Cornelia Schleime is a painter, filmmaker, performance artist and author. Born in East Berlin, she trained as a hairdresser and makeup artist from 1970 to 1975 before studying Painting and Graphic Art at the Academy of Fine Arts in Dresden and gaining renown for her spatially-oriented performances and home movies. In 1979 she founded the punk band Zwitschermaschine, in which she performed as vocalist. She felt restricted by the confines of the concept of art stipulated by officials from the GDR’s Artists’ Association and decided to leave the GDR and move to West Berlin in September 1984. She has been a member of the Saxon Academy of Arts in Dresden since 2000. Cornelia Schleime lives and works in Berlin.

Christiane Erharter has been working as a curator in the Culture programme of ERSTE Foundation in Vienna since the fall of 2006. From 2002 to 2006 she was a curator at the Office for Contemporary Art Norway in Oslo where she built up the International Studio Programme. Before that, she was a curator at the Galerie im Taxispalais in Innsbruck. Christiane Erharter studied art at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts and completed a postgraduate programme in Critical Studies at the University of Lund. She lives and works in Vienna.

The series of talks has been initiated and supported by ERSTE Foundation.

Where: MUMOK Café

Olga Chernysheva (born in Moscow) is an internationally renowned representative of Russian contemporary art. She studied at the Moscow Film Academy and the Rijksakademie (Royal Academy of Visual Arts) in Amsterdam. In her work she deals with the social tensions and inconsistencies within Russian society that result from the transition from communism to capitalism. She focuses on stories of daily life and the existential experiences of simple people, which metaphorically reflect history on a grand scale. She lives and works in Moscow.

Georg Schöllhammer is a curator, author and critic. He is the founding editor of the art magazine springerin–Hefte für Gegenwartskunst. He was Chief Editor of documenta 12 between 2004 and 2007 and initiator and head of the documenta 12 magazines; chairman of the Július Koller Society (Bratislava) and of transit.at; co-curator of Manifesta 8 (Murcia, 2010); project manager of Local Modernities (Frankfurt, Berlin) and Sweet Sixties (Istanbul, Vienna). Georg studied architecture, art history and philosophy. He is the author of numerous publications on contemporary art, architecture and art theory. He has curated numerous exhibitions and lectures at international art institutions and universities. He lives and works in Vienna.

Sanja Ivekovic (born in Zagreb) was the first woman on Croatia’s art scene to call herself a feminist artist. Since the early 1970s she has been dealing with the tensions between female identity and political reality, using various media such as photographs, videos, performances and installations. She often uses her own person as a starting point for her work, put into a broader social context, which allows her to analyse her personal situation reflected by macro-social developments. Since 1994 Sanja has been lecturing at the Center for Women’s Studies in Zagreb and is one of the founders of Electra, The Women Arts Center in Zagreb. She lives and works in Zagreb.

Silvia Eiblmayr is an art historian, curator, lecturer and author. She was director of the Salzburg Kunstverein, director of the Galerie im Taxispalais / Galerie des Landes Tirol from 1999 to 2008 and was appointed commissioner of the Austrian pavilion at the Venice Biennial (with Valie Export) in 2009. She lectures in Austria and abroad (selection): visiting professor at the Academy of Fine Arts, Munich; University of Essen; University of Art, Linz; 1988-2003 Academy/University of Fine Arts, Vienna; 1999-2009 IKM/ University of Music and Performing Arts, Vienna. She has written and edited numerous texts and publications on modernism and contemporary art. Silvia lives and works in Vienna.

Orshi Drozdik (born in Budapest) is a leading exponent of conceptual and gender-oriented art in Hungary. In her installations, photographs, paintings, drawings and texts, she critically and systematically analyses female role models in art and society. Another focus of her work is the scientific representation of nature and the body. Following her studies at Budapest University of Fine Arts (1970-1977), Orshi Drozdik collaborated with the post-conceptual artists’ group Rozsa (Roses) from 1976 to 1978. In 1980 she moved to New York and worked with the artists’ group Colab. She lives and works in Budapest and New York.

Martina Pachmanová is an art historian, freelance curator and author. She is an assistant professor at the Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design in Prague. Her articles and contributions on modernism and contemporary art focus on gender issues and feminism. Publications (selection): Mobile Fidelities: Conversations on Feminism, History and Visuality (Prague, 2001); Invisible Woman: Anthology of Contemporary Texts on Feminism, History and Visual Culture in the U.S. (Prague, 2002); Unknown Territories of Czech Modern Art: Through the Looking Glass of Gender (Prague, 2004); Milada Marešová: Painter of New Objectivity (Prague, Brno, 2008); Artemis and Dr. Faust: Women in Czech and Slovak Art History (together with Milena Bartlová; Prague, 2008).

