Eesti Kunstiteadlaste Ühing (www.kty.ee) kutsub:
Kunstikompleks. Vaidlused asjade seisu üle.
Kumu auditooriumis 29. oktoobril 2010, kell 10.00
Teooriabuum ja teooriaväsimus, uued institutsioonid ja saneeritud vanad, blogid ja sotsiaalvõrgustikud, vaatemängutööstus, šedöövrid, kriitika ja promo, vastuhegemoonia ja kohandumine, avalikkused ja klannid – kunstiteaduses on midagi muutunud. Kunstiteadlaste Ühing püüab oma seekordse sügisese seminaripäevaga selgust tuua kunstiajaloo, -kriitika ja -teaduse muutuvatesse süsteemidesse, välja tuua erinevaid seisukohti, otsida vastuseid ja esitada uusi küsimusi. Tavapärase konverentsiformaadi asemel on seekord tegu nelja diskussiooniblokiga, kus kaks kõnelejat esitavad alustuseks oma teesid ning seejärel laiendavad oma seisukohti paneeldiskussiooni käigus.
Ürituse kava:
10.00 Sissejuhatus: Kersti Markus
10.15- 12.00 Museion ja academia – pilt ja teooria?
Krista Kodres – Sirje Helme – Kadi Polli – Katrin Kivimaa
12.00-13.00 Vana ja uus kunst
Tiina Abel – Maarin Ektermann – Linda Kaljundi – Tiina Mall Kreem
13.00-14.00 Supp ja sigaretid
14.00-15.00 Kunstiajakirjandus
Andreas Trossek – Eha Komissarov – Indrek Grigor – Mari Laaniste
15.00-16.00 Alternatiivsed institutsioonid
Airi Triisberg – Andres Kurg – Anders Härm – Martin Rünk
16.00-16.30 Päevast teevad kokkuvõtte Jaak Kangilaski ja Virve Sarapik
Modereerivad Kersti Markus ja Mart Kalm
neljapäev, oktoober 28, 2010
Kunstikompleks. Vaidlused asjade seisu üle.
pühapäev, oktoober 24, 2010
Duul 2010
15. oktoobril avas galeriis Loop näituse maalikunstnike rühmitus Duul.
http://www.loooooooooop.blogspot.com/
Duul astub seekord üles koosseisus Mihkel Ilus, Rauno Thomas Moss, Peeter Krosmann, Nadežda Tšernobai ja kuraatorina Indrek Grigor.
Loop kui projektiruum on väga ambivalentne keskkond. Duuli näituse puhul üritasime sellest aga maksimaalselt taanduda. Lähenedes galeriile kui ajaloolisele hoonele, eemaldasime varasemate projektide jäljed ja paljastasime hoone Loopi eelse ilme, mille säilinud detaile hoone väliskülgedel ka eksponeeritakse. Oma arhitektuuriliselt lahenduselt ei ole Loop kui näituse pind kaasaegne modernistlik galerii, ent seda enam olid hoone isikupärane ilme ja ruumidest hõnguv dokumenteerimata ajalugu, näituse koostamisel olulisteks inspiratsiooni allikateks.
Nii Loopi kui Duuli iseloomustab keeruline ja fikseerimatu autorlus, aga samas on mõlemal projektil temaga ühinenuist sõltumatu sihina eesmärgiks luua visuaalne keskkond ja väljund mida nad mujal leidnud ei ole. Nii professionaalsus kui kunsti avardatud piirid on institutsionaalsel kunstiväljal liiga selgelt piiritletud, et me sinna mahtuda saaksime. Duuli paigutumine Loopi profiili on aga mäng alternatiivmõõtmega, mis võimaldab kunstnikel suhestuda etableerunud kunstikoodidega.
Näitus on Tartu Kunstimajas avatud 1. Novembrini
igapäeav 12:00-18:00
reede, oktoober 22, 2010
Aja pulss
Hei hipsterid, edetabelifriigid, fast-thinkerid, kultuurikiibitsejad!
esmaspäev, oktoober 18, 2010
Kunstiajalooliste, -teoreetiliste ja -pedagoogiliste lõputööde kroonika 2010
Eesti Kunstiakadeemia Kunstiteaduse instituut
BA
- Keiti Kljavin. Kaasaegsus ja kunstide süntees sotsialistliku modernismi kontekstis 1960.
aastate Eesti kunstis. Juhendaja: Anu Allas. Retsensent: Mait Väljas.
- Triin Loks. Postmodernismi mõju 1980. aastate eesti plakatikunstile Ruth Huimerinna
loomingu näitel. Juhendaja: Anu Allas. Retsensent: Kädi Talvoja.
- Liisa Täherand. Subjektiivne linnaruumikogemus noores eesti kunstis. Juhendaja: Anu Allas. Retsensent: Ingrid Ruudi.
- Olga Prokofjeva. ENSV paviljon Moskvas kui ENSV representatsioon Nõukogude Liidus 1950. aastatel. Juhendaja: Mart Kalm. Retsensent: Ingrid Ruudi.
- Marian Kivila. Perfomance kui kordusaktsioon: Valie Export Society ”Cut Piece” ja Soup 69 „Trio Klaveril” näitel. Juhendaja: Katrin Kivimaa. Retsensent: Maria-Kristiina Soomre.
