EXAT-51

I'm writing a senior thesis in Art History at Reed College. This is where I put some of the writing, images and notes.

[exat51]

Historical context and political, economic and cultural conditions of EXAT's collective effort

EXAT-51 formed and worked under radically different conditions than both the “institutionalized” and “non-institutionalized” groups that were active in the West after the war. We can approach the group from the perspective of historical avant-garde and identify crucial roles of their collective effort; its artistic and political potential and to a certain extent relationship with authority. However, the social, economic and cultural changes in Yugoslavia were arguably even more disruptive to the established practices of avant-garde groups than those in the West. These new economic and political circumstances require that we develop appropriate terms and concepts that will enable us to critically examine the nature of this group's collectivity under these specific circumstances.

There are a couple of factors that make the economic, political and cultural conditions of the Yugoslav case specific and different than that of both the West and the Soviet Union and its allies. Since it determined the other two conditions, the political system has to be covered first. Historically the immediate postwar Yugoslav politics can be divided into two time periods which defined what those conditions were like. The period of 1944-1948 was dominated by the effort to establish a communist country modeled on the Soviet Union. After the war, the Yugoslav government, which grew out of the partisan resistance movement1, sought to consolidate its post war rule. By 1946 the communists have efficiently pacified the opposition forces, mostly by gradually excluding them from the political process through intimidation. The Constitution was modeled on that of the Soviet Union and the first five year plan was soon issued. Agrarian reform was initiated and large portions of land redistributed. Banks, factories and commerce were nationalized. Cultural production was put under control of the Party and artist were commissioned to produce works assigned by committees2. However, in the summer of 1948 tensions arose between the Yugoslav and Soviet leadership. Yugoslavia was expelled from the Cominform3and soon began making changes to both its political and economic system. The first of these changes was the Law on Worker's Self-Managment; a concept developed by the Yugoslav theorists in response to the split with the Soviets which was supposed to bring Yugoslav socialism closer to the model envisioned by Marx and Engels4. Similar decisions were made in other sectors; reforms were made in the administrative apparati, the legal system and the agrarian sector with most of the radical Soviet measures being recalled. At the same time the liberalization of cultural politics which was gradually progressive without direct political decree was finally legitimized at the Second Literally Congress in 1952 where a direct support was given to the artists engaging in contemporary, abstract and critical practice. 1953 marks the end of the initial period of reforms after which the liberalization slowed down. However, by that point Yugoslavia has opened itself up to the West and decisively moved away from the Soviet sphere of influence. All of this contributed to the specific conditions that enabled and shaped the EXAT-51 group.

By the time the group started in 1951, its members were not under direct political control. Despite this, the almost daily changes were transforming the country and EXAT members were interested in being a part of these changes, as they expressed in their Manifesto, published in 1952. However, the nature of their participation greatly differed from that of their colleagues in the West, since the line between what was allowed and what not was ambigious at best. Analyzing the political changes in Yugoslavia between 1944, Carol Lilly argues that since its rise to power Yugoslav Communist Party balanced its authoritarian measures according to the public opinion in order to maintain a measure between effective control and realization of their goals5. The collective organization of EXAT members into an intimate group was in direct conflict with the bureaucratic and systematize organization of the committees and workers' councils. Although this aspect of their collectivity was never openly attacked, in the context of the ongoing reform it certainly had a political conotation. This type of relativity defined the political sphere that EXAT was a part of and it was also a basis for the more immediate cultural politics of the time.

After the war two types of cultural authorities were established. First were political committees in charge of production of monuments, architecture and propaganda6. Although they also assigned the style and content of the works, their influence was mainly based on economics. As virtually only “patrons” of the arts in the country they determined the content their control was not based on political authority as much as the fact that they served as employer's for the artists. Despite the implementation of reforms an independent art market never developed and the artists and architects depended on the commissions and projects that in one way or the other were provided by the state7. The economic control over the group was perhaps even greater than the direct political one. However, since the economic and political authorities were under same control the tactics of their compensation for the enforced limitations could have been more easily realized than those of their Western counterparts had to manage authorities with multiple interests.

