Dorota Michalska

Spectres of the avant-garde

Is Polish art experiencing an avant-garde fatigue at the moment? Is avant-garde really dead? This
question was asked by the curators of the exhibition As You Can See in the Museum of Modern Art in
Warsaw, as an attempt to diagnose Polish contemporary art after its chapter concerning critical art had
been definitively closed. Many critics (as well as artists) were concerned: what would become of us
now? Are we approaching a conservative turn? Or new formalism?

After all, not that long ago, only in 2011, Jan Sowa wrote in the catalogue for the exhibition Unusually
Rare Events in the Centre for Contemporary Art in Warsaw that the avant-garde is the very core of the
modern art. It constitutes its paradigm. Its blueprint. Sowa listed its persistent existence in the space of
artistic creativity among the most astonishing phenomena of the modern world. He indicated how,
despite subsequent embarrassments and critiques, the avant-garde project fares well in young artists'
hearts and minds. Moreover, he counted the creators of the exhibition among the later grandchildren
of the avant-garde, who may have gone through a lot, but who still inherit its legacy. According to
Sowa, the avant-garde is the most ambitious of all projects conceived to date. Boris Groys, in his
article The Weak Universalism published around the same time, came to similar conclusions. While
discussing the nature of the avant-garde, he ascribed the unique characteristics of this formation to its
recurrence: “That is why the avant-garde cannot take place once and for all times, but must be
permanently repeated […].” Both Sowa and Groys indicate a similar point: the avant-garde is too
important a project to simply fade away. It resembles a spectre haunting subsequent generations of
artists.

Why is the avant-garde so unique? Both researchers indicate two fundamental postulates which
distinguish it from other artistic phenomena. One is the attempt to reach deprofessionalisation of the
artist as an occupation (Joseph Beuys’ famous quote “Everyone is an artist”). Another is the conscious
creation of art pieces that want to melt into the reality to the point of disappearing and losing their
special status. Nothing more revolutionary has been yet imagined, nothing has shaken the art world as
much. In fact, it’s an appeal for a fully democratic art. But what does it look like in Poland? Let’s take a
closer look at those two postulates of the avant-garde on the example of the exhibition As You Can
See.

(NOT) EVERYONE CAN BE AN ARTIST

First of all, the demand to deprofessionalise the occupation of an artist. Nowadays this postulate
sounds surprisingly topical in the face of the dominant model of artistic education which still runs
through the institutional path of academies. You can count the artists who work in Poland without a
formal education on the fingers of one hand. Among them: Zbigniew Libera, Janek Simon and
Agnieszka Kurant. It was no accident that the last two participated in the aforementioned Unusually
Rare Events exhibition, since one of its objectives was to open up art for experts in other fields.
Besides, they also took part in As You Can See. However, what should be hailed as an emblematic
piece for the deprofessionalisation postulate are Zbigniew Libera's photographs from the series
Freelancer (Self-portrait). Apart from commenting on the artists' current socio-economic situation, the
piece also refers to the biography of Libera, who is an outsider – also due to his lack of formal
education. The artist himself consistently develops this aspect of his identity: when calling for
submissions for the project Curator Libera in BWA Wrocław, he did not require participants to have an
art school diploma.

But according to Groys, deprofessionalisation may also be understood as a postulate of creating

works which don't require particular knowledge or skill. The accusation often heard in the criticism of
the avant-garde art – "my child could do that" – is in this instance absolutely correct. The avant-garde
was supposed to be a radically democratic form of art, in the vein of Do-It-Yourself. This postulate as
well sounds remarkably relevant today, if we consider advanced professionalisation of artists which is
clearly visible in the As You Can See exhibition. It is evident, for instance, in video pieces which are
more and more often shot in collaboration with professional cameramen, using state of the art
equipment (e.g. videos by Wojciech Puś and films created for the film award curated by the Museum
of Modern Art in Warsaw and the Polish Film Institute). In this respect it's a complete contradiction to
the avant-garde postulates. As You Can See is rather an evidence of the increasing specialisation of
artists in Poland which, we should add, oftentimes involves fetishisation of technics and technologies.

DEATH OF COPYRIGHTS

The second postulate of the avant-garde concerns the nature of the created works. Historically, the
avant-garde movement aimed at being in contradiction with all the rules which define a piece of art as
such. This is why the created works were supposed to melt into reality, challenging the question of
authorship as well as the myth of the single object. Does any of the pieces featured in As You Can
See actually challenge the rules and regulations of the Polish art world?

