Łukasz GUZEK

Piotr Piotrowski’s methodologies

The title of this text refers to methodologies, in the plural, because art researchers in Central Europe do not use any single methodological model. The great complexity of the region is reflected in the complexity of the research methods. Therefore, research on this subject is combined with the construction of methodology. Although the number of scholarly works on contemporary art in Central Europe is increasing, this study is still far from complete.

I

Piotr Piotrowski (1952-2015) was a restless researcher of contemporary art in Central Europe. His last, unfinished book, published after his premature death, can be read as the last step in his work to create the most appropriate research methodology for this region. The methodological positions it contains are markers for the study of contemporary art in Central Europe. This article introduces Piotrowski’s position and comments on it, and at the same time it poses the question of how these methodologies can be developed. The title of the book, The Global Viewpoint of Eastern Europe Art (2016), points to the main issue on which Piotrowski worked in the last period of his life: building a methodology to study the relationship between globalism and Central Europe. Or more precisely: adapting the global approach to art research to the specificity of contemporary art in Central Europe. Placing the art of Central Europe in a global perspective requires a change in the methodological paradigm and the rejection of the so far dominant approach based on placing the art of this region in the East – West relationship. This makes it possible to avoid assuming a one-way influencing and building a hierarchy, which is an inevitable consequence resulting from adopting such a viewpoint on the art of this region. This is the well-known ‘horizontalism’ of Piotrowski, which has permanently taken its place in research methodologies on the art of Central Europe. In the global approach, the East – West relationship is only one of the possible ‘horizontal’ relationships. The same change applies to contextual methodologies for developing interpretations and building narratives: while democracy comes from the political West, it must meet conducive conditions for its development inside, on the other side of the Iron Curtain in order to create local democracies and embed them within society.

*

The book is unfinished, it is sketchy in many parts. However, in the same way as a sketch, e. g. an unfinished painting or sculpture informs us about the artist’s method of work sometimes more precisely than finished works, so this book allows us to capture the scholar’s working process in constructing a research methodology in statu nascendi. And this constant work on building a methodology is perhaps the most important message of this book, and at the same time is the testament of the scholar’s life. We constantly construct methodologies and adapt them to the subject of the study. Because only then we do practice a living science. Methodological paradigms are useful, but we advance science by experimenting, asking new questions, developing new methods. The history of art in Central Europe is a scholarship with an open structure, innovative, not imitative. At the same time, it is a basic, preliminary assumption for constructing the research methodology that this subject requires.

Globalization by connecting the periphery – this slogan can be used to describe, in a way that is far from precise, Piotrowski’s methodological assumption presented in his last book. The globalizing approach does not so much question the relations between the centre and the periphery, as it was already before and it is not very effective, because then other relations of the same type are placed next to the dominant one. But he proposes relationships that take the form of a network. The periphery comprises nodes of this network. Thus, they retain their autonomy and identity, despite the horizontal approach. In other words: the periphery as network nodes constitute synchronicities in diachrony, because the purpose of building the research methodology here is to enable a global approach to the historical process. Thus, the globalizing approach retains its comprehensive, holistic character, with the assumption of taking into account diversity and individuality. And by assuming the network, historicity and difference at the same time, we are unlikely to be able to construct a single method. Because then too much would be left out of sight.

The purpose of the methodology constructed on the assumption that globalization = horizontalization is to allow the periphery to be visible and to include them in the research process as equally powerful and equally legitimate. In a horizontal approach, another key word acquires a similar operational meaning, i. e. province (and provincialisation). The global network is a network of equals. So de-hierarchization is a project complementary to horizontalization. Horizontalism uses comparative studies in search of differences. When looking for a difference, we look for original phenomena, which undermines the thesis about the centre as a source of influence. The deconstruction/construction dialectic is the basic working scheme here.

