Zoran Gavriñ

Melanholiåna sprezzatura Igora Stepanåiåa

Igor Stepanåiå - Melancholy Sprezzatura

Zoran Gavriñ

Melanholiåna sprezzatura Igora Stepanåiåa

Igor Stepanåiå - Melancholy Sprezzatura

•5•

Tekst koji se nalazi pred čitaocem ne polaže ni pravo na prikaz stvaralaštva Igora Stepančića u njegovoj celini, ni pravo na konačnu uverljivost ponuđenih analiza, odn. tumačenja. Uprkos tome, ovaj tekst, sa jedne strane, uzima u obzir glavninu stvaralaštva ovog umetnika, a sa druge strane, nudi analizu, odn. tumačenje, koje polazi od dominantnih svojstava radova ovog umetnika. Ta dominantna svojstva, za-jedno sa položajem umetnikâ u vremenu u kojem deluje Igor Stepančić, upućuju na jedno određenje njegovog stvaralaštva, i to onog koje je nastajalo posle mladalačkih radova, a pre dugotrajne cezure u njego-vom radu, koje (određenje) bi moglo da bude imeno-vano kao „postmoderni manierizam“. Iz onoga što sle-di, s obzirom na ovo predloženo imenovanje, moglo bi izgledati da sve ide na jednostavno stavljanje znaka jednakosti između moderne i renesanse, postmod-erne i manierizma, odn. postmodernog stanja i pro-tivreformacije. To, razume se, nije moguće, ali ono što

The text before the reader does not claim to present the work of Igor Stepančić in its entirety, nor does it claim the right to ultimate credibility of its suggested conclusions. However, the text takes into account in the first place the greater part of the artist’s opus, and secondly, offers an analysis, i.e. interpretation, based on the dominant traits of the artist’s work. These dominant traits, along with the situation of the art-ist in the period in which Igor Stepančić is working, point to an orientation in his work, specifically the work done just after the days of his early youth, and before the long caesura in his artistic work, which could be called “Postmodern Mannerism”. Having this categorisation in mind, it may seem from what follows that all can be reduced to a simple equation between Modernism and Renaissance, or Postmod-ernism and Mannerism, i.e. the Postmodern Condi-tion and Counter Reformation. Of course, this is not possible, but that which needs to stand the test here is

a possible examination of the similarity in the actual relations between the one and the other.

This “Postmodern Mannerism” found its field of ac-tivity in what Rosalind Krauss called “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”. Flight into the expanded field was preceded, as we know, by the “expansion of the con-cept of art”, at the end of the sixties of the last century. This came about due to the problematization of the relation between art and society, which turned into the association “Art is Life” and the association “Every-one is an Artist”. Behind these slogans stood the idea of a radical change in artistic practice, “which at the end of the eighties of the last century began to lose its power to fascinate” [LuW]. The loss of fascina-tion with this idea soon brought home the realisation that, despite many attempts, the gap between art and politics remained unbridgeable. When the caesura in his artistic work ended, Igor Stepančić found his area of practice, above all, in what we could call Art in the Web-field.

Little has been written on the art of Igor Stepančić, particularly during the last decade of the previous century, in spite of his noticeable presence on the art scene. In fact, this inadequate reception by the crit-ics, was also experienced by other artists of the same generation. All that can be read and learnt about the work of these artists, Igor Stepančić among them, are texts for the catalogues of their exhibitions, and the occasional TV recording. There are many reasons for this lack of response from the critics. One should certainly not look for them merely in the change of viewpoint in a significant number of art critics in Ser-bia, who, in a narcissistic need to imitate the otherwise small number of examples in the European art system, started constructing so called exhibitions with theses, in the mid nineties. These exhibitions brought with them two setbacks to the art system in Serbia. No matter how much they deprecated the fruitless efforts of their authors to find arguments for their supposed

•6•

theses in artistic practice, they completely erased the individuality of the artists and the real purpose and meaning of their work. On the other hand, and this is the greater setback, by allegedly recognising in their own society phenomena which cannot be passed by without their critical comment, authors of these ex-hibitions forcedly fitted the artists into their so called theses, turned them from real acteurs into specta-teurs, and offered themselves to the public as celebri-ties, not noticing that the public had long since lost any kind of role not only in Serbia, but in the entire world based on the new order.

Consequently, one of the dangers to which the author of this text had pointed was in full power. The author sees the hidden truth behind the Postmodern glorifi-cation of “the end of man” in the “brave new world of cybernetic theory” [RW]. In this cybernetic soci-ety individual independence, as the main principle of democratic societies which have now become anach-ronous, is abolished, and technical imperatives taken over form the economic and administrative spheres are put in its place. Even if the voices of the “rain danc-ers”, with their individual independence and anach-ronistic habitus of the modern intellectual, appeared here and there, the same imperatives of the new order would re-record them and broadcast them as a swan songs. As early as the eighties of the last century, the Italian art historian and art critic Achile Bonito Oliva compared this position of the modem intellectual and artist in the Postmodern Condition and the cyber-netic society of the new order with the position of the artist in 16th century. The artist then “took on a series of views which anticipated the desperation and alienated situation of the modern intellectual”. That is to say, he compared it with the historic situation of the Counter Reformation in which machiavellian political realism ruled as “one of the key elements in the breakdown of moral and practical consciousness” [ABO, 6]. Starting from the view that every culture is supported by structural and historical matrices, this

•7•

hovih autora da argumentaciju za svoje tobožnje teze pronađu u umetničkoj praksi, one su potpuno izbrisale individualnost umetnika i stvarni smisao i značenje njihovih dela. Uz to, a to je veće zlo, tobože prepoznavajući u vlastitom socijetetu fenomene koji ne mogu ostati bez njihovog kritičkog osvrta, autori takvih izložbi su umetnike, čije su radove na silu uterivali u svoje tzv. teze, od stvarnih acteurs pretvarali u spectateurs, sebe sâme recepciji javnog mnenja nudili kao estradne zvezde, ne primećujući pri tom da je javno mnenje već odavno izgubilo svaku ulogu ne samo u Srbiji, nego u svetu zasnova-nom na novom poretku.

U punoj snazi, dakle, bila je jedna od opasnosti na koju je ukazao autor teksta, koji skrivenu istinu postmodernističke glorifikacije ’kraja čoveka‘ pre-poznaje „u hrabrom novom svetu kibernetičke teorije“ [RW]. U takvom kibernetičkom društvu dolazi do ukidanja individualne samostalnosti kao osnovnog načela demokratskog društva, koje sada postaje anahrono, na njegovo mesto dolaze tehnički imperativi preuzeti iz ekonomsko-administrativne sfere. Ako bi se gde i pojavili glasovi „predskazivača kiše“, individualnih samostalnosti sa anahronim habitusom modernog intelektualca, isti oni imper-ativi novog poretka nadsnimavali bi ih i emitovali kao labudovu pesmu. Takav položaj modernog intelektualca i umetnika u stanju postmoderne i kibernetičko društvo novog poretka, još krajem osme decenije prošloga veka, italijanski istoričar umetnosti i umetnički kritičar Achile Bonito Oliva uporedio je sa položajem umetnika u 16. veku, koji (umetnik) je „zauzimao čitav niz stavova koji su anticipirali beznađe i otuđeni položaj modernog intelektualca“, odnosno sa istorijskom situacijom protivreformacije u kojoj je kao „jedan od odlučuju-ćih elemenata rasula u moralnoj i praktičnoj svesti“ [ABO, 6] vladao makijavelistički politički realizam. Polazeći od stava da svaku kulturu podupiru struk-turne i istorijske matrice, ovaj istoričar umetnosti

ovde treba da izdrži probu jeste moguće propitivanje sličnosti sâmog odnosa između jednog i drugog.

Svoje delatno polje ovaj „postmoderni manierizam“ je našao u onome što je Rosalind Krauss imen-ovala kao „skulptura u proširenom polju“. Ovom bekstvu u prošireno polje, kao što je to poznato, prethodilo je „proširenja pojma umetnost“, i to već krajem šezdesetih godina prošloga veka. Do ovoga proširenja došlo je na osnovu problematizovanja odnosa umetnosti i društva, koje se prometnulo u poređenje „Umetnost je život“ i u poređenje „Svaki čovek je umetnik“. Iza ovih slogana stajala je ideja radikalne promene umetničke prakse, „koja je kra-jem osamdesetih prošloga veka počela da gubi svoju moć fascinacije“ [LuW]. Gubitak one fascinacije ubrzo je doveo do uvida da je, uprkos mnogim pokušajima, jaz između umetnosti i politike ostao nepremostiv. Po okončanju one cezure, stvaralaštvo Igora Stepančića svoje delatno polje nalazi, pre sve-ga, u onome što možemo imenovati kao umetnost u web-polju.

O umetničkim prilozima Igora Stepančića, uprkos njegovom primetnom prisustvu na umetničkoj sce-ni, pisano je malo, a još manje u poslednjoj deceniji prošloga veka. Na takvu, nedovoljnu recepciju kod umetničke kritike u Srbiji, uostalom, nailazili su i drugi umetnici te generacije. Ono što se, i iz čega se o radovima ovih umetnika, pa i radovima Igora Stepančića, može pročitati i saznati jesu tekstovi za katalog njihovih izložbi, i gde koji televizijski zapis. Razlozi za ovaj mûk umetničke kritike su mnogo-brojni. Oni se ni na koji način ne mogu tražiti tek u promeni stava dobrog dela umetničke kritike u Srbiji, koja je, u narcisoidnoj potrebi da podražava inače malobrojne uzore u evropskom sistemu um-etnosti, sredinom devedesetih, uzela da sklapa tzv. izložbe sa tezama. Takve grupne izložbe donosile su dva zla po sistem umetnosti u Srbiji. Koliko god da su, s jedne strane, prokazivale jalove napore nji-

•8• •9•

the stranding of the ship, whose mission was to fit into a unified ethos of Weberian ‘rationalisations’, the value spheres of science, moral and art. Along-side that, the crisis, into which the former “oasis of peace” in Eastern Europe was to be pushed, showed the “hidden truth behind the Postmodern glorifica-tion of ‘the end of man’” in “nightmarish authentic-ity, in the context of an actual social situation which suited it” [RW]. In the former “oasis of peace”, ac-cording to the scenario of this prepared crisis, any kind of individual independence was thoroughly si-lenced, and with it all singing of the “rain dancers”.

1. Art took the stand point of Postmodernism the mo-ment it started using resources from classical Mod-ernism. This suggested that the Modern period was “becoming more and more a thing of the past” [RW]. The paradigm of this use of resources from Modern-ism for one’s own use could be found in the painting by Dieter Hacker “Beckmann, Matisse, and Picasso Painting a Woman”. For this painting, the painter reached out for the individual expressions of each of these three Modernists. It is also a Mannerist paint-ing in that its author transposes different formal con-tent by choosing systems and registers which he finds useful. What is in place here is precisely the relation between the formal and subject content in the art of Mannerism during the Counter Reformation period, and Werner Hofmann interpreted Mannerism as one of the underpinning structures of Modern art. In the chapter on “from-painting and creation”, he talks about

art historian associates historically and politically stable periods with “permeating forms” and periods in crises with “open” cultural forms. [ABO, 7]. He sees Mannerism as a period of crisis and its artistic language as open. Content with the observation of the revival of Mannerism in 20th century, he writes about the art of the second half of 16th century as “a period in which the unusability of the world was at the core of all intellectual, literary and artistic activ-ity”. He sees the Mannerist intellectual as the “trai-tor, in the sense of the one who, being rejected by the socio-economic base, rejects the canonical role of the Renaissance artist” [ABO, 8].

The afore mentioned state of affairs on the Serbian art scene would have been an unnecessary digres-sion had all the artists in Serbia succumbed to this coercion into the critics’ so called theses. However, artists who cared about their work and their role, did not enter these merry games of the critics. Igor Stepančić belongs to this group of artists. He exhib-ited his work mainly in solo shows, starting with his own theses, agreeing from time to time to group ex-hibitions in which he could recognise his role as ac-teur. The real reasons for the inadequate reception of his art, should be sought elsewhere, above all, in the crisis which had already begun in the Modern-ist art system. Igor Stepančić appears with his first work, alongside artists of his generation, on the Yu-goslav scene of the day, in the mid eighties of the last century. In those years, what is called “Modernism in the strict sense” was already emerging from its self deception that art can be the thing which postpones

koja može odložiti nasukivanje broda, čija je misija trebalo da bude uzglobljavanje u jedinstveni etos veberovskih ’racionalizacija‘, vrednosnih sfera nauke, morala i umetnosti [RW]. Uz to, kriza u koju će biti gurnuta nekadašnja „oaza mira“ u Istočnoj Evropi, onu „skrivenu istinu postmodernističke glorifikacije ’kraja čoveka’“, dovela je do „košmarne verodos-tojnosti u kontekstu objektivne socijalne situacije koja joj pogoduje“ [RW]. U nekadašnjoj „oazi mira“, prema scenariju te pripremane krize, temeljno je ućutkana svaka individualna samostalnost, a sa njom i svako pevanje „predskazivača kiše“.

1.Onoga trenutka kada je uzela da za vlastite potrebe koristi zalihe klasične moderne, umetnost je zau-zela stanovište postmodernizma, koje je sugerisalo da moderno doba „sve brže postaje stvar prošlosti“ [RW]. Paradigma tog uzimanja iz zaliha moderne za vlastite potrebe mogla bi biti slika Dieter-a Hac-ker-a „Beckmann, Matisse i Picasso slikaju ženu“, u čijem stvaranju ovaj nemački umetnik poseže za individualnim izrazima ove trojice modernista. Ova je i sâma manieristička i to utoliko što njen autor transponuje različite formalne sadržaje, birajući za njega uotrebljive sisteme i registre. Ono što se tu događa jeste upravo onaj odnos između formalnog i stvârskog sadržaja u umetnosti manierizma u vre-me prtivreformacije, koji (manierizam) je Werner Hofmann tumačio kao jednu od podzida umet-nosti moderne. U poglavlju o „od-slici i tvorevini“, on o tom odnosu u ovom interregnumu utvrđuje:

istorijski i politički stabilne epohe povezuje sa ’pro-žimajućim‘, a istorijski i politički krizne epohe sa ’otvorenim‘ kulturnim formama [ABO, 7]. Manie-rizam on vidi kao kriznu epohu, a njegov umetnički jezik kao otvoren, i zadovoljavajući se konsatacijom o oživljavanju manierizma u 20. veku, o umetnosti druge plovine 16. veka piše kao „epohi u kojoj je ne-uptrebljivost sveta u osnovi celokupnog intelektual-nog, književnog i umetničog rada“, a intelektualca-manieristu vidi kao „izdajnika, u smislu onoga, koji, odbačen od ekonomsko-društvene baze, odbacuje kanoničku ulogu renesansnog umetnika“ [ABO, 8]

Onaj opis stanja stvari u srpskoj umetničkoj kritici bio bi suvišan ekskurs ako bi njegov konačan uvid govorio da su svi umetnici u Srbiji listom podlegli onom uterivanju u kritičarske tzv. teze. Stvarao-ci koji su držali do svoga rada i svog akterstva, međutim, nisu ulazili u one vesele igre kritičarske. Među te stvaraoce u Srbiji spada i Igor Stepančić. On je svoj rad pokazivao uglavnom na samostalnim izložbama, polazeći od vlastitih teza, pristajući od slučaja do slučaja na one grupne izložbe u kojima je prepoznavao svoju ulogu acteur-a. Stvarne raz-loge za nedovoljnu recepciju njegovog stvaralaštva, otuda, treba tražiti drugde, i to pre svega u krizi u koju je već pre toga bio upao modernistički sistem umetnosti. Sa svojim prvim, mladalačkim radovima Igor Stepančić i umetnici njegove generacije, na ondašnjoj jugoslovenskoj sceni, pojavljuju se sre-dinom osamdesetih prošloga veka. Tih godina je ono što se naziva „modernost u užem smislu reči“ već izlazila iz samozavaravanja da je umetnost ta

Video I , “Događaj dana.....”, 1984. VHS, kolor 13’00; Video I , “Evenet of a Day........” , 1984, VHS, color 13’00

•10• •11•

godine. Kako taj video rad, tako i objekti u okviru instalacije prikazane na prvoj samostalnoj izložbi očigledno referišu na vokabular pop-art-a, dakle, ne na umetnost klasične moderne, već na umetnost tzv. posleratne moderne. Kao moto, određujući za svoj rad, u katalogu za prvu samostalnu izložbu, Igor Stepačić uzima stav David-a Smith-a [„Reči koje govorim o umetnosti nisu u čvrstoj vezi sa njenim stvaranjem, niti su uvek smernice ili koris-na objašnjenja ... ako pišem, to nije na račun moga rada.“], a svome radu piše: „Nikada nisam pokušao da nađem korene svoga vizuelnog iskustva. Mislim da je na mene najviše uticalo iskustvo sopstvenog doma. Svi oni kaktusi i biljke, bilo je tu i dosta slika, ali me one nisu zanimale. Ne volim da kopam po prošlosti, niti da tražim vezu sa nečijim mišljenjima. Baš me briga ko je uticao na mene. Ne bojim se da citiram, ne bojim se rukopisa. Postoje iskustva, tuđa ili naša svejedno, koristim ih kako mi je zgodno. Procesi i razlozi mi nisu jasni. Tako, samo osećam“.

