The task of dealing with a relatively newphenomenon, at least in terms of time,

appears to be an exceptionally difficult,regardless of how clearly this phenomenon issituated in space and time, how distinct itsborders are, or how exhaustively its protago-nists have engaged in self-description. Fromtoday’s perspective, it is far easier to speak ofthe significance that galleries such asStudentski Centar or Nova had in the produc-tion of urban culture in the 70s. The myth ofthese two galleries has grown to such anextent that all further rationalization from theperspective of contemporary events onlybuilds it up instead of destroying it. The factthat we are reluctant to explain myths, sincerational explanation deprives them of theireffect, is yet another circumstance that makesthe whole thing easier, but somehow alsomore difficult. All “objective” facts and specu-lative elucidations, such as the social andpolitical background, biographies of certainindividuals, attested dates, places, andevents, will eventually acquire their value onlyand exclusively as elements of a story, andthat story will, if convincing enough, success-fully absorb each new fact into its texture.

I certainly do not mean to say that his-torical events are merely myths; rather, I wishto draw attention to the fact that they neces-sarily include the story as a category of knowl-edge, halfway between truth and lies. Since itis based on the notion of possible as some-thing that neither excludes historical truth,nor is bound to it, the category of story makesit easier to write about relatively recent histo-ry. Thus, a story simply states that somethingoccurred at a certain moment, caused certainchange, and finished, even if the protagonistsof that change still live sound and safe in thisworld, they work as they used to and need notagree with anything I am about to say.1

However, in order to avoid all confusionbetween the story and empirical reality, it isnecessary to begin with establishing a con-vincing beginning and a convincing ending.

So let us begin: in the late 90s, some-thing irretrievably changed in the cultural andsocial, that is, “urban” scene. In an environ-ment that is - after all - rather small, anastounding number of artists’ associations,groups, and autonomous culture makers haveemerged. They have accelerated, multiplied,and strengthened our cultural scene with theiractivity and become a counterpart to theexisting official institutions, snatching away agood piece of their territory. Since our storymust have a satisfactory ending, we might

Obraditi jedan fenomen koji je, baremπto se vremenskog odmaka tiËe, relativ-

no nov, koliko god on bio jasno lociran uvremenu i prostoru, koliko god mu granicebile Ëitljive i njegovi protagonisti iscrpni usamodeskripciji, Ëini se izuzetno teπkimpoduhvatom. Iz danaπnje perspektive dale-ko je jednostavnije govoriti o znaËenju kojesu, primjerice, Galerija Studentskog centraili Galerija Nova, imale u proizvodnji urbanekulture sedamdesetih godina. Mit o ovimdvama, ne sasvim sluËajno odabranim pri-mjerima, u toj je mjeri stasao da ga svakadaljnja aktualizacija iz perspektive suvre-menih zbivanja nipoπto ne razara, veÊ samonadograuje. »injenica da mitove neradoobjaπnjavamo jer s racionalnim objaπnje-njem gube svoju uËinkovitost, predstavljadodatnu, koliko olakπavajuÊu, toliko i oteæa-vajuÊu okolnost. Sve “objektivne” Ëinjenicei spekulativna razjaπnjenja, poput druπtve-no-politiËke podloge, biografija pojedinaË-nih osoba, utvrdivih datuma, mjesta i doga-aja, imat Êe na kraju vrijednost samo iiskljuËivo kao elementi jedne priËe, koja Êe,ako je dovoljno uvjerljiva, svaku novu Ëinje-nicu uspjeπno apsorbirati u vlastito tkivo.

Time se, dakako, ne æeli reÊi da supovijesni dogaaji tek puki mitovi, veÊsamo upozoriti da oni nuæno ukljuËuju priËukao spoznajnu kategoriju na pola putaizmeu istine i laæi. ZasnivajuÊi se na poj-mu moguÊeg kao neËeg πto povijesnu istinune iskljuËuje, ali joj nije niti obavezno, kate-gorija priËe olakπava zadatak pisanja povi-jesti o relativno neposrednoj proπlosti. Pri-Ëa, dakle, jednostavno utvruje da se u ne-kom trenutku neπto dogodilo, izazvalo odre-enu promjenu i zavrπilo, Ëak ako su njeniprotagonisti u stvarnosti joπ æivi i zdravi,rade kao i dosad, i ni sa Ëim se reËenim nemoraju nuæno sloæiti.1 Da izmeu priËe iempirijske zbilje, meutim, ne bi doπlo dozabune, potrebno je prije svega ustanovitiuvjerljiv poËetak i kraj.

Krajem devedesetih, dakle, neπto senepovratno dogodilo na kulturnoj, druπtve-noj, odnosno “urbanoj” sceni. U jednoj ipakmaloj sredini tijekom posljednjih pet ili πestgodina niknuo je zavidan broj umjetniËkihudruga, kolektiva, autonomnih proizvoaËakulture koji su svojim djelovanjem ubrzali,umnogostruËili i ojaËali ovdaπnju kulturnuscenu, parirajuÊi postojeÊim sluæbeniminstitucijama i u mnogoËemu im Ëak preo-tevπi ulogu. BuduÊi da priËa mora imatizadovoljavajuÊi kraj, u tu svrhu moæe sepreuzeti izjava Teodora Celakoskog2 kako

t lmarko golub

obrnuto ispriËanapriËa: uzorci urbanescene zagrebaa story told inreverse: patterns inthe urban scene ofzagreb

t

1 Mnogi od protagonista ‘nove kulturne prakse’ u tekstu nisu spomenuti, a oni Ëija je djelatnost opisana nisu odabrani prema kriterijima ‘vaænosti’, nego ilustrativnosti pojedinih projekata za neke od problemskih aspekata priËe. Oni kolektivi Ëija se djelatnost moæe iskljuËivo opisati kao ‘izvoaËka’, odnosno ‘umjetniËka’, uglavnom su izostavljeni, jer se u tekstu ne obrauju umjetniËki proizvodi (bili oni progresivni, avangardni ili klasiËni) kao takvi.

2 Kao policy-maker neovisne kulture Celakoski je zastupao aktere izvaninstitucionalne scene koji su reagirali na odluku Ministarstva kulture o ukidanju kulturnih vijeÊa u oæujku 2004.

l

1 Many protagonists of the ‘new cultural practice’ have not been mentioned in this text, while those whose activity has been described were not chosenaccording to the criterion of ‘importance’, but ratherthat of the way in which some of their projects illustrate certain aspects of the story. Those groups whose activity can be described exclusively as ‘performative’ or ‘artistic’ have mostly been left out,since this text does not speak about artistic products as such, regardless of how progressive, vanguard, or classical they were.

