The modern “spatial turn” in humanities and social sciences has launched an interest in problems of space related to the phenomenon of nationalism. The basic concept through which the spatial issues are being investigated in the nationalism studies is territory, which is understood as a delineated space shaped through relations of power. Already the very definition of nationalism as a modern form of sovereignty contains a clear reference to the spatial dimension. Namely, in order to define the sovereignty of a nation, with a possibility of establishing a nation-state, one has to demarcate the reach of the national territory which would belong to the nation. This paper critically evaluates the approaches which analyse national territory as an instrument of violence and a factor of identity. Within the discourse of nationalism one can identify two different groups of arguments regarding the appropriation of territories by the nation: the natural and the historical. Natural arguments are already clearly presented in the writings of Johann Gottfried Herder and they are based on an assumption that there is an organic link and congeniality between the natural and geographical features of the land, and the characteristic features of a nation. On the other hand, the historical arguments are based on the claim that a certain territory represents a nation’s place of birth, or that it had belonged to the nation in a certain significant point in history. Discourses of nationalism regularly encompass different strategies and mechanisms of space representation, with a purpose to show that the national territory is an organic whole, as well as an indivisible and inviolable entity.
The paper considers subversive capacities of spaces in which art works are exhibited (museums, galleries) or spaces which they occupy (public spaces). This text is analyzing the spatial situations – interventions – artifacts coming from three different periods of time (Bernini’s Ecstasy of Saint Teresa, the art practice of an American artist, Gordon Matta-Clark – precisely his 1975 work Day’s End, and the work of a Columbian artist – Doris Salcedo’s Shibboleth, exhibited in the Turbine Hall of the Tate Modern Gallery in 2008) and trying to determine their subversion values examining their real/actual/manifested subversion strength in relation to ideologically false or “fake” subversions. And, finally, the main objective is to explore the subversion of these artworks in the hindsight of Freud’s Das Unheimliche where he made a point that “something is terrifying not because it is unfamiliar, but because something that was known to us somehow became strange and unfamiliar”.
By examining the role of exhibition pavilions with a particular focus on the World Fairs and the Venice Biennale (including visual arts and architecture), questions arise as to the nature and importance of the pavilions as a specific type of architectural objects. Having in mind that contemporary pavilions could be considered as architecture items or installations, boundaries between these two are questioned within this research. At what exact moment does something cease to be an architectural space in the classical sense of the term to become an art project? Pavilions are examined both as exhibition spaces hosting the content, and the content itself. Most probably the answer is somewhere in between and the pavilions are both exhibition spaces and the exhibits per se. They are very often small scale in size but are very important in idea.
This paper is about perfomative effects of cultural policies in two socio-political systems differing in concept, forms, establishment and maintenance of continuity but also in initiating transformations of the nationally significant cultural institution/event – the October Salon. Initially started as an exhibition of the best art accomplishments and soon a place to display modern trends in applied arts, the October Salon has been conceptually consistent, and almost resistant to change, for almost three decades. For the last two decades, however, the October Salon has been embracing changes, some of which have even been radical (like switching from national to international). Usually, these transformations were observed as a change of paradigms in modern art: mostly vertical (old/new) and rarely or quite frequently horisontal (contemporary differences). The impacts of ideological matrices on the deliberation, continuation and alternations of the October Salon and the micro-politics of the local art community were not considered or analysed.
This text presents some of the characteristics of space interactive installation, which can be recognized as elements of otherwise dense networks necessary for the existence of an interactive project. Production of spatial interactive installations in various non/commercial versions directly depends on the economic and other strenghts of the society, its technical and technological standards, structures of cultural and media policy, artistical patterns, etc. The attitude of the society towards a public, individual or joint action is also important. Interaction of these factors gives rise to a question for the creators, artists, audiences and participants as to how they perceive their position in the interactive process. Tran(spo)sitions will occur anyway in this area, regardless of how are defined “spaces” of our personal and/or shared existence.
The author considers politicity of installations and their topology. An installation, as much as any work of art in general, has its own exteriority, its interiority and its outside. The outside is determined as a virtual plane of immanence that grounds the categories of exteriority and interiority. The virtual is ground for the affectivity of an installation, which leads to consideration of the relation of virtual singularities and actualized state of affairs, the molecular and the molar. The politicity of installations lies in the cross section of the virtual and the actual, the molecular and the molar, the outside and the exteriority/interiority, the affect and the axiomatic of capitalism, and it offers potentially new ways of imagining different politics of the body and the subject.