Lastly the immediate cultural conditions were shaped by two groups. First was made out of an older generation of critics and academics, as well as artists who were strongly associated with the state. Their interventions could be described as subtle but determined. Before the proclamation and legitimization of non-realist art at the Literally Congress in 1952 they responded to the ideas published in EXAT's manifesto through articles as well as in public discussions, discrediting them on the ideological discrimination against abstraction8. Post 1952 the critiques from this group were more constructive but still unfavorable. However it was clear that their influence on cultural decisions was in decline. At the same time a group of younger critics and theorists was entering the public discourse. With limited exposure to non realist art these critics had to develop the language appropriate for the abstract work that was being made by EXAT9. However, unlike their older colleagues they were genuinely interested in expanding their theory and constructively participating in the dialogue with the artists. While the conservative and ideologically motivated cultural critics did not disappear, the cultural conditions certainly changed over the course of EXAT's collective activity, and based on the polemics they participated in it can be argued that they were at least partly responsible for some of these changes.

1National Liberation Army

2Lily 28

3Post war international communist organization that was the predecesor of Warsaw pact

4Lily 22

5Lily 21

6Including fairs and exhibitions

7Denegri 151

8Denegri 80

9Denegri 87

[exat51]

Historical avant-garde collectives

Historically avant-garde movements of the 20th century often relied on formal or informal artist association. While some, such as the Cubist group Section d'Or, organized collectives in order to achieve legitimacy for their art and ideas behind it, others used the creative potential and authority of the collective for political purposes. This was especially the case with Russian movements where Futurists, Suprematists and finally Constructivists all assigned political goals to both their art and collective associations. This goal was most fully realized with Constructivists' revolutionary work and active involvement with the post-revolutionary production in service of the state1. The politics of dadaist groups, on the other hand, were based on rejection of authority and subversion of the political establishment and the state2. This discrepancy among avant-garde groups shows that the politics and their goals, as well as their relationships to other larger collectives such as the state differed greatly. However, it also shows that cooperation between artists served not only as a framework for creative progress but also as platform for the artists to achieve external goals, both artistic and political.

In her essay Internationaleries: Collectivism, the Grotesque, and Cold War Functionalism, Jelena Stojanović writes about the changed cultural and political conditions in the West after the Second World War and the tactics of collectivist art groups in those changed conditions. Citing Harold Rosenberg's 1940's essay The Fall of Paris and his prediction of the end of cultural internationalism as a result of the end of political internationalism preceding Second World War, she argues that the political and economic conditions of the Cold War had a pacifying effect on art and political collectives3. Values such as knowledge, social relations and culture grew dependent on economics and began to be valued according to their exchange value. This was largely a result of the emerging capitalist ideology that based itself on technology, rationality and functionality. In cultural terms, this kind of functionalism was based upon institutionalization and commodification of the art practice and reestablished the cult of the artist as a single male practitioner.

As the contemporary art market was developing, the artists had to adapt to the new requirements. The art groups had to develop new ways of collectivity that were compatible with the new forms of authority. Chris Gilbert argues that this new form of collectivity was the “institution”4. Post war American and (west) European culture were becoming increasingly bureaucratized, not through the all encompasing expansion of the state, but through institutionalization of most aspects of economic and social life. The corporations and political organizations established massive systems of coordination and control. This model determined the new cultural organization where the cultural decisions were put under control of market institutions such as galleries and administrative control of established museums and journals. Gilbert argues that groups like Andy Warhol's Factory and Art & Language group modeled themselves after the institutions that controlled social and cultural relations as means of keeping pace and compensating for the limited accessibility of the established institutions of the art market and academia5.

Stojanović is focused on the groups that rejected the idea of institutionalization and instead tried to subvert the new authorities through other collective means. By focusing on the Situationist Internationaland three other groups6, Stojković argues these groups subverted the institutions by utilizing grotesquenes as a performative tactic for exposing inconsistencies by “reversing perspective”7. These groups viewed the contemporary phenomena such as the Cold War, rising commercialization and commodification as efforts at colonizing all aspects of daily experience by the state and corporations. Lettrist International and Situationist engaged in a variety of practices aimed at mocking and unmasking the bureacratic institutions. These included filmaking, self-publishing and extensive theoretical work. LI and SI developed a critique of contemporary socio-spatial relations through the concept of “unitary urbanism”. Through reconciling arts and technology, unitary urbanism supposed to reject the policies of separation, fragmentation, colonization and social isolation. While most of work on unitary urbanism was theoretical, it also consisted of exhibitions, publications and finally active social participation which was realized during events of May 1968.