This year celebrates the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain, a moment of particular importance in Central and South Eastern Europe. To mark this event, ERSTE Foundation, which is active in this region, launched a call for proposals for an exhibition concept in the autumn of 2007. Seven international curators were selected by a jury consisting of ERSTE Foundation representatives Christine Böhler, director of the Culture Programme, and curator Christiane Erharter, as well as of members of the PATTERNS Advisory Panel. This advisory panel has been advising ERSTE Foundation’s Culture Programme on content issues since early 2007. It currently comprises Romanian curator Cosmin Costinaş, the director of Steirischer Herbst Veronica Kaup-Hasler, Polish art historian Piotr Piotrowski and Austrian critic, curator and editor of springerin magazine Georg Schöllhammer.

Of the five proposals, the jury selected the concept submitted by Berlin and Belgrade-based curator Bojana Pejić. Her exhibition project Gender Check focuses on gender differences in Eastern European art from the 1960s to the present day. How are men and women depicted in recent visual art? And what role does the gender of producers, mediators and recipients play? How are female and male viewers influenced by female artists and theorists compared to male artists and theorists? The search for an answer to these questions with regard to art from the West has resulted in a wealth of publications, symposiums and group shows in cities such as Los Angeles and New York, in particular since 2006. What was lacking, however, was a systematic investigation of these questions in the case of Eastern European art, examining how it developed during the Socialist era and the radical changes that ensued after the break-up of the Eastern bloc.

“Climate change, political conflicts, the poverty trap and the economic crisis – these are the key issues today,” says Christine Böhler, director of ERSTE Foundation’s Culture Programme. “The issue of gender difference plays a role in all of these global challenges and even has a considerable impact on our everyday life, yet it is not afforded a great deal of attention in public debate. It was precisely this reason that led us to opt for the project by Bojana Pejić.”

The pioneering nature of Gender Check meant that it would require extensive research, which also made it an interesting prospect. Twenty-five art historians and art critics visited archives, museums and libraries. They scoured artists’ legacies and exhibition catalogues in 24 countries from the Baltics to the Caucasus. In a major research project of this kind, cooperation between a private foundation and a public institution is particularly valuable as public institutions are rarely able to undertake such exhaustive investigations in preparation for their exhibitions.

MUMOK proved to be an excellent partner, whose professionalism, excellent reputation in the field and team were able to transform the researchers’ findings into an exhibition of international relevance, which will be shown in Poland, following its initial stint in Vienna. Warsaw’s Zacheta National Gallery of Art will host the exhibition from 19 March 2010.

Gender issues in ERSTE Foundation programmes

Gender studies have been a focal point of ERSTE Foundation’s work since 2007 and Gender Check (research and exhibition tour) represents the Foundation’s largest project to date in this field. With its three programmes Social Development, Culture and Europe, ERSTE Foundation sees itself as a creative factory for ideas and innovation, a laboratory to explore the topics of the future. Gender issues feature in all programmes and are not only developed on an interdisciplinary basis, but are also discussed within the Foundation’s manifold networks.

In 2010, as part of its sociological series, ERSTE Foundation will publish a collection of case studies entitled Gendering Transition. Studies of Changing Gender Perspectives from Eastern Europe examining gender roles in the context of social changes from a sociological perspective. Nine researchers from South Eastern Europe investigate the challenges of single parenting, the causes of homelessness, media and pop culture, the situation of sexual minorities and the development of care in the home from a gender perspective and look back on the history of feminism in the region.

The fellowship programme, a joint initiative established by ERSTE Foundation and the Robert Bosch Stiftung to support ten journalists from the Balkans each year, focused on the topic of Identities in 2009. Articles from the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence 2009 also include reports on gender identity. Further examples of initiatives funded within the scope of various ERSTE Foundation programmes that touch on gender issues include the art project Feminisme by the Romanian artist group h.arta (www.feminisme.ro), Replaying the Balkans, organised by the Croatian initiative Domino (www.queerzagreb.org) and Live Art East, a conference on women and performance art in Eastern Europe run by City of Women (www.cityofwomen.org) from Slovenia.

Exhibition

The exhibition Gender Check. Femininity and Masculinity in the Art of Eastern Europe is the first comprehensive overview of Eastern European art since the 1960s to focus on gender roles. It features more than 400 works comprising paintings, sculpture, installations, photography, posters, films and videos. More than 200 artists paint an exceptionally diverse picture of this chapter of art history that remained largely undiscovered until recently, and which has a significant impact on contemporary gender discourse. Gender Check follows the shifts and changes in the representation of male and female role models in art, taking a particular look at how they developed under different socio-political conditions. The exhibition depicts the interrelationship between art and history, taking both a chronological and thematic approach.

Exhibition details

Gender Check. Femininity and Masculinity in the Art of Eastern Europe

Vienna:

MUMOK, Museumsplatz 1, 1070 Vienna, Austria

13 November 2009 – 14 February 2010

Press conference: 12 November 2009, 10 a.m.

Opening: 12 November 2009, 7 p.m.

