IVAN ŠUKOVIĆ
Ostaci života - neupadljivi prikazi
NARODNI MUZEJ CRNE GORE
ATELJE DADO
Mimikrija, psihostenija1 i kratki-rezovi-po-životu
Foto i video instalacija Ivana Šukovića „Ostaci života - neupadljivi prikazi” prepoznaje
kao svoj „primalni glas“, kao svoj eho u blizini, slavnu dramu Luiđija Pirandela: „Šest osoba
traži autora“. Šest ljudi ili jednu porodicu umjetnik fotografiše raspoređujući ih, aranžirajući
najprije unutar ambijenta ispošćenog pejzaža od vode i kamena pa ih potom useljava u
zatvor-eni prostor prirodnjačkog muzeja, među preparirane životinje, prividno ih animirajući
ordinarnim radnjama, blagoslovom porodične svakodnevice. Video rad zumira donji dio tijela
žene, majke i njen ručni rad, pletenje, kao upornu, kontinuiranu radnju.
Ovim se radom uspostavlja jedno naročito trenje teksta i slike koje više ne obavezuje
na vjernost ni jednu ni drugu stranu; osvjetljavanje (ili sijenčenje) nekog intersticija između
narativnog i reprezentacijskog, tijela i prostora, individualnog i grupnog, privatnog i javnog,
memorije i sadašnosti, nekog međuprostora kao presijecanja ili usijecanja aura tijela, aura
ambijenata, aura događaja, aura vremena. Time se oslobađa neki njihov čudni, perverzni
egzistencijalni dodatak ili jedan manjak smisla kojim jedinka polako sagorijeva i izdiše svoju
personalnost i briše sebe kao aktivno, živo mjesto na mapi svijeta i događaja.
Od svih distinkcija, kaže Rože Kajoa, ne postoji oštrija i jasnija od one između organizma
i njegove okoline ili bar nigdje drugo iskustvo razdvajanja nije tako direktno. Na osjećaju
razdvojenosti i razlike od okoline temelji se i osjećaj personalnosti jedinke. Prema Kajoi, mimikrija
je fenomen umanjivanja ili brisanja razlika između organizma i njegovog okruženja sa ciljem
konačne asimilacije sa okruženjem. U slučaju Šukovićevog rada mimikrija, umanjivanjavanje ili
brisanje razlika između tijela/ljudi, jedne porodice i njihove nežive okoline, tijela prepariranih
životinja u staklenim kavezima prirodnjačkog muzeja, ne dejstvuje kao napadačka niti
odbrambena strategija, dakle, kao praksa egzistencijalnog pozicioniranja sopstva niti kao
panteističko, arkadijsko prelivanje svih formi postojanja jednih u druge prema Pitagorinoj
premisi da je priroda svuda jednaka. Takođe, ona ovdje nije u funkciji moćne sinteze:
kondenzovanja vremena, uzglobljavanja u jedan sklop i činjenja vidljivim, tjelesnim, onoga
što prethodi smrti i onoga što dolazi sa/za njom niti se ovdje nude kakve suptilne eshatološke
propozicije. Prema Kajoi, mimikrija ne ostaje uvijek na površini, nije pitanje samo adaptacija
forme na formu (homomorfija) već je kod nekih vrsta i slučajeva moguće ujednačavanje
biološke strukture. U ovim prizorima, ovim kratkim-rezovima-po-životu asimilacija sa znači
mimikrijsko poravnanje druge vrste ili sa one strane ili nešto više. Mimikrijske strategije kao
da ovdje stavljaju u pogon i živa bića i njihova (neživa) okolina upravo u međusobnom
suočenju i upravo zbog tog bliskog kontakta. Ovdje brisanje razlika nije cilj nego sudbina:
ono ne znači pribjeći, opstati, sačuvati nego zateći i zarobiti, otići nigdje, ostati na ničemu,
imati ništa. Ovdje mimikrija mutira i manifestuje se kao ambijentalizacija i postvarenje
živih ljudi u kontekstu mrtve prirode, odnosno, kao fantomsko, jezivo „oživljavanje“ mrtve
prirode, nežive okoline useljavanjem u nju privida normalnosti, običnosti i funkcionalnosti
„živih“ porodičnih rituala. Tek u prisustvu ljudi čija je egzistencija u stanju bolnog usporenja
nepokretne figure prepariranih životinja postaju čudno oživljene. Ovdje, dakle, ne postoji
„čista“ smrt kao sklonjeno, odsutno tijelo niti „čisti“ život kao tijelo/tijela koja vezuju i koja su
vezana smislom postojanja, oslobođena posjedovanjem volje i želje i mogućnostima izbora
kao moćima promjene.