30

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 30

311

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 31

use to this purpose a statement by TeodorCelakoski,2 who said that the associationsthat we call alternative in fact represent themainstream of today’s cultural scene in glob-al terms. Since his diagnosis largely definesthe way things are today and helps interpretthe consequences of a programme that wemight call radical, it has the necessary weightto serve as the logical ending of our story.

However, it is far more difficult to identi-fy a beginning that would equally clearly con-dense all aspects of such an importantprocess; and it would certainly be wrong tolook for that beginning in any individual con-tribution. As for the time frame, everyone willpoint their fingers to the 90s - an era thatbroke up all continuity with previous times,which was the continuity of a broader, differ-ently oriented culture scene, and indeedproved fatal for certain segments of culture.Some forms of cultural life were abruptly doneaway with, while others simply stopped func-tioning; unfortunately, there were no “new”ones that would fill the gap. The lack of anystabile platform for action could only result intwo types of reaction - explicit resignation andself-organization with an uncertain outcome.

From today’s perspective, it somehowseems that the Weekend art project, whichstarted ten years ago, embodied both reac-tions. If we play a bit with meanings, wemight say that the “sporadic retreat of threeartists into the forest above Zagreb” would bethe first, while “hiking together once a week”would be the second possible type of reaction.Even though there are not too many formalsimilarities between this intentionally chosenand small, but temporally protracted actionand the new cultural models that developedwithin the few years to follow, it would still beof interest to point out certain parallelsbetween them. First of all, Weekend Art orig-inated in the impossibility of communicationwithin the existing system. The solution itsought consisted in provoking communicationthat would, so to say, start “from zero”: fromthe symbolism of friendly intercourse andsome sort of fellowship in opinion as the min-imal assets in terms of art and also politics.3

Seen in this way, Weekend Art was a smallenterprise, a miniature version of utopianpractice and a possible basis for the post-poned production of art. The pejorative con-notation of the group’s name - borrowed fromthe activity of amateur associations of artists -accentuated their tendency towards self-orga-nization; if such self-organization is a reactionto the impossibility of action within the exist-

su udruge koje nazivamo alternativnima usvjetskim okvirima zapravo mainstream da-naπnje kulturne scene. BuduÊi da uvelikedefinira sliku danaπnjeg stanja te tumaËiposljedice jednog, po svemu sudeÊi radikal-nog programa, ta dijagnoza ima potrebnuteæinu za logiËan svrπetak priËe.

Daleko je, meutim, teæe utvrditi poËe-tak koji bi jednako jasno saæeo sve vaæneaspekte jednog takvog dogaanja i koji bisigurno bilo pogreπno traæiti u neËijem indi-vidualnom doprinosu. ©to se tiËe vremen-skog odreenja, svi Êe bez puno razmiπljan-ja uprijeti prstom u devedesete godine - vri-jeme koje je, dokinuvπi kontinuitet s pret-hodnim razdobljem, kontinuitet jedne πire,drugaËije orijentirane kulturne scene, doistabilo pogubno za odreene segmente kulture.Neki od oblika kulturnog æivota naprasno suukinuti, drugi su jednostavno prestalifunkcionirati, dok “novih”, koji bi nadomje-stili prazninu, naæalost, nije bilo. Nedostatakbilo kakve stabilne platforme djelovanjamogao je prouzroËiti dva tipa reakcije -eksplicitnu rezignaciju ili samoorganiziranjeneizvjesnog ishoda.

Prije desetak godina zapoËet projektWeekend Art, gledan iz danaπnje perspekti-ve, na neki je naËin utjelovljavao oboje.Poigramo li se sa znaËenjima, “povremenopovlaËenje troje umjetnika u πumu iznadZagreba” predstavljalo bi prvi, dok bi “za-jedniËki odlazak na izlete jednom tjedno”,predstavljao drugi tip moguÊe reakcije. Iakoizmeu ove, proizvoljno odabrane i male,ali vremenski rastegnute akcije, i novih kul-turnih modela koji Êe se formirati tijekomnarednih nekoliko godina nema previπe for-malnih sliËnosti, bilo bi ipak zanimljivoukazati na neke paralele meu njima. Prijesvega, Weekend Art je proizaπao iz nemo-guÊnosti komunikacije unutar postojeÊegsistema. Rjeπenje je pokuπao pronaÊi uprovociranju komunikacije koja, takoreÊi,poËinje “od nule”: u simbolici prijateljskogdruæenja i neke vrste istomiπljeniπtva kaominimalnog umjetniËkog, ali i politiËkoguloga.3 Weekend Art, promatran na tajnaËin, jest kolektiv u malom, minijaturautopijske prakse i tek moguÊa podloga zaodgoenu proizvodnju umjetnosti. Pejora-tivan pak naziv projekta - termin preuzet izprakse amaterskih umjetniËkih udruæenja -naglaπava teænju za samoorganiziranjem;ako je takvo samoorganiziranje reakcija nanemoguÊnost djelovanja unutar postojeÊegumjetniËkog sustava, onda se Weekend Artuistinu moæe smatrati kritiËki intoniranim

32

t

3 “Vaæno je ipak napomenuti da su i okolnosti utjecale na takvu taktiku, jer smo na poËetku devedesetih, kada smo zapoËinjali s projektom, bili orijentirani - πto se autistiËnosti tiËe - na veÊu grupu, u cilju poboljπavanja komunikacije na sceni opÊenito; kakose nije dogodio odaziv, ideπ na moguÊu varijantu, stvaraπ dijalog s ljudima koji su spremni na to, ako veÊ nije spremna kompletna scena. W. Art je zajednica u malom, to jest dijalog, samo u manjem mjerilu.” (Ivana Keser u razgovoru Poklapanje u sferi odgovornosti [Sphere of responsibility], u: Frakcija, 30/31, 2003., 98-107.

l

2 As a policy-maker of independent culture, Celakoski represented the extra-institutional scene, which reacted to the decision of the Ministry of Culture to abolish cultural councils (March 2004).

3 “Still, it is important to observe that circumstances played a certain role in that policy. In the early 90s,when we were starting with the project, we were oriented -speaking about being autistic - towards a larger group, which aimed at improving communi-cation within the scene as such; since there was noresponse, we logically turned to a feasible variant, we entered into dialogue with those people who were ready for that even if the scene in its entirety was not. W. Art is a small community; it is that dia-logue, only at a smaller scale.” (Ivana Keser, in the interview Sphere of responsibility, in: Frakcija, 30/31, 2003, 109-115.)

