Kunsthaus Graz, Graz University

Post-Soviet Museums in the Era of Globalization Contemporary Art + Institutions International conference Friday, June 18 – Saturday, June 19, 2010 June 18, 10–18, June 19, 10–15 Kunsthaus Graz, Space04

Organized by Graz University in cooperation with Kunsthaus Graz Waltraud Bayer, Graz University; Peter Pakesch, Kunsthaus Graz Conference language: English

Kunsthaus Graz, Universalmuseum Joanneum, Lendkai 1, 8020 Graz T +43–316/8017-9200, Tuesday–Sunday 10am–6pm [email protected], www.museum-joanneum.at This text is published on the occasion of After 1990/91, with the end of Communist cultural the international conference policy, art museums in the former USSR were faced Post-Soviet Art Museums with stifling financial problems, new demands of an in the Era of Globalization Contemporary Art + Institutions abruptly emerging Capitalist market economy and

Friday, June 18 – the urgent need to restructure as institutions. Yet, Saturday, June 19, 2010 the dismal financial and institutional conditions

were accompanied by an unprecedented amount of intellectual-artistic freedom as well as by open bor- ders, unlimited access to hitherto unavailable (or tabooed) information, and direct contact with the Western art world. With traditional values and ideo- logical guidelines abandoned, new contexts, new territories, and new orders were explored. Museums proved receptive to global trends. This interdisciplinary conference will conquer new terrain – both thematically and methodologically. It addresses and analyses the fundamental transfor- mation process in the field of contemporary art – a process initiated by the now legendary auction organized by Sotheby’s in Moscow, 1988. The auction led to a politically motivated reassessment and com- mercial appreciation of art which until then had been associated with political dissent. The individual con- ference contributions will allow for a more nuanced knowledge and balanced analysis of the long, hard ‘walk’ through institutions during the 1990s and the growing reputation of contemporary art after 2000, notably after 2005, the steadily growing backing by official cultural policy as well as the increasing patronage by the new commercial elite. Program Session II: Saturday, June 19, 2010 Abstracts success and quick institutional reforms From Underground to a New at home. Years of hard, slow work fol- Territory of Contemporary Art Friday, June 18, 2010 Session III: Waltraud Bayer lowed in the 1990s. Despite the liberal 14:30–18:00 Museum Development: “From Perestroika to the Present – the cultural policy under Yeltsin and despite Chaired by Sandra Frimmel, Government, Business, People Session I: Vaduz Process of Institutionalization of Con- considerable foreign support (UNESCO, Entering the Global World 10:00–15:00 temporary Art in the Post-Soviet World” EU, foundations such as Soros, Ford, 10:00–13:00 Chaired by Marek Bartelik, etc.), success and setbacks went hand Chaired by Peter Pakesch, Graz Valerie L. Hillings, : New York The proclamation of perestroika in hand. Reconciling Two Histories: Nikolai Molok, Moscow: Peter Pakesch, Graz: Post-1953 Official and Unof- unleashed revolutionary changes in late Private or Public: Collectors vs. Welcoming address ficial Soviet Art in RUSSIA! and post Soviet culture that (among The conference focuses on political Museums other aspects) fundamentally trans- measures and private initiative taken to Sirje Helme, : formed the art and museum world of the establish sustainable cultural infra- Waltraud Bayer, Graz: Konstantin Akinsha, Museum Politics in Independ- From Perestroika to the Washington DC: ent , 1990-2010: USSR and its successor states. Cultural structure. It considers the creation of Present – the Process of Culture Wars: Art vs. Religion A Period for Adaptation policy was revalued and repositioned; departments of contemporary art in tra- Institutionalization of Contem- in Post-Communist Russia one of the immediate results was the ditional museums such as the Tretiakov porary Art in the Post-Soviet reassessment of and the Gallery, Moscow, the World Coffee Break Coffee Break publicly discussed rehabilitation of and the Hermitage, St. Petersburg. It those movements hitherto tabooed or draws attention to such bold projects as Alla Rosenfeld, New York: Closing discussion: simply neglected. The dual system of the Perm (Contemporary) Museum, National Identity vs. Globali- Yuri Avvakumov, Moscow: Sustainable Museum Infra- zation in Contemporary Art: Post-Soviet Museum and structure in the Post-Soviet official and unofficial cualture vanished the projected ‘Russian Bilbao’ in the The Russian Dilemma Exhibition Context, chaired by Waltraud practically overnight. What had been Urals. It concentrates on the strategic Bayer, Graz dubbed “other”, nonconformist or dis- function of the National Centre of sident art