In Piotrowski’s terms, art is considered in the context of politics. Political processes in the countries of Central Europe determine the historicization of art, and thus determine its dynamics. This assumption is for him the methodological basis for art research, and constructing a contextual narrative (interpretive research). Piotrowski distinguished three historical turning points, which also marked three waves of modernization. The adopted periodization gives coherence to the history of the region, showing both its distinctiveness and its relationship with global history. The first wave of modernization took place immediately after the Second World War, which functioned as if despite the political totalitarianism. Another breakthrough date is 1968, which marks the end of modernism understood as a continuation of pre-war trends. Here, the introduction of the art of happening means a new approach. 1989 is the cut-off date, the end of the post-war (post-Yalta) history of the region. Such a periodisation is quite obvious, but at the same time only political, as it does not take into account art itself to a sufficient extent (after all, we write the history of art). Hence its explanatory power is limited. It explains the context of art, not the art itself. Thus, it assumes a method of explaining art via the political context, whereas modernism assumed the autonomy of art.

Piotrowski also takes this feature of modernism into account. He perceives modernism and the avant-garde as self-referential and focuses on the autonomy of art (p. 22). And it was this that determined the ‘alternative character’ of post-war modernism in the countries of Central Europe in the face of the ideology and practice of the totalitarian state. The state promoted a peculiar mixture of socialist realism of Soviet Russian style and local ethno folklore (in the lack of a real policy of equality towards ethnic minorities, including the Jewish minority or the Gypsies). However, the art of socialist realism combined with folk art dominated in the first period, immediately after the Second World War. This then evolved into official art and an iconography of power, supported by official cultural institutions (the first public sphere). Such a methodological assumption allows us both to analyze the post-avant-garde art of this period with the methods of an art historian, starting from the work of art, its description, and then to interpret it as dissident, regardless of its expressis verbis narrative content. Both methods: formal and interpretative analyses, can be separated or combined, depending on the needs of the research topic.

*

For a horizontal history of art to be possible, first of all, methodological approaches based on binary divisions must be deconstructed. To this end, Piotrowski uses the methodological paradigm of postcolonial studies.

But were there any colonies within Europe in the sense of postcolonial studies? Probably not. The expansions inside Europe in the past were battles inside the European noble class or between the particular noble houses. Doubts therefore arise as to whether the history of Europe can be a subject of postcolonial studies. Even if the history of Europe was read as a class struggle, the usefulness of the pattern of postcolonial relations still seems questionable.

Nevertheless, Piotrowski considers the methodological patterns taken from postcolonial studies as promising in the study of the art of Central Europe. However, he criticizes these patterns to some extent, seeing their limitations. Firstly, he states that there are no issues connected with Central Europe within postcolonial studies. Moreover, he notes that the key issue within postcolonial studies is the criticism of Eurocentrism, while the issues involving Central Europe are intra-European par excellence. He criticizes the homogenization of the continent, which is seen as a whole within the field of postcolonial studies. Therefore, there is a need to replace the next key term of postcolonial studies – ‘other’ with something else.  The compromise proposal of ‘closed other’ that he adopted stems from his desire to adapt the principles of postcolonial studies to his subject matter. However, as Piotrowski notes, there is no such explanatory power in the European context. And, it should be added, today we can see that this is a dead end in constructing methodology. The figure of the ‘other’ as a different one is based on resentment (Max Scheller), and it is a breeding ground for nationalism. But more effective here is the complementary approach, that is, cosmopolitanism with its inclusiveness. The Mitteleuropa of the Habsburgs was a cosmopolitan project. For Piotrowski, it is precisely the recognition of difference as the basic assumption that determines the usefulness of postcolonial studies (p. 33). Nevertheless, the postcolonial methodology can be effective as it assumes the restitution of local sources as the basis for interpretation. The word ‘influence,’ which is key to the methodology of art history, changes its meaning. We look for the influence in situ, not outside (in this case: behind the Iron Curtain). Following Hans Belting, Piotrowski discusses the distinction between world art studies (the perspective of culture studies and universalistic in a modernist way) and world art history, which tries to transcend universalism. The former resembles the concept of Musée Imaginaire of André Malraux, a narrative museum where everything is connected. The latter sees the difference in the narrative, the debate, and therefore the dissensus of Jacques Ranciere. World art history is closest to alterglobalism. It is not, however, about simple inclusion, adding others to the global narrative about the world, but about dialectics leading to a new synthesis, rewriting the history of art from the perspective of key contemporary equality issues. The history of art must therefore build a methodology that offers something that transcends global but does not at the same time give up a holistic approach. Because then, we would come back to national, regional art histories. Alterglobalism is the result of local/global dialectics in a globalist perspective. But not as an in situ mix: local + global = glocal. In a mix like this, the components can be separated at any time. In a dialectical synthesis, a new whole is created. This new whole is translated into a narrative. Piotrowski quotes here Brancusi and Picasso (p.41), their works comprised such a dialectical combination of what the global centre offers and what they derived from the provinces. That is why they were so valued in the metropolis because they contributed something to it. They created the European avant-garde through this. Artists from Latin America did the same in a similar way (in his studies, Piotrowski often compares the situation in Central Europe with the situation of contemporary art in Latin America).