1Gabriella Belli; et al 91-105

2

3Jelena Stojanović 20

4Chris Gilbert 78

5Chris Gilbert 90

6CoBrA IAE, Lettrist International, Mouvement International pour un Bauhaus Imaginiste

7Stojanović 18

[exat51]

Srnec and EXAT-51

Srnec belonged to a group of young artists who started their studies during Second World War under the fascist regime and either graduated or dropped out after the liberation of the country by the communist resistance in 1945. However, the period of the Second World War and the major geopolitical and social changes that followed were highly disruptive not only to the studies of Srnec and his colleagues but also to the broader artistic and cultural politics in the country.

After the war the communists established the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a socialist state closely modeled on the structures of the Soviet Union. The communist leadership's main goal was establishing new political and social structures. However, their long term goal was to transform the whole society not only through economic and social changes but also by performing a cultural transformation which was supposed to bring about an enlightened and progressive Marxist society1. The newly started policies soon took over all cultural production in the country. Collective workshops were started alongside massive architectural institutes, while socialist realism was established as the official artistic style. Srnec, who studied painting during the war, dropped out of the Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb never finishing his studies. Despite this, by 1948 he was already a somewhat established cultural worker. Along with Vjenceslav Richter, an architect, and Ivan Picelj, a painter and his colleague from the Academy, Srnec was assigned to work on the design of Yugoslav exhibitions and pavilions at industrial and cultural fairs in Yugoslavia and abroad2. While older and more experienced artists (such as Antun Augstinčić, the sculptor of the Peace statue in front of the UN building in New York) , were commissioned to create works celebrating the communist resistance, revolution and its leaders, younger artists and architects worked on exhibitions and fairs creating exhibits and installations that were celebrating industrial and infrastructural achievements of the regime both at home and abroad.

By 1951 the concept of massive workshops and architectural institutes was abandoned and the scale and number of these exhibitions radically declined. This was the result of political changes in the Yugoslav Communist Party that came about after the political split with USSR in 1948. As a result Yugoslavia began to position itself more towards the West, which in turn brought about increased aid from the US and other countries as well as slow but effective changes to not only the economy but also virtually all policies established after the war3. However, this process of liberalization was slow and by the time workshops were disbanded the cultural authorities were still directing artists towards creating in the socialist realist style. After their work on the exhibitions ended, Srnec, Picelj and Richter started an informal art group, naming it EXAT-51 (for Experimental Atelier). They were soon joined by a couple other young architects and painters who were interested in experimenting with styles and concepts other than those sanctioned by the government. Taking advantage of the increasing liberalization in the country, the group soon after published a Manifesto expressing their ideas and wishes. Their basic platform was based around active advocacy for the legitimacy of abstract art, production of contemporary art that reflects social and economic conditions as well as equalizing the value of “pure” and “applied” arts, an idea that was later developed by Richter as “the synthesis of all arts”. This idea of synthesis of arts was based on constructing objects and spaces that utilized elements of architecture, painting and sculpture all at the same time. This concept was built upon the tradition of De Stijl and Constructivists, but it was also developed within the context of the postwar reconstruction and the social and economic relations of socialism. Despite certain subversive potential and sentiment of their activities, they were allowed to express their ideas freely in the public. Although abstraction was historically treated as an expression of western decadence by the critics and academics close to the regime, the two EXAT-51 shows in 1953 started a more constructive discussion. Those were the first exhibitions of abstract art in public space in communist Yugoslavia and they gave the younger critics and art historians a chance to look at abstract paintings for the first time as well as develop language and theory that was appropriate for this type of art. EXAT continued their activities until its members disbanded it in 1956, producing numerous abstract works, participating in discussions on art theory as well as paving a way for other Yugoslav abstract artists who soon followed.

