Adieu Parajanov Contemporary Art from Armenia

1 Adieu Parajanov 0 Contemporary Art from Armenia

Armenia, situated on the border between eastern and western Invitation to the exhibition Adieu Parajanov, cultures, must balance radically different conceptual worlds. photo: Azat After a “romantic” phase of fighting for democratization and self determination and the declaration of independence in 1991, the former Soviet republic, with its three million inhabitants, is currently experiencing turbulent times: a boom in nationalism, the conflict over the Karabach mountain enclave, a severe economic crisis resulting in a wave of emigration, and a liberalisation of society. Today, Armenia is also the site onto which an increasingly active, globally dispersed Diaspora community projects its ideas of “home”. Of the art scenes on the border between Asia and Europe, those in the Caucasus republic are among the most diverse. For western audiences, this art remains much too unfamil- iar. For many, the great filmmaker Sergei Parajanov (1924-1990) is still representative for contemporary art from the Caucasus. “Adieu Parajanov” offers insight into contemporary art in Yerevan, which has developed independently from institutions since the mid-1980s. The first museum of modern art in the Soviet Union was founded here in 1971, but, even before Perestroika, the first autonomous artist-run initiatives had also formed. With this as a starting point—the activities of the artists and the initiatives that they founded—“Adieu Parajanov” tells a little story of the scene in Yerevan in recent years through a selection of docu- ments, manifestos, photos, and other materials being exhibited for the first time. New videos, photoworks, and actions present the work of a young generation of artists not influenced by the Soviet legacy or new nationalism.

Hedwig Saxenhuber and Georg Schöllhammer 2 0 Between Illusions and Reality

Hamlet Hovsepian Untitled, Installation in Ashnak, slide, 1981 of its southern periphery in order to avoid the accumulation of tensions aggravating within society during the 1960s. The ideological pressure decreased to a minimum. There was a more or less constant import of information coming from the West due to Diaspora connections. Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, became one of the most important centers echoing the hippie movement, which by that time penetrated the Soviet Union with rock music and alternative art. The architecture of the 1970s was released from the classicist leftovers of a totalitarian style and applications of national motifs as found in architecture of the 1960s, and returned to modernist forms and principles. A new literary mag- Text: Ruben Arevshatyan azine “Garoun”(spring) appeared, which started to publish new The processes that have been taking shape within the Armenian local writers as well as translations of modern European, American, Samvel Hovhannisian contemporary art scene over the course of almost two decades and Japanese literature and philosophy. The ideas of French Untitled, 1994 developed parallel to the country’s serious and intense political and existentialism became very popular due to these publications. social changes. The new artistic wave that began to gain momen- At the time, the Yerevan Museum of Modern Art was tum locally beginning in the mid-1980s, subsequently coincided established: the first and for a long time the only modern art with momentous socio-political upheavals in conjunction with the museum in the Soviet bloc. Its creation was initiated by art critic romantic phase of struggle for democratization and independence, Henry Iguityan. The museum presented art that contradicted the nationalistic boom, the Karabach war, severe economical established perceptions but at the same time avoided an open crisis, and the subsequent liberalization of society. confrontation with ideology. Art trends considered as alternative Though the development of these processes was chronolog- for that period were abstract expressionism and surrealism. ically interconnected, the artistic expressions of the new wave Artists of the time, such as Hakop Hakopian, Valentin Potpomo- were essentially deprived of explicit social relevance. These ex- gov, and Yervand Godjabashian, etc., focused more on sensual pressions developed parallel to social turmoil, focusing more on individuality, phantoms of imagination, and mysticism which they representational and thematic reconsiderations of a domineering formally referred to the forgotten medieval Armenian culture. 1980s aesthetic and subject of both formal and also unconven- From the mid 1970s through the ’80s, within and parallel tional art of the time. This created strong opposition towards the to existing institutional systems, another situation was devel- new artistic movement from the part of already existing art insti- oped by the artists who considered themselves to be “noncon- tutions and critics as well as social opinion. formists”. In the beginning, that scene was exceptionally frag- Confrontation might seem quite strange at first glance since mented. Hamlet Hovsepian, for instance, together with Ashot by the 1970s, Armenia, which was Soviet, was informally consid- Bayandour, were consorting more with left wing art circles in ered one of the most liberal and open minded of the former Moscow throughout the 1970s and ’80s and after coming back Soviet republics. Or it might be better to say that central power to Armenia continued to live isolated life styles. Living in Ashnak systems in Moscow were obliged to tolerate the liberal habits village, cut off from the scene in Yerevan, Hamlet Hovsepian’s bition space)oftheArtists’UnioninYerevan. Thatexhibition the sceneinitiatedanexhibitionheldon3rdfloor(nonexhi- House, andtheAestheticCenter). and happeningsattheYerevan StateConservatory, Education door exhibitionsin1978-1980,andfrom1980-1986 public spacesoutsideofexistingartinstitutionalnetworks(out- older generationinitiatedanumberofartisticeventsatother develop, whichtogetherwiththe“nonconformists”from of the1980s,anewsceneyoungerartistsalsostartedto exhibitions beforetheyhadachancetoopen.Bythebeginning of theirworksfromexhibitionsoreventheclosinggroup “dissent”. Thatoppositionsometimesresultedintheexclusion times provokedtheUnion’s oppositiontowardstheirartistic of periodicexhibitionsorganizedattheArtists’Unionandsome- ing andsculpture,occasionallyupsetthebalancedatmosphere innovators inthealreadyestablishedaesthetictraditionspaint- the Elibekianbrothers,andVartan Tovmasian, etc.,whowere nian, SeyranKhatlamajian,Vigen Tadevosian, EdouardKharazian, audience inthe1980s.TheotherartistssuchasVaroujan Varta- art andexplicit16mmfilmswerefirstintroducedtoanArmenian In 1987,agroupofartiststhathadfragmentedofffrom the stateofimaginaryapathywithemphasizedformalaes- revolting againstsocietyanditsvalues.Matsakyanexpresses a soloexhibition).Grigoryandealswiththeproblemofanindividual of theConsumer”byGarinehMatsakyan1996(usedasatitlefor artists doneattwodifferenttimes: and thestateoflonelyindividualinthosetransformations. foretelling atthesametimeadventofthattypesociety consumer moreontheaestheticandlesssociallevel, art thatwasironicallyreflectingtheimaginaryworldof are distinguishedtodayinthelocalsceneasArmenianpopart,an encing. Thatapproachfounditsrepresentationinartworkswhich aspects ofanewimagerelevanttotherealitytheywereexperi- philosophy andotherswereinterestedintherepresentational and wentdeeperintometaphysicalart’s creativemethodsand two maindirectionsintheirartisticapproaches.Somefollowed epoch” tothealternativeartisticsituationinArmenia. made thetransitionfroma“nonconformist-culturaldissident became astartingpointforthegroup,“3rdFloor”,which It isworthmentioningtwoimportantworksofdifferent “Religious War” 1987byArmanGrigoryanand“TheTriumph The artiststhatwereinitiallyinvolvedinthegroupfollowed performance, 1983 Norair A photo-installation, 1996 The BrotherhoodofHumanity Arevik Arevshatyan,RubenGrigoryan yvazyan Shamiram ,