1 Mimikrija i legendarna psihostenija naziv je čuvenog eseja Rožea Kajoa iz 1935. godine (Roger Caillos, Mimicry and
Legendary Psychasthenia, October The First Decade, 1976-1986, The MIT Press, 1987)
http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpcaillois.htm
Ovdje nema uspostave jasne, radikalne razlike, ultimativne opozicije (živo i neživo, život
i smrt) već samo teška pulsiranja niskih intenziteta (kao-življenja i kao-smrti) koji se, kao
takvi, uzajamno štimuju i uzajamno inficiraju i inkubiraju stanje međusobne identifikacije i
egzistencijalnog poravnanja. U pitanju je, rekao bi Kajoa, ozbiljni poremećaj odnosa jedinke i
prostora koji on markira terminom psihostenija a koji ovdje suštinski jeste pitanje opustošenja
prostora same personalnosti i samog postojanja. Moguć je kod ovih mimikrijskih strategija i
jedan gotovo patološki momenat koji pominje Kajoa: osim ili nasuprot instinkta samoodržanja
koji jedinku usmjerava prema životu, kod mimikrije može postojati i instinkt renuncijacije koji
orjentiše jedinku prema nekoj vrsti redukovane egzistencije koja, na koncu, neće poznavati ni
svjesnost ni emotivnost: samo stanje inertnosti élan vital.
U ovim prizorima grotesknog odigravanja porodičnih rituala i rola, teatra pod maskama
koji prikriva (i razotkriva) porodično nasilje koje zaudara na normalnost, takodje dejstvuje
(prvostepeno i dvostrano) ta perfidna dimenzija mimikrijskih praksi, taj efekat obostranog
virusiranja imobilnošću i deprivacijom jedinke i okoline. Efektom zaraze, ona zahvata porodično
okruženje i živo, plenerističko, pejzažno okruženje i kamerno, mrtvoprirodno okruženje javnog
mjesta, muzeja, da bi se iz te spoljašnjosti onda vratila, reflektovala na same individue, ljude,
upisujući se kao njihova tragička imanencija. Kao da je mrtva priroda ne samo njihovo prirodno
stanište, spoljašnje okruženje već posvojeni, unutarnji pejzaž, interiorizovani ambijent, njihov
ne memento mori nego modus vivendi!
Tako i staklo koje štiti eksponate u muzeju zadobija funkciju ogledala da se zapitamo ko se
zaista nalazi„iza stakla“, ko u koga gleda kao u sopstveni odraz kao u sliku svoga postojanja. Naime,
prozirno staklo ovoga enterijera muzeja-doma (zašto ne i staklo izloga, modernih zgrada-staništa,
okulara i ekrana) postalo je instrument u lancu anamorfoza, medijator uzajamnih identifikacija,
ono što reflektuje/verifikuje preklapanje figura sa obije strane u jedno, istovrsno postojanje.
Intersubjektivnost se premetnula u interobjektivnost kao načelo postojanja gdje se sve
ispostavlja kao živa postvarenost koja može samo da posmatra jedna dugu, onemogućena za
djelovanje, osuđena da u tom pasivnom gledanju vidi nepokretnost sebe. I u tom preklapanju,
tom egzistencijalnom poravnanju locirana je neupadljivost koju umjetnik pominje u naslovu
izložbe.
Jedini autor koji ovdje „nađen“, koji djeluje jeste vizuelni umjetnik ali ne da bi se uspostavio
kao graditelj zajednice, obnovitelj pokidanih veza već da bude onaj koji u tom teatru ogledala,
odbijanja i hvatanja refleksa i sijenki, u turobnoj igri identifikacija i depersonalizacija koju
će inscenirati sa protagonistima ove žalobne partije, samo kratko prikupi krhotine jedne
razbijene porodične slike. Umjetnik postaje forenzičar koji dijagnostikuje komemorativnu
dimenziju postojanja ljudi kojima je, kako kaže sam Pirandelo, „oduzeto pravo na život“.