Deset objekata ove instalacije jesu „stolice“ koje je počeo da pravi 1984. godine, prilažući ovoj izvornoj grupi nove komade sve do 1996. godine. Pravljene su od gipsa, kartona i platna, oslikane uljanim bojama, sa aplikacijama raznorodnih predmeta, aranžiranim po „sedištima“ i „naslonima“. Iznad svake „stolice“ stajalo je pet autoportreta i pet portreta jedne iste žene. Tlo na kojem su izložene bilo je posuto zele-nim i plavim pigmentom. Bez ovih aplikacija (cvet, kaktus, drvo i sl.), koje je takođe sâm napravio, „sto-lice“ bi podsećale na gipsane suvenire iz pedesetih godina prošlog veka, kakvi se i danas mogu naći po kućama srednje klase. One aplikacije, međutim, do-vode ih u blizinu ranih radova jednog od američkih vodećih pop-art umetnika Claes-a Oldenburg-a (kao što su, na primer, „Ice Cream Being Tasted“, iz 1964. ili „WC“, iz 1966. godine). S druge strane, u okviru ove instalacije, „stolice“ u isto vreme priz-ivaju stvarne stolice iz muzejskih prostora, primerke dizajna poznatih arhitekata, na kojima stoji upozo-

Zagreb in 1987 and Trieste in 1998. Both the video and the objects which were part of the installation exhibited at his first solo show visibly refer to the vo-cabulary of Pop Art, i.e. not the art of the classical Modern, but the art of the so called Post-war Mod-ern. As his motto in the catalogue for his first solo show, Igor Stepančić takes the view of David Smith [“The words I speak about art are not strongly con-nected to its creation, nor are they always pointers or useful explanations ... if I write, it is not on account of my work.”]. About his work, he writes: “I never tried to find the roots of my visual experience. I think that I was mainly influenced by my own home. All the cacti and plants, there were many paintings, but they didn’t interest me. I don’t like to delve into the past, nor to search for a link with somebody’s views. I don’t care who influenced me. I am not afraid to quote, I am not afraid of handwriting. There are experiences, other people’s or our own, I use them as I find useful. The processes and reasons are not clear to me. This is only the way I feel”.

The ten objects from this installation are “chairs” which he began to make in 1984, adding new pieces to this original group up until 1996. They were made of plaster, cardboard, and canvas, painted with oil paints, with various objects as accessories arranged on the “seats” and “backs” of the chairs. Above each “chair”, there were five self-portraits and five portraits of one woman. The floor on which they were exhib-ited was covered in green and blue pigment. Without these accessories (flower, cactus, tree etc.), which he made himself, the “chairs” would be reminiscent of plaster souvenirs from the fifties of the previous cen-tury, which can still be found in middle class houses. However, these accessories bring them closer to the work of one of the leading artists of Pop Art in Amer-ica, Claes Oldenburg (“Ice Cream Being Tasted” from 1964 or “WC” from 1966). On the other hand, as part of the installation, the “chairs” also evoke real chairs from museum settings, examples of designs by

this relation in the interregnum period: “From now on, form is what the artist is capable of recycling after his encounter with vocabularies which are available. Each subject content ... can be transposed into different formal content, and the artist chooses systems and registers that suit him from an entire spectrum of variations.” [WH, 161].

This relation between the formal and subject content in the work of Igor Stepančić appears for the first time in his video work “Event of a Day” from 1984. The following year, he will have had his first solo show under the title “10 Chairs” (Students’ Cultural Centre, Belgrade). He will show the same installation, with slight modifications and amendments (drawings), in

„Forma je od sada ono što je umetnik u stanju da prerađuje iz sučeljavanja sa vokabularima koji mu se nude. Svaki stvârski sadržaj ... dâ se transponovati u različite formalne sadržaje, i umetnik iz celokupne širine varijacija izabira sebi primerene sisteme i regi-stre“ [WH, 161].

Ovaj odnos formalnog i stvârskog sadržaja u stvaralaštvu Igora Stepančića po prvi put se pojav-ljuje u njegovom video radu „Događaj dana“, iz 1984. godine. Sledeće godine, on će imati prvu samos-talnu izložbu, pod naslovom “10 stolica” (Beograd, Studentski kulturni centar), instalaciju koju će, sa neznatnim izmenama i dopunama (crtežima) 1987. godine pokazati u Zagrebu, 1987. i u Trstu, 1998.

SKC Galerija, Beograd, “10 STOLICA”, SKC Gallery, Beograd, “10 CHAIRS”

•13•Stolica razglednica, 1996. razglednice, instalacija

PostCard chair, 1996, postcards, installation

1.

3.

5..

2.

4.

6.

1. “Slon”, 1984, kombinovana tehnika; “Elephant cahair”, 1984, clay, oil paint, 15 x 8 x 8 cm

2. “Stolica Mačka”, 1984, glina, uljana boja; “CatChair 01”, 1984, clay, oil paint, 15 x 7 x 7 cm

3. “MDStolica”, 1984, kombinovana tehnika; “CatChimneyChair”, 1984, clay, oil paint, 15 x 12 x 7 cm

4. “Stolica mačka 02”, 1984, glina, uljana boja; Chair “CatChair 02”, 1984, clay, oil paint, 15 x 15 x 7 cm

5. “Sofa mačka”, 1984, kombinovana tehnika; “CatSofa”, 1984, clay, oil paint, 15 x 10 x 7 cm

6. “SofaMesec”, 1984, kombinovana tehnika; “SofaMoon”, 1984, clay, oil paint, 25 x 10 x 6 cm

•14• •15•

ning of the video titled “Line”, we see drawings and watercolours on a long strip slowly “streaming” down-wards, in this way creating the first of many variations of the “line”. This is followed by scenes with the “line” in its conceptual, metaphoric and allegoric meaning. First, the artist himself in a yoga position (“imaginary line”), followed by the “line” of Igor Stepančić, showing his slim build (in the sense slim-line), the “line” of the flush handhold in the toilet, the “line” of water from a tap, the “line” as breath, the artist himself between open female lips (applying a “line” with lipstick onto transparent tape across his lips), the “line” of the gaze of the artist (catching drawings which are pro-jected to the left and right onto the wall in front of which he is sitting), and then, before the last scene (the “line” of a fish swimming), the only statement from the artist: “Draw-ing is life”.

In search of an answer to the first question, a twofold analogy comes to mind. The years in which Igor Stepančić was already established on the Belgrade art scene were marked by a particular phenom-enon which can be compared with the phenomenon of so called “New British Sculpture”. At the end of the eighties of the previous century, the Belgrade Museum of Modern Art had intended to explore this phenomenon and exhibit it during a year long programme in its Salon.

famous architects, with signs warning visitors not to sit on them. The first question is: Should we in-terpret this installation as flirting with Pop Art, or as a Pop Artistic critique of the culture of classical Modernism?

In the video “Event of a Day” we see the artist leafing through a book on the pages of which we can rec-ognise reproductions of works by artists of classical Modernism. At the same time, on the wall behind him we see a succession of squares with “bubbles” from comic books used by Roy Lichtenstein in his work (in paintings such as: “Mr. Bellamy” from 1961, “We Rose Up Slowly” form 1963, or “Kiss V” form 1964). The second question would, then, be: How should we interpret the relation of this work to Pop Art whose “sensibility has no patience for ideas ... which has nothing but contempt for ratio-

nality and no patience for art ... it finds the past bor-ing: because the past is a traitor” [RW, 191]?

The video works from 1985 maintain the relation to Pop Art and taking up a stance toward other phenomena of Modernism, i.e. Postmodernism, already point to Igor Stepančić’s Mannerist inter-ests. “Video Painting II” from 1985 begins with a scene of male and female hands touching tenderly, followed by a painted plaster figurine of Our Lady. Scenes with male hands cleaning art tools and mak-ing a cross for a crucifixion, while female hands are touching fur, hand cream and nail varnish, are accompanied by the sound of bells. At the begin-

varijanti „linije“. A onda se nižu prizori sa „linijom“ u njenom, konceptualnom, metaforičkom i alegorijskom smislu. Najpre sam autor u joga pozi („imagina-tivna linija“), zatim: „linija“ Igora Stepančića, koji pokazuje svoj vitak stas (u smislu onoga „imati dobru liniju“), „linija“ ručke vodokotlića u toaletu, „linija“ vode koja teče iz česme, „linija“ kao dah, sâm autor u otvoren-im ženskim usnama (nanoseći ružom „liniju“ na providnu tr-aku preko svojih usana), „linija“ pogleda sâmog autora (hvatajući crteže koji naizmenično projek-tuju levo i desno od njega na zidu ispred kojeg sedi), a onda, pre nego što će se pojaviti pos-lednji prizor („linija“ ribe koja pliva), jedini iskaz samog autora: „Crtež je život“.

U traženju odgovora na ono prvo pitanje nameće se jedno poređenje, i to u dvojakom smislu. Godine u kojima se Igor Stepančić već nametnuo beograd-skoj umetničkoj sceni obeležio je jedan fenomen, koji se može up-orediti sa fenomenom tzv. „nove britanske skulpture“. Krajem os-amdesetih godina prošloga veka, beogradski Muzej savremene umetnosti je, u okviru programa svoga Salona, nameravao da taj fenomen istraži i pokaže tokom jednogodišnjeg programa. Taj program je trebalo da, u okviru samostalnih izložbi, predstavi

renje posetiocima da ne sedaju na njih. Da li ovu in-stalaciju – tako glasi prvo pitanje – treba razumeti kao očijukanje sa po-art-om, ili kao pop-artističku kritiku kulture klasične moderne?

U video radu „Događaj dana“ vidimo sâmog umet-nika koji lista knjigu, na čijim se stranicama mogu prepoznati reprodukcije radova umetnika klasične moderne, dok se na zidu iza njega smenjuju kvadrati sa „oblačićima“ iz stripova koje je Roy Lichtenstein koristio u svome radu (za slike kao što su, na primer: „Mr. Bellamy“, iz 1961., „We Rose up Slowly“, iz 1964., ili „Kiss V“, iz 1964. godine). Kako sada – tako glasi drugo pitanje – treba razumeti odnos ovog video rada prema pop-art-u, čiji „senzibilitet nema strpljenja za ideje ... on ima samo prezir za racionalnost, nema strpljenja za umetnost ... prošlost mu je dosadna: jer prošlost je izdajnik“ [RW, 191]?

Video radovi iz 1985. godine, i dalje čuvaju odnos prema pop-art-u, i zauzimajući stav prema drugim fenomenima moderne, odnosno post-moderne, već naznačuju manieristička interesovanja Igora Stepančića. „Video Painting II“, iz 1985. godine, počinje prizorom muških i ženskih šaka, koje se nežno dodiruju, da bi se potom pojavila gipsana i obojena figurica Bogorodice. Prizore u kojima muške šake čiste umetnički pribor, praveći krst za raspeće, dok ženske ruke opipavaju krzno, pomadu za ruke i lak za nokte, prati zvuk zvonâ. Na početku video rada pod naslovom „Linija“, dâ se videti crteži i akvareli na dugačkoj traci koji „teku“ odozgo na dole, uspostavljajući na taj način prvu od mnogih

Video IV “Video painting II-Sculpture”, 1985. U - matic, low band, kolor, 6’; Video IV “Video painting II-Sculpture”, 1985 U - matic, low band, color, 6’

Video II “Linija”, 1985. VHS, kolor 10’ 51”; Video II “Line”, 1985, VHS, color 10’ 51”

•16• •17•

This programme was to show new works by seven artists (Igor Stepančić among them) in solo exhibi-tions. Although they had different approaches and interests, they had in common what the art critics of the time named a “new sensibility”. As in the case of “New British Sculpture” we cannot talk about a movement or group within the phenomenon of “New Serbian Sculpture”. While the works of “New British Sculpture” were systematically pre-sented by the British art critics and British insti-tutions all over the world, the systematic research and presentation of “New Serbian Sculpture” was halted by the crisis which the former “oasis of peace” was pushed into. However, what the author of the text “Discourse and Desire. Recent British Sculp-ture” said about “New British Sculpture”, can also be said about the artists of “New Serbian Sculpture”, Igor Stepančić included, and this is that aside from all the differences in approach and interests of the representatives of recent British sculpture in their work, there is a domain in which their endeavours are mutual. This domain he called the domain of “tension between discourse and presence” [MN, 49]. The author takes both of these terms as genu-inely Modernist, and the new use of the object in new British sculpture he sees as something that by itself naturally proceeds from the “expanded field of sculptural practice during the late sixties and early seventies”, that is to say: from the results achieved by the artists from St Martin’s School of Arts who studied under A. Caro. This new use of the object by British artists of Barry Flanagan’s generation, the author interprets as a distancing from American Minimalist sculpture and the expression of a higher awareness of the social and political implications of art. Thanks to the new “understanding of con-cept, process and context” it “informed the return to object-making” [MN, 52]. Thus, “discourse and presence” found their resolution in the domain of tension, which was brought to its breaking point by artists of Tony Cragg’s generation. Representatives of “New Serbian Sculpture” also set out from this

novije radove sedmoro umetnika (među kojima je bio i Igor Stepančić) različitih pristupa i intereso-vanja, koji su kao zajednički imenitelj delili ono što je umetnička kritika onoga vremena imenovala kao „novi senzibilitet“. Ni ovde se, kod fenomena „nove srpske skulpture“, nije moglo govoriti o nekom pokretu ili grupi, kao što je to bio slučaj i sa fenom-enom „nove britanske skulpture“. I dok su radovi „nove britanske skulpture“ širom sveta sistematski predstavljeni od strane britanske umetničke kritike i britanskih institucija, sistematsko istraživanje i predstavljanje radova „nove srpske skulpture“ bilo je prekinuto krizom u koju je gurnuta nekadašnja „oaza mira“. Pa ipak, i za umetnike „nove srpske skulpture“ uopšte, i za sâmog Igora Stepančića, moglo bi se reći ono što je o fenomenu „nove bri-tanske skulpture“ rekao autor teksta, utvrđujući da i pored svih distinkcija u pristupima i interesovan-jima predstavnika novije britanske skulpture rado-vima, postoji jedna ravan u kojoj oni dele probleme. Tu ravan o je imenovao kao ravan „tenzije između diskursa i prisustva“ [MN, 49]. Obe ove odrednice autor teksta uzima kao genuino modernističke, a novi angažman objekta u novoj britanskoj skulp-turi vidi kao nešto što gotovo samo po sebi razum-ljivo sledi iz „proširenog polja skulptorske aktivnosti tokom kasnih šezdesetih i ranih sedamdesetih“, što će reći: iz postignuća do kojih su došli umet-nici sa Saint Martin’s School of Art, okupljenih u klasi A. Caro-a. Onaj novi angažman od strane britanskih skulptora generacije Barry-a Flanagan-a autor ovog teksta tumači kao otklon od američke minimalističke skulpture i očitovanje više svesti o socijalnim i političkim implikacijama umetnosti, koji će, zahvaljujući novom „razumevanju koncepta, procesa i konteksta dovesti do pravljenja objekata“ [MN, 52]. Svoje razrešenje, dakle, „diskurs i prisus-tvo“ nalaze u ravni tenzije, koju su do pucanja doveli britanski umetnici generacije Tony-a Cragg-a. I pripadnici „nove srpske skulpture“ su, polazeći od takvog novog razumevanja, iako udarajući različitim putevima, od problematizovanja skulp-

“IZGUBLJENE ILUZIJE”, 1988. instalacija,TK Galerija, Trst, ; “LOST ILLUSIONS”, 1988, installation TK Gallery, Trieste,

•18• •19•1988. TK Galerija, Trst, “CRTEŽ-INSTALACIJA”; TK Gallery, Trieste, “DRAWING-INSATLLATION”

•20• •21•

new understanding, although heading in different directions, from the problematization of the late Hellenistic period, through the translation of Mod-ernist painting into objects, and the problematiza-tion of the relation between sculpture and furniture, to the translation of “cultural landscape” into object. Towards the end of the eighties, Stepančić took the last direction establishing a “tension between the fragment and the whole”. The “cultural landscape” will be mentioned at a later stage. Coming back to his first solo show, it only remains for us to conclude that his installation with the “chairs” was not flirting with Pop Art, but an interpretation of the relation-ship between material (in the sense given to this term by Peter Bűrger, in his “Theory of the Avant-garde”) and process. Above all, his “chairs” refer to the new punk culture, as was the case with the early work of Tony Cragg, which emerged within “New Romanticism”. This is the reason why, when choos-ing the motto of his exhibition, Igor Stepančić,

ture kasnohelenističke epohe, preko prevođenja modernističke slike u objekt i problematizovanja odnosa skulpture i nameštaja, do prevođenja „kul-turnog pejsaža“ u objekt, kojem se krajem osamde-setih okrenuo Igor Stepančić, uspostavljajući „tenz-iju između fragmenta i celine“. O ovom „kulturnom pejsažu“ će biti govora u narednom poglavlju. Ovde ostaje da, vraćajući se na njegovu prvu samostalnu izložbu, utvrdimo da instalacija sa „stolicama“ nije bilo nikakvo očijukanje sa pop-art-om, već inter-pretacija odnosa materijala (i to, u onom smislu koji ovom terminu daje modernistička kritika, na primer, Peter Bürger, u svojoj „Teoriji avangarde“) i procesa. Njegove „stolice“ referišu, pre svega na novu punk-kulturu, baš kao što je to bio slučaj i sa ranim radovima Tony-a Cragg-a koji su prolazili razvoj u okviru „novog romantizma“. I upravo zato, polazeći od novog razumevanja koncepta, procesa i konteksta, Igor Stepančić za moto svoje izložbe bira statement David-a Smith-a, onog umetnika čija

1986. SC Galerija, Zagreb, “TERAKOTTAMBIJENT”; SC Gallery, Zagreb, “TERAKOTTAMBIJENT”

•22• •23•

It reveals a “new regressive quality in art, that it feels good in reality” and establishes a new credo by which “the frivolity of life in consumer society should cor-respond to the frivolity in art” [RW, 190].

