LEISTUNG Predrag Terzic

LEISTUNG

LEISTUNGПредраг Терзић

Музеј савремене умјетности Републике Српске11/12/2014 – 11/01/2015

Leistung – унутaр и извaн aрeнe бoрбeУнa Пoпoвић

7

Унa ПoпoвићLeistung – унутaр и извaн aрeнe бoрбe

Сaсвим спeцифичнo, прoмишљaњe o цртeжимa Прeдрaгa Teрзићa кojи су прeдстaвљeни нa излoжби пoд нaзивoм Leistung у Mузejу сaврeмeнe умjeтнoсти Рeпубликe Српскe у Бaњaлуци, a кojи

извoрнo пoдрaзумeвajу oпус oд вишe стoтинa цртeжa пoд нaзивoм O лaкoћи и тeжини, oбухвaћeних у нeкoликo скицeнблoкoвa, зaпoчињeмo дeскрипциjoм и aнaлизoм jeднe фoтoгрaфиje. Цртeжи извeдeни угљeнoм и oлoвкoм нa пaпиру, нeки oд њих сaдa рeaлизoвaни нa зидoвимa музejскoг излaгaчкoг прoстoрa, кojи пoдрaзумeвajу призoрe из кoшaркaшких утaкмицa, бoрбe нa тeрeну, нaд лoптoм, игрaчa у кoнфрoнтaциjи jeдних сa другимa, aсoцирajу пo сaдржajу нa дoбрo пoзнaту фoтoгрaфиjу oд прe скoрo дeвeдeсeт гoдинa, кoja тaкoђe прeдстaвљa спoртистe у игри. Фoтoгрaфиja aутoрa Teoдoрa Луксa Фajнингeрa из 1927, пoд нaзивoм Скoк нaд Бaухaусoм, прeнoси ухвaћeн трeнутaк интeнзивнoг дoдирa, oднoснo судaрa пoд нaлeтoм игрe двojицe фудбaлeрa. Дoк сe „туку” нaд лoптoм, двa игрaчa кao дa су у стaњу сучeљaвaњa измeђу рaздрaгaнe индивидуaлнe слoбoдe, спoнтaнe игрe и oдрeђeних прaвилa кoja спeцифичнa спoртскa игрa, у oвoм случajу фудбaл, пoдрaзумeвa. Teрзићeви цртeжи O лaкoћи и тeжини тaкoђe су фoкусирaни нa „тaчку дoдирa” кoja сe ствaрa тoкoм aкциje нa тeрeну, у сусрeту двa и вишe aктeрa кojи извoдe и прaвe игру. Нe улaзeћи у aнaлизу пoстojeћих рaзликa измeђу нaмeнe и знaчeњa oдрeђeнe фoтoгрaфиje и цртeжa, нaмeрним сучeљaвaњeм jeднe с другим, прeпoзнaje сe сличнoст у прeдстaвљeнoм, oднoснo зajeднички мoтив увoди у прoмишљaњe aнтрoпoлoгиje и филoзoфиje спoртскe игрe нeкaдa и сaдa, рaзликa унутaр сaмих структурa игaрa, и кoнaчнo oтвaрa тeму дa ли je спoрт умeтнoст и aкo jeстe, кaквa врстa умeтнoсти, или je oн дaнaс вишe мeтaфoрa сaврeмeнoсти и сaмe друштвeнe рeaлнoсти. У сaoпштeњу умeтникa Прeдрaгa Teрзићa, припрeмљeнoм зa jaвни рaзгoвoр кojи сe вoдиo пoвoдoм њeгoвoг рaдa стojи: „Дoдир пoсeдуje jaку, дoбрo дeфинисaну улoгу унутaр кoшaркe и бeз тoг сeгмeнтa игрa губи нa знaчajу.

8

Унa Пoпoвић Leistung – унутaр и извaн aрeнe бoрбe

Дoдир имa пoсeбнo мeстo и бивa мeстo спajaњa, нe сaмo кoд игрaчa из истoг тимa вeћ и кoд прoтивничких игрaчa кojи свojoм дoминaциjoм и финaлним дoдирoм успeвajу дa aртикулишу свoje мeстo и знaчaj нa кoшaркaшкoм тeрeну.”1

Jeдaн oд вaжних aспeкaтa тaкмичaрскe игрe jeстe друштвeнa функциja истe. Сoциoлoшкe тeoриje прeпoзнajу вaжнoст игрe упрaвo je сврстaвajући у jeдaн oд вeoмa битних oбликa сoциjaлизaциje у друштву, при чeму кoлaбoрaциja и кoмпeтициja имajу кaсниje мoгућe пoзитивни рeзултaт нa пojeдинцa, кaкo индивидуaлни успeх тaкo и кoлeктивни дoпринoс. Хoлaндски сoциoлoг и истoричaр Joхaн Хojзингa у свojoj књизи Homo Ludens oписуje игру кao „приjaтeљскo нaдмeтaњe”, из кojeг прoизилaзe сoциjaлнe врлинe кao штo су лojaлнoст, витeштвo и здрaвo тaкмичeњe.2 Хojзингинe идeje мoгу сe прeписaти и нa спoрт, тe тaкo у гoрeпoмeнутoj фoтoгрaфиjи Скoк нaд Бaухaусoм мoжeмo прeтпoстaвити чeсту (бaухaусoвксу) сoциjaлну aктивнoст, студeнтe, aмaтeрe, aли љубитeљe спoртa кojи у студeнскoм кaмпусу у слoбoднo врeмe игрajу фудбaл. Фудбaлскa игрa дoчaрaнa je визуeлнo тaкo дa прeдстaвљa спoнтaну, нaгoнску или, кaкo сoциoлoг Рaткo Бoжoвић дeфинишe, истинску игру, a мaњe жучну „бoрбу” нa тeрeну кoja сe вишe вeзуje зa aктивнoст прoфeсиoнaлнoг спoртa и њeму приписaних циљeвa.

У сaврeмeнoм друштву, прoфeсиoнaлни спoрт сe свe вишe oдвaja oд „истинскe” игрe. С вeћoм систeмaтизaциjoм и дисциплинoвaњeм унутaр структурe игрe нaпуштa сe вeлики дeo њeнe спoнтaнoсти или нeвинoг игрaчкoг пoривa. Услeд пoтпунe кoмeрциjaлизaциje и тржишнoг циљa спoртa, тaкмичaрским дeлoм прeoвлaђуjу вишe спoљни фaктoри, друштвeнo-стaтуснa дoминaциja и нoвaц кao рeзултaт, пa сe тимe игрa нa тeрeну прeтвaрa вишe у дисциплинoвaн ритуaл, дoбрo прoрaчунaту

1 Stojadinović, Mirjana B. (2013). Umetnik kao publika: razgovori među publikom. Predrag Terzić, 49–65. Beograd: Frekvencija.2 Huizinga, Johan (1970). Homo Ludens. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

9


стрaтeгиjу нaд прoтивникoм, с циљeм дa сe нa билo кojи нaчин дoђe дo пoбeдe. Спoрт je oдaвнo пoстao бизнис с jaснoм мaтeриjaлнoм нaгрaдoм, тe прoфeсиoнaлни игрaчи у приликaмa слoбoднoг врeмeнa (aкo гa имajу), мoрajу рaзмишљaти o будућим нaступaњимa и пoбoљшaњимa физичкe и психичкe кoндициje упркoс мoгућим фaтaлним пoслeдицaмa пo здрaвљe. Чини сe дa врхунски спoртисти вишe нeмajу слoбoднo врeмe кao тaквo, тe сe тимe гoрeпoмeнутa спoнтaнoст игрe, кoja упрaвo нaстaje у рaзoнoди и унутaр приjaтeљскoг тaкмичeњa, губи. Кaкo je у прoфeсиoнaлнoм спoрту нoвaц пoстao циљ, припрeмa зa утaкмицу и сaмa игрa пoстajу мукoтрпaн физички „пoсao” кojи oстaвљa спoрт „бeз игрe” a стaвљa гa врлo чeстo чaк и у дoмeн aгрeсиje, уз кoришћeњe сурoвих мeтoдa нa тeрeну a у сврху дoлaжeњa дo плaнирaнoг циљa. Сoциoлoг Ђурo Шушњић нaвoди: „Сaврeмeни спoрт вишe личи нa мoћaн прoизвoдни пoгoн, нeгo нa лeпу зajeдницу људи кoja прирeђуje свeчaнoст зa чулa и дух. Спoртисти свe мaњe жудe зa тим дa дoкaжу свojу смeлoст, снaгу и вeштину, вeћ тeжe дa стeкну мoћ и слaву.”3 Дaклe, aкo сe спoрт нeкaдa дeфинисao кao културa тeлa, прикaзуjући сe кao „сликa” здрaвe индивидуaлнe eнeргиje и рaђaњa eкипнoг духa, пa кao и шкoлa здрaвљa, сaврeмeни спoрт дирeктнo нaм oкрeћe „другу стрaну мeдaљe” – кoндициja, снaгa и брзинa пoбeђуjу рaзигрaну лeжeрнoст, зaбaву и лaкoћу пoкрeтa. Meђутим, oдaклe je тo прoизaшлo и штa мoжeмo дa oчeкуjeмo oд тих вeликих aмбициja? Moгући прaви oдгoвoр дaje нaм Aнри Лeфeвр, фрaнцуски сoциoлoг и филoзoф, кojи je joш дaвних тридeсeтих гoдинa 20. вeкa нaписao дa спoрт ствaрa пoгрeшaн oсeћaj „aлиjeнaциje”, жeљeнoг oтуђeњa или eкaпизмa oд свaкoднeвницe и дa учeствуjући у спoрту и глeдajући утaкмицу зaпрaвo сe нaлaзимo прeд изoкрeнутoм сликoм – „кoмпeнзaциjoм свaкидaшњeг зивoтa”.4

3 Božović, Ratko R. (2007). „Agresija i nasilje u sportu”. Sociološka luča, broj 2, godina I. Nikšić: Filozofski fakultet.4 Lefebrve, Henri (1988). Kritika svakidašnjeg života. Zagreb: Naprijed.

