Кабинети чудеса у свету уметности

Abstract

The main subject of the here presented research is the relationship between heritage and artistic value, and their mutual conditioning in the context of contemporary artistic practice that draws from historical models of collecting. Determined like this, the problem is formulated through the premises of the history of collecting, as well as of those brought by museological theory of value and the interpretive theory of art. The use of the concept and aesthetics of the cabinet of wonder, a model of collecting practice originally related to the Renaissance period, is recognized in certain works of modern and contemporary art, and the significance of this phenomenon in the contemporary art world is pointed out. The first part of the book is dedicated to the consideration of the cabinet of wonder as a special kind of historical model of collecting. Following the origin and development of these collections from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment period answers to the issues of which objects were collected and why; of what did collection mean to its owner; and finally, of what were the reasons for creating it, are searched for. In order to do so, the terms that make up the phrase cabinet of wonder are interpreted; possible literary bases and spatial models that indicate what criteria such collection needed to meet are recognized; and the paths of its change over time, based on the alternation of value systems and attitudes towards knowledge, from its beginnings to finally being suppressed and transformed into a modern museum institution, are tracked. Although there are different terms for conceptually more or less similar collections emerging at this time, the cabinet of wonder, that is, the curiosity cabinet is a particularly important determinant for further research. While the cabinet, once a showcase, chamber or entire castle 262 | Кабинети чудеса у свету уметности filled with various objects, will later in modern and contemporary art be recognized as a medium, box or installation that occupies the room or the entire living space of the artist, the notion of wonder will offer several layers of meaning for this historical model of musealization. Namely, the nuanced difference between the notions of the wonderous and the miraculous suggests the wonderous as astonishing, one that surprises and seduces by encouraging the collector to further research and collect, i.e., the visitor of the collection to wander its chambers and discover new objects placed in, for today’s perception illogical, chaotic relations. This hidden wandering refers not only to physical journeys in the era of great discoveries of new continents, but also to the mental wanderings through chambers of each individual mind and the curiosity that objects provoke when discovering them. It is of pivotal importance to understand the cabinet of wonder as a collection of objects in which the collector tends to gather all the knowledge of the world in one place, to represent his image of the world, and to position himself as sovereign within it. Following the conclusions of Eilean Hooper Greenhill, and her application of Foucault’s epistemes to the collector’s relationship to objects in the collection, we can follow the development and transformation of curiosity cabinets from seemingly chaotic collections of both natural and artificial creations, to increasingly organized collections in which objects separate over time, eventually transforming into a disciplinary museum. In the era of rationalism and the Enlightenment, there was no space for collections full of inexplicable objects that would entice the collector to continue wandering and collecting as curious objects as possible, accumulating them within his own setting. At that time, attention was focused on clear classifications, taxonomies, listing in tables and creation of Encyclopedia. During this period, Western Europe and North America forgot about the cabinets of wonders, while modern museums, ideologically conceived representative institutions, were slowly coming to the limelight. Further research seeks to prove that concepts of this historical phenomenon were afterword used in art for clear reasons, while the history of the museum institution was written in parallel. Paradoxically, the cabinet of wonder, a forerunner of the modern museum became a kind of medium for artists’ expression, serving to present anti-museum ideologies and to criticize the museum institution itself. Furthermore, comparisons are sought for between this historical model of musealization, which has long been surpassed at that time, and art works created in the first half of the 20th century. Concepts used and presented in the model(s) of the historical cabinet of wonder are compared with the methods of creating artworks and the attitudes of modern artists towards the purpose and understanding of art. The beginning of the 20th century brings as well the first open anti-museum ideologies that appear both in theory and even louder among avantgarde artists who oppose this institution and the ideology it represents. In their manifestos, avant-garde artists defy order and strive to explain everything. They advocate for the presentation of the subconscious as chaotic and incomprehensible; call for the return to the wonderous and the creation of the curious; and introduce various objects into their works occasionally suggesting even symbolic meanings and aesthetics of former curiosity cabinets. On the other hand, in this same period, after almost 200 years since the interest in this model of musealization