04 point ofdiscord wastheperceptionalreconsideration ofcontem- thinking andin the localinstitutionalnetwork. Theessential The arrivaloftheCenterevoked controversialreactionsinsocial center presentedtheArmenian pavilionattheV local andinternationaljointprojects andfrom1995till2003the was officiallyinauguratedin1996, ithadrealizedanumberof Center forContemporaryExperimental Art.Bythetimecenter became thefirststepinprocessofestablishment Diaspora artistfromNewYork SonyaBalasanianinYerevan in1992, biennial 1996).The“Exhibitionof9”organizedbytheArmenian Documenta X,1997,pseudo-journalisticreportageattheTbilisi structures withoutbreakingtherules—(inofficialparticipationin which wastointeractinalternativewayswithstrictlydeveloped more thecharacterofaseriouslyorganizedgame,goal artistic interventionssuchas“GeoKunstExpeditions”had considered asartitselfwithoutanyartisticinterference.Other found itselfinasituationwheresocialphenomenoncouldbe (“PS exhibition”1994,“ArtDemonstration”1995),eventually The “Actgroup”,perhapsoneofthemostsociallyoriented, endeavor toreunitewiththewhole,workingasaclosedcycle. and RubenGrigoryanreflectboththestateofisolation hood ofHumanity”1996bytheartistcoupleArevikArevshatyan projects like“MuseumHermeticum”1995and“TheBrother- values broughtuptheoldquestionofnatureorreason.Installation port. war, andthetradeembargochilledartists’revolutionarytrans- relevant tothelocalartsituation.Therealityofpoliticalinstability, to doreality.local with and second,itscontent,whichatfirstglancehadnothing form, The firstlimitationforacceptanceofthiskindartwasits those exhibitionsandthatkindofartingeneralwasnotpositive. doors totheseartgroups.Thereactionofthelocalaudience Moscow 1995),thesameArtists’Unioncriticizedandshutits cially organizedrepresentationalexhibitions(Bochum1995, trends inArmeniancontemporaryarttheframeworkofoffi- the MinistryofCulturemadeafewattemptstopresentnew considering themasasecondaryphenomenon.However, after of the“3rdFloor”tookplaceatUnionfrom1987-1994), bitions ed toconcentrateonnewarttrends(thefirstandfollowingexhi- such astheArtists’Unionsensedupcomingcrisisanddecid- for democratizationandindependence.Theoldstateinstitutions connected firstwithPerestroikaandlatersocialmovements ed withthecountry’s intensifyingsociopoliticaldevelopments suicidal tendencies. thetics ofpopcultureastheonlywayoutfromdeadlockand The changeinthesocialformationandreappraisalof Little bylittle,thepostmodernapproachbecameincreasingly The appearanceofnewalternativeartisticscenescoincid- enice Biennial. on theinvestigation ofthelocalcontemporary artsituations. theoretical perspectives. In2002,theCenterconcentrated entirely cal, andculturaltransformations throughcurrentartisticand the urgencyofutopianideasin contextofglobalsocial,politi Utopiana associationattheHAY-ART Centerin2001,investigated with “Springerin”and“Utopiana”, aprojectorganizedbythe a jointprojectbyAustrianand Armenian artistsincooperation shared thesamesocialandculturalreality context ofthepositionsdiversesituations,whichuntilrecently contemporary artthetransformationsofaworldoutlookin Atrophy” and“ShutCity”.Bothprojectsinvestigatedthrough Center realizedtwomajorinternationaljointprojects—“Great collaboration withinstitutionsinTbilisi,MoscowandVilnius the years disclosedtheinstitution’s strategicorientation.In1999,in in theparadigmofsubjectiveartisticreproductionsreality. interrelation ofsocial,political,andculturalphenomenaconsidered by thecenterwereorientedtowardinvestigatingcomplex tional andjointprojects.Theexhibitionsprojectsorganized as wellcontemporaryartinordertofocusmoreoninterna overcoming thedominantintrovertedcharacteroflocalculture contemporary art. tinued thetraditionofusingBarrelsasapublicspacefor The newlyestablishedMunicipalHA the municipalitydidnotturnBarrelsintoasupermarket. chaser forratherutopianandquiteinconvenientcircleedifices), surprisingly (orbecausethemunicipalitycouldnotfindapur- those lateSovietmoderniststylebuildingsinadifferentuse.But countries oftheformerSovietUnion.Itwashardtoimagine had alsogainedavalidimageintheleftwingartcircles interventions. Besides,duetotheirarchitecture,the“Barrels” The “Barrels”wereabelovedspaceforexhibitionsandart real shockwaveinthecirclesofalternativeartcommunity. ing forthemuseuminsamevicinity. Thisnewssentouta with thestipulationthatMunicipalityconstructanewbuild- been occupyingsince1984duetotheirtechnicalinadequacy Municipality, decidedtoabandonthecylindricalpavilionsithad Museum ofModernArt,afternegotiationswiththeYerevan at annihilatingthenationalcoreoflocalartandculture. where aninstitutionwasblamedintheobscurepolicyoriented of thenewaestheticshadnowshiftedtoadifferentcriticallevel The existingnotorioussocialaversiontotheinfluentialessence manifestations ofparticularirrational,subjective,lucidmoments. tradistinction totheprevailingperceptionofartasamediafor porary artasadynamiccreativesphereofsocialthinkingincon- Some oftheprojectsrealizedbycenterduringthosefive The strategythatthecenterchosewasorientedtowards In theseintensecircumstances,in1997thedirectorof Y -AR T CulturalCentercon . “ParallelReality ” , - - - photo: RubenArevshatyan ACCEA inYerevan, The CenterforExperimentalArt in Yerevan, 2000 of theHAY-ART CulturalCenter One oftheexhibitionhalls approaches compriseironicattitudes towardsthoseserioustrans on re-examiningthemeaningof artanditspositioninsociety. micro worldmodelintheageof thecollapseofillusions,also social pressuresasseeninthecontextofglobalchanges the issuesoflonelyindividualfrustratedbyideologicaland by artisticapplicationsofthesamesocialstructuringmethods. liberal socialpragmatismhasaninconsistentcharacterasderived tures, hasbeenreproducedinvariouswaysart,whereneo- ment betweentheindividualandartificialityofsocialstruc- oriented towardsfillingtheculturalriftcreatedbyestrange shistic conceptionsofartasaneconomicandpoliticalproduct formation comesupindifferentwaysandaspects. tive reflectionsandautonomouspoliticstoculture-basedidentity within theselastfewyears,theproblemofinterrelationsubjec power systems. tainty andeconomicthreatimposedbyfragmentedneo-liberal in aquiteshaky, unstablestatebalancebetweenpoliticaluncer- sociopolitical andculturalreality drop of“culturalization”developmentsinArmenianneo-liberal voke the“civilizingprocesses”isfailingtodayagainstback- years agowouldhaveprovidedasocialdemandandpro- tion oftheartisticsituationwhichbegantodevelopsixteen local socialdemand.Thevagueillusionsthattheinstitutionaliza- still atacomplexjunctureintermsoftheseriousproblem networks, thesituationforArmeniancontemporaryarttodayis lations withinternationalartistic,intellectual,andinstitutional contemporary artsceneinArmeniaandtheintensifyinginterre- bilitating theconcreteculturalenvironmentofadeadzone. tions ofinternational,Diaspora,andlocalscenesorientedtoreha- diverse andsometimescontroversialartisticcuratorialposi- each Biennial,displayinganexplicitexampleofjuxtaposition and AzatSargsyan,alsooffereddifferentstructuralmodelsfor different mottos,thecuratorsVazgen Pahlavouni,Tadevosyan ration withlocalandinternationalartinstitutions.Besidesoffering based ondifferentconceptsandstructuralmodelsintightcollabo- blished. Withinsixyears,theCenterhadorganizedthreeBiennials organized andtheGyumriCenterforContemporaryArtwasesta- quake), thefirstinternationalBiennialofcontemporaryartwas In 1998,inGyumri(thecitythatwasdestroyedbythe1988earth- The stateofthe contemporaryartsituationinArmenia today whichinfactcorrespondstothegeneralsituation. formations, haps couldbeconsidered asaquintessentialevolution ofinter- Though thepicturecanseemquite dramatic,theartistic In thosereproductions,artistsconcentrateinadditionto A newsociety’s attraction touniversalismandformal,feti- In theartisticproductionsanddifferentprojectscreated Despite thediversitythatdevelopedininstitutional . Institutionsthemselvesarose per - - - - He livesinYerevan. is artist,curatorandartisticdirectoroftheHAY-ART CulturalCenter. Ruben Arevshatyan,*1964, sustain themselvesaswellillusionsandasenseofreality. internal andexternalprocesses,inwhichindividualsaretryingto occurring betweenillusionandreality:Astate,connectedwith social, political,economic,andofcourseculturalcontradictions with thefracturedandhybridstatedevelopedasaresultof problem oftheinterrelationindividualautonomoussystems artists inArmenia’s contemporaryartscenewelcomeisthe history andtheiractualmaterialization.Butthemainfocusthat sions thathadexistedinparticularperiodsofArmenianmodern connected socialandculturalprocessesrelatedtotheillu- The T Karine Matsakyan oil oncanvas1996 riumph oftheConsumer ,