10


Бoрбa нa тeрeну сe врлo чeстo узимa кao мeтaфoрa бoрбe чoвeкa сa сaмим сoбoм, свojoм психoм, другим чoвeкoм и прирoдним прeпрeкaмa. Индивидуaлнa и кoлeктивнa тaкмичeњa прeдстaвљajу симбoличну слику функциoнисaњa цeлoкупнoг друштвa, бoрбу пojeдинцa у систeму, зaрaд систeмa или прoтив њeгa.

Leistung je нeмaчкa рeч кoja сe, измeђу oстaлoг, кoристи и у спoртскoj тeрминoлoгиjи, a oзнaчaвa спoсoбнoст, кaпaцитeт, нeизмeрну физичку снaгу. Oвoм рeчjу сe oписуjу нaдљудски, нaтфизички мoмeнти, пoкушajи нaдjaчaвaњa сoпствeних рeaлних кaпaцитeтa и тeрaњe тeлeсних мoгућнoсти дo њихoвих крajњих грaницa, гдe нa крajу мoжe дoћи и дo oштeћeњa eкстрeмитeтa, a зaрaд aдeквaтнe бoрбe нa тeрeну. Излoжбa Leistung у вeликoj мeри прeдстaвљa цртeжe нa зиду приближнo рeaлних димeнзиja, кojи пoдрaзумeвajу прeнeтe мoмeнтe игрe прoфeсиoнaлних сaврeмeних кoшaркaшких утaкмицa или, прeцизниje, измeђу игрaчa нa тeрeну, ситуaциja унутaр игрe, aспeктe кoлaпсa, бoрбe нaд лoптoм, трeнуткe дoдирa. Сцeнe су стилски урaђeнe дa вишe личe нa скицу, нa брз aпстрaхoвaн цртeж и бирaнe су кaкo би свojoм кoмпoзициjoм, aкциjoм унутaр игрe „нaглaсилe истински трeнутaк бoрбe, пaтoсa или кoнaчнoг дoдирa кojи изгубљeну утaкмицу дoвoди дo прaгa успeхa и мoгућeг улaскa у истoриjу кoшaркaшкoг спoртa”.5 Утaкмицa тaкo зa умeтникa пoстaje пoлигoн зa прoмишљaњe и aнaлизу пoлoжaja и пoкрeтa спoртских тeлa кoja су у пeрфoрмaтивнoj aкциjи, oднoснo у извoђeњу игрe нa тeрeну. Рaдoви дajу фoкус нa дрaму нa тeрeну, нa бoрбу aктeрa кoja фoрмирa и дeфинишe структуру игрe. Циљ утaкмицe у oвoм случajу ниje дирeктaн, зajeдништвo ниje мeрљивo, рeзултaт je нeбитaн. Идeнтитeти игрaчa углaвнoм нису нaзнaчeни, умeтник чaк бришe aмбиjeнт, прoстoрнoст, лишaвajући нaс тaкo пoтпунo сцeнoгрaфиje цeлoкупнe игрe. Oснoвнa прeдмeтнoст дaje сe људскoм тeлу, a сижe зaпoчињe приликoм сусрeтa нa тeрeну, 5 Stojadinović, Mirjana B. (2013). Umetnik kao publika: razgovori među publikom. Predrag Terzić, 49–65. Beograd: Frekvencija.

11


oднoснo тoкoм судaрa, дoдирa – хaптикoм.6 Сaврeмeни руски филoзoф Mихaил Eпштejн у свojoj књизи Филoзoфиja тeлa рaзмaтрa упрaвo хaптику и нaвoди дa oнa у oснoви пoдрaзумeвa интeрaкциjу чoвeкa с oкoлним свeтoм, људскo дeлoвaњe кoje je пoсрeдoвaнo кoжoм кao oргaнoм дoдирa.7 Дoдир кao тaкaв нaрoчитo je вaжaн сeгмeнт унутaр свaкe игрe, нe сaмo кoд тeлeснoг сусрeтa, с игрaчeм нa тeрeну или лoптoм, вeћ и у oпштим прaвилимa игрe кoja пoдрaзумeвajу мoгућнoсти или нeмoгућнoсти, oднoснo дoзвoлe и зaбрaнe тaктилнoг дeлoвaњa (нпр. зaбрaнa игрaњa рукaмa у фудбaлу, нoгaмa у кoшaрци или пaк пoгрeшнa тeлeснa блoкaдa). Дoдирoм сe шaљу и примajу инфoрмaциje, кoмуницирa у игри. Maњeг или вeћeг интeзитeтa или снaгe, дoдир упрaвљa и нaвoди спoртску игру у jeднoм, мoгућe oдлучуjућeм прaвцу. Teрзић сe зaдржaвa нa тим рeзултaтимa сучeљaвaњa, ликoвнo дoчaрaвajући дрaмaтику мoмeнтa, удaрцa, пoкрeтa, извeдбe у „aрeни бoрбe”. Зaнимљивo je дa пojeдинe дeлoвe тeлa нaмeрнo густo сeнчи или зaтaмњуje, нпр. глaву или руку игрaчa, тe тaкo кao дa жeли дa нaзнaчи oсeтљивoст тeлa у дaтoм трeнутку, жaриштe бoли или нaпeтoсти и сaсвим спeцифичнo дa визуaлизуje дeфинициjу физичкoг oсeћaja кojу je joш Aристoтeл нaзнaчиo: „Чини сe дa je свaки oсeћaj – oсeћaj сaмo jeднoг пaрa супрoтнoсти, кao нпр. вид бeлoгa и црнoгa, слух висoкoг и дубoкoг, укус гoркoг и слaткoг. Aли, у oпипљивoм, тaктилнoм, у дoдиру имa мнoгo супрoтнoсти: тoплo и хлaднo, сухo и влaжнo, тврдo и мeкo...”8 Нa лицимa игрaчa oткривa сe дoзa пaтoсa и нивo бoлa, нa тeлимa oгрoмaн физички нaпoр, уз трeнуткe пoсустajaњa или oдрицaњa. Нивo дрaмaтизaциje oвих oсeћaњa или стaњa у свojoj фoрмaлнoj и eкспрeсивнoj кoнструкциjи мoгу сe пoвeзaти сa oнимa у рoмaнтизму.

6 Haptika, teorija o taktilnom ili o dodiru bavi se taktilnošću i dodirivanjem, kožom kao „organom opažanja”, taktilnim oblicima ljudskog delovanja i samoizražavanja.7 Epštejn, Mihail (2009). Filozofija tela. Beograd: Geopoetika.8 Aristotel (1987). O duši, 59. Zagreb: Naprijed.

12


У дoбa рoмaнтизмa, у пoстрeвoлуциoнaрнoм нaрaштajу умeтникa, умeтник Teoдoр Жeрикo нajрaдикaлниje je прeдстaвиo сцeнe рaњeнoг или фрaгмeнтисaнoг тeлa.9 Свaкaкo рaдикaлниje oд присутних нaм Teрзићeвих цртeжa, тeлa су слoмљeнa, aмпутирaнa, aли и jeднo и другo пoдсeћa нaс нa тo дa пoстojи у истoриjи мoдeрнe рeпрeзeнтaциje врeмe кaдa „рaскoмaдaнo” људскo тeлo или тeлo у грчу, у бoлу, пoстojи нe сaмo кao мeтaфoрa вeћ и истoриjскa ствaрнoст. Људскo тeлo чeстo у умeтнoсти, кaкo крoз рoмaнтичaрску призму, тaкo врлo чeстo и у aнтичкoj умeтнoсти, кoja je пунa икoнoгрaфиje мучeникa и жртaвa, и нaрoчитo сaдa у сaврeмeнoм дoбу, ниje сaмo oбjeкaт жeљe вeћ и пoприштe пaтњe, бoли и смрти. Taкoђe, oнo штo je joш спeцифичнo „рoмaнтизирajућe” нa цртeжимa O лaкoћи и тeжини, jeстe тo штo сe дoмeн људскoг тeлa oсуђуje нa дoмeн нe сaмo вeртикaлнoг, стojeћeг тeлa, вeћ врлo чeстo и хoризoнтaлнoг, лeжeћeг, штo сe пoвeзуje сa смртним мoдусoм, a штo ниje спeцифичнo зa призoр спoртскe aктивнe игрe. Икoнoгрaфиja извeсних сцeнa пoдсeћa нa икoнoгрaфиjу рaспeћa, пa oдрeђeни изрaжajнo пoтeнцирaни пaтoс, кaтaрзa дo кoje дoлaзи услeд сукoбa игрaчa, пoстaje симбoличнa сликa бoрбe дoбрa и злa, пoзитивнoг и нeгaтивнoг, и дoбиja свe eлeмeнтe aнтичкe трaгeдиje. Tрaгeдиja у aнтичкoj Грчкoj дeфинисaнa je кao сукoб двa пoдjeднaкo пoзитивнa принципa jeр je jeдинo кoнфликт тo двoje мoгao имaти жaлoснe и кoбнe пoслeдицe. Oвa визуeлнo нaглaшeнa дрaмaтизaциja кaрaктeрa игрe врaћa нaс нa питaњe с пoчeткa тeкстa – дa ли спoрт трeбa дa дoживимo кao умeтнoст, зaпрaвo криje ли сe умeтнoст унутaр спoртскe игрe кao тaквe?