The experimental nature of Srnec's Space Modulator and its dual quality as a both a plastic object and a flat image can be attributed to the groups proclaimed efforts at synthesis of arts. However, in order to analyze the possible influences and relations between the piece and its author to the group he was a part of, it is necessary to consider what kind of a collective the group EXAT-51 was and what was the immediate context of their activity, but it is also important to consider it within the tradition of the avant-garde collectives.

1 Lilly pp 3

2denegri

3Lily

[exat51]

Space Modulator - continued

 Geometric forms and relations dominate the piece. The outer metal frame is made out of rectangles which form the cuboid. The wires are suspended in such a way that the distances between their welding points correspond to each other and thus their intersections form proportional shapes. The form has been reduced to the line, but by constructing the line with a wire instead of a brush stroke, the artist is expanding its the constructive possibilities and geometrical forms which can achieved through spectator's movement. The geometric quality of the work, however, is not absolute. While the three dimensionality enables the lines to construct new forms, it also deconstructs them by bringing out the objectness of the line and all aspects of the piece itself.

The geometry becomes geometry of a wire, not that of a line. The way the piece is constructed allows us to view it as an image, as a sculpture or simply as an object. These alternative 'appearances of medium' can be observed by moving around or closer to the piece, or we can see them from the same position. The flatness of the image that dominates the central view is contrasted to the firmness and objectness we notice when a single wire is closely observed. The piece preempts our tendency to interpret its elements from a single point of view. Although we are initially drawn to its geometrical properties, the lines and the shape they form, the materiality of the piece draws us closer and makes us reexamine it. The lines then become objects in itself, and the shapes they draw with each other can separate from the geometric forms we observed earlier.

While the piece is constructed out of geometric elements it is not a purely geometric form. The three dimensional nature and the combination of wire, bar and wood make it plastic but they do not make it a sculpture. The flatness we observe from certain angles make the metal wires and lines appear as brushstrokes and the background becomes a canvas. But the piece is not a painting. It is an object that contains elements of all these different *media*. 

[exat51]

Forecast of the synthesis of life and art as an expression of our times

Ziggurat example

Forecast of the synthesis of life and art as an expression of our times is a text written by Vjenceslav Richter in 1954 and published ten years later as a section in his book Sinturbanizam. The text was written as Richter's summary of the public discussions on art which included the members of EXAT 51 in early 1952. The talks were mainly focused on the issue of abstract art and they were held in direct response to the publishing of the group's manifesto. The talks were organized by Rudi Supek and Grgo Gamulin, two influential critics both of whom were opposed to abstraction. Since there are no transcripts available it is difficult to determine the particular content of the talks, but most participants agree that they resulted in a polemic between the members of EXAT who defended their right to practice abstraction, and the organizers who opposed it on the grounds of decadency and incompatibility with the socialist values and way of life1.

The lack of reliable record makes it difficult to determine the exact positions expressed by the participants and it also leads to a tendency to assume that all members of the EXAT group contributed with the same arguments or in the same amount. Because of these limitations there has been a tendency to assume that Richter's 1954 text presents the closest summary of the conclusions of these talks2. This assumption is further supported by Richter's introduction to the 1964 Sinturbanizam in which he presents the initial text as an attempt to systematize the conclusions of the talks which he describes as “improvised performances, conditioned by the nature of these types of discussions”3. The introduction further explains that the book contains three separate texts that were written over the course of ten years and that they should be understood as interconnected, but still separate ideas. By framing the whole text like that, Richter presents the reader with certain problems. Firstly, there is the issue of applicability of the original 1954 text. Although he claims that he is publishing the original text without subsequent editing and thus contextualizing it within the framework of the events and issues of 1954, the fact that the text is published in a radically different context from that for which it was written necessarily influences both the interpretation of the text as well as the author's possible goals. In the introduction Richter openly says that the book is published as a summary of a lecture he gave at a symposium about the synthesis in visual arts in 1963, while the Forecast of the synthesis of life and art is included in order to provide context for the continuity of the included ideas. Although this background given in the introduction helps us contextualize the texts, it also makes it difficult to determine to what extent they reflect the conclusions and the ideas held by the participants of the events they refer to, in particular the talks on abstraction held in 1952. Regardless of this ambiguity, Forecast of the synthesis of life and art as an expression of our times is still one of the few texts which directly refer to these talks and the period of the group's active work. Considering this, in order to better understand what the desires and tendencies of the group were, it is important to take this text into consideration. However, it is also important to note that it represents the ideas and conclusions of a single member of the group, despite his attempt to frame it within the context of their collective activity. On the other hand, this tendency to assume certain authority over the group's ideas should certainly be taken into consideration in regard to understanding Richter's individual work as a result of collective effort.