Symposium: 13 and 14 November 2009

Warsaw:

Zacheta National Gallery of Art, pl. Malachowskiego 3, 00-916 Warsaw

19 March 2010 – 13 June 2010

List of countries and researchers:

Albania (Edi Muka), Armenia (Eva Khachatryan), Belarus (Almira Ousmanova), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dunja Blažević), Bulgaria (Maria Vassileva), Croatia (Ivana Bago), Czech Republic (Martina Pachmanová), Estonia (Katrin Kivimaa), Germany (Angelika Richter), Georgia (Lali Pertenava / Nino Tchogoshvili), Hungary (Edit András), Kosovo (Erzen Shkololli), Latvia (Mara Traumane), Lithuania (Laima Kreivyte), Macedonia (Suzana Milevska), Moldova (Lilia Dragneva), Montenegro (Bojana Pejić), Poland (Izabela Kowalczyk), Romania (Alina Serban), Russia (Keti Chukrov), Serbia (Branislav Dimitrijević), Slovakia (Zora Rusinova), Slovenia (Urška Jurman) and Ukraine (Hedwig Saxenhuber).

Selection of featured artists:

Anri Sala, Anita Arakelyan, Anna Koushar, Ismet Mujezinović, Šejla Kamerić, Alla Georgieva, Sanja Iveković, Tomislav Gotovac, Běla Kolářová, Veronika Bromová, Mare Tralla, Cornelia Schleime, Fritz Skade, Emese Benczúr, Orshi Drozdik, Tibor Hajas, Erzen Shkololli, Aija Zariņa, Zenta Dzividzinska, Egle Rakauskaite, Sofija Veiveryté, Zaneta Vangeli, Valentina Rusu-Ciobanu, Jelena Tomašević, Wojciech Fangor, Katarzyna Kobro, Katarzyna Kozyra, Alexandra Croitoru, Ion Grigorescu, Lia Perjovschi, Anna Alchuck, Oleg Kulik, Vladislav Mamyshev-Monroe, Marina Abramović, Tanja Ostojić, Anetta Mona Chisa/Lucia Tkacova, Jana Želibská, Tadej Pogačar, Duba Sambolec, Arsen Savadov & Oleksandr Kharchenko, Boris Mikhailov and many more.

Exhibition catalogue

With essays by Edit András, Keti Chukhrov, Branislav Dimitrijević, Katrin Kivimaa, Izabela Kowalczyk, Suzana Milevska, Martina Pachmanová, Bojana Pejić, Piotr Piotrowski, Zora Rusinová, Hedwig Saxenhuber and Georg Schöllhammer; approx. 350 pages, 23 x 30 cm, English edition, approx. €35.00,

ISBN Engl: 978-3-902490-57-5

Symposium “Reading Gender. Art, Power and Politics of Representation in Eastern Europe”

A two-day symposium will be held at MUMOK on 13 and 14 November 2009. It aims to examine the research findings in greater depth and serve as a forum for debate on insight provided by the exhibition. Twenty-seven experts from across the world will discuss the role of feminist theories in Eastern Europe with regard to developments in the West, the significance of transgender positions and the new definition and revision of canonical ideas of gender.

Symposium participants:

Juan Vicente Aliaga, Edit András, Ivana Bago, Christine Böhler, Keti Chukhrov, Ana Daucikova, Katy Deepwell, Silvia Eiblmayr, Rainer Fuchs, Marina Gržinić, Katrin Kivimaa, Izabela Kowalczyk, Vjollca Krasniqi, Laima Kreivytė, Suzana Milevska. Jet Moon, Agnieszka Morawinska, Gislind Nabakowski, Almira Ousmanova, Bojana Pejić, Griselda Pollock, Angelika Richter, Hedwig Saxenhuber, Johanna Schaffer, trafo.k, Mare Tralla and Mara Traumane.

With performances by Egle Rakauskaite: For Guilty without the Guilt. Trap. Expulsion from Paradise (Friday, 13 November 2009, 7:30 p.m.)

Contact

ERSTE Foundation, Communications

Maribel Königer, Tel. +43 50100 15453, e-mail: maribel.koeniger@erstestiftung.org

Jovana Trifunovic, Tel. +43 50100 15844, e-mail: jovana.trifunovic@erstestiftung.org

ERSTE Foundation

ERSTE Foundation is active in the Central and South Eastern European region. Together with its partners, it creates a hive of activity for common good. Founded in 2003 it began its work two years later by developing its three programmes Social Development, Culture and Europe. It understands culture as a driving force for an open society and believes in its ability to forge links between diverse linguistic and geographical regions. ERSTE Foundation is the legal successor of the 190-year-old “Erste oesterreichische Spar-Casse”, the first Austrian savings bank. Its two commitments are based on these historical roots: as the mayor shareholder ERSTE Foundation safeguards the future of Erste Group as an independent company and invests its dividend into activities that promote the common good. This makes ERSTE Foundation a unique institution of this kind and size in Central and South Eastern Europe.