- Maria Juur. Helikunsti määratlemine ja spetsiifika. Erinevad lähenemised helile Eesti
uuemas kunstis. Juhendaja: Katrin Kivimaa. Retsensent: Maria-Kristiina Soomre.
- Elen Kasekivi. Kunstipoliitika muudatused 1934–1940 ja ametliku portreetüübi
ikonograafia Karl Hermani loomingu näitel. Juhendaja: Heie Treier. Retsensent: Tiiu Talvistu.
- Karin Gross. Urbanistlik keskkond Toomas Vindi loomingus. Juhendaja: Virve Sarapik. Retsensent: Sven Vabar.
MA (3+2 õppesüsteemis)
- Kristina Jõekalda. Eesti muinsuskaitse ja võõras pärand. Muinsusteadlikkuse kujundamine 1920.-30. aastatel. Juhendaja: Linda Kaljundi. Konsultant: Mart Kalm. Oponent: Krista Kodres.
Stina Sarapuu. Stalinistlik kauplus. Katse lavastada küllust. Juhendaja: Mart Kalm. Oponent: Epp Lankots.
MA (4+2 õppesüsteemis)
- Martin Rünk. Eneseanalüütilise situatsiooni loomine dialoogilises esteetikas Tootmiskoondis „Polümeeri” endiste töötajate kokkutuleku näitel. Juhendaja: Andres Kurg. Oponent: Maria-Kristiina Soomre.
Eesti Kunstiakadeemia kunstiõpetaja erialal kaitstud magistritööd:
- Irina Hožailova. Ökodisaini projekt: Kartongimaania. Juhendaja: Ülle Linnuste.
- Jana Huul. Multifunktsionaalne töövihik galeriidele. Juhendaja: Anu Purre.
- Riho Kall. Non-design põhikooli kunstiõpetuses. Juhendaja: Kaia Lehari.
- Piret Sepp. Joonistamisõpetus ja kunstiline kasvatus Eesti üldhariduskoolis 1920.-1930. aastatel. Juhendaja: Hans Gabral.
- Evelyn Toomistu-Banani. Kinnas kui kunsti- ja käsitööobjekt. Juhendajad: Anne Susanna Lindström ja Pille Kivihall.
Tartu Ülikooli kunstiajaloo õppetool
BA
- Barbara Einmann. Ülevaade Eesti Kujutavkunstnike Keskusest paguluses 1940ndate keskpaigast 1960ndate alguseni. Juhendaja: Tiiu Talvistu. Retsensent: Reet Mark
- Õnne Reinup. Riia Kunstnike Grupp ja tema kokkupuutepunktid Eesti Kunstnike Rühmaga. Juhendaja: Tõnis Tatar. Retsensent: Eda Tursk.
- Riin Saaremägi. Herman Talviku maastikud. Juhendaja: Tiiu Talvistu. Retsensent: Kersti Koll.
- Peeter Talvistu. Ravenna ja Justinianus: tulevikufiktsioonid kuuendal sajandil San Vitale keiserlikes mosaiikides. Juhendaja: Meelis Friedenthal. Retsensent: Kaur Alttoa.
MA (3+2 õppesüsteemis)
- Kerttu Palginõmm. Lucia legendi meistri Tallinna retaabli topelteestkostestseen illumineerijate ja maalikunstnike suhete taustal. Juhendaja: Kaur Alttoa. Retsensent: Anu Mänd
- Eda Tursk. Johann Wilhelm Krause ja Tartu ülikooli hooneteansambel: anatoomiline teater ja tähetorn. Juhendaja: Juhan Maiste. Retsensent: Mariann Raisma.
- Anu Ormisson. Johann Wilhelm Krause ja Tartu ülikooli hooneteansambel: toomkiriku rekonstrueerimine ja valgustusajastu park. Juhendaja: Juhan Maiste. Retsensent: Kadi Polli.
MA (4+2 õppesüsteemis)
- Kaire Tooming. Püha kirik: uusi aspekte keskaegse kiriku arhitektuurist ja
ehitusloost. Juhendaja: Kaur Alttoa. Retsensent: Jaan Tamm.
PhD
- Epi Tohvri. Valgustusideede mõju Tartu arhitektuurikultuurile 19. sajandi alguses. Juhendaja: Jaak Kangilaski. Oponendid: Janis Langins (Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto) ja Krista Kodres.
Tartu Ülikooli filosoofia osakond
MA (4+2 õppesüsteemis)
-Mirjam Lepikult. Michel Foucault’ filosoofiline nägemine kujutava kunsti näite põhjal. Juhendaja: Ülo Matjus. Oponent: Eduard Parhomenko.
MA (3+2 õppesüsteemis)
-Kerli Kurikka. G. E. Lessingi väited maalikunsti kohta traktaadis „Laokoon“. Juhendaja Ülo Matjus. Retsensent: Andrus Tool.
-Mariliis Tago. Teose ja kunstiteose käsitusest Martin Heideggeri mõtlemises. Juhendaja: Eduard Parhomenko. Retsensent: Ülo Matjus.
Tallinna Ülikooli kunstiosakond
MA
- Elina Reiman. Humanism kasvatuses: Humaanne väärtuskasvatus tuginedes kunstile. Juhendaja: Tiiu Kuurme. Retsensent: Orest Kormašov.