Sinturbanizam was published in 1964 after a lecture given at a symposium on the synthesis of visual arts held in 1963 in Belgrade. By then Vjenceslav Richter was a successful architect with a reputation in artistic and architectural circles as well as the public sphere in general. His lecture was well received but he felt that the audience was confused by his ideas, an impression that led to the publishing of the book that summarized the theories delivered at the symposium. The main argument of the book is focused on showing why contemporary art and architecture need to achieve a synthesis between painting, architecture and plastic (sculpture). In order to contextualize his contemporary efforts with his previous work, Richter included the text written during the period of EXAT 51 and the public discussions on abstraction.

The 1954 text begins by identifying three main disciplines that shape our environment: architecture, plastic and painting. Richter states that in contemporary world the three disciplines exist on their own and develop independently from each other. However, he claims, they have now reached a point when it is necessary for them to merge with each other into an artistic synthesis in order to keep on progressively developing. The division within visual arts is not a natural one; it is a result of historical, economical and political conditions. These conditions, which he does not elaborate on, are all contributing to what he calls a social medium. A social medium consists of relations between the politics, culture and individuals living within a certain historical moment. As such, the social medium that he is discussing (post World War 2 socialist Yugoslavia) is not in any case different from previous social media; it consists of the same sets of conditions. However, the contemporary social medium is specific because of the emerging realization of fundamental interconnectedness of all areas of human activity. Richter contextualizes this conclusion as a result of social changes and the resolution of class based society within socialism. However, this is the only point in the text where the synthesis of arts is discussed within the context of socialism. Moreover, Richter concludes that the fundamental social change that results in the interconnectedness of all human activity is occurring everywhere in the world, including the capitalist societies despite certain preventive efforts4. Considering this, his remark can be understood as a necessary requirement of the time when the text was written and should not be given too much consideration.

The first focus of the text is to identify what brought about the division of visual arts. As a result of scientific and technical developments, the first to separate was architecture. Although architecture is still far behind other industrial production, the mechanical developments have made architecture a technical discipline rather than an artistic one. With the technical side dominating architectural production, the spatial expression in architecture was removed from the artistic elements of painting and plastic. In other words, architecture was removed from the field of arts and reduced to a technical discipline5.

Throughout the text Richter never explicitly states when this division of visual arts started. However, it may be assumed that the crucial moment was the industrial revolution with the emergence of bourgeois class and changing social relations. The direct effect of the separation of architecture was 'liberation' of painting and plastic. With artists now working for the anonymous consumers and unknown spaces, their expression became limited to the content within the frame. The dominance of museums and galleries as spaces where art is experienced and consumed highly limited the possibilities of art. This limitation of space where art is exhibited directly influenced our understanding of art as something that is separate from everyday life. Despite the proportionally high number of painters, sculptors and architects, the living spaces are constructed as utilitarian products without artistic expression. Richter considers these limitations to be responsible for the lower quality of life, in his view the understanding of the standard of living simply as a result of purchasing power is highly flawed as it does not take into account how space affects the quality of human experience.

Richter then takes up a Gothic cathedral as an example of a successfully realized synthesis of art in space. He argues that the space of the Gothic cathedral shows a collective effort of the builders, sculptors and painters that results in a wholly plasticly shaped space. The construction of a Gothic cathedral transcends a purely technical function. The windows take on the function and the effect of paintings. Their shape is dominated by their plasticity. The color is achieved by the light reaching through the windows. Lines are shaped by the lead in the glass. The interior design includes furniture which is an integral part of the space. The nave is as much an architectural object as it is an expression of plastic and painting. According to Richter's interpretation, every object in a Gothic church is a result of all three artistic disciplines 6.