and what had been produced Contemporary Art (NCCA, 1992) and its Coffee Break Anna Zaitseva, Moscow: Art Institutions 2005–2010: 14:00–15:00 privately for private audiences was no systematic build-up of a national net- From the Moscow Biennale to Guided Tour of Kunsthaus Graz longer considered unofficial. On the work which as of now maintains several Marek Bartelik, New York: Apartment Exhibitions contrary, this art was now ideally suited branches in major Russian cities. In Dissemination and Reception of New Russian Art on a Global to represent the late USSR abroad. Con- addition, the conference considers the Scale: The Case of Ilya and Dinner 19:30 sequently, this reorientation was increasing relevance of international art Emilia Kabakov reflected in the changed exhibition and fairs and biennials (Art Moscow, Moscow museum policy. International biennial of CA since 2005) Lunch Break as well as the Russian representation 13:00–14:30 For the first time, the Graz conference at major analogous foreign events which project seeks to understand, describe, (were) are financed or co-financed by and analyze the process of institution- the Russian government. alization of contemporary art within a broad chronological frame. It comprises As a result, institutions instrumental in the past 20 years, from 1988/89/91 to training future art and museum special- 2010, starting with the commercial ists (universities, academies) gradually appreciation of nonconformist art as a acquired a new profile: they adopted result of the first international art auc- new aesthetic norms; they hired new tion organized by Sotheby’s in Moscow personnel (e.g. Ajdan Salakhova, Rus- in July 1988 and the promise to estab- sian Academy of Arts, RAKh). To be sure, lish a museum of modern art in Moscow. this process has only started and the The unprecedented success on the inter- main work has so far been carried out by national art market was, however, short privately founded institutions such as lived; it did not translate into market the Moscow-based Institute of Problems of CA (Iosif Bakshtejn) and several mas- Chronologically, the conference topic Alla Rosenfeld live in New York or Berlin and have a ter classes (established at NCCA and ends with the proclamation of cultural “National Identity vs. Globalization solo exhibition in Moscow. later at MMoMA). The latter ones were minister Avdeev in July 2009 to estab- in Contemporary Art: instrumental in addressing questions of lish a federal museum of new art in The Russian Dilemma” My presentation offers some tentative institutional critique and formulating Moscow on the premises of the NCCA. reflections on the complex and ambigu- alternative canons and structures. Globalization is generally identified as ous role of globalization in post-Soviet The aim of the conference is to shed the acceleration and intensification of visual culture, seeking to address ques- In the Russian context, the interrelation light on the process of the institution- interconnectedness among the people, tions such as the following: Has con- between market, art and politics is alization of CA over the past 20 years by financial enterprises, cultures, and gov- temporary Russian art expanded its pur- especially close. Be it the sponsoring of drawing on new empirical data, an inno- ernments of different nations, stemming view, or has it remained more localized art events by the new economic elite, vative theoretical approach and the from advances in transportation, com- in its vision? If some Russian artists corporate collecting, privately-run gal- interdisciplinary expertise of interna- munication, and information technolo- have successfully transformed their cul- leries, donations – contemporary art is tional experts in art, culture and gies. This interconnectedness has, tural difference in order to enhance their widely dependant on private initiative museum studies, architecture, as well in turn, given rise to the political, eco- international art-world appeal, does it and corporate wealth. After 2004/5, as curators and art critics. Based on this nomic, and cultural convergence of mean that their art has lost its distinc- this close interrelation has become even approach, the conference seeks to ana- nations formerly separated by ideologi- tive national identity, its innate Rus- more influential. lyze the peculiarities of the post-Soviet cal and other differences – a striking sianness? Do those Russian artists who development in relation to the overall contrast to the bipolarity that divided emigrated to the West enjoy a special One aspect to be discussed is the international trends. East and West during the years of the “national” distinction in the international increasing role of religion especially that Cold War. While some writers antici- art market, or are they simply consid- of the Orthodox Church and groups affil- pated