Njihov univerzum nije lišen tvorca već stvaranja; samoostvarenje je ustuknulo pred porivom
samopostvarenja u kome postojanje nije ni odsustvo ni prisustvo, ni praznina ni punoća, ni
afirmacija života ni glorija smrti, samo nijemi horor međustanja i međupostojanja.
Autor-umjetnik ne „slika“ nađeno, zatečeno, slučajno nego sam konstruiše, aranžira, režira
prizore ali na takav način da nam se čini da se i nisu mogli drugačije „posložiti“, da nose pečat
neizbježnog, pečat bezizlaznog. Taj osjećaj fatalnog u prizorima ispisuju ili upisuju i sami mediji
(fotografija i video) čije sile umjetnik tako angažuje da sami počinju dejstvovati kao hibernatori
ovih privid-događaje i privid-ljudi. Tako se u punoj snazi aktiviraju bartijanska svojstva fotografije
kao povratka umrlog (ovdje i u funkciji ispraćanja živog) time se tautološki preklapajući sa samim
fotografisanim prizorima dovodeći njihovu žalobnu igru do stanja hipertrofije: „Fotografija…
predstavlja onaj vrlo osetljivi trenutak kada… nisam ni subjekat ni objekat nego pre subjekat koji
oseća da postaje objekat: tada doživljavam mikro-iskustvo smrti:… zaista postajem utvara“2.
2 Rolan Bart, Svetla komora, Beograd: Rad, 1993, 19
Ono što Paskal Bonicer imenuje „bezličnim fotografskim sadizmom“ ovdje forsira to
hladno, egzekutorsko ogoljavanje bezličnosti, bezosjećajnosti subjekta, njegovo „skliznuće u
ravnodušnost“(Bataj). Ono što Šuković još traži i dobija od fotografije, tragom tih tautoloških
preklapanja prizora i medija, jeste ekscentrično kadriranje3, odnosno dekadriranje. To je,
po Boniceru4, sadistička vještina, „frustrirajuća za posmatrača, osakaćujuća za ‘modele’…,
oličenje okrutne veštine, agresivnog i hladnog nagona za smrću“. Porodični portret u pejzažu,
u kamenoj dolini, postao je serija figura odrezanih u visini nogu, dakle lišenih personalnosti.
Tu je sama prirodnost i cjelovitost ili cjelovitost prirodnosti doživjela dekapitaciju. I izlazak u
otvoreni prostor neposredovane prirode nije mirni, familijarni užitak boravka u pejzažu pokraj
velike vode već laviranje na rubu velike, mrtve praznine koja kao da se neosjetno izliva i guta
same ljude naoko nedotaknute, stabilne u svojim pozama odglumljene bliskosti, postvarene
u stanju sopstvene nepokretnosti. Neke scene (majka koja plete, otac koji sjedi na obali vode)
ponavljaju se na nekoliko fotografija kao viđene iz različitih uglova; one, međutim, nisu znak
da su događaji i ljudi vezani jedinstvenim mjestom, vremenom, emocijom već da su svi oni
neke pokretne tačke, plutajući znaci koji bljesnu u nekom trenutku na nekom mjestu gotovo
slučajno, osuđeni da nigdje ne nađu smirenje. Ove fotografije više i ne razlikuju centar od
margine, žive ljude od mrtve prirode, organizme od okoline, puno od praznog, cjelovitost od
fragmentarnosti koja nestaje u nagonu implozije.