1. Naslovna stranica Ëasopisa Arkzin / Front coverof the Arkzin magazine (br. / No 1, 1994/5)2. Naslovna stranica hrvatskog prijevodaKomunistiËkog manifesta s predgovorom SlavojaÆiæeka / Front cover of the croatian translation ofCommunist manifesto with the foreward by SlavojÆiæek, izdanje / ed. Arkzin, Zagreb 1998.3. Naslovna stranica publikacije Knjiga i druπtvo -22 % / Front cover of publication The Book andSociety - 22 %, izdanje / ed. Arkzin, Zagreb 1998.

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 32

projektom. Pozicija Weekend Arta, lociranana granici privatnosti, u svojoj je biti subin-stitucionalna, na sliËan naËin kao πto bismoto pod odreenim uvjetima mogli reÊi i zadanaπnju urbanu kulturnu scenu; sve meto-de, modeli i oblici djelovanja navedeni ukontekstu ovog projekta ujedno su i neki odnajkarakteristiËnijih obiljeæja kojima se iona sama moæe opisati. Ono πto su svojimdjelovanjem uspjele nametnuti udrugepoput WHW-a, Multimedijalnog instituta,Platforme, Community Arta, BLOK i mnogihdrugih, takoer se temeljilo na nuænostiuspostavljanja modela kolektivnog djelova-nja kao platforme na kojoj bi se razvilascena, reformiranju naËela kulturne politi-ke, nedvosmislenoj politiËnosti nastupa iprograma, reaktiviranju sposobnosti utopij-skog miπljenja koje leæi u svakom poimanjuæelje za promjenom i meusobnoj solidari-zaciji, bez koje o “sceni” uopÊe ne bi moglobiti govora. Akteri koje ovdje spominjemo upravilu nisu izvoaËi, dakle, ne proizvodeumjetniËka djela, arhitekturu niti kazaliπnepredstave, nego stvaraju podlogu da bi sesve, ili neπto od ovoga, moglo ostvariti.Dakle, takva inicijativa stvaranja preduvjetaza proizvodnju kulturnih sadræaja u velikojje mjeri potaknuta æeljom za njihovom kon-zumacijom. Situacija se u krajnjem ishoduËini pomalo incestuoznom, buduÊi da alter-nativne udruge prakticiraju kulturu mimosluæbenih institucija, umreæavajuÊi se me-usobno unutar neovisnog sustava, stvara-juÊi vlastitu organizacijsku infrastrukturu,programe, ciljeve te na kraju i publiku.

Scena koja je, na odreeni naËin, “sa-monikla”, danas se s pravom moæe nazvati“mainstreamom”, buduÊi da je od poËetkapokuπavala ispuniti neke od funkcija repre-zentativne urbane kulture koje su u lokal-nom kontekstu i u okviru postojeÊeg institu-cionalnog sustava, izostale. Ovo je djelova-nje u neku ruku utemeljeno na redefiniranjupojmova “kulture” i njenog “urbanog” atri-buta, odnosno na objedinjavanju ulogaumjetnika, izvoaËa, proizvoaËa, konzu-menta i graanina kao elemenata jedinst-venog kolektivnog subjekta koji aktivnim isvjesnim pristupom svakodnevici konstitui-ra urbanost vlastite sredine.

Djelovanje ovih neovisnih udruga usre-dotoËenih na organizaciju i poticanje razli-Ëitih kulturnih projekata zapravo je vrlorano prepoznato i u sluæbenim krugovima.Jedna od kustoskih koncepcija u okviru 25.salona mladih 1998. godine bila je, naime,usredotoËena na nekoliko tada netom osno-

ing art system, then Weekend Art can indeedbe considered a critically oriented project. Theposition of Weekend Art was located at theborderline of privacy and essentially subinsti-tutional, and we may under circumstancessay the same about today’s urban culturalscene; all methods, models, and forms ofaction mentioned in relation to this project areat the same time among the most character-istic features that may describe the culturalscene as such. Those things that associationssuch as WHW, Multimedija Institute,Platforma 9,81, Community Art, BLOK, andmany others managed to impose through theiraction was likewise based on the necessity ofestablishing a model for collective action as aplatform on which a scene could develop, ofreforming the principles of cultural policy, giv-ing an unambiguous political colouring toone’s presentation and programme, reactivat-ing the capacity of utopian thinking that iscontained in every notion of striving forchange, and establishing mutual solidarity,without which we could not speak about a“scene” at all. The protagonists we are talkingabout here were as a rule not identical withthe performers, that is, they did not produceworks of art, architecture, or theatre plays;instead, they created a basis for realizing all ofthese, or at least some. Thus, the initiative ofcreating the preconditions for the productionof cultural content was largely motivated bythe desire for its consummation. The situationmight in the end seem a little incestuous,since alternative associations practiced cul-ture outside of official institutions, mutuallynetworking within an independent system,creating their own organizational infrastruc-ture and eventually their own audience.

The scene that was in a way “home-brewed” can today be justly called “main-stream”, since it struggled from its very begin-nings to fulfil some of the functions of repre-sentative urban culture that were missing inthe local context, as well as in the existinginstitutional system. Its action was in a waybased on redefining the notions of “culture”and its “urban” attribute, that is, on unifyingthe roles of artist, performer, producer, con-sumer, and citizen as the elements of aunique collective subject that would consti-tute the urban character of its own environ-ment through his active and consciousapproach to everyday life.

The activity of these independent associ-ations, which were focused on organizing andmotivating various cultural projects, was infact acknowledged rather early by the official

33

2

3

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 33

circles. One of the curating conceptions at the25th Salon of Young Artists in 1998 wasactually focused on several recently foundedgroups and the phenomenon was recognizedas supraregional: thus, ATTACK from Zagreb,21. proljeÊe from Split, URA from Rijeka, andArt radionica Lazareti from Dubrovnik were allinvited. The activity of these groups was char-acterised by their insistence on a differentpractice of presenting cultural events andcommunicating with the public, on an activistattitude towards promoting citizens’ libertiesand protecting human rights, as well as oncreating alternative spaces for culture and art,including the street. One might say that noth-ing much has changed since, except that suchgroups became more numerous. In the sameyear of 1998, Igor GrubiÊ and Autonomnatvornica kulture (Autonomous Culture Facto-ry) organised a happening on the FlowerSquare in Zagreb entitled The Book and theSociety - 22%, which, although essentially anart project, aimed at a broader communityand called for the activation of masses with acritical attitude. Since it was inadequatelydocumented, it has almost fallen into obliv-ion, but the fact remains that all future pro-tagonists of the urban scene of Zagreb werethere, in one place, and one might even con-sider that project the actual starting point ofeverything. How broad was the rangebetween the performers themselves is evidentfrom the fact that there were young artistsparticipating in the project, such as AndrejaKulunËiÊ with one of her first internet pieces,as well as older ones, such as TomislavGotovac, who reasserted the principles of hislegendary urban actions on the same square.These independent cultural initiatives indeedhad a positive attitude towards the history. InSplit, for example, Igor GrubiÊ and his pro-voking piece Black Peristil evoked - just likeWeekend Art, after all - certain moments ofartistic past, moments when agitating for col-lective action was what artistic activity waslargely about. The revival of vanguard con-cepts coincided with the emotional reawaken-ing of a broader local community in a massgathering that took place in that same year of1998 on the main square, in order to supporta local radio station.

