Are the relationships of the artistic attitude towards the external, towards the ‘external as a artist’s reality’ (that are more and more notable), able to speak in behalf of the concept of the global as potentially equalizing one between the Western and Eastern World? 
 

Since the discussion in Western Europe about period ‘before’ and ‘after’ the falling of the Berlin Wall begun and since everyone putted in mind that there would not be ‘sides’ anymore, on the European horizon some other partitions appeared. Since everyone got democratized, that same Europe decided to research (to prove to the Central and Eastern Europe, probably) that the historical differences must be respected – still. In the period after the falling of the Wall, rows of art critics and curators began to search the past and the present of this region. Trying to find a confirmation that the ‘bad gays’ are still there, they were faced with the image of something that is not inserting in their expectations, and, even more, this image caught them unprepared to face production to which the year 1989 may has no meaning. It seemed that once more the statement of Francis Fukuyama saying that the falling of the Berlin Wall is not enough to speak about ‘prolonging of the history’, i.e. that the very same event is not for everyone a revolutionary cross-point (or change).  Taking the recentness of Western Europe [WE], this is confirmed even more. From this point onwards, does the ‘end of the history’ in Central and Eastern Europe [CEE] already begun? 
 

The actuality of the CEE art from the aspect of the expressed interest is showing itself as worth analyzing, more over due to the specific circumstances that the region is faced with. These circumstances may have two causes: from one hand is the attempt to get secure (i.e. financial) protection of the state and, from the other hand, encircling of the definition of the aspects of democracy, through the attempts of avoiding of that secure protection of the state (needed for the opening of ‘the end of the history’ processes). As antipodal, these causes are paying the bill of the past times. At the same time, the artistic practices and production begun to realize the beginnings of ‘the end of the history’ in the form of: spatial and ambiental installations; digital and communicative projects; or projects that are penetrating the social (as a common corpus of different penetrations); or projects for competitions and open approach to the information and their exchange (as a opposite metaphors from the dictated and controlled distribution of the information in the past). At once large number of art institutions (both local and foreign) stood up on the side to protect the ‘art values’, unable to accept (even to understand) the new ‘democratic’ or ‘democratized’ appearances in the field of culture and art production. This antipodal situation among the local communities is not the only with which the CEE art is facing at ‘the end of the century’. From the other side of these inner antipodes, there are few external: the treatment and the reception of this production in WE, which it self appeared another specific antipode on the broader social level: ‘Europe Rediscovered’, Copenhagen 1994, 4th Istanbul Biennial 1995, ‘Manifesta. The New European Biennial’ in Rotterdam 1996 and Luxembourg 1998, and in Ljubljana 2000, and ‘After the Wall’ in the Moderna Museet in Stockholm are speaking about the denial of the discourses ‘east-west’, ‘west-west’, or ‘east-east’.  But, simultaneously that same Europe is building another not wall, but rather castle around it self manifested through new metaphors: in-European Union – out of-European Union, in-International Monetary Fund – out of- International Monetary Fund, and finally, in-NATO – out of-NATO. 
 Hence, did the Berlin Wall indeed fall? 

 

Once more about ‘the end of the history’ – this time on its concrete issue. And once more about the Berlin Wall – this time on its virtual issue. The ambiguity of the title for this part of the text goals to make clear the following situation: how and where the CEE art is developing today? If ‘the end of the history’, according to Fukuyama, does not recognize the fall of the Berlin Wall as a revolutionary cross-point (or change), than that ‘end’ walks ‘on’ (above) the wall it self. (This acts as a metaphor for the non-recognition of that event as a revolutionary.) The walk ‘on’ interprets this event not as an edge in a sense of ‘over the wall’, but as an edge in a sense of equilibrating ‘along the wall as an edge’. This, from that point of view, leads towards the equidistance that has to be kept towards the art production phenomena and the interpretative methods as its encircling. By that, the antagonistic attitudes between the ‘east’ and ‘west’ are becoming senseless in so far they are not cancelled in the relation with the globality of the production as a factum. In other words, it is not that much about interlacing of the both poles of this relation (this discourse is closed with the modernism), but about the acceptance of the fact that it is implicitly in the art production to research all possible forms of its appearance within the frameworks of some ‘third side’, common side – the one of the social.  Once more, what the recent art production has to do and is already doing is the research of the phenomena that are concerned by the walk ‘along the wall/edge’ of the ‘edged’ of its social surrounding. What is going to happen with this production if not so? 