I u videu je dekadrirana figura, odnosno kadriran „komad tijela“ žene, majke, koji je u
funkciji radnje koju ona sprovodi, pletenja i ta radnja jeste ono što vezuje naš pogled i što
„prošiva“ sve ove prizore. Pletenje je jedina „živa“, tekuća radnja čija neprekidnost (produkt
moći samoga medija, videa) nije znak (moralne, životne) postojanosti žene, one koja plete
porodične veze, niti tradicionalnog situiranja i fiksiranja žene u privatni prostor porodičnog
doma. Ta i takva žena je ovdje „giljotirana“, lišena lica ne kao žrtva čiste mizoginijske egzekucije
već kao corpus delicti gubitka personalnosti koju je apsorbovala čudovišnost naoko ordinarne,
idilične kućaničke aktivnosti. Neprekidnost te radnje nije građenje, spajanje, preplitanje,
obnavljanje već postaje nemilosrdnost, nekorisnost, uzaludnost trajanja, jedno neumitno,
neuzaustavljivo curenje, osipanje i nestajanje koje ranjava sve ove prozore.
3 „Kadriranje je termin uzet iz borbe sa bikovima: on znači ‘zaustaviti bika prije nego što mu se zada smrtni udarac’“,
Paskal Bonicer, Slikarstvo i film, Beograd: Institut za film, 1998, 68
4 Ibid, 89
Tamo gdje se čini da je začudnost ovih prizora aranžirana prema obrascima koje izdašno
eksploatiše modna ili reklamna fotografija garantujući joj privlačnost, u pitanju je istovremeno,
međusobno uslovljeno i unakrsno povezano uobičavanje, pripitomljavanje, normalizacija,
odomaćenje smrti tamo gdje se regularno situira afirmacija života: u porodici, i očuđavanje,
artificijelizacija i paklena prolongacija života u tijelu/tijelom preparirane životinje, mrtve (s)
tvari. U ovim prizorima se prestupaju temeljne ontološke demarkacije: anestezirani a živi
(živi a anestezirani) ljudi animiraju preparirane životinje ne obećavajući život, ne živeći život;
preparirane životinje animiraju anestezirane, a žive ljude samo simulirajući besmrtnost.
Neka hladna i teška tišina impregnira ove prizore. Ona ne znači nijemo, nemušto opštenje
već stečenu nemogućnost govora, dakle, odsustvo kontakta i razmjene. Iz ovih scena nije
prognan govor nego se ne-govor, ne-opštenje uvuklo u ljude i inficiralo njihove odnose. Pokreti
i poze koji sugerišu govor, obraćanje, komunikaciju, emociju jesu samo prazna gesta; oni ostaju
jednako nijemi, osujećeni, zakinuti i ukinuti kao i životinje preparirane, aranžirane, podešene u
poze koje tužno prizivaju sjećanje na život, na nepovratno.
Kao što svako tijelo-eksponat u prirodnjačkom muzeju kodira individualno, samo njegovo
vrijeme-mjesto čineći muzej heterotopijskom strukturom, tako i ljudi ovdje ne tvore porodicu
kao zajednicu vezanu osjećajem bliskosti i pripadanja već se prepoznaju kao rasuti fragmenati
subjektivnosti zaglavljeni u krhotinama istrošene bliskosti. Ovo i nije parikularizovana i-storija
kraha jedne, određene porodice već parabola o stradanju odnosa i osjećaja koji bi nas
uspostavljali, imenovali subjektom.
Igra šaha figurama od stakla, gotovo identičnim, na jednoj fotografiji, nije više mentalno
situiranje i precizno projektovanje svoje pozicije u odnosu na konstelaciju sila u okruženju
već samo besciljno kretanje u vakumu sadašnjosti u kome promišljanje poteza postaje samo
prazna poza, gledanje kroz figure, fantomska igra prozirnih slika i odraza koji ne nude mogućnost
uspostavljanja razlike, mišljenja drugosti, življenja promjene kao življenja sebe.
Svetlana Racanović
Mimicry, psychasthenia1 and short-cuts-of-life
Ivan Šuković’s photo and video installation Life remains – discreet scenes takes as its
“primal voice”, and shares close resonance with, Luigi Pirandello’s celebrated play Six Characters
in Search of an Author. The artist photographed six people, members of one family, posing in
the midst of a starving landscape of water and rock. Then he moved them into the closed
environment of a natural history museum, amongst taxidermied animals, which seemingly
became animated by the ordinary activity of the peaceful family everyday. The video is a
static medium shot of the bottom part of the woman’s body, the mother, and her handiwork,
knitting: a diligent, constant activity.