- Eve Lumi. Sepisristid. Jüri, Jõelähtme ja Harju-Jaani kirikuaias ning kalmistul 19.saj lõpust kuni Teise maailmasõjani. Juhendaja: Kersti Markus. Retsensent: Orest Kormašov.
- Malle Maarits. Näidisülesannete kogu töötamiseks makulatuuriga kunstiõpetuse tundides Juhendaja: Krista Aren. Retsensent: Anu Purre.
- Anneli Viilup. Kontseptuaalse kunsti õpetamine läbi konstruktivistlike meetodite. Juhendaja: Heie Treier. Retsensent: Kai Kaljo.
- Alisa Jakobi. Disaini õpetamine gümnaasiumis. Juhendaja: Krista Aren. Retsensent: Orest Kormašov.
- Aire Perk. Maakunst ja selle käsitlemise võimalusi kunstiõpetuse tundides. Juhendaja: Tiiu Kirsipuu. Retsensent: Linda Elken.
- Meeli Lõo. Mitmeid Eesti põlvkondi mõjutanud mänguasjadest ja mängust. Juhendaja: Kai Kaljo. Retsensent: Linda Elken.
- Kaidi Kruus. Animatsiooni õpetamine koolis. Juhendaja: Kai Kaljo. Retsensent: Renee Aua.
- Vladlena Semenova. Puitarhitektuuri teema kunstitunnis (Balti regiooni puitarhitektuuri näitel). Juhendaja: Orest Kormašov. Retsensent: Renee Aua.
- Laura Mägi. Vastuolulise kunsti käsitlemine üldharidusliku kooli kontekstis. Juhendaja: Kai Kaljo. Konsultant: Karolina Kiil. Retsensent: Margot Kask.
- Sille Pütsepp. Kunstnik Bridget Riley teoste kasutamine 4.-6. klassis opkunsti õpetamisel: veebipõhised õppematerjalid. Juhendaja: Anu Purre. Retsensent: Margot Kask, MA
- Alina Krasnova. Figuuri kujutamise metoodika põhikooli (VII-IX klassi) ja gümnaasiumi õpilastele. Juhendaja: Renee Aua. Retsensent: Orest Kormašov.
BA (NB! töödel pigem praktiline, kui teoreetiline iseloom)
- Oksana Andrjuštšenko. Maal “Aita mind!”. Juhendaja: Orest Kormašov. Retsensent: Renee Aua.
- Kärt Hennoste. Installatsioon “Foobia”. Juhendaja: Sofi Aršas. Retsensent: Tiiu Kirsipuu.
- Mikk Herde. Maal “Paraadportree”. Juhendaja: Orest Kormašov. Retsensent: Renee Aua.
- Angel-Airshe Indre. Maal “Saatuslikud naised”. Juhendaja: Renee Aua. Retsensent: Margot Kask
- Karin Kogerma. Fotograafia. Juhendaja: Margot Kask. Retsensent: Heie Treier.
- Kadri Kotkas. Keraamika. Sõlemuster-dekoratiivtaldrikud. Juhendaja: Jaana Kormašov. Retsensent: Kadri Jäätmaa.
- Tarmo Kübard. Utoopia kontseptsioonid. Juhendaja: Renee Aua. Retsensent: Margot Kask.
- Ebe Lindorg. Lasteraamatu illustratsioon. Juhendaja: Margot Kask. Retsensent: Renee Aua.
- Mari Lipp. Videoinstallatsioon. Juhendaja: Kai Kaljo. Retsensent: Margot Kask.
- Lyzell Lohvart. Keraamika. Pinnaseproovid kivististest tulevikus. Juhendaja: Jaana Kormašov. Retsensent: Kadri Jäätmaa.
- Andreas Luigas. Graffiti. Juhendaja: Renee Aua. Retsensent: Kai Kaljo.
- Maris Oosalu. Dekoratiivvormid – kivid . Juhendaja: Jaana Kormašov. Retsensent: Kadri Jäätmaa.
- Anne-Ly Raid. Maalid “Vihmamets”. Juhendaja: Renee Aua. Retsensent: Orest Kormašov.
- Kristjan Paur. Koomiksi ja žarsi žanr “Meie elu päevad”. Juhendaja: Linda Elken. Retsensent: Renee Aua.
- Annika Saar. “Minu pere”. Juhendaja: Krista Aren. Retsensent: Margot Kask.
- Kristel Sergo. Lend (foto). Juhendaja: Margot Kask. Retsensent: Kai Kaljo.
- Kristel Soidra. Klaasobjekt “Tulevikunaine”. Juhendaja: Sofi Aršas. Retsensent: Tiiu Kirsipuu.
- Tiia Tallo. Maal. Juhendaja: Orest Kormašov. Retsensent: Lilian Mosolainen.
- Katrin Talvi. Maal “Telliskivi tänav”. Juhendaja: Renee Aua. Retsensent: Kai Kaljo.
- Raido Valk. Modernse ökomaja projekt. Juhendaja: Linda Elken. Retsensent: Krista Aren.
- Taavi Vaikmaa. Multidistsiplinaarne kunstiprojekt. Juhendaja: Linda Elken. Retsensent: Margot Kask.