More information you can find at: www.erstestiftung.org

In many cases gender representation in the socialist period was marked either by the continuity in or the transformation of traditional gender roles. Could you describe how and which tradition was continued or transgressed under socialism? The re-establishment of nation-states in the 1990s coincided with a return to conservative agendas. How do artworks created after the 1990s address traditional gender patterns?

The Soviet variant of gender imbalance was characterized by a double deprivation. Women were marginalized in the actual social practices in virtually all fields of culture as well as politics and everyday life. But they were also deprived of the idea of their deprivation, since official ideology had created an “optical illusion” of gender equality. Thus there was a kind of vicious “pre established harmony” between the naturalized ideology of a sexist and patriarchal society which manifested itself in its practices and denial of these discriminative practices on the declared level of the official ideology. A similar structure was in operation in every marginalized social group, preventing it from fully realizing its own marginality and effectively obstructing any resistant practices (the position and consciousness of the Soviet working class being probably the most striking example of the consequences of such perverted ideological twists).

This general setting was redoubled in the case of the Ukraine as well as the other so-called “national republics” from the standpoint of colonial hierarchy. The “national republics” was a symptomatic semi-official name that was used to refer to all Soviet republics except Russia, the latter reserved for itself a position beyond national limitations, that of universal humanity. The “national republics” were forced to define themselves as different in relation to this established “universal norm.” The so-called “national traditions” are not something inherent to the “national republics,” but rather the results of mobilization of folklore, itself a construct of romantic discourse, to provide an answer for the colonial discourse that forced subaltern nations to measure their identity against the “nationless” norm of the center. Of course, these “traditions” were not launched in the Soviet era but shaped and reinforced by its ideological perversion. That several representatives of the “national republics” were identifying with and engaged in the construction of these traditions is not unlike the contradictory position of woman who was forced by patriarchy to falsely choose between masculinity disguised as universality and the marginalized difference measured by that universality in which she could sometimes found her pride.

The structural similarities in the positions of women in the Soviet patriarchal system and the “nations” in the Soviet colonial system, and the circumstance that both were mystified on the level of representation, probably led to a somewhat reductive identification of Ukraine with a femininity that can be found in anti-colonial feminist discourse of late 1980s-1990s.

Was there a distinction between the official and the unofficial art scenes in the Ukraine during the Soviet period? What was the difference in gender representation in these scenes? Could you characterize the position of women artists in the Ukraine in the 1960s-1980s? Did they have an easy access to a professional infrastructure and art institutions?

In the comprehensive study Women in Ukrainian History of the Second Half of 20th Century (Donetsk, 2002) Ukrainian historian Olena Stiazhkina, basing her research on the various types of archival documents, exposed gender imbalance in the field of culture, concentrating mostly on the late Soviet and early post-Soviet era. Analyzing the consequences of this imbalance she revealed both an external and internal (or rather internalized) marginalization of women in a majority of fields of cultural and creative production. The main artistic institutions that mediated the relation between the powers that be and the artists were the so-called “Creative Unions” established in the main cultural and artistic fields (literature, art, architecture, music, theater, cinema, and journalism).

The national Creative Unions were just provincial reduplications of the central ones and were in turn reduplicated by their own provincial branches. However, the main function of the whole complex structure of submission and domination was to become an instrument of control over the artists and cultural workers (this was as simple and effective as carrot and stick). The professional activity beyond the Creative Union was made virtually impossible: remaining outside these semi-state institutions amounted to professional non-existence, since these controlled and monopolized all facilities in the cultural field.

The structure of these unions functioned as a peculiar example of an asymmetrical binary opposition of the norm and colonial other. Every “national republic” had its own Creative Unions except Russia that hosted the central Creative Unions of the USSR, which enjoyed the highest position in the hierarchy of power relations and prestige. This is one of the most palpable manifestations of the ideological operation in the Soviet colonial system that erased the so-called “title nation” as the nation and bestowed it with a universal status. The direct repercussions of such a system of colonial mystification are evident in the still prevalent identification of the Soviet with the Russian in the West, which has always regarded these two words as synonymous.

In many cases gender representation in the socialist period was marked either by the continuity in or the transformation of traditional gender roles. Could you describe how and which tradition was continued or transgressed under socialism? The re-establishment of nation-states in the 1990s coincided with a return to conservative agendas. How do artworks created after the 1990s address traditional gender patterns?

Albania emerged from World War II with an almost non-existent institutional structure with a majority of the population living in rural areas dominated by extremely traditional structures and deeply rooted beliefs. The biggest challenges to be faced were in the northern part of the country, where society was much poorer, isolated, and controlled by clans and families. The most notorious code shaping social and family life was the infamous “Kanun” of Lekë Dukagjini-a sort of “constitution” which described in minute detail the rules and regulations according to which life should be lived. In this document the issue of gender is clearly reflected in the status of woman as “bare life”-someone held in such low esteem that they were not even considered worthy of being killed as a result of a feud (such as in blood revenge, which was the primary form of feuds at the time), but whose life and death were completely controlled by men at all times.

