THE QUESTION OF CHANGES: THE 1990s IN LATVIAN ART

The question of changes in Latvian art of the 1990s reveals a set of difficulties one encounters when generalizing about this decade. On the one hand, this decade is the longest and the best-documented period of uninterrupted development of contemporary art in Latvia. On the other hand, it appears rather enigmatic, as the actual artworks have not been preserved and collected in any museums, and an authoritative contemporary art history of Latvia has not been written.

The language of art of the ‘90s is linked to the transformations within society; specifically, the proclamation and transition to independence during 1990 - 91, the development of institutional networks and new power structures, the transition to the “service society” and revolutions in communication technologies. However, leaving aside superficial contextual “socializing” of the local artworks and processes, one can probably attribute changes in art during the last decade to three areas of influence: new approaches to the “shared” space, developments in media and strategies of artists.

The search for a new spatial or environmental dimension was one of the forces that, along with political and ecological issues, had already informed the “first wave” of Latvian contemporary art in the mid-1980s. The new forms of expression were manifest in street actions and performances, installations in public space and the design of printed periodicals. As the artist Ojars Petersons remarked at the time, “It seems that it is time to pay real attention to the artistic problems of the space (environment) … I mean the direct understanding of a space as a social, ecological, cultural, etc., environment.”

The beginning of the ‘90s was marked by a slow institutionalization of the local art scene — the emergence of a network of small galleries, the active participation of Atmoda (reawakening time) artists in exhibitions abroad, and the legitimization of the role of the curator. The years 1991 and 1992 were chaotic, but still provided the grounding for spontaneous artists’ performances in public spaces, such as “The Bronze Man” actions by Miervaldis Polis and provocative work by the group LPSR-Z. The first generation of installation artists — Olegs Tillbergs, Andris Breze, Ojars Petersons, Kristaps Gelzis — were already prominent, and seemed to be exhibiting most of their work in international shows abroad. These works, often described as expressive metaphorical (or allegorical) references to the social, historic or geographical context, were constructed (by Tillbergs, Breze and others) from leftovers of Soviet everyday “design,” such as parts of dismantled planes, bread boxes, industrial liquids, etc.).

The sharp transition to the reality of the early ‘90s, and the inadequacy of escapist art practices shown in gallery spaces, were the background for an emergence of a young generation of artists who brought in new rhetoric on provocation and a new mission for the language of art. “We are living in the constructed world. The interesting thing is that art is also totally constructed, and that this second, artificial thing breaks the rhythm.” In contrast with the more contemplative or associative approach of the previous generation, paintings and installations by Mikelis Fisers, and installations and interactive projects by Gints Gabrans and Andris Fridbergs, were “created with the intention to urge people to think.” In their provocative works, artists juxtaposed life and art structures to confront the clichés of public opinion and stereotypes of society, and to question the capacity of art to be relevant to daily reality.

This activity took place in the informational vacuum of the pre-Internet era, when the regular art information sources were not yet established, and ideas were generated randomly from available media and translations, fragments of cultural criticism and articles that were produced locally or outside the country. Artists’ works catalyzed the battle against the notion of “art for art’s sake” that emerged in the local press around 1994 (as Gints Gabrans put it, “Formal art does not interest me”). Conceptual and “mental” artworks aimed to make “contact” with the viewer through themes of fear and pleasure, violence, choice and decision making, and connection with reality. The Point appears even in the titles of works: “Sex’n spaceship,” “Master of Ceremonies for Independence Day (MC4ID),” “Fucked rider,” “Armageddon” and “Survival module,” and in paintings and installations by Mikelis Fisers, such as “Art of the Human Factor is not Meant for Eating,” “Art is in Fashion Again,” “Sveroid Parish” and “Stairway to Heaven,” as well as installations and interactive “opinion pool” projects by Gints Gabrans.

“Psychedelic kitsch and academic self-esteem,” as Inga Steimane referred to the work of Fisers, fitted the newly established practice of curated exhibitions, and those that were produced annually by the newly founded Soros Centre for Contemporary Art — the first Latvian institution for promotion, documentation and support of contemporary art.

The language of art that addressed personal alienation and questioned the autonomy of consciousness of the individual was soon transferred into the new and alternative social space of cross-disciplinary art party sessions such as Open and Biosport.

Thse mythical episodes of the new Latvian art, Open (1995) and Biosport (1996), can indeed be regarded as landmark influential events of the decade. Organized under the title “Open” (Kaspars Vanags and Ilze Strazdina) in the abandoned storage and factory grounds, these night sessions lasted about a week. They brought together young artists and musicians to invade the techno and other mode sound space created by DJs, with artists’ installations and environments, live actions and fashion shows. The works of Gabrans, Fisers and many other artists were inhibited and complemented the different zones of the informal party space, where the art was viewed “as an experience in an alternative life environment.”

