Būti dalimi: dalyvavimas ir bendradarbiavimas Lietuvos šiuolaikiniame mene

LTŠios knygos idėja gimė stebint, kaip žmonių santykiai virsta noriai minkomu moliu Lietuvos meno scenoje. XXI a. pirmas dešimtmetis: ŠMC TV laidos naktiniame eteryje žongliruoja bendradarbiavimo pažadu; „Pro-testo laboratorijoje“ prie „Lietuvos“ kino teatro buriasi menininkai ir aktyvistai; kolektyvinis laisvalaikis verda improvizuotuose „Flash baruose“; Alytaus meno streiko bienalės meną iškeičia į antikapitalistines monstracijas, trišalį futbolą, vyno degustacijas ir kitas profesionalizmą boikotuojančias veiklas... Šiuos projektus sieja dalyvavimo idėja – kad patys žmonės, jų santykiai ir veiksmai, o ne reprezentacijos gali būti tiesioginė menininko darbo medžiaga ir kūrinys. Dalyvaujamieji projektai labai nutolsta nuo vizualiojo meno ar juolab dailės įprasto apibrėžimo – ir vis dėlto puikiai jaučiasi ir meno institucijoje, ir socialinėje sferoje. Knygoje apnuoginamas šis dvigubas dalyvavimo praktikų gyvenimas: narstomi meno istorikų ir praktikų disputai, analizuojama, kuo skiriasi bendražygiai, bendrininkai ir bendrautojai ir kas sieja dalyvaujamąjį meną bei postfordistinę produkciją, svarstoma, kodėl šiuolaikiniam menininkui tokia svarbi kalba ir kaip gandai gali būti dokumentacijos forma. Čia nagrinėjami Artūro Railos, Algio Lankelio, Dariaus Mikšio, Nomedos ir Gedimino Urbonų, Vitalijaus Červiakovo, Andriaus Rugio, MirjamWirz, Redo Diržio, Kristinos Inčiūraitės ir kitų menininkų projektai, kuriuos jungianti laiko linija tęsiasi per tris pastaruosius dešimtmečius. [Leidėjo anotacija]

ENMy journey towards this book started back in the summer of 2007. While visiting “documenta 12”, I went into a book¬shop and, with a slight hesitation, bought Nicolas Bourriaud's “Relational Aesthetics”, published in English in 2002. I had encountered the term relational aesthetics before, but that was when I was studying languages, literature and, later on, Greimasian semiotics, so the concept didn't really spark my interest back then. However, by 2007, I was already considering doctoral studies and Bourriaud's text planted the idea in my head that participatory practices might one day become a relevant research topic for me and for others. During those years I had the chance to closely observe how human relationships became a popular material on the Lithuanian art scene as well: Pro-test Lab (2005); sound, clothes and food sharing cycles Workshow (2004-2006); Flash Bar, a series of pop-up bars in the city (2006-2008); The Alytus Biennial (later called Alytus Psychic Strike Bi¬ennial), which started in 2005 and exchanged the obligation to make artworks for football and other forms of physical exercise, anti-capitalist pickets, wine tastings and other ac¬tivities that react against professionalisation of art; Arturas Raila had begun a project called Power of the Earth (2005-2012) which gave the stage to enthusiasts of traditional cul¬ture, researchers of energy fields, dowsers and the promot¬ers of national history; CAC TV programmes broadcasted on TV in 2004-2007 had been actively manipulating the idea of collaboration etc. In short, the research environment was sufficiently rich. The possibility of working in the arts, but with a subject matter as restless and chattery as human relationships, sounded like the perfect combination for me (after all, I had considered sociology, philology and art for my undergraduate studies).At the interview for the doctoral studies program at the Vilnius Academy of Arts I was asked: So what is your goal? What are you aiming for by writing about participato¬ry practices? Do you expect to come and enlighten us? No, it was never my intention to become a prophet; that role is usually filled by artists and curators. I think I mentioned evaluative criteria when answering. And it was in fact quite a significant issue back then. The term participation was spreading like a virus in the vocabulary of artists, curators, gallery owners and critics. It had become quite common to talk about participatory art as a certain genre or movement even though it is clear that the differences between partic¬ipatory practices, the goals artists try to achieve by engag¬ing in them, and the contexts in which they take place (art institutions or the social sphere) make it impossible to find a common denominator and place them all under one um¬brella genre. Terms such as participatory, collaborative and relational in exhibition texts were often used as epithets, without delving into the kind of participation that was dis¬cussed, what it provided to the structure of the artwork, or its presentation and reception. [...]. [From the publication]