Along with the installation (“10 Chairs”) and the video piece (“Event of a Day”), the environment “20 Years Later”, which Igor Stepančić exhibited in 2005 (Student Cultural Centre, Belgrade) and later in the National Museum in Prijepolje in 2006, completes a chapter in his work. This environment comprised eight portraits of art historians, who in one way or another participated in Belgrade art life, and the artist’s self-portrait. Both the portraits and the self-portrait were painted from photographs. Below them were captions with details of the professional positions of the people in the portraits in 1985, the “first” year, and 2005, the “last”. Under the self-portrait the legend said: “Igor Stepančić - 1985 / Young Artist”. Below these were the names of dishes and their recipes, which he himself invented guided by culinary literature and his own cu-linary experience. On plates, set at little tables in front of the portraits and self-portrait, there were simulacra of the designated dishes. The environment was com-pleted by pieces of clothing, which accompanied the portraits and self-portrait. Beside the plates with the “dishes” were photographs which he used for the paint-

building on the new understanding of concept, pro-cess and context, uses a statement by David Smith, an artist whose art is on the borderline between Modern-ism in the classical sense and American Minimalism, whose “cult of the rectangle” will be overthrown with the emergence of artists of the first generation study-ing under A. Caro.

Any answer to the second question has to begin from the obvious use of Pop Art vocabulary in the video piece “Event of a Day”. The intention of this video is to bring face to face the medium of the book and its own medium on the one hand, and Modernism in a general sense with Pop Art on the other. In this way, Pop Art is already defined as a phenomenon outside of Modernism. In his experiment, directed toward the sphere of aesthetic rationalisation, the author of the observation about the formation of a Postmodern view point, said that “the values of this period were es-sentially metaphysical and homocentric illusions, that we have to free ourselves from history and historic thinking in general”. He recognises the first manifes-tations of Postmodern mentality in Pop Art, and calls them: an indefinite repeatability of a work, creating a fetish of mass-produced goods, and a feeling of po-litical and cultural resignation. This state of affairs, which he called “a new marriage between art and the state of fact”, indicates the return to representation.

Zajedno sa onom instalacijom (“10 stolica”) i onim video radom („Događaj dana“), evironment „20 go-dina posle“, koji je Igor Stepančić pokazao 2005. go-dine (Beograd, Studentski kulturni centar), a zatim u prijepoljskom Narodnom muzeju 2006. godine, zaokružuje jednu celinu u njegovom stvaralaštvu. Ovaj environment je sadržao osam portreta istoričarâ umetnosti, koji su na ovaj ili onaj način učestvovali u umetničkom životu Beograda, i umet-nikov autoportret. Kako portrete, tako i svoj auto-portret Igor Stepančić je radio prema fotografijama. Ispod portretâ i autoportreta stajale su inskripcije sa podacima o profesionalnim položajima portreti-sanih osoba „prve“, 1985. i „poslednje“, 2005. godine. Ispod autoportreta je stajalo: „Igor Stepančić-1985/mladi umetnik – 2005/samo umetnik“. Ispod ovih su stajali nazivi jela i njihove recepture, koje je sâm sastavio na osnovu kulinarske literature i vlastitog kulinarskog iskustva. U tanjirima, postavljenim na stočićima, ispod portretâ i autoportreta, sta-jali su simulakrumi imenovanih jela. Environment zaokružuju delovi odeće, koji idu uz portrete i autoportret. Pored tanjira sa „jelima“ stajale su fo-tografije od kojih je polazio, kao i noćne lampe, sa belim „ženskim“ i crvenim „muškim“ abažurima. Na poleđini plakata, koji je služio kao katalog za ovu izložbu, nalazila se krojačka karta sa fotografijama „određujućih“ delova odeće. Uz to, dve vešalice za

umetnost predstavlja graničnik između moderne u klasičnom smislu i američkog minimalizma, čiji će „kult pravougla“ biti porušen sa pojavom umetnika prve generacije okupljene u klasi A. Caro-a.

Svaki odgovor na ono drugo pitanje mora poći od očigledne upotrebe pop-artističkog vokabulara u video radu „Događaj dana“. Intencija ovoga video rada je, zapravo, ta da sučeli medij knjige i vlastiti medij, s jedne, i modernu u njenom opštem smis-lu sa pop-art-om. Time je ovaj već definisan kao fenomen s one strane moderne. U svome ogledu, usmerenom na sferu estetske racionalizacije, autor onog uvida o zauzimanju stanovišta postmodern-izma, koje je govorilo „da su vrednosti ove epohe bile u suštini metafizičke i homocentričke iluzije, da se moramo osloboditi istorije i istorijskog mišljenja uopšte“, prve manifestacije postmodernističkog mentaliteta prepoznaje u pop-art-u, i imenuje ih kao: beskonačnu ponovljivost dela, fetišizaciju robe široke potrošnje i osećaj političko- kulturne rezignacije. Takvo stanje stari, koje on imenuje kao „novi brak između umetnosti i činjeničkog stanja“, ukazuje na povratak reprezentaciji, razotkriva „novo regresivno svojstvo umetnosti da se dobro oseća u stvarnosti“ i uspostavlja novo ‘vjeruju’ po kojem „frivolnost života u potrošačkom društvu treba da odgovara frivolnosti umetnosti“ [RW, 190].

“20 Godina posle....”, 2005. instalacija, fotografija, platno, plastika, cca 80 x80x 180 cm; “20 Years After....” 2005, installation, photographs, canvas, plastic

•24• •25•

act, about rooting oneself in time, in the image of the past” (Stevan Vuković, “Twenty Years Later”, Catalogue for the Exhibition “20 Years Later”, Student Cultural Centre, Belgrade, 26th October - 5th November 2005) The author of the text for the catalogue of the same environment exhibited in the National Museum in Prijepolje, finishes the text with these words: “Thus, identity becomes a group of contextual attributions as part of the multidirectional communication between the subjective positions of the representant and the re-ceptor, based on objective positions. Accordingly, the portrait too surpasses meaning with visual representa-tion and moves to the complex system of communica-tion between presentation and recognition. Hence, for the spectators at the exhibition “Twenty Years Later” it is not important that they recognise the individuals in the portraits, that the visual attribution is in accor-dance with the subjective characterisation, but that it can serve as a model for developing the ability to see

ings and night lamps with white “female” and red “male” lampshades. On the back of the poster, which was also the catalogue for the exhibition, there was a sew-ing pattern with photographs of the “signifying” pieces of clothing. Alongside that, two clothes hangers with the years 1985 and 2005 printed, whose metal hooks (“male” and “female”) formed the number 20. The au-thor of the text for the catalogue of the exhibition in the Student Cultural Centre, writes: “At the exhibition, which takes place twenty years after his initial, and also, in terms of the art system, initiating independent proj-ect, Stepančić demonstrates a system for the coding of memory through the spatial arrangement in the gallery, as well as through the personages, who happened to be present at the initial event, but in such a way that par-tial reconstruction is a substitute for direct reflection. Memory has access to the show only through elaborat-ed and contextualised artefacts. These artefacts convey a narrative concerning the recurrence of the first public

Narodnom muzeju, završava ovako: „Identitet tako postaje skup kontekstualnih atribucija kao dela višesmerne komunikacije između subjektivnih pozicija reprezentanta i receptora, zasnovane na objektivnim pozicijama. Samim tim, i portret je nadišao značenje vizuelne reprezentacije i prešao u taj složeni komunikacijski sistem predstavljanja i prepoznavanja. Stoga za posmatrača izložbe ‘Dvadeset godina posle’ nije bitno da li prepoznaje ‘portretisane’ ličnosti, da li je vizuelna atribucija u skladu sa subjektivnom karakterizacijom, već to da ona može da mu posluži kao model za razvijanje sposobnosti sagledavanja ljudi u sopstvenoj okolini, ali pre svega – sâmog sebe“ (Sava Ristović, „Mislim, dakle vidim“, kat. izl. „20 godina posle“, Prijepolje, Narodni muzej, april 2006. godine). Dok autor tek-sta za katalog izložbe iz 2005. godine u ovom video radu kao određujući ističe „sistem kodiranja sećanja“, autor teksta za katalog izložbe iz 2006. godine u ovom istom video radu kao određujući ističe prela-

odeću, sa utisnutim godinama, čiji metalni držači („muški“ i „ženski“) tvore broj 20. Autor teksta za katalog izložbe u beogradskom Studentskom kul-turnom centru, između ostalog, piše: „Na izložbi koja se odigrava dvadeset godina nakon njegovog inicijalnog, te i u sistem umetnosti inicirajućeg sa-mostalnog projekta, Stepančić demonstrira sistem kodiranja sećanja u prostornoj konstelaciji galeri-je, kao i u likovima koji su se na tom inicijalnom događaju zadesili, ali tako da delimična rekon-strukcija nadomešta direktnu refleksiju. Tu sećanje ima pristup postavci tek kroz obrađene i ambijen-talizovane artefakte, koji u sebi nose narativ o po-navljanju prvog javnog čina, o ukorenjivanju sâmog sebe u vremenskom toku, u slici prošlosti“ (Stevan Vuković, „Nakon dvadeset godina“, kat. izl. „20 go-dina posle“, Beograd, Studentski kulturni centar, 26. oktobar-5. novembar 2005.) Autor teksta za katalog ovog environment-a, postavljenog u prijepoljskom

“20 Godina posle....”, 2005. instalacija, detalj; “20 Years After...”, 2005, installation, detail “20 Godina posle....”, 2005. instalacija, detalj; “20 Years After...”, 2005, installation, detail

•26• •27•

people in their own environment, and above all - them-selves.” (Sava Ristović, “I Think, Therefore I See”, Cata-logue for the Exhibition “20 Years Later”, Prijepolje, National Museum, April 2006). While the author of the 2005 exhibition catalogue points to a “system for the coding of memory” in this video piece, the author of the 2006 catalogue points out the transition of vi-sual representation to “a complex system of commu-nication between presentation and recognition” as the defining aspect of the same video piece. In one way or another, both authors associate this environment with a Proustian search for “lost time”. In doing this, the first author opts for the relationship between recon-struction and reflection, while the other chooses the relationship between thinking and seeing. Taking into account what has been said here about the video piece “Event of a Day” and the installation “10 Chairs”, what Igor Stepančić juxtaposes in the environment “20 Years Later” are the vocabulary of Pop Art, already taken as part of the resources of Postodernism, and the vocabu-lary of Beuysian personal objects. Two elements of the environment predominantly point to this. Pointing in the direction of Pop Art are the portraits and self-portraits, which were transferred to the photographic medium after being painted and then cut into pieces of a puzzle. In this way, almost compulsively, they evoke Lichtenstein’s and Warhol’s numerous works of a simi-lar type, one of which is, for example, Warhol’s remake of Cézanne’s portrait of his wife. Pointing in the direc-tion of Beuysian personal objects and of the insistence on the crucial role of the artist in the betterment of the world as the ultimate art work, is the sewing pattern, evoking Beuys’s clothing items, which he exhibited in his environments, and also the clothing items which were placed by the exhibited portraits and self-portrait as determinators. At the end of the nineties of the previous century, Igor Stepančić will take this juxtapo-sition as a starting point for his work within what I called “Art in the Web Space”.

zak vizuelne reprezentacije u „složeni komunikaci-jski sistem predstavljanja i prepoznavanja“. I jedan i drugi autor na ovaj ili onaj način ovaj environment dovode u blizinu prustovske potrage za „izgubljenim vremenom“, pri čemu se prvi opredeljuje za odnos rekonstrukcije i refleksije, a drugi za odnos mišljenja i viđenja. Uzimajući sad u obzir ono što je ovde rečeno o video radu „Događaj dana“ i instalaciji „10 stolica“, ono što Igor Stepančić međusobno sučeljava u environment-u „20 godina posle“ jesu vokabular pop-art-a, već uzetog kao deo zaliha post-moderne, i vokabular bojsovskih ličnih objekata. Na to, pre svega, upućuju dva elementa ovog environmenta. U pravcu pop-art-a, to čine oni portreti i autoport-reti, koji su posle slikanja preneti u medij fotografije, a potom po sistemu puzzle-a iskrojeni u sastavne delove, gotovo po prinudi prizivajući Lichtenstein-ove i Warholov-e brojne radove sličnoga tipa, kakav je, na primer, Warholov-a prerada Cézanne-ovog portrteta svoje žene. U pravcu bojsovskih ličnih objekata, insistiranja na presudnoj ulozi umetnika u poboljšanju Zemlje kao konačnog umetničkog dela, to čini upravo ona krojna karta, prizivajući Bueys-ove delove odeće, koje je ovaj izlagao u svojim environmentima, a onda i komadi odeće koji kao određujući stoje pored izloženih portreta i autopor-treta. Ovo sučeljavanje, uostalom, Igor Stepančić će krajem devedesetih prošloga veka uzeti kao polazište za svoje radove u okviru onoga što sam nazvao „um-etnost u web polju“.

“20 Godina posle....”, 2005. instalacija, katalog naslovna; “20 Years After...”, 2005, installation, catalogue cover

•28• •29•

In order to understand this group of Igor Stepančić’s works we need certain clarifications. Firstly, in the expanded field of sculpture which marks the field of activity of Postmodernism, according to the ob-servation by Rosalind Krauss, there are two valid characteristics in place, one of which “refers to the practice of individual artists, while the other one is involved with the question of media”. According to this observation, it is not the media that define the practice of the Postmodern Condition, but its “relation to logical operations in a series of cultural terms”. The rupture experienced by Modernism on these two points lead to the possibility of “using any medium - photographs, books, the line or walls, mirrors and even sculpture itself. Consequently, “that which appears as an eclectic form from one point of view, can be seen as strictly logical, from another”. What was resolved as not-architecture/not-landscape in sculpture, as Rosalind Krauss concludes, in Postmodern painting can be resolved

2. Stepančić’s installation “Drawing - Space - Object”, shown in the Students’ Cultural Centre, Belgrade in 1986, was an introduction to the field of “cultural landscape”. Here, elements of a single drawing de-part from its two dimensionality through the use of colour and three dimensional objects, pigment and rope, which were spread across the gallery in such a way that moving through the space became equiva-lent to seeing a drawing. The floor of the gallery was once more covered with pigment, blue, green and white, this time. Video recordings of empty Italian squares were projected onto one of the gallery walls. This was the artist’s first statement on the subject which several of his later installations will develop into an artistic viewpoint on building as “colere” and building as “aedificare”. This statement also contains Aristotle’s concept that a city should be developed and cared for, so that people can live not only freely but also happily in it.

Za razumevanje ove grupe radova Igora Stepančića ovde su neophodna sledeća objašnjenja. Kao prvo, u proširenom polju skulpture koje označava oblast postmodernizma, prema uvidu Rosalind Krauss, u snazi su pre svega dve odlika, od koji jedna „brine o praksi individualnih umetnika, dok druga ima posla sa pitanjem medija“. Unutar stanja postmod-erne, prema istom ovom uvidu, nisu mediji ono što definiše njenu praksu, već „relacija sa logičkim op-eracijama na skupini kulturnih termina“. Ruptura koju je u ovim dvema tačkama doživeo modern-izam dovela je do toga da može „biti upotrebljen svaki medij – fotografija, knjiga, linija ili zidovi, ogledala, pa i sâma skulptura“. Utoliko, „ono što se sa jedne tačke gledišta pojavljuje kao eklektička forma, sa druge tačke gledišta može biti viđeno kao strogo logično“. Ono što se u prostoru skulpture razrešilo u not-architecture/not- -landscape, kako zaključuje Rosalind Krauss, u postmodernom pros-toru slikarstva moglo bi se razrešiti u skupini „koja

2.Uvođenje u područje „kulturnog pejsaža“ predstav-ljala je instalacija Igora Stepančića pod naslovom “Crtež – prostor - objekat”, koja je 1986. godine pokazana u beogradskom Studentskom kulturnom centru. Ovde elementi jednog jedinog, izloženog crteža iz svoje plošnosti izlaze posredovanjem boje i trodimenzionalnih objekata, pigmenta i kanapa, prostrtih i razvučenih po galeriji, tako da se kre-tanje po prostoru galerije izjednačava sa viđenjem crteža. Pod galerije opet je posut pigmentom, ovoga puta: plavim, zelenim i belim. Na jednom zidu ga-lerije projektovani su video-zapisi praznih italijan-skih trgova. Bio je to prvi autorov iskaz o onome što će nekoliko njegovih kasnijih instalacija dovesti do stvaralačkog stava o gradnji „kao colere i gradnji kao aedificare“, do stava koji sadrži i Aristotelovu reč da grad valja podizati i čuvati tako da u njemu ljudi žive ne samo bezbrižno nego i srećno.

SKC Galerija, Beograd, “CRTEŽ-PROSTOR-OBJEKAT”, 1986. instalacija, kombinovana tehnika;

SKC Gallery, Beograd, “DRAWING-

SPACE-OBJECT”, 1986, installation,

mixed media

SKC Galerija, Beograd, “CRTEŽ-PROSTOR-OBJEKAT”, 1986. instalacija, kombinovana tehnika;

SKC Gallery, Beograd, “DRAWING-

SPACE-OBJECT”, 1986, installation,

mixed media

•30• •31•

not only as a right, but as the duty of the Manner-ist artist. He starts solely from his own stipulations, rejecting all normative ideas, and inclines toward Be-lori’s “fantastic idea which does not rely on imitation”. Underlining that Mannerist art does not exclude rigid structure in an ornamental sense, and that the Man-nerist artist shares a subjective tendency toward ver-ticalism with the Gothic artist, this author concludes that here it is not important to re-create the object “as ‘it is seen’ ... or as an individual sees it in its appearance in an individualistic way - ‘as I see it’ - but ... ‘how it is not seen’, but is wanted to be seen that way on the basis of distinctly artistic autonomous motives” [WF, 52 and further]. Another author sees the character-istic moment of Mannerist art in the inner dualism and tension which tend toward “a strict reduction of the image as a whole “. Allowing for artistic freedom, this art was “opposed by the dogma of researchability and learnability, i.e. of the possibility of systematising

within the group “which would probably adhere to the opposition uniqueness/reproducibility”[RK].

Secondly, there was a similar solution in the work of Tony Cragg, for instance. It would suffice to look at his works which dealt with the interpretation of the relation between material and process. This is the case in his work “Britain seen from the North”, from 1981, or the sculptures which he had shown for the first time at the exhibition in the Toselli Gallery in Milan, which have “(... the subject of ) landscape, but in a way which showed landscape not as natural, but as a cat-egory produced within culture” [MN].