And then, the Arkzin magazine, whichhas ceased existing in the meantime, initiatedthe reissuing of the Communist Manifesto,which inspired an exhibition at the MeπtroviÊPavilion, at Dom HDLU (House of theCroatian Association of Visual Artists) twoyears later. The role of Arkzin, as well as of

vanih kolektiva, a fenomen je prepoznatkao nadregionalan, pa su na spomenutiSalon pozvani i zagrebaËki ATTACK, i split-sko 21. proljeÊe, i rijeËka URA, i dubro-vaËka Art radionica Lazareti. Kod svih suovih udruga inzistiranje na drugaËijoj prak-si prezentacije kulturnih dogaaja i komu-nikacije s publikom, aktivistiËki stav premarazvijanju graanskih sloboda i zaπtiti ljud-skih prava, stvaranje alternativnih prostoraza kulturu i umjetnost, ukljuËujuÊi i ulicu,bili osnova njihova djelovanja. Moglo bi sereÊi da se do sada niπta bitno i nije promi-jenilo, osim πto je samih udruga mnogoviπe. Iste je godine na zagrebaËkomCvjetnom trgu Igor GrubiÊ u suradnji sAutonomnom tvornicom kulture organiziraohepening pod nazivom Knjiga i druπtvo -22%. Taj je projekt, doduπe, bio umjet-niËki, ali je ciljao na πiru zajednicu i pozivaona okupljanje kritiËne mase. Zbog nedostat-ka adekvatne dokumentacije skloni smo gazaboraviti. Meutim, Ëinjenica je da su setada na jednom mjestu naπli svi buduÊiglavni protagonisti urbane scene pa Êemnogi tvrditi kako je upravo ovim projek-tom zapravo sve zapoËelo. Koliko je bioπirok raspon meu samim izvoaËima gov-ori Ëinjenica da su u projektu sudjelovaliistovremeno i mladi umjetnici, poputAndreje KulunËiÊ s jednim od njenih prvihinternetskih radova, ali i stariji, poputTomislava Gotovca, koji je na istom trguaktualizirao naËela svojih veÊ legendarnihurbanih akcija. Nezavisne kulturne inicija-tive doista su imale afirmativan odnosprema povijesti. Igor GrubiÊ na splitskom jeterenu, primjerice, svojim provokativnimradom Crni peristil prizivao, uostalom kao iWeekend Art, odreene trenutke umjet-niËke proπlosti u kojima je agitiranje zakolektivnu akciju doista bilo jedno odkljuËnih mjesta umjetniËkog djelovanja.Oæivljavanje avangardnih koncepata podu-darilo se i s probuenim emocijama πirelokalne zajednice kada se te iste 1998.godine na glavnom trgu zbilo masovnookupljanje kao podrπka jednoj lokalnojradiopostaji.

Arkzin, koji je kao magazin u meuvre-menu prestao postojati, tada je inicirao re-izdanje KomunistiËkog manifesta koje Êedvije godine poslije biti poticaj za izloæbu uMeπtroviÊevom paviljonu, Domu HDLU-a.Uloga Ëasopisa Arkzin, kao i alternativnetvornice kulture ATTACK, u mnogo Ëemu jenezaobilazna. Taj je Ëasopis, odnosno sku-pina ljudi oko njega, tijekom odreenog raz-

34

4

5

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 34

doblja joπ neartikuliranoj viziji novih kul-turnih praksi ponudila teorijski æargon ivizualni identitet.4 Iskopavanje Manifestadoista nije bio sasvim bezazlen Ëin: nekimaje on bio povod za mrgoenje, a mnogimdrugima trenutak trljanja oËiju, impuls dase preispita πto se dogodilo u proteklomdesetljeÊu, odnosno πto se u meuvremenuzbilo s odbaËenim utopijama. Izloæba ost-varena dvije godine poslije temeljila se naistim ovim pitanjima i bila je, u tomtrenutku, bez sumnje, otvorena gesta pro-vokacije. »injenica da se izloæba odræavalau odreenom galerijskom prostoru5 nijebitno umanjivala takav uËinak.

Izloæba je, meutim, jednim svojimdijelom zauzela i gradske ulice, pa uz njuveæemo i aktivistiËki intoniran rad AndrejeKulunËiÊ NAMA - 1908 zaposlenika, 15robnih kuÊa, koji cilja na buenje socijalnesvijesti graana, prisvajajuÊi komunikacij-ske potencijale i strategije novouvezenihoblika “reklamne arhitekture” - city-lightsboxova. Na izloæbi, koja je kasnije postav-ljena u nekoliko drugih europskih gradova,pored je Arkzina radila i skupina formiranaoko novoosnovanog net-kulturnog klubaMaMa, a iz samog je projekta tada nastao ikustoski tim koji je preuzeo dio nazivaizloæbe ©to, Kako i za Koga, odnosnoWHW.

Osim πto je programom i intenzitetomdogaanja ojaËala i usredotoËila niz rasutihmedijskih i tehnoloπkih praksi te posegnulaza nizom meunarodnih gostiju, MaMa jetada, kao jedina udruga s adekvatnim pros-torom za rad, preuzela ulogu svojevrsneplatforme na Ëiji su raËun sve ostale udrugepribavljale predavaËe, radnu snagu, struËnesuradnike, razmjenjivale informacije tedjelomiËno i realizirale svoje programe.Zbog heterogenosti produkcije tijekom prvihnekoliko godina, klub je gotovo izgubio ispr-va jasno razluËiv profil. U MaMi se poredredovitog programa, formirao BLOK, vodilalogistika Urbanog festivala, predavaonicu jeredovito posuivao WHW, ali i institucijepoput Muzeja suvremene umjetnosti. Takvasituacija prave guæve oko jednog malenoglokala zapravo je na odreen naËin obogati-la oblik njegovog djelovanja. MaMa jedanas joπ uvijek mjesto ozbiljnog sastan-Ëenja i neobaveznog druæenja, glazbeneprodukcije, koncentracije informacija, pod-jednako o popularnoj kulturi i hard-coreteoriji, logistiËki check-point i πtoπta drugo.