that globalization would lead to a ered international contemporary artists iated with it. Notably since 2003, reli- homogeneous global culture, the last much like, for example, their American, gious and political lobbying groups act decade has shown that this notion, like French, or German counterparts? Gener- as censor incriminating contemporary art other cultural and sociological theories ally speaking, can the traditional coexist (see the court cases against the organ- on the subject, did not hold true; the alongside the effects of cultural globali- izers of the exhibitions “Caution, reli- world today, as before, is far from uni- zation? gion!”, also “Forbidden Art”, Russia 2) fied. My lecture will demonstrate how impor- Besides, the conference addresses the The careers of various contemporary tant Russian émigré artists such as Erik role of the city administrations, for Russian artists dramatically illustrate Bulatov, Vitaly Komar and Alexander instance the foundation of the Moscow one of the leading effects of globaliza- Melamid, , Leonid Museum of Modern Art by mayor, Yuri tion: individuals’ increased access to Lamm, and Leonid Sokov have preserved Luzhkov, and the president of the art countries or cultures that were formerly the roots of their indigenous Russian academy, Zurab Cereteli, a politically inaccessible, due to ideology, geography, culture, albeit with varying degrees of prestigious but (until most recently) or a combination of the two. Some Rus- attachment to their native cultural con- publically much criticized project. In this sian artists, for example, have American text. These artists consider themselves respect, it is useful to compare develop- green cards or hold dual citizenship – both a part of the post-Soviet art scene, ments in other Soviet successor states, Russian and American, or Russian and as well as participants in the interna- notably the former Baltic republics European. And through enhanced tional discourse on contemporary art. which quickly and visibly responded to opportunities for international network- new international trends after 1990/91. ing, numerous Russian artists have The foundation of KUMU, Tallinn, Esto- established contacts with foreign gal- nia, was a milestone in this develop- leries that are now representing them ment and is thus represented here. and their work. Indeed, the art world has become so de-centered that nowadays it’s not unusual for a Russian artist to Marek Bartelik Valerie L. Hillings changes that altered how the material Konstantin Akinsha “Dissemination and Reception of New “Reconciling Two Histories: Post-1953 was presented. While the members of “Culture Wars: Art vs. Religion in Russian Art on a Global Scale: Official and Unofficial Soviet Art in the curatorial team were able to correct Post-Communist Russia” The Case of Ilya and Emilia Kabakov” RUSSIA!” some of the perceived problems of the New York presentation, they still Conflict between contemporary artists This presentation will focus on the In 2005, a team of Russian and Ameri- encountered some irresolvable chal- and religious activists, often supported reception and dissemination of works by can curators was assembled by the lenges in bringing together official and both by the church hierarchy and the Ilya Kabakov (and his wife Emilia, later) Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation to unofficial Soviet art within a single government officials started in Russia in after the artist obtained his first major organize RUSSIA!, a major survey exhibi- framework. 1989. Avdei Ter-Ogon’an became its first commission in the West – The Supper, tion of Russian art from icons to the hero and casualty. His performance The from the Kunstverein in Graz in 1987 – present under the patronage of then- In this paper, I will outline the historical Young Godless, an ironic comment about and had his first “total installation” President Vladimir Putin. After a suc- and curatorial issues that my co-cura- the history of the Soviet state-spon- presented at Ronald Feldmann Gallery in cessful run at the Guggenheim Museum tors and I considered in determining the sored atheism and the new role of the in 1988. Ilya Kabakov’s in New York, it was decided to take a checklist for this section of the RUSSIA! Orthodox Church in the post-communist activities will be placed in the context of slightly retooled version of the show to exhibition in both New York and Bilbao. Russia provoked public outcry. The pros- the international success of Russian art the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao in Looking at this topic from the perspec- ecutor’s office instituted investigation in the late 1980s and early 1990s and 2006. tive of both curator and art historian, I accusing the artist in violation of the its public reception. What attracts the will seek to elucidate differences in how