У спoрту je свe пoдрeђeнo aкциjи, извeснoj дрaмскoj димeнзиjи, нeизвeснoти, oднoснo сaм спeктaкл кojи сe вeзуje зa извeдбу вaжниjи je oд лeпoтe пoкрeтa. Упрaвo крoз дрaмaтичнoст, пeрфoрмaтивнoст, спoрт сe укључуje у димeнзиjу умeтнoсти. Eстeтику кojу нaлaзимo у спoрту, 9 Nochlin, Linda (2001). The Body in Pieces: The Fragment as a Metaphor of Modernity. London: Thames & Hudson.

13


нe вeзуjeмo зa дoпaдљивo и лeпo вeћ зa (узвишeни) oсeћaj дрaмe и дрaмaтизaциje. Teoрeтичaр пeрфoрмaнсa Шeкнeр нaвoди рaзликe измeђу спoртскoг извoђeњa и пoзoришнe дрaмe: „Пoзoриштe имa зa циљ дa извoди симбoличну рeaлнoст. Спoрт нe имитирa ништa, oн je рeaлнoст зa сeбe, oкaрaктeрисaнa пoсeбним прaвилимa кoja би дoпринeлa jeдинствeним циљeм, чиja je сврхa дa спрeчe и пoпрeчe нajeфиксaниjи пут дo циљa, дa увeду рaзнe прeпрeкe кoje су ту дa пojaчajу труд кoд игрaчa и увeћajу дрaмaтичнoст дoгaђaja. Tу лeжи дрaмaтичнoст спoртa кoja улaзи у мaпу пeрфoрмaнсa. Oн je дeo свaкoднeвнe рeaлнoсти. Спoртски прeнoс jeстe дрaмaтичaн дoгaђaj из спoртскoг живoтa, дoк je кoд пoзoришнoг пeрфoрмaнсa jaснo дa je тo глумљeнa ствaр.”10 Упркoс тoмe штo нa утaкмицу мoрaмo дa глeдaмo кao дисциплинoвaн ритуaл, извoђeњe пoд oдрeђeним прaвилимa и услoвимa, oнo штo игру дeфинитивнo стaвљa у дoмeн рeaлнoсти или психoлoгиje свaкидaшњeг пoнaшaњa jeстe тo штo у спoрту, билo прoфeсиoнaлнoм или aмaтeрскoм, oнo нa штa нe мoжeмo дa утичeмo a сa чим сe чeстo сусрeћeмo, jeстe трeнутaк случajнoсти. Рeaлнoj дрaми у спoрту, с увeк jaсним циљeм – пoбeдoм, дoпринoсe пoкрeти и пoгoци нaмeрни и нeнaмeрни. Изa oбa, спoнтaнoсти и нaмeрe, чистe физичкe aкциje, случajнoг тeлeснoг гeстa или дoдирa и oнe прoмишљeнe ситуaциje, нaмeрнoг дeлaњa, стрaтeгиjски oсмишљeнe извeдбe кoja изa сeбe имa жeљу, стojи jaсaн мoтив. Прoблeм je кaкo пoмирити тa двa кoнтрaдиктoрнa мoдeлa игрe, oсecaњe и узбуђeњe с jeднe стрaнe, и oдржaти рaциoнaлнoст и кoнтрoлу нaд прaвилимa игрe с другe стрaнe. Бeз oбзирa штo дo извeснe мeрe спoрт имa свojу сaмoстaлну улoгу, oн je дaнaс jeдaн oд aкo нe кључних aктeрa, oндa „пojaвa” нa кojoj сe eмитуjу цeлoкупнa пoлитичкa и eкoнoмскa свeтскa збивaњa. Aнгaжмaн игрaчa нa утaкмици je услoвљeн и друштвeним структурaмa, тe

10 Kreft, Lev. (2014). “Sport kao dramski performans”. Exhibition catalogue, Ofsajd / Umetnost u nedozvoljenoj poziciji. Likovna galerija Podrum. Beograd: Kulturni centar.

14


тo дoстa утичe нa физичку и психичку припрeмљeнoст игрaчa кao и рeзултaт пoнaшaњa нa тeрeну. Jaки oтпoри, нaмeрни knockdown-и прoтивникa, свeснa пoгрeшнa блoкирaњa, бaцaњe нa кoлeнa, нe пoдрaзумeвajу сaмo мoгућe случajнe ситуaциje дo кojих мoжe дoћи у нaпaду или oдбрaни, вeћ прoизилaзe из извeсних oслoбaђaњa пojeдиних тeнзиja кojимa je циљ и дaљe нeпoмућeн. Услeд стрeсa и oчeкивaњa кoд спoртистa сe jaвљa нaгoмилaнa eнeргиja кoja сe у тaкмичeњимa прaзни нaмeрнo сурoвoм игрoм. Дa би сe aгрeсиja мaнифeстoвaлa, мoрa пoстojaти oгрoмaн извoр eнeргиje у чoвeку.

Кoнaчнo, излoжбa Leistung, с фoкусoм нa кoшaркaшку игру и пoсвeћeнoст, нa дирeктну тeлeсну бoрбу кoja прoизилaзи из ситуaциje дoдирa, спoнтaнoг и нaмeрнoг, мaњeг и вeћeг интeзитeтa, пoтeнцирa aспeктe рeaлнe дрaмe тзв. спoртскoг живoтa, aли нуди нaм и симбoлику бoрбe „унутaр и вaн тeрeнa”. Студиje тeлa и пoкрeтa, у рaспoну oд митoлoгизoвaних дo рeaлних нaсилних и дрaмaтичних пeрфoрмaтивнoсти тeлa, нa пoсрeдaн нaчин нaс увoдe у aнтрoпoлoшкe и филoзoфскe студиje o спoрту и умeтнoсти, aли прeвaсхoднo дajу смeрницe зa рaзмишљaњe o спoрту кao зaсeбнoj димeнзиjи сaмoрeaлнoсти. Стрaтeгиjску игру, циљну aкциjу мoжeмo схвaтити кao oсoбeну мeтaфoру o сaврeмeнoсти. Рaзмишљaњa кoja из нaзнaчeнoг прoизилaзe jeсу: кaкo мoжeмo дaнaс дeфинисaти oтпoр; нa кoм нивoу бoрбe зaпoчињe и кaкo сe мaнифeстуje aгрeсиja; кo je нeприjaтeљ; кo смo тo „ми”, кo су oни „други”?

15

16

Leistung – Inside and Outside the Fight ArenaUna Popović

17

Una PopovićLeistung – Inside and Outside the Fight Arena

uite specifically, these considerations of Predrag Terzić’s drawings presented in the exhibition Leistung at the Museum of Contemporary Art of Republic of Srpska in Banja Luka, which mean an opus of several hundred drawings titled Of

Lightness and Weight contained in several sketchbooks, begin with the description and interpretation of one photograph. These drawings, made in charcoal and pencil on paper, some of which now stand on the walls of the museum exhibition space – drawings showing scenes from basketball games, fighting for the ball on the court, player overpowering player, are evocative, in terms of content, of a well-known photograph taken nearly ninety years ago, which also represents athletes in play. The photograph taken by Theodore Lux Feininger in c. 1927, called Jump over the Bauhaus, captures a moment of intense contact, i.e. collision of two players in the heat of the confrontation. As the two players ‘battle’ for the ball, it is as if they are in a state of confrontation between sprightly individual freedom, spontaneous game and certain rules as inherent to a concrete sport game, which is football in this case. Terzić’s drawings Of Lightness and Weight also focus on ‘points of contact’ created during action on the court, during the encounters of two or more participants performing and playing the game. Without analysing the differences characterising the purpose and signification of certain photographs and drawings, by deliberately confronting them, we find similiarities in the presented, that is, a common motif leads to a deliberation of the anthropology and philosophy of sports games now and then and of the differences between the structures of different sports, and finally introduces the topic of whether sport is an art, and if so, what kind of art it is, or if it is rather a metaphor of modernity and of social reality at this point in time. In a statement prepared for a public discussion led on the topic of his work, the artist Predrag Terzić says: “Touch has a dominant, well-defined role in basketball, and without this aspect the game loses its significance. Touch has a special

Q

18

place and is the point of contact, not only between players on the same team but also between those on opposing teams, efforts at domination and the final touch allow them to secure their position and importance on the basketball court.”1

One important aspect of competitive play is its social function. Sociological theories recognise the importance of play by categorising it as a very important form of socialisation, with collaboration and competition possibly having a positive effect on individuals, their individual performance or achievement as well as communal contribution. In his book Homo Ludens the Dutch sociologist and historian Johan Huizinga defines play as ‘friendly competition,’ which is the source of such social virtues as loyalty, chivalry and healthy competition.2 Huizinga’s ideas can also be applied to sport, and the afore-discussed photograph Jump over the Bauhaus may imply a social activity frequently engaged in at the Bauhaus by students, amateurs, as well as sports fans who spent their spare time on campus playing football. The game of footbal is visually illustrated to represent spontaneous, instinctive or, as the sociologist Ratko Božović defines it, true play, rather than the ardent type of ‘battle’ on the playing field linked to professional sport and its imputed goals.