Richter identifies this multi disciplinary 'objectness' as a basis for artistic synthesis. He identifies abstraction in painting and sculpture as a method closest to achieving synthesis. The logic of this conclusion is based on the inherit qualities of abstraction and non figurative art; the lack of representation. If a painting or a sculpture stops representing something, then it becomes a 'concrete artistic reality identical to itself'; it becomes an object in the same way that architecture is an object.

This 'objectness' is not a purpose in itself, it is a way of transcending limits that each discipline is normally exposed to. Abstraction is therefore a way for painting and sculpture to escape the classical framework of visual arts.

For Richter an example of successfully achieved unity of space, construction and expression is Herb Greene's Oklahoma house. Its form is a result of the type and application of material, the wooden planks used for construction are defining its surface. Unlike a typical architectural construction where the form of the construction (house) dictates the type and usage of the material (wood), Herb Green's Oklahoma house is shaped by the qualities of the wooden planks. By doing this the architectural elements are treated as plastic and the surface of the house is used like a canvas is in painting7.

The rest of the text is dedicated to examples of how 'objectness' can be achieved in the three disciplines. In terms of painting the means of achieving 'object-painting' are mostly based on manipulating the format and the surface. Mondrian's compositions are presented as successful experiments of manipulating the surface and creating a painting that is defined by its 'objectness'. According to Richter we can confirm this claim by breaking the surface of an abstract painting like Mondrian's; if the composition remains constant the painting is an object. Architecture and sculpture are similarly analyzed with Richter identifying Theo van Doesburg's Dancingrestoran at L'Aubette in Strasbourg as a successful intervention into space that results in a 'spatial painting'. Finally, in order for sculpture to achieve 'objectness' it needs to manipulate space by either being flat, permeable or utilitarian. Examples include Vistor Vaserely's Rupture Spatio-Dynamique in University city in Caracas and Isamu Noguchi's table8.

While the text treats the issues of surface and space in much detail, Richter's main interest seems to be in the process of creation and execution. The idea of synthesis is based on treating surface, color, line and other visual elements indiscriminately regardless of the object; Richter's goal is to create objects utilizing techniques of architecture, painting and sculpture. The extent of the text transcends the core issues of the 1952 discussion and even the EXAT's manifesto, also written by Richter. Considering this it is necessary to read it as a piece of writing of a single individual and his specific focus. However, despite the focus on Richter's specific interests in the qualities of the three disciplines, the core issues discussed in the text are the same ones that the manifesto addressed: synthesis of visual arts, support for abstraction, experimentation and multi disciplinary expression. Unlike the simplified points of the manifesto the Forecast of the synthesis of life and art provides detailed explanation of the concepts it proposes and as such is an important resource in understanding both the public efforts of Vjenceslav Richter as well as his works. However, it is still unclear to what extent these ideas were shared by the rest of the collective.

Footnotes:

1Denegri pp 71

2Denegri, Galjer

3Richter pp 11

4Richter pp 15

5Richter pp 16

6Richter pp 19

7Richter pp 22-30

8Richter pp 35-60

[exat51]

EXAT-51 Manifesto

The Manifesto of EXAT­51

The group EXAT­51:

- does not see a connection between the current framework of artistic orientation and the spatial concept based on the relations between the standards of production and social relations

- does not see a difference between the so­-called pure and the so-­called applied arts; the group considers that the production methods and principles of the non­-figurative or so-­called abstract art are not expressions of decadent aspirations, on the contrary, the group sees opportunities to develop and enrich our field of visual communications through studying these methods and principles.

- the group’s activities are realized in the current moment in time and space, with its starting and orientative position being that of our own plastic needs and opportunities (fairly difficult phrasing here)

- in relation to the understanding of our reality as a pursuit of reality in all realms of human activity, the group sees the necessity for fighting the remaining understandings and production within the visual arts; finally, its final goal is firstly the orientation towards a synthesis of all visual arts, and secondly making our production experimental, since there can be no creative progress in visual arts without experimentation (also, requires better translation)

- the group considers its founding and operation a practically positive result of the ‘development of culture of conflicting opinions’, which is a necessary prerequisite for stimulating art life

Signed: Benardi B. Architect, Bregovac Z. Architect, Picelj I. Painter, Radic Z. Architect, Rasica B. Architect, Richter V. Architect, Srnec A. Painter, Zarahovic V. Architect.

