless looking-on. A specific type of practic=
al, as a process of disintegration of the theoretical and the aesthetic, wr=
eaks havoc as a function of capital. A work/practice of art, indeed, commun=
icates with disintegrations - alienations of all sorts - when it polemicize=
s, when it surpasses them, even when it is in error. Therefore, due to the =
intensity of this monologue, the remains of elitist actions through moderni=
st protocols tell that the most wretched creative and intellectual product,=
which precedes or results from it, is indeed in the ideal subject of the i=
deology - a new colonial comfort which is notoriously corrupted and therefo=
re lazy and unreflexive - due to all the gifts of God in the Garden of Eden=
. Art as surplus and a sort of a break-up causes these repressions of unbea=
rableness to at least disclose themselves. Thus it provokes censorship and =
aversion, curses and stupidity, so that it could be, at least silently, wor=
thy of being regarded as an act of self-reflection, as the only remaining c=
ondition of freedom. Even if it is aware of the inflation of reflections on=
all the Others, little and big. Even if it is dealing with the subjects of=
its realm, overshadowed by extinct great stories whose death is still kept=
secret from us, like the death of distant stars. On the surface, great nar=
ratives are still valid only for the growing "grey areas". Someone has to b=
e the artist, the third person, to witness all this. Some have forgotten, o=
thers have forgiven, vanished, got tired...

Art is meta-production - techne. Technology in its original sense is the sk=
ill which produces occurrence (of objects, of a system of signs, of concept=
s - symbolic articulation...), but also causes the takeover of responsibili=
ty to take place (aitia) as this occurrence also establishes a new order of=
things. All the components of a social group are PRACTICES. In its manifes=
tation (of a practice) it is insignificant whether we are dealing with tech=
nology in a mechanical sense or with techne as in art. This epiphany is fat=
e which links the historical with the historic. By showing in his photograp=
hs the faces of "people without traits" ("Was not cognition first and forem=
ost the cognition of personality, before it became the cognition of objects=
...?") and belonging to these people by an affinity, Petrovic documents bot=
h their historical existence (diachronically) and their historic appearance=
(synchronically). A class of invisible (for whom?), but present, becomes t=
he condition for all other manifestations of visibility. And these potato e=
aters constitute the Central Subject (U.S.A as a synonym for nominal capita=
lism, according to J. Habermas), outlining its outer borders. They are a li=
ving potential which, through its murmur and mutter of coming into existenc=
e sets into motion the dreams and activities of the Central Subject/a highe=
r race about expansion.

Foucault's interpretation is that the question of race in its original form=
was not based on the difference in the colour of the skin. French bourgeoi=
sie of the late 18th century considered itself a race. Such structural diff=
erence is a solid ground for establishing identity and for pragmatic action=
towards its development as a "Central Subject". The next invention of the =
Western mind is the concept of class, in its Marxist interpretation.

Photographer Petrovic says: "I photograph my people, the Serbs." He archive=
s an outward appearance and difference. By repeating one and the same pictu=
re, the selfsame view, he also establishes a floating articulation of one a=
nd the same group of people which is, naturally, divided into the neighbour=
hoods and small differences.

Would it be different if he said "I photograph my people, invalids... gays =
...feminists... artists... free people... hungry people.... detested people=
...."?

Yes, it would be different. The provocation is in the name and it refers ex=
clusively to the "ultimate embodiment of political enjoyment", which is the=
Nation. It is always the keyword, the password - when it is the matter of =
concern or when concern is wrapped into good intentions of dioxin, or indee=
d when there is no trace left of words and deeds. All the other places of s=
peech are already co-opted, legalised, tamed to the good taste of the Citiz=
en and classified for him to deal with these matters elaborately inside Off=
ices. In this case, when Petrovic photographs his people, the Serbs, and pe=
rsistently draws a borderline (and the place is almost unbearably recogniza=
ble) and installs a virus into the language by declaring, in the face of th=
e progress of human civilization, that there is an outside, we want to beli=
eve although we are far away from it, separated, having lost the direction =
of our discourse; we want to believe that it suggests a feeling of open spa=
ce, a rift, a yellow spot, a blind angle free from recognition... as a sign=
of vigilance and hope. According to Parveen Adams, it is vitally important=
in political and subjective sense to preserve this feeling which ought to =
be the guideline for a reasonable, responsible policy of concern.

