Introduction to Arman Grigoryan's “What Is Hamasteghtsakan Art” (1993) and Nazareth Karoyan's “What Is Hamasteghtsakan

D O C U M E N T / INTRODUCTION Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021

INTRODUCTION TO ARMAN GRIGORYAN’S “WHAT IS HAMASTEGHTSAKAN ART” (1993) AND NAZARETH KAROYAN’S “WHAT IS HAMASTEGHTSAKAN ART” (1996) angELa Harutyunyan

The documents presented here are attempts from within the early post-Soviet Armenian art scene to defi ne late-1980s artistic practices that would later be thought to constitute the “primal scene” of Armenian contemporary art. Published in 1993 and 1996, respectively, by artist Arman Grigoryan and art critic Nazareth Karoyan, the two articles with the same title locate these practices in relation to local and global cultural discourses in the wake of postmodern and postconceptual developments in art. The word hamasteghtsakan (համաստեղծական) can be translated as “collectively created” or as “Conceptual art.” The word is derived from the Armenian word համաստեղծ (hamasteghts), with the suffi x ական (akan) turning the word into an adjective.1 In Armenian, the verbs ստեղծել (steghtsel) and հղանալ (hghanal) both denote “to create.”

1 Համա (hama) is a prefi x with multiple meanings: it means being similar (such as the Latin prefi x homo), general or overall (synonymous to pan), and fi nally, it denotes “together” or “collective.” The noun ստեղծ means “conception” or “creation.” Stephan Malkhasyan’s 1944 dictionary states that the primary meaning of the word is “created together” and the fi gurative second meaning is “innate” or “naturally born,” whereas Ashot Suqiasyan’s 1967 dictionary of synonyms mentions only the second, fi gurative meaning. Stephan Malkhasyans, Hayeren bacatrakan bararan [Dictionary of Armenian], vol. 3 (Yerevan: ASSR State Publishing House, 1944–45), 28; Ashot Suqiasyan, Hayots lezvi homanishneri bararan [Dictionary of Synonyms of the Armenian Language] (Yerevan: ASSR National Science Academy, 1967), 358.

© 2019 ARTMargins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology https://doi.org/10.1162/artm_a_00246 115 116 artmargins 8:3 ian” art. ian” art. of idioms “totalitar familiar beyond the whose work extended artists of agroup presentation of international the foregrounded title English the Union. Bycontrast, Soviet of collapse the the outside worldthe after with integration and title’s for reference need communication to the Armenian the entirely “crossover,” as eliding translated thus trarily artistic practices was never straightforward—at times, it was used used it was times, straightforward—at never was practices artistic of conception art an is, art”—that “Conceptual with identical “creation” being as “conception” marking level, at asemantic meet “concept.” as translates hamasteghtsakan In also Central Committee’s House of Political Enlightenment ( Enlightenment House of Committee’s Political Central Party Communist of the building the occupying symptomatically Yerevan, in of Armenia University American newly established took place at the exhibition The Armenia). in Art Hamasteghtsakan Integration: read: Subjective title Armenian (the Armenia in Art Crossover Beyond Idiom: Contemporary titled a1993in exhibition circulated. term the which in context cultural the here, interest but rather primary 4 3 2 styles. and images, realities, incommensurable and distant together of putting away created,” suggesting “collectively as term the have translated I Elsewhere, art. “postmodern” or even to refer to “postconceptual” used it was times at other while art, Conceptual with synonymous as Հղանալ 1970s. of the Modernism National the and Realism Socialist to both native alter an as sphere designed artistic an whoRepublic were constructing Socialist Soviet Armenian the in of generation artists late Soviet the by practices art post-medium show together brought the Khachadourian, Charlie artist US-Armenian the with collaboration in Organized 1.1 (2012): 62–87. (2012): 1.1 ARTMargins Armenia,” in Art Contemporary of Emergence the and Modernism National Bolshevism, Progress: “Disintegrating Azatyan, Vardan conferences. and congresses as such functions public for auditoria and halls large also housing bureaucrats, party the of education political the for institutions were These 120. 2010), Change Urban and Culture Contemporary &Agency: Culture in Armenia,” in Art Contemporary in Representation of the Politics “Theorizing Goodfield, Eric and Harutyunyan Angela as a concept to delineate a set of aset aconcept as to delineate of hamasteghtsakan use The as a neologism aneologism as hamasteghtsakan proposed originally Karoyan 4 was arbi was hamasteghtsakan exhibition, of the title English the In ( hghanal (Plymouth: University of Plymouth Press, Press, Plymouth of University (Plymouth: Degen Monica and Miles Malcolm , ed. 2 are not are of of hamasteghtsakan However, semantics the ) is derived from the noun noun from the derived ) is հղացք , “creation” and ( hghatsq Qaghlustun ), which ), which . ). - 3

- - Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 September 25 on guest by http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf from Downloaded mixing “high literary” style with vernacular references: vernacular with style literary” “high mixing by relativization apostmodern performs instead text the pathos, gardist avant- with Replete it. nor it explain does wordto the hamasteghtsakan 5 figuration. than other anything excluded that rules compositional and techniques, styles, inherited the and reproduced affirmed they that provided artists, to young opportunities exhibition to provide was goal conventions Union’s of the the whose exhibitions, youth challenged 3 the with associated artists young the way this In artist. an be anyone could that suggesting ajury, not include did format proposed Union’sThe on the the movement’s floor—hence encename. hall third Union, aconfer spaces of but in the exhibition designated the not in took place exhibition The lines. official along art circulated and sented, repre commissioned, that institution artist-run a state-sponsored, Armenia, of Soviet Union of the of Artists exhibition youth annual the to organize invited was artists when agroup of young originated Floor perestroika and glasnost reform, and of liberalization grams Gorbachev’s pro of Mikhail context 1987the in together Coming 3 the movement called of acultural who were part artists Armenian post-Soviet and lateof Soviet the practices define spectively culture. to official tion sphere opposi in cultural alternative to refer to an came nevertheless that incoherent—and often addition, in other—and, from each distinct aesthetically and ideologically, stylistically, were formally, that tices prac of to denote post-medium aset circulation into entered teghtsakan hamas onward, exhibition initial references. and From this realities incommensurable together it brings that in conceptual, than rather performative is hamasteghtsakan instance, this in that It argued be may (Yerevan: American University of Armenia, 1993), exhibition catalog. 1993), exhibition Armenia, of University American (Yerevan: Armenia in Art Crossover Contemporary Idiom: Beyond in “Preface,” Karoyan, Nazareth get to the airport?) to the get how do I . (Dude, legion. entire an with II fornicating Ekaterina as passion enthusiasm and same the with Schwarzenegger and Madonna with identifies generation new . The of Alexandria. lighthouse the toward who were striving sailors Mediterranean the to similarly Crosna satellite the toward strives generation new The refers neither catalog exhibition to the Karoyan’s contribution short in order in to retro hamasteghtsakan term the introduced Karoyan 5 rd Floor. , the 3 , the rd Floor rd ------117

Harutyunyan | I ntroduction to “W h at I s H a m a s t e g h t s a k a n A r t ” Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 September 25 on guest by http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf from Downloaded 118 artmargins 8:3 movement. of the disintegration for way the the paved and become manifest had Armenia post-Soviet in institutions art new, now market-driven who to build were eager those and anarchists and libertarians between antagonism stark the time, Bythat of naming. act aretrospective was 3 to the term the applying objet trouvé objet ism, to Minimal Expressionism Abstract and from Pop or school: Art style, medium, any accommodateliterally could of references that variety 3 the group disintegrated, when the 1994, and 1987 Between agenda. cultural or political, aesthetic, unified defined, coherence apositively and stylistic movement’sfor of the both lack to become paradigmatic was show, dance that abreak even and amix readings, poetry happenings, performances, musical included tion bureaucracy. Soviet calcified the from within resistance and opposition staunch perestroika in inherent the contradictions of a reflection itself in ofwas course, ambiguity, This establishment. artistic Soviet of the politics cultural to the relation in marginal as and avant-garde” of “perestroika akind both as tioning posi- structural subsequent their reflected Union on periphery and its Marlboro cigarettes. worship of and blue to Sabbath the jeans Black and Joseph Beuys icons, from to lowbrow cultural middle- with art high mixing often symbols, and Western signs appropriated actively that events organized or in participated 50 artists approximately Karoyan’s calculation, 3 of the years six out the 7 6 be in opposition to anything that connoted Soviet ideology. connoted Soviet that to anything opposition in be were to perceived for they longas hand as work in hand nevertheless could that ideologies contradictory highly of them all omnipotence, of dreams anarchist and libertarianism, nationalism, liberalism, by by hamasteghtsakan conceptualized first 1993When in Karoyan (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017), 46. 2017), Press, University Manchester (Manchester: Real” “Painterly of the Journey The Avant-Garde: Armenian the of Aesthetics Political The Harutyunyan, Angela 46. 2008), Books, Intellect (Bristol: Post-Socialism Theory, Art, in Art,” Contemporary Armenian in Actions Collective and Spaces, Public Communities, “Art Azatyan, Vardan The 3 The 3 of the positioning spatial The rd Floor’s intervention in the 1987 Union of Artists exhibi 1987 Union the in of Artists rd Floor’s intervention , neo-Dada performance, and Conceptual art. Through art. Conceptual and performance, , neo-Dada 6 Ideologically, the group combined romantic Ideologically, the , as Gorbachev’s efforts at reform were met with at were with met reform Gorbachev’s efforts , as rd Floor’s loose association, according to according rd Floor’s association, loose rd Floor’s incommensurable practices, his his rd Floor’s practices, incommensurable rd Floor artists both within the the within both rd artists Floor , ed. Mel Jordan and Malcolm Miles Miles Malcolm and Jordan Mel , ed. rd Floor used abroad rd used Floor 7