This piece sets a particular friction between text and image where faithfulness is no longer
demanded of either of them. It illuminates (or outlines) an interstice between narrative and
representation, body and space, individual and collective, private and public, memory and
present, an in-between-space that is at the point of intersection or incision of aura of body,
aura of landscape, aura of event, aura of time. This frees their peculiar, perverse existential
excess or a lack of sense in which an individual slowly withers away, gives up its personality
and cancels itself as an active, living place on the map of the world and event.
“Among distinctions, there is assuredly none more clear-cut than that between the
organism and its surroundings; at least there is none in which the tangible experience of
separation is more immediate”, wrote Roger Caillois. It is on the sense of distinction, or
separation from the environment that individuals base their sense of being unique. According
to Caillois, mimicry is the phenomenon of reducing or cancelling the distinction between the
organism and its surroundings so that the organism assimilates the surroundings. In Šuković’s
piece, mimicry, reducing or cancelling differences between bodies/members of one family and
their surroundings, and the bodies of taxidermied animals in the glass cages of the natural
history museum, do not function as strategies of attack or defence, that is, as practice of
existential positioning of the self, nor as pantheistic, Arcadian flowing of all forms of existence
from one to another, according to Pythagoras’s premise that nature is everywhere the same..
Also, here nature does not function as a powerful synthesis, condensing of time, assemblage
and making visible, embodying, of that which comes before death and that which comes with/
after it, nor does it offer subtle eschatological propositions. According to Caillois, mimicry is
not always superficial, it is not always adaptation of form to form (homomorphy): in some
cases, and with some species biological assimilation has been noted too. In these scenes,
these shortcuts-of-life, assimilation with means mimicry, levelling of the second kind, or on the
other side. The strategies of mimicry here seem to be set in motion both by living organisms
and their (inanimate) surroundings through their facing each other and because of their close
contact. Here the cancellation of difference is not the aim but destiny: it does not mean to
overcome, survive or persevere but to trap and enslave, go nowhere, remain at nothing,
have nothing. Here mimicry mutates and is manifested as objectivation of living people
in the context of still nature, or as phantom, eerie “coming to life” of still nature, inanimate
surroundings by their being inhabited by the appearance of normalcy, ordinariness and
functionality of “living” family rituals. Only in the presence of humans whose existence is
in painful slow motion do the immobile figures of taxidermied animals become strangely
enlivened.
1 ‘Mimicry and Legendary Psychasthenia’ is the title of Roger Caillos’s famous 1935 essay. http://www.generationonline.org/p/fpcaillois.htm, accessed 18 November 2011
Here therefore there isn’t “clear-cut” death as removed, absent body nor “clear-cut” life as
body/bodies that connect, and that are connected by a sense of existence, liberated by the
fact that they have will, desires and choice, and agency to change. Here we don’t have clear,
radical difference, ultimate opposition (animate and inanimate, life and death) but only heavy
pulsation of low intensity (like-living, like-death) that mutually attune and mutually infect and
incubate the state of mutual identification and existential levelling. This is, Caillois would say,
a serious disturbance in the relationship between individual and space that he defined by the
term psychastenia, which is essentially the instance of shrinking of the space of individuality,
and very existence. These strategies of mimicry offer an almost pathological phenomenon
that Caillois quotes: “alongside the instinct of self-preservation, which in some way orients
the creature toward life, there is generally speaking a sort of instinct of renunciation that
orients it toward a mode of reduced existence, which in the end would no longer know either
consciousness or feeling - the inertia of the élan vital “.
In these scenes of grotesque play of family rituals and roles, theatre with masks that
conceal (and reveal) family violence that smacks of normalcy, what is also (primarily and
mutually) at work is the perfidious dimension of the practice of mimicry. Its outcome is
mutual infection with immobility and deprivation between individual and surroundings. By
the effect of contagion, it penetrates the family setting, as well as the living, plein air, natural
environment and the chamber, still life environment of the public space of the museum, in
order to return, reflect on the individuals, people, inscribing itself in them as their tragic
immanence. It seems as if inanimate nature is not only their natural habitat, their external
surroundings, but adopted, inner landscape, internalised ambience, not their memento mori
but their modus vivendi.