Thirdly, lets have a look at the characteristics of Mannerist art singled out by certain authors, whose authority on this period of Art History is still valid today, despite their frequently contradictory opinions. One of them sees the use of all ways of understanding

poimanja jedan od njih vidi ne samo kao pravo nego i kao dužnost manierističkog umetnika. U tome korišćenju, on polazi samo od vlastitih uslovljenosti, odbacujući svaku normativnu ideju, a priklanjajući se belorijevskoj ’fantastičnoj ideji koja se ne oslanja na oponašanje’. Podvlačeći da manieristička umetnost ne isključuje strogu konstrukciju u ornamentalnom smislu, i da sa gotičkim umetnikom manieristički umetnik deli subjektivističku sklonost vertikalizmu, ovaj autor zaključuje da tu nije stalo do ponovnog stvaranja objekta „onako ‘kako ga se vidi’ ... niti onako kako ga pojedinac na individualan način sagledava u njegovoj pojavnosti - ‘kako ga ja vidim’ – već do toga ... ‘kako ga se ne vidi’, ali se želi da tako bude viđen temeljem izrazito umjetnički autonom-nih motiva“ [WF, 52 i dalje]. Onaj karakteristični momenat manierističke umetnost drugi autor vidi u unutrašnjem dualizmu i napregnutosti, koje ipak teže „strogom sažimanju celine slike“. Ova umetnost

bi se verovatno okrenula opoziciji uniqueness/re-priducibility“ [RK].

Do sličnog razrešenja, a to je ono drugo, došlo je u stvaralaštvu Tony-a Cragg-a, na primer. Dovoljno je pogledati one njegove radove koji su obuhvatali interpretaciju relacije materijala i procesa, kao što je njegov rad „Britain Seen from the North“, iz 1981. godine, ili one skulpture koje je po prvi put poka-zao na izložbi u milanskoj galeriji Toselli, koji za temu imaju „landscape, ali na način koji je landscape pokazao ne kao prirodni, već kao kategoriju proiz-vedenu unutar kulture“ [MN].

Kao treće, pogledajmo koje to karakteristike manierističke umetnosti izdvajaju oni autori, čija merodavnost u ovom području istorije umetnosti, uprkos njihovim često protivrečnim stavovima, i danas ostaje u snazi. Korišćenje svake mogućnosti

SKC Galerija, Beograd, “CRTEŽ-PROSTOR-OBJEKAT”, 1986. instalacija, kombinovana tehnika;

SKC Gallery, Beograd, “DRAWING-

SPACE-OBJECT”, 1986, installation,

mixed media

•32• •33•

artistic creation, so that it was the fear of threatening subjectivist despotism, that may have even contrib-uted to attributing particular significance to this dog-ma”. However, as the ideal of all the characteristics, he emphasises the Lomazzian „figura serpentinata”. [EP, 75 and further]. A third author sees the main feature in the conscious rejection of the “didactic and informative tasks of an artwork and direction of the spectator’s attention “only toward art”. [WH, 162].

In the “Postmodern Mannerism” of Igor Stepančić, some of these features appear for the fist time in his

„se i priznavanjima umetničke slobode, dakle, ipak suprotstavlja dogma o poučljivosti i naučljivosti, to jest o mogućnosti sistematizovanja umetničkog stvaranja, tako da je upravo strah od inače preteće subjektivističke samovolje možda čak doprineo tome da se ovoj dogmi prida sasvim poseban značaj“. Kao ideal svih karakteristika, međutim, on podvlači lomacovsku „figurae serpentinata” [EP, 75 i dalje]. Treći kao osnovnu karakteristiku vidi u svesnom odbacivanju „didaktičko-informativnih zadataka umetničkog dela i usmeravanju pažnje posmatrača ‘samo na umetnost’“ [WH, 162].

Richard Demarco Gallery, Edinburgh, “CAThedrals”, 1987.; Richard Demarco Gallery, Edinburgh, “CAThedrals”, 1987

“Monument to a Known Artist”, 1986., kombinovana tehnika, cca120x90x100 cm; “Monument to a Known Artist”, 1986, mixed media, cca120x90x100 cm

•34• •35•

installation “CATheadrals” in 1987. The installation comprised reliefs (objects) on the walls of the gallery, which, as silhouettes, three times repeated the theme of Edinburgh and its cathedrals: a) a silhouette of the city and above it an upside down cathedral reflecting the sky, b) a silhouette of two cathedral crosses form which pieces of decorative sculpture were hung with wire cables, and c) a silhouette of the “hollow” dome of the Edinburgh Cathedral.

The same spirit of “specific objects” features in the works from his 1988 solo show in the Salon of the

Belgrade Museum of Contemporary Art. They rep-resented silhouette “frescoes” of monuments, the ca-thedral and the city. The author of one of the texts for the catalogue of this exhibition notes that “the scenes speak through ‘meraviglie’ and create their own emblems. Thus, the cat becomes the emblem of the Cathedral (CAT-hedral)”. She underlines: “These works, these ‘constructions’, inevitably ‘use’ the space in which they find themselves, but not through a ten-dency toward mise en scène or sculpture, or some sort of installation, but exclusively by way of the image, the painted scene, by creating a fantastic narrative frieze, an “illusion” of a fresco in which the wall becomes their component and unifying part” (Lidija Merenik, “Igor Stepančić”, catalogue for the exhibition “Igor Stepančić”, Belgrade, Salon of the Museum of Con-

U „postmodernističkom manierizmu“ Igora Ste-pančića neke od onih karakteristika pojavljuju se po prvi put u okviru njegove instalacije, koju je poka-zao 1987. godine, u edinburškoj „Richard Demarco Gallery“, pod naslovom “CAThedrals”. Instalaciju su činili reljefi (objekti) na zidovima galerije, koji su u formi silueta tri puta tematizovali Edinbourgh i edinburške katedrale: a) silueta grada i iznad nje obrnuto postavljena katedrala, koja reflektuje nebo, b) silueta dvaju katedralskih krstova, na kojima, sajlama vezani, vise delovi dekorativne plastike, i c) silueta „šuplje“ kupole edinburške katedrale.

Isti ovaj duh „specifičnih objekata“ karakteriše i ra-dove koje je 1988. godine pokazao na samostalnoj izložbi u Salonu beogradskog Muzeja savremene um-etnosti. Oni su predstavljali siluetne „freske“ spome-nika, katedrale i grada. Autor jednog od tekstova za katalog ove izložbe, primećujući da „prizori govore kroz ‘meraviglie’, stvarajući sopstvene ambleme“, pa će mačka „postati amblem Katedrale (CAT-hedral)“, podvlači: „Ovakvi radovi, ‘konstrukcije’, neminovno ‘upotrebljavaju’ zatečeni prostor, ali ne težnjom ka inscenaciji, ka skulpturi ili nekoj vrsti instalacije, već isključivo slikom, slikanim prizorom, stvaranjem fantastičnog narativnog friza, ‘iluzije’ freske, gde zid postaje njihov sastavni i ujedinjujući činilac“ (Lidija Merenik, „Igor Stepančić, kat. izl. „Igor Stepančić“, Beograd, Salon Muzeja savremene umetnosti, 11.-

“Monument with blue spoon...”, 1987. kombinovana tehnika, 150x20x150 cm.; “Monument with blue spoon...”, 1987, mixed media, 150x20x150 cm.

1. “CAThedral II”, 1986, akril na platnu, 330 x 100 cm; “CAThedral II”, 1986, acryl on canvas

2. “CAThedral III”, 1986. platno, drvo, akrill, 360x320 cm “CAThedral III”, 1986, canwas, wood, acryl,

3. “CiTies III”, 1988. akril na drvetu, 330x350 cm; “CiTies III”, 1988, acryl on wood

1. 3.2,

•36• •37•

Salon Muzeja savremene umetnosti, Beograd, “SPOMENIK, KATEDRALA, GRAD”, 1988; Salon Museum of contemporary Arts Gallery, Beograd, “Cities”, 1988

•38• •39•

image of two chairs and a table, with cutlery and vari-ous fruit and vegetables on it. The image of the art-ist is projected onto the chopping board. A young woman dressed in black approaches the table, sits on the chair, and starts chopping the fruit and vegetables over the artist’s face. After thoroughly executing her job, she sits at the piano and abandons herself to mu-sic. Now, as if suggesting one of Archimboldo’s por-traits of the Seasons the artist sits at the table with the chopped fruit and vegetables. His face appears on the chopping board again, this time in different variations of the mirroring. In a sort of Reinerian Ubermahlung, the artist applies white paint over the surface which now shows previously seen images in succession.

The second video by Igor Stepančić, “The Merchants of Venice”, from 1995, is also directly related to the in-stallation “Unknown Collection by a Known Artist”, which he showed in the Belgrade National Museum, the same year. The starting point for this installation is Tintoretto’s “Virgin Mary with Child and Bene-factor”, from the collection of the Belgrade National Museum. On the other hand, Stepančić translates

temporary Art, 11 - 29 February, 1988). The author of the second text for the catalogue of this exhibition recognises in these works “an emphatically personal world” and underlines: “With a consistent exactness of each move, with confident and subtle relations between material, colour and form, Stepančić’s work emerges as a refined and authentic art narrative, at the same time realistic and abstract, prepared to guard and defend its integrity calmly and with balance” (Dragica Vuković, “Igor Stepančić”, catalogue for the exhibition “Igor Stepančić”, Belgrade, Salon of The Museum of Contemporary Art, 11 - 29 February, 1988).

Two video works and an installation by Igor Stepančić can be closely related to this group of works. First of the two videos titled “Ah, Love”, was made in 1986. This video begins with images of paintings: “Pope In-nocent X” by Velasquez, “Study for Pope Innocent X” by Francis Bacon, from 1962, and an “Onement” by Barnett Newman. Between these images the follow-ing captions appear: “Baroque is the last great collective rise of mind”, „Love always unexpected new individual rise of mind“ and “Evolution does not equal Progress”. Following the reproductions of the paintings are an

gress“. Iza reprodukcija onih slika sada sledi prizor sa dve stolice i stolom, na kome se nalaze pribori za jelo o razno voće i povrće. Na dasci za seckanje voća i povrća projektuje se lik autora. Mlada žena obučena u crno prilazi stolu, seda u stolicu i preko autorovog lika secka voće i povrće, da bi najposle na komade isekla i fotografiju sa likom autora. Pošto je temeljno obavila svoj posao, seda za klavir i prepušta se muzici. Sada za onaj sto koji sa iseckanim voćem i povrćem kao da nagoveštava jedan od Arcimboldo-ovih portreta-godišnjih doba, seda autor. Na dasci za seckanje voća i povrća pojavljuje se ponovo njegov lik, ali sada u raznim varijantama ogledalnog. Preko te površine, na kojoj se suksecivno ponovo pojavlju-ju već viđeni prizori, autor u nekoj vrsti Reiner-ovog Übermalung-a nanosi belu boju.

Drugi video rad Igora Stepančića „The merchants of Venice“, iz 1995. godine, opet, stoji u neposred-noj vezi sa instalacijom, koju je te iste godine, pod naslovom „Nepoznata zbirka poznatog umetnika“, prikazao u beogradskom Narodnom muzeju. Polazište za ovu instalaciju predstavlja Tintoretto-ova slika „Bogorodica s detetom i ktitorom“, iz zbirke

29. februar 1988.). Autor drugog od tekstova za katalog ove izložbe u ovim radovima prepoznaje, pre svega, „naglašeno lični svet“ i podvlači: „Dosled-nom tačnošću svakog poteza, sigurnim a suptilnim odnosima materijala, boje i forme, Stepančićev rad se pojavljuje kao pročišćena, autentična likovna povest, jednovremeno realna i apstraktna, spremna da mirno i uravnoteženo čuva i brani svoj integritet“ (Dragica Vuković, „Igor Stepančić, kat. izl. „Igor Stepančić“,Beograd, Salon Muzeja savremene um-etnosti, 11.-29. feburar 1988.).

U neposrednu vezu sa ovom skupinom radova, međutim, mogu se dovesti i dva video rada i jedna instalacija Igora Stepančića. Prvi od ova dva video rada, pod naslovom, „Ah Love“, Igor Stepančić je realizovao još 1986. godine. Ovaj video rad počinje prikazima slika: „Papa Inoćentije X“ Velasquez-a, „Studija za papu Inoćentija X“, iz 1962. godine, Francis-a Bacon-a, i jedan „Onement“ Barnett-a Newman-a. Između ovih prikaza pojavljuju se titlo-vi sa tekstovima: „Baroque is the last great collective rise of mind.“, „Love always unexpected new indivi-dual rise of mind.“ i „Evolution nije jednako Pro-

Video V “Ah, love”, 1986. U - matic, low band, kolor, 14’ ; Video V “Ah, love”, 1986, U - matic, low band, color, 14’

Video VI “Mletaåki trgovci”, 1995. Beta-SP, kolor, 13’ 27”; Video VI “The Merchants of Venice”, 1995, Beta-SP, color, 13’ 27”

•40• •41•

Christian architecture, it was the source of the Ren-naissance’ in its decline.” Tintoretto’s painting in the Venetian art colleciton of the National Museum in Blegrade, has a dominant position, placed on the right side of the entrance to the adjoining room, opening for the observer a view of the collection of Northern Baroque. On the left hand side of that entrance Igor Stepančić places the main element of his installation: a reproduction of Tintoretto’s “Virgin Mary with

an excerpt from a Peter Fuller text for the touring exhibition “The Genius of Venice”, organised by the English Royal Academy of Arts, and puts it on the back of the leaflet which served as an affiche for his installation. The excerpt states: “As John Ruskin, pas-sionate admirer of Venice, once said: ‘Venice, which was once the most religious country in Europe, be-came the most corrupt in its decline; and although in its strength it was the centre of the pure currents in

mpiranija u svom padu; a ako je po snazi bila centar čistih tokova hrišćanske arhitekture, ona je u svom padu bila izvor renesanse’“. Tintoretto-ova slika, u okviru kolekcije venecijanskog slikarstva, u beograd-skom Narodnom muzeju, zauzima dominantno mesto, stavljena, od posmatrača gledajući, sa desne strane prolaza u susednu salu, koji posmatraču otvara pogled na salu sa kolekcijom severnjačkog baroka. Sa leve strane tog prolaza Igor Stepančić sada stav-

beogradskog Narodnog muzeja. S druge strane, iz teksta Peter-a Fuller-a za katalog putujuće izložbe „Mletački genije“, organizovane od strane engleske Kraljevske akademije, Igor Stepančić prevodi jedan izvadak i stavlja na poleđinu letka koji je služio kao afiš za njegovu instalaciju. Taj izvadak glasi ovako: „Kako je onaj vatreni obožavalac Venecije, John Ruskin, jednom rekao: ‘Venecija, koja je nekada bila najreligioznija evropska država, postala je najkoru-

Narodni muzej, Beograd, “NEPOZNATA ZBIRKA POZNATOG UMETNIKA”, 1995. tondo 230 cm, instalacija, akril na fotografiji; National museum, Beograd, “THE MERCHANTS OF VENICE”, 1995, tondo 230 cm, installation, acryl on photograph.

•42• •43•

based on the painting of an eminently Mannerist artist, it symbolically offered something else as well. The necktie around the benefactor’s neck represented entry to Modernity (from then on, it increasingly replaced the bow-tie), while the mobile phone rep-resented entry to the Postmodern Condition. The mirroring relation between the original and the re-production with these additions had its hinge in the Social Realist painting by Boža Ilić (The Sounding of New Belgrade). Transposing the title of Shake-speare’s comedy into plural, Stepančić translates the scenes from the opening of his exhibition into a video piece titled “The Merchants of Venice”. However, by doing this he does not engage in a pursuit of any of the categories that Achile Bonito Oliva saw as Man-nerist in the work of this writer. He is concerned

Child and Benefactor” executed in the photographic medium and varnished with turpentine and wax, placed in a such a way that Tintoretto’s original and the reproduction are mirroring one another. He adds a mobile phone in the hands of the child Chirst and a necktie around the neck of the benefactor. On the table placed at the entrance to the room just in front of the painting “The Sounding of New Belgrade”, which is one of the icons of Social Realism, there was an abundance of food, from game, pork, and cheeses, to all sorts of vegetables and fruit, all made according to recipies and arrangements of Dušan Štulić, chef from Novi Sad. The scene was completed by a chamber orchestra playng baroque music and several models in clothes from the Baroque period. The whole scene offered a feast for the body and soul, but, having been

inentno manierističkog umetnika, simbolički nudio još nešto. Kravata oko ktitorovog vrata predstavljala je ulazak u modernu (od tada sve više zamenjujući leptir-mašnu), dok je mobilni telefon predstavl-jao ulazak u postmoderno stanje. Ogledalni odnos originala i reprodukcije sa ovim dodacima svoj šarnir imao je u onoj socrealističkoj slici Bože Ilića.

Prenoseći naslov Shakespeare-ove komedije u plu-ral, prizore sa otvaranja svoje izložbe Igor Stepančić prevodi u video-rad pod naslovom „The merchants of Venice“. Ovim prenošenjem u plural naslova jed-nog od Shakespeare-ovog komada on se, međutim, ne upušta u traganje za, na primer, nekom od onih kategorija koje je kao manierističke Achile Bonito Oliva izveo iz stvaralaštva ovog dramskog

lja noseći elemenat svoje instalacije: na reprodukciji Tintoretto-ove „Bogorodica s detetom i ktitorom“, urađene u mediju fotografije premazane terpenti-nom i voskom, i to tako da se Tinto re t tov original i reprodukcija odnose ogledalno, u ruke malog Hris-ta domeće mobilni telefon, a oko ktitoro vog vrata kravatu. Na trpezi, postavljenoj ispred ulaza u salu, neposredno ispred slike „Sondiranje Novog Beogra-da“, jedne od ikona socijalističkog realzma, stajalo je obilje hrane, od mesa divljači, preko prasećeg mesa, sireva, do raznog povrća i voća, sve to po receptima i u aranžmanu novosadskog kuvara Dušana Štulića. Prizor su upotpunjavali kamerni sastav gudača, koji je izvodio baroknu muziku, i nekoliko manekenki u odeći iz vremena baroka. Prizor u celini nudio je naslade i za duh i za telo, ali je, polazeći od slike em-

Narodni muzej, Beograd, “NEPOZNATA ZBIRKA POZNATOG UMETNIKA”, 1995. instalacija; National museum, Beograd, “THE MERCHANTS OF VENICE”, 1995, installation.