article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Western viewer and art institutions to The section of RUSSIA! dedicated to art one can navigate this period in the for- Russian Federation about “Incitement of the “political cosmology” of Ilya and since 1953 presented the curatorial mat of an exhibition versus a text. hatred, or enmity, and also about humil- Emilia Kabakov? Special attention will team with the challenge of how to And in so doing, I will seek to provide a iation of human dignity.” Ter-Ogon’an be paid to the international position of negotiate the period of history when provisional answer to the question: how left the country and after few years the Russian artists, as the ones who Socialist Realism was the official style might we reconcile the past in dealing spent in a refugee camp was granted have superbly contextualized and con- in the Soviet Union yet artists working with this period of Soviet art history in political asylum in the Czech Republic. ceptualized the Soviet and Russian unofficially were pioneering innovative the present? The case of Ter-Ogon’an proved to be experience in their works, while blurring approaches widely considered in retro- just a touchstone. The law about the boundaries between the real experi- spect to be more significant contribu- “Incitement of hatred” proved to be a ence of the homo sovieticus and the tions to art history. The unique architec- useful device in the hands of the offi- ideas related to that cultural and politi- ture of the Solomon R. Guggenheim cials, who started to use it against con- cal construct developed in the West dur- Museum had an impact on how the temporary art establishing the situation ing and prior the Cold War period. curatorial team could narrate these par- of de facto censorship. allel chapters. Both were presented on the same ramp of the museum, thereby In January 2003 the exhibition Caution, forcing their simultaneous division and Religion organized by the Andrei Sakha- juxtaposition within the same space. rov Museum and Public Center was Moreover, the import of inclusion or pogromed by a group of thugs. However exclusion of given artists within what it was not the radicals, who faced the was ostensibly a survey of the stars of legal prosecution. In March of 2005 Russian art history made the selection despite of loud protests of human rights process particularly complex. groups the Court of Taganskii district of Moscow found Yurii Samodurov, the In an effort to address imperfections in director of the museum, and Ludmila the New York exhibition, the curatorial Vasilevskaia, the official of the center team paid close attention to this sec- guilty of inciting the hatred against reli- tion when reconfiguring it for Bilbao, gion and sentenced them to the fine of making both conceptual and spatial 100.000 rubles each. The victory of the religious fundamen- Yuri Avvakumov Accordingly, gallery exhibitions and art Anna Zaitseva talists on one hand led to the increase “Post-Soviet Museum and Exhibition fair booths look exactly like their west- “Art Institutions 2005-2010: of self-censorship in museums and dif- Architecture” ern counterparts. Since not a single From the Moscow Biennale to Apart- ferent institutions dealing with contem- contemporary art museum has been ment Exhibitions” porary art. From another hand it in- Twenty years has been sufficient time built in the country in the past 20 years spired religious group to initiate “copy- for a change to take place in the space there is no comparison to be made on Today the infrastructure of contempo- cat cases”, such as the current case of contemporary art. For example that score. One can only reflect on rary art and its merits and shortcomings against the Andrei Erofeev and Yurii twenty years ago in international prac- government policy in this area. (i.e., the question of institutions that Samodurov, organizers of the exhibition tice, museum functionalism was form the art milieu) is being actively dis- Prohibited Art – 2006. replaced by spatial minimalism, the cussed in Russia. The very foundations museum as building took on the look of for such discussions appeared relatively The conflict between contemporary art an attractive sculpture, former factory recently after Perestroika. This is under- and religion in Russia today has ten- buildings were added to museum standable, because only official art had dency to develop into the war between spaces. With the exception of the latter, an infrastructure during the Soviet art and new state ideology established and even in that case with some provi- period, while the only institutions of the by Putin’s/Medvedev’s government. sos (former Moscow industrial buildings “underground” (the forerunner of con- Winzavod and the Garage are purely temporary Russian art) were artists’ stu- exhibition spaces), these architectural dios and