- Anneli Vatter. Portreed “Otsevaates”. Juhendaja: Renee Aua. Retsensent: Lilian Mosolainen.
reede, oktoober 15, 2010
Interview with James Elkins, vol 1
KTKDK presented: "Intensive graduate seminar: Art, art history and visual studies: contemporary problems and concepts of research and writing"
20. - 22. September 2010
Prof. James Elkins, School of the Art Institute of Chicago
----------------------
On one very gloomy morning (wind+rain), during mr. Elkins`s 3-day stay in Tallinn, we went walking to Tallinn Zoo, 3 graduate students and James Elkins. Mr. Elkins had special interest to animal movement patterns, that he wanted to observe, but unfortunately we didn`t see almost any animals or in fact, we didn't see anything remarkably interesting at all. But afterward we did this interview. Plus another one - more about art criticism - which will get published here soon too. Extracted version of this interview vol 1 is published at local cultural weekly Sirp (and Elkins is there the cover star of this week!). Questions and photos by Maarin Murky.
This isn't your first visit to Tallinn – can you tell a little bit when was the previous time and in what matters were you here?
It was about three years ago and it was Peeter Linnap from Tartu who invited me. I didn't know where Tartu was, I came from some long trip and I came in late at night and Peeter picked me up and said that we are going to drive to Tartu. I was thinking it will take something like 15 minutes! (laughs) So I was in Tartu for couple of days, met people at academy. Time I spent in Tallinn was only day and a half, Heie Treier was the person who showed me around. At this time there was big controversy about this memorial and now I see this big ugly monument is ready on Freedom square! It`s very fascistic. It`s a little bit rocky and reminds this constructivist monument other side of the square (Independency Clocks by Leonhard Lapin – MMurky). So it`s very unlucky monument, most of the people would think it belongs to the Third Reich, it looks like a Nazi monument.
Yes, we all have also noticed that problem. Except our government.
Žižek would say that your government knew exactly what it was doing.
I don't want to think further this line! Lets go back to academy-field! When you were mapping current state of Kunstwissenschaft, then you pointed out that there isn't many texts written about how this discipline operates, how is it doing what it is doing etc. This kind of self-reflectiveness is more widely common among scientists for example?
Yes, comparison is very true compared to science. There is enormous amount of literature trying to describe what makes science scientific. There is philosophy of science and history of science, arguments about what constitutes as hypothesis, as an experiment, falsifications etc. Karl Popper for example and all that stuff has existed for long time. Even in other humanities there is this kind of literature - literary criticism and -philosophy has lots of discussion what would comprise as interesting reading, theories of close reading for example what I'm interested in. There is active debates in art science but in art history – there is almost nothing, only around 6-7 papers written about this. Longer is one essay from Oskar Bätschmann and a book by David Carrier called „Principles of Art History Writing“. But this book is very eccentric in relation to discipline too, so very few people read that. He also says himself in this book that he knows that whats he is doing is unusual.
Most art historians don't want to think that their discipline has any useful rules. That would take away from freedom that you need to interpret any artwork, artworks are all different etc, it would be kind of dogma.
There is of course in and outside of art history literature about individual methods – semiotics, psychoanalysis etc. What is missing is mega theory, larger theory, an account how do you move from one theory to another and under what circumstances you choose theories. How do you know Jaques Lacan is right person for you to use? There is no meta theory like that. That's why art history is in state that art historian writes that „now I finished with my semiotic interpretation and now I will use ethnological interpretation“. That's the problem.
So Kunstwissenshaft has kind of disadvantage among other disciplines?
It depends how do you use this word. If you use it in terms of iconography, then it is, and method, more or less discussed, more or less defined – then you don't have those issues.
You pointed out comparative analogy between 4 fields: Kunstwissenschaft: art history : : Bildwissenschaft: visual studies. Could you open this a bit more?
Kunstwissenschaft in some of its older senses is identified with Panofsky`s style and iconography, so it is kind of a prehistory to contemporary art history in two senses: first, it is still one of the methods that is used, and second, because it`s the progenitor of what people say we are all decent. Bildwissenschaft is much more recent, but now people like Horst Bredekamp in Berlin are claiming that it has been around much longer, from the beginning of century and he is identifying people like Alois Riegl and Aby Warburg who were using this already. So now there is this sense that there was thing called Bildwissenschaft earlier as 20th century, so it is taken as some sort of predecessor of visual studies. I actually don`t think it`s so important issue, although I'm lecturing about it. Just interesting is how people who are in visual studies, they know that they are doing something what hasn't been around for long time and they feel they need deeper history so they keep inventing different genealogies for themselves.
But yes, more important here is Kunstwissenschaft`s relation to visual studies. What is happening right now is studies of mass media and advertising are threatening art history. And only reason why those people in visual studies need to look back in history is because they are coming in university space where art history is accepted discipline.
In your lecture you also mentioned art history melting into visual studies?
This is what is happening worldwide right now. One reason why I keep getting invitations to lecture is that I'm being asked to be a doctor to come and save art history department because they feel threatened by visual studies. (laughs) This has been going on like 15 years or so. Every time university starts offering courses on something like television people will go there and not to analyzing Michelangelo. Sooner or later it will be crises. And even aside from all those academic questions what philosopher do you prefer, where does the history of your discipline go – aside from those, what most people look today is TV not Michelangelo. So whole cultural heritage art history represents is under threat. And in addition to that are academic battles over methodology issues and art history is loosing. It can be either good thing – Michelangelo could be used in interesting new ways or it`s a horrible thing because next generation don't know anything about old churches for example.
