course for curators of contemporary art: course participants / study excursions / program collaborators / exhibition /

Eda Čufer
A conversation with Jaroslav Andel

You are known as a person who operates in numerous fields, from the history of art to photography and film. You also belong to a strong generation, which arrived on the scene at the end of the 60's and the beginning of the 70's. From the perspective of the last thirty years, how would you, in short, describe yourself ?

It is true, I grew up in the 60's. I started my university course in 1967 and many of the events in my later life are connected to this. In Czechoslovakia the 60's were very intense and dramatic, due to the Soviet invasion in 1968. Well, in the 60's the events were international, but following the Soviet invasion, which was a local event with global consequences, things became tenser to such an extent that it was difficult to publicly operate in the mid 1970's and 80's. All activities by then had moved into the so-called underground, private sphere, which existed only for very restricted groups. That is why I worked mostly abroad during that period. I prepared exhibitions in Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Mostly these were photographic exhibitions, for photography is not as problematic, as concerns the ideological viewpoint, as visual art: painting, sculptures or conceptual art. Photography was not high art and it was easy to set up very interesting photographic exhibitions. But, if I return to your question, I would say that I have done various things and that I was not interested in becoming a specialist for only one thing, for I am still interested mainly in relations and potentials, which arise from combinations of various disciplines.

In 1982 you have moved to the States, then you returned to the Czech Republic and now you live in New York again. What was your artistic policy during the time you were head of the Centre for Modern and Contemporary Art at the National Gallery, especially as regards the dichotomy between the global and the local?

I was trying my best to initiate a dialogue between the local and the trans-national, the European and the global context. This is of course a forced choice, which is present today if we want to reduce the consequences of the numerous years of cultural isolation. This isolation was territorial, but also a time isolation was present - those are politically disabled relations and exchange between the past, the present and the consequence future. Communism froze time. The past was oppressed and censured and repairing the consequences of this policy is today very difficult. The third level are institutions. When I took over the post of general manager at the Gallery, the gallery already had a determined hierarchy. A while ago they opened the permanent gallery collection to the public. The exhibition consisted only of paintings and sculptures, which is not encouraging for a museum with such a mission. I find it hard to imagine modern and contemporary art without photography, architecture and design, therefore my policy included the introduction of the idea of the co-dependency and the connections of the different disciplines. These were the three basic principles of my artistic policy, which I started to introduce from the very first day of my mandate.

The suppressed past of socialism caused the exclusion of historical avant-gardes (which arose in the territories which later on found themselves behind the iron curtain) from the so-called artistic history of the period. Did you discuss these issues with your colleagues and experts from the West?

Getting rid of such historical inconsistencies is a slow process. My experience is very personal. In 1982, upon my arrival in New York, I made contacts with many institutions and offered them projects which would present and rehabilitate some important artists. They have remained unnoticed throughout history, for the experts from the West that wrote historical books did not know them, even though these artists were already internationally recognised. Unfortunately these books were written mainly after World War II, when it was already difficult to get to the sources which were beyond the Iron Curtain. My colleagues with whom I discussed this understood the problem, but the problems arose elsewhere - with money, sponsors and the issue of the public interest in such rehabilitations. In the 1980's there was a Hungarian avant-garde exhibition in New York, as well as a few smaller projects. Something was done, but not a lot.

What is the current Czech Reality like? What are the specific Czech transition experiences?

The Czech Republic has a better image from the outside than from within its political and social reality. To tell you the truth the transition procedures in the Czech Republic were not carried out as thoroughly as in Poland or Hungary. State institutions remained basically the same as they were during socialism. Of course, without censorship or other repression structures, but the manner of functioning remained the same, which makes the transformation of these institutions very difficult. Straight after the fall of socialism the Czech Republic was in a better economic state then most of the neighbouring countries and maybe this was the reason why the government postponed some painful measures, which would have encouraged the reform of the institutional system from within. The outside image of the Czech Republic is often a result of the successful public relation policy of Havel or Klaus rather than a reflection of the actual conditions.

Czechoslovakia was known for its dissident intellectuals and artists. One would expect that they would play a crucial role in the process of realising social changes.

Traditionally writers and intellectuals took over a political role in former socialist countries. I would ask myself - Why? It is my opinion that they did this because of the lack of democratic political institutions. This role was a substitute for something that did not exist in these countries, but which everyone wanted. Dissident intellectuals tried to establish a civil society and similar institutions. But once such institutions exist, they need professional politicians, managers and so forth. Today a dilemma exists whether an intellectual can be active as a politician or is it the role of the intellectual to preserve a critical position. The change was very dramatic and I think that most of the former dissident intellectuals were not prepared for the new social and political roles demanded from them by the redefinition of their profession.

I have heard that the legendary conceptual artist Milan Knižak became a highly exposed political and media personality. What does he wish to achieve?

Knižak was already a media personality from the very beginning and represents a special case in the current Czech Republic, so he deserves special attention. He was the director of the Academy for Fine Arts for a long period of time and a few years ago he started his official political career in Klaus' party. In the same period he initiated a kind of revolution at the Academy of Fine Arts, which bypassed all legal procedures and became Knižak's personal revolution. Together with the students he overturned the school leadership, and rumours were circulating that he led the whole thing as a dictator. Knižak is a typical case of a media artist, but the strange thing really is that an artist wants to become a true politician, that he writes political columns and represents the leading political party. I think that this is an exceptional case, which, however, tells us a lot as regards reality and the society which we live in.

First published: Delo, 28. april 1999, p. 8