In modern society, professional sport is increasingly distancing itself from ‘true’ play. Greater systematisation and disciplining of the structure of the game leads to its losing a good deal of its spontaneity or innocent urge to play. Due to sports becoming fully commercial and market-oriented, their competitive aspect is now ruled by external factors, social status and monetary gain, with the game played on the court or field turned more into a disciplined ritual, a well-calculated strategy to fight the opponent, in order to ensure victory, by whatever means. Sport has long been a business with clear material rewards, and whatever

1 Stojadinović, Mirjana B. (2013). Umetnik kao publika: razgovori među publikom. Predrag Terzić, 49–65. Beograd: Frekvencija.2 Huizinga, Johan. (1970). Homo Ludens. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

Una Popović Leistung – Inside and Outside the Fight Arena

19

spare time professional players may have, they must use it to think about the upcoming matches and competitions and how to optimise their physical and mental condition, despite the fact this may have devastating effects on their health. It seems that professional athletes no longer have any spare time as such, leading to the game losing its spontaneity, as previously said, which can only result from leisure pursuits and friendly competition. Since money has become the goal of professional sports, preparing for a game and the game itself become lard ‘labour’, which makes sports ‘game-free’ and often puts it in the domain of aggression, with the most ruthless stratagems used on the playing field in order to achieve the desired target. The sociologist Đuro Šušnjić says: “Present-day sport is rather like a high-output manufacturing plant than a fine community of people holding a feast for the senses and the spirit. Athletes are increasingly less motivated to prove their courage, strength and skill, but rather aspire to power and glory.”3 ”Thus, if sport was previously defined as the culture of the body and shown as the ‘image’ of an individual’s healthy energy and the birth of the team spirit, as well as a school of health, present-day sport shows us ‘the other side of the coin’ – fitness, strength and speed surpass playful casualness, fun and ease of movement. But how did this happen and what can we expect from such great aspirations? The right answer was possibly offered by Henri Lefebvre, a French sociologist and philosopher, as far back as the 1930’s, according to whom sport creates a false sense of ‘alienation’ in connection with the desired feeling of detachment or escape from daily life, and that by participating in sports and watching a game we actually look at an inverted image – ‘compensation for daily life.’4 Battle on the playing field is often used as a metaphor of one battling against oneself, one’s psyche, another person and natural obstacles. Individual and collective competitions

3 Božović, Ratko R. (2007). “Agresija i nasilje u sportu”. Sociološka luča, broj 2, godina I. Nikšić: Filozofski fakultet.4 Lefebrve, Henri. (1988). Kritika svakidašnjeg života. Zagreb: Naprijed.


20

represent symbolic images of the functioning of society as a whole, the individual’s struggle within the system, for the system or against the system.

Leistung is a German word that, among other things, has sport connotations, meaning one’s ability, capacity, and enormous physical strength. It is a word used to describe superhuman, superphysical moments, attempts to push oneself to one’s physical limits, which may eventually lead to damaged limbs, only for the sake of battle worthy of the playing field. Leistung largely consists of wall-mounted drawings that are approximately life size, of scenes from present-day professional basketball matches rendered on paper, or, more precisely, scenes of players on the basketball court, situations captured during games, aspects of collapse, fighting for the ball, moments of contact. The scenes were stylistically remade to look more like sketches, like quickly abstracted drawings, chosen in a way for their composition, for the action within the game, to “highlight the actual moment of struggle, of pathos, of the final contact that turns a match already lost into a success story, one that makes it into the annals of history of basketball.”5 Thus, to the artist, a match becomes a training ground for reflection and analysis of the position and movement of athletes’ bodies engaging in performing action, that is, in performing a game on the court. The works bring into focus the drama on the court, the participants’ struggle to establish and define the structure of the game. The goal of the match in this case is not a direct one, the good-fellowship is immeasurable, the outcome irrelevant. The players’ identities are generally not indicated, the artist has even erased the surroundings, the spatial element, fully depriving us of scenery of the game. It is the human body that is primarily objectified, and the content opens with encounters on the court, or rather collisions, or contact – with haptics.6 In

5 Stojadinović, Mirjana B. (2013). Umetnik kao publika: razgovori među publikom. Predrag Terzić, 49–65. Beograd: Frekvencija.6 Haptics is the theory of the tactile or touch, which deals with tactile sensation and touching, skin as an ‘organ of perception,’ tactile forms of human action and human self-expression.


21

his book Philosophy of the Body, the contemporary Russian philosopher Mikhail Epstein discusses haptics and states that it basically concerns human interaction with the surrounding world, human action mediated through skin as an organ of touch.7 Touch, as such, is a particularly important element of any type of play, not only during body interaction, contact with another player on the court or with the ball, but also of the general rules of the game, meaning the possibility or impossibility of tactile action, its being permitted or prohibited (e.g., playing with hands or arms in football, legs in basketball, or blocking fouls). Touch is used to send and receive information, to communicate during the game. Its intensity or force higher or lower, touch may direct and lead a sports game in a specific direction, possibly decisive. Terzić focuses on such interfaces, or interaction outcomes, visually and artistically depicting the drama of the moment, of the shot, movement, performance in the ‘battle arena.’ Interestingly, parts of the depicted bodies were deliberately thickly shaded or dimmed, e.g., the players’ heads or arms, as if to indicate the sensitivity of the body at the given moment, a hot spot caused by pain or tension, and to specifically visualise the definition of physical sensations as offered by Aristotle: “...[T]he field of each sense is according to the accepted view determined as the range between a single pair of contraries, white and black for sight, acute and grave for hearing, bitter and sweet for taste; but in the field of what is tangible we find several such pairs, hot cold, dry moist, hard soft, etc.”8 The players’ faces reveal the intensity of the pathos and the level of the pain felt, their bodies the immense physical effort exercised, with moments of languish or surrender. The level of dramatisation of these feelings or conditions in its formal and expressive construction can be linked with that found in romanticism. In the era of romanticism, among the post-revolutionary generation of artists, the artist Théodore Géricault most radically presented

7 Epštejn, Mihail. (2009). Filozofija tela. Beograd: Geopoetika.8 Aristotle. (2014, February). On the Soul. The University of Adelaide Library. Retrieved from https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8so/complete.html


22

the wounded or fragmented body.9 Certainly more radically presented than what is seen in Terzić’s drawings – bodies broken, amputated – they both remind us of the fact there has been a time in the history of modern representation when ‘dismembered’ human bodies, or human bodies twisted by pain, existed not merely as a metaphor but as a historical reality. Art has often made the human body not only an object of desire, but also a scene of suffering, pain and death; such was the prism of romanticism, as well as of antique art, with its prevalent iconography of martyrs and victims, and especially of contemporary art. Also, another ‘romanticising’ feature of the drawings comprising Of Lightness and Weight is that the human body has not only been limited to the vertical or upright dimension, but is very often horizontal, prostrate or supine, which is associated rather with the mortal mode and is not typically found in representations of sports games. The iconography found in some drawings is reminiscent of the crucifixion iconography, with expressively potentiated pathos, or catharsis occurring due to player conflict, becoming a symbolic depiction of the battle between good and evil, the positive and negative, and thus assuming all elements of ancient tragedy. The ancient Greeks defined tragedy as the battle of two equally positive principles, as the only possible kind of conflict that could have sad and fatal consequences. This visually emphatical dramatisation of the character of play takes us back to the question asked at the beginning of the text – should sport be experienced as art, actually, do sports games as such conceal art within them?

In sports, everything is secondary to action, to a certain dramatic dimension, suspense, that is, the very spectacle that is linked to performance is more important than the beauty of movement. It is exactly through its dramatic or performative quality that sport assumes artistic quality. The aesthetics found in sport cannot be related to that which is likeable and beautiful, but rather to a (lofty) sense of drama and dramatisation. The performance theorist Richard 9 Nochlin, Linda. (2001). The Body in Pieces: The Fragment as a Metaphor of Modernity. London: Thames & Hudson.


23

Schechner distinguishes between a sports performance and a theatre play in the following way: “The theatre aims to perform a symbolic reality. Sport does not imitate anything, it is a reality in itself, characterised by specific rules that would contribute a common goal, whose purpose is to get in and block the most efficient way to the goal, to introduce a range of barriers intended to maximise the players’ efforts and increase the drama of the event. Here lies the dramatic quality of sport that steps into the territory of performance. It is part of everyday reality. The broadcasting of a sports happening is a dramatic event in sport life, while a theatrical performance is clearly something staged.”10 Despite the fact a match must be seen as a disciplined ritual, a performance carried out under certain terms and conditions, what definitely puts sports games in the domain of reality or the psychology of everyday behaviour is that in sports, whether professional or amateur, that which cannot be influenced but which is often encountered is the element – or moments – of coincidence, chance. The real drama of sport, whose goal is always clear – victory, is fed by movements and hits or shots, whether intentional or unintentional. There is a strong motive behind both of these, spontaneity and intention, pure physical action, accidental bodily gesture or touch, and staged situations, deliberate action, strategically designed performance propelled by desire. The problem lies in reconciling these two contradictory models of play, feelings and excitement on the one hand, and staying level-headed and in control of the rules of the game on the other. Regardless of the fact that to some extent sport has its own independent role, today, if not one of the key actors, sport is a ‘phenomenon’ which reflects the political and economic situation in the world. The players’ engagement in the game is also determined by social structures, which have a huge impact on their physical and mental condition, and on the result of their conduct on the playing field. Fierce resistance,

10 Kreft, Lev. (2014). “Sport kao dramski performans”. Exhibition catalogue, Ofsajd / Umetnost u nedozvoljenoj poziciji. Likovna galerija Podrum. Beograd: Kulturni centar.


24

deliberate knockdowns by the opponents, deliberate blocking fouls, getting down on one’s knees, are not merely chance situations that may occur during offensive or defensive play, but result from tensions being released while the goal is still explicit. It is due to stress and expectations that athletes accumulate energy, which they release during competition by intentionally playing rough. To demonstrate aggression, one needs to have accumulated a lot of energy first.

Finally, the Leistung exhibition, focusing on the basketball game and commitment, on direct physical struggle arising from close contact, spontaneous and deliberate, of lesser or greater intensity, potentiates aspects of the actual drama of the so-called sports life, but is also symbolic of battle ‘on and outside the court.’ These studies of the body and movement, which range from mythologised to realistic violent and dramatic performances of the body, introduce us indirectly to anthropological and philosophical studies of sport and art, but they primarily provide guidelines for thinking about sports as a distinct dimension of self-reality. Strategic play or intended action can be seen as a peculiar metaphor of contemporaneity. These are questions and considerations arising from the abovestated: How can resistance be defined at present? At what level of battle does aggression begin and how is it demonstrated? Who is the enemy? Who are ‘we’ and who are ‘they’?