So you personally see this process as tragedy or new possibilities opening up or?
Its both. Art history still has most thorough articulated set of possibilities for interpreting art than any other discipline. But if art history would be forgotten, because everyone like Žižek then that's a problem. It`s a historical loss. One of the examples I like to use with this is woman who writes art criticism in Toronto, she wrote this lovely newspaper piece that talks about how they came with their friends late at night out of club and passed by art museum which had Henry Moore sculpture in front of it and they noticed someone has crashed the car onto it – it had little bit of white paint on it and oil on the street. So she wrote about this in her art magazine column, which is about visual culture criticism. But she doesn't care about Henry Moore, she even doesn't care if its scratched, its just a funny thing that got oil on it. This is the attitude art historians get nightmares about.
More about Bildwissenschaft - what fascinates you most about Bildwissenschaft, its totality? In sense that if you rethink concept of image, it also means redefinitions of all concepts involved – language, perception etc. So it means creating a new filed.
Again there are two answers. Bildwissenschaft as German term is a name for certain practice in German speaking practice and in Scandinavia, but it`s not known in the rest of the world. In North-America Bildwissenschaft is basically unknown, in English speaking countries most texts are not published; same for Spanish speaking countries. So Bildwissenschaft is complected and it means different things in different contexts, but all in all still it`s small. For example in China where they have visual studies (named in China's terms of course) they take students out to historical sites so they could appreciate them. It has nothing to do with visual studies and Bildwissenschaft. So this is one answer.
The other answer is that if you rethink concept of visual you definitely rethink all other concepts in art history. It has required lots of work in order that art history would stretch itself to encompass performance art etc, whatever has happened during last four decades. So visual studies is even beyond those. You need to use language of advertising etc but you also need to think and invent what images are in general. And for example I'm interested in images in science so you have to go more broadly than this even.
But visual studies and Bildwissenschaft are not really doing their work, most work is being done in philosophy.
In discussion about Bildwissenschaft and also about Western – non-Western connections you are asserting that we shouldn't leave problematic concepts/or historically dominated trajectories out – like does post-colonialism, which focuses mores „on the other side“. So challenge seems to be in expanding, not excluding concepts?
I can give you double answer again.
You know by the way there are philosophers who have obsession about certain numbers, like Hegel was all about three, and I have decided that Jacques Ranciere, everybody love now, has always answers in fours and I think I read somewhere that Lacan said that subconscious can read pass six.
Yes, so there is two issues here. About post-colonial and that's a pity we haven't spoken much about this – Estonia is paradigmatic post-colonial, it`s been repeatedly post-colonial, all these theories should match perfectly. Post-colonial writing is predominant way for people who want to address specific local art practices around the world. If you are looking for Birma modernism articles on that you see that most of them are written during last 10-15 years by post-colonialist theorists. There is art history but most articles are about post-colonial. Post-colonial theory is all about identity construction, national, regional, local, glocal, so post-colonial theory isn't aimed to art objects in terms of their art content. That's the big problem for art history and art criticism, it`s like mixing oil and water – you can do it, but if you leave them to be, oil and water separate so you have two discourse again.
The other issue here is linked to book I just finished – „Chinese Landscape Painting as Western Art History“. It`s a full-length study of Western art historical appreciation of Chinese landscape painting. First art historians went there and made those big eurocentric claims, most famous one that China never had Renaissance, so they never became modern. They were keeping saying that Han dynasty is Modernist and the Quin dynasty is Baroque and things like that. Then they became aware of that and they stopped doing that, but then there was long period of where art historians still permit themselves to use criteria for those periods, but not period names. Like Ming dynasty period artists are „dynamic“, which is Baroque criteria. So the point of my book is that people become more and more sensitive trying to adapt what they know what they recognize to be Western, they try to avoid everything they can identify as Western projection but they can never finish this active avoidance because underlying motifs of studying are Western, art history structures are Western. Art history hasn't come into terms with that that sensitivity cant solve this problem.
So I have eccentric definition of non-Western – art practice is non-Western if art history book that is written in this area requires references to Paris, Rome, London, New York in order to tell their story. Poland in that sense is non-Western, Estonia is definitely non-Western. This way of thinking has direct effect on pedagogy, because when you become a teacher how do you present this material without making references? How far can you go – can you do without talking about Duchamp? So if you can, then paradoxically you are Western, because all machinery of art history is Western. So if you can relay on Other narrative then you are Western, not some kind of other exotic non-Western.
One of the most common ways has been adding new qualities. I think best example is Czech Cubism, and what makes Czech Cubism different from Picasso in late 20-30s, is that they add „spirituality“. But this is just inaccurate, scholars will say immediately that there is spiritualism – whatever that is – in Picasso's work too!
You propose eight ways what to do with artists, who are locally significant, but fall out of map of dominating understanding of modernist art. What from those do you see as most potential?