Undoubtedly the palm deservedly goes to Piotr Uklański and his installation Polish Neo Avant-garde
from 2013. Of course, the piece is the reason for a lawsuit filed by Wiktor Gutt, who accuses the artist
of unlawful use of other people’s works without their consent. However, as the curators have
repeatedly stressed, it is precisely this piece that constitutes the symbolic beginning of the entire
exhibition. What does such a choice mean? Why Uklański’s installation launches the entire narrative of
the current Polish art? On the one hand it can be treated as a farewell to the avant-garde masters:
showcased on Uklański’s display stand, they seem to belong to the prehistoric period of artwork. Their
avant-garde potential becomes completely neutralized. The message is clear: neo avant-garde was
beautiful, but it’s over. We can see random fragments of the works glued to the tacky red background.
As Adam Mazur remarked during one of the panel discussions accompanying the exhibition, the entire
thing looks like a pseudo-avant-garde. It’s all true. However, it’s also true that by absorbing the works
of his masters, Uklański created a radical piece which contests the accepted framework of the way
contemporary art functions. Not only does he challenge other people’s copyrights, but also his own
position as the author of original works. His installation only causes problems: for other artists, for
institutions, for Uklański himself. It’s “conducive to conflict” in a very particular and tangible way. It
doesn’t fit into existing rules of engagement. Therefore among other “naïve” works in As You Can See,
Uklański’s piece seems to have the greatest avant-garde potential.

WE DEMAND A GOLD MINE IN MADAGASCAR!

A separate area of avant-garde activities lies in those initiatives which aim to change the economic
circulation of artwork. These are often grass-roots initiatives outside the institutional framework, which
seek alternative ways of financing their artistic activities that would reach beyond one of the most
unpleasant of modern diseases – ‘grantosis’. Several examples of such enterprises were featured in
As You Can See, e.g. the group behind Czosnek Studio (its members Tymek Borowski and Katarzyna
Przezwańska were part of the exhibition) and Goldex Poldex cooperative.

Jan Sowa describes how Goldex Poldex operates in the following way: “It does not look for sponsors
or patronage. It works neither with the European Cultural Foundation nor the Adam Mickiewicz
Institute. […] We fund everything out of our own pockets. You could say that it’s a kind of luxury
potlatch that we can afford because each of us earns money in some other way.” Goldex Poldex is
driven by a conviction that the source of money determines the art which it funded. Therefore a
change of funding conditions has an unequivocal influence on the creative output. Sowa explicitly
states: “If we want the content to change, we must first come up with new forms, because ideology lies
in the form, not the content.” According to Sowa’s line of thinking state money creates state art. The
vicious circle is complete. The only way to break it is to refuse participation in the public funding of art.
For Sowa art is a kind of “luxury surplus” which should be funded by voluntary contributions from the
people who are involved in its circulation.

A similar willingness to escape from the institutional financing was the reason behind the creation of
Czosnek Studio – a company producing, among others, infographics, websites, and corporate
identities. During one of the panels accompanying As You Can See, Tymek Borowski said that its
founders wanted to distance themselves from the state-gallery system of funding art. The studio is yet
another step on the long way of an artist who spent years looking for a balance between creativity and
various ways of supporting himself in life. Discouraged by both cooperation with galleries and working
from one grant to the next, he decided to start a company. He doesn’t consider it to be a failure, a
departure from the art world, or a defeat. Besides, all artists involved in the Studio’s projects
simultaneously do gallery and commercial work. What distinguishes them from the majority is the fact
that they don’t treat privately commissioned jobs as shameful earning on the side, but as an equal
area of their activity.

During the same panel Borowski used a phrase which I find very significant. There exists such a thing
as the “economic parameter of the avant-garde” and it is a fundamental one. Today no avant-garde art
can ignore economic conditions in which it was created. This feature is a common thread shared by
Piotr Uklański, Goldex Poldex and Studio Czosnek. Art can exploit these conditions openly, or
challenge them and look for other solutions. But it can’t treat the economic aspect as an uninvited
guest who only sours everyone’s mood at art openings.

THE AVANT-GARDE, ONCE AGAIN

Then what’s up with the avant-garde in the As You Can See exhibition? The answer could be:
apparently it exists, although it’s not very conspicuous. The works I mentioned weren’t of particular
interest to commentators, even though at least Uklański’s piece should have merited an extensive
commentary from the Polish critics. The copyrights issue will be undoubtedly returning in the future as
an area of artists’ interest. How can it not, if it constitutes the central idea in one of the most crucial
battles of the contemporary world. The avant-garde can do a lot in this matter, e.g. indicate new ways
of understanding these notions. We are at the very beginning of a journey also in the area of
alternative ways of funding art. What lies ahead is, for instance, the possibility of artists’ participation in
the state-organised competitions for public procurement contracts. I think everyone would sigh with
relief if monuments and statues in Poland were made by artists, and not artisans. Even this tiny
example indicates the present lack of art that isn’t limited only to the gallery space. And it is the avant-
garde that can make this move today.

The art in Poland isn’t then doomed to a “conservative turn” or “new formalism” in the face of the
exhaustion of critical art tendencies. It doesn’t have to retreat to defensive positions, hide in
postmodern games with ahistoricity or flirt with new academism. It has a lot of tasks to fulfil. One is
tempted to add – very real and concrete tasks. Besides, this desire for “reality” could be heard in many
voices that emerged after the exhibition. Iwo Zmyślony described as avant-garde pieces which
nowadays break with the advancing virtualization and rely on such experiences as corporality or
sensuality of the interaction with a work of art. In his view, the avant-garde is now created offline. Even
though I don’t subscribe to such a clear-cut division between online and offline, his opinion may be
understood as a call for confrontation with real problems, including economic and legal ones.