Intended as totally apolitical, these events become the platform for expression for developing subcultures — unofficial music, visual art, media. The emphasis was on the process, the individual experience, “feeling” and democratic creative expression. The new and paradigmatic feature was the network of collaboration among independent musicians and visual artists that was formed for the first time and that later, in the second half of the ‘90s, proved to be very influential for the young art and club scene in Riga. Another important aspect was the appeal to individual initiative and creativity. The apolitical mood of the “celebrations” also had its flip side. After a number of art and club events, Open experienced the backlash of entertainment consumption and recognized the encroaching commercial undertones.

But how about the subjective gaze? Of course the subjective viewpoint and expression were preserved in the traditional art genres, but the early ‘90s added a new “phenomenological” medium — video. Early experimental performances with characteristic video “displacement” of time and location were already being conducted in the 1980s. In the first half of the ‘90s, equipment was still expensive and rare, yet the early experiments and three “French-Baltic” video festivals (1990 - 92) contributed to the popularity of this handy medium. In the visual art world, video added new expression to the already familiar metaphorical language (for example, in works by one of the first video artists, Juris Boiko). At the same time, young artists Anita Zabilevska and sometimes Andris Fridbergs created video installations that focused on accuracy of perception revealed by the time-based medium. Other artists experimented with narrative constructions within the video record — in the video installatons of Izolde Cesniece, and the films of Ginta Vilsone and Aija Stafecka.

Different tests of cognition are characteristic to the disproportionate site-specific works by Eriks Bozis, an artist who started in the photography field. “The treatment of optics and conceptual traditions in his installations creates reality traps in which the observer, initially without being aware of it, briefly loses contact with terra firma of normal perception,” Bozis wrote about his installation in Stockholm, the phone booth with the shift of a scale 25 percent larger than the standard one. “I lower the exhibition and heighten the space,” the artist remarked.

The influence of genuine video technology on Latvian art was very brief, as this “aging” medium was soon replaced by more advanced digital processes. The era of new media and digital art — nowadays the most dynamic area of local creative undertakings — started in 1996 with the foundation of the independent electronic media laboratory “E-lab” (www.rixc.lv).

The Internet finally liberated artists and others from the dull burden of information isolation. The Web did not just represent a very new and experimental environment for art, it was also an incomparable vehicle for information exchange, networking and discussions. E-lab, the initiative of the artists Rasa and Raitis Smits and Janis Garancs, was formed in close collaboration with other tactical media and electronic art units in Europe, its allies being the Backspace (London), V2 (the Netherlands), Orang (Berlin) and others.

After a brief but influential exposure to Open and Biosport, “E-lab” invested in the long-term practice of cross-disciplinary collaboration that reached beyond the borders of visual art. One of the most interesting chapters of E-lab’s history is the story of experiments with Internet sound broadcasts (started in 1997) and the associated concept of “acoustic space.” These broadcasts linked E-lab with other experimental world media centres and with local sound artists and musicians.

The concept of “acoustic space” is a good example of the contrast between new art practices and those of the early ‘90s — transition from the performative “disturbance” in public space to the dispersed creative ambience of the soundscape environment. “Acoustic space is ambient and it works in three dimensions, processes in acoustic events will always differ from those in visual arts. It is a background of human perception, therefore you can experience it more freely.”

E-lab’s strategies of promoting the electronic arts and new media proved to be successful both in attracting artists to use the Net-space for artistic expression and in creating the infrastructure for new media development. E-lab activities — radio Ozone, art and communication festivals, editions of Acoustic Space magazine, participation in international networks and mailing lists — continue through the new structure of RIXC (Riga New Media Centre, www.rixc.lv).

This glimpse of E-lab and RIXC have brought us to the current situation in the local contemporary art scene. On the one hand, these entities marked the influence of the new media — not just digital technology, but also music and experimental film; and on the other hand, they represent strategic intervention and social action in the cultural environment. Possibly now these technological and social poles indicate axes along which, considering other forces, one could place a number of current art projects.

Reflecting on the media and technological language used by the artists now, one has to mention the important educational background that provides the basis for young artists’ work. Led by Ojars Petersons, the Visual Communication Department of the Latvian Academy of Art became a workshop for the development of innovative ideas and work with new digital technologies. Nearly all artists who entered the art world in the late ‘90s were or are students of this department — Dace Dzerina, Katrina Neiburga, Anta, Dita Pences, Felikss Ziders, Monika Pormale, members of the label “F5” Liga Marcinkevica, Ieva Rubeze, Martins Ratinks, “99% Svaigs,” Linards Kulless and others.

What distinguishes the works of these artists? One characteristic is a flexible approach to work in different media — sound, Internet broadcasts and video, as well as an interest in process-based work and moving images. In the second half of the ‘90s, the limited videotape was replaced by the much more flexible and popular digital video. DV is now the favoured software for film sequences that can be shown as autonomous video installations or can become part of a conceptual project. The temporality of video, sound and spatial arrangements allow us to talk about the “totality” of artists’ projects. They demand continuous presence in the longer time span, experiencing of the direct or surrounding action. Frequently works are created in collaboration. Exemplary is the label F5, formed in 1998. This group of artists was one of the first to contribute to the local club and music scene with their VJ mixes. Images of these “lyrical technocrats” range from the stylish samples and remixes and animation of the popular imagery in VJ materials to the solidity and careful composition in their exhibition works. Collaborative cross-disciplinary practices and alliances with the club and media scenes are also maintained by the group 99% Svaigs and other artists’ collectives.