Again there is two answers. In terms of potential the best possibility would be uniting discourse with theory. But in the end it is lots of false solutions, because it differs the questions of scientific work. For me the best solution I have thought is – and I'm imagining this book, which I mentioned I cant finish writing, something like „Painting from 1900-2000“ – that every chapter in this book would start with page long glossary, everything used in this chapter. Example could be Chilean Cubism, which is very good example of modernist culture that had no Cubism. So if you talk about Cubism in Chile you can`t mean very much. So my best solution so far would be to ask the readers to suspend their disbelief to the length of the chapter that they know what these terms mean. To suspend their disbelief that Cubism could mean nothing but a formal arrangement. Because if you don't do something to rework those mental concepts then I think everything is inaccurate from the beginning.
One of your filed of interest is non-Western and Western understandings and (mutual) dealings with art history, it`s basic concepts or what could be something like art history in different context. For me it seemed that there is sense of hopelessness in your writing about possibility to overcome this deep „lost-in-translation“ gap.
Yes, it`s pretty hopeless (laughs). You really don't see happening use of non-Western concepts or methods. I would actually like to make interview with Krista Kodres that if she had all the students she ever wanted and they all were brilliant students and in 20 years – what would happen. If you get 20 Estonian PhD every year, all publishing, in 20 years you would have 400 art historians and thousands of pages texts – what would it be? Would that be Estonia as new theory capital to where people would come to study new amazing theories? Or would it be Estonia as equal player in the field of the most advanced application of theories like Jacques Ranciere reading? Or would it be some unforeseeable new richer kind of art history that everyone want to read? It`s not clear to me where the integration of theory leads. So yeah, quite pessimistic, why not.
Do art historians need theory and what is the relation between art history and theory?
The straightforward answer is that you don't need to know that you are using theory in order to be using theory. Especially very traditional art historians who do nothing but identify saints and their legends, of course they have theory too. This is somethings post-structuralism has taught us that there is no such thing as text without theory. So really the question is that would art history texts be more interesting or perhaps more truthful or relevant if the author NAMES the theory. There is no easy answer, but the simplest answer is that trivial; weather or not the person names the theory or not. And it even may be trivial that art historians notice that they have a theory. There is this kind of architecture historian we used to call pillar and post historian – most possible conservative historian type who goes and measures pillars and posts. But of course there is theory there too – that theory is positivist theory that goes back to 19. century German theories.
So most responsible answer to your question is, that no, it doesn't matter, because theory is always in the work.
Then, slightly different answer would be also no, it also doesn't matter, but in this case because it`s often a fiction that you can control a theory. Often theory is superficial in order what is being tried to interpret, so mentioning Jaques Lacan isn't always necessary, because argument can precede without it. Or the other possibility is that historian is not in control of theory, so they are just using a little part of it or another part so it is not actually example of the theory. In Chicago where I teach I like to make distinction about learning Lacan as you would do in art history or how you would do in universities other departments. The use of terms is so different. So in that sense theory is also not important because it`s not controlled.
All of that is on one side. On the other side are arguments why theory is important, that has more to do with international community. If you don't engage some name of theory to your text which has something to do with local theory, then people from different contexts don't have particular reason to read your text. Unless they visit Tallinn, then they of course read the texts. But if they are not visiting and not studying Estonian art then only reason they have to read your text is that you might have interesting use of the theory. So theory is extremely important for international communities. So from my point of view it would be the only very important reason why theory is important.
What are your reflections about Estonian art historian community you have met here? You also collected all the seminar participants abstracts about their research and gave individual feedback to those.
I think it`s fairly typical for smaller or medium sized countries. Lot of your education (and I'm just basing this on my tiny little experience, reading few pieces of articles translated into English) is about objects, I don't want to use word conservative way, because it`s meaningless in this context, but traditional object-based education. And then you come to certain level, there comes a question how to incorporate the theory. So theory comes to you from outside. This is of course changing now.
The opposite would be in large countries and universities that by the time you finish your college degree you already had maybe three years when you have seen artworks through theory. There is lot of courses where you first read Foucault and then discover Velasquez`s „Las Meninas“, not the other way around. The book I wrote on this subject („Our beautiful, dry, and distant texts: art history as writing“) I draw a distinction about normal art history and what`s being called a theory. I just call it „normal“ because statistical average shows that most of the journals are not about theory. So in this book I argue that not only normal art history is suffused with theory in a normal post-structuralist thinking of text but it actually has – because it`s older – more expectations, protocols etc than theory texts. In that sense theory texts are more simple. Sometimes I get into discussion with people who write theory texts and they say they could write „this conservative way“ too but I think no, actually you couldn't. You are not capable for that because there are rules for that and they come with long experience. These texts are often very rich, and I'm using this term spider web here. The most primitive spiders just make a line and wait insects to get stuck in there. If they get better they build those irregular webs you can see on basement. And as evolution progress then in the middle of web would come little platform and most evolved spiders built symmetrical webs. Irregular web is like normal art history – no clear structure, no clear direction, but in there often is some kind of platform that keeps you interested as a reader. Complexity of artwork is all around you and complexity of text is all around you it`s very immerse if you are fly – you are in big trouble. But the opposite to that is contemporary art theory driven art history text, which has beautiful symmetry, but complexity of historical situation is often missing.
Connections between art historian communities worldwide – it`s also demonstrating gap between Western and non-Western? Also concerning for example your coming here as star of international art historian/art theorist community? How to really connect during those kind of shortly – timed situations when clearly we here are happy that person like you has found time?