Thus the dawn of the communist era in the country brought about a radical change regarding gender issues. The main “action”-so to speak-undertaken by the new government, labeled the “Movement for the Emancipation of Women,” was to move women out of the homes and into the factories, and to involve them in the massive construction projects for building railways, power plants, etc. From a theoretical point of view this move embodied Engels’s thesis regarding the emancipatory role of labor. On the other hand, the new regime desperately needed a new and extensive labor force-the only way to achieve this was to supplement it with women.

The pragmatic character of the “Revolutionary Movement for the Emancipation of Women” was visible in a very simple and common fact encountered on a regular basis even today: no women occupied important positions of leadership, and no more than two or three women were represented in the higher ranks of the Politburo or other governmental positions.

However, the shift toward “emancipation” had a very strong impact on society. It was met with very strong resistance: young women who dared to join the national building projects were even killed (as portrayed in the monuments to the heroines of Mirdita). Thus, in a way, one can say that the current state of gender relations in Albania (which still remains a very male-dominated society) is due precisely to those years and the program of the regime at that time.

In terms of the art scene it took many years before artists started to reflect a little a bit on gender issues. The development of the art scene was primarily characterized by an insane rush towards abstract art-once the forbidden fruit-and later on, by the forming of a new generational identity that reflected on many aspects of the rapid developments but ignored gender issues almost entirely. It was not until very late-2003, 2004, 2005-that the first gender-sensitive works appeared on the scene. These works emerged more as an intuitive reflection of the artists towards certain phenomena of society, rather than as part of any program, group, or specific ideology. Worth noting here are works by Suela Qoshja, who has produced work related to poignant social problems (such as women trafficking), Enisa Cenaliaj, who made a performance reflecting on the position of (women) workers in the former textile industry, or an older generation artist, Lume Blloshmi, who uses pointed satire to reflect on the entirely male-dominated Albanian society by caricaturing politicians. The very increase in the number of women artists signaled a new possibility for a different sensitivity, albeit one that didn’t reflect upon any concrete platform or ideological concerns.

Could you address the emergence of the heroine in Albanian art? Through which narratives and in which genres do women no longer appear as assistants and apprentices but occupy a central position in the artwork? Has this iconic move coincided with emancipatory discourse?

Oh yes, it definitely has. It is very interesting to trace the emergence of the heroine, from the rise of the figure of the woman in Albanian Socialist Realism, its “demise” in the waning years of that period, and finally its disappearance during the last 18 years. In 1999, Gëzim Qëndro curated a very interesting exhibition, Socialist (Sur) Realism in which he used chronology not only to follow the dates when the paintings had been made, but also to trace precisely those narrative changes, from the beginning to the end of the period in 1991. In this genre of art one can clearly see how women move from the corner of the tableau, standing behind their men, to taking more and more of a central position until they occupy the center of the composition, always together with men. Also one can easily trace the change in their social position, role, and importance through the paintings, even though, having lived through that history, one knows that it doesn’t really reflect reality. From the position of obedient, subservient housewives, women begin their climb up the social ladder first appearing as partisan heroines, then as equal combatants, and later as builders of socialism, engineers, teachers, etc. The higher they climb, the closer they move towards the center of the composition.

After that women also began to appear in public monuments commemorating historical events, for instance the murdered girls from Mirdita and the monument Heroines from Mirdita dedicated to them, or monuments of a more symbolic stature, such as the renowned Mother Albania monument erected at the cemetery of the martyr’s of World War II in Tirana. However a relationship clearly exists between the representation of women in art and the discourse on emancipation.

In many cases gender representation in the socialist period was marked either by the continuity in or the transformation of traditional gender roles. Could you describe how and which tradition was continued or transgressed under socialism? The re-establishment of nation-states in the 1990s coincided with a return to conservative agendas. How do artworks created after the 1990s address traditional gender patterns?

I will begin by saying that gender issues are something really new in Armenia: only recently have they become the focus of certain projects, researchers, and discussions. Consequently it’s no easy task to provide clear-cut answers regarding an overall view of gender issues or how such issues have been manifested throughout art history. However, I will attempt to explain this history using the following examples.

In the 1960s in Armenia with a new political regime, and during the “Khrushchev thaw”, certain changes became evident also in art. Abstract art-considered the main “enemy art” at the time-wasn’t exhibited and certain artists were even criticized as being formalists. Color played a bigger role than content in their paintings of portraits (self-portraits, family portraits), still-lifes, and landscapes. And many of these were executed in a style free of academism and were resistant to socialist realism in their shift from socio-historic themes. From this point of view it is important to mention one exhibition, the Exhibition of Five, that was initiated and organized by five artists in 1962 at the Union of Artists in Yerevan. At that time (and later in the 1970s), a latent presence of gender issues became noticeable with respect to the role of an “emotional” nationalism, which, by the way, was supported by Stalinists.