•44• •45•

with juxtaposing the corporeal and the spiritual, and this juxtaposition finds its meaning in the reiteration of two scenes: one which shows the “Golden Calf ” (a detail from one of the paintings from the same collec-tion in the National Museum) and another which, in

a close up, shows an angelic head of a child who was present at the opening of

the exhibition, accompanied by passages from H. Goretzky’s

“Symphony No. 3”.

3. At the beginning of 1991, Igor Stepančić started a series of works

with three important characteristics of Manner-

ist art as defining elements. Two of these have already been

mentioned: “figura serpentinata” and the ornament. The third is the mir-

ror. He introduced this instrument of the Mannerist sprezzatura into his art in one of the works which he had exhibited in Palac Sztuki in Krakow, as part of the group ex-

hibition “Europe Unknown”. This work comprises nine mirror pieces, on top of which lie nine circu-lar saws (figura serpentinata) made of steel. An eye taken from Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus” appears at the round holes in the saws.

The “Eye of Venus” should also be taken as a fea-ture of Mannerism, above all because Mannerism responded to the central perspective of Renaissance by starting from the eye, from its physiological shape, and lead, for instance, to Parmigianino’s Self-portrait from 1524. In order to interpret the “over turn of the political and moral world” as the point of “analogy between the Renaissance as it draws its last breath and Modern times” [GRH], one of the greatest au-

pisca. Njemu je ovde stalo do sučeljavanja telesnog i duhovnog, koje (sučeljavanje) svoju poentu nalazi u opetovanju dveju scena: jedne, koja prikazuje „Zlat-no tele“ (detalj jedne od slika iz iste kolekcije Naro-dnog muzeja) i druge, koja u krupnom planu prika-zuje anđeosku glavu deteta prisutnog na otvaranju izložbe, i koja je praćena delovima iz „Simphony no. 3“ H. Goretzky-og.

3. Početkom 1991. go-dine Igor Stepančić je otpočeo seriju radova koji u sebi, i to kao određujuće elemente, sadrže tri bitne karak-teristike manierističke umetnosti. Od ovih su dve već pomenute: „figura serpetina-ta“ i ornament. Treća je ogledalo. Ovaj instrument manierističke sprezattura je u svoju umetnost uveo sa jednim od dva rada koja je pokazao u krakovskoj Palac Sztuki, u okviru grupne izložbe „Europe Unknown“. Taj rad je sastavljen od devet komada ogledala, preko kojih leži devet cirkularnih testera (figura serpentinata) od čelika. Iz okruglih otvora na testerama pojavljuje se oko skinuto sa Botticelli-je-vog „Rođenja Venere iz morske pene“.

Ovo „Venerino oko“ valja takođe uzeti kao karakte-ristiku manierizma, i to pre svega zbog toga što je ovaj, polazeći od njegovog fiziološkog oblika, odgo-vorio na renesansu centralnu perspektivu, i doveo do, na primer, Parmigianino-ovog „Autoportreta“, iz 1524. godine. I upravo da bi „prevrnuće političkog i moralnog sveta“ protumačio kao tačku „analogije između renesanse na izdisaju i modernog doba“ [GRH], jedan od najboljih poznavalaca umetnosti

“1989”, čelik, bakar, 230 x 125 x 30 cm; “1989”, steel copper, 230 x 125 x 30 cm

“Vatching Venus”, 1991. čelična testera, tuš,

oglrdalo, 30 cm “Vatching Venus”, 1991, steel plates,

ink, mirror, 30 cm

•46• •47•

thorities on the art of Mannerism takes this painting by Parmigianino as an example. On the other hand, except for the period of Mannerism, the eye had been given little attention up to the second half of 20th cen-tury, even though it had an important role in the art profession. Even from the second half of 20th century onwards, the eye, as an iconographic element, was given little attention respectively. According to one research, however, the eye of God and the apotropaic eye were indeed represented in antiquity and in Christian art, but it was always a secondary motif [CG]. The same research observes that during the previous centuries, it seems, only two artists dealt with the eye in an explicit way: Bosch, in the painting “Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things” (Prado) and in the drawing “The Owl in the Hollow Tree Listening Wood and Seeing Field” (Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin) and Grandville in the “Oeillade” and “First Dream: Crime and Expiation” sheets. Even though it is “our means of communication with the beauty of the world”, “a magnificent object of study for the artists, as symbol and as form” [CG], the eye as a theme gained interest only in Modern art. The author of this study could point to explicit treatment of the eye as iconographic content only in a few exam-ples. Starting form Redon’s “The Eye Like a Strange Balloon Mounts Toward Infinity” from 1882, through the representation of the eye on Klee’s canvases (such as “Glance of Landscape” from 1926), to Magritte’s paint-ing “The False Mirror”. This work by Magritte reveals in its title the artist’s course of thought. The thoughts establish a particular connection between the eye and the mirror, “whose employment, ultimately, is Manner-ist art” [ABO]. However, in Magritte’s case, it is not a “position of impartiality”. Although, like a mirror, the eye can reproduce the outer world, it can do that, but it doesn’t have to. This is why, in Magritte’s painting, it is a “false” mirror. It is a title, “whose bitter humour declares ‘false’ as laudable and ‘true’ as reproachable; the mirror gives a correct reproduction, but, being mechan-ical, it remains an imperfect instrument for the percep-tion of the world; it can enchant the senses, but it fails

manierizma uzima za primer ovu Parmigianino-ovu sliku. S druge strane, oku je, izuzimajući vreme manierizma, pridavana manja pažnja sve do druge polovine dvadesetog veka, iako ono igra veliku ulogu u životu i profesiji umetnika. Pa i od druge polovine dvadesetog veka na ovamo, oku je kao ikonograf-skom elementu, pridavana srazmerno manja pažnja. Prema jednom istraživanju, oko Božije i apotropeja kao oko, doduše, jesu pokazivani u starini i hrišćan-skoj umetnosti, ali su uvek ostajali pomoćni motivi [CG]. Isto istraživanje donosi uvid da su, tokom prethodnih vekova, kako se čini, samo dvojica umet-nika oko tretirali na izričit način: Bosch sa slikom „Sedam smrtnih grehova i četiri poslednje stvari“ (Prado) i sa crtežom „The Owe in the Hollow Tree, Listening Wood and Seeing Field“ (Kupferstichka-binett, Berlin) i Grandville, na listovima „Oeillade“ i „First deram – Crime and Expiation“. Taj „veličan-stveni objekt studije za umetnika, kao simbol i kao forma, iako naše sredstvo komunikacije sa lepotom sveta“ [CG], tek je moderna umetnost dovela do interesovanja za oko kao temu. Uprkos tome, i u okviru moderne autor ove studije mogao je da uka-že na izričiti tretman oka kao ikonografskog sadrža-ja tek na nekoliko primera, polazeći od Redon-ove litografije „The Eye like a strange Balloon mounts toward Infinity“, iz 1882. godine, preko reprezen-tacije oka na određenim Klee-ovim platnima (kao što je, na primer, „Glance of Landscape“, iz 1926. godine), do Magritte-ove slike „The False Mirror“. Ovaj Magritte-ovo rad svojim naslovom otkriva tok umetnikovih misli, koje uspostavljaju naročitu vezi između oka i ogledala, čije „stavljanje u pogon konačno jeste manieristička umetnost“ [ABO]. U Magritte-ovom slučaju, međutim, ono nije „mesto nepristrasnosti“. Iako oko, kao i ogledalo, može da reprodukuje spoljašnji svet, ono to može da učini, ali ne mora. Zbog toga je ono kod Magritte-a ’lažno‘ ogledalo, naslov „čiji gorki humor deklariše ’lažno‘ kao vredno pohavle, a ’ istinito‘ kao vredno pokude; ogledalo donosi korektnu reprodukciju, ali, budući

“Vatching Venus”, 1991. čelična testera, tuš, oglrdalo, 110 x 110 cm “Vatching Venus”, 1991, steel plates, ink, mirror, 110 x 110 cm

•48• •49•

a pool of blood and with an eye in the hollow of the circular. The second self-portrait titled “Self-portrait”, is a mirror in the shape of a parallelepi-ped, with two heads of Botticelli’s “Venus” placed in a mirroring relationship at the top and at the bottom.

to feed the soul; the eye, being selective, can... reveal meaning and leave out the vulgar” [CG].

In 1992, as part of his installation “Known Artist. Works 1991” in the Galeria Juliet’s in Trieste, Igor Stepančić showed four new pieces in which the mirror was the dominant element. In the first piece, using the contours from Botticelli’s “Venus”, he placed three mir-rors on three important parts of a fe-male figure, and gave it the title “Venus”. The two cherubim from Botticelli’s “Venus” appear in the self-portrait titled “Well Balanced Self-portrait”. They are represented as mirroring images, and understandably, we do not know which is mirroring which. Between them is a metronome with the head of “Venus” on the weight, into which the cherubim are blowing. The work titled “Portrait” (“God”) comprises four mirrors. The previously mentioned circular saw was placed over of one of them, this time in

naslovom “Self-Portrait“, jeste paralelopipedno ogledalo sa glavom Botticelli-jeve „Venere“, postavljenom, u ogledalnom odnosu, na njegovom vrhu i na njegovom dnu.

da je mehaničko, ono ostaje neavršeni instrument za percepciju sveta; ono može da očara čula, ali pod-bacuje u ishrani duše; oko, budući da je selektivno, može... da otkrije značenje i izostavi ono vulgarno“ [CG].

U tršćanskoj Galeria Juliet’s, u okviru svoje insta-lacije pod nazivom “Known Artist. Works 1991”, Igor Stepančić je 1992. godine pokazao nova če-tiri rada, na kojima je dominantni elemenat bilo ogledalo. Na prvom je, ovoga puta od Botttice-lli-jeve „Venere“ preuzimaujući njene konture, postavio tri ogledala na tri bitna mesta ženske figure, dajući mu naslov „Venera“. Na autoportre-tu pod naslovom ”Well Balanced Self-Portrait”, urađenom na ogledalu pojavljuju se zapravo dva heruvima sa Bottticelli-jeve „Venere“, od kojih je jedan ogledalan, pri čemu mi, razume se, ne zna-mo koji je to od njih dva. Između dva heruvima je metronom, na čijem je tegu glava „Venere“, u koju heruvimi duvaju. Rad pod naslovom „Portrait“ („God“) sastoji se od četiri ogledala. Preko jed-nog od ova četiri ogledala postavljena je već po-menuta „testera“, sada u crvenoj boji krvi, sa okom u šupljini ovog crikulara. Drugi autoportret, pod

“Dobro izbalansirani portret”, 1991, kombinovana tehnika, 80x50x30 cm.; “Well balanced portrait”, 1991, mixed media, 80x50x30 cm. “Venera”, 1991, akril na platnu, ogledalo,230x145 cm;“Venus”, 1991, acryl on canvas, mirror, 230x145 cm.“Bog”, 1991. mixed media, 200x30 cm.; “God”, 1991, mixed media, 200x30 cm.

“Self-object”, 1991. kombinovana tehnika, 120x5 cm.; “Self-object”, 1991, mixed media, 120x5 cm.

•50• •51•

Iste, 1992. godine Igor Stepančić je u beogradskoj Galeriji Udruženja likovnih umetnika Srbije, poka-zao instalaciju pod naslovom „Kolekcija 1990“. Ova je obuhvatala dvanaest ogledala u drvenim okviri-ma. Oblik ramova je preuzeo od oblika Hitlerovih bečkih bunkera, koje je gledao iz kupole katedrale St. Stephan-a. Ispod ogledala, i to tako da po pravi-lu ulaze u margine između ogledala i okvira, nalaze se tri vrste crteža: ruke, pribor za jelo i crteži vrtova

Also in 1992, Stepančić exhibited the installation “Collection 1990” in the Gallery of ULUS (Asso-ciation of Fine Artists of Serbia) in Belgrade. The exhibition encompassed twelve mirrors in wooden frames. He borrowed the shape for the frames from Hitler’s Viennese bunkers which he observed from the dome of St Stephen’s Cathedral. Under the mir-rors, visisble as margins between the mirrors and the frames, there were three types of drawings: drawings

Kolekcija 1992, Galerija ULUS, Beograd, 1992. TV adaptacija izložbe; ULUS Gallery, Beograd, “COLLECTION 1990”, Video stills.

Kolekcija 1992, Galerija ULUS, Beograd, 1992. tri serije od po četiri rada, drvo, olovo, ogledalo, tuš 40 x 40 cm svaki;

ULUS Gallery, Beograd, “COLLECTION 1990”, three times four pieces, wood, lead, mirror, ink, 40 x40 cm each.

Beč, bunkeri, drugi svetski rat; Wien, bunkers, WWII.

•52• •53•

je fotografiše i reprodukuje. Naručiocu je izgledalo da je ta kolekcija ono pravo, shvatio je da umetnici i postoje zato što umeju da izraze ono što je naručio-cu potrebno. Dvanaest radova iz ove kolekcije, kako stoji dalje u ovom iskazu, Igor Stepančić je pretvorio u dvanaest svojih crteža. „Tek kada su bili gotovi i uramljeni“, tako završava iskaz, „shvatih šta sam ura-dio. Od sâmog sebe sam naručio Kolekciju crteža. Krug je bio zatvoren kao u naspramnim ogledali-ma. Crteži su postali deo Kolekcije. Nisam uspeo da prevarim Poznatog Umetnika. Narudžbina je izazvala narudžbinu kao sopstveni lik u ogledalu“. Na ovom mestu se, opet gotovo samo po sebi razu-mljivo, nameće poređenje sa jednim tekstom Ado-lf-a Loos-a, istog onog koji je pokrenuo časopis, čiji je podnaslov deklarisao njegovu nameru da uvede

iz Keltske knjige. U vreme trajanja ove izložbe Igor Stepančić je izveo performans, tokom kojeg je obe-dovao za stolom. Na stolu su pored serviranog jela stajale dve knjige, „Keltska knjiga“, iz koje je preuzi-mao ornamente, i knjiga na kojoj je bila prevrnuta stranica sa reprodukicjom Dürer-ovih ruku, sa nje-gove studije ruku sa Biblijom, koja se danas nala-zi u minhenskoj Zbirci grafika. U statement-u za ovu izložbu Igor Stepančić piše, kako su ga iskustvo druženja sa umetnicima i obilazaka njihovih ateljea nagovorili da za svoj privatni prostor kupi jednu sliku. Pošto je razaznao da u tom prostoru kuplje-na slika ne zrači umetnost koliko u ateljeu njenog autora, vrati je umetniku. Iza toga, uđe u „atelje poznatog umetnika“ i objasni mu svoju neutoljivu potrebu za umetnošću. Zapisavši svoja zapažanja, ovaj mu napravi kolekciju, sa izričitom zabranom da

collection for him, explicitly prohibiting any photo-graphing or reproduction. The buyer found that the collection was the real thing, he realised that artists exist because they can express what the buyer needs. Further in his statement, it is said that Igor Stepančić made the twelve pieces from this collection into twelve drawings of his own. The statement ends with these words: “Only when they were finished and framed, I realised what I had done. I ordered a collection of drawings from myself. The circle was closed like mir-rors facing each other. The drawings became part of the Collection. I didn’t manage to trick the Known Artist. The order incited another order like its own image in the mirror”. Here, again, almost naturally, what comes to mind is an analogy with a text by Adolf Loos, the person who started a periodical, the

of hands, cutlery and gardens form the Celtic Book. During the course of the exhibition, Stepančić staged a performance, in which he dined at the table. On the table, apart form the meal, there were two books, “The Celtic Book”, from which he had taken the ornaments, and a book which was open at a page showing a re-production of Dürer’s hands, from his study of hands with the bible, which is now in the Munich print col-lection. In his statement for the exhibition, Stepančić describes how his experience while socialising with artists and visiting their studios persuaded him to buy a painting for his private space. As he realised that in this space the painting did not emanate art as much as it did in the artist’s studio, he returned it to the art-ist. After that he enters “the studio of a Known artist” and explains to him, his insatiable need for art. Hav-ing written down his observations, the artist makes a

REPLAY ®, 2002. kadrovi iz TV priloga; REPLAY ®, 2002, TV stills ULUS Galerija, Beograd, “REPRIZA ®”, 2002.;ULUS Gallery, Beograd, “REPLAY ®”, 2002.

“OKO, 2002. 4 komada po 50 x 50 cm, print; “EYE”, 4 pieces, 50 x50 cm each, 2002.

•54• •55•

naslovom „Repriza ®“, pokazao dopunjenu varijantu ove izložbe. Po površinama dvanaest ogledala sada su padale projekcije očiju. Ramovi su urađeni u tri boje: četiri žute, četiri braon, četiri sive. Tokom pro-jekcije pojavljuje se autorovo oko, u kome se posle svakog njegovog treptaja simultano smenjuju figure Botticelli-jeve „Venere“ i Rubens-ove „Helena-e Fo-urment“.

4. Ova manieristička sprezattura ogledala u radovima Igora Stepančića našla je svoj izraz i na jedan drugi način. U tom smislu, karakteristična su dva rada, koji tematizuju ogledalni odnos.