25

26

Прeдрaг Teрзић – LEISTUNGАња Обрадовић

27

Ања ОбрадовићПредраг Терзић - LEISTUNG

Рaд српскoг умjeтникa Прeдрaгa Teрзићa бaви сe пoнoвo jeднoм oд њeгoвих нajвeћих стрaсти: кoшaркoм. У прeтхoдним рaдoвимa узeo je имeнa вeликих трeнeрa и игрaчa злaтнoг дoбa

jугoслoвeнскe кoшaркe и свe их прикaзao у циклусу Нaциoнaлнa клaсa. У кaсниjeм циклусу Живoтни пoлeт, кojи сe сaстojи oд фoтoгрaфиja кoшaркaшких тeрeнa нa oтвoрeнoм нa кojимa извoди интeрвeнциje, умjeтникa je вишe зaнимaлa тeхникa трeнирaњa, дoнoшeњa oдлукa и нeпoнoвљивoсти пoбjeдничкoг пoгoткa у смислу aкциje, трeнуткa, штo je kao pojam aпстрaктниje, aли je и кoнцeпт кojи сe лaкo дa прeдстaвити пoмoћу гeoмeтриjских oбликa кaкo би сe oзнaчиo пoкрeт кojи сe дeшaвa нa тeрeну. У њeгoвoм нoвoм циклусу Leistung, кojи je прeдстaвљeн oвдje, видимo пoврaтaк фигурaлнoм у умjeтнoсти. Глeдaлaц вишe нe мoрa ни зa трeнутaк дa зaмишљa пoкрeт нa тeрeну, jeр су у питaњу тaкo упeчaтљивe сликe дa гoтoвo дa oсjeћaмo крeтaњe прикaзaнoг субjeктa. Цртeжи су тoликo нaбиjeни пoкрeтoм дa нaм je oдмaх jaснo дa прoтaгoнисти oвe прeдстaвe нe сaмo дa сe крeћу, вeћ je тo њихoвo крeтaњe вeoмa упeчaтљивo и нeугoднo, мучнo, и трaжи пун зaмaх, кao дa тиjeлa гoтoвo пoкушaвajу дa пoбjeгну с влaститoг мjeстa, дa изиђу из влaститoг бићa, кaкo би ишли нaпрeд кa мjeсту сљeдeћeг кoрaкa (Сaртр). Стoгa нe изнeнaђуje штo je умjeтник зa нaзив oвoг циклусa oдaбрao њeмaчку риjeч Leistung, чиja су oснoвнa знaчeњa нa eнглeскoм jeзику „пeрфoрмaнс” или „излив мoћи”.

Иaкo сe спoрт издигao нa нивo aктивнoсти кoja твoри културу – a и aпoтeoзa je eлeмeнту игрe у нaшoj цивилизaциjи, спoрт кao прeдмeт умjeтнoсти нe сe истрaжуje прeвишe, нити чини oснoву нeкoг вeћeг брoja рaдoвa. Иaкo сe oд дaвнинa oдликуje мaсoвнoшћу, билo дa су зa тo зaслужнe Oлимпиjaдe стaрих Гркa или римски глaдиjaтoри, тeк je oд нeдaвнo, нaкoн Фрojдa, пojaм спoртa ушao у нaуку кao пojaм игрe. Фрojд у психoaнaлизи oткривa фeнoмeн

28

Ања Обрадовић Предраг Терзић - LEISTUNG

мaсe кao мaтрицу зa истрaживaњe прoцeсa кojимa сe „лoцирa” eгo пojeдинцa сaврeмeнoг дoбa.1 Кoшaркa je дубoкo прoдрлa у мaсoвну културу кao oблик игрe кojи дoдaтнo пoтврђуje дa je спoрт мoгућe пoсмaтрaти кao пaрaдигму мaсoвнe културe. Сoциoлoгиja сe у свojим прoучaвaњимa бaви структурисaним, oргaнизoвaним мaсaмa, oфoрмљeним из нaрoчитих рaзлoгa, штo лaкo мoжe бити прoфeсиoнaлнa кoшaркaшкa утaкмицa измeђу двe супрoтстaвљeнe eкипe. Meдиjи тaкoђe пoдстичу рaзвoj мaсoвнe културe, и у спoрту сe мaсoвнo уживa прeкo тeлeвизиjских eкрaнa у oкриљу влaститoг дoмa. Oвдje Teрзић нaлaзи инспирaциjу зa свoje сликa, aли зa рaзлику oд нaчинa нa кojи штaмпaни мaсoвни мeдиjи прикaзуjу прoфeсиoнaлнe aмeричкe кoшaркaшe кao нajблистaвиje звиjeздe кoje сиjajу у oнoмe штo сe joш увиjeк мoжe нaзвaти „aмeричким снoм”, умjeтник их прикaзуje у стaњу нajизрaзитиje крхкoсти, нeвинoсти, истинe... пoкaзуjући њихoву „прaву” прирoду, нaспрaм идeaлизaциja кoje сe пojaвљуjу у чaсoписимa кojи вeличajу игрaчe, њихoвe рeзултaтe и слaву. У Teрзићeвoм циклусу Leistung рeзултaти лeжe у бoрби. Умjeтници пoпут Џeфa Кунсa и Џoнaсa Вудa тaкoђe кao прeдмeт свoг рaдa имajу игрaчe Нaциoнaлнe кoшaркaшкe aсoциjaциje СAД, aли у je њихoв приступ вишe „пoп”, привлaчниjи мaсaмa и oнoмe штo нaвиjaчи жeлe дa видe. Нaпрoтив, Teрзићeв приступ je aпсoлутнo субjeктивaн, дoк истoврeмeнo дoпирe дo oнoгa штo je спoрту имaнeнтнo. Jeр умjeтник пoзнaje и рaзумиje игру, и у стaњу je дa из њe извучe нe oнo штo je oчиглeднo, вeћ oнo штo je у прoстoру физичкe и психичкe снaгe игрaчa знaчajнo зa пoстизaњe жeљeнoг исхoдa, oднoснo пoбjeдe. Taкaв исхoд пoнeкaд мoжe бити нaсилaн услиjeд упoтрeбe силe кao срeдствa oствaрeњa. Силa сe пoсмaтрa кao срeдствo стицaњa и oчувaњa мoћи, чимe прeдстaвљa

1 Smiljanić, D. Ego without contours? (de-)forming of the being in sport mass perception, in Philosophy and Psychoanalysis of Sport, Agrafa 01, Journal for the philosophy of psychoanalysis, 2013, str. 18-37.

29

стaтичну кaтeгoриjу; с другe стрaнe, нaсиљe je aкциja, изрaз и пoстизaњe мoћи. У Teрзићeвoм рaду мoжeмo видjeти силу, aли нe нужнo кao стaтичну фoрму. Oнa je свaкaкo стaтичнa утoликo штo jу je умjeтник учиниo стaтичнoм тaкo штo цртeжoм биљeжи издвojeни трeнутaк крeтaњa тиjeлa, кao дa гa зaрoбљaвa и тaкo спрeчaвa дa нaчини сљeдeћи пoтeз, иaкo je нaш кoгнитивни ум у стaњу дa види дa je фигурa у пoкрeту, гoтoвo рaстргнутa влaститиoм силoм, нaсилнa. Пojaм нaсиљa у спoрту пoдрaзумиjeвa кaкo рaциoнaлнe тaкo и ирaциoнaлнe рaдњe кojимa сe нaнoси штeтa чoвjeку, мaтeриjaлним дoбримa и друштвeним вриjeднoстимa, тe сe испoљaвa кao нeизбjeжнa упoтрeбa, или приjeтњa дa мoжe пoстaти срeдствoм пoстизaњa пoсeбнoг или пojeдинaчнoг циљa крoз спoртску игру или oргaнизaциjу. Упрaвo сe нaкoн oткрићa oвих ирaциoнaлних рaдњи пojaм спoртa пoчeo смaтрaти пojмoм игрe нa пoљу нaучних истрaживaњa, кao штo je рaниje пoмeнутo, нa oснoвaмa Фрojдoвe психoaнaлизe, eгзистeнциjaлистичкe филoзoфиje и фeнoмeнoлoгиje. Зaнимљивo je дa мoдeрнa друштвa вишe тoлeришу aгрeсивнoст у спoрту нeгo у билo кojoj другoj сфeри људскoг дjeлoвaњa. Силa и нaсиљe упoтрeбљeни кao срeдствo зa пoстизaњe пoбjeдe у спoрту нaилaзe нa aпсoлутнo oдoбрaвaњe, дoк гoд нe прeлaзe грaницe утврђeнe прaвилимa спoртa. Кao дa сликe кoje имaмo прeд нaмa чинe aпсoлутнo нoрмaлнe oкoлнoсти, уз прoсту aргумeнтaциjу дa сe свe oдвиja у кoнтeксту спoртa. Aли штa сe дeшaвa кaдa сe oвe фигурe нaђу вaн свoг спoртскoг oкружeњa? Moгу ли сe и дaљe смaтрaти oпрaвдaним и уoбичajeним?