During perestroika the first representative contemporary art exhibitions were presented at the Union of Artists. The new political situation played a big role in allowing young artists to organize a series of exhibitions on the third floor of the building where conferences were typically held. Known, therefore, as the “3rd Floor” movement, it focused on presentations of so-called “Western” art that had been forbidden during Soviet times. 3rd Floor exhibited primarily local abstract and pop art. From the point of view of gender, 3rd Floor exhibitions were quite male-dominated with an overly aggressive stance in the strongly expressive work, with painting as the primary medium featured. The main representatives of the 3rd Floor movement were male like the artist Arman Grigoryan, or the art critic Nazareth Karoyan, the only exception being the female artist Kariné Matsakyan who actively took part in 3rd Floor exhibitions.

By the end of the 1980s, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, the nationalist Nagorno-Karabakh Movement was the main organizational body that stood for freedom and independence. After the demise of the Soviet Union and the re-establishment of Armenia as an independent republic, nationalism, religion, and all else that had been forbidden during the Soviet era was welcomed and gained momentum. Some artists accepted these changes as new reforms and an opportunity to rediscover a lost national identity.

After independence was established in 1991 these trends lost their function as a fight against a totalitarian regime, and, accordingly in the 1990s, the younger generation, in contradiction to the 3rd Floor movement, began to explore newer tendencies in art, especially Conceptual art. (Vahram Aghasyan, David Kareyan, Mher Azatian, Diana Hakobian, Haroutioun Simonian, Sona Abgarian, Tigran Khachatrian). All artworks considered contemporary were against state-sanctioned political and cultural statements. At times, art was obviously political in nature with a direct message, while, in other cases it underlined individualism as a reaction to the Soviet collective consciousness. This explains the popularity of performance art in the 1990s not only as an expression of individualism but also as an exploration of the body. Some artists took this as an opportunity to express gender issues (Haroutioun Simonian, Sona Abgarian, Arman Grigoryan). By the way, it is important to mention that contemporary art does not occupy a legitimate place in our country even today. It doesn’t play an official role in the representation of Armenian culture and contemporary artists continue be marginalized.

Many researchers mention that Gender Check has brought their attention to the less-known subjects in local histories: neglected artists or new issues, methodologies or epistemological approaches. Could you write about your “discovery” or “discoveries” during the research?

To begin with I discovered several artists who had escaped my notice before. As a curator I’m focused especially on women’s issues and, as a result of this research, I have a greater knowledge about Armenian art history in relation to questions of gender. I never thought, for instance, that the 1970s might have been relevant for my work but after completing this research I’ve changed my mind. I also view differently certain male artists who previously never would have been considered relevant in this context.

It seems that women artists in Armenia had a hard time gaining recognition in the traditional art genres of painting and sculpture. They were either forgotten in art history (Knarik Vartanian), remained in the shadow of their partners (Armine Galents), or had to master their skills in competition with their male colleagues (Heriknaz Galstian, Kariné Matsakyan). Articulation of gender identity in the 1980s and 1990s coincided with a conceptual approach and the use of photography (Kariné Matsakyan, Diana Hakobian, Haroutioun Simonian) and video. Could you interpret this shift from modernist to contemporary art practices from a gender perspective?

Among other things, Conceptual art in Armenia brought with it the new possibility of the dematerialization of the object and a pluralism of styles. With new media, especially video, artists got the opportunity to talk about more personal things as well as gender issues (Kariné Matsakyan, Haroutioun Simonian). I think that new media created new possibilities both for men and women artists, but especially for women (Diana Hakobian, Sona Abgarian). Of course, today even in new media more male artists are centrally featured in exhibitions and museum collections. However, in terms of contemporary art in Armenia, it is obvious that women became more active in the 1990s, a period during which the first exhibitions to be organized by women (as for example by artist Arevik Arevshatian) also took place.

In many cases gender representation in the socialist period was marked either by the continuity in or the transformation of traditional gender roles. Could you describe how and which tradition was continued or transgressed under socialism? The re-establishment of nation-states in the 1990s coincided with a return to conservative agendas. How do artworks created after the 1990s address traditional gender patterns?

During the socialist period in former Yugoslavia (1945-1990) two separate phases are recognizable: first, a short period (from 1945 to the beginning of the 1950s) during which socialist realism was imposed as the official ideological and aesthetic norm; and second, the period following the break-up of the USSR and the introduction of self-management as a new model of socialism in a social, political, and theoretical sense. After the “freedom of art” was proclaimed, the state and the Communist Party no longer arbitrated or interfered in “aesthetic questions.” Art was freed from political pressures except for periodical clashes or cases where political authorities perceived the presence of anti-communist discourse (”propaganda”) in certain literary works or films. Within this general process of emancipation, including an awareness of gender issues, modernism occupied the central role and represented the mainstream of culture and art. Both in art practice and in theoretical debates a primary division existed between the representatives of modernism and the neo-avant-garde.