Let`s start an anti-theory-colonialist movement! To stop large colonial invasions of people in search of theory, exotic art examples or even of people like me in search of international examples too, sometimes there is good reasons to stay local!
reede, oktoober 08, 2010
Öö disaini kaisus
Siinkirjutaja keskendub eelkõige Disainiöö näitustele, kuna programm oli tihe ja mitmekülgne, haarates endasse lisaks näitustele ka seminare, loenguid ja konverentse, töötubasid, disainioksjoni ning -turu, filmiesilinastuse, samuti ka teatri- ja moeetendusi. Seega pidasin mõistlikumaks keskenduda ühele valdkonnale põhjalikumalt kui kirjutada kõigest natuke ja lõppkokkuvõttes öelda mitte midagi mitte millegi kohta. Niisiis. Disainiöö keskuses - Rotermanni kvartalis - oli võimalik külastada viit disaininäitust: „100 meetrit disaini“, „Kudum ja vilt“, „Outside the Box“ ja „Dutch Bike Fantasy“, lisaks oli eksponeeritud näiteid Eesti kultuuriplakatist. Arhitektuuri- ja disainigaleriis võis näha 2010. aasta Bruno disainiauhinna nominentide disainilahendusi, A-Galeriis oli üleval näitus „Imeline kaos“, Hop Galeriis „Side minevikuga“, lisaks toimus näitus-müük Lühikese Jala Galeriis ja Hektor Light´is. Üritan liikuda üldisemalt konkreetsemale, üldpildilt peenematele detailidele, tuues üldmuljete taustal välja kõige meeldejäänumad disainilahendused, mida ma endamisi „Disainiöö pärliteks“ nimetan. Külastades neid ülalpool loetletud näitusi, võib tõdeda, et öös tõepoolest on asju – Disainiöös täpsemalt. Ja pealegi väga mitmekülgseid. Oli disainiesemeid, mis olid ultramoodsad ja ilmselt oli neis rakendatud tehnika viimast sõna. Näiteks hollandlaste näitusel „Dutch Bike Fantasy“ võis näha traditsioonilise rattakonstruktsiooniga harjunud jalgratturile ulmelistena tunduvaid lahendusi (kasvõi lamamisjalgratas). Hollandlaste puhul on selline rattadisain täiesti asjakohane, kuna tegemist on rattahulludega, võiks isegi öelda, et jalgratastel on oluline osa nende linnaruumi kujunduses. Tekibki küsimus, kuidas sobituks selline rattadisain Eestisse? Oleme selle koha pealt ehk veel liiga konservatiivsed, eelistades vanu häid retro-jalgrattaid? Potentsiaal uuendusteks on olemas, sest ka Eesti oma disainerid pakkusid Bruno disainikonkursi raames välja omapoolseid ideid kaherattaliste sõidukite disainiks. Näiteks Andres Uibomäe stiilne mootorratas Renard GT tekitaks tõepoolest tahtmist proovisõitu teha. Siinkohal ilmneski disaininäituste probleem – näitustel eksponeeritakse disaini, mis on loodud kasutamiseks. Näitusekeskkonnas jääb puudu aga just nimelt reaalsest kontaktist esemega ja peab leppima disaineripoolse kasutamisjuhendi lugemisega. Samas polnud kadunud ka rohelise mõtteviisi propageerimine – näiteks jällegi hollandlaste näitus „Outside the Box“, mis koosnes esemetest, mille loomisel oli kasutatud odavat, kättesaadavat ja kergesti töödeldavat materjali – pappi. Eelpool mainitud hollandlaste rattafantaasias oli oma koht ka taaskasutusel, välja oli pandud erinevaid esemeid, mis olid jalgrattaosadest valmistatud (oli esemeid alates rattakummidest valmistatud käekotist kuni velgedest ehitatud lühtrini). Taaskasutusel baseerus lisaks näitus „Kudum ja vilt“, pakkudes kudumist ja vildist rõivaid, mis oma tegumoelt just innovaatilisteks ei saa pidada (isegi sõna „moodne“ tundub siinkohal liialt pretensioonikas). Mind on alati vaevanud küsimus – miks siis, kui tegu on kudumitega, kaldutakse vanaema riidekapist inspireeritud tegumoode eelistama? See on mingi üleüldine veidrus, mis on iseloomulik ka käsitööajakirjadele. Nagu ikka – ei saa öko ilma etnota. Niisiis ei puudunud ka Disainiöö näitustelt vähem või rohkem rahvuslikust ornamendist inspireeritud kujundid. Vahel tahaks järjekordse ökoetno peale kätega peast haarata ja küsida: kaua võib? Oleks siis tegu uudse lahendusega, kuid tihtipeale jääb etno-lahendus pinnapealseks, disaini puhul siis vaid dekooriks (ka öko puhul on tihti tegu vaid hüüdlausega, mis sisule ei vasta). Siiski tuleb tunnistada, et oli ka pilkupüüdvaid lahendusi – Anne-Liis Leht ühendas taaskasutuse ja rahvusliku mustri purunenud veinipokaali jalast tehtud sõle näol. Tallinn 2011 sõnumiviija Estonian