So the most important are the comparisons made within Europe. A global approach to Central Europe must take into account the Europe/Central Europe dialectic. The ‘other’ is not perceived through a contradiction such as locals/colonizer. The concept of the ‘other’ implies inclusiveness here, just as Picasso and Brancusi became part of European art. Here the dialectic of alterglobalism is useful. Alterglobalism is complementary. Building an alternative is about inclusiveness. Piotrowski refers here to the history of the reception of conceptual art as a global phenomenon, but not globalized in the sense of radiation from the centre to the periphery. This is the case with action art (see notes on this below). He gives the exhibition Global Conceptualism: Points of Origins (Queens Museum of Art, 1999) as an example of such a strategy (p. 45). Rightly. Conceptualism, like action art, was truly global, both geographically and alterglobal in the sense of the inclusion of the ‘other’ (this is also how he considers constructivism, pop art, and socialist realism). Contemporary institutionalization of alterglobalism takes place in the art of mass events such as biennials and performance festivals. The most important premise for this is the belief in the power of art, or what Arthur Danto called ‘the atmosphere of theory’ – here the theory of alterglobalist inclusion.

*

Piotrowski in the chapter “Global NETwork” indicates the NET project (1971) by Jarosław Kozłowski and Andrzej Kostołowski as the first one, which is a manifestation of the awareness that creating a network means creating an institution. Piotrowski places the creation of the NET project in the perspective of political processes, according to the periodization of the political history of the region he outlined earlier, so in this case it is the time after 1968, and in Poland after the change of political leadership of the ruling party in 1970 and the trauma of the workers’ massacre in Gdańsk. Probably the political change constituting the new atmosphere that encourages new projects. However, it should be remembered that the network of contacts for the construction of the NET project was established earlier. A more interesting topic in this part of the book is the juxtaposition of the NET project with the Information exhibition project at MoMA (p.126). Information as art, or information art, can be the basis for the interpretation of the NET project. More broadly, it can be the ground of conceptual art that was then discovered by artists. This common conceptual ground points to the global nature of artistic phenomena occurring in geographically distant places and on various political grounds. Piotrowski builds the legitimation of horizontalism on the comparison to the situation in Latin America, which is linked with Poland by the totalitarianism of political power. His analysis of the Global Conceptualism points to the region’s specific artistic relations with Latin America. At the same time, he is aware of a different kind of reception of Marxism in the countries of Latin America and Central Europe. The reason for this, of course, lies in the fact that the totalitarian regimes in Central Europe were built on Marxism imported from the Soviet Union, while in Latin America an opposition to such regimes is built on Marxism. But both regions are linked by a pro-democracy and freedom drive. However, he does not analyze the deeper reasons why, despite political differences, the link is conceptual art. That is, that the agreement is not at the level of contextual narratives, but at the level of art forms, assumptions of conceptualism. This would support the thesis that global art history, network construction and the dynamics of its development, both globally and in Central Europe, should be categorized based on the dynamics of reception of art trends, and not changes in the political context, although this is the basis for interpretation.