Just as the glass that protects the museum exhibits functions as a mirror which makes
us wonder who is really “behind the glass”, who is beholding whom as their own reflection,
as the image of their existence. Namely, the see-through glass of this museum-home (and
equally the glass of shop windows, modern buildings-habitats, lenses and screens) became
an instrument in the chain of anamorphosis, mediator of mutual identification, that which
reflects/verifies folding of both sides into one, equal existence. Inter-subjectivity switched
into inter-objectivity as a mode of existence where everything emerges as living objectivation
that can only observe one another, incapable to act, destined to recognise in that passive
looking its own immobility. And this folding, this existential levelling is where the discreetness
from the exhibition’s title is located.
The only author to be “found” here, the only agent is the artist – but he isn’t a community
builder, healer of broken connections but one that will pick up shards of the broken
family picture in that theatre of mirrors, reflections and shadows, the melancholy game of
identification and depersonalisation that he set up with the protagonists of this sombre play.
The artist will become a forensic investigator that diagnoses the commemorative dimension
of existence of people who have been, in Pirandello’s words, “denied the right to live”. It is
creation not creator that their universe is lacking; self-realization has recoiled before selfobjectivation in which existence is neither presence nor absence, emptiness nor fullness,
affirmation of life nor glorification of death, just a silent horror of the in-between-state and
the in-between-existence.
The creator-artist does not “picture” the found, given, random but constructs, arranges,
directs scenes in a way that it seems that they could not have been “set” in any different way,
that they are sealed by the inevitable, by the fatal. The notion of fatalism in these scenes
is also inscribed in the media used (photography and video), which are here employed to
inhibit these illusion-events and illusion-people.
This fully activates the Barthesian notion of photography as the return of the deceased
(here also departure of the living), tautologically overlapping with the photographed scenes,
bringing their sad game to the state of hypertrophy: “the Photograph… represents that
very subtle moment when…I am neither subject nor object but a subject who feels he is
becoming an object: I then experience a micro version of death…: I am truly becoming a
spectre”2. What Pascal Bonitzer calls “faceless photographic sadism” here brings forward
the cold, executioner-style stripping of personality, subject’s lack of emotion, its “lapse into
apathy” (Bataille). What Šuković further demands and gains from photography, along the line
of the tautological overlap of scenes and media, is eccentric framing, or deframing. According
to Bonitzer, deframing, a sadistic practice, “frustrating for the spectator and disfiguring for the
“models” (Bresson’s term [for actors]), is the response of a cruel mastery, a cold and aggressive
death-drive”3. The family portrait in the landscape, in the rocky valley, became a series of
figures cut below leg, thus deprived of part of their personality. The natural wholesomeness
or wholesomeness of nature have here been defeated. In the same way, their positioning in
the open space of pure nature is not the quiet experience of a family day out on the water’s
edge, but it appears as levitation at the edge of a great dead emptiness, that seems to
invisibly seep out and swallow people who seem untouched, stable in their poses of feigned
closeness, shattered by their own state of immobility. Some of the scenes (mother knitting,
father sitting at the edge of water) are repeated in several photographs, from different angles;
they however do not act as a proof that events and people share one place, time, or emotion;
they rather seem like moving points, floating signs that flash in certain moments at certain
places almost by accident, destined to never rest. These photographs no longer know centre
from the margin, living people from inanimate nature, organisms from the surroundings, full
from empty, wholeness from fragments that disappear in implosion.
In the video too we see a de-framed figure, or framed “piece of body” of a woman, mother.
She is knitting, and her activity is what locks our gaze and what “stitches” all the other scenes.
Knitting is the only “live” continuous activity which is uninterrupted (by the nature of the
medium of video): this however is not a sign of the woman’s (moral, experiential) constancy,
of the one that “knits” the family ties, nor traditional situating of the woman in the private
space of family home. This and such woman is here “guillotined”: her face has been taken
away from her not through the act of pointed misogynist execution but as a corpus delicti of
a loss of individuality that has been absorbed by the monstrosity of the seemingly ordinary
idyllic homemaking activity. The continuity of this action is not about building, connecting,
interlacing, regenerating but it becomes a duration that is merciless, useless, futile, irrevocable;
unstoppable seeping, scattering and disappearance wound all these scenes.