In terms of gender, the period between the 1960s and the 1980s is negligible. This was a period during which artists followed international trends-various forms of abstract art, Informel, post-conceptual painting-and when women artists appeared almost equal to men. An original Sarajevan, exclusively male, art and media movement from the 1980s was called New Primitivism. This movement was mainly related to film (Emir Kusturica), theater (Mladen Materić), and pop culture (music, radio, and TV shows-comedian groups Nadrealisti (surrealists), or bands Zabranjeno pušenje (No Smoking)).

A new phenomenon in the visual arts was represented by the group Zvono (The Bell), named after the Zvono café which became the group’s meeting and exhibition place. Group activities such as exhibitions, actions, and performances took place in unusual locations: on the streets, stadiums, shop-windows, or in nature. The group favored these types of locations for gatherings that were outside of the traditional institutional sphere as a way of forming a new generational identity. In their individual works, the artists were aligned with the formal style of New Image Painting of the 1980s. Of the seven group members only one was a woman, Biljana Gavranović. All of them left Sarajevo when the war started. In the 1990s the emergence of national states based on nationalistic ideologies signaled a return to conservative and retrograde values in all areas of life. As a response to such prevailing policies women became active in politics and art.

After the complete rupture caused by the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the only continuity between the art of the 1980s and the current scene is represented by Jusuf Hadžifejzović, both in terms of a recognizable working method and an approach to gender issues.

You write that the war experience of 1992-1995 has severed the tie to pre-war Bosnian and Herzegovinian cultural history. The war experience has infused art with new, experiential, and gender-sensitive subjects: identity, collective experience, trauma, and memory that are approached through new media, public art, site specific projects, and performance. Could you elaborate on this change towards the new subjects and new art forms?

This very particular background (the experience of war) has determined artists’ interests and art practice in a fundamental way-which I like to describe, using Kendell Geers’s expression, as: “the realism of lived experience.” Driving such an artistic practice is certainly the need to cope with the turbulent and dominant nature of this reality. In this context, the recognition of gender became critical for both female and male artists. In actuality it concerned the need to affirm the social dimension of the artistic act, and wasn’t only about reexamining the social function or democratization of art per se.

Young artists have defined the new, post-war art scene. For them the meaning-rather than the means employed-is the most essential aspect to their works. Having grown up in the age of mass media, these postwar artists primarily reference media and the reality in which they live, not the history of art.

In addition to these general characteristics and specifics, the emergence of various generations of women artists and filmmakers is the most important phenomenon of postwar art. In addressing the world in which they live, they have focused on subjects ranging from women’s activism and feminism to subtle introspections on female “nature.” It should be emphasized here that this rich artistic production and art practice is not accompanied by feminist, gender-critical, theoretical writing or insights due to the virtual absence of these concepts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Your research suggests that women artists who were already active during wartime (Alma Suljević, Amra Zulfikarpašić) approach the trauma of the conflict through collective memory and shared experience (Gordana Andjelić-Galić, Maja Bajević), while the younger generation that grew up during the war (Šejla Kamerić, Lala Raščić, Leila Čmajčanin) mediates it through disturbing individual and personalized narratives. Is this impression correct?

Yes, your impression is absolutely correct. In the last several years a new generation of artists has emerged both in Sarajevo and Banja Luka. Interestingly, in Sarajevo the dominant group once again consists of young women. Compared to the first group of artists you mentioned, differences in the approaches to the still hot topic of identity can be found and range from work concerned with feminist discourse (Sandra Dukić, Leila Čmajčanin) to transgender: floating identity (Ibro Hasanović) and the shifting of male-female roles (Lala Raščić, Lana Čmajčanin).

In many cases gender representation in the socialist period was marked either by the continuity in or the transformation of traditional gender roles. Could you describe how and which tradition was continued or transgressed under socialism?

There are no simple answers to what tradition(s) was continued or transgressed under socialism. Are we speaking of certain local cultural traditions linked to a sense of national identity (and shaped by religious, ethnic, or political communities) that provided the framework for articulating and representing gender issues in the national (nation-minded) art of the last two centuries? Or are we speaking of rural (i.e. folk, traditionalist) or urban (i.e. cosmopolitan, modern) cultural traditions that might be linked to the development of particular schools of thought or trends in the art scene? Or do we mention the role and position of various Eastern European male and female artists throughout the history of European modernism? All of these questions eventually point to the main problem: how “to retrieve the past” (bearing in mind that conceiving and reconstructing the past is always politically charged) relative to the potential legitimacy of the particular issue.

