Prague Quadrienalle

According to Michael Asher, the institutionalization of art is not limited to the practice of forcing works of art into the organization of a museum or another art institution; it is also integrated and embodied in the recipients themselves: in their competence and models of art perception, in the very contact with the work of art, and in the way of responding to it. Institutionalization is an attempt to keep things, activities and people in their respective places, and a way of identifying and defining what art is and what it is not. It is the authority of an imposed message, of a specific reception of a work of art, of the reactions and mores among the audience and of an unequivocal way of explaining the world. Emancipation starts with the principle of equality, with the exemption of the spectator from all Orders, including those relating to abandoning passivity and being active. It is the creation of such conditions for the spectator in which his reception is in no way defined, in which the spectator becomes conscious of his right to be exempt from all obligations (with respect to artists and institutions). The attitude of the spectator is truly active when the spectator himself may take the autonomous decision to act or not to act based on his own interpretation of the existing situation. Equality is possible if we respect the rights and interests of the spectator; when conditions are created to negotiate the joint use of space (the artwork). It is then that we are dealing with politics as understood by Jacques Rancière. Politics signifies the demand of the spectator to his right to an individual attitude towards art. The Polish exposition at PQ 2011 focuses on the figure of the spectator. All of the presented projects in the area of theatre and contemporary art call out intensively for the spectator. They want to include him in the area where the work of art takes place, share with him the authority over the artistic activity, and shatter the order between the stage and the audience, the viewers, and the viewed. Simultaneously, the projects call on the spectator to take responsibility for himself, for his participation, and make him realize the scope of his contribution. None of these projects could take place without the active, personal participation of spectators. A natural consequence of this conclusion is to give the voice to spectators. The entire presentation takes place from the perspective of the spectator. The spectator is the only guide to the projects, while his own memory, emotion and attitude towards the topics serve as his analytical tool. This personal comment has no ambition to be a full, professional report from the event. It is a private story of the work. It is the second work created as a result of contact with the artwork; it is a creative interpretation of this art. The spectator’s personal comment is the only trace of the project. Just like in the case of the trailer – which served as Paweł Ochel’s guardhouse alongside Joanna Rajkowska’s Oxygenator project – which, with its history, becomes the report of an observer-participant. Transported before the building of the Veletržni Palác gallery with all its details, in an unaltered shape, it constitutes a tangible trace of the presence of man and his commentary on everyday life. It is a transposition of his real contribution into the project: “Paweł Ochel moved from Zakopane to Warsaw, to watch over the apparatus, add water, water the grass, feed the fish and collect stories which slowly began enveloping Oxygenator.” The surroundings of a Prague municipal parking lot allows the trailer to blend in with the town, while also acting on it. It will mean that it will not be a simple artifact; indeed, it will get a second life. The organization of the Polish national pavilion is directed at the spectator’s action. The white cube functions as the most canonical space of art reception. In principle, it is meant to be a neutral area, a so-called ground zone, where the experience of art is devoid of the context of time or the context of social conditioning. Moreover, the white cube establishes a clear distinction between what should be left outside – i.e. society and politics – and what has the right to exist inside – the unchanging value of the work of art. However, the white cube is never an innocent practice. Its use, just like the use of any other exhibition strategy, is a form of institutionalization of the work of art. Brian O’Doherty argues that the gallery space is never just a neutral container for art, but that it is a historical construct. In essence, the white cube not only conditions works of art, but also dominates them; it turns the context into the content itself – instead of presenting content within the context. It is a vacuum seal for the work; it also blocks the natural, spontaneous reactions of the recipients. The use of the figure of the white cube at the Veletržni Palác gallery reflects a system of rules regarding behaviour towards the work of art and its perception within the art institution. The gallery space, usually predictable in its defined framework – which castrates every intuitive reflex and strictly determines how to react to a work of art – can now be challenged. The spectators may, if they so decide, undermine the rules binding spectators in the Veletržni Palác gallery – and actively influence the shape of the space of the Polish exhibition. Through a symbolic gesture in the form of the ability to scrape off the top layer of the white cube, spectators are encouraged to uncover the hidden potential of their own abilities. Ewa Machnio i Agata Skwarczyńska – curators of national and architecture sections

curators: Ewa Machnio and Agata Skwarczyńska