From the other hand, the recent art production ‘walks’ also ‘after’ the ‘grand narratives’. If the Berlin Wall, as a metaphor for one of the few 20th century’s ‘grand narratives’, is a past, than the epochal (and other like) determinations (usually titled as post~) are – past, too. This is argued by the opening of the questions on (non-epochal) themes such as the local crisis of: institutions of art, social, feminine, customs, memories, role of the media, (left) human communication (as few examples) – in other words, segments, or even better – fragments from the social reality that are impossible to answer, never mind how big the artist’s engagement could be and which interpretative methods could be used. Besides, the projects are small, modest contributions for some possible views on them. The particulation of the ‘grand narratives’ does not understands the determinations of the discourse between the ‘old’ (obsolete, antiqued, old-fashioned, etc.) and ‘new’ (original, novum, projective, etc.), or ‘west’ and ‘east’ (that is determinable for the modernism). As Arthur C. Danto will conclude, the syntagm ‘You can do everything’  is insuring the artist’s legitimacy and hers/his readiness ‘to use whatever [is] require[d] for whatever purpose’  (somehow referential to Paul Feyerabend’s almost anthological ‘anything goes’ ) in the process that produces specific ‘syncretisms’  outside of the historical, ideological, or social past and experiences. Only with these premises and prerequisites is possible to penetrate in the sphere, not in the artist’s personal, but in the common public. Democratization of this kind is the one that Fukuyama is counting on: democratization-of/in-the work of art as a prerequisite for beginning of ‘the end of the history’, instead of its pure proclamation. And because of the fact that seriously large group of artists is already realizing this, than ‘the end of the history’ is yet already begun. 

Therefore, the history and the myths (as structures of the ‘grand narratives’) are non-functional in recent days, and above all they are showing as counter-productive as well. And because of this, the walking ‘along’ and ‘after’ the ‘grand narratives’ is disburdening it self by non-acting in their benefit. Just like this the stepping out of the other is possible, just like this the CEE art is placed on the level of actuality. Finally, right this does the discourse ‘west-east’ absurd. 
 

‘The end of the century’ poses this question considering that the aesthetic ‘form’ should remain only a medium for transmission of the statements, one of the constituent components, but not a constituency, and not to remain an autonomous appearance, self-satisfied by the categories that define it. The provocation of the material, its aesthetics (perceived both in its negative or positive articulation) and self-satisfaction, is transformed into a carrier of meanings with which, under the condition to be used unambiguously - without their metaphysical settings or new directions, speak, with the reality language, of the real. The material becomes a stereotype of its kind that cannot, or even more – may not, be treated as primary or dispensed for the aims of the artistic shaping. This comes exactly because under the latter is understood something completely different: artistic shaping today is shaping of a concept of the reality as a social-like. More precisely – shaping of the statement of the artist towards reality. In other words, not only the term ‘material’ has been widened, but also that the statement and reality become or are transformed into a accessible, but above all priority artistic bricoleur material. 
That establishes the specificity of the approach to the artistic articulation of ‘the end of the century’ on basis of the term ‘art with relation’. This term is entitling the art that is related towards the getting standing point out of the fine-artistic (or better to say – pure aesthetic), and it turns to the workout of the attitudes to the following aspects: artist-statement, artist-reality and artist-society, or artist – statement towards reality and/of society. 