apartments, whilst the artists trends have passed Russia by, largely themselves were simultaneously critics, because the contemporary art museum curators, theorists, and viewers. The in Russia has never been part of the social changes have impacted the art global tourist industry and is not pre- scene as well: the first private gallery sented as profitable. With the exception appeared in 1989, the National Centre of Moscow and St Petersburg, and more for Contemporary Arts was founded in recently Perm, contemporary art exhibi- 1992, and the ArtMoscow Fair was first tions attract minimal numbers of visi- held in 1996. All of this opened contem- tors and don’t require any special condi- porary art to the public at large, yet its tions. In Russia contemporary art has audience continued to be a few hundred yet to enter the public space of cities. adepts. One can say without exaggerat- The changes in the exhibition of visual ing that the turning point was the Mos- art took place at the same time as in cow Biennale that first took place in the art itself, which grew in size literally 2005. It brought contemporary art to an before our eyes, attempting to work audience of unprecedented size and together with the space and with multi- changed its social status. On the surge media. The net curtains, hanging wires of public interest in contemporary art, and carpet runners disappeared from several centers opened in Moscow in the the exhibition spaces. As did the so- 2000s. They include, in chronological called “central displays”, the specially- order, Proekt_Fabrika (founded in 2005), designed exhibition panels which were the Winzavod Centre for Contemporary meant to symbolise the basic idea Art (2006), and the Garage Center for behind the exhibition. The division Contemporary Culture (2008), whose between the lower category of exhibi- activities will be examined in the report tion (non-figurative art) and the higher in more detail. At the same time, one category (figurative, “ideologically” should mention another trend of the responsible art) disappeared from the past two years: numerous examples of state evaluation of project planning. the self-organization of artists, especially the young ones. We Nikolai Molok those of the state museums (“why to go Sirje Helme are referring in particular to the revival “Private or Public: to a private museum if you have the “Museum Politics in Independent of apartment exhibitions and the organ- Collectors vs. Museums” Tretiakov Gallery”). Estonia, 1990–2010: A Period for ization of the first artist-run fair enti- Adaptation” tled Universam in the autumn of 2009. 1. Most of today’s museums arose from 3. Behind this there is one more – and These artists’ initiatives are a critical private collections. As a result of expro- most considerable – reason: there is no The main issue of my paper is how the response to the particularities of insti- priation (nationalization) or according to articulate understanding of what is extreme decade – the 1990s – influ- tution-building in Russia in the 2000s the collectors’ will. Some collectors required to found a private museum, and enced today’s Estonian art, the attitude and promote reflection on current gave their art treasures to the state what its functions are. Igor Markin’s of artists and value criteria. My aim is problems. They will be discussed in (Tretiakov), others established private Art4.ru museum in Moscow is the only not to offer an overview of the events the final part of the report. museums (Shchukin). experiment up to date. But because of and artists, but to focus on the follow- the global crisis, this experiment seems ing issues: 2. -collecting in post-So- to be all over. At the moment Stella viet Russia is rather short – 15 to 20 Kesaeva is the only Russian collector to 1. Specifying the concept – what is con- years. In spite of this, many collectors declare openly her willingness to estab- temporary art in recent Estonian art have already started to think about their lish her private museum in the near history? We have consensually made a collections’ future. Indeed, just few of future. forceful decision – with this term we them are ready neither to share with determine art from 1990/1991. We thus state museums nor to establish a pri- 4. Museum exhibitions of private collec- get rid of discourses with which we vate museum. The reason for the first is tions are the most appropriate answer tackle art during all but the very end of quite obvious: state museums in Russia to the ‘private-public’ dilemma today. the Soviet era. To treat the Soviet don’t have enough money to care about Marat Guelman, Viktor Bondarenko, period, we rely on discourses of the so- just another set of art works (some Pierre Brochet among others have shown called different modernisms and differ- museums don’t have money even for their collections in the museums through- ent