Prvi od ta dva rada, pod naslovom „For Sale, Sold Out“, iz. 1993. godine, sastoji se od dva dela: na fo-tografskim podlogama sa ornamentisanim prikazi-ma cveća, leže dva pisma. Umetnik je, naime, pret-hodne godine kod Fondacije Fulbright konkurisao za dobijanje stipendije. Iako je dobio stipendiju, Fondacija Fulbright ga (to je prvo pismo) obave-štava da ovu ne može koristiti u okviru zvanične međunarodne saradnje. Američka ambasada u Be-ogradu da (to je drugo pismo) obaveštava da, upr-kos tome što je dobio stipendiju, ne može putovati u Sjedinjene države. Umetnik je imao tu nesreću da stipendiju dobije u vreme kada su nad jednim delom nekadašnje „oaze mira“ zavedene sveopšte sankcije. Da li je umetnik znao za jedan razgovor koji su krajem pedesetih godina, u bašti njujorškog hotela „Plazza“, vodili jedan evropski umetnik i onaj američki umetnik, čiji je jedan „Onement“ ugradio u svoj video rad „Ah Love“? Okupani svetlošću za-lazećeg Sunca, koju je Kip Slobode ravnom merom delio i na jednog i na drugog učesnika tog razgovora, onaj američki, sa razumljivim oduševljenjem za po-redak na zemaljskom šaru, upitao je evropskog, da li primećuje kako u Americi, tu u Njujorku, nastaje nova Atinu. Zagledan u Kip Slobode, tako kazuje

moderni život u Austriju. U tom tekstu, Adolf Loos pripoveda o čoveku koji poziva arhitektu i od njega traži umetnost. Ovaj izbaci sav njegov nameštaj iz kuće, „dovede vojsku parketara, lakera, zidara, liči-laca, stolara, instalatera, lončara, tapetara, slikara i kipara ... i lepo spremiše umetnost u četiri zida bo-gataševa“. Pošto je najposle sve bilo ugurano, tako da više nije bilo mesta za neki novi komad nameštaja, ni za neku novu sliku, tako da mu je arhitekta za-branio svaku novu kupovinu, u bogatašu se dogodi preobražaj. „Niko mu više nije smeo prirediti vese-lje. Bez želje morao je prolaziti pored prodavnica u gradu. Za njega se nije više ništa proizvodilo. Niko između njegovih milih nije mu više smeo pokloniti svoju sliku, za njega ne postoje više slikari, ne posto-je umetnici, ni obrtnici. Bio je isključen od svega bu-dućeg života i stremljenja, zbivanja i želja. Osećao je: sada treba naučiti nositi svoj vlastiti leš. Dabogme! On je gotov! On je kompletan!“ [AL]. Tačno deset godina posle ove izložbe, u istoj Galeriji Udruženja likovnih umetnika Srbije, Igor Stepančić je, pod

[AL] Exactly ten years after this exhibition, in the same Gallery of ULUS (Association of Fine Artists of Serbia), Igor Stepančić exhibited an extended ver-sion of this show, under the title “Replay ®”. This time, eyes were projected onto the surfaces of the twelve mirrors. The frames were made in three colours: four yellow, four brown and four grey. During the projec-tion, the artist’s eye appears, in which after each blink, figures of Botticelli’s “Venus” and Rubens’s “Helene Fourment” alternate simultaneously.

4. This Mannerist sprezzatura of mirrors found its expression in yet another way in the works of Igor Stepančić. Two works which deal with the theme of mirroring are representative in this respect.

First of the two titled “For Sale, Sold Out” from 1993, consists of two parts: two letters lie on photographic backgrounds with ornamental images of flowers. Namely, the artist applied to the Fulbright Founda-tion for a grant. Although he received the grant, the Fulbright Foundation informed him that he could not use it within the frame work of official international collaboration (this is the first letter). The American Embassy in Belgrade informed him that, despite re-ceiving the grant, he cannot travel to the USA (that is the second letter). The artist had the misfortune to receive the grant during the period when overall sanc-tions were enforced on one part of the former “oasis of peace”. Did the artist know of a conversation that took place at the end of the fifties in the garden of the New York Plazza Hotel between a European artist and the American artist whose “Onement” he had in-corporated into his video “Ah, Love”? Bathing in the light of the setting Sun, which the Statue of Liberty equally divided on both participants in the conversa-tion, the American, understandably delighted with the order in the world, asked the European if he had noticed how a new Athens was forming in America,

subtitle of which declared his intention to bring mod-ern life to Austria. In this text, Adolf Loos talks about a man who invites an architect to produce art for him. The architect throws all the furniture out of his house, “brings in an army of floor layers, varnishers, bricklay-ers, house-painters, carpenters, fitters, potters, uphol-sters, painters and sculptors... and they fitted art nicely within the rich man’s four walls”. After squeezing ev-erything back in again, so that there was no space left for a new piece of furniture, or a new painting, and so that the architect forbade him to make any new purchases, the rich man experienced a transformation. “No one was allowed to arrange a celebration for him any more. He had to pass by the shops in the city without desire. Nothing was made for him any more. None of his dearest were allowed to give him a pres-ent of their photograph, and painters didn’t exist for him any more, nor did artists nor artisans. He was ex-cluded from all future life and endeavours, events and desires. He felt: now I need to learn how to carry my own corpse. Indeed! He is finished! He is complete!”

ULUS Galerija, Beograd, “REPRIZA ®”, 12 crteža, 42 x 30 cm svaki, 2002.;ULUS Gallery, Beograd, “REPLAY ®”, 12 drawings, 42 x 30 cm each, 2002.

•56• •57•

makers) not only of large exhibitions within long in-stitutionalised biennials, triennials and quadrennials, but also of large and important exhibitions, in which the authors started questioning the relationship be-tween the Modern artist and the world of Modernity, saw the main source of the crisis in the proliferation of imitators who removed the artist from the stage and made themselves “celebrities”. The art system was further falling apart, in spite of the leading experts or-ganising an entire congress on this subject, at the end of the century. In so far as the diagnosis of the illness called “celebrity” was correct, the imitators self pro-moted into “celebrities” continued not only gleaning

institucionalizovanih bienala, trienala i kvadrienala, nego i velikih i značajnih izložbi, kojima su njihovi njihovi autori uzeli da propituju odnos umetnika moderne prema svetu života moderne, kao glavni izvor te krize prepoznali su proliferaciju podraža-vaoca, koji su skinuli umetnika sa pozornice gradeći se u „estradne zvezde“. Sistem umetnosti urušavao se i dalje, uprkos tome što su ovoj temi ti isti vodeći stručnjaci krajem veka posvetili čitav jedan kongres. Koliko god da je dijagnoza o bolesti zvanoj „estrad-na zvezda“ bila tačna, podražavaoci samopromovi-sani u „estradne zvezde“ su i dalje nastavili ne samo sa pabirčenjem, nego i sa naručivanjem „radova“, koji

pripovest, ovaj mu je odgovorio kako sa svoje strane strahuje da će u Americi, pa i tu u Njujorku, nastati nova Sparta. Duhovni razvoj moderne, nažalost, izneverio je nadanja američkog, a opravdao straho-vanja evropskog umetnika. Onaj kult umetnosti, koji je Jean Clair nazvao religijom „koja okuplja čla-nove nove Eclesia-e modernog čovečanstva“ [ŽK, 8] krajem prošloga veka, sa stvaranjem novog poretka na zemaljskom šaru, uzdrman je toliko temeljno da je počeo da se ljulja čitav sistem umetnosti. Kriza tog sistema očitovala se na mnogo načina. Vodeći stručnjaci u tom sistemu, komesari (Exhibitionsma-kers) ne samo velikih izložbi u okviru već odavno

right there in New York. Gazing at the Statue of Lib-erty, as the story goes, the other replied that he feared a new Sparta will be established in America, and right there in New York too. Unfortunately, the spiritual development of Modernity failed the hopes of the American and justified the fears of the European art-ist. The cult of art, which Jean Clair called a religion “that gathers members of a new Ecclesia of modern mankind” [ JC, 8] was shaken so fundamentally by the creation of a new order in the world, at the end of the last century, that the whole system of art began to rock. The crisis was evident in many ways. Leading experts in the system, the commissioners (exhibitions-

“For Sale, Sold Out”, diptih, 1993. kombinovana tehnika, 140 x280cm; “For Sale, Sold Out”, diptich, 1993, mixed media, 140 x280cm

•58• •59•

for themselves, but also commissioning “works”, which were supposed to create arguments for their so called theses about the political, spiritual, and every other situation, predominantly in the so called countries in transition. Their insight into artistic practice and pro-duction was just about the same as the insight of the large media houses into the reality of events in these countries. Precisely that kind of insight into the real-ity of events turned the acteur into spectateur, just as it turned the reality of events (imago) into a spectacle. Now, the imago turned into spectacle was offered to the unconcerned spectator from a safe distance. Just like the Mannerist artist, “rejected from the economic and social base” [ABO], the artist of the Postmod-ern Condition begins to realise that the “political and moral order in the world ... has turned upside down: the universe is no longer a harmonious cosmos, it is terribilità” [GRH].

The second work with a mirroring relation, titled “To Have or To Be”, was created in 1994. In it, Igor Stepančić puts the position of the Postmodern Man-nerist into a mirroring relation. This piece uses pho-tography as a medium and comprises two parts. The first (“To Have...) shows the artist’s branded (Bruno Magli, Mont Blanc, Dupont, Sony) personal belong-ings, alongside price-lists: shoes, pencil-case, cigarette case, lighter, silver beads, dictaphone, powder case, sil-ver business card box, on an open leather case. The second (“To Be”) had middle class (ready-made) per-sonal belongings arranged on a painting canvas. It was similar to the first group, with the same powder case as in the first part. Two arrangements in a mirroring relation, where we cannot determine which has the position of the decumanus and which of the cardo. However, what we can discern is the place of the artist between these two, in the moment when “from now on, the power of artistic representation has to be an expression of a higher principle, which is at the same time capable of ennobling and saving the person tal-

je trebalo da donesu argumentaciju njihovim tobo-žnjim tezama o političkom, duhovnom i svakom drugom stanju, poglavito u tzv. zemljama u tranzi-ciji, u čiju su umetničku praksu i produkciju imali taman onoliko i onakvog uvida koliko i kakvog su imale velike medijske kuće u stvarnost događaja u tim zemljama. Taman onoliko i onakvog uvida u stvarnost događaja, s jedne strane, pretvaralo je onog acteur-a u spectateur-a, kao što je, s druge strane, tu stvarnost događaja (imago) pretvaralo u spektakl. Sada se imago, pretvoren u spektakl, nudio nezabri-nutom posmatraču sa bezbedne udaljenosti. Poput onog manierističkog umetnika „odbačen(og) od ekonomsko-društvene baze“ [ABO], umetnik pos-tmodernog stanja počinje da shvata da se „politički i moralni poredak sveta ... prevrnuo: univerzum više nije harmonični kosmos, on je terribilità“ [GRH].

Drugi rad sa tim ogledalnim odnosom, pod naslo-vom „To Have or To Be“, nastao je 1994. godine. U njemu je Igor Stepančić u ogledalni odnos stavio up-ravo poziciju postmodernističkog manieriste. Ovaj rad, izveden u mediju fotografije, sastoji se od dva dela. Prvi („To Have...) prikazuje na kožnoj mapi aranžirane umetnikove tzv. firmirane (Bruno Magli, Mont Blantc, Dupont, Sony) lične stvari, zajedno sa cenovnicima: cipele, pernica, tabakera, upaljač, sre-brne brojanice, diktafon, pudrijera, srebrna kutijica za vizit karte...), ili (... or) drugi (To Be“), na slikar-skom platnu aranžirane tzv. srednjostaleške (kon-fekcijske) lične stvari, po vrsti srodne onima sa prve, ali i ista ona pudrijera sa kožne mape. Dve pozicije u ogledalnom odnosi, o kojem nikako ne možemo saznati koja je pozicija decumanus-a, a koja pozicija cardo-a. Ono što možemo prepoznati, međutim, jeste mesto umetnika između ovoga dvoga, i to u onom trenutku u kojem „i moć umetničkog pred-stavljanja od sada mora da bude izraz jednog višeg principa, koji je istovremeno u stanju da čoveka ob-darenog za umetnost oplemeni i izbavi iz neposto-janosti i rastrzanosti koje mu prete“ [EP].

“Imati ili biti”, diptih, 1994. kombinovana tehnika, 110 x 80 cm; “To Have or To Be”, 1994, mixed media, 110 x 80 cm

•60•

ented for art from the impermanence and chaos that threaten him” [EP].

The terribilità of the over turned universum acquired its real dimensions in April 1999, when it became clear that the logic of political pragmatism lies in the concept of recycling. No matter how correct, the eviction of the artistic individual form the scene as a diagnosis had recognised only one of the epiphenomena of a

profound crisis. The root of this crisis was in something far deeper: in the dominance of political ideas over art, whose cult had lost the meaning of Mod-ernist faith. In the

same way, Mannerism represented the definitive victory of political over religious ideas, according to Ranke’s formula-

tion (at the end of the seventh book of his History of the Popes). We are reminded of this in Nicolaus Pe-vsner’s polemic against Werner Wisbach’s theses [NP, 112]. The Mannerist artist spoke “a language that was articulated, elaborated and refined, a golden tongue of beauty and caprice, and not the language of force, incoher-ence and desperation” [ JSh, 182]. In the same way, from his position in the threatening terribilità of Postmodernity, in the case of Igor Stepančić, the “crossing of the cardo and the decumanus”, the Postmodern artist, chose the third el-ement, whose language sprezzatura requires fighting the labyrinth, that “becomes the antipode of what is ‘indulgent’ for the soul” [GRH]. From this terribilità, or better still, in

Ono terribilità prevrnutog univerzuma dobilo je svoje realne dimenzije. aprila 1999. godine, kada se pokazalo da logika političkog pragmatizma počiva na konceptu reciklaže. Koliko god, dakle, da je bila tačna dijagnoza o izbacivanju umetnikove individue sa scene, ona je prepoznala tek jedan od epifenome-na temeljne krize. Suština te temeljne krize nalazila se u nečemu mnogo dubljem: u prevazi političkih ideja nad umetnošću, čiji je kult izgubio smisao one modernističke vere, baš kao što je, prema Ranke-ovoj fomulaciji (na kraju sedme knjige njegove Po-vesti papa,), na koju nas, u svojoj polemici protiv teza Wener-a Wisba-ch-a, podseća Nikolaus Pevsner, manierizam predstavljao definitivnu pobedu političkih ideja nad verskima [NP, 112]. I baš kao što je manieristički umetnik govorio „jezikom koji je artikuliran, ra-zrađen i profinjen, zlatoustim jezikom ljepote i kaprica, a ne jezikom silovi-tosti, nepovezano-sti i beznađa“ [ JSh, 182], umetnik pos-tmodernog mani-erizma je, iz svoje pozicije u onoj pretećoj terribilità postmoderne, koja (pozicija) se u slučaju Igora Stepančića može odre-diti kao „secište decumanus-a i cardo-a“, izabrao onaj treći elemenat, čija jezička sprezattura hoće da se izbori sa lavirintom, koji „postaje antipod onome što je ’propustljivo‘ za duh“ [RGH]. Iz te terribilità, ili bolje reći u njoj sâmoj, Igor Stepančić je potra-žio dva stvaralačka izlaza, i to kao „bekstvo spolja“ i „bekstvo unutra“. Posle višegodišnje pauze otvorio je svoja dva vlastita početka: rad na jednom multi-medijalnom projektu i rad na jednoj instalaciji.

www.blueprintit.com/pow, POW, PrisonersOfWar ili PrisonersOfWeb, međunarodni umetnički projekat prikazan na 48 Venecijanskom Bijenalu; POW, PrisonersOfWar or PrisonersOfWeb, international art project presented at 48th Biennial in Vennice, Itally

•62• •63•

itself, Igor Stepančić sought two creative outlets, “the flight outward” and “the flight inward”. After a break of several years, he commenced work in two personal directions: work on a multimedia project and work on an installation.

In April 1999, in collaboration with members of the Italian group Oreste and the Belgrade artist Čedomir Vasić, he started the multimedia project “POW Camp” (“Prisoner of War Camp”), which found its place at the Venice Biennale as a “web contribution”. The subtitle of this multimedia work (“Art Against Rat-a”) is a word play, which is created between the phonetic and semantic content of the term RAT (Eng. rat, Serb. war). The initial polarisation on the home page of this project are reproductions works of two icons of 20th century art: Joseph Beuys (Felt Piano) and Andy Warhol (Campbell Soup). Envis-aged as an open project, it received contributions from many artists in Europe, America and Japan, and it can be found at www.blueprint.com/pow.

The result of this “flight inward” was an installation titled “Diary: I Never Thought I Would Be Drawing Flowers”, which he exhibited in the Gallery of Con-temporary Art in Pančevo, in 2006. The key element in this installation are drawings made between 2002 and 2005, as diary notes made at home and in the stu-dio. Each of these drawings was created from the need to take note of something. Stepančić printed selected drawings onto displays (260x110cm). Two calendars are projected onto the four walls of the gallery. On the backgrounds which are ordinary wall calendars, little images of the house dog (Calendar I) and flowers (Calendar II) alternate as temporal frames. Japanese ceremonial music, the drumming rhythm of which ac-companies the alternation of the images on the calen-dars, creates the aural background for the installation. A question emerges automatically: why did the artist decide to draw single flowers instead of many. To an-

Aprila meseca 1999. godine, u saradnji sa članovima italijanske umetničke grupe „Oreste“ i beograds-kim umetnikom Čedomirom Vasićem, pokrenuo je multimedijalni projekt „POW CAMP“ („Logor ratnih zarobljenika“), koji je kao „web prilog“ svoje mesto našao u okviru venecijanskog Bienala umet-nosti. Podnaslov ovog multimedijalnog rada („Art Against Rat-a“) sadrži igru reči, koja nastaje u prostoru između fonetskog i semantičkog sadržaja termina RAT (engl. pacov, srp. rat). Polaznu po-larizaciju na „home page“ ovog projekta predstavl-jaju reprodukcije priloga dveju ikona umetnosti 20. veka: Joseph Beuys („Filcani klavir“) i Andy Warhol („Campbel Soup“). Zamišljen kao otvoreni, ovaj projekt je u međuvremenu na svojim pages dobio priloge mnogih umetnika iz Evrope, Amerike i Japana, i može se naći na adresi: www.blueprintit. com/pow.