The overview of the types of creating of ‘the art with relation’ in the last decade notes manifestations which are grouped under several determinants, led mainly through the syntagms that follow. But, if the approach to the artistic production is set towards the most essential part of the syntagm, one of the most topical items will be differentiated out, and that is the attitude towards the social reality. Posted in such way, the overview recognizes the initial manifestations in mid 80s. It is strange that these initial appearances that would be expected to surface even in the 70s, on the art scenes of CEE appear so late. The absence of the conceptual art in the true sense of the term and the manifestations, that are defined closest to it, speak of one pro-conceptual direction exactly because of the avoiding of the more comprehensive treatment of the social reality. 
 Having such pre-setting, these art scenes only in the 90s would be struck by such reality and more seriously and more notably would be treating it. As opposed to the rigid modernistic one, the latent or pro-postmodernistic discourse of the second half of the 80s (defined in the syntagm ‘art of the eighties’) resolves the situations and opens the free approach to themes and fragments of ‘the end of the century’. From here start the ‘inquiries’ that lead to: ‘the stepping out’ of the medium, the mixing of mediums, conquering of space by enspacing the artwork (in the manifestations to the installation, the ambiance, the space as an artwork). This adds also the predetermination of the space-location, narratives  as shaping process, completely until the throwing out of the conceptness of the work from the modernistic background (or its incorporatedness within the work itself – according to Clemet Greenberg ) into the foreground of the recent times, i.e. the conceptness as a fragmentary noting of the social events. 

And finally, speaking of the whole artistic scene, the representation of the concept ‘art with relation’ notes maybe not a single permanent or coherent line of presence, but first of all, multi-pointed  diversity, singled out in several specific correlations. 
 

‘Art with relation’ as a relation to the current. This attitude relates to the current happenings and their reflection in the sphere of the artist’s interests. It is symptomatic that the numerous events in the region, and especially those in the last two decades, are not found as very interesting by the artists. In this statement, the daily-politics involvement of art in the society is not accounted for, but rather inadequate presence of generalizing extracts out of the complexes and the complex events. ‘The absence’ of the important themes (together with all previous and consecutive events) like: the constituting of the institutions, various elections, the aspects of the state and national entity in relation with the international factors, the Balkan crisis and the wars, the blockades and the sanctions, etc., have been substituted by ‘some other’ themes. 

‘Art with relation’ as a relation to the existential. The concern from the existence in the wider social corpus and the expressing of its presence in the artist’s world and consciousness manifests its appearance through the introvert attitude of the artist. Turning around towards one’s own world as ‘a territory to escape’ has been noted as an esoteric proliferation of sign systems that speak of retreating, more exactly closing from reality. Thereby, the installations and projects, lead by these premises, acquire a look of re-location of the everyday residing of the artists (which includes not only the studios, but also the living quarters) into the public sites (including the galleries). 

‘Art with relation’ as a relation to the primordial. Treating the philosophical premises on the aspects of the primeval as a relation that is made current nowadays, constructs the contrariness towards the techno-culture whereby the roots and the primordial things become neglected. The choice that contrariness is to be realized by exchanging of the digital (as a metaphor of the simple binary coding) with the complexity of the ritual and ceremonial, rigidly established order, brings about the re-creating of ‘the act’ or ‘the performing of the act’ as a metaphor for man as creator, and not as user. The conceptual line, which lines up al these transformations of the formal aspects of this acting, even in a stronger way strengthens the actuality of this creation, bearing in mind that it elaborates the aspects of the individuality of the Subject in the broader scope of the social events. 

‘Art with relation’ as a relation to the political. This relation is one of the most essential penetrations into the social spheres of action as a field of interest also for the artistic action. The presence of the political and of the politicized leads to taking a discursive statement towards it. The artistic action in and from such situation may bring about a change of the very essence of the art, whereby the engagement in this segment enables definition of the production as a referential of the times. The discourse of the political are leading direct the permanent absurd coordination to the very absurd itself, but at the same time to the perfect artistic syntax that places the political into a situation of criticized subject. 