05 6 0 Metaphors of Transition, or: Contemporary Art in Post-Soviet Armenia The body of love, painting, 2001 Samvel Saghatelian Empire collapsed, theprovincialcenterofRussian Armenia became achiefhistoricalproject. spiritual andintellectualexistence. Hencethere-creationofAni formed fromasymbolofloss into apowerfulstimulusfor elite.InDiaspora,thevisionofAnihadalready beentrans- tural this alltookplacebeforetheeyes ofArmenia’s spiritual andcul- frequently occupied,andthatitwasthesiteofmajorearthquakes: or threecenturies)alsoresultedfromthefactthatAnihadbeen transit routes.Thisdisintegratinginfluence(whichlastedfortwo gorgeous Ani;thefinalcapitalofArmenia,locatedoninternational neighboring countriesbeganafterthecollapseofgreatand economic eliteofArmeniatoleavetheirhomelandandmove Hopeless attempts,firstofthemilitary-political,thencultural- penetrated intotheCaucasusandAsiaMinorfromcentralAsia. Middle AgesunderthepressureofTurkish speakingnationswhich initial extentoftheArmeniandispersalwasformedinearly Diaspora, whichspreadfromIndiatoHollandandEngland.The the seventeenthandeighteenthcenturiesinArmenian creation ofurbanandpoliticallife.Thisprojectoriginatedduring (which hasthelegacytobeanationalone)isprojectofre- enced byvariouseasternfactors.Thebasisofthispopularculture origins, dispersedintheenvironmentofpopularcreativity, influ- communication difficultiesaredeterminedbyitsheterogenous not onlyofcontemporaryart,butalsonationalhighart.The rather thanpermanence,regularity, andstability. Butthisistrue is characterizedbybursts,breaches,andhyperbolictransitions that thisislimitedandhasonlypartialacceptance.Itsdevelopment the lastdecade,wemustnonethelessbeginwithassumption itself insuch“traffic”. possibleforthecontemporaryartscenetore-actualize was brought). Butfirst,weshouldsayafewbriefwordsonhowit took withthemandviceversa(i.e.whatthosewhoarrived Therefore, itismoreimportanttofindoutwhatthosewholeft among thesignificantfiguresofcontemporaryArmenianart. art scene.Thosewholeft,aswellthosearrived,were sense ofcreativity, theywerealreadyintegratedintheArmenian Onik), weremakingattemptstosettleinArmenia.Atleastthe Khachatryan, MarkosGrigoryan,SoniaBallasanian,andKartash another group,mainlyfromtheU.S.’s eastcoast(Charlie for eithertheU.S.’s westcoastorforParis.Atthesametime, Hajian Armen,SevHendo,AshotAshot)leftfortheWest, namely Yerevan’s contemporaryartscene.Anumberofartists(Kiki, independence, auniqueintra-culturalinterchangetookplacein After thecollapseofSovietUnion,duringfirstyears Text: NazarethKaroyan At thebeginning ofthetwentiethcentury Although contemporaryArmenianartwasabletoexpandin , whentheRussian entire existence oftheSovietUnion.Themachine wasconsidered intellectual content whichremainedunchanged throughoutthe addition tothisritualisticmodel, itscanonicrepresentationhasan to operatelikeanangel,becoming aheraldofthefuture.In uniqueness ofitsroleandtheimportance ofitsstatus.Itseems “Aurora”, etc.)thepresenceof themachinewitnessed Palace accompaniedbythevolley ofshotsfromthearmoredship train afterhisreturnfromPetrograd,anattackontheWinter of thebirthSovietpower(Lenin’s firstspeechonanarmored Union createdasteadyiconographictradition.Inthecrucialevents ground fortransitionalmetaphors. particular. Thetreatment ofthislatterthematicpairpreparesthe bodily andmechanicalprinciplesingeneral,body-machine in defilement, truth-falsehoodwasonewithcrucialsignificance: Among thethematicpairsofcreation-work,object-sign,holiness- course becamemanifestatmedial,aswellexpressionallevels. ness, (ideology), topost-Sovietartdeterminedbycollectiveunconscious bycollectiveconsciousnessandillustratingSovietreality mined of theirancestors.Atransitionwastakingplace;fromanartdeter a placeforthemselvesandgroundtheirworksintheland from positionsofsensitivityandcorporeality. Theyhopedtofind world tangiblyintheirobjectsandinstallations,consequently the otherhand,thoseartistswhoarrivedwantedtorepresent Union, theydidn’t conformtothelossofanabsoluteidea.On oppositional positionsofdissidenceafterthecollapseSoviet ring toagenerallonelinessandtranscendence.Losingtheir were workinginthesphereofInformelandActionPaintingrefer- a culturaldissidenceofthelate1970sandearly1980s.They an expressionofparadigmaticchange.Thosewholeftembodied Gorky, andR.Nakian). century inNewYork, too(M.Sarian,G.Yakulov, E.Kotchar, A. century ArmenianartistsworkinginMoscowandParis,mid- scene, therewasalsoahugeinfluencefromearlytwentieth these directcontributionstothecontemporaryArmenianart the secondimportedafreshstreamintovisualarts.Besides of immigrants.Thefirstgroupfoundedaninstitutionalsystem; contemporary artsceneformedasaresultofthesetwogroups brought customs,ideas,skills,andvalueswiththem.Yerevan’s ’50s), twowavesofimmigrationtookplace.Thosewhoarrived Initially inthe1920s-’30sandthenafterWorld War II(inthe1940s- perceived tobethepolarizationpointofcultural-creativepowers. ciated withthelatterandevenafter“Sovietization”itisstill became thecapitalofArmenia.ThevisionAniwasthenasso- The treatmentofthesubjectmachineinSoviet This transitionwasespeciallyobviousinthepictorialsphere. The intra-culturalinterchangetakingplaceinthe1990sis illustrating theverypost-Sovietreality(technology).This - - oil oncanvas,1980 Painting N4, KiKi