dimmed down, the first texts dealing with the phenomenon of the Renaissance Wunderkammer appeared. Following the conclusions of art historians and theorists on one hand, and manifestos of artists and their works on the other, it can be concluded that the works of modern artists reveal certain characteristics of the cabinet of wonder. Certainly, using the medium of collage, assemblage, ready-made and even some of the first installations, modern artists will announce the later reminiscence of the curiosity cabinet in contemporary art practice. Observing the form and meaning that artists give to their assemblages, the relationships in which they place different objects when constructing ready-mades, but also observing the collections of avant-garde artists, parallels between the works of modern artists and historical curiosity cabinets are established. Thus, this book gives special attention to the study of the Venice Biennale in 1986 and the segment of the exhibition curated by museologist Adalgisa Lugli called “Wunderkammer” on one hand, and to the establishing of a box as a medium on the other. Namely, after actively studying historical models of collecting in the second half of the 20th century, Lugli created open parallels between the Renaissance cabinet of wonder and the works of surrealists and Dadaists. Between, the miniature curiosity cabinet in the chest of drawers familiar to Renaissance man, was similarly used by two modern artists, Marcel Duchamp and Joseph Cornell, in a medium of box representing personal universes. A special aspect of this research is the relation to the concept of value in the context of collecting objects and defining this concept in art theory, museology as well as on other social levels. Therefore, in the second part of the book, the notion of the value of an object, as an integral part of a collection (cabinet of wonder) is problematized from the positions of anthropological theories, museology, i.e., heritology and memory culture theory, but also of economics and finally institutional and interpretive art theory. This transdisciplinary view was contextualized through a study of the entire Biennale of Contemporary Art in Venice in 2013 with a special focus on the Encyclopedic Palace exhibition curated by Massimiliano Gioni. Inspired by the cabinets of wonders and all that they provoke both on the historical level and within modern and contemporary artistic production on one hand, but also inspired by Hans Belting’s theory on the anthropology of image on the other, Gioni offered a space in which all the mentioned problems set in this research could be recognized in a form of an exhibition. We could encounter artworks referring to the renaissance art of memory, represented in theaters of memory and collections – images of the world of their owners. The aspiration of modern artists to explain the subconscious and embody their dreams through illogical juxtapositions of objects similar to those oppositions of objects in the curiosity cabinets was present in some works as well. Additionally, many contemporary artists tendentiously used their knowledge of the museum and art history to criticize the museum institution and its position, announcing together with contemporary museum theorists its’ end in the traditional form. Finally, works done by non-artists, the outsiders of the art market where also included in this show while the curator of the Encyclopedic Palace was trying to make an ephemeral museum of everything at the Biennale. The third part of this book is dedicated to the extensive analysis of artists-collectors in Serbia from the second half of the 20th century until today. Therefore, the work of Leonid Šejka, one of the first local wanderers through urban landscapes, but also through the piles of trash, an artist who collected everyday objects and incorporated them into his works, is analyzed in more detail. After pointing out that his entire opus, both visual and literal, corresponds to the embodiment of the personal cabinet of wonder through the aforementioned collecting, return to Renaissance ideals, a whole group of succeeding artists-collectors of everyday objects is analyzed. Over time, these artists have built their own way of artistic research through wandering and collecting everyday objects and creating ready-made objects and installations. The work of artists-collectors from the 1990s onward in Serbia is considered in the context of artists as preservers of repressed and neglected memories embodied in found objects; as critics of dominant or given value systems and policies; and, finally as opponents of the instrumentalization of museum institutions and as advocates for the idea of a museum set through concepts and settings similar to the to the cabinet of wonder. Finally, it is concluded that the utilization of the cabinet of wonder as a medium in contemporary art and exhibition practice is a conscious decision of artists – collectors and curators – who by appropriating such a setting, give multi-layered meanings to their work. While modern artists have announced such tendencies using concepts characteristic for Renaissance collections, contemporary artists openly express themselves appropriating the medium of Wunderkammer (the forerunner of the modern museum) because of: the desire to preserve personal memories, to represent their identity and to freely create their microcosm; simultaneously expressing their desire to use this medium as a means to criticize the modern museum institution, as well as to flirt with the ruling value systems; the aesthetically pleasing form of such a setting.