Novo izdanje Salona mladih 2001.godine ponovilo je, proπirilo, i redefiniralo

the alternative culture factory ATTACK, was inmany ways essential. During a certain period,that magazine, that is, the circle of peoplelinked to it, was giving a theoretical jargonand a visual identity to a yet unarticulatedvision of new cultural practices.4 To dig outthe Manifesto was indeed far from harmless:some were frowning, others rubbed their eyesand tried to re-examine what had happenedin the past decade, what had become of thediscarded utopias. The exhibition that tookplace two years later was based on the samequestions and was at that moment doubtless-ly understood as an open gesture of provoca-tion. The fact that the exhibition was locatedin a gallery did not significantly mitigate itseffect.5

Nevertheless, the exhibition partly occu-pied the streets of Zagreb as well, and oneassociates with it the socially engaged pieceby Andreja KulunËiÊ entitled NAMA - 1908Workers, 15 Department Stores, the aim ofwhich was to stir the social awareness of thecitizens by adopting the communicationalpotentials and strategies of the newly import-ed “advertisement architecture” - city lightboxes. The exhibition, which was repeated inseveral European cities, featured (besideArkzin) a group formed around the recentlyfounded net-culture club MaMa, whereas theproject itself gave birth to a curators’ teamwhich adopted a part of the exhibition title forits name - Who, How, and for Whom, that is,WHW.

Apart from corroborating and uniting anumber of scattered media and technologicalenterprises in its programme and the intensi-ty of its events, as well as bringing interna-tional guests to Croatia, MaMa took on therole, as the only association with an adequateworking space, of a sort of platform, throughwhich all other associations could get hold oflecturers, human resources, and experts,exchange information, and partly realize theirprogrammes. Because of the heterogeneity ofits production during the first few years, theclub almost lost its formerly clear profile.Besides its regular programme, MaMa helpedin establishing the BLOK group, took care ofthe logistics for the Urban Festival, lent its lec-ture room to WHW, and even to institutionssuch as Museum of Contemporary Art. Allthat crowd gathering around such a smallclub actually enriched its activity in a certainway. Today, MaMa still functions as a homefor both serious meetings and informal com-ing together, a place for music production, asource of information about popular culture

35

t

4 Vizualni identitet - Ëak doslovno. Letci, katalozi i programske knjiæice izvaninstitucionalnih udruga dijele ne samo zajedniËko agitpropovsko ruho(nerijetko ostavljajuÊi dojam uniformnosti), nego i dizajnerski autorski potpis.

5 Izloæba se odræala u Domu HDLU-a, odnosno na simboliËki izrazito konfliktnom terenu Trga ærtava faπizma, u to doba preimenovanom u Trg hrvatskih velikana.

l

4 A visual identity - literally speaking. Leaflets, catalogues, and programme booklets of extra-insti-tutional associations not only shared their “agitation and propaganda” attire (often giving the impression of uniformity), but also the designers’ signatures.

5 The exhibition took place in Dom HDLU, on the Square of the Victims of Fascism, which was at that time renamed into the Square of Distinguished Croats and, in terms of symbolism, extremely charged with conflict.

4. Naslovna stranica kataloga izloæbe ©to, kako i zakoga / Front cover of catalogue of the exhibitionWhat, how and for whom, izdanje / ed. Arkzin,Zagreb 2000.5. Propagandni letak za izloæbu Projekt: broadcast-ing / Flyer for the exhibition Project: Broadcasting

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 35

and hard-core theory alike, a logistic check-point, and many other things.

The new edition of the Salon of YoungArtists in 2001 repeated, enlarged, and rede-fined the conception of the previous one. Theprotagonists of the urban scene were nowtransformed into the points of gravity withinthe structure of what seemed a sort of idealcity. Few people remember at all the works ofart that were competing at that Salon,because its organizers were determined toreconstruct the true state of things - wherewas culture produced and where was its audi-ence actually formed? ATTACK and 21. prol-jeÊe were also present in the large pavilion atthe Zagreb Fair, this time as guests. Thestrings of organization were partly pulled bySlaven Tolj from ARL,6 and as for the newfaces, the field was, among others, taken byMaMa and MoËvara (that is, by URK7). Theactivity of entire clubs, some of which reallydid not have an adequate place to work, wastransferred to a common temporary locationfor the whole month. Another newly formedcurators’ team adopted the name of a suc-cessful project (though HDLU had consideredit a disaster) as their brandmark - the Kontej-ner. The concept of this rather non-classicalexhibition was signed by a group of youngarchitects, Platforma 9,81.

However, it would be entirely wrong tolink the activity of this group to actual archi-tectural achievements, since it was primarilyoriented towards creating an active audience.Platforma 9,81 practically grew out of theFaculty of Architecture in Zagreb, where asmall number of students realized the limita-tions and lacks of the existing teaching pro-gramme and decided to offer to their col-leagues and themselves a more self-consciouseducational model, which would be, amongother things, focused on defining the profes-sion. These young architects tried to presentarchitecture as something that not only “inter-ested” them, in accordance with the academ-ic imperative, but also as a thematic field withwhich their everyday life was intricately linkedand in which they actively participated. Whatmight have been understood in the beginningas parasitic feeding on the infrastructure ofthe Faculty of Architecture, soon proved to bea far more ambitious project, so ambitiousthat the enthusiastic theory/action projects ofPlatform still seem to have surpassed theirown realizations by far. Since its OpenProgramme and Architecture live, Platformhas expanded its activity to a series of pro-grammes that one could hardly describe in

koncepciju prethodnoga utoliko πto su pro-tagonisti urbane scene ovaj put bili preve-deni u teæiπne toËke strukture pravog malogidealnog grada. Malo tko se uopÊe sjeÊanatjeËajnih radova s tog Salona, jer su nje-govi organizatori tada odluËno pokuπalirekonstruirati realno stanje - gdje seproizvodi kultura i gdje se uistinu formirapublika? U prostoru poveÊeg paviljona naVelesajmu ponovno su se naπli ATTACK i21. proljeÊe, ovaj put kao gost. Nîti organi-zacije djelomice je vukao i Slaven Tolj izARL-a,6 a od novih svoj su dio terena dobili,izmeu ostalih, MaMa i MoËvara (odnosnoURK7). Djelatnost Ëitavih klubova, od kojihneki doista nisu imali odgovarajuÊi prostorza rad, unutar tih je mjesec dana bila pre-seljena na zajedniËku privremenu lokaciju.Joπ jedan novonastali kustoski tim odabraoje zaπtitni znak uspjeπnog (iako za HDLUfinancijski katastrofalnog) projekta za svojeime - Kontejner, a postav ove nimaloklasiËne izloæbe potpisala je grupa mladiharhitekata Platforma 9,81.

