Just Another Brick in the Wall: Interview with Matei Bejenaru

Zurich, Switzerland
December 8-January 7, 2012


Matei Bejenaru is an artist and founder of Periferic Art Festival. He lives and works in Iasi.

OS: We met in 2001 when I was visiting Romania to research the development of the art scene for my masters’ thesis and you were interested in doing a residency through Artslink but needed a partner organization in the States. You were managing a performance art festival in Iasi called Periferic and I was managing a multi-media arts festival called Around The Coyote in Chicago. So it worked well for the both of us. Why did Periferic turn into Vector and what was Vector intended to be?
MB: The Periferic project started in 1997 in Iasi, Romania as a performance festival which transformed into and international contemporary art biennial in 2001. In the first years of Periferic, the organizers of the festival were private persons, like myself, but as the project began to develop, it became necessary that the organizer be an institution. Therefore in 2001 Vector Association was formed, composed of individuals whose goal was to promote contemporary art in Iasi and to develop a local art scene.

OS: What is the context in which Periferic operated? What were the specific challenges of Iasi?
MB: Periferic appeared at the end of the 90s in Romania, at a time when, despite the lack of art institutions, there were quite a lot of artists developing artistic projects. In Iasi, an important university center, there was almost nothing going on in the visual arts in those first years after the fall of communism, but rather only traditional art shows. A number of the students from that time, among which I count myself, were unhappy and this was the reason that we built this other form of project, which responds to other types of expectations.

OS: How was Periferic, and later Vector, funded?
MB: In the first editions, Periferic was financed by foreign cultural institutions (Pro Helvetia, Center for Contemporary Art Soros, the French Cultural Center…). Ultimately, Vector Association applied to other granting agencies (European Cultural Foundation…) and some Romanian cultural institutions (the Ministry of Culture, the National Fund for Culture, the Romanian Cultural Center), as well as the local administration in Iasi (the City Hall). But always the foreign funds were the majority of the support we received.

OS: Who was Periferic’s, and later Vector’s, public? Do you feel that you were providing a needed service that was supported by those you intended to serve?
MB: I would divide Periferic’s public into two categories: the local public was made of students and young intellectuals. The public from outside of Iasi was represented by Romanian and international professionals from the art field (curators, artists, directors, and journalists). I think that Vector Association did a lot to develop a local art scene, but this association always functioned more as an artist-run institution, so it never succeeded, due to economic restraints and the traditional provincial mentality in Romania, to establish itself and hire professional managers and staff.

OS: What legacy do you think Periferic left?

MB: I was for a long time the director of Periferic. The last edition that I organized was in 2008 and I don’t think I’ll continue. In retrospect, Periferic put Iasi on the international contemporary art map, and helped the development of a local art scene connected to the international one. It was a project that analyzed the modes and functions that contemporary visual art can have in this type of context – that of the city of Iasi.

OS: Do you feel that the residents of Iasi can become consumers and supporters of contemporary art? If so, what needs to be done for that to happen?
MB : Yes, with the condition that even in Iasi there will be initiatives supported and funded by the local administration. Only an institution with a coherent and long-term programme that can also offer educational programs can build a local public.

OS: It is evident that relying on funds from the Romanian, but also from foreign, governments is proving to be an unsustainable model. But what is the alternative?
MB : Money from the local administration (Iasi has to pay to have contemporary culture)as well as private ones (but here there’s a danger that the organization will be a PR agent for the sponsor). I think it’s important to have institutions with independent agendas (independent of political and commercial influence).

OS: How can contemporary art activity survive and how can cultural workers make a living in contemporary art in Romania?
MB: Through continued pressure so that the institutions ion Romania (the Ministry of Culture, The National Fund for Culture, the local administration) to sustain contemporary art.

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