‘Art with relation’ as a relation to the natural. How could the approach to the natural, as referential and urgent for the global situation of mankind, be provocative also for the artists? Or, why they are not adequately such, when their marking is found from place to place? (One should make a distinction here between the working with the natural and working with natural materials.) This attitude towards the engaged in the problem of the destruction of the natural (what one might expect), is replaced with elevating it on the level of the sublime, and in this manner, relevant for the artistic transposition. With this, the critical tonus of the former attempts (in the frames of the ecological interpretations) is substituting or avoiding, and draws the attention towards an other statement which distantly notes these changes. 

‘Art with relation’ as a relation to the religious. The newly created social phenomenon of greater involvement of the Church (as an institution) in the social life (or reinstating the lost involving) and the appearance of the so-called ‘new religiosity’ separates this relation from most of the previous and simultaneous utilization in the art. In contrast to those artists, whose romantic approach and fascination by the tradition and spirituality of the Christianity end up in the utilization and the treatment of ‘the religious (Eastern Orthodox - Christian) iconography as scenery’, it is requested from the contemporary artist to make a critical approach towards these phenomena. ‘The iconography’ demands to be reshaped not only as tautological replications of the iconography designs of the past, but as finding out contemporary expression means, compatible with the times. They penetrates into the complexity of apprehension of the Christian truths, especially placing it on the account of the superficial ‘new religiosity’ of the today’s believers and on the neglecting of the primary role that the Church should have. 

‘Art with relation’ as a relation to the social. Social events and their reflection and presence in art seemingly more and more preoccupy the interest of artists. The current socialization of the artistic act not only involves a critical or engage approach, but also a benevolent relation of ‘the art in service of the society’, or ‘art as a favor, in service’ of the social community (the minority, ethnic, political, religious, marginal, ghettoized, racial, feminist, homosexual, etc.). 

These projects are problematizing even the very artistic procedures, i.e. their sense, and in its own way makes a proposal for the manner of the artistic approach to the social deviations that in their final instance treats also the seriousness of the position of the artist and of art in such one society. The project, aware of the impossibility to resolve, only makes the attempt to point out to the conditions. 

‘Art with relation’ as a relation to the artist’s own. Treating the position of the artist who decided to face the social and its institutions on one hand, and the perceptiveness of his work on the other hand, guides this relation through the narrow roads at which the artist asks himself of the purpose of his own creation or engaging as an author in the complex force of the circumstances outside of him. Further follow the preoccupation of the artist by the relation from the outside, by the relation towards the institutions of the artistic action, by the further destiny of his work. Hers/his perception is very often skeptic concerning these issues. Because of that, she/he tries to further explain these processes as an attempt in advance to remove the misunderstandings. 
 

The choice of these thematic blocks of realizations, based not on the aesthetic and fine-art assessments, but rather on the performative (presentative) features of the choice, act and work-out of the current concepts/statements/commitments of the artist, further can be included in the following general differentiation of the specifics of the criticness of ‘the art with relation’. 
‘Art with relation’ as latent comment. This aspect of the artistic activity excludes, or more precisely makes dull the sharpness of the comment because of some social event. Regardless of the intention of the author, the codes determined to carry the structure and the conceptual foreground of the work include the latency of the comment in its base. 
‘Art with relation’ as pseudo-critique. The pseudo-criticism of ‘the art with relation’ is seen in the transfer of the criticizing note of the work on the level of observation. 
‘Art with relation’ as ‘art material’. This approach ‘with relation’ treats the relations towards the social reality as ‘art material’ through which speaks either the similarity of the state or the double meaning of ‘the materials’. 
‘Art with relation’ as conclusion. The conclusive aspect of ‘the art with relation’ includes the activities that directly are related to the social reality whereby the art speech or expression is not vague when communicating. 
 All of these penetrations are not having the sharpness of the modernistic criticism and they are not promoting any modus for that, but they are rather keeping (as disinterested) the conclusive character. 