Djelovanje ove posljednje skupine bilobi, meutim, posve pogreπno dovoditi uvezu s konkretnim arhitektonskim realizaci-jama, buduÊi da je primarno obiljeæenoupravo naporom oko stvaranja aktivne pub-like. Skupina je praktiËki izrasla u okviruzagrebaËkog Arhitektonskog fakulteta kadje nekolicina studenata, uvidjevπi ogra-niËenja i manjkavosti postojeÊeg nastavnogprograma, odluËila sebi i svojim kolegamaponuditi samosvjesniji model obrazovanja,izmeu ostalog usredotoËen i na definiranjevlastitog zvanja. Mladi arhitekti pokuπali supredstaviti arhitekturu kao neπto πto ih nesamo, u skladu s akademskim impera-tivom, “zanima”, nego i kao problemskopodruËje koje svakodnevno æive i u kojemaktivno sudjeluju. Ono πto je u poËetkumoglo biti shvaÊeno kao parazitiranje nainfrastrukturi Arhitektonskog fakulteta vrlose brzo pokazalo kao daleko ambicioznijiprojekt, Ëak toliko ambiciozan da se i danasËini kako Platformini poletni teorijsko-akci-jski programi viπestruko nadilaze vlastitekonkretizacije. Od Otvorenog programa iArhitekture uæivo, Platforma je razgranalasvoje djelovanje na Ëitav niz programa kojibi se vrlo teπko mogli jednoznaËno opisati,a svi ciljevi, istraæivanja, procesi i konkretniprojekti isprepliÊu se oko nekoliko æariπnihtoËaka interesa: novih modela edukacije,stvaranja polja dijaloga i razmjene informa-cija izmeu razliËitih kritiËkih i umjetniËkihpraksi, medijskih akcija, interdisciplinarnih

36

6

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 36

istraæivanja, radionica, djelovanja naurbanu politiku iz pozicije javnosti, aktiviz-ma kao arhitektonske prakse te sudjelova-nja arhitekata u svim druπtvenim aspektimaprostornih promjena.8 Praksu toliko karak-teristiËnu za povijest raznih subkulturnihskupina - skvotiranje - iskuπavali su nanekoliko pojedinaËnih projekata, da bi nakraju i ona sama prerasla u joπ opseæniji,dugoroËni projekt - Nevidljivi Zagreb.9

Samo ime Urbanog festivala moæda sena samom poËetku moglo zamijeniti nekimu nizu “urbanih” festivala koji su se veÊredovito odvijali u gradu. Ono πto je ovajfestival, meutim, odmah izdvojilo odistoimenih dogaanja, jest Ëinjenica da nje-govi organizatori nisu smatrali gutaËe vatre,cvileæ violina na uglovima te odjevne artiklena gradskim skulpturama i rasvjetnimstupovima oblicima kulture koja ispunjavapojam “urbane” prakse. Urbani festival, kojije 2001. godine osnovala udruga BLOK,nije obnavljao niti postojeÊe primjere oumjetnosti u javnom prostoru, koji nerijetkopoprimaju priliËno banalne oblike, niti sezadræao u okvirima urbanih intervencijakoje ostaju u organizacijskoj domeni velikihgalerijskih institucija koje su takvu praksuveÊ odavno usvojile kao posve legitimanoblik umjetniËkog izlaganja. Kroz nekolikoprojekata u svom prvom izdanju Urbani fes-tival na neki je naËin otkrio æanr koji u svo-joj biti nije niti izrazito popularan, a niti eli-tistiËki, nego izmiËe objema krajnostima teih u pristupu publici na neki naËin izjed-naËava. Radovi koji “redovito ciljaju naprobleme i specifiËnosti gradskog æivota” te“graane provociraju na promiπljanjesvakodnevnice”10 nisu, meutim, moglidugo ostati bez fokusiranja konkretnijihproblemskih sadræaja, pa tako od svogatreÊeg izdanja festival uvodi specifiËneproblemske koncepte.11

Kustoski tim WHW u meuvremenu jeostvario joπ jedan projekt, karakteristiËanpo tome πto sama izloæba, iako je pred-stavljala finalni ishod i svojevrsnu kulmi-naciju Ëitavog projekta, zapravo nije bilanjegov najzanimljiviji dio. Broadcasting jeod poËetka bio provoen kao polaganozagrijavanje medijskog i javnog prostora,odnosno potencijalne publike na koju suvrebale kriptiËno ispisane pozivnice, neuo-biËajeni novinski Ëlanici i serija ciljanoosmiπljenih radijskih emisija. Pristup jeoËito bio dvojako uvjetovan - propitivanjemnovih modela komunikacije s publikom sjedne strane i metaforiËkim temeljem u

common terms, while all their goals,research, processes, and actual projects havebeen intertwined around several focal pointsof interest: new educational models, creatinga field of dialogue and exchange of informa-tion between various critical and artistic prac-tices, media actions, interdisciplinaryresearch, workshops, influencing urban poli-cies from the position of the public, activismas architectural practice, and participation ofarchitecture in all social aspects of spatialchange.8 They also engaged in squatting -which is typical for the history of many sub-cultural groups - in several separate projects,after which it developed into another, larger,long-term project in itself - the InvisibleZagreb.9

The very name of Urban Festival wasperhaps misleading in the beginning, confus-ing it with other “urban” festivals that wereregularly taking place in Zagreb. However,what set this festival apart at once was thefact that its organizers did not consider thatfire jugglers, squeaking violins on the corner,or dressing up monuments and lamp postswere the forms of culture that corresponded tothe idea of “urban” practice. The UrbanFestival that was started in 2001 by theBLOK association neither revived the existingexamples of art in public space, which oftenacquired rather banal features, nor remainedwithin the limits of urban interventions, whichusually stuck with the organizational domainof large galleries, since this practice had beenaccepted long ago as a perfectly legitimateform of art presentation. The few projects ofits first edition made the Urban Festival dis-cover its own genre, which in itself was nei-ther excessively popular, nor elitist, but ratherevaded both extremes and somehow levelledthem in its approach to the public.Nevertheless, art that “regularly aims at theproblems and specificities of urban life”, “pro-voking the citizens to reflect upon their every-day life,”10 could not remain for long withoutfocusing on more definite issues. Thus, thethird edition of the festival introduced somespecific thematic concepts.11