avant-gardes. insurance purposes), so collectors are out Russia, Stella Kesaeva – in the worried whether or not their pieces are museums in Vienna and Venice. But this 2. The major factors for change in the included in a respective museum’s per- is not just about museumification of a early 1990s included financial aid from manent collection, not less than how private collection, but rather about George Soros and political interest in their items are preserved there. obtaining of some museum experience. supporting the country which had There are three main reasons of private regained its independence. Internally, collectors’ unwillingness to establish the decisive element was the change of private museums: 1. private collectors generations; the most significant artists distrust the state (“new nationalization now were those who graduated in the to follow”) – this attitude dates back to late 1980s or were still studying in the the Soviet era, but is still an issue; 2. early 1990s. they consider post-Communist Russian society as being not ready to appreciate 3. The most original activity in the private collecting as a form of private 1990s that gave the best artistic results property (many Russians still think that was focusing on the e-world and its art works available at auctions organ- relevant possibilities. There was fasci- ized by Sotheby’s or Christie’s should nation not only with the new opportuni- not be sold but returned to Russia as a ties available to artists, but also with part of national heritage); 3. private col- more extensive theoretical problems lectors (of traditional Russian art, first such as freedom on the internet, inter- of all) understand quite well that their activity, community and identity in the collections are of less importance than global infosphere, strategies for participation etc. This resulted in the and change was drawing to close during Konstantin Akinsha State Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow/State series of conferences and exhibitions the second half of the last decade, born in Kiev, Ukraine, attended Shev- Museum of Architecture, Moscow/Deut- entitled Interstanding. The same period and the Art Museum of Estonia had an chenko Art School (B. A. degree in sches Architekturmuseum, Frankfurt- boosted the Estonian video art as well. essential role in it. painting), Kiev, later studied art history am-Main/Victoria & Albert Museum, Today’s development is the opposite – (Moscow State University, M.A.), Ph.D. London/ZKM Museum of New Art, Karls- there is an increased interest in, for (University of Edinburgh). Professor, ruhe/Stella Art Foundation etc. example, painting. The part of video art researcher, lecturer, curator, and art is marginal (except for the artists of the critic. Restitution specialist, member of 1990s). At the same time, entering the Presidential Advisory Commission on Marek Bartelik digital world has proceeded painlessly. Holocaust Assets in the , teaches modern and contemporary art at Artists use the virtual world to explain Washington, DC. Author of numerous The Cooper Union for the Advancement their ideas (blogs, Facebook etc), publications, among them: The Holy of Science and Art in New York City. He although they have more faith in the Place (New Heaven: Yale University has also taught art theory at Yale and material world. Press. Fall 2007, co-authored with MIT. Dr. Bartelik is a graduate critic- Gregorii Kozlov and Sylvia Hochfield; in-residence at the Maryland Institute 4. The early 1990s were free of institu- AAM Guide for Provenance Research College of Art in Baltimore, Maryland. tions; it was a kind of wild time. The (Washington DC: American Association Currently, he serves as a Co-President state lacked all means of realising a of Museums, 2001, co-authored with of AICA-USA and Vice President of AICA clear cultural policy. The Ministry of Nancy Yeide and Amy Walsh); Beautiful International. Culture, state museums, the Artists’ Loot: Soviet Plunder of European Art Association and other institutions Treasures (New York: Random House, played no particular role in art life dur- 1995, co-authored with Gregorii Kozlov Waltraud Bayer ing the first half of the 1990s. The and Sylvia Hochfield). is a senior research fellow (PD, senior- financial sources were the Soros Con- post doc) at Graz University, Austria, temporary Art Centre and since 1994, specializing in Russian and (post-) the independent Cultural Endowment, Yuri Avvakumov Soviet cultural and museum studies. which has become the main source of Moscow architect, artist, curator, born in She teaches, lectures, and writes on financing culture. An essential element Tiraspol in 1957. He graduated from the collecting, museums, and the art market of the process of institutionalisation Moscow Architectural Institute in 1981. in . Her book publications was the opening in 2006 of the