Piotrowski points out that in the exhibition Global Conceptualism, the Soviet Union was excluded from Central Europe and treated separately (p.134). Piotrowski does not comment on this. However, the way in which art created in the USSR is taken into account reveals the way in which the methodology for researching and presenting art in Central Europe is constructed. This special attitude results from the special political relationship of the Soviet Union with the countries of Central Europe. They were forced into an anti-Western policy. So the USSR was a factor in stopping the Westernization of art. But for the same reason, contemporary art in the USSR was a dissident factor. However, omitting the USSR when building a research methodology for contemporary art in Central Europe should be considered a mistake. This is especially the case when we are building methods of researching global art history. The political role of the USSR towards Central Europe is crucial, even if its assessment is only negative, which in turn should take into account the methods of constructing contextual narratives. Unfortunately, nationalism is based on phobias, and they preclude building relationships. Also, the description of the dynamics of art in Central Europe based on the political dynamics of the region does not correspond to that of Soviet Russia. But that requires more research. Contemporary art in Soviet Russia should be included in art research on Central Europe. This is the case even if  there were almost no personal contacts with artists, which was proved by cooperation within the NET project, for example. Developing a methodology for including Soviet Union in research on Central Europe is a task for global art history and the history of art in Central Europe, because excluding it is not a sufficient response to art facts.

What connects contemporary art in the USSR and Central Europe is the political context and the dissident nature of such art. And, most importantly, the analysis of art forms show the crucial role of the reception of conceptual art and action art, in regional mutation, and thus common theoretical foundations. Once again, when the methodological basis is a comparative analysis of art forms, it allows the avoidance of the pitfalls of the assumptions of interpretative methodologies, such as differences in the dynamics of political changes, differences in assessments of dominant ideologies, differences in attitudes towards ruling power and political history. Contextual narrative does not explain art. Conversely, art analysis allows us to understand the specificity of contextual narratives in a given place – the point of the network. The analysis of the network of conceptual forms allows us to understand the external causes that shaped them and refer to them. We do not start with what the artist wanted to express, but with the form of expression (the form of presenting meaning). The argument for formal analysis as reference point: art, if it is radical, is political by nature. But it has to be radical, subversive to art itself, which makes it politically subversive. Radical constructivism, abstraction, was both autonomous in its artistic goals and radical politically. Not only it was a sign, a symbol of the political radicalism of ideas, but it was radical in itself as an art form. This was the case with actionism and conceptualism.

In the research methodology of global art history constructed by Piotrowski, one of the most promising terms, potentially with the greatest narrative power, is ‘agoraphilia.’ In this term, there is a reference to the ancient tradition, a key European tradition, also in the construction of European democracy today. Agoraphilia combines our practical activities with the public sphere. The term ‘agoraphilia’ also has meaning as a type of sexual behaviour that involves enjoying sex in a public place (most dictionaries provide this meaning first: https://medical-dictionary. thefreedictionary.com/agoraphilia; http://www.encyclo.co.uk/meaning-of-Agoraphilia). This is probably not what Piotrowski was thinking about. However, only paying attention to this semantic aspect of the term ‘agoraphilia’ explains the action out of door not only in a utilitarian way, e. g. because it was not possible to exhibit in galleries. But it allows us to construct explanations of art by reaching for the internal needs of artists to come into existence as artists and present art. Generally speaking, functioning outdoors is explained by internal necessity, not external pressure. This allows for references to libido-based surreal art as a driving force, and at the same time to build a continuity of the European artistic tradition in Central Europe, bearing in mind that the reception of surrealism in this region varied from district to district and that surrealism was not equally influential in all countries. On the methodological level, it opens the way to the application of psychoanalytical methodologies in art research in Central Europe. The latter requires a detailed study that goes beyond this presentation of Piotrowski’s ideas. However, action art using the naked body, also in public space, is one of the most subversive forms of art.

The second key word, next to ‘agoraphilia’ and paired with it, is ‘participation.’ Piotrowski pays attention to participatory art. At the same time, let us remember that ‘participation’ was the key word in the happenings of the 1960s and body art, i. e. the first pre-conceptual wave, and before performance art, which caused a breakthrough in art leading to contemporary art generally called performative. However, agoraphilia in global art is about contextual narrative, a political agenda of contemporary art aimed at participation in democracy. Piotrowski even introduces the term of ‘artistic agoraphilia’ referring to all forms of pro-democratic political description and minority discourse as ways of participation in the public sphere. At the same time, Piotrowski links agoraphilia with art after the breakthrough of 1989, and the development of the world exhibition movement of the biennial type. Note that they also form a global network today. This is called institutionalizing the agoraphilia attitude. Thus, it is an institutionalization of narrative art in the global biennial movement.