Meanwhile, the curators’ team WHWwas engaged in another project, the specialfeature of which was the fact that the exhibi-tion itself was not its most interesting part,even though it represented its final outcomeand a sort of its culmination. The Broadcast-ing was from the very beginning realized as agradual warming-up of the space of mediaand public space: it ensnared potential visi-tors by means of cryptic invitations, unusual

37

t

6 Art radionica Lazareti7 Udruæenje za razvoj kulture8 Sve ove toËke obrauje njihova programska knjiæica

mnogo detaljnije. Vidi: Platforma 9.81 - Istraæivanja&akcije u arhitekturi, 2004.

9 “Nevidljivi Zagreb je mreæa prostora u gradu koji su napuπteni, nerijeπenih vlasniËkih odnosa ili na drugi naËin nedefinirani. Aktiviranje ovakvih prostora privremenim sadræajima simboliËki i stvarno ih vraÊa na mapu grada - Ëini ih vidljivima.Prvi korisnici su proizvoaËi kulture s izvaninstitu-cionalne scene. Inovativnim koriπtenjem prostora tepromjenom programa stvaraju se uvjeti za ispiti-vanje i planiranje novih urbanih tipologija te stvaranje privremenih javnih prostora.” Platforma 9.81 (bilj. 8).

10 Vidi: www.urbanfestival.hr11 Urbani festival 2003. organiziran je oko teme “Ad

Hoc kolektiva”, podijeljene na tri cjeline: tranzit; zabava, kultura i πport; te potroπnja. Urbani festival2004. bio je vezan uz propitivanje funkcije “slobodnog vremena”.

l

6 Art Workshop Lazareti.7 Association for Cultural Development.8 All these points are dealt with in detail in their

programme booklet. See: Platforma 9,81 - Istraæivanja&akcije u arhitekturi [Research and actions in architecture], 2004.

9 “Invisible Zagreb is a network of spaces in the city that are abandoned, belong to an unknown owner, or are undefined in some other way. Activating these spaces through temporary events brings themsymbolically back to the city map - it makes them visible. The primary users are the culture makers from the extra-institutional scene. By using this space in an innovative way and by changing the programme, conditions are created for investigatingand planning new urban typologies and for creating temporary public spaces.” Platforma 9.81 (n. 8).

6. Naslovna stranica programske knjiæiceFestivala alernativnog kazaliπnog izriËaja Faki /Front cover of booklet of The Festival ofAlternative Theatre Faki, grafiËko oblikovanjedigital bastard/arkzin / graphic works by digitalbastard/arkzin

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 37

newspaper articles, and a series of carefullyplanned radio programmes. Their approachwas obviously conditioned by two things - onthe one hand, by investigating new models ofcommunication with the audience; on theother, by a metaphoric foundation of the veryidea of broadcasting as emitting information.Two years later, the WHW team took over theNova Gallery and became a “full-fledged”,“domestic” institution. New working condi-tions demanded a fundamental change intheir strategy of action. Large and long-planned projects were replaced by hyperactiv-ity in organizing exhibitions that had no prece-dent in the practice of local galleries: from theexhibitions of yet unknown young artists(whereby I literally mean “unknown” and“young”) to homage exhibitions for famousartists (in which one could notice certainaffinity towards the conceptual art of the 70s)and curating conceptions with an accent onart oriented towards social and political top-ics. The Nova Gallery, it must be said, nevercompletely realized its idea of becoming a“space for staying, not merely walkingthrough”, which it had endorsed from the out-set, but it retained an enviable tempo of orga-nizing various debates, lectures, and otherevents, since it offered its space to the rest ofthe independent culture scene and thus part-ly took the suffocating burden off the back ofMaMa Club.

With the launching of the Clubture pro-jects and the Cultural capital of Europe 3000,the story is slowly approaching its end, whichis a logical outcome of an intensive strugglefor space and status in the field of culture.These two projects, namely, institutionalizedin a way the policy of cooperation and otherprocesses that were still considered informalwithin the scene that we may once more callalternative.

Clubture is the platform and the basis ofcoordination for independent associations,whose number is nowadays so large that it isalmost impossible to trace their activities, andit can be understood as a fully built adminis-trative system that in a certain way embodiesthe patterns of a new cultural model, which isstill relatively independent from the still dom-inant variant of cultural policy based uponstate subvention of representative institutions.The Cultural capital of Europe 3000 is acooperation platform that was created as acommon project of Centre for Drama Art,Multimedia Institute, Platforma 9,81, andWHW, and its very name is a parody on thestrategy of dominant regimes of cultural pro-

samoj ideji broadcastinga kao odaπiljanjainformacija s druge. Dvije godine kasnije,preuzevπi Galeriju Nova, WHW je postao“punopravna”, “udomljena” institucija, anovi su uvjeti rada zahtijevali i korjenitupromjenu strategije djelovanja. Umjestovelikih, dugo osmiπljavanih projekata usli-jedila je izloæbena hiperaktivnost, nevienau dosadaπnjoj galerijskoj praksi u nas: odizloæbi neafirmiranih mladih umjetnika (priËemu je “neafirmiran” i “mlad” shvaÊenodoista doslovno), do hommagea povijesnimumjetniËkim pojavama (pri Ëemu se moæerazabrati odreeni afinitet prema konceptu-alnoj umjetnosti sedamdesetih) te kus-toskih koncepcija s teæiπtem na umjetnostiusmjerenoj prema sociopolitiËkim temama.Galerija Nova, doduπe, nije u potpunostiostvarila ideju “prostora za boravak, a nesamo prolazak” koju je u poËetku plasirala,ali odræala je zavidan tempo organiziranjaraznih diskusija, predavanja i drugihdogaanja ponudivπi, dakako, prostor iostatku nezavisne kulturne scene, djelo-miËno rasteretivπi klub MaMa od pro-gramske zaguπenosti.