It seems that the sense of wonder of these scenes is modelled after fashion or advertising
photography, aimed a making the photographs attractive. However, we also encounter a
mutually conditioned and cross-connected effect of making ordinary, taming, normalising,
familiarisation of death at places where normally we would find affirmation of life, in the
family, and at the same time we find alienation, artificialization and hellish prolongation of
life in the body/through the body of taxidermied animal, inanimate object. These scenes
transgress fundamental ontological demarcations: the anesthetized yet living (living yet
anesthetized) people animate taxidermied animals, without promising life, without living
a life; the taxidermied animals animate the anesthetized, yet living human beings only
simulating eternal life.
2 Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, transl. Richard Howard. London: Vintage Books, 2000, pp.14
3 Pascal Bonitzer, “Deframings” [orig. 1978], in Cahiers du Cinéma, Vol.
4 1973–1978: History, Ideology, Cultural Struggle, ed. David Wilson. New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 198–99
A cold and heavy silence impregnates these scenes. It is not about silent, numb
communication, but an acquired incapacity of speech, lack of contact and exchange. Speech
is not evicted from these scenes: rather non-speech, non-communication has seeped into
people and infected their relationships. Movements and poses that suggest speech, address,
communication and emotion are but empty gestures; they remain equally silent, stunned,
stymied and thwarted like the taxidermied animals, arranged, adjusted into poses that
forlornly evoke memory of life, of irrevocable.
Just as every body-exhibit in the natural history museum codes the individual, only-itsown time and place making the museum a heterotopic structure, the human beings here do
not make family as a community connected by a shared sense of closeness and belonging:
they are scattered fragments of subjectivity trapped in the shards of emptied closeness.
This is not a detailed history of the ruin of one particular family but a parable of death of
relationships and feelings that established us, named us subject.
A game of chess with - almost identical – glass figures in one of the photos is not mental
situating and precise projection of one position in relation to the constellations of forces
around but aimless motion in a vacuum of the present in which contemplation of the next
move is just a vain pose, looking through figures, phantom play of translucent images and
reflections that don’t offer the possibility of establishing difference, thinking the other, living
the change as living oneself.
Svetlana Racanović
Fotografija | Photography, 60 x 40 cm
Ivan Šuković rođen 1981. godine u Titogradu.
Magistrirao na odsjeku Digitalne umjetnosti (Fakultet za medije i komunikacije, Beograd)
Diplomirao književnost na Filozofskom fakultetu, Nikšić
Sedam godina radio u medijima kao novinar i urednik za kulturu.
Angažovan je kao organizator umjetničkog programa u podgoričkoj galeriji Pizana.
Koordinator na programima u NVO Punkt i saradnik na časopisu za digitalnu umjetnost
Propeler.
Izložbe
Samostalna izložba, Galerija Art Klinika, Novi Sad, 2012
Samostalna izložba , Galerija Blackbox, Sarajevo, 2011
Samostalna izložba , Galerija O3one, Beograd, 2011
Kolektivna izložba, Body of digital, Budva Grad teatar, 2011
Izložba studenata FMK, Festival Mikser, Beograd, 2010
Ivan Sukovic born 1981, Titograd
MA from Faculty of Media and Communications, department Digital arts, Belgrade
Graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, department literature,
Niksic.
Seven years of work experience in journalism (journalist and editor for art and culture)
Engaged as organizer of art programs in Gallery Pizana.
Has been working on projects for NGO Punkt.
Member of editorial board Propeler, Magazine of digital art.
Exibitions:
Solo exibition, Gallery Art Clinic, Novi Sad, 2012
Solo exhibition, Gallery Blackbox, Sarajevo, 2011
Solo exibition , Gallery O3one, Belgrade, 2011
Group exhibition, Body of digital, City Theatre, Budva, 2011
Students exibition FMK, Festival Mixer, Belgrade, 2010
Izdavač: Narodni muzej Crne Gore | Za izdavača: Pavle Pejović | Tekst: Svetlana Racanović
Prevod: | Fotografija: | Dizajn: Branka Vujović | Štampa: DPC | Tiraž: 300
Cetinje, maj 2013.
Download

katalog ivan sukovic - GALERIJA ATELJE DADO