Predmet ovog istraživanja je odnos između baštinske i umetničke vrednosti, te upucćivanje na njihovu medjđusobnu uslovljenost u kontekstu savremene umetničcke prakse koja se oslanja na istorijske modele kolekcioniranja. Ovako određdjen predmet temelji se na premisama istorije kolekcionarstva, te na muzeološkoj teoriji vrednosti i interpretativnoj teoriji umetnosti. Upotreba koncepata i estetike kabineta čcudesa, modela kolekcionarske prakse vezanog izvorno za period renesanse, prepoznaje se u odredjđenim delima moderne i savremene umetnosti, te se izvode zaključci o značenjima ovakve pojave u savremenom svetu umetnosti. Prvi deo monografije je posvecćen sagledavanju kabineta čcudesa kao posebne vrste istorijskog modela kolekcioniranja. Pratecći nastanak i razvoj ovih kolekcija od renesanse do perioda prosvetiteljstva, teži se odgovorima na pitanja kakvi su predmeti sakupljani i zašto, te šta je kolekcija značcila svom vlasniku i koji su bili razlozi za kreiranje iste. Stoga se tumačce znacčenja samih termina koji sačcinjavaju sintagmu kabinet čcudesa, zatim mogućce literarne osnove i prostorni uzori koji upućcuju na to koje je kriterijume svaka ovakva kolekcija trebalo da zadovolji, te kako se sa promenama sistema vrednosti i odnosa prema znanju kroz vreme ona menjala dok najzad nije potisnuta u ovom obliku i transformisana u modernu instituciju muzeja. Iako postoje različiti nazivi za konceptualno manje ili više sličcne kolekcije koje nastaju u ovo doba, kabinet čcudesa odnosno, kabinet kurioziteta jeste posebno znacčajna oderednica za dalje istraživanje. Dok ćce kabinet nekada vitrina, odaja ili cčitav zamak ispunjen najrazličcitijim predmetima kasnije u modernoj i savremenoj umetnosti biti prepoznat kao medij, kutija ili pak instalacija koja zauzima celu sobu ili ceo životni prostor umetnika, pojam čcudesa, ponudićce nekoliko slojeva značcenja izuzetno značcajnih za razumevanje ovog istorijskog modela muzealizacije. Naime, fina razlika izmeđdju pojmova čcudesnog i čcudnog sugeriše na čcudesno kao zapanjujucće, ono koje iznenađuje i zavodi podstičcucći kolekcionara na dalje istraživanje i sakupljanje, odnosno posetioca kolekcije na dalje lutanje njenim odajama i otkrivanje novih predmeta postavljenih u, za današnju percepciju nelogičcne, haotičcne odnose. Ovo skriveno lutalaštvo odnosi se ne samo na fizička putovanja u eri velikih otkrićca novih kontinenata, vecć i na mentalno lutalaštvo odajama svakog pojedinačnog uma i radoznalost koje predmeti kurioziteta izazivaju prilikom susreta sa njima. Dalje, važno je razumeti kabinet čcudesa kao zbirku predmeta u kojoj kolekcionar želi da okupi sve znanje sveta na jedno mesto, da predstavi sliku sveta onako kako je on vidi, te i sebe pozicionira kao suverena u okviru nje. Pratecći zaključcke Huper Grinhil, te njenu primenu fukoovskih epistema na odnose kolekcionara prema predmetima u kolekciji, možemo pratiti i razvoj i transformaciju kabineta čcudesa od naizgled haoticčnih zbirki kako prirodnih tako i artificijelnih tvorevina, do sve uređdjenijih kolekcija u kojima se predmeti vremenom odvajaju, sve dok se iste najzad ne transformišu u disciplinarni muzej. U eri racionalizma i prosvetiteljstva nije bilo prostora za zbirke pune neobjašnjivih predmeta koji ćce mamiti kolekcionara da dalje luta i sakuplja što čcudesnije objekte nagomilavajucći ih u svojoj postavci. Tada je pažnja bila usmerena na jasne klasifikacije, taksonomije, te popisivanje u tabele i stvaranje Enciklopedije. U ovom periodu Zapadna Evropa i Severna Amerika zaboravljaju na kabinete