07 08 their own.They alwayshadtobearmoredwith someinstrument, Union. Thispictography almostneverrepresented peopleon traditions, which(asinthecase ofmachine)formedintheSoviet ject ofthebodydidn’ quences. IntheworksofArmenian artists,treatmentsofthesub- of thesocialbodybecamemost outstandingofthoseconse- political, intellectual,andcultural rights.Retroactiveremembrance on violenceagainstindividualsandtheviolationofpeople’ any consequences;despitethefactthatithadbeenconstructed society, whichhadadecades-longhistory, couldn’t occurwithout widespread motifofthebody. Thedisappearanceoftheformer Prague bybicycleratherthantank. iron curtaincannowbecrossed,andonereachBudapestor of ideas.TheSovietborder of changestakingplaceundertheinfluenceconvergence This symbolicformulationexpressestherevolutionaryenthusiasm referred totheunityofworld,humanrights,andcivilvalues. Bicycle” “3rd Floor”,in1987,entitledhispainting“T the initiatorsandmainideologistofartisticmovement two traditionsconfronteachother the actualintellectualtraditions;thatistosay, artistsmakethe uncovering theconnectionoferas. belongs toadifferenttime,isinfacttrans-historicalmetaphor sion. Thisbreach,initiatedbythepresenceofaninstrumentwhich the diachronicinclusionofmachinebegetsasortsuspen- Rouben Grigoryan,KarineMatsakyan,andSahakBoghossyan), pictures (intheworksofSargisHamalbashyan,AraHovsepyan, arbitrary magazines,renownedworksofart,books,andmotion usually relyonthisiconography. Inthe“quotations”madefrom practices wereneglected. the meansofconquestanddomination;formostpart,cultural photos: DavidAyvazyan photo documentation,1995, performance “Aratez”, Grigor Khatchatryan,NorairAyvazyan The collapseoftheSovietUnionalsogavebirthtoanother But sometimesthisiconographicruleisexercisedtodispute In dealingwiththesubjectofmachine,Armenianartists . Thecanvas,coveredbytheprintsofbicyclewheels, t by-passpictographicandintellectual , whichhadbeenclosedbythe . Thus,ArmanGrigoryan,oneof o CrosstheBordersby s the moral legacy ofdepictingthebody. moral the traditions byrejectingthecultof thebodythroughdealingwith connect socialistrealismwithmedieval religious-ethicalChristian seem toconfronttheordinancesbyinertia,which GrigorKhachatryan) SamvelSaghatelyan, (Ararat Sargissyan, intellectual traditionsofacountrythatnolongerexists.Theartists constructions areexamplesofreadinesstounveilthemoral- tions ofspiritandbodyassomethingsacreddefiled.These dancy ofthebodyisconstructionexaggeratedconfronta- the hornorpiston,butbythimbleandneedle. dancy ofthelatterinanewparadigm,whichismeasurednotby equacy incomparisonwiththelaborironicallyrecordredun- criminal. Butinboththesecases,thebody’ of thisordinance(i.e.,handicraftsandparasitism)wereequally spiritual ordinance.Butpartialandhalf-finishedimplementations labor andbeautywhichwasoffereduptoSovietcitizensasa moral-intellectual maxim,pointingouttheinterrelationshipof identification wecanseetheridiculousimplementationof is anattempttomakethisactivityabsolutelyunique.In and thebeautifulendlessembroidery(byHarutjunSimonyan) Karen Andreassyan)istodisclosetheuselessnessofwork, of laborandcreationidentical.To growflowers inthimbles(by One ofthewaystodosowasmakedifferentactivities mented inordertoexpressfeelingsofredundancythebody. same. human existencewherespiritualandbodilyprincipleswerethe one whoworks.Work, foritspart,wasthemeasurementof the notionsofhumanandworkerwereidentical:is or wereengagedinsomeprocessoflabor. Inthiscanonicmodel, problems ofacommercialized andmaterialized world. Twentieth- i.e., withthefall oftheSovietUnion.Italsorefers tothe porary artisnotsolelyconnected withthesocialpoliticalcollapse, But theproblemofbodyandmachine inArmeniancontem Another widespreadmanifestationofthefeelingsredun- These iconographicandintellectualtraditionswereimple- s vastnessandinad- -

9 century technological revolutions made it easy for humans to are united by some total net, by the bright and unwinking eye 0 remove their material chains. This relaxation, a triumph of modern through which they can change places (Vahram Galstyan, Arevik strategy, at the same time destroyed its position, for it gives Arevshatyan). On the basis of this incorporeal sensuality the artists the possibility to re-conceptualize their former readiness environment of fractal identities is spread. Objects, appearances, to arrive at their relations with heritage, organizations, and values and organisms don’t have any meaning peculiar to their species, in order to find their creative identity. Thus, regular references but are mere sexual practices of biotechnological self-cloning and to archives, history, museums, memory, and remembrances are temporality. Is this identical to exhaustion and death? As Pierre not made due to some spiritual activity, but in order to find the Levy puts it, in virtual reality they don’t coincide; new archives and means of narration based on the oblivion, repetition, and recon- barns are created when the light meets the script and consump- sideration of time (Hovhannes Margarian, Arthur Sargissian). tion becomes the same as reproduction. The two types of pre- The main conceptual issue being formulated within the scope speculative and post-speculative (or post-mirror, as Baudrillard puts of the paradigmatic theme of machine and body concerns identity. it) identities no longer describe the individual, but instead describe During socio-political revolutions and cultural transformations the representatives of a community. They appear in games and people experience a deep crisis of self-visualization and self-eval- myths and establish themselves by taking an action. The source uation. This was a general crisis during the course of the entire of their intensification is the frequency of gesture, which gains twentieth century, and was expressed at all levels of identity, i.e., the power of custom by being transmitted to daily actions becom- individual, collective, and general. ing a simple means for inflaming the passion of existence and The first reason that the problem of identity was raised in restarting life. the West was a gradual elevation in the role of the subject, i.e., What is indicated by the priority given to these types of the individual. This shift in contemporary western society was identities in contemporary Armenian art? I believe it embodies a determined by the deep processes through which the weakening human forced to experience the revolutionary explosion which Samvel Baghdasaryan Instead of complaining in silence of the institutions of socialization, that is to say, the family, gave birth to a technological reality from an ideological one. This it is possible to write silently, school, church, and state, make the individual the central figure human, therefore, becomes the carrier of an experience of col- HAY-ART Cultural Center, 2003 within the structure of society. lective transition. In post-Soviet republics this process started in new and very peculiar conditions after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It Translated from Armenian by Vardan Azatyan is marked by a situation where people lose (often unwillingly) Nazareth Karoyan, * 1959, the structures that once provided social stability and foreseeable is art historian, independent curator and critic in Yerevan. He was co-founder of the Ex-Voto Gallery and the In-Vitro-arts-magazine. security (working collectives, party-organizations) through the limitation of their own freedom. In the case of artists, issues of identity are directed to its third, i.e., general-philosophical dimension in order to find out what it means, in general, to be human. In this sense, two oppo- site directions can be pointed out in the search for the body; ferocity and eroticism. In these vectors, originating from two different strategies of criticism and play, there is no room for individual- speculative manifestations of identity. The first path is to go back to nature and infancy, to the discovery of one’s own body (Anna Barseghyan, Grigor Khacha- tryan—Norair Aivazyan, and Azat Sargissian). The primeval; the ferocity and nakedness become metaphors of a sensuality which is confronted with a numbness caused by the mechanical mediation of human relations (David Kareyan). Another way (which passes through mediation) of establishing identity is the path of alienation and metamorphosis. Here the border between object and subject is erased and the differ- Haroutyun Simonyan Untitled, ence between the sexes disappears. From this point on they video-installation, 2001 10 Informed but Scared The “3rd Floor” Movement, Parajanov, Beuys and other Institutions

