Just Another Brick in the Wall: Interview with Club Electro Putere

Zurich, Switzerland
December 8-January 7, 2012

PUBLICATION IS AVAILABLE AS A PDF HERE.
ONLINE ESSAY CLICK HERE
PANEL DISCUSSION VIDEO CLICK HERE
PHOTOS OF THE EXHIBITION CLICK HERE

Club Electro Putere is a contemporary art exhibiting initiative located in Craiova, managed by Adrian Bojenoiu and Alexandru Niculescu.

OS: You opened your exhibition venue in 2009 in Craiova in the former cultural center of the Electroputere factory, which until ’89 was used to entertain the workers of the factory with various government-approved events that also functioned as tools of propaganda. Does this legacy play a role in your curatorial position? Explain your position.
CEP: This legacy should implicitly play a part in all this. Some of our projects are related to the past and even to the past of the space that houses the centre CEP; this space suggestively illustrates what has happened to Romanian culture over the last years. In fact, a significant part of the Romanian art of the last twenty years has been influenced by the past and maybe in certain regards it is still connected to it (I’m referring here to the communist past). The Romanian culture has fed on what it inherited from the past, building its discourse against a traumatic, oppressive background and succeeding in developing an authentic cultural product that has been very well received on the Western artistic markets.
We analyzed all these issues concerning the legacies of the past and the artistic discourse, discussing them in detail not only in relation to the Romanian Cultural Resolution, on the occasions of all the exhibitions organized in Leipzig and Craiova, but also as expressed in the documentary project presented at the Venice Biennial this year. On the one hand they define our curatorial position but not entirely, just for this project.

OS: Who or what do you feel played the most important role in kick-starting the development of an independent art scene? What does independent mean to you, by the way? And can organizations remain completely independent? How?
CEP: A vital part was played by the initiatives of those who realized that there were no legitimate institutions that might produce and support contemporary art and who saw themselves obligated to invent them. It could be easily noticed that many institutions, especially those belonging to the state, have remained for the most part at the fringes of mainstream culture, simulating cultural events or serving some specific interests.
You could probably call yourself independent when you are not logistically or financially conditioned. Anyway there are a lot of things that can condition the artist and this status of independence can be properly negotiated according to these conditionings.
In Romania private institutions that do not receive governmental funding enjoy this status. The biggest pressure is the financial one; since there is so little money allotted to contemporary art through governmental programmes, most independent institutions look for sponsorship abroad and when you get money from abroad, independence is negotiated on different terms, the various conditionings change their nuances.

OS: You introduced a new model of promoting Romanian artists – by bringing your exhibitions to other art centers in Europe: to Leipzig, to Venice…. How are your exhibitions received in Romania and do you have an existing public that supports you?
CEP: At the end of 2009 when we drafted the first idea of the Club and of the Romanian Cultural Resolution project, the people involved in the Romanian artistic process were very active on the international stage and less active on the national stage. That is probably what happens today and it is something normal.
The national and international public of our centre is consistent but the national public is at the beginning of its formation. Any cultural institution grows together with its public, in relation with it, because this relation engenders an exchange that produces energy and sometimes imposes some regulations on quality and content.

OS: From the outside, the Romanian art scene seems very active, interesting, and entrepreneurial. What do you think about the art scene in Romania? How do you see it?

CEP: Over the last years, initiatives have multiplied, many exhibition spaces or associations functioning in the artistic field have appeared and then disappeared but there are not too many definite and insightful positions. After all there are as many as needed or as they should be. The artistic stage here has evolved in a very organic way. The state did not offer any kind of strategy to facilitate the artistic development; there were only independent initiatives which contributed to what could be considered a possible artistic stage.
The help coming from the state and directed towards the sphere of plastic arts is very little.

OS: What would a functional and stable art system look like in Romania? Who is ultimately responsible for supporting its existence?
CEP: I don’t think that the dimensions of a national system could be that clearly defined. The relationship with other institutions and foreign artists, or the achievement of making yourself known abroad, has been and still is the most important thing for us. “System” is a big word. Generally speaking the Romanians are not too fond of systems, no matter what the nature of these systems might be, but they can easily adjust to them. The Romanian art centres or the private galleries that managed to acquire national and international success have been established and got integrated into something that already existed outside the borders of the country, they have progressively learned what has to be done in order to survive and evolve and, to support something that already existed. The responsibility belongs to all persons involved in this story, to Romanian contemporary art, to those who have contributed and still contribute to the unfolding of events in the sphere of visual arts.

OS: Many art initiatives talk about developing an alternative to the mainstream system. What do you think they are referring to? What is the mainstream system in Romania and what would the alternative to that be? Where does Club Electro Putere fit in?

CEP: Club Electro Putere is an independent space. In fact, the existing “mainstream system” is so shy that I do not think we can talk about such a difference related to contemporary art. The museums or the state institutions that produce artistic events do not compete with independent spaces. I do not think there has ever been such a competition. There is enough room for initiatives or institutions and this fact is probably not that common in Western Europe.
If we were to talk about Club Electro Putere, its evolution happened in a very short period of time and even if we did not follow a particular model but we did everything our own way, we became the only Romanian institution that has attempted an analysis of Romanian contemporary art, an analysis which has already been legitimated by a large number of artists and curators through their participation in the project.
Whether mainstream or alternative, we have managed to create our own context, we have succeeded in consolidating a basis upon which we could build in the future and which might be a point of reference for other artists if they want to create a specific vision in Romanian contemporary art…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s