new Since the early 1980s he has worked include ‘Die Moskauer Medici: Der rus- museum, the Kumu Art Museum. In with the heritage of the Russian Avant- sische Bürger als Mäzen, 1850 bis 1917’ 2008 Kumu was elected as Museum of garde, with AGITARCH studio since 1988. (1996, The Moscow Medici: Bourgeois the Year by the European Museum 1984–2000: Curator of and participation Art Patronage in Tsarist Russia), ‘Ver- Forum. With the strengthening of the in the exhibitions of PAPER ARCHITEC- kaufte Kultur: Die sowjetischen Kunst- role of the Art Museum of Estonia, vari- TURE (genre of conceptual in und Antiquitätenexporte, 1919–1938’ ous non-profit artistic organisations the late USSR) in Moscow, Ljubljana, (2001, Russia’s Sold National Treasure: have emerged as opposition, mainly in Paris, London, Milan, Frankfurt, Colo- Art Exports to the West), and ‘Gerettete order to organise exhibitions of young gne, Brussels, Zürich, Cambridge, New Kultur: Private Kunstsammler in der artists. This shows the different trends Orleans, Austin, Amherst, Volgograd Sowjetunion, 1917–1991’ (2006, Private and integrity of the development of etc. Participated in the Venice Biennale Art Collectors in the Soviet Union). local art life. several times – in 1996 (‘Sensing the Future: The Architect as Seismograph’), In sum: the 1990s created a space that in 2003 (‘Utopia Station’) and in 2008 largely influenced and determined the (‘BORNHOUSE’). His work is represen- development of art also in the subse- ted in numerous public collections: quent decade. The period of adaptation State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg/ Sandra Frimmel Sirje Helme Museum Bilbao, Deutsche Guggenheim, catalogue editions of the Moscow Con- born 1977, studied art history and lite- graduated in art history from Tartu the Guggenheim-Hermitage Museum, temporary Art Biennale II (‘Footnotes on rature in Berlin and St. Petersburg and University, Estonia, in 1973; MA in as well as other venues in Europe and geopolitics, market, and amnesia’, 2007) graduated from the Humboldt University 1995; PhD studies at the Estonian Art Australia. Her exhibition projects have and III (‘Against Exclusion’, 2009) Berlin. She co-curated several exhibi- Academy on post-war modernism and included RUSSIA!, Hanne Darboven’s tions in Russia and Germany and from avant-garde in Estonia. Since 1974, she Hommage à Picasso; The Guggenheim; 2007–2009 co-founded and co-run an served as editor, and later as editor- and Picturing America: Photorealism in Peter Pakesch exhibition space in Berlin. Since 2008 in-chief of the Estonian art magazine the 1970s, among others. In late 2009, studied architecture at the Graz Univer- she is working as curatorial assistant in ’Kunst’ (’Art’). She is an art critic, lecturer, she was appointed Associate Curator sity of Technology, 1973-1979. While Kunstmuseum Liechtenstein, Vaduz. She curator and administrator; from 1992– of Collection and Exhibitions for the still a student, he worked for the Forum lives in Berlin and Zurich. In her research 2005 she acted as director of the Center Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation’s Stadtpark and the steirischer herbst as she focuses on Russian contemporary for Contemporary Arts, Estonia, and Abu Dhabi Project. Dr. Hillings is tasked an artist and exhibition manager. After art, especially on the correlation from 2005-2009 as director of Kumu Art with working on collection building and living in the USA, he started his own between artistic, social, and political Museum. Since January 2009 she has exhibition planning for the future Gug- art gallery in Vienna in 1981. In 1985, processes. She is currently working on a been director-general of Art Museum genheim Abu Dhabi Museum, scheduled he co-founded the Grazer Kunstverein dissertation about art in court in Russia of Estonia (including Kumu). Numerous to open in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab society together with Helmut Strobl. from 1990, especially stressing the exhi- publications, among them in Estonia, Emirates, in 2013. In addition to her Until 1986 he was the society’s artistic bition Beware, Religion! 