Text: Arman Grigoryan not invited to the above-mentioned exhibition, and a month later It is very dangerous to possess and to pass on information in decided to make a performance entitled “Exit to the city”. Three totalitarian and closed societies. In the Soviet Union there were artists took part—Karine Matsakyan, Gagik Vardanyan (who informed people. In particular, there were artists in the 1960s presented a collage à la Parajanov in the “Happening”), four six- and ’70s who knew what was taking place in international politics, teen years old school kids and myself. For about an hour we science, and art. But it was dangerous for them to show that were screaming texts edited from politically oriented newspapers they were informed. In the environment of struggle against illiter- and art magazines. The speech of Henry Igityan (the first and acy, it was preferable to pretend to be primitive or a clown (the “irreplaceable” director of the Museum of Modern Art since 1972) shoot with a clown from Parajanov’s “The Color of Pomegranates” that followed the performance was very typical of the times: Poster of the 3rd Floor exhibition was symbolic in this sense). The content of information was also “Our people do not need your experiments” (we performed both in Leninakan (now Gyumri) scary: anticipation of a nuclear war and a threatening rapidity of “Happening” and “Exit to the City” in his museum space). It in 1988 development and achievement in the field of technology. meant that neither my friends nor I could have exhibitions there Although still obscure, abstractionism and pop art were con- any more, not to mention at the Artists’ Union. We had to sidered the most dangerous. Artists preferred to be recognized exhibit on the streets, at the conservatory and the education through others; naturally, through more popular artists. In Para- worker’s house. janov’s case, Sayat Nova and Ashigh Qerib. Henry Elibekyan, Gorbachov’s perestroika seemed hopeless. But his declara- who has been doing performances since the 1960s, represented tion of “glasnost” (transparency) raised hopes. The exhibition of himself through Yakulov, M. Avetissyan and recently, even young artists that opened in autumn of 1986 in the Artists’ Union through myself. was the result of great debates. I demanded, on behalf of myself Varuzhan Vardanyan, one of the most important representa- and all my rejected friends, an opportunity to exhibit. We were tives of 1970s art, has a photo in the role of Adam similar to given an opportunity but in the conference hall on the third floor Marcel Duchamp’s. The show “Happening”, which opened in (thus the name “3rd Floor”, which stayed with us until April 1994). Yerevan in 1982 and was curated by V. Tovmassyan, was an impor- The first “3rd Floor” lasted until April of 1987. From 10-16 April tant show. Vigen Tadevossyan (previously an abstract expression- there were daily discussions related to different fields such as ist, who later would play an important role in our art) presented a painting, literature, cinema, alternative jazz, punk rock, minimalist huge balloon that was constantly being filled with air. There was music, and one day was devoted to mass media. Parajanov was a wonderful poet named Belamuki. But focus was on two actors not present in cinema at that time. Mostly there were documen- who, in a very strange way, resembled Salvador Dali and Picasso. tary filmmakers (who were representing issues related to ecology, To be honest, it was neither a happening nor a performance, old people, and children). Parajanov appeared with Igityan accom- but theatre directed by the sculptor Vardan Tovmassyan. I was panying him. First he was upset, walked around the hall, came avant-garde artists. We representedonly minimalism andpop avant-garde were invitedto Narva (Estonia)tothefirstCongress ofSoviet fresh air. We understood thatitwasimportantandin1988we sion ontheaudience.Itwasas ifpeoplewerefeelingdizzyfrom chrome canvasandmythreepop artworksleftastrongimpres- entitled “TheburningofMaoTse Dungbook”,Kiki’s blackmono- that the‘shipoffools’epochisover respect Parajanov)andIsaid,laughing,“Parajanovunderstood left. Kikiandtheothersaskedwhathehadsaid(weallusedto hoping tofindarealmasculineart.”Thenheturnedaroundand tall, allpaintedinblack,saying:“Thereisnothinghere.Iwas up tomeandpointedKiki’s canvas,whichwastwometers Despite theperformanceofAshot-Ashot andSev’s work .” Russian avant-garde artistswerestillinStalinesque nostalgia,or would mixwith Soviet socialism).Butitwashard todothatasthe world issues,theworldwillchange(Americancapitalism cuss several artists(orpeople,asall people areartists)gatheranddis artists. To befrank, similartoBeuys,Ialsobelievethatwhen an unquestionableauthorityon postSovietRepublicavant-garde to overlappingandunitingsocialism andcapitalism.Beuyswas capitalism asanalternativetoStalin-stylesocialism. with ahumanface”,everybodyjustasstronglyviewedAmerican very clear;asmuchGorbachovwastryingtobuild“socialism photos). Theresultwasapplauseandovation.Everything art (EdwardEnfiajyan,whowasthespeaker, showedslidesand If yourecall,JosephBeuyshadadialoguein1985devoted - performance, 1988 or Theformalarthasdied, Hail totheunionofartistsfromotherworld! 3rd Floorgroup

11 12 ism ofMoscow artists (or Tadevossyan was leadingtalksanddidnotaccepttheconceptual- in the“3rdFloor”andwerepreserving Beuys’ideals.V dassarians, AzatSarkisyan,and others)whowerenotinvolved Khachatryan, AraHovsepyan,and laterSamvelandManvelBagh- cially thosewhogatheredaround Vigen Tadevossyan (Grigor the artistssurrounding himwereoftenreminiscent of“soc-artists”. 3rd Flooriswhatyouwanttobe.”Buttherewereartists,espe consumer (minimalismupstairsandpopartdownstairs).“The the followingyear, was likeasimpleandmemorablesignforthe of the“3rdFloor”,whichorganizedanexhibitioncalled“+-” things werebeingsoldatexorbitantprices.Thecommercialization from Beuys,especiallywhenhisclothes,hat,andsomeother strong impressiononmostofmyfriendsthatnothingwasleft In PariswewitnessedtheopeningofFIAC,whichleftsucha organized anexhibitionsalethere;“TheArmenianavant-garde”. year. Inordertohelp people affectedbytheearthquake,we tion called“666”,apartofwhichwetooktoParisinthesame belief inperestroika. the leadersofKarabachmovementinthatyearshookour human face”,butthe7Decemberearthquakeandarrestof still hadastrongbeliefinthepossibilityof“socialismwith started in1988.Andreally, everyofficialthingwasdying.We all media calledit“OfficialArthasDied.”TheKarabachmovement the Netherworld”(writtenonaboardhungfrommyneck)but performance wascalled“GreetingstotheArtists’Unionfrom in abigrepublicexhibitionthatopenedtheArtists’Union.The There wereonlydeclarationsandnothingmore. identities seekdiversitybutnotunity. ThiswasobviousinNarva. a waytokeepitsreligiousidentity. Thosewhoareinsearchof Beuys’ mysticism,whicheverySovietnationwasinterpretingas overs”. Ontheotherhand,andinadditiontothis,therewas like Petersburg“mitskis”werenotabletogetovertheir“hang- performance, 2003 Spit onthepublictaste, Henry Elibekian In thespringoffollowingyearweorganizedanexhibi When wereturnedtoYerevan, weshowedaperformance , astheyusedto callit,“soc-art”)but igen - - being informed. make usfamiliarwithpeople’ project started.Artiststhatexhibitatthesecenterscontinueto first BiennialinGiumrywasinitiatedand2001the“Utopiana” of 1997,anotherorganization,“HayArt”opened.In1998,the ACCEA foundabuildingwheretheycouldoperate.Attheend created agroupcalled“Act”whichlasteduntil1996).In1996, presented exceptions(inordertoprotecttheirindependencethey led byDavidKareyan,whocametothearenain1993-1994, phantom thatwanderedaroundthesemajorforums.Young artists the DocumentaandVenice Biennial.ItwasmainlyBeuys’ Tatevossyan. ArtistsinvolvedwithACCEAwantedtotakepartin by KarenAndreassyanwhoalsohadgreatrespectforVigen there wasastronganti-“3rdFloor”movement.Itledmainly porary ExperimentalArt(NPAK) wasestablishedanduntil1996 commercial gallerysystems,theArmenianCenterforContem- (led byNazaretKaroyan)werebusywitheffortstoestablish Nonetheless, especiallyafter1992,whilethe“3rdFloor”artists lives inY Arman Grigoryan,*1960, Translated fromArmenianbyAngelaHarutyunian He wasco-founderofthe3rdFloorGallery. performance, 1988 or Theformalarthasdied, Hail totheunionofartistsfromotherworld! 3rd Floorgroup erevan andworksasanartist,curator s fears—fearswhichoriginatein , writer , andactivist. 90 90… 1980 1970, approach inthatperiod. projects, arerareexamplesofaconceptual films,andland-art who didperformances, realism. TheworksofHamletHovsepian, period wereabstractexpressionismandsur- trendsconsideredalternativeforthat Art avoided anopenconfrontationwithideology tablished perceptionsbutatthesametime thatcontradictedes- museum presentedart Iguityan initiateditsestablishment.The museum intheSovietbloc.Ar and foralongtimetheonly, modernart established duringthistime.Itwasthefirst, The Yerevan was MuseumofModernArt publications. ism becameverypopularduetothese philosophy American, andJapaneseliterature as welltranslationsofmodernEuropean, which star ary magazine“Garoun”(Spring)appeared, modernist formsandprinciples.Anewliter- in architectureofthe1960s,returnedto and applicationsofnationalmotifsprevalent the classicistleftoversofatotalitarianstyle ar Soviet Unionwithrockmusicandalternative which bythattimehadpenetratedthe tant centersechoingthehippiemovement, of Armenia,becameonethemostimpor Diaspora connections.Yerevan, thecapital information comingfromtheW of There wasamoreorlessconstantimport logical pressuredecreasedtoaminimum. aggravating societyduringthe1960s.Ideo- order toavoidtheaccumulationoftensions liberal habitsofitssouthernperipheryin in Moscowwereobligedtotoleratethe accurate tosaythatcentralpowersystems in theSovietbloc.Orperhapsitismore the mostopenmindedandliberalrepublics In the1970s,Armeniawasperhapsoneof The 1970s t. Architectureofthe1970s,releasedfrom ted topublishnewlocalwriters . TheideasofFrenchexistential t criticHenry est dueto - - . spaces outsideofexistinginstitutionalart eventsatalternativepublic of artistic from theoldergenerationinitiatedanumber which togetherwiththe“nonconformists” todevelop, alsostarted of youngerartists etc.) fromstateinstitutions.Anewscene (in comparisonwithliterature,theater which wereperhapsthemostindependent set werefirstreflectedinthevisualarts, mid 1980s.Newtrendsinthecurrentmind- resistance, whichreachedapeakinthe one ofthemajorreasonsforincreasing traposition toSovietideology, wasperhaps astheonlycon- time, nationalself-assertion for theofficialstateideologyand,atsame asamediumofpropaganda considering art The establisheddualsocialperceptionof scenes. and stateinstitutions,localart developed betweenar By thebeginningof1980s,resistancehad 1980—Signs ofChange 16 mmb/wFilmonDVD,still,13',1975 The HeadwashingOne,Gnawing, Hamlet Hovsepian t andsociety , artists , Education House,andtheAestheticCenter ings attheY and from1980-1986exhibitionshappen- networks—outdoor exhibitionsin1978-1980, erevan StateConser vatory , the . documentary photo,1982 with anhappeningcuratedbyV The showopenedinY Opening oftheexhibition“ExittoCity” erevan in1982 . Tovmassian,