On his web site Petrovic wants this identity to be asserted through an inte=
ractive agreement. Wish becomes a sign. Unless you want to watch the Serbs =
- it is over. What exactly is this ultimatum released into the cyberspace? =
It is crucial to find out the standpoint for this question. Can this privil=
ege of watching Serbs be seen in an ultranationalist-chauvinist light? Very=
often so, nowadays only in that sense because the ruling race, once again =
in the making - presents it in this view only. It is no longer a local proc=
ess which takes place in the interaction Artist - Society - Ideology; it is=
a universal fact (only diminished to the level of provincial, offensive an=
d unkempt, next-door-neighbour kind of thing), emanated in the interaction =
Individual - Central Subject/Higher Race, if for a moment we adopt a detach=
ed view and simplify things to a binary relation. This relation, however, d=
oes not include mythomaniac processes of art as part of the mind and typica=
l narratives on a gifted Individual/Author as a modernistic project. When P=
etrovic's Serbs are granted this position, there is no provocation any long=
er, since these are people who do not follow an artificial political projec=
t and do not really identify themselves with it; there is no aggressive ide=
ological infrastructure or projection with a political aim to assert itself=
, to be mythologized and to draw state boundaries in war, following the ide=
ology of blood and soil. However, this does not mean that the neighbours ar=
e of no use. It is rather an inwardly directed look into the picture which =
is based on the similarity of grim routines of everyday lives of the group =
members, which concentrates selected collective memory on life in its insig=
nificantly different forms, without essential change, interruption or disor=
der. This versatile yet carefully chosen assembly, this panorama where mutu=
al inward similarities triumph over differences, is isolated through an ext=
ernal historical view to a place where nothing happens; they are inserted i=
nto an interval, an illusion that they are exempt from regulation. Samples,=
protagonists of such a large number, who live chiefly and exclusively for =
themselves, guard the hierarchy of the existing structures, this anonymous =
and nameless power. For carefree people from a utopian future they could ve=
ry well be those disfigured, monstrous phantoms of the night from a novel b=
y H.G. Wells, who, as descendants and remnants of working class, drive them=
mad by running into them at night if they accidentally find themselves in =
the street.

Hans Windisch, a socially oriented media theorist, realised at the beginnin=
g of the 20th century the political subversiveness of photography. He spoke=
of camera as a political weapon, of photography as "other nature", pleadin=
g for "other conscience" and the power of photography to re-actualize consc=
ience. A desire to see things from a different perspective is not a prepara=
tion of the intellect for its future "objectivity", interpreted as disinter=
ested observation; it is man's power over his freedom of choice. By bringin=
g out his "private" affinities (avoiding the issues of identity) especially=
when they describe obsession, the presence of one of a myriad possible dai=
ly routines, the artist is indeed exposed, not merely because of the danger=
of scandal (as scandal takes place elsewhere, in the corridors and labyrin=
ths of institutions, not in public), but because he presents his imaginary =
self in its utmost consistence.

Denying us what we expect to see, or presenting the unexpected, photograph =
sets in motion the actuality of gaze (in its contours, in its phantasmagori=
cal actualization it is a derivative of naturalism). The consequences of th=
e occurrence of this actuality hit the senses even before their causes have=
presented themselves to our consciousness. It is not only our ratio that i=
s intellectual, but our senses as well. This actuality, according to Sloter=
dijk, is in fact "the discovering of crises of civilization, the endeavouri=
ng of individuals to preserve themselves, as thoroughly intellectual beings=
, in the struggle with deviations and imperfections of their societies. Thi=
s cannot be done by religion and ideology, fantasies of power and violence,=
the knights of utopia and the phantoms of perfection. Correct expression o=
f this resistance, however we understand the term, is definitely plebeian i=
ndividualism, not some half-witted populism, pantomimic as ever, "cunning" =
and always at guard; it is life filled with wonder, without the monarch of =
the spirit, without authority or submission."-MANIK