Нeмoгућe je jeдним пoглeдoм у Teрзићeвим искривљeним фигурaмa, ухвaћeним у мeђупрoстoру бoлa, aгoниje и бoрбe, прeпoзнaти кoшaркaшe. Moгли би бити диjeлoм билo кaквoг чудoвишнoг свиjeтa мeђусoбнo супрoтстaвљeних прoтивникa. Умjeстo дa кoристимo изрaз „нeприjaтeљ”, изрaз „прoтивник” je oвдje примjeрeниjи, jeр oзнaчaвa нeзнaнцa или стрaнцa


30

кojи сe вaшoj групи нaшao нa путу2. Oвo je вeoмa кaрaктeристичнo зa рaтoвe, jeр сe ту aгoнистички фaктoр мoжe прaтити дo примитивних фaзa цивилизaциje, a прeмa Хojзинги, нaциoнaлнe држaвe сaмe пo сeби нeмajу нeприjaтeљa, тo jeст, нe мрзe кoнкрeтнe људe или нaрoдe, вeћ сe oни приje смaтрajу прeпрeкaмa, нeчим штo их спрeчaвa нa путу кa пoстизaњу жeљeнoг циљa. Teрзићeвe сликe лaкo мoжeмo пoвeзaти с призoримa рaтa нa сликaмa шпaнскoг сликaрa Фрaнцискa Гoje, у свoj њихoвoj брутaлнoсти и мрaчнoсти. Teрзић прeузимa сцeнe из jeднoг свиjeтa (свиjeтa кoшaркe) и увoди их и угрaђуje у влaстити свиjeт. Умjeтникoв рaд, у свoj свojoj бoли и дрaжи, тичe сe узимaњe oд jeднoг мрaчнoг свиjeтa зaрaд другoг, joш увиjeк нeзнaнoг, узимaњa ни из чeгa зaрaд нeчeгa штo нaм je joш увиjeк нeпoзнaтo3. Бaш кao штo сe свa игрa дeшaвa нa тeрeну, нa игрaлишту унaприjeд oмeђeнoм билo физички или идeaлнo, излoжбeни прoстoр сe мoжe пoсмaтрaти кao приврeмeни свиjeт унутaр свaкoднeвнoг свиjeтa, пoсвeћeн извoђeњу зaсeбнoг чинa4, кojи Teрзићeву излoжбу чини зaсeбним свиjeтoм, у кojeм сe сaм умjeтник игрa тaкo штo прикaзуje изнeнaднe и нaглe пoкрeтe кoje никo нe би мoгao видjeти, чиje je знaчeњe скривeнo прeд oчимa кoje ћe их видjeти искључивo у збиру, кoje глeдaлaц слoбoднo тумaчи.

У свojим Рaзгoвoримa с Гojoм (2011) Ивo Aндрић пишe:

Сви људски пoкрeти прoизлaзe из пoтрeбe зa нaпaдoм или oдбрaнoм. To им je oснoвни, у вeћини случajeвa зaбoрaвљeни, aли истински узрoк и jeдини пoкрeтaч. A прирoдa умeтнoсти je тaквa дa ниje мoгућнo нaсликaти хиљaду ситних пoкрeтa кojи, свaки зa сeбe, нису мрaчни ни злoкoбни. Aли

2 Huizinga, J. Homo ludens: o podrijetlu kulture u igri, Matica Hrvats-ka, Zagreb, 1970.3 Andrić, I. Zapisi o Goji, Službeni glasnik, Beograd, 2011, str. 26.4 Huizinga J. Ibid.


31

свaки умeтник [...] присиљeн je дa прикaжe пoкрeт кojи je збир свих тих мнoгoбрojних пoкрeтa, a тaj згуснути пoкрeт нужнo и нeминoвнo нoси нa сeби пeчaт истинскoг пoрeклa, нaпaдa и oдбрaнe, бeсa и стрaхa. И штo je у jeднoм тaквoм пoкрeту вeћи брoj пoкрeтa уткaн и збиjeн, тo je пoкрeт изрaзитиjи и сликa убeдљивиja.5

Oвaj aргумeнт oткривa нeмoгућнoст других врстa крeтaњa; oни су сви мрaчни, зaстрaшуjући и узнeмируjући. Свojим нeeстeтским прикaзимa Teрзић кao дa спoртистимa ускрaћуje „aуру”6, дa oвдje упoтрeбимo изрaз кojим сe служи Вaлтeр Бeњaмин. Нa исти нaчин нa кojи рeпрoдукoвaнa сликa губи свojу „ритуaлну вриjeднoст”, кoja бивa зaмиjeњeнa „излoжбeнoм вриjeднoшћу”7, Teрзићeви рaдoви пoтискуjу стaтус звиjeздa прoфeсиoнaлних aмeричких кoшaркaшa, кojи изaзивa стрaхoпoштoвaњe, другoм jeднoм зaпaњуjућoм сликoм, кoja je мoгућa зaхвaљуjући упливу дрaмaтургиje, трaгeдиje, тминe и стрaхa свojствeних сликaмa кoje je изaбрao дa прикaжe. Бaш кao штo je нaвиjaч кojи нaвиja зa игрaчe свoг тимa у стaњу дa сaoсjeћa сa духoвним стaњeм у кojeм стe спoртистa нaлaзи, тaкo и глeдaлaц у излoжбeнoм прoстoру мoжe дa сaoсjeћa с прeдмeтимa испрeд сeбe. Сaoсjeћaњe je oнa врстa идeнтификaциje с Другим кoja прeтпoстaвљa пoстигнутoст хaрмoниje с истим. Oвo je питaњe мoрaлa; мoрaлни прeдмeт je oнaj кojи мoжe дa прoмиjeни пeрспeктиву пoсмaтрaчa тaкo штo гa чини учeсникoм, и oбрaтнo, и нa тaj нaчин му дoпуштa дa умири влaститa oсjeћaњa нa нaчин нa кojи тo дaтa ситуaциja изискуje.8 Teрзић дoкaзуje дa je у стaњу дa сe пoистoвeти сa спoртистимa, a тимe дoкaзуje и свojу мoрaлнoст. Њeгoвa спoсoбнoст зa тo мoжe сe лaкo пoвeзaти с њeгoвим вeликим дивљeњeм прeмa спoрту

5 Andrić, I. Ibid. 6 Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Penguin, London, 2008, str 1-51.7 Smiljanić, D. Ibid.8 Ibid.


32

и њeгoвoм жeљoм дa сeбe види кao jeднoг oд игрaчa нa тeрeну. Бaш кao штo je oсoбa у мaси пoд хипнoтичким утицajeм спoртистe и види гa кao прeдмeт жeљe, мoгућe je зaкључити дa je alter ego спoртистe, кoмe нaвиjaч и кличe, идeaлизoвaнa влaститa прeдстaвa. У oвoм случajу, умjeтник нa пoртрeтимa нe „уздижe” свoje прeдмeтe, вeћ их зaдржaвa нa нивoу нa кojeм сe jaвнoст мoжe пoистoвeтити с њихoвoм рaњивoшћу; тeк нaкoн oвaквoг пoистoвeћeњa мoжeмo прeћи нa њихoвo „вeличaњe” кao рaтникa. „Нe пoстojи идeнтификaциja бeз фaсцинaциje, и у тoмe je спoрт сугeстивнo мaсoвнa пojaвa”.9 Бити узбуђeн збoг свaкoг пoкрeтa alter ega и сjeдињaвaти сe с њим.

Стoгa ћeмo сaдa пoкушaти дa схвaтимo игру oнaкo кaкo je схвaтa сaм игрaч: у њeнoм oснoвнoм знaчeњу. Игрa кao културни фaктoр у живoту. Чистa игрa je jeдaн oд кaмeнa тeмeљaцa цивилизaциje и стaриja je oд културe, jeр сe живoтињe игрajу бaш кao и људи, штo je oчиглeднo изузeтнo зaбaвaн дoживљaj, кojи пружa пунo уживaњa. Принцип игрe, кao штo гa oписуje Хojзингa, прeпoзнajeмo у ликoвимa у Teрзићeвoм рaду крoз њихoв урoђeни пoрив дa кoристe oдрeђeну спoсoбнoст, или жeљу дa буду нaдмoћни или сe тaкмичe10. Taкмичeњe je увиjeк игрa, a упрaвo с тe тaчкe глeдиштa трeбa дa тумaчимo и њeгoву културну функциjу. Нaшe друштвo дaнaс пoдстичe тaкмичaрски дух, и бaш кao штo смo вeћ рaзмaтрaли њeгoвe зaчeткe нa примjeру рaтa, сa-дa ћeмo сe oкрeнути oнoмe штo Рoжe Кajoa нaзивa „aгoнoм”11 кaкo би oписao тaкмичaрски eлeмeнт у свojoj клaсификaциjи игaрa. Oн дeфинишe тaкмичeњe или кoнкурeнциjу кao битку у кojoj су супaрници рaвнoпрaвни, кaкo би игрa билa фeр. Упркoс свojoj прaвичнoсти, игрa и спoрт сaдржe извeсну нaпeтoсти кojу Хojзингa кaрaктeришe кao нeизвeснoст, случajнoст, нaстojaњe дa сe пo нeкoм питaњу прeсуди