Timeline 1970, 1980 13 14 “3rd Floor” imeline 1987 T

Arman Grigoryan a.o. first “3rd Floor” exhibition documentary photo, 1987

In 1987, a group of artists, wich had separat- experiencing. That approach found its repre- ed from the scene, initiated an exhibition sentation in artworks that today, in the local held on the 3rd floor (non exhibition space) scene, are distinguished as Armenian pop art. of the Artists’ Union in Yerevan. That exhibi- The phenomenon of Armenian pop art was tion became a starting point for the group, severely criticized by local art critics and the “3rd Floor”, which led the transition from ignored by foreign critics as cynical, non-artis- a “nonconformist—cultural dissident epoch” tic, cosmopolitan, and anachronous. to a situation of alternative art in Armenia. “Where is the power which will preserve our The artists that were initially involved in the national art from that disgrace?” group followed two main directions in their (Soviet Art, July 1989) artistic approaches. Some followed and went deeper into metaphysical art’s creative The aesthetics of this type of art was entirely methods and philosophy and others were in- new for the local audience. It radically con- terested in the representational aspects of a tradicted the established aesthetic norms and new image relevant to the reality they were perceptions.

Arman Grigoryan one of the founders of the “3rd Floor” and its leading ideologist, wrote in a manifesto for the opening of its first exhibition: “… authors feel the time, the space, when they put their lyrical, philosophical world into psychological form. The art that we produce is not art but, rather, a declaration of war. We want to change the world, but we no longer have any hope. We find no support or help and almost no solid ground. We don’t have a big name, but we aren’t afraid as we fight off the ghosts…”

Arman Grigoryan The “3rd Floor” Group Belonging Logo design for the “3rd Floor” to the “3rd Floor”group, among Gallery, 1987 others, were the artists: Karine Matsakyan, Ashot Ashot, Ara Hov- sepyan, Kiki, Rouben Grigoryan, Vahan Roumelyan, Armen Petros- syan, Arshak Nazaryan, Sarkis Hamalbashyan, Armen Hadjhyan, Arevik Arevshatyan, Araks Nergar- aryan, Ruben Arevshatyan, Maher Azatyan, Anita Arakelyan, and Sev. Arman Grigoryan a.o. “3rd Floor” Manifesto, manuscript, diverse sketches for the exhibition, logo design 1987ff Initiatives Institutions and “HA Contemporary ExperimentalAr later, suchasthe“Yerevan Centerfor leries andtheculturalcentersestablished open fieldforindependentar providedanequaland directed bytheartists institutionscreatedand The short-lived history ofcontemporaryart’s development. the brightestandmostsignificantin private institutions,thisperiodremainsas seven years.Despitethebrevityofthese exhibitions andprojectsoverthecourseof leries, andInVitro magazinerealized art Voto”, “Khachadourian”gal- “TAAK”, Ch. tions. “Goyak”association,“Bunker themselves—to creategallerytypeinstitu- attempts—initiated mainlybytheartists 1991and1998,therewereseveral Between was becomingmoreandurgent. trends the dynamicsofcontemporaryart that wouldperceive,present,andinvestigate The needforqualitativelynewinstitutions scene; all initiated by artists. scene; allinitiatedbyartists. points forthealternativeArmenianar main theonlyvenuesandcentralmeeting hectography at the“BunkerGalerie”, Introduction tothefirstexhibition Sev Y -ART CulturalCenter”,wereandre- , 1990 t. Thesegal t” andthe ”, “Ex t - performance, 2000,Yerevan (Free) hangingintheAzatutyun(Freedom)squareatdayIndependence, AZAT photos: Armenpress in Y of aperformanceinderelicthouse performance “4004”,photodocumentation AZA erevan, 1993 T Sargsyan Andreassyan. Jaloyan, andtheartistKaren Hovanoissyan, theartcriticVartan Karoyan, alsothecollectorVicky addition tothearthistorian The editorialstaffcomprised,in between 1998and2000. published byNazarethKaroyan The artjournal“InVitro”, was Karen Andreassyan,1999 In Vitro ,no.III,artist’s projectby Nazareth Karoyan (ed.)

Timeline 1991-1998 15 16 War, Individualization, imeline 1990 T the Postmodern

Little by little, the postmodern approach The existential state, in which society and became increasingly relevant to the local art each individual appeared, created a new situation. The reality of political instability, kind of situation where global ideas were war, and the trade embargo chilled the considered through a very intimate and artists’ revolutionary transport. The trans- personal angle. Individual originality, which formed social formation and the reappraisal had been perceived as art’s sole significance, of values brought up the old question of was reinforced at a level involving the nature or reason. investigation of human uniqueness.