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 September 25 on guest by http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf from Downloaded ceptualizing it in relation to the art practices of the 3 of the practices art to the relation it in ceptualizing of con aim the with term the revisited from misuse, hamasteghtsakan of saving “author’s an by driven responsibility” Karoyan, ment—that 3 of collapse the the after years later, 1996—three in It only was communication. for need cultural the to emphasize cept con same deployed had the Karoyan of culture, repressive mechanisms the against directed art in creation of all-encompassing it akind as collective. of the imperatives from the emancipation individual’s of the ideal the as culture liberated a truly one of creating as mission its it understands time, same At the above culture. stands joy,” “serious by characterized art, hamasteghtsakan that tradictions con these It through is “totalitarian.” and democratic” “truly both is art Leonardo.” as great view, Grigoryan’s In as is hamasteghtsakan “Disney aworld where inviting technologies,” and techniques schools, styles, as as well unaccepted, vs. accepted expensive, cheap vs. non-figurative, vs. figurative subjective, vs. low,vs. objective oldnew, theirs, vs. vs. ours of high constraints from the artwork the liberates once for and all art “ he writes, As everything. and anything to mix right absolute artist’s the by of logic development,” own legitimized and “its words, Grigoryan’s in upon autonomy founded, is The of art equality. social and freedom of political seeds the contains thus and tutions insti of cultural constraints from the of liberation ideals the separates sinceit to it, antagonistic also yet of culture heteronomous: it part is do it.’” can it,’ approach ‘we of know ‘we the but in principle the not in question solution to the this sees art Hamasteghtsakan society? with clashing without potentialities able be his to discover will vidual of love’ ‘city indi where the age-old its reach humanity resolved? Can be society and individual the between culture, and art between tion contradic the “Can he asks: other. Then on the kitsch, cultural mass as or powerful, of the hands aweaponthe as in culture and one hand, the on creation, autonomous an as sphere art of individual ence between differ the establishes first Grigoryan art, problem of hamasteghtsakan the of his outline In Document. first as our time, first for the English in address, of his 1993. We in text the offer of Fine Arts Institute Yerevan at the State delivered alecture during recorded analysis, who first its presented Grigoryan, Arman ideologue, ment’s main If Karoyan coined the term hamasteghtsakan term the coined Karoyan If As opposed to Grigoryan’s mobilization of the term, which defined defined which term, of the mobilization to Grigoryan’s opposed As autonomous both is and art view, Grigoryan’s In hamasteghtsakan , it was the move the , it was rd move Floor rd Floor. By that hamasteghtsakan hamasteghtsakan ------119