Pokretanjem projekata Clubture iKulturnog kapitala Europe 3000 priËa sepolako primiËe kraju, logiËnom ishoduintenzivne borbe za prostor i status na poljukulture. Naime, ta dva projekta na nekinaËin institucionaliziraju politiku suradnje iostale procese koji su se dotada unutarscene, nazovimo ju joπ jednom alterna-tivnom, Ëinili ipak neformalnima.

Clubture, kao platformska osnovakoordinacije nezavisnih udruga, Ëiji je brojdanas tako velik da je njihovo djelovanjepostalo gotovo nemoguÊe pratiti, moæe seshvatiti kao veÊ izgraen administrativnisistem koji u odreenom smislu utjelovljujeobrasce novog kulturnog modela, relativnoneovisnog o ipak joπ uvijek dominantnojvarijanti kulturne politike temeljene nadræavnom subvencioniranju reprezenta-tivnih institucija. Kulturni kapital Europe3000, odnosno platforma za suradnjunastala kao zajedniËki projekt Centra zadramsku umjetnost, Multimedijalnog insti-tuta, Platforme 9.81 i WHW-a, veÊ samimimenom samosvjesno parodira strategijedominantnih reæima kulturne promidæbe.NemoguÊe je, meutim, ne shvatiti Ëitavuporuku dovoljno ozbiljno, jer situacija sedoista u mnogoËemu promijenila. Kada je,doduπe, u jednom nezgodnom trenutku, upriËi o nezavisnoj kulturnoj sceni do javnos-ti doprla rijeË mainstream, to nije znaËilo

38

7

8

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 38

da se ta nezavisna scena sadræajem pri-lagodila dominantnom graanskom ukusu,nego upravo suprotno, da je oblikovana pot-puno nova publika, potpuno nov sistempravila, potpuno novi modeli odnosaizmeu publike, izvoaËa i institucionalnihmedijatora, modeli prezentacije, financira-nja… S odreivanjem neke konaËne, jed-noznaËne perspektive trenutnog stanja, kaoi proglaπavanjem kapitulacije jednog sis-tema u korist drugog, treba, meutim, bitioprezan. Prije svega, pojam “reprezenta-tivne kulture” vidljivo se razgrauje, bezobzira na to πto svi sudionici nisu podjed-nako toga svjesni. S druge strane, izvanins-titucionalna scena naoËigled je kolebljivaπto se tiËe definiranja vlastite uloge udruπtveno-politiËkom i kulturnom sistemu:s jedne strane se razvija kao opozicija rep-rezentativnoj kulturnoj proizvodnji sluæ-benih institucija, dok s druge jasno uviakako se njeni programi ne iscrpljuju nadijalektici suprotstavljanja, πto ih stavlja unovu i odgovornu poziciju ravnopravnogsudionika u formiranju kulturnog habitusagrada i πire. To je postalo jasno vidljivoupravo s aspekata financiranja i medijskeprezentacije urbane scene u nas: naime, nidræava kao (joπ uvijek glavni) financijer kul-turnog sektora niti javni mediji nisu, zapra-vo, sigurni kamo fenomen izvaninstitu-cionalne scene smjestiti, πto je dovelo i joπuvijek dovodi do Ëitavog niza nesporazuma.Problem, dakle, ne leæi u prirodi same“scene”, nego u shvaÊanju uloge koju bi onau urbanom druπtvu trebala obnaπati, πtopodrazumijeva minimum kolektivne volje odstrane svih instanci, poËevπi od medija iorgana vlasti do samih udruga. Vizija i prak-sa suvremene kulture na globalnoj se raziniiz korijena mijenja, a izrazi poput “alterna-tivno”, “popularno”, “nacionalno”, i “repre-zentativno” gube svoju kompetitivnu snagu ikonkretiziraju svoja nova, potpuno izmije-njena znaËenja. t

motion. It is impossible, though, not to takethe whole message seriously, since the situa-tion has changed in many respects. When theword mainstream reached the ears of an audi-ence, which admittedly happened at an awk-ward moment, in a story about the indepen-dent culture scene, I did not mean to say thatthe independent scene had adapted its con-tent to the dominant bourgeois taste, butquite the contrary, that an entirely new audi-ence was formed, an entirely new system ofrules, entirely new models for the relationshipbetween the audience, performers, and theirinstitutional intermediaries: models for pre-sentation, financing, etc. However, we mustbe very careful when defining a final, unam-biguous view on the state of things, as well asannouncing the defeat of one system beforeanother. First of all, the term “representativeculture” is obviously disintegrating, regardlessof the fact that its participants are not allequally aware of the fact. Secondly, the extra-institutional scene is apparently reluctant todefine its own role within the social, political,and cultural systems: on the one hand, it isdeveloping as an opposition to the represen-tative cultural production of official institu-tions, while on the other it clearly sees that itsprogrammes are not reducible to the dialec-tics of opposition, which puts them in a newand responsible position of an equal partici-pant in shaping the cultural habitus of the cityand beyond. This has become evident pre-cisely from the viewpoint of financing andmedia presentation of Croatian urban scene:neither the state as the (still main) sponsor ofthe cultural sector, nor the public media aresure of where to locate the phenomenon ofextra-institutional scene or what caused andis still causing a whole lot of misunderstand-ings. Thus, the problem is not in the nature ofthe “scene” itself, but rather in the notion ofthe role it should play in urban society, whichincludes a minimum of collective willingnesson the part of all participants, beginning withthe public media and administrative servicesall the way down to the associations them-selves. The vision and the practice of contem-porary culture is experiencing fundamentalchange at the global level, while expressionssuch as “alternative”, “popular”, “national”,and “representative” are losing their competi-tive power and realizing their new, entirelytransformed meanings. l

prijevod / translation: Marina Miladinov

39

≥ Marko Golub - profesor likovne kulture.Radi kao novinar, likovni kritiËar i nezavisnikustos u Zagrebu.

Marko Golub - teaches visual culture. Activeas journalist, art critic, and independentcurator in Zagreb.

l

10 See: www.urbanfestival.hr11 The Urban festival of 2003 was organized around

the theme “Ad Hoc kolektiva”[Ad Hoc Grouping], which was divided into three units: transit; entertainment, culture, and sport; and consummation. The Urban Festival of 2004 was related to re-examining the function of “free time”.

9

7. Propagandni letak net-kulturnog kluba MaMa /Flyer for the net-culture club MaMa8. Propagandni letak net-kulturnog kluba MaMa ikluba MoËvara / Flyer for the net-culture clubMaMa and MoËvara Club9. Propagandni letak za izloæbu u klubu MoËvara /Flyer for the exhibition in the MoËvara Club

73_ZU-3_m35_5 24/1/05 20:08 Page 39