The collective projects of these groups in the public club, Internet or city environment gives us an opportunity to consider the sometimes unintentional or unrecognized social action inherent in contemporary Latvian art practices.

The social content in recent Latvian art is often presented under some elaborate, often playful, formal appearance. “Liberal and leftist” art actions frequently take the form of a mimetic intervention that imitates and/or reveals real-life media and management strategies. Another common feature of late-‘90s socially engaged projects is conscious appropriation of the exhibition space to the process, or action in the public domain.

Possibly because of the Soviet heritage of social disengagement and lack of exchange of critical theory during the post-war period, feminist discourse did not gain solidity and continuity in the local art milieu. A group of five women artists, LN Women’s League, founded in 1997, was the first to begin programmatic but fragmentary discussion on the subjects of femininity and feminism. Through staged theatrical photographs and live action — media reviewers reported on them living on the exhibition site and their interviews with male public authorities — their “weakness management” investigated issues of historic and present balance of power, stereotypes and women’s self-esteem. Some confusion about the meaning of feminism as distinct from “girls'” matters was revealed in 2002, in a joint artists’ project, created exclusively by women, under the ironic title “Six Elements.”

Changes in the “reformed” society are tested in projects that confront the conditioning imposed by the post-industrial order and globalization — the instruments of media and advertising, consumerism practices and values, unification and proliferation of stereotypes. Critical activism is represented by the art collective Open (http://open.x-i.nu). In 2000 this group ran a two-week-long “anti-cocacolonization” campaign in a corner shop and carried out an anti-advertising action in collaboration with Adbusters. In the project Slideshow, they inserted ethical message sequences created by artists into prime time advertising slots in popular TV shows.

The subversion of the exhibition format and the examination of stereotypes such as the attraction, well-being and differences between eastern and western Europe, was carried out by Gints Gabrans and Monika Pormale in the project Riga Dating Agency. The project was built around a live event—individuals from Riga wanting to find a partner abroad were asked to submit their data. Their portraits, taken in a special photo session, were later complemented by the submitted standard data and shown in exhibition spaces in western Europe. The direct comment on media manipulation can also be seen in Starix, the latest project by Gints Gabrans.

On another structural level, one can talk about the conscious independence and even marginality of the artists’ collectives that through long-term creative action seek to introduce structural changes in areas “forgotten” by the power authorities.

At the turn of the century, self-organized creative units and labels flourished as an alternative to non-existent “official” infrastructure. They can be seen as strange hybrids adopting the language of subculture and the goals of cultural policy.

The functioning of E-lab (RIXC) could serve as a prototype for many of these self-organized units with focused creative agendas. Their approaches and scale can differ, from the permanent community cultural centre K@2 (www.karosta.org) in the remote suburban area of the provincial capital, to the alternative spontaneous fashion boutique in the centre of Riga that also serves as an interesting club for local teenagers and is maintained by young artists under the label MAI3E. One can also mention the similarly organized art bureau Open and the poets’ group Orbita (www.orbita.lv).

So what situation is illustrated by this brief overview? And what is indicated by the “gaps” of this survey, the left-out things — the smart, fetishistic artifacts of Kristaps Gelzis, the subject matter of young artists’ works, and the “fake” qualities of films such as those by Ilva Klavina?

Perhaps the connection revealed is the replacement of metaphorical installation objects by thinking and perception projects by Fishers, Gabrans, Zabilevska and Bozis, which were later melded into the process and experience of sound and video spaces and the organizational activities of the artists’ groups. This succession probably indicates the disappearance of a self-sufficient art object throughout the ‘90s. Similarly, this survey documents the mutations of the image of the artist — from solid author, to contributor and participant, and finally to collaborator, producer and “fixer” of cultural practices. It can be regarded as a rather avant-garde paradigm, where the art world has freed itself of the consumption and exchange value of the art object, and where some artworks are still created out of idealistic necessity, “just to be made and shown.” However, this apparently bright and progressive situation is shadowed by a recognition of the blindness of state and city policy-makers, who have left no niches for creative activities other than streets, clubs, industrial ruins and the overpopulated Net-space. That has conditioned artists to be “services” to businesses and advertising agencies. Contemporary self-organization and collaborative practices give artists the pleasure and stimulation of being in the midst of a never-ending creative process, but only as long as “art” itself does not completely disappear from the sight of artists and audience.

Mara Traumane
2002

Mara Traumane is a free-lance art critic and curator working in Riga, Latvia. Lecturer at the Latvian Art Academy Visual Communication Department. She has worked on several art projects in collaboration with the Art Bureau "Open" and Latvian Centre for Contemporary Art. Currently working on her Ph.D on Art and Technology in the 80's and 90's and questions of recording.


THE EXHIBITION | ARTISTS | ESSAYS | SITEMAP | CREDITS | REFERENCE