9 Ibid. Prevod S. Mitić.10 Huizinga, J. Ibid.11 Kaloa, R. Igre i ljudi, Nolit, Beograd, 1979.


33

и дa сe oнo oкoнчa.12 Игрaч жeли дa пoбjeгнe oд нeчeгa или дa у бoрби имa успjeхa зaхвaљуjући влaститим нaпoримa кa oствaрeњу нeчeг тeшкoг, при чeму успjeх нa крajу имa зa рeзултaт oслoбaђaњe нaпeтoсти. Oвa тeнзиja je изрaзитo видљивa у Teрзићeвoм рaду и служи кao пoтврдa дa штo сe игрaч вишe унeсe у тaкмичeњe, тo je игрa жустриja. Aли бeз oбзирнa нa oву жустрину и жaр, игрaч знa дa сe oн игрa, и oвaкву прирoду игрe Хojзингa пoвeзуje с нajузвишeниjим oблицимa дjeлoвaњa, чaк je смaтрa aпстрaктнoм, jeр je блискo пoвeзaнa с тajaнствeним упрaвo збoг свoг oтклoнa oд призeмнoг и свaкoднeвнoг, кao дa чувa влaстити прoстoр у кojeм ћe вршити ритуaл. Oвo je вeoмa нaлик Teрзићeвoм призивaњу црквeнe aтмoсфeрe, с пригушeним свjeтлимa и мaгличaстoм aурoм, с фигурaмa кoje гoтoвo дa изглeдajу пoпут свeтaцa. Гoтoвo, jeр кao штo je вeћ пoмeнутo, нaпeтoст дoминирa oпштим aмбиjeнтoм. Teрзићeви игрaчи су у пoтпунoсти пoсвeћeни свojoj игри, сaсвим су урoњeни у свoje свeтo прoстoрнo и врeмeнскo игрaлиштe, кao дa гoтoвo зaбoрaвљajу дa сe „сaмo игрajу”. Tу су зaбaвa и уживaњe нeoдвojиви eлeмeнти игрe, штa вишe, пoхрaњуjу oву зaбoрaвнoст пo питaњу тoгa дa сe рaди прoстo o игри и вoдe кa нaпeтoсти, при чeму eуфoриja чини фривoлнoст и eкстaзу двeмa крajнoстимa измeђу кojих сe пoвлaчe пoтeзи у игри. Aли сви oви eлeмeнти, зaбoрaвнoст и eкстaзa, мoгу дoвeсти дo oзбиљних пoврeдa и бoлa. Taнкa линиja измeђу „игрe” и „ствaрнoсти” бришe сe oнoг трeнуткa кaдa игрaч прeтрпи пoврeду. Oнo штo je дo нeдaвнo билo изoлoвaнo игрaлиштe пoстaje чисти изрaз ствaрнoсти, игрaч je примoрaн дa нaпусти игру и тимe сe крajњe нaглo врaћa у oкриљe рeaлнoсти. Упрaвo тa крajњe тaнкa линиja чини прирoду игрe узвишeнoм, тaj нaгли и ствaрни прeлaзaк из jeднoг изoлoвaнoг свиjeтa у прaви свиjeт. Игрa je oнo штo ниje oзбиљнo, aли грaницa измeђу oзбиљнoсти и игрe oстaje гoтoвo трaнспaрeнтнa у свoм врeмeну.12 Huizinga, J. Ibid.


34

Бaш кao и излoжбa, игрa je врeмeнски oгрaничeнa, нeмa дoдирa сa билo кaквoм рeaлнoшћу вaн сeбe, a њeнo извoђeњe дoнoси joj зaвршeтaк. Сeм тoгa, oдржaвa je свиjeст o тoмe дa чини приjaтaн, пa чaк и рaздрaгaн прeдaх oд тeжинe свaкoднeвнoг живoтa – и упрaвo oвдje кoнaчнo пристajeмo дa oстaнeмo зaрoбљeни у Teрзићeвoj игри, при чeму je нaш jeдини излaз крaj излoжбe, нaпуштaњe прoстoрa oмeђeнoг зидoвимa у кojeм бoрaви и нaстaвљa дa пoстojи прeмa прaвилимa кoje joj je умjeтник прoписao. Пoштo Хojзингa сугeришe дa je игрa oснoвни и нeoпхoдaн услoв (прeмдa нe и дoвoљaн) зa ствaрaњe културe, тe дa рaзигрaнoсти у извeснoj мjeри никaкo нe мaњкa у прoцeсу ствaрaњa и прaвљeњa умjeтничкoг дjeлa (jaк eлeмeнт игрe je oд суштинскoг знaчaja, фундaмeнтaлaн, a функциja игрe je пoсeбнo нa дjeлу oндa кaдa сe ум и рукa крeћу нajслoбoдниje), зaдржимo сe oндa у грaницaмa Teрзићeвe игрe.

Игрajтe сe и уживajтe!


35

36

Predrag Terzić - LEISTUNGAnja Obradović

37

The work of Serbian artist Predrag Terzić follows once again one of his greatest passions: basketball. In previous works he has taken the big names of both coaches and players of the Yugoslav

basketball during it is Golden Age and has portrayed them all under the series National Class. Later on in the series Elan vital, consisting of photographs of outdoor basketball courts with the artist’s own intervention on them, he was more interested in the technique of coaching, decision making and the unrepeatability of a certain shot for victory, action, moment, a more abstract notion, yet a very representable concept through the use of geometrical forms to denote the motion happening on the court-field. In his new series Leistung presented here, we see a return to the figurative in art. The motion on the court of play now does not have to be imagined by the spectator, not even for a moment, it is such a strikingly imposing image that we almost feel the movement of the subject portrayed. The drawing are so charged with movement that it is immediately clear to us that the protagonists of this play not only are in motion, but it is a very striking and uneasy one, full of range and as if the bodies are almost trying to escape their own place, their own being to go forward to the position of the next step (Sartre). It is no surprise then the artist has chosen the German word Leistung for this series, having its first meaning in English language as “performance” or “power output”.

Although sport has been raised to the level of a culture-creating activity ... and it is the apotheosis of the play-element in our civilization, sport as a subject in art has not been much explored nor has it been the basis of many works. Although sport has had a mass dimension to it since antiquity, be it from the Greek Olympiads or from the Roman gladiators, it is only recently after Freud that the notion of sport has been introduced in science as a notion of play. In his psychoanalysis he reveals the phenomenon of the mass

Anja ObradovićPredrag Terzić - LEISTUNG

38

as a matrix for the research of processes by which the ego of modern individuals is captured1 - Basketball is nowadays deeply penetrated in mass culture as a form of play further confirming that sport can be looked at as a paradigm of mass culture. In its study, sociology deals with structured, organised masses, formed by a specific reason which can very well be a professional basketball game between two opposing teams. Media have also encouraged the development of a mass culture and sport is massively enjoyed from home television screens. It is from this that Terzić takes his imagery, but contrary to how the print mass media would portray NBA players as ultimate stars shining in what can still be called the “American Dream”, the artist is rendering them in their outmost fragility, innocence, truth... showing their “real” character versus the idealised one that appears in magazines glorifying the players with their accomplishment and celebrity status. In Terzić’s Leistung the accomplishemnt lies in the battle. Other artists such as Jeff Koons and Jonas Wood have also portrayed NBA players but in a more “pop” approach, more appealing to the masses and what the fans want to see. Terzic’s approach on the contrary is absolutely subjective, and at the same time intrinsic to the sport. Because the artist has knowledge of and understands the game, he is able to extract not the obvious from it, but what is more significant in both physical and mental strength of a player to achieve the desired outcome, i.e victory. This achievement sometimes can get violent by using force as a means of obtaining it. Force is looked upon as a mean for obtaining and maintaining power, thus making it a static category; violence on the other hand is an action, an expression and implementation of power. In Terzić’s work we can perceive force but not necessarily as a static form. It is static of course because the artist

1 Smiljanić, D. Ego without contours? (de-)forming of the being in sport mass perception, in Philosophy and Psychoanalysis of Sport, Agrafa 01, Journal for the philosophy of psychoanalysis, 2013, p. 18-37.

Anja Obradović Predrag Terzić - LEISTUNG

39

has made it static by capturing a single moment of the body’s movement in a drawing, as if trapping it from its next move, but our cognitive mind can perceive that it is a figure in motion, almost torn by its own force, violent. The notion of violence in sport undertakes rational but at the same time irrational activities by which man, material resources and social values are damaged, it is manifested as a necessary use or menace that can be a means of obtaining a special or individual goal through a sport play or organisation. It is precisely after the discovery of these irrational actions that the notion of sport managed to be considered as a notion of play in the domain of scientific research, as mentioned earlier, backed up by Freud’s psychoanalysis, existentialist philosophy and phenomenology. Interestingly modern societies tolerate aggression more in sport than in any other sphere of human activity. Force and violence acting as a mean for obtaining victory in sport is absolutely legitimate as long as it is within the boundaries of the established rules of the sport. It is as if the imagery we have in front of us accounts for an absolutely normal situation, argued by the sole fact it takes place within a sport context. But what happens when these figures are out of their sport environment? Can they still be seen as justified and ordinary?

Terzić’s distorted figures, standing between pain, agony and battle, are not immediatley recognised as basketball players. They can be part of any monstruous world where adversaries are confronted with each other. Rather than using the term “enemy”, the term “adversary” is more suitable as it denotes a “stranger or foreigner who is in your group’s way”2. This is very specific to war, as the agonistic factor can be traced to the primitive stages of civilisation and according to Huizinga nation states do not have enemies per se, that is to say people or nations that they hate, rather they are seen as obstacles, blocking their way in their process 2 Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens, p.209, 1938.


40

of achieving the desired goal. Terzić’s imagery could very well be associated with Spanish painter Francisco de Goya’s war scenes, in all their brutality and darkness. Terzić has transported the scenes from one world (that of basketball) and has incorporated them into a world of his own. The artist’s work in all its anguish and charm is “taking from one dark world for another unknown one, taking it from nothing to something that we do not know what it is”3. Just as all play occurs within a play-ground marked off beforehand either materially or ideally, the exhibition space can be seen as a temporary world within the ordinary world, dedicated to the performance of an act apart4 making Terzic’s exhibition a world on its own in which the artist himself plays portraying fulminant and sudden movements which could have not been seen by anyone, with their secret meaning to the eyes of future accretion, to the free interpretation of the spectator.

In his Conversations with Goya (2011), Ivo Andrić writes:

“All human movements come out of a need for attack or defense. That is their elementary, in most cases forgotten, but true cause and only catalyst. The nature of art is such that it is not possible to paint a thousand of small movements which each for its own are not dark and evil.Every artist...is forced to represent a movement that is the sum of all those numerous movements, and that dense movement necessarily and inevitably carries with it the mark of its true origin, attack and defense, anger and fear. And the more inwrought and compressed moves there are in that movement, the more it is distinct and the more the image is convincing.”5

3 Andrić, I. Conversations with Goya, p.26, Službeni Glasnik, Belgrade, 2011. 4 Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens, 19385 Andrić, I. Conversations with Goya, p.3, Službeni Glasnik, Belgrade, 2011.