Starting with these analyses the art production treats the position of the artist in hers/his efforts to determine and to artistically transpose the views on ‘the external as part of hers/his reality’. They show the position of the artist where any hers/his engage activity is directed towards certain conclusive characteristic. Without any desire to change the world, the contemporary artist, through the field of hers/his activity, almost does not have ambitions for a revolutionary change in that sense in which most of the art movements of the late 60s and of the 70s have established as their basic determination and course of action. The repeated manifestation that the artists take a statement on social events is an indication that she/he is coming out of the closeness of, and from the sure hideout in the world where she/he rules in a sovereign way – the world of his very atelier. This going out sets her/him in a position to note the changes of reality, which is hers/his surrounding – she/he thinks that hers/his statement towards that reality and towards that society is part of the interest that should preoccupy him. 

But, what is the engagement of the today’s artist according to the analyzed realizations? The artist differentiates the manifestations specific for the present moment of the social structure (or social situation) according to hers/his own credo. These present times are not those in which she/he only creates, but those in which she/he also lives. Being aware that neither through the engagement of his own works (as the avant-garde artists of the 20s of this century who believed that through art they could change the world), nor through his personal engagement (as the conceptualists of the 60s and the 70s who believed that through revolutionary ideas could improve the world), today’s artist knows that she/he cannot cause radical changes. Such awareness is the product of accepting the situation in which art is determined as a posterior category in social happenings. With that, ‘the projective critique’ of ‘the militant’ modernism is changed evidently into exclusive ‘conclusive critique’  of the disinterested postmodernism. The exclusiveness here is mainly reduced to the aesthetization of the engagement that compels the conclusion that the artist (placed in a posterior position) cannot anymore be agent of the social changes. (Another thing is the question if she/he ever was, regardless of what she/he thought of hers/his activities!?) Therefore, ‘the engagement’ (now in quotation marks) in the recent art apprehends only concluding of the situations and relations, whereby the prior role of the artist in the social changes is changed with his posteriority. 
 The artist at ‘the end of the century’ does not have any more illusions that she/he will change or improve the world and hence, she/he accepts the world as it is, trying to use it artistically. 
 

In the last several years on few big international exhibitions the art from the last decade from CEE is incorporated in large extend. Some of them are researching the past periods, some workout specific themes, some are opening new ones. They are making an attempt for re-reading of some of the done interpretations, they are tending to correct some misunderstood starting methodologies from the past, or they are doing kind of fulfillment of the large empty space in the European history of art. 
 Expressed interest for the art production from CEE from its side, in this extend and in this time is specific phenomenon. How mush this production finds its objective place and interpretation in these subordinations? This question is not only important for the ‘western’ researchers, but even more and first of all for the local ones, just because of the possibility to of time distance, disburdened by the imperatives of the ideological matters, to re-question the past and to grab with the more objective re-interpretation of the certain events. 
 In this case there are two moments appearing important for this interpretation: positioning the attitude towards the ‘West European’ ‘imperatives’ and re-questioning the self-persuaded specific differences of the art production of the rest of the art world of, especially postwar CEE. This is an important moment in account of the positioning, or outcoming of the final reaching points towards which the CEE art was directed than or, even more, is today. It is easy to conclude that the targeting points of comparison are switched from those of the West European ones to the world ones. Belonging to their own cultural and artistic contexts, art scenes from CEE from that period are producing works (maybe not in large number, but) compatible with the ones from Western Europe. But, starting from this point onward, the question of the compatibility with the European movements is posted.  Unfortunately, the comparative examples of the CEE art from that period that were chosen as an argumentation were the ones that were representing, more or less, the officially clamed artistic appearances from the side of the state bureaucracy of the respected countries. Hoe many (and in which extend) of the alternative, forbidden, decedent art scenes in these countries from this period are known, for the thesis of western European critic and historiography to be funded on objective arguments? 

These few exhibitions may become cause and reason, among the others, to question these issues, and the following researches may give some other answers than the present ones. 
 

