Kunsthaus Graz, Graz University Post-Soviet Art 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: 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, Tallinn: 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 Estonia, 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 art history and the Gallery, Moscow, the Russian Museum 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) Arts 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 Architecture 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