2003. Lithuania, Latvia, Russia, Finland, Guggenheim assignments, she has pub- director. Following various international Poland, Germany, Denmark, USA etc. lished and publicly lectured on various exhibition projects, he was the manager Publications include: „Von Perestrojka Together with Prof. Jaak Kangilaski, she topics in post-World War II and Russian of the Kunsthalle Basel from 1996 to bis Putin. Die russische Gegenwarts- co-authored the book ’A Concise His- art in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, 2003. In January 2003 he was appointed kunst zwischen künstlerischer Autono- tory of Estonian Art’. She has curated and North America. From 2007 to 2009 Artistic Director and Artistic Manager of mie und staatlicher Kontrolle“, in Arina exhibitions in Poland, Hungary, Germany, she served on the jury for the Kandinsky the Universalmuseum Joanneum. Kowner (Ed.): Passion Bild. Russische Finland, Russia, Estonia. From 1999 up Prize for Russian contemporary art. The main focus of his work in 2003 was Kunst seit 1970. Die Sammlung Arina 2005 she served as Estonian commis- to position the Kunsthaus Graz and Kowner, Zurich 2010; „Künstlerische sioner of the Venice Art Biennale. In her develop a program for it. Botschaften aus der Lagune. Der sowjet- academic life she has concentrated on Nikolai Molok russische Pavillon auf der Biennale di the theory and history of Estonian post- born 1969, Moscow. Venezia 1990 zwischen Modernisierungs- war art. She is a lecturer at Tartu Univer- 1991: graduated from Moscow State Alla Rosenfeld bestrebungen und Kulturkolonialismus“, sity and the Estonian Academy of Arts. University, Art History Department is a Research Associate for European in Velminski, Wladimir (Ed.): Sendungen. 1991-2003: State Institute of Art Evaluators in New York. From October Mediale Konturen zwischen Botschaft Studies, Moscow 2006 to February 2009, Dr. Rosenfeld und Fernsicht, Bielefeld 2009; „How Valerie L. Hillings 1993: post-graduate student, Central was Vice President and Senior Specialist Free are the Arts in Russia Today?”, earned her B.A. with distinction in European Institute, Prague for Russian Paintings at Sotheby’s, New in kultura (Russian Cultural Review) art history from Duke University and 1997: Ph.D. History of Art York. Prior to joining Sotheby’s in 2006, 4/2007 (guest editor); New Forms of her M.A. and Ph.D. in art history from 1996-2000: Itogi Magazine, art section she worked at the Jane Voorhees Zim- Dialogue Between Art and Society. the Institute of Fine Arts, New York writer merli Art Museum, Rutgers University, kultura (Russian Cultural Review) University, where she concentrated on 2000/01: Vremya Novostey Newspaper, N.J. She was Curator of Russian Art at 4/2006 (guest editor). 20th-century European and American art section writer the Zimmerli from 1992 to 2006, and art, with a special focus in Russian 2001-06: Izvestia Newspaper, also served as Director of the Zimmerli’s art. Dr. Hillings joined the curatorial art section writer Russian Art Department from 2002 to staff of the Solomon R. Guggenheim 2002-09: ArtChronika Magazine, 2006. During Dr. Rosenfeld’s tenure Museum in 2004, and since that time editor-in-chief at the Zimmerli, she organized many she has coordinated, curated, and co- Since 2009: Stella Art Foundation, exhibitions of Russian and Soviet art curated exhibitions at the Solomon R. Director of Development and was an editor, co-editor, and/or Guggenheim Museum, the Guggenheim Numerous publications, among them the contributor to numerous publications, including Art of the Baltics (Rutgers 2003–05: 1st Moscow Biennale of Con- University Press and the Jane Voorhees temporary Art, chief project coordinator Zimmerli Art Museum, 2002); Defining & catalogue editor Russian Graphic Arts, 1898–1934 2003: In Between Spaces, curator, in (Rutgers University Press and the Jane collaboration with Max Ilyukhin, Central Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum, 1999); House of Artist, Moscow From Gulag to Glasnost (Thames and 2002–04: Moscow–Berlin. Berlin– Hudson, 1995). Dr. Rosenfeld’s inde- Moscow, 1950–2000, project coordinator pendent curatorial projects include the and assistant catalogue editor traveling exhibition A World of Stage (2007), presented at the National Museum of Modern Art, Kyoto, and the Metropolitan Teien Art Museum, Tokyo, among other venues. She has lectured widely on Russian art topics both in the U.S. and abroad at locations that include the Museum of Modern Art and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Dr. Rosenfeld has taught many courses at Rutgers University during her tenure as Curator of Russian Art at the Zim- merli. Dr. Rosenfeld received her M.A. in the theory and history of art at the Academy of Fine Arts, St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1987, and her Ph.D. in modern and contem¬porary art at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, in 2003.

Anna Zaitseva born 1978, Moscow. Art Historian. She graduated from the State Russian University for Humanities, Moscow, and from the Institute of Contemporary Art, Moscow. 2008: Award winner ‘Innovation-2008’ Sponsoring/funding: (State Prize in the field of CA), nomina- FWF, Austrian Science Fund tion in the category ‘Curatorial project of bm.w_f, Austrian Federal the year’ (for the exhibition ‘Apples Fall Ministry of Science and Simultaneously in Different Orchades’) Research 2006/07: director for exhibition program of the Moscow Biennale Art Foundation. Since 2007 member on the Advisory Board of the WINZAVOD Centre for Con- temporary Art, Moscow