The comparative points and positions, as changeable, are offering certain viewpoints for evaluating the CEE art in the sense in which the defining of its position towards the wider global context is requested. But those view-points are rarely found at the places that, concerning their nature, and even more the logic, are connected with the institutions of art unknown in CEE cultural and artistic politics and practices. The ‘artworld’ is not only about artists, critics, and galleries, but, first of all, legality of the global society with the mechanisms of its realization (especially the ones of the market as a place for exchanging values), in which something ‘is’ or ‘is not’ and in which ‘we would like very much to be in’ does not exist. Hence, is it enough to have quality artists, clever critics, equipped galleries for the ‘global’ ‘imperatives’ of the CEE art to be able to be realized? What is to be learned out of the passed experiences and how to go further on? Which are, finally, the realizable ‘imperatives’? 
 It seems that these very complexly posted questions may give some answers in founding out of some own ‘icons’ that will participate at the ‘market’ of the global determinism of the world’s art production. This even more just because of the very definition of the globality that, according to A. and M. Mattelart, it recognizes only if the new structure is both local and international.  Only if some art possesses structure that is simultaneously local and international – i.e. global, and if it coincides with the ‘new world order of internationalized nationalism’, according to Scott McQuire, ‘in which national identity can no longer be secured with reference to a self-evident territory, whether geographic, ethnic, linguistic or cultural’,  only then the expectations of the ‘imperatives’ of the ‘global’ can have some sense. 

Within the framework of these determinations and expectations, the map of the art production in the large space of the CEE in the period of the last two decades, analyzed and reviewed through the specifics of the thematic and critical presence of the term ‘art with relation’, can be drawn. This term, as transfer concept that overpasses the differences out-came from the past epochal ‘grand narratives’, can lead the overall art production in the field of globality. And right here, in the global concept of the culture and art, the determinations are not based on the diachronic categories such as ‘before’ and ‘after’, but rather on the synchronic – ‘now’ and ‘everywhere’. 
 
 

references: 

  Francis Fukuyama, The End of the History and the Last Man, Pinguin Books, London 1992, pp 6-9. 
  Cf. Robert Fleck, ‘Art after Communism?”, in: Manifesta 2, (catalogue), Luxembourg 1998, pp 193-197.  
  Nebojša Vilic, “’Both Sides Now’: ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ Art. Clearing the Differences in Advance!?”, in: Few Candies for Venice. Art in Macedonia at the End of Millenium, Laurens Coster, Skopje 1999, pp 99-105. 
  Danto would say: ‘The originality of the artist comes from inventing modes of embodying meanings she or he may share with the community of very large circumference.’ Arthur C. Danto, Embodied Meanings, The Noonday Press, New York 1995, p xiii. 
  Ibid., pp. 330-333. 
  Ibid. p 333. 
  Paul Feyerabend, Against Method, Humanities Press, London1975. 
  Nebojša Vilic, Dossier 1994-97, Horizns Unlimited Ltd, Skopje 1997, pp 9-11. 
  Understood as: ‘Narrative is first and foremost a prodigiuos variety of ganres, themselves distribuited amongst different substances. […] Moreover, under this almost infinite diversity of forms, narrative is present is present in every age, in every place, in every society.’ Roland Barthes, “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives”, in: ImageMusic Text, (Stephen Heath, ed.), Fontana Press, London 1977, p 79. 
  ‘Content is to be dissolved so completely into form that the work of art or literature cannot be reduced or in part to anything not itself.’ Clement Greenberg, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, in: Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (eds), Art in Theory 1900-1990. An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Blackwell, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA 1995, pp 529-530. 
  This term is taken in Barthes’ interpretation of studium and punctum. Cf. Rolan Bart, Setla Komora, [Roland Barthes, La Chambre Claire], Rad, Beograd 1993, pp 27-31. 
  Nebojša Vilic, “Conclusive Criticism”, Cultural Life 4-5/1994, pp 24-26. 
  The specific political situation in Yugoslavia in that period surely is different from the other countries of CEE and it is important prerequisite for the opening of these interpretations, in the same time avoiding the wider generalizations. 
  Armand Mattelart & Michèle Mattelart, Theories of Communication, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi 1998, p 147. 
  Scott McQuire, Visions of Modernity, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi 1998, p 232.