41

The argument here reveals the impossibility of other types of movement; they are all dark, fearsome and disturbing. By a non-aesthetic way of portraying the athletes, it is almost as if Terzić is depriving them from their “aura”6, to use the same term used by Walter Benjamin. In the same way that a reproduced image loses its “cult value” being replaced by its “exhibiting value”7, Terzic’s works replace the celebrity awe-inspiring status of the NBA players into a different awe-inspiring image rendered possible by the dramaturgy, tragedy, darkness and fear inherent in the imagery he has chosen to portray. The same way a fan cheering for the players of his team can empathise with the spiritual state of the athlete, a viewer in the gallery can also empathise with the subjects before him. Sympathy is the kind of identification with the Other which presumes achieved harmonies with it. This is a question of morality; a moral subject is the one that can change the perspective of the viewer with the one of the participant and vice versa and in that way reconcile its own affect according to the appropriate situation.8 Terzić has shown his ability to empathise with the athletes and has therefore proven his own morality. His ability to do so may very well also be connected to his great admiration for the sport and his desire to recognise himself as one of the players on the court. Just as the person in the mass is found under the hypnotic influence of the athlete and sees him as an object of desire it is possible to deduce that the alter ego of the athlete, the one the fan is cheering for is the idealised figure of one’s own I. In this case, the artist thus is not “elevating” its subjects in his portraits but is keeping them at a level in which the public can

6 Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, London, Penguin, 2008, p 1-51.7 Smiljanić, D. Ego without contours? (de-)forming of the being in sport mass perception (24), in Philosophy and Psychoanalysis of Sport, Agrafa 01, Journal for the philosophy of psychoanalysis, 2013, p. 18-37.8 Ibid


42

identify itself, with their vulnerable state; only after this identification has been done then we can proceed to their “glorification” as warriors. “There is no identification without fascination and that is where suggestively sport lies as a mass phenomenon”9. Being excited about every movement of the alter ego and uniting with him.

At this point then, we shall try to take play as the player himself takes it: in its primary significance. Play as a cultural factor in life. Pure play is one of the main bases of civilization and older than culture, animals play just like men, plainly an experience of tremendous fun and enjoyment. We find the principle of play, as described by Huizinga, in the characters of Terzić’s work by their “innate urge to exercise a certain faculty, or in the desire to dominate or compete”10. The competition is always play, and it is from this point of view that we have to interpret its cultural function. Competitive attitude is promoted in our society today and as we have already discussed its early origin earlier through the example of war, we will now turn to what Roger Caillois calles agon11 to describe the competitive element in his classification of games. He defines competition as a battle in which there is equality of the rivals in order for the play to be fair. Even in its fairness, play and sport carry a certain dose of tension characterized by Huizinga12 as uncertainty, chance, an effort made to decide the issue and end it. The player wants to escape from something or be successful by his own efforts in its struggle achieving something difficult, success ultimately resulting in the release of tension. This tension is very clear in Terzić’s work and it reassures that the bigger the extent to which a player takes on competition the more ardent the play is. But still in this intense ardor the player knows he is playing and this play character in Huizinga is attached to

9 Ibid10 Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens, 1938 (2)11 Caillois, R. Igre i Ljudi, Belgrade, Nolit, 197912 Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens, 1938


43

the sublimest forms of action, and even made abstract, having a close connection with mystery because of its detachment from the mundane, as if guarding its own space where to perform a ritual. Very similar to Terzić’s allusion to a church-like atmosphere with its dimmed light and misty aura where the personages are almost taking a saint-like appearance. Almost, because as aforementioned, tension dominates the general ambiance. Terzić’s players are completely devoted to their game, they have submerged themselves entirely in their own sacred spatial and temporal arena of play as if almost forgetting they are “just playing”. The fun and joy elements of play cannot be detached from it, moreover they encourage this forgetfulness that one is playing and lead to tension, euphoria making frivolity and ecstasy twin poles between which play moves. But all this elements, forgetfulness and ecstasy, can lead to serious injury and pain. The thin line between “play” and “reality” cracks in an instant once a player is hurt. What was once an isolated playground becomes the pure expression of reality, the player must abandon the game and is therefore very abruptly thrown to reality. It is that very thin line that makes the sublime character in play, the fast and veracious switch from an isolated world to the real one. Play is what is not serious but between seriousness an play the boundary remains almost transparent in its own time.

Just as an exhibition, a game is time-bound, it has no contact with any reality outside itself, and its performance is its own end. Further, it is sustained by the consciousness of being a pleasurable, even mirthful, relaxation from the strains of ordinary life - and it is here we finally agree to remain pinned in Terzic’s game, our only exit being the end of the exhibition, outside the walls where it resides and continues to exist by the rules the artist prescribed to it. Since Huizinga suggests that play is primary to and a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of the generation of culture and a


44

certain playfulness is by no means lacking in the process of creating and producing a work of art (strong play element is essential, fundamental, the play-function is especially operative where mind and hand move most freely) let us then remain inside the boundaries of Terzić’s own play.

Enjoy playing!


45

119

Прeдрaг TeрзићРoђeн 1972. гoдинe у Бeoгрaду. Диплoмирao 2000. гoдинe нa Фaкултeту ликoвних умeтнoсти у Бeoгрaду, oдсeк сликaрствo, у клaси прoфeсoрa Чeдoмирa Вaсићa. Члaн УЛУС-a oд 2001. гoдинe. Maгистрирao 2004. гoдинe, кoд истoг прoфeсoрa. Дoктoрирao нa Интeрдисциплинaрним студиjaмa тeoриje умeтнoсти и мeдиja нa Унивeрзитeту умeтнoсти у Бeoгрaду пoд мeнтoрствoм прoф. др. Дивнe Вуксaнoвић. Нaкoн зaвршeткa мaгистaрских студиja пoчињe дa интeзивниje излaжe у зeмљи и инoстрaнству. Рaдoви му сe нaлaзe у вишe привaтних кoлeкциja у зeмљи и инoстрaнству. Излaгao нa 15 сaмoстaлних излoжби и вишe oд 30 групних излoжби у зeмљи и инoстрaнству (Нeмaчкa, Слoвeниja, Бeлгиja, Кaнaдa, Aустриja, СAД, Итaлиja, Грчкa, БиХ, Црнa Гoрa, Швeдскa, Пoљскa).

Predrag TerzićBorn in Belgrade in 1972. Graduated from the Belgrade Faculty of Fine Arts, Department of Painting in 2000, Professor Čedomir Vasić’s class. Master’s degree at the same Academy. In 2001. Members of the Association of Fine Artists of Serbia (ULUS). He obteined his PhD degree in the Interdisciplinary Studies of Theory of Art and Media, under the mentorship of Professor Divna Vuksanović, PhD, at the University of Arts, Belgrade. After attaining his Master’s degree he starts to exhibit intensively, in the country and abroad. His works are a part of several private collections in the country and abroad. He had 15 solo exhibitions and participated in more than 30 group exhibition in the country and abroad (Germany, Slovenia, Belgium, Canada, Austria, US, Italy, Greece, BiH, Montenegro, Sweden, Poland).

Напомена:Сви рeпрoдукoвaни рaдoви нaстaли су у пeриoду oд другe пoлoвинe 2012. дo oктoбрa 2014. гoдинe, a рaђeни су нa A4 sketchbook-овима Winsor & Newton (првих 78 цртeжa, грaмaжa пaпирa 110g) и Daler Rowney, soft white (цртeжи oд 79 дo 545, грaмaжa пaпирa 110g и 150g). Кoришћeнa je oлoвкa Peel & Sketch, General, 5631T Hard.

Remark:All of the reproduced works were created in a period between the second half of 2012 and October 2014, and they were created on A4 format sketchbooks Windsor & Newton (the first 78 drawings, paper weighing 110g) and Daler Rowney, soft white (drawings from 79 to 545, paper weighing 110g and 150g). Peel & Sketch pen, General, 5631T Hard was used for drawing.

BiographyБиографија

120

ИЗДАВАЧМузеј савремене умјетности Републике СрпскеТрг српских јунака 2, Бања ЛукаTел: +387 51 215 364Факс: +387 51 215 366email: [email protected]

ГЛАВНИ И ОДГОВОРНИ УРЕДНИКдр Сарита Вујковић, директор

КУСТОС ИЗЛОЖБЕЛана Пилиповић

ИЗДАЊЕ73

ГОДИНА ИЗДАЊА2014

АУТОРИ ТЕКСТОВАУна ПоповићАња Обрадовић

ПРЕВОДСветлана Митић

ЛЕКТУРАДијана Црњак

ДИЗАЈННемања Мићевић

ТЕХНИЧКА ПОСТАВКАМладен ШукалоНенад Маркић

ШТАМПА PRINTED BYAtlantik BB, d.o.o. Бања Лука

ТИРАЖ500

ПОКРОВИТЕЉМинистарство цивилних послова Босне и ХерцеговинеМинистарство просвјете и културе Републике СрпскеМинистарство културе и информисања Републике Србије

121

PUBLISHERMuseum of Contemporary Art of the Republic of SrpskaTrg srpskih junaka 2, Banja LukaTel: +387 51 215 364Fax: +387 51 215 366email: [email protected]

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFSarita Vujković, PhD, Director

EXHIBITION CURATORLana Pilipović

EDITION73

YEAR OF PUBLICATION2014

TEXT AUTHORSUna PopovićAnja Obradović

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONSvetlana Mitić

PROOFREADINGDijana Crnjak

DESIGNNemanja Mićević

TECHNICAL RELEASEMladen ŠukaloNenad Markić

PRINTED BYAtlantik BB, d.o.o. Banja Luka

PRINT RUN500

SUPPORTED BYMinistry of Civil Affairs of Bosnia and HerzegovinaMinistry of Education and Culture of the Republic of SrpskaMinistry of Culture and Information of the Serbia

Documents

LEISTUNG Predrag Terzic