Karine Matsakyan The Triumph of the Consumer, photo documentation of a performance in a butcher shop in Yerevan, 1995 photos: Charly Khachadourian

Grigor Khatchatryan Manifesto 1990, photo collage, 1990

“I am not a human, I am Grigor Khachatryan. You are not a human; you are the contemporary of Grigor Khachtryan. Grigor Khacha- tryan—a name high and delightful.” (The “1st Manifesto” by Grigor Khachatryan, 1990) 1995 Art Demonstration slogans suchas: Y of demonstration tookplaceintheheart become usedtotheordinaryslogans.The end confusedacrowdthathadalready tion organization),whichfrombeginningto (following alltheformalitiesofdemonstra- “Act group”initiatedanar demonstrations. Itwasalsothenthatthe political andsocially-orientedmeetings the capital,wereoverlysaturatedwith In 1995,theentireRepublic,andpar interference. artistic withoutany such couldbeconsideredasart in asituationwheresocialphenomenonas Demonstration 1995),eventuallyfounditself socially oriented,(PSexhibition1994,Art The “Actgroup”,perhapsoneofthemost erevan andthegroupemergedproposing t demonstration ticularly documentary photos,1995 Art Referendum, Act Group NEW STATE SYSTEM CREATE ANEWCULTURE PARALLEL TOA ART INSPECTION NO ART ART REFERENDUM FREE ART, FREECULTURE, FREECREATIVITY documentary photos,1995 Art Demonstration, Act Group

Timeline 1995 17 18 Geo Kunst imeline 1996, 1997 T

Manvel Baghdasaryan photo project “Geo Kunst”, color prints, color copies, 1997

Artistic interventions such as the Geo Kunst Expeditions seemed more like seriously organized games, the goal of which was to interact in alternative ways with strictly developed structures without breaking the rules—(inofficial participation in Documenta X, 1997, pseudo-journalistic reportage at the 1996 Tbilisi biennial).

The expedition to Kassel organized by the Geo Kunst group in 1997 aimed to create for Participants in the Geo Kunst Expedition the X person, a passageway from the alter- to Documenta X from l to r: native space (underground passageways, Ara Hovsepyan, Haroutyun Simonian, Manvel railway stations, bus stops, etc.) to the space Baghdasaryan, Gagik Charchyan, Karen of Documenta X. The pre-concerted (with Andreassyan, Samvel Baghdassaryan, 1997, the organizers of Documenta) space photo: Artur Assoyan (a poster) for interaction was used to confirm (or provide evidence of) the passersby’s complicity in the Documenta; as a way to reflect on and recognize the importance of personal experience in alienated situations.

Manvel Baghdasaryan My Green Belgium, photos, 1996 tpaa 98ff Utopiana, 1998 The GiumriBiennial, installation, Gyumri,2000 Supermobile, Alexandr Melkonyan exchange projects. several yearsinYerewan witheventsand Kristensen, hadalreadybeenpresentfor Anna BarseghianandphilosopherStefan Utopiana, initiatedbyGeneva-basedartist trans-Caucasian ar factor forintegrationandinformationinthe scenes anddevelopedintoanimportant tions ofinternational,diaspora,andlocal diverging, sometimescontroversialposi by AzatSargsyan,amongothers,presented andcurated Center forContemporaryArt organizedforthethirdtimebylocal nial, was establishedinGyumri.The2002bien- quake, thefirstbiennialofcontemporaryart entirely destroyedbyadevastatingearth- In 1998,tenyearsafterthecitywasnearly 2002 for the3rdBiennialinGyumri, Catalogue t scene.Theproject - 1998 documentary photo, V AZA Arman Grigoryan enice Biennial, T , projectforthe Art since2002 for Contemporary Giumri Center Today”edited bythe the magazine“Art Cover of -

Timeline 1998… 19 20 The Issues of Alternative Art in Armenia Video, Media Art and the “Antifreeze” Art Festival

Text: Eva Khatchaturyan Contemporary alternative art in Armenia has a history. The “3rd easily transport their works any place in the world. Besides, video Floor” movement, which is related to more representative exhi- is the most inexpensive and accessible media. For instance, in bitions, originated as a way to confront official state sponsored our small artistic scene it sufficed for one person to have a video Soviet art in Armenia in the first half of the 1980s. The post-Soviet camera, which all the artists could use. Although distributing an generation of artists, in its turn, confronted the “3rd Floor”. This art work across the world through net art is also possible, and is generation started to emerge in the artistic field in the early perhaps the most convenient way, net art has not yet developed 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The art was radically in Armenia. Only a few artists are experimenting in this medium; different from that of the “3rd Floor”. Later, centers for contem- Narek Avetissyan, Vahram Aghasyan, and Garen Andreassyan. porary art began to emerge in Armenia, each of which presents Thus, the development of video art in Armenia is tied in with David Kareyan its own version of alternative art. a trend to be modern, to be associated with international con- Dead Democracy, And now, when we have a history of contemporary art, what temporary art. Yet it is also dictated at a local level, by ACCEA. video-installation, 1999 do we mean by the expression “alternative art”? What does Video art has become a signature. Being capable of it means alternative art look like today? How is it presented? I will try to that an artist is modern and has a chance to exhibit at the Venice explain the topic through examples of activities of the Armenian Biennial. The medium emerges in the foreground. In order to be Center for Contemporary Experimental Art where I have been modern and correspond to ACCEA’s standards, artists work in working as a curator and coordinator of the experimental music video and focus solely on representation. Possibly, 2001 became department since 2000. ACCEA opened in a huge Soviet build- a boom year for video art due to ACCEA’s policy that year. ing in the center of Yerevan. Its activities were made possible by But objectively, the appearance of this medium in Armenia young artists and curators filled with enthusiasm, new ideas, was connected to the emergence of hi-tech in our everyday lives, and projects. which does not date back to 2001, but to the mid-1990s. ACCEA Even during the Venice Biennial (where ACCEA has present- activated the field of video art only because it had sufficient equip- David Kareyan Digestiblereality, ed the Armenian pavilion since 1995), ACCEA maintained and ment and facilities; video projectors, video players, and monitors. video on DVD, still, 2002 affirmed its policy by presenting fifteen, mostly young artists at Alternative art moved into the world of new technologies the 2001 Biennial. Since then, video art has become rooted in and the role of ACCEA became one of representing that kind of contemporary art in Armenia; in 2001, Armenian artists presented art, i.e., the issue of representation enters the picture. exclusively video art at the Venice Biennial. Video art turned out ACCEA, with its annual exhibitions and projects, is currently to be the most accepted and popular medium and form of artistic considered one of the most active centers in Armenia. The center expression. began a series of solo exhibitions in a newly renovated building in On the one hand, this tendency is dictated by globalization 2003. The renovated interior gives a type of official status to the and high technologies. Media art offers artists the chance to exhibitions and anticipates a serious attitude from the cultural and Vahram Ahasyan video-installation, 2002 Armenian alternativeart.Alternativeartfestivalsdatebacksev- involve youngartistswhowillbethefuturerepresentativesof are implementedontheprincipleofopenparticipationaimingto “Antifreeze”, whichwasorganizedatACCEA.Thesefestivals I wouldliketomentiononeofthealternativeartfestivals, tent suchassocialissues.Inadditiontotheseindividualprojects, projects remainalternativeintermsofmedium(media),andcon- Artists’ Union,galleries,andtheMuseumofModernArt,ACCEA dominates, withinthecontextofexhibitionsorganizedat successful. Eventhoughtheproblemofrepresentationstill projects thathavebeenimplementedthusfarcanbedeemed of spacetraditionallyassociatedwiththebourgeoisie.But of whetheritwouldbepossibletohavealternativeartinthiskind cially forcontemporaryart.Forthisreason,manyweredoubtful been exhibited inanewlyconstructedenvironmentmadeespe- social fields. Untilthistime,experimentalalternativearthadnot art, butbecause ofitsindifference(andthis wasalso security; notbecause ofthegovernment’ (curated byartistDavidKareyan). one oftheinfluentialexhibitions ofthisperiodwasentitled“Crisis” of theworksandalternativeart in general.Itisnocoincidencethat and insecuritywasthesourceof theextremeandanarchicnature of artistswouldlosetheirexhibitionspace.Thissituationpanic of positionsthatalternativearthadalreadyestablished.Anumber fiscated goods.Thelossofthebuildingwouldalsomean Ministry ofJustice)wantedtoturnitintoanauctionsiteforcon- session oftheACCEAbuilding.Duetoitslocation,authorities(the intensified bythefactthatgovernmentwantedtotakepos- the existingsocialandpoliticalorder. Thissituationofpanicwas were inastateofpanicandtryingtospeakoutagainst torship, controversialpoliticalexhibitionswereorganized.Artists the changeofpower, whendemocracywasreplacedwithdicta- Moscow andBochumorganizedbytheMinistryofCulture).After communication withthestate(forexample,exhibitionsin days ofdemocraticpower in the1990swaspoliticalsituationArmenia.During Soviet alternativeart,whichwasmuchmoreradicalinnature. made possiblebyenthusiasm:theywerethepioneersofpost- walls, withabudgetofnexttonothing.Thesefestivalswere ACCEA whereeverybodycoulddoanythingtheywantedonthe alternative artfestivalshadbeenorganizedinadustyspaceat ovated buildingwithclean,whitewallsandanewfloor. Previous “One frame,oneminute”,andarockconcertonthefourthday. music concert.Thiswasfollowedbyfilmscreeningscalled “Antifreeze” opened,ontheseconddaytherewasanelectronic coordinators (includingme).Onthefirstday, theexhibition He workedincooperationwiththeCenter’s theatreandmusic Aghasyan, whohadexperienceinworkingwithyoungartists. most recentalternativeartfestivalwasentrustedtoVahram who cooperatewiththeCenter, theresponsibilitytoorganize David Kareyan.Despitetherecentappearanceofyoungcurators pants. AmongthemwereVahram Aghasyan,MherAzatyan,and tive artfestivalswere,atthesametime,organizersandpartici- context. Curatorsofyouthexhibitionsandsubsequentlyalterna- “alternative” and“young”areoftenidenticalintheArmenian of theparticipantswereyoungartists;thatiswhywords youth exhibitionsturnedintoalternativeartfestivals.Themajority the departmentsofmusicandtheatreopenedinCenter, became anannualevent,wasorganizedatACCEA.Later, when eral years.In1997,thefirstyouthartexhibition,whichlater But inthesameperiod,alternative artgainedacertain The reasonfortheenthusiasmexhibitionsorganized Unlike previousfestivals,thisonetookplaceinanewlyren- , contemporaryarthaditsmomentsof s supportofalternative 2002 video onDVD,still, Color ofthePomgranate, T 2003, courtesyACCEA detail ofthevideoandmulti-mediainstallation, Crush N60528, Hovhannes Margaryan Erotica, video,2001 Sona Abgaryan igran Khachatryan