čcudesa dok na scenu polako dolaze moderni muzeji, ideološki koncipirane reprezentativne vladarske institucije. Dalje istraživanje teži da dokaže da su koncepti ove istorijske pojave primenjivani u umetnosti sa jasnim razlozima, dok se istorija institucije muzeja ispisivala paralelno, te dok je paradoksalno, kabinet čcudesa sa jedne strane postao pretecča modernog muzeja, a sa druge strane svojevrsni medij koji cće umetnicima služiti i za predstavljanje antimuzejskih ideologija i kasnije kritiku upravo institucije muzeja. Nadalje, tražene su komparacije izmedjđu ovog istorijskog modela muzealizacije u tom trenutku većc dugo potisnutog, i određdjenih dela nastalih u prvoj polovini 20. veka, odnosno poređdjeni su koncepti prisutni u istorijskom kabinetu čudesa sa načcinima kreiranja dela i odnosima modernih umetnika prema svrsi i poimanju umetnosti. Počcetak 20. veka donosi i prve otvorene antimuzejske ideologije koje se javljaju kako u teoriji, tako još glasnije medjđu avangardnim umetnicima koji oponiraju ovoj instituciji i ideologiji koju ona zastupa. Avangardni umetnici u svojom manifestima prkose redu i težnji da se sve objasni, zalažu se za predstavljanje potsvesnog kao haotičcnog i neshvatljivog, povratak cčudesnom, odnosno za proizvodnju zacčudnog, te uvode različcite predmete u svoja likovna dela sugerišucći povremeno čcak i simobličcna značcenja i estetiku nekadašnjih kabineta cčudesa. S druge strane, u istom ovom periodu, nakon skoro 200 godina od prestanka interesovanja za ovaj model muzealizacije, pojavljuju se i prvi tekstovi koji se bave fenomenom renesansnog kabineta čcudesa. Pratecći sa jedne strane zaključcke istoričcara i teoretičcara umetnosti, a sa druge strane i same manifeste i objave umetnika, te njihove radove, možemo dokazati da u delima modernih umetnika možemo pronacći određdjene karakteristike kabineta čcudesa. Svakako, moderni umetnici kroz medij kolaža, asamblaža i redimejd objekte, pa i prve instalacije, najavljuju kasniju namernu reminiscenciju kabineta cčudesa u savremenoj umetničkoj praksi. Posmatrajucći formu i znacčenja koja umetnici daju svojim asamblažima, odnose u koje oni postavljaju različite predmete kada konstruišu redimejd, ali i posmatrajućci same kolekcije avangardnih umetnika, uspostavljaju se paralele izmedjđu radova modernih umetnika i istorijskih kabineta čudesa. Posebna pažnja posvecćena je stoga studiji venecijanskog Bijenala 1986. godine i segmentu izložbe koji kurira muzeološkinja Adalđiza Lulji, a koji se i zove „Wunderkammer“, ali i nastanku medija kutije. Naime, nakon što se u drugoj polovini 20. veka kroz teoriju aktivno bavila izucčavanjima istorijskih modela kolekcioniranja, Lulji na pomenutoj izložbi po prvi put pravi otvorene paralele izmedjđu renesansnog kabineta čcudesa i radova umetnika koji su pripadali pokretu nadrealizma i dadaizma izlažućci kako jedan kabinet retkosti, tako i dela modernih umetnika. S druge strane, dok je minijaturni kabinet čcudesa u komodi poznat renesansnom čcoveku, dvojica modernih umetnika upravo kroz ovaj medij predstavljaju ličnce univerzume na nacčine veoma sličcne komponovanju renesansnog kolekcionara – kreatora – Marsel Dišan i Džozef Kornel. Poseban aspekt ovog istraživanja jeste odnos prema vrednosti, a u kontekstu kolekcioniranja predmeta, te definisanje ovog pojma kako u teoriji umetnosti i u muzeologiji, tako i na drugim društvenim nivoima. Zbog toga je u drugom delu monografije problematizovan pojam vrednosti predmeta, sastavnog dela kolekcije (kabineta čcudesa) sa stanovišta antropoloških