The manifesto can be summarized into five main points. The group wants to produce art which reflects the economic and social relations of their environment. The group is interested in the methods and principles of abstract art. The group wants to create within the contemporary context of time and space. It rejects the old concepts of visual arts and dedicates itself to experimentation with the aim of achieving a synthesis of all visual arts. Finally, the group sees its own work as a result of and a contribution to a pluralistic culture. 

Jerko Denegri identifies three crucial ideas in the manifesto ­ negation of the difference between ‘pure’ and applied arts, a desire to legitimize abstract art and the effort to direct the group’s work towards the synthesis of visual arts. Denegri emphasises the ‘active’ and experimental tone of the manifesto, describing the points as aspirations rather than conclusions. Instead of basing their creative production on intuition and inspiration, the group is, according to Denegri, developing the application of artistic and formal techniques. He also considers the form of the manifesto, which is published as an open letter signed by individuals, including both their names and professions. This form is in contrast with the committee reports and instructions that dominated the public sphere at the time of its publishing. While noting that the language of the manifesto is heavily influenced by those same political documents and declarations, he describes the whole letter as an attempt at giving a voice both to individuals and smaller informal groups, being ‘less about abstraction and more about freedom’.In the section dedicated to the manifesto Denegri does not elaborate on the first and third point of the manifesto, points referring to the necessity of establishing an art framework which is in accordance with the economic and social relations and contextualizing their work within that orientation. He describes these as expressions of the tendency to engage in artistic activities that will provoke broader cultural discussions, leading to a more pluralistic discourse.

However, the claim of disconnect between ‘current framework of artistic orientation and production and social standards’ requires further investigation, especially considering the fact that the ‘current framework of artistic orientation’, which at the time of its writing would be socialist realism, is at least nominally based ‘on the relations between the standards of production and social relations’. Furthermore, Denegri leaves the authorship and possible discrepancies in terms of application of these points by the group unquestioned. In 2002 Vjenceslav Richter, one of the original members of the group, wrote an open letter addressing these questions, claiming that he was the sole author of the manifesto, claiming that the rest of the group has agreed with the manifesto being published but not necessarily completely agreed with all the points, especially in relation to the emphasis given to each of them. It is unclear how important this retroactive intervention is for understanding the activity of the group as a whole, but it certainly problematizes the role and analysis of the manifesto.

[exat51]

Aleksandar Srnec, Prostorni modulator. 1953

White painted metal wires are extended over a black background. The wires are welded on to a cuboid construction of thin metal bars. The wires intersect each other throughout the space formed by the hollow cuboid. Despite being welded to the cuboid object the wires do not appear to have a point of origin nor a point of entry into the space. They are geometrically positioned against both the sides and angles of the cuboid as well as each other. The black background provides contrast to the white painted wires. As we move from side to side of the object some of the wires fall outside the background and seemingly become invisible. The lines are both expanding and dispersing at the same time. Our view determines the specific moment in the seemingly infinite process of the expansion of the line.

Skeletal cuboid construction is not only framing the space and the wires, the construction is establishing the space as well as negating it. Viewed centrally the surface and the cuboid establish an illusion of a flat image. Moving, however, not only modulates our impression and interpretation of the lines, but also establishes the cuboid as not only a frame but an independent three dimensional object. This quality is contrasted to the initial two-dimensionality of the lines. Changing the angle of our view changes the relationship between the wires; the two dimensional lines are now not only determined by their distance in length and width but also depth. The lines which initially appear not to have any points of intersection are now forming new compositions against each other. The image becomes an object and the object becomes dynamic. What initially appears to be a set of lines on a set surface is now levitating above it. As our view changes so do the lines within the space of the object. The object is moving within the broader space as well, but as soon as we stop the object is again stuck and the movement appears to stop.

[exat51]

Aleksandar Srnec, Kompozicija. 1954

[exat51]

Aleksandar Srnec, Linije. 1956

[exat51]

Božidar Rašica. Kompozicija. 1953

[exat51]

Božidar Rašica. Kompozicija. 1956

[exat51]

Vlado Kristl, Kompozicija. 1953

[exat51]

Ivan Picelj, Kompozicija. 1956