21 Diana Hakobyan 22 Let Us Make an Artificial Smile, video, still, 2001

Karine Matsakyan Doll, 4' 41, video on DVD, still, 2002

connected with the fact that the problem of the building was festival and the activities of the Center. A live, experimental elec- solved). The influence of this relatively secure situation on art was tronic music concert was organized for the first time within the that art became more aesthetic, calmer, and concentrated more framework of “Antifreeze”. On the day of the opening, there were on representational issues. This is a general trend which can be so many visitors that clashes were inevitable. The band “Rein- noticed when scanning the history of Armenian contemporary carnation” performed. The band describes itself as a fascist band, art from the 1990s to the present. To be more specific: there are but following the lyrics, it becomes clear that they have anti- some artists whose work is more or less extreme than that of fascist views. They presented an anti-Semitic performance show- the others. What these artists produce can be found in their per- ing passages from the film Fanatic where the main topic is the

sonal computers and CDs, hidden in secure places such as Vienna, hero’s dualism of religion and fascism. The clash took place after Lusine Davidian not to be displayed in Armenia. But even in the case of these the band’s performance and on the second day of the electronic Untitled, 32' video on DVD, still, artists we notice that same tendency towards aestheticism and music concert we had to call in bodyguards. This time the festival 2004 labor. was open to both the public and participants. This factor gave the But let’s return to the “Antifreeze” project. As you may festival a feeling of extremeness. know, antifreeze is a chemical element that is added to the water In general, the festival was a mixture of new and old times in radiators in order to prevent it from freezing. And water, for its and trends. There was some nostalgia for the former extreme- part, prevents overheating of the motor. Contemporary art plays ness, which, however, was placed in a reconstructed and sanitized the same role in society. It is directed against culture but not environment. Hence, we can conclude that today, alternative towards harming it. In Armenia, weather (the winter season) Armenian art has already gained a certain position and in order reflects the activeness of the arts. But this is not the only factor to strengthen and promote it we are engaged mainly in the that “freezes” the artistic environment. The main source of this organization of international projects. ice is in people’s minds. It is only possible to overcome it by Eva Khatchaturyan Azat establishing strong communication between people. And art is a works as a curator at ACCEA performance at the opening of the in Yerevan São Paulo Bienal 2002, way of communicating which helps overcome the emptiness or videostill “ice” between people. We invited artists who were against some- thing and whose presence could contribute towards warming up the artistic environment. There were also some foreign artists from Germany, the U.S., and Iran, who took part in this exhibition. This factor was greatly important for us as ACCEA usually repre- sents only Armenian artists. Now, young curators are trying to change the so-called “Armenia for Armenians” policy by focusing on internationally oriented projects. Besides, the organizers of “Antifreeze” paid special attention to providing publicity and tried to remain closely connected with society. Before the opening, the festival was advertised and featured on radio and television introducing the general public to the concept and program of the tence ofdifferent was basedontheprincipleofharmoniccoexis The modelofurbanstructure,proposedbyartist Urban Anti-ArmenianArchetype”installation. Logical Victorious, InstinctivelySuicidalAncient in Manifesta3 presented toEuropeanartscene was Melkonyan logical loso art situationontheaestheticismandphi- local alreadysharpeningfocusinthe aspect of the installations Melkonyanaccentuatedthedramatic quite intensivecreativeperiod.Inhisactionsand signifiedthebeginningofanew,scene in 1995 he hadonthefrontline.Hisreturntoart cease-firebecauseofthecontusion before the as amilitaryofficer. Heretiredthearmyjust volunteered intheKarabachself-defense Alexandr Melkonyanhadlefttheartsceneand character. Fromtheverybeginningofwar the internalconfrontationsbecameanexternal perceptions. WiththecollapseofSovietUnion created confrontationsinsocialandcultural The romanticrevolutionaryspiritof80’s Armenia transformations duringthelasttwodecades. of aprivatelifestorytotheevolutionsocial could beabrightillustrationofthecomplexrelation The biographyandartofAlexandrMelkonyan Alexandr Melkonyan†2002 Ruben Arevshatyan unbearable. him wasunderstandablebutatthesametime spirit andshiftofsocialperceptionswhichfor had reflectedthesensationofendromantic dramatic essenceofhisphilosophywherehe installations Alexandrpresentedtheconcentrated ence andastheticalincompatibility of their individual incoher- fact the despite jects) 2001, CourtesyAstghikMelkonyan “The Anxiety, HouseofMan,Woman andSon”, sketches fortheinstallation-project Alexandr Melkonyan phy ofthelonelyindividualfrustratedbyideo and socialpressures.In2000,Alexandr Ljubljana withhis“Emotional, autonomous situations(ob . Inhislast troops - - -

23 24 part ofthebuilding(KGB,RepublicArmenia) and thedegreeofanglecentral The Angle,2001,Recreationofthemasonry Karen Andreassyan Ruben Arevshatyan experience. consideration andanalysisbasedonprivate discourse becomesthemaintopicforsubjective estrangement fromthepredeterminedsocial a newculturalconsciousnessinwhichthe concentrated timewithinthenewrealitycreates political andeconomicstrategiesintheintensively Andreassyan's subjectiveadaptationtosocial, or the“GeoKunst”atDocumentaXin1997. journalistic reportontheTbilisiBiennialin1996 the veryfirstexpedition,conceivedasapseudo- Armenian contemporaryartsceneeversince inseparable, oreventraditional,partofthe tions” initiatedbyAndreassyanhavebecomean social structuresandartisticsituations.“Expedi- manifest aggressivetraitsintheirinteractionof initiated byKarenAndreassyansince1996do The projectsor, tobemoreexact,artisticactions Karen Andreassyan