Airi lennuki Oskari puhul on etnograafiline element õigustatud, suureks plussiks on ka moodne lähenemine, põimides mustrisse lennuki- ja pääsukesemotiivid. Rohelist mõtteviisi propageeris nutikalt aga näiteks Elna Kaasik oma taaskasutatavast paberist tehtud valgustiga. Mis mulle tõesti meeldis, oli puidu kasutamise rohkus. Kas ei võikski jätta rahvuslikku dekoori tagaplaanile ja pöörata rohkem tähelepanu Eestile nii omase materjalile – puidule? Näiteks olid väga vinged Karl Annuse puidust prilliraamid. Üldse jäidki mulle „100 meetrit disaini“ näituselt silma Tartu Kõrgema Kunstikooli õpilaste puitesemed. Need olid kuidagi stiilsed ja hubased ja mõnusalt puidused. Ka Elmet Treier pakkus välja puidust objekte, tema loomingut iseloomustaks lisaks väljend „nutikas disain“, mille näiteks oleks karp, mis on tegelikult pink, mis sisaldab endas haamrit ja jalgu; või siis plokknagi, millel on sisse-välja klõpsutatavad nagipulgad. Nutikat disaini leidus veelgi, tundus, et paljud disainerid olid lähtunud ütlusest: kus viga näed laita, seal tule ja aita. Nii oli ehk Veiko Liis saanud oma piimapakihoidja jaoks inspiratsiooni elust enesest, sest kellel poleks olnud probleemi kilepakis piimaga, ka Julia Maria Künnapi laste söögitool „Mari“ sündis igapäevasest vajadusest laps söögilaua taha istuma panna. Kuigi disaini puhul peetakse oluliseks aspektiks eseme funktsionaalsust, ei saa jätta märkimata ka lihtsalt kauneid lahendusi. Näitusel „Side minevikust“ näitasid leedulanna Severija Incirauskaite-Kriauneviciene ja eestlanna Monika Järg, kuivõrd kaunis võib olla tikand ootamatus kohas. Ka Eeva Käsperi klaaskiiged „100 meetrit disaini“ näituselt mõjusid oma hapruses väga elegantsetena (arutlesin endamisi, kas need ka kannavad ja kuulsin teisigi selle üle arutamas). Lõpetuseks võib öelda, et Disainiöö on igati tänuväärne üritus. Näitusel kajasutuvad Eesti disainimaastiku hetketrendid, samas kerkivad vanade tuntud tegijate kõrval esile noored ja andekad disainerid. Lisaks pakuvad hoolikalt disainitud esemed mõnusat vaheldust meid argipäeviti ehk liiga tihti ümbritsevale hallile masstoodangule. Kuid tuleb tõdeda, et endiselt lasub Eesti disaini kohal suur mure – miks ei rakenda Eesti ettevõtjad meie oma disainerite loomingut? Ja küsimus „miks?“ kõlab siinkohal sama südantlõhestavalt kui Ladina-Ameerika seebikate „Porque?“ Severija Incirauskaite-Kriauneviciene Monika Järg Kristi Ringkjob ja Anne-Liis Leht Heidi Solo Kommentaare Facebookist: - No minule näiteks ei meeldiks helkurit kanda märgina. Helkuri funktsioon tuleb välja läbi rippumise ja rappumise, mis hakkab valgushelgis tööle. Antud juhul on vaja märk kinnitada nii mõlema varruka peale, selja peale, ette, et sellel ka vastav funktsioon oleks st. elupäästev. Rinnas aga lihtsalt märgina kaotab funktsiooni helkurina... - Seeliku ja mantli serv ripub ja rapub ka, aga see eest ei jää märk trolli toolide ja uste vahele kinni... Jaanus Orgusaar Kommentaare Facebookist: - väikese modimisega saab sellest ka väga ässa laelambi - ärgem siis unustagem, et igas õiges eesti kodus on ka alessi sidrunpress, mandariinivaagen ja laavalamp, need saab kohe riiulisse suruda :P Reklaamiagentuur Divisioni kujundatud Tallinn 2011 lennuk Oskar Lamamisratas näituselt "Dutch Bike Fantasy" Papist tool näituselt „Outside the Box“ Plakateid graafilise disaini nurgakesest Elna Kaasiku ajalehtedest lamp Karl Annus Elmet Treier Elmet Treier Stella Soomlais, Marko Ala Mulk-lastetool! Autor välja! Raadiotool! Autor välja! 
23.−26. septembrini toimus Tallinnas V disainifestival Disainiöö, mille seekordseks alapealkirjaks oli „Disain teie teenistuses“. Nüüdseks on möödunud parajalt päevi, et nähtut-kuuldut rahulikult endas kanda ja toimunu üle mõtteid mõlgutada. Ühesõnaga - on aeg teha kokkuvõte! Disainiöö näitustest ja eesti tootedisaini hetketrendidest kirjutab Triin Loks.
Triin Loks
Andres Uibomäe
Kommentaare Facebookist:
- maipõrnikad vesiiri!
Maarja Mõtuse Võru `82, Disainiauhind Bruno parim disainiprojekt
Veiko Liisi voldikkann kilepiimale, Disainiauhind Bruno parim tootedisaini kategoorias
Kommentaare Facebookist:
- Ja mul on koju soetatud samast sarjast hapukoorehoidjagi!