Rezultat onog „bekstva unutra“ biće instalaciju, koju će, pod naslovom „Dnevnik: Nikad nisam mislio da ću crtati cveće“, pokazati 2006. godine, u pančevačkoj Galeriji savremene umetnosti. Osnovni element ove instalacije predstavljaju crteži koji su nastali od 2002. do 2005. godine, i to kao dnevnički zapisi u domu i u ateljeu. Svaki od tih crteža nastajao je kao potreba da se nešto zabeleži. Izabrane crteže Igor Stepančić je odštampao na „displejovima“ (260x110 cm). Na četiri zida galerije teku projekcije dvaju kal-endara. Na osnovama koje predstavljaju uobičajene zidne kalendare smenjuju se sličice kućnog psa (Kal-endar I) i cvetova (Kalendar II), i to kao temporalne frames. Muzičku podlogu ove instalacije predstavlja japanska obredna muzika, čiji ritam bubnjeva tem-poralno prati smenjivanje sličica na kalendarima. Pronalaženje odgovor na pitanje, koje se samo po sebi nameće, zbog čega se to umetnik odlučuje na crtanje pojedinačnih cvetova, a ne na cveće, moglo bi da počne od sledećeg mesta. Autor istraživanja tajni Mondrian-ovih crteža i slika cvetova svoje analize počinje od Mondrian-ovog crteža rađenog u mas-

Galerija savremene umetnosti, Panåevo, “Dnevnik, Nikada nisam zamiãljao....”, instalacija, kombinovana tehnika, 2006.; Gallery for contemporery art, Pancevo, “Diary, I never imagined...”, installation, mixed media, 2006

•64•

swer this question one could start from the following. The author of research into the secrets of Mondrian’s drawings and paintings of flowers begins his analyses with Mondrian’s watercolour and ink drawing “Blue Chrysanthemum”. He leads us to revelation of the se-crets of this flower, whose three stamens and forked stems symbolise the three nails and crown of thorns from the crucifixion, by quoting Yasunari Kawabata, in his “touching speech on receiving the Nobel prize.” [DSh] The researcher takes the view of the Japanese Nobel Prize winner that “an individual flower has more light than a hundred flowers”, as a possible ex-planation of some of the qualities in Mondrian’s flow-ers. From his knowledge of the artist’s statements about flowers, he quotes a passage from Mondrian’s letter from 1909, in which he tells the critics about his taste for the singular and about the real meaning of his painting “Piety (Prayer)”, which also represents a single flower: “as I said, it seems that I was trying to communicate the deepest source of the act of prayer.”

tilu i akvarelu „Plava hrizantema“. U otkrivanje tajne crteža ovog cveta, čija tri prašnika i rašljike, inače, simbolizuju tri eksera i trnov venac sa Raspeća, on nas uvodi navođenjem reči koje je Yasunari Kawa-bata, „u svome dirljivom obraćanju povodom dodele Nobelove nagrade, izrekao o istočnjačkom ukus za jedan cvet“ [DSh]. Stav japanskog nobelovca: „Pojedinačni cvet sadrži više svetlosti nego stotinu cvetova“, on uzima kao moguće objašnjenje nekih od vrednosti sadržanih u Mondrian-ovim cveto-vima. Iz uvida u umetnikove iskaze o cvetovima navodi i mesto iz Mondrian-ovog pismu, iz 1909. godine, u kojem Mondrian kritičarima govori o svome ukusu za pojedinačno i o stvarnom značenju svoje slike „Pobožnost (Molitva)“, na koje je takođe prikazan jedan jedini cvet: „Pre će biti da sam težio, kao što sam rekao, da saopštim najdublje izvore čina molitve“.

“Dnevnik, Nikada nisam zamiãljao....”, crtež, tuš i pero na papiru, 35 x 15 cm svaki; “Diary, I never imagined...”, drawing, ink on paper, 35 x 25 cm each

•66• •67•

Bibliography:

FRIDLAENDER, Walter, The Beginning of the Anticlassic Style in Italian Painting Around 1520, from Milan Pelc (ed.), Mannerism, Zagreb, Institute for Art History, 2000, 47-107; translated by Milan Pelc [=WF]

GOTTLIEB, Carla: „The Pregnant Woman, The Flag, The Eye: Three New Themes in Twentieth Century Art“, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Winter 1962, 177-187 [=CG]

HOFMANN, Werner, Grundlagen der modernen Kunst, Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1978 [=WH]

CLAIR, Jean: Duchamp, Leonardo, the Manner-ist Tradition, in Zoran Gavrić and Branislava Belić (edited and translated), Marcel Duchamp. Writings. Interpretations, Independent publication: Bogovadja, 1995 [=JC]

HOKE, Gustav Rene: The Magic of the Mirror: Mannerism, Serbian translation by Jovica Aćin, in: Delo (Belgrade), November-December 1982, XX-VIII, no. 11-12, 98-105 [=GRH]

CLAIR, Jean, The Responsibility of the Artist, Serbian translation by Aleksandra Grubor, Cacak: Gradac, 2006 [=JC]

KRAUSS, Rosalind: “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, in: Hal Foster (ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic – Es-says on Postmodern Culture, Port Townsend, Wash-ington: Bay Press, 1983, 31-42 (originally published in: October, Spring 1979) [=RK]

LINGNAER, Michael und WALTHER, Rainer: „Paradoxien künstlerischer Praxis“ in: Zeitschrift Für

Ästhetik Und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, Band XXXI, 1987, 121-142 [=LuW]

LOOS, Adolf: „On the Poor Rich Man“, in: A. L.: Selected Essays, edited by Ljiljana Blagojević and Dejan Vlaškalić, Belgrade: Grupa Lavirint 200 (21-25: translated by Ernest Weissmann) [=AL]

NEWMAN, Michael: „Discourse and Desire. Re-cent British Sculpture“, FLASH ART, No. 115, January, 48-55 [=MN]

OLIVA, Akile Bonito, The Ideology of the Traitor: Art, Manner and Mannerism, Serbian translation by Mirjana Jovanović, Novi Sad: Bratstvo i jedinstvo, 1989 [=ABO]

PEVSNER, Nikolaus: „Counter Reformation and Mannerism“, from: Milan Pelc (editor) Mannerism, Zagreb: The Institute for Art History, pg. 109-144: translated by Milan Pelc [=NP]

PANOFSKY, Erwin, “Mannerism”, from: Zoran Gavrić (editor and translator): Erwin Panofsky, IDEA. Contribution to the History of the Concept of the Old Theory of Art, Independent publication: Bogovađa 1999 [=EP]

SHAPIRO, David: „Mondrian’s Secret“, from: Beck-ley, Bill & Shapiro, David: Uncontrollable Beauty, New York: Allvorth Press, 307-323 [=DSh]

WOLIN, Richard: „Modernism vs Postmodernism“, from: Marxism in the World, 4-5, 1986, 178-204, translated by Vesna Tomović from: Richard Wolin, „Modernism vs. Postmodernism“, TELOS, Nr. 62, Winter 1984-5, 9-29 [=RW]

LOOS, Adolf: „O siromašnom bogatašu“, u: A. L.: Izabrani eseji, prir. Ljiljana Blagojević i Dejan Vlaškalić, Beograd: Grupa Lavirint 200 (str. 21-25: prev. Ernest Weissmann) [=AL]

NEWMAN, Michael: „Discourse and Desire. Recent British Sculpture“, FLASH ART, No. 115, January, pp. 48-55. [=MN]

OLIVA, Akile Bonito, Ideologija izdajnika. Umet-nost, manir, manirizam, prevela Mirjana Jovanović, Novi Sad: Bratstvo i jedinstvo 1989.[=ABO]

PEVSNER, Nikolaus: „Protureformacija i mani-rizam“, u: Milan Pelc (prir.), Manirizam, Zagreb: Institut za povijest umjetnosti, str. 109-144: preveo Milan Pelc [=NP]

PANOFSKY, Erwin, “Manierizam”, u: Zoran Gavrić (prir. i prev.): Erwin Panofsky, IDEA. Prilog istoriji pojma starije teorije umetnosti, Sa-mostalno izdanje: Bogovađa 1999. [=EP]

SHAPIRO, David: „Mondrian’s Seecret“, u: Beck-ley, Bill & Shapiro, David: Uncontrollable Beauty, New York: Allvorth Press, pp. 307-323. [=DSh]

WOLLIN, Richard: „Modernizam protiv post-modernizma“, u: MARKSIZAM U SVETU, 4-5, 1986, str. 178-204. prevela Vesna Tomović; iz: Richard Wollin, „Modernism vs. Postmodernism“, TELOS, Nr. 62, Winter 1984-5, pp. 9-29. [=RW]

Literatura:

FRIDLAENDER, Walter, „Postanak antiklasičnog stila u talijanskom slikarstvu oko 1520.“, u: Milan Pelc (prir.), Manirizam, Zagreb: Institut za povijest umjetnosti 2000, str. 47-107: preveo Milan Pelc [=WF]

GOTTLIEB, Carla: „The Pregnant Woman, The Flag, The Eye: Three New Themes in Twentieth Century Art“, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Winter 1962, pp. 177-187. [=CG]

HOFMANN, Werner, Grundlagen der modernen Kunst, Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag 1978 [=WH]

KLER, Žan: „Dišan, Leonardo, maniristička tradicija“, u: Yoran gavrić i Branislava Belić (prir. I prev.), Marcel Duchamp. Spisi. Tumačenja, Samos-talno izdanje: Bogovađa 1995 [=ŽK]

HOKE, Gustav Rene: „Magija ogledala: mani-rizam“, preveo Jovica Aćin, u: DELO (Beograd), novembar-decembar 1982, god. XXVIII, br. 11-12, str. 98-105.[=GRH]

KLER, Žan, Odgovornost umetnika, prevela Alek-sandra Grubor, Čačak: Gradac K 2006 [=ŽK]

KRAUSS, Rosalind: “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, u: Hal Foster (ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic – Essays onPostmodern Culture, Port Towusend, Washington: Bay Press 1983, pp. 31-42 (izvorno objavljeno u: October, Spring 1979.) [=RK]

LINGNAER, Michael und WALTHER, Rainer: „Paradoxien künstlerischer Praxis“ u: ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR ÄSTHETIK UND ALLGEMEINE KUNSTWISSENSCHAFT, Band XXXI, 1987, S. 121-142. [=LuW]

BiografijaiZLoŽBEBiBLiografija

“Bez naziva”, 1988. akril na drvetu i platnu, 150 x 200 cm; “Untitled”, 1988, acryl on wood and canvas, 150 x 200 cm

•71•

Born1962. Beograd, Yugoslavia Education

Education

1988 MA degree in fine Arts at Beograd College of Art, Beograd, Yugoslavia

1986-1987 Edinburgh College of Art, U.K.1980-1985 College of Art, Beograd, Yugoslavia,

painting

Scholarships

1992 Fulbright scholarship, U.S.A.1986 Youth found, Beograd1986 Brigtish Council fellowship for postgraduate

studies at Edinburgh College of Art, U.K.1986 Andrew Grant scholarship

Artist in residence / Workshops

2001 Plovdiv, Bulgaria, Communication Front 01,1996 “Mileševa”, Prijepolje, Yugoslavia1995 Szentandre, Hungary1988 “Azbukovica”, Ljubovija, Yugoslavia1988 XXIII International Malerwotshen in der

Steirmark, Graz, Austria1986 Edinburgh, U.K.

Rođen 1962. Beograd, Yugoslavia

Obrazovanje

1988. Magistarska diploma iz slikarstva, Fakultet likovnih umetnosti, Beograd, Jugoslavija

1986.-1987. Edinburgh College of Art, Velika Britanija

1980.-1985. Fakultet likovnih umetnosti, Beograd, Jugoslavija, slikarski odsek

Stipendije

1992. Stipendija Fulbrajtovog programa za likovne umetnosti, S.A.D.

1986. Fond mladih, Beograd 1986. Stipendija Britanskog saveta za

postdiplomske studije na Edinburgh College of Art

1986. Andrew Grant stipendija

Studijska putovanja, kolonije

2001. Plovdiv, Communication Front 01, međunarodna radionica multimedijalne umetnosti

1996. Umetnička kolonija Mileševa, Prijepolje1995. Umetnička kolonija Sentandreja, Mađarska 1988. Umetnička kolonija “Azbukovica”, Ljubovija 1988. XXIII Međunarodna kolonija u Štajerskoj,

Grac, Austrija 1986. Edinburgh, U.K.

”Ranjeno Nebo”, 1991. ulje na platnu, čelik, drvo, 215 x 150 x 80 cm; ”Wounded Sky, 1991, oil on canvas, steel, wood, 215 x 150 x 80 cm;

•72• •73•

Videography

2006 SALD, DVD, 1h 25’00”

1995 Video VI “The Merchants of Venice”, Beta-SP, color, 13’ 27”

1986 Video V “Ah, love”, U - matic, low band, color, 14’

1985 Video II “Line”, VHS, color 10’ 51”1985 Video III “Video painting I - Still life”, U -

matic, low band, color, 6’1985 Video IV “Video painting II-Sculpture”, U -

matic, low band, color, 6’ 1984 Video I “Evenet of a Day........” VHS, color

Netart

2006 SALD http://www.sald.org/2003 META-I, http://www.blueprint.co.yu/

metaI/2001 Mediaterra Kitchen, http://www.blueprint.

co.yu/mediate/2001 NetTime, net project, http://www.blueprint.

co.yu/nt/ 1999-2002 3 Brain, collaborative net project,

http://www.blueprint.co.yu/3brain/1999 POW, collaborative net project 1999 POW,

collaborative net project, http://www.blueprint.co.yu/pow/

Nagrade

1993. Nagrada fonda za kulturu grada Beograda za najbolju izložbu u beogradskim galerijama u toku 1992. godine

1987. Oktobarska nagrada grada Beograda za studentski rad

1982. Nagrada za crtež Fakulteta likovnih umetnosti, Beograd, Jugoslavija

Radovi u javnim prostorima

2007. Narodni muzej Užice, projekat stalne muzejske postavke

2007. Narodni Muzej Prijepolje, projekekat enterijera

2004. Ćele Kula, Niš, Srbija i Crna Gora, Stalna postavka - prezentacija spomenika

2003. Muzej 21. oktobar, Kragujevac, Srbija i Crna Gora, Nova stalna postavka muzeja

2001.-2002. Galerija SANU, Beograd, postavka izložbe “Službeno odelo u Srbiji u XIX i XX veku” (sa Čedomirom Vasićem)

1990. Mural podzemni prolaz, Požeška ulica, Beograd, Jugoslavija (Projekat I. Stepančić i Č. Vasić)

1988. Mural Dom kulture, Ljubovija, Jugoslavija (Projekat I. Stepančić) /

1987. Mural “Terazijska kapija”, Prizrenska 1, Beograd, Jugoslavija (Projekat I. Stepančić, Č. Vasić, V. i R. Knežević)

1984. Mural u Rajićevoj ulici, Beograd, Jugoslavija (P. Donkov, Č. Vasić, D. Kačić, V. i R. Knežević)

Videografija

2006. SALD, DVD, 1h 25’00”

1995. Video VI “Mletački trgovci”, Beta-SP, kolor, 13’ 27”

1986. Video V “Ah, love”, TV BG, TV Galerija, U - matic, low band, kolor, 14’

1985.Video II “Linija”, VHS, kolor 10’ 51” 1985.Video III “Video painting I - Still life”,

U - matic , low band, kolor, 6’1985.Video IV “Video painting II-Sculpture”,

U - matic, low band, kolor, 6’ 1984. Video I “Događaj dana.....” VHS, kolor

Web radovi

2006. SALD, http://www.sald.org/2003. META-I, http://www.blueprint.co.yu/

metaI/2001. Mediaterra Kitchen, http://www.blueprint.

co.yu/mediate/2001. NetTime, net project, http://www.

blueprint.co.yu/nt/ 1999.-2002. 3 Brain, collaborative net project,

http://www.blueprint.co.yu/3brain/1999. POW, collaborative net project, http://

www.blueprint.co.yu/pow/

Awards

1993 City of Beograd award for the best exhibition in the year of 1992.

1987 City of Beograd October award for student works

1982 Award for drawing Beograd College of Art, Yugoslavia

Works in public space

2007 National museum, project foe the new permanent exhibition

2007 National museum,Prijepolje, Serbia, interior of a museum

2004 Skull Tower, Nis, Serbia nad Montenegro, Permanent dispaly - presentation of the monument

2003 Museum October 21st, Kragujevac, Serbia and Montenegro, New exhibition

2001-2002 Gallery of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, exhibition “Offical Dress in Serbia in 19th and 20th Century” (with Čedomir Vasić)

1990 Mural pedestrian subway, Pozeska street, Beograd, Yugoslavia (Project by I. Stepancic and C. Vasic)

1988 Mural Cultural centre, Ljubovija, Yugoslavia (Project I. Stepancic)

1987 Mural “Terazijska kapija”, Beograd, Yugoslavia (Project I. Stepancic, Č. Vasić, V. i R. Knezevic)

1984 Mural in Rajićeva street, Beograd, Yugoslavia (P. Donkov, C. Vasic, D. Kacic, V. and R. Knezevic)

•75•

One man exhibitions

2006 Gallery for contemporery art, Pancevo, “Diary, I never imagined...”

2006 O3one Gallery, Belgrade, “Serbian Amateur Medical Society“

2006 Museum of Town of Prijepolje, Prijepolje, “20 Years After....”

2005 SKC Gallery, Belgrade, “20 Years After....” 2002 ULUS Gallery, Beograd, “Replay”2002 Kosancicev venac Gallery, Belgrade, “Urbi et