teorija, muzeologije, odnosno heritologije i kulture sećanja, kao i ekonomije, te najzad u kontekstu institucionalne i interpretativne teorije umetnosti. Ovo transdisciplinarno gledište kontekstualizovano je kroz studiju celokupnog Bijenala savremene umetnosti u Veneciji 2013. godine sa posebnom koncentracijom na izložbu Enciklopedijska palata koju kurira Masimilijano Đoni. Inspirisan upravo kabinetima čcudesa i svime onime što oni izazivaju kako u istorijskoj ravni tako i kod modernih i savremenih umetnika sa jedne strane, ali inspirisan i teorijama Hansa Beltinga o takozvanoj „antropologiji slike“, Đon nudi izložbu koja gotovo da sumira sve probleme otvorene tokom ovog istraživanja u svim segmentima. Od renesansnog umecća pamćcenja čcija su pravila otelovljena u teatrima memorije i kolekcijama – slikama sveta svog vlasnika, preko težnje modernih umetnika da svoje snove i potsvesno objasne čcudesnim i otelove kroz alogičcna jukstaponiranja predmeta nalik onim suprotstavljanjima objekata u kabinetu čcudesa, do savremenih umetnika koji tendenciozno koriste svoja znanja o istoriji muzeja te kroz medij kolekcije – kabineta čcudesa, instituciju muzeja i njen položaj danas kritikuju najavljujucći zajedno sa savremenim teoreticčarima muzeja njen kraj u onom tradicionalnom obliku, do uključivanja radova ne-umetnika, diletanata i autsajdera u institucionalizovan svet umetnosti i time uzburkavanja umetničckog tržišta, kustos Enciklopedijske palate pokušava da napravi efemerni muzej svega na Bijenalu. Trećci deo monografije posvecćen je ekstenzivnoj analizi umetnika-kolekcionara u Srbiji. Stoga se podrobnije istražuje stvaralaštvo Leonida Šejke kao svojevrsnog lutalice gradskim pejzažima ali i prostranstvima đdjubrišta, koji sakuplјa predmete svakodnevice i inkorporira ih u svoje radove. Nakon što je ukazano da celokupan Šejkin rad odgovara otelovlјenju ličcnog kabineta čcudesa kroz navedeno kolekcioniranje, povratak renesansnim idealima, kao i literarni i likovni izraz, analizira se čcitava grupa umetnika-kolekcionara predmeta svakodnevice, istraživačca buvlјih pijaca na koju su odredjđeni Šejkini stavovi i nacčini izraza veoma uticali. Ovi umetnici vremenom su izgradili sebi svojstven nacčin umetničckog istraživanja kroz lutanje i sakuplјanje predmeta svakodnevice, te kreiranje redimejd objekata i instalacija od istih. Stoga, delovanje umetnika-kolekcionara od devedesetih godina prošlog veka na dalјe, a na prostorima Srbije, razmatra se u kontekstu umetnika kao baštinika potisnutih secćanja otelovlјenih u nađdjenim predmetima, kritičcara dominantnih odnosno zadatih vrednosnih sistema i politika, te najzad oponenta samoj instrumentalizaciji institucije muzeja i povratnika ideji muzeja kroz koncepte i postavku nalik nekadašnjem kabinetu čcudesa i svest o znacčenju ovog istorijskog modela muzealizacije. Upotreba medija kabineta čcudesa u savremenoj umetnosti i izlagačckoj praksi, zaključcuje se, svesna je odluka umetnika – kolekcionara i kustosa koji prisvajanjem ovakve postavke svojim delima daju višeslojna znacčenja. Dok su moderni umetnici upotrebom koncepata karakterističnih za renesansne kabinete cčudesa najavili ovakve tendencije, savremeni umetnici otvoreno se izražavaju kroz medij kabineta čcudesa (pretecču modernog muzeja) zbog: želje da očcuvaju ličcna secćanja, predstave svoj identitet, odnosno kreiraju i prezentuju svoj mikrokosmos; želje da upravo upotrebom ovog medija kritikuju modernu muzejsku instituciju, kao i da koketiraju sa vladajucćim sistemima vrednosti; estetski zadovoljavajućce forme ovakve postavke.