Many researchers mention that Gender Check has brought their attention to the less-known subjects of local histories: neglected artists or new issues, methodologies, or epistemological approaches. Could you write about your “discovery” or “discoveries” during the research?

The work for MUMOK generated for me a series of interrelated questions that should be addressed and incorporated into how Belarusian scholars approach their research. I realized that prior to a re-conceptualization of gender representations in socialist or post-Soviet Belarusian art we need to conduct, first and foremost, serious scholarly work that has not yet been undertaken and is long overdue. This work should proceed along two parallel lines: rethinking the art historical canon, and investigating the field of contemporary Belarusian art from a sociological perspective (examining the actors, institutional frameworks, the art market, etc.). In short, the modern history of Belarusian art needs to be rewritten in light of contemporary scholarship and restructured according to critical discourse and thinking.

While the sociological examination of Belarusian art has not even started yet, the reasons why “current art” in Belarus hardly exists have already been debated in intellectual circles for some time. Unlike many other Eastern European countries, Belarus resembles a “virgin” space where both properly institutionalized forms as well as lively discussions on the state of current art practices and processes are lacking. The Soros Art Centers and other such programs, which changed significantly the art scenes of all other neighboring Eastern European countries, never existed in Belarus. Under Lukashenko’s regime the country has been very isolated and “cut-off” from the cultural and theoretical debates that have taken place in other former socialist countries.(1) Of the initiatives and collective projects that came into being and flourished from the time of the perestroika through 1994, very few have survived and continue to play an important role in contemporary Belarus. As Belarusian philosopher and art critic Olga Shparaga argues, the Belarusian artists who were actively involved in the social-aesthetic renewal of Belarus roughly ten to twenty years ago have nowadays become either marginal figures or are involved in the cultural life of other countries.

Indeed, many artists as well as art critics emigrated in the 1990s and continue to work in different countries. Therefore, the question what counts as “Belarusian art” is now a critical one given the apparent division in the art scene between “here” and “there,” those who remained in Belarus very rarely participate in ambitious collective projects that would include Belarusians living abroad, and vice versa.

You described the split in the Belarusian art scene where, due to political reasons, many artists and theoreticians have left to live and work abroad. Could you characterize how gender issues were and are approached artistically and theoretically by both parts of the intellectual scene? For example, what are the roles of the Gender Itinerary festival and the International Women’s Film Festival in Minsk and the activities of the Centre for Gender Studies at the European Humanities University (EHU), based since 2005 in Vilnius, and how are they received?

I am not quite sure that I have a complete picture of what has been written on gender and Belarusian art in other countries (and in other than English, Russian, or Belarusian languages). I only have a fragmentary knowledge of some of the texts of such art critics as Olga Kopenkina (New York) or Nelly Bekus (Warsaw), but even these critics were not directly addressing gender issues or feminist art practices. Thus, I will concentrate instead on what the situation is like in Belarus.

Several attempts were made to introduce feminist topics into public discourse and the art scene-mostly through the initiatives of our Centre for Gender Studies at the European Humanities University. Since 1999 we have organized a series of workshops on women and art in Eastern Europe, on women and media art; launched a series of publications; introduced university courses related to gender representations in the visual arts; and organized exhibitions or film screenings (with the participation of Polish and Lithuanian art theorists, curators, and female artists). For instance, in 2002 our center published a calendar, (Ženščiny Belarusi: tvorcy kul’tury), on feminism and art from the eighteenth century through today (edited by Elena Gapova, a gender studies scholar and the director of the EHU Center for Gender Studies). Women at the Edge of Europe (Ženščny kraju Europy, 2003; edited by Elena Gapova) included several essays dedicated to women musicians and women artists throughout Belarusian history. The book Gender and Transgression in Visual Arts (Gender i transgressiia v vizual’nych iskusstvach, 2007, edited by me) was the result of a Belarusian-Lithuanian workshop that took place in 2003. Our colleague in Minsk, Irina Solomatina, initiated in 2005 a new festival titled “Gender Itinerary” that was created to serve scholars and practitioners of feminism in art from different countries as a forum for theoretical interventions supplemented by performances, live music concerts, or experimental video screenings. However, these sporadic events didn’t radically transform the art scene in Belarus. But we also weren’t planning for the “revolution” in inviting our audiences to look differently at the history of women as subjects in Belarusian art history and to examine its multicultural inspirations. The current state of the Belarusian educational system, the “local-mindedness” of art institutions, and the lack of resources provide little opportunity for other voices to challenge the existing canons for interpreting our art history.

Notes:

(1) See, for instance, a very inspiring text by Elena Gapova dedicated to the symbolic “geography of desire” in defining the borders of Belarus, and to its “marginality” in contemporary cultural and political discourse: Elena Gapova, “Kroja kraja Europy” (Etching the Edges of Europe), in  (Women at the Edge of Europe), ed. Elena Gapova (Minsk: European Humanities University, 2003), 7-22.