Orbi” (Igor Stepanåić, Dragan Jelenković)1995 National museum, Beograd, “The Merchants

Of Venice”1994 FORUM Gallery, Vancouver, “Dear Known

Artist”1992 ULUS Gallery, Beograd, “Collection 1990”1992 JULIET’S ROOM, Trieste, “Known artist”1988 Salon Museum of contemporary Arts Gallery,

Beograd, “Ci-Ties”1988 TK Gallery, Trieste, “Drawing-Insatllation”1988 EQURNA Gallery, Ljubljana, “Ci-Ties”1987 Richard Demarco Gallery, Edinburgh,

“CAT-hedrals” 1986 SKC Gallery, Beograd, “Drawing-Space-

Object”1986 SC Gallery, Zagreb, “Terakottambijent”1985 SKC Gallery, Beograd, “10 Chairs”

Samostalne izložbe

2006. Galerija savremene umetnosti, Pančevo, “Dnevnik, Nikada nisam zamišljao....”

2006. Galerija O3one, Beograd, “Srpsko Amatersko Lekarsko Društvo“

2006. Muzej u Prijepolju, Prijepolje, “20 Godina posle....”

2005. SKC Galerija, Beograd, “20 Godina posle....”

2002. ULUS Galerija, Beograd, “Repriza”2002. Galerija, Beograd, “Urbi et Orbi” (Igor

Stepančić, Dragan Jelenković)1995. Narodni muzej, Beograd, “Nepoznata

zbirka poznatog umetnika” 1994. FORUM Gallery, Vancouver, “Dear

Known Artist”1992. ULUS Galerija, Beograd, “Kolekcija

1990”1992. JULIET’S ROOM, Trst, “Known artist” 1988. Salon Muzeja savremene umetnosti,

Beograd, “Spomenik, Katedrala, Grad” 1988. TK Galerija, Trst, “Crte ž-Instalacija” 1988. EQURNA Galerija, Ljubljana, “Ci-Ties1987. Richard Demarco Gallery, Edinburgh,

“CAT-hedrals” 1986, SKC Galerija, Beograd, “Crte ž-Prostor-

Objekat”1986. SC Galerija, Zagreb, “Terakottambijent” 1985. SKC Galerija, Beograd, “10 Stolica”

“Dear Known Artist”, Forum Gallery, Vancouver, 1994

•76• •77•

Grupne izložbe (izbor)

2003. Beograd, Galerija Beograd, Kosnačićev venac, Crtež, Akvarel i Beograd

Linz, Ars Electronica, međunarodni festival multimedijalne umetnosti

2002. Sao Paolo, File 2002, international festival of electronic art

2001. Plovdiv, Communication Front 01, međunarodna radionica multimedijalne umetnosti

Atina, Mediaterra01, Festival Re-globalizing-De-globalizing, međunarodni festival multimedijalne umetnosti

Linz, Ars Electronica, međunarodni festival multimedijalne umetnosti

Barcelona, ARCO, net section2000. Lorient, Francuska, X-00, međunarodni

festival multimedijalne umetnosti Linz, Ars Electronica, međunarodni festival

multimedijalne umetnosti Lorient, Francuska, DF3, Distance Focale,

međunarodni skup o interaktivim medijima1999. Beograd, UP Cvijeta Zuzorić, 40ti

Oktobarski Salon Venecija, 48. Bijenale, “dAPERtutto”, sala

ORESTE, Italijanski paviljon Atina, Mediaterra, Festival umetnost i

tehnologija mediteranskih i balkanskih zemalja

1997. Prijepolje, Dom Kulture, izložba učesnika Mileševske kolonije

1996. Beograd, Muzej Primenjenih Umetnosti, Intimni program.....

Beograd, Kulturni centar, 37. Oktobarski Salon

1995. Beograd, Galerija SKC-a, Produkt Press, Art kolekcija

Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta Zuzorić”, II Bienale crteža i male plastike

Sentandreja, Županijski dom, izložba likovne kolonije

Beograd, Narodni muzej, Na iskustvima memorije

1994. Beograd, Galerija Kulturnog centra “Kritičari su izabrali”

Beograd, Galerija Andrićev venac, Oktobarski salon, “Stolica sa sto lica”

1993. Beograd, Skupština grada Beograda, izložba nagrađenih iz gradskog fonda za kulturu

Beograd, Dania Art, Continuum, izložba Fulbrajt asocijacije

Beograd, Galerija 73, Međunarodni simpozijum - Simetrija - Fulbrajt asocijacija

Beograd, Muzej 25. maj, oktobarski salon Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta

Zuzorić”, Prvo beogradsko bienale crteža i male plastike

Požarevac, Bienale Milene Pavlović Barili1992. Podgorica, Privatna galerija, Privatno-javno1991. Krakov, Palac Sztuki, Europe Unknown Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta

Zuzorić”, oktobarski salon Ljubljana, Moderna galerija, Slovenske

Atene - Sejalec1990. Pariz, Grand Palais, 41e Salon de la

JEUNE PEINTURE Sydney, Australija, W.I.N.D.O.W. Galerija,

“The pleasures within distance” Graz, Neue Galerie, Kunst der 80er Jahre Beograd, Galerija FLU, oktobarski salon,

“Kula-utočište” Štutgart, Sindelfingen Messe, kunst des 20.

jahr hunderts1989. Pariz, Grand Palais, 40e Salon de la

JEUNE PEINTURE

”Plava figura”, 1988. akril na platnu, 230 x 250 cm; ”Blue Figure, 1988, acryl on canvas;

Pariz, Jugoslovenski kulturni centar, Osam jugoslovenskih umetnika

Beograd, Galerija kulturnog centra, Agresori iz slikanog prostora

Sarajevo, Centar Skenderija, Jugoslovenska dokumenta ‘89.

Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta Zuzorić”, Izbor ‘89.

Tampare, Finska, Muzej moderne umetnosti, Savremeni jugoslovenski crtež

Strasbourg, Association “Comme...”, Jeunes Peintres Europeens

1988. Beograd, Pinki galerija, “Mozaici, Freske i Murali” - projekti i ostvarenja I

Rijeka, Moderna galerija, XI međunarodna izložba originalnog crteža

Zagreb, Gradec galerija, prezentacija XI međunarodne izložbe crteža

Graz, Neue Galerie am landesmuseum joanneum, XXIII Internationale Malerwochen in der Steiermark

Subotica, Galerija “Likovna jesen”, “STOLICA”

Beograd, Galerija legat R. Čolaković i M. Zorić, MSU, “STOLICA”

1987. London, Smiths Gallery, RDGallery 21st anniversary show

Sarajevo, Umetnička galerija BiH, “Ružičasti nihilizam”

Beograd, FLU galerija, nagrađeni studenti (povodom Oktobarske nagrade)

Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, VIDEO CD ‘87., međunarodni video bienale

Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta Zuzorić”, 28. oktobarski salon

1986. Beograd, Galerija Doma kulture Studentski grad, Članovi ‘86., izložba novoprimljenih članova ULUS-a

Pariz, Jugoslovenski kulturni centar, Video meč Yugoslavia-France

Kopar, galerija Loža, Video meč Yugoslavia-France

Beograd, SKC galerija, “Aprilski video susreti”

Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta Zuzorić”, Crtež i mala plastika ‘86.

Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta Zuzorić”, Mostovi ‘86., Armagedon

Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta Zuzorić”, 27. oktobarski salon

Edinborugh, Richard Demarco Gallery, Christmas Show

1985. Beograd, Galerija Doma omladine, izložba crteža studenata FLU, izbor D. Jovanovića

Sarajevo, Skenderija, Video susreti ‘85, međunarodni video festival

Beograd, SKC galerija, “Aprilski video susreti”

Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, VIDEO CD ‘85. međunarodni video bienale

Beograd, Umetnički paviljon “Cvijeta Zuzorić”, 26. oktobarski salon

1984. Beograd, Galerija Doma omladine, Izložba crteža studenata FLU, izbor D. Lubarde

Beograd, Galerija FLU, “Slikanje beogradskih zidova”, projekti i skice

1983. Beograd, Galerija Doma omladine, izložba crteža studenata FLU, izbor D. Lubarde

Minhen, Prostor umetničke akademije, izložba povodom 175-te godišnjice Umetničke akademije u Minhenu

Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, I video bienale, VIDEO CD ‘83 (rad sa Č. Vasić, M. Bajić, D. Kačić, R. Knežević)

1982. Beograd, Galerija Doma omladine, izložba crteža studenata FLU, izbor D. Lubarde

“IV XL”, 1988, papir, krečnjak, akril, 160 x 170 cm.; “IV XL”, 1988, paper, sandstone, acryl paint, 160 x 170 cm.

•81•

Radovi u kolekcijama

Fond mladih, Beograd

British Council (Britanski Savet), Edinburgh, Velika Britanija

Edinburgh College of Art, Edinburgh, Velika Britanija

Muzej savremene umetnosti, Beograd

Neue Galerie am Landesmuseum Joanneum, Graz, Austrija

Produkt Press Art kolekcija, Beograd

Interexport, Beograd

Dahlia, Beograd

Poslovna Čukarica, Beograd

Grad Beograd, sekretarijat za kulturu skupštine grada Beograda

Bibliografija

KUSOVAC Nikola, Kratko a dobro, Ekspres politika, 9. novembar 1985.

PEJIĆ Bojana, Prikaz izložbe “10 stolica” - Petkom u 22, TV Beograd, 1. novembar 1985.

VUKOVIĆ Dragica, Crtež-Prostor-Objekat, - predgovor katalogu izložbe u Galeriji SKC, mart 1986.

BLAŽEVIĆ Dunja, TV Galerija - Video produkcija TV Beograd, 22. jun 1986.

HENRY Clare, Life’s flotsam brings a new dimension to an artist’s work - Glasgow her-ald, 6. mart 1987.

HENRY Clare, Scotland-Arts Review, 13. mart 1987.

MERENIK Lidija, Predgovor u katalogu za izložbu u Salonu Muzeja savremene umetnosti u Beogradu, februar 1988.

VUKOVIĆ Dragica, Predgovor u katalogu za izložbu u Salonu Muzeja savremene umetnosti u Beogradu, februar 1988.

ĐOKIĆ Dušan, Prepun lonac, Ekspres politika, 17. mart 1988.

VLAJIĆ M. , Važno je biti drugačiji, Večernje novosti, februar 1988.

DAVIDOV A. , Urbanizam mašte, Književna reč, 10. mart 1988.

PRODANOVIĆ M., Slike koje su napustile ram, Književne novine br. 749/750, 1. i 15. mart 1988.

MAROEVIĆ Tonko, Pričanje mimo Pačetvorina, Danas, 22. mart 1988.

ŠUICA Nikola, Igor Stepančić, Likovni život br. 1. april 1988.

ČUBRILo Jasmina, Spomenik, Katedrala, Grad, Student, 24. mart 1988.

BLAŽEVIĆ Dunja, Nova umetnost, TV galerija, TV Beograd, 29. februar 1988.

VUKOVIĆ Dragica, Oblici i Prostor, predgovor u katalogu za izložbu u TKGaleriji, Trieste, mart 1988.

URSINI Roberto, Prikaz izložbe u TKGaleriji, - Juliet, no.37, jun 1988. Trieste

MONTENERO R., I signali di Stepancic - Il Picolo, 22. mart 1988.

CONTI Marili, Alla TKG: Igor Stepancic - Il Meridiano, 18. mart 1988.

GRUDEN Barbara, Risbe in glinaste skulpture beograjčana Igora Stepančića v TKGaleriji, Primorski dnevnik,22. mart 1988.

Dr. WIED A. , Tekst u katalogu za izložbu XXIII Internationale Malerwochen in der Steiernmark, Neue Galerie, Graz, septembar 1988.

GROHOTOLSKY Ernst, Mot Hang zu Humor und Ironie, Neve Zeit, 24. August 1988, str. 29.

TITZ Walter, Malerwochen: Locker und Sehr Selbst Bewubt, Neve Zeit, 27. avgust 1988, str. 29.

“Sky Line”, 1988, drvo, bakar, akril, 28 x 174 cm; “Sky Line”, 1988, wood, copper, acryl.

•82•

PLATZER Eva, Fleib und Kreativitat, 23. avgust 1988, str. 41.

SCHWARZBAUER Heribert, Frouchtbare Spannungen, Kleine zeitung, 27. avgust 1988, str. 41.

DIMITRIJEVIĆ Branislav , Preoblikovanje okruženja slike, Vidici 261 262, 1989, str. 240, 241

LAKIĆ D. , “Agresori” iz slikanog prostora, Politika, 25. jul 1989, str. 12

LJUBIŠIĆ B. , Agresori iz slikanog prostora, Likovni `ivot, god. II, br. 9., februar 1989.

RADENOVIĆ Jezdimir, U slikarskom krugu Pariza, Politika, 8. april 1989, str. 12

Lj. M. T. , Iz Pariza u Beograd, Politika Ekspres, 7. jul 1989, str. 11

J. G. S. Zapaženo učešće naših, Politika, 16. februar 1989, str. 14

VUKOVIĆ V., Širenje prostora, Borba, 7. februar 1989, str. 8

V. V. Mladi slikari u Parizu, Borba, 15. februar, 1989, str. 8

M. Vl. Naši u Parizu, Novosti, 15. februar 1989, str. 18

VUKOVIĆ Zoran, Tekst prilikom otvaranja izložbe u Galeriji ULUS-a, 17. januar 1992.

D. L, Opora poetika, izložba u Galeriji ULUS-a, januar 1992, Politika, 16. januar 1992, str. 18.

M. Vlajić , Mladi talas nadire, Večernje Novosti, 20. januar 1992, str. 22.

A. Tišma , Neubedljiv koncept, Dnevnik, Novi Sad, 1. februar 1992.

MARKUŠ Z. , “Kolekcija” Igora Stepančića, Politika, 5. februar 1992, str. 16.

ŠUICA Nikola, Igor Stepančić, Likovni život br. 36/37, str. 8

STANIŠIĆ Gordana, Igor Stepančić, Likovni život br. 36/37, str. 8

BARIČEVIĆ Snježana, Tri izložbe u Beogradu, Beogradski vidici 4/92, str. 15

MERDOVIĆ Lj. , Konceptualisti u Titogradu, Borba, 3. mart 1992.

BEUS Zorica, Javno i privatno, Oslobođenje, 11. mart 1992.

B. A., Ljudi - Raša Todosijević povodom izložbe Privatno-javno NIN, 1992.

NIKČEVIĆ Nataša, Tronogi ideali, Tribina, mart 1992.

LOMPAR Mladen, Privatno/javno prvi put, 13. mart 1992.

LUCA Elisabeta, Le ‘variazioni’ di Stepancic, Trieste Oggi, jul 1992.

Mo. F., Sulle orme di Botticelli, il Picolo, jul 1992.

GRUDEN Barbara, Juliet Art Magazine, N. 59, October 92.

MERENIK Lidija, Beograd osamdesete, 3. neekspresionizam druge polovine decenije, umetnost i memorija - različiti pristupi, str. 56 i 58. Prometej, Novi Sad, 1995.

MERENIK Lidija, Arti - The Serbian Scene, Art in the Eighties and Early Nineties, str. 102, may 1994.

PUREŠEVIĆ Danijela, Na iskustvima memorije XIV, Beorama, jul-avgust 1995, str. 50

ČUBRILO J., Beba isus i mobilni telefon, Naša Borba, 26. jun 1995, dodatak Otkrijte Beograd, str. III

POPOVIĆ G. , Gozba sa baroknih slika, Politika, 25. juli 1995, str. 18

RADOSAVLJEVIĆ D., Nepoznata zbirka poznatog autora, Kvadart, br. 3, 1995.

ĐORĐEVIĆ M., Diverzija u muzeju, Politika 30, 31. dec. 1995; 1. i 2. jan. 1996. str. 21.

SUBOTIĆ I., Arti - New Museological Thinking, povodom izložbe “Na iskustvima memorije”, 2005. st. 160. 174-175.

KADIJEVIĆ Đ., Predgovor u katalogu 40. Oktobarskog Salona, 1999.

JELISAVAC Lj., Tekst o izloõbi Replay, Repriza, Blic, 24. januar 2002. st 15.

RADIĆ N., Tekst u katalogu izložbe PREMOTAVANJE III URBI ET ORBI, Galerija Beograd, Kosančićev venac 19, 2002. st. 3.

VUKOVIĆ S., Predgovor u katalogu “20 Godina posle....”, SKC Galerija, Beograd

RISTOVIĆ S., Predgovor u katalogu “20 Godina posle....”, Muzej u Prijepolju, Prijepolje

J. Despotović, Tekst povodom izložbe “20 Godina posle....”, emitovano na III programu Radio Beograda, 28.10.2005

GAVRIĆ Zoran, Melanholična sprezzatura Igora Stepančića, 2007. Centar za kulturu, Pančevo, Galerija savremene umetnosti, Publikum, Beograd.

“Fontana”, 1988, kamen, akril, 35x30x30 cm; “Fountain”, 1988, stone, acryl.

Gavrić Zoran, Melanholična sprezzatura Igora Stepančića; Igor Stepančić - Melancholy Sprezzatura, 2007.

Izdavač: Centar za kulturu, Pančevo, Galerija savremene umetnosti, Publikum, Beograd. 2007.

Za izdavača: Jasmina Večanski

Tekst: Zoran Gavrić

Recenzije: prof. Vasić Čedomir prof. Ćelić Simeonović Ivana

Prevod na engleski; Translation into english: Vasić Barbara

Fotografija; Photoes by: Popović Vlada Delić Vladan Igor Stepančić Duško Živanović Trtica Zoran Branko Pelinović

Grafičko oblikovanje; Design: BluePrint

Štampa; Printed by: Publikum

Tiraž;Print run: 500

Igor StepančićAdresa M. Jevrosime 3511000 BeogradSrbija

E-mail: igor@blueprint.co.yuURL: www.blueprintit.com/igor