Harutyunyan | I ntroduction to “W h at I s H a m a s t e g h t s a k a n A r t ” Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 September 25 on guest by http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf from Downloaded 120 artmargins 8:3 de-ideologized reproduction of the method of Soviet anti-propaganda.” of Soviet method of the reproduction de-ideologized already the is information-image of the strategy desacralizing ritualistic the art, of hamasteghtsakan frame the . In image-information. of this alayer is art of hamasteghtsakan material The image. information an but nothing is ready-made the image case this “In readymade: cultural of atype and image coded aculturally arepresentation, already always is one that Other, the implies it Rather, always subject. access to that nor it transparent provide does of enunciation, subject the represents “I” neither authorial The subjectivities. of postmodern multiplicity the but in collectivity of “us” Soviet the place in no is longertaking tion dissolu this that and subject, modernist solution self-sufficient of the dis to the apointer as functions hamasteghtsakan that claims Karoyan context. global contemporary the with of communication means a as serve can art Armenian historical that culture of national tinuity con of the perspective it from the is that He argues system. ian” Soviet “totalitar of collapse the the after epochs of previous art national the with restores aconnection that information as art contemporary cusses dis world. Karoyan globalizing contemporary the and art Armenian of history to the both respect space—with and time across nicability 3 the of aspects collective the emphasized author,idea of Karoyan asingle “creative” to “collective.” 3 Just the as from focus semantic the to shift was of Karoyan’s goal analysis The translate. to difficult especially text the make Armenian, in tional he opera made jargon that poststructuralist of the usage ambiguous Karoyan’s complex and including inconsistencies, terminological and 1990s. Its stylistic early the in practiced art contemporary historicize to he used had that framework logical and historical Hegelian the ing process of abandon the in was Karoyan time, At the Jacques Derrida. and work of the Barthes Roland especially poststructuralism, in interest his reflects journal, of issue the this in Document translated movement. the characterized Expression Abstract and Pop as Art such expressions artistic mensurable his and significance retroactive acquired already had term the time, torical value and designated a style, of bringing together incom together of bringing astyle, designated and value torical Karoyan’s agenda was to align those artistic practices that at first at first that practices artistic those to align was Karoyan’s agenda term, of the implications creational and humanist the Despite second the Art,” Is Hamasteghtsakan “What Karoyan’s 1996 text rd Floor’s exhibition-making practices and stressed their commu their stressed and practices rd Floor’s exhibition-making ism, art and Minimalism amongst others, that had had that others, amongst Minimalism and art ism, rd Floor sought to abandon the to abandon the rd sought Floor - - - - -

- -

- Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 September 25 on guest by http://direct.mit.edu/artm/article-pdf/8/3/115/720619/artm_a_00246.pdf from Downloaded be translated as the “post-Soviet condition.” “post-Soviet the as translated be also could hamasteghtsakan sense, this In communication. transparent “utopia” choice and of consumer capitalist the in realized been already had promised art that ideal the argue, one further authors wrote, could both which in conditionsof neoliberalization post-Soviet the In system. Unionclaustrophobic and conceivedversion Soviet of aclosed as the a borders was aworld of without such Other the that argue could One liberated. triumphantly as of it aworld sees that part to be borders and closed traverse formerly to desire subject’s post-Soviet the reflect mately ulti Both information. communicable and of transparent interface textual apurely is surface this for Karoyan, participation, equal granted are heroes cultural where all up made of images surface collage-like a constitutes gesture hamasteghtsakan the for If Grigoryan itself. reality social more is than one real that dreaming,” “collective such spaceas a for art position both they affinities: deep betray title, same dreaming.” dreamworld as a collage-like figures space itself information this that degree to the article, his in romanticized highly is accessibility Indeed, accessible and of free information. politics to glasnost indebtedness his space betrayed and time across nicability ofcommu fluid akind as of postmodernism Karoyan’s understanding translation. aprocess of theoretical implied also translation linguistic first time, to translate poststructuralism into Armenian. into poststructuralism translate to time, first for the he needed, linguistically, trends, global with communicability time, its thesame and, at postmodernism Armenian of specificity the for acase to make was Karoyan If, culturally, translation. theoretical and linguistic, of cultural, involved deal agreat This postmodernism. what he global saw as with Armenia of post-Soviet art for the tional founda as seen to be came but then politics cultural Soviet opposed 9 8 (Bristol: Intellect Books, 2008), 46. 46. 2008), Books, Intellect (Bristol: Post-Socialism Theory, Art, (eds.), Miles Malcolm and Jordan Mel in Art,” Contemporary Armenian in Actions Collective and Spaces, Public Communities, “Art Azatyan, Vardan reader. uninitiated the for transparent more them render to order in pretatively inter and liberally passages complex most its of some translated have we text, the of parts some of convolutedness and complexity the preserved we While passages. its of some decipher to able barely was himself Karoyan text, this writing after years Twenty-three author. the with discussions several involved text Karoyan’s of translation present The It is here that Grigoryan’s and Karoyan’s texts, which bear the the bear which Karoyan’s and Grigoryan’s It texts, here is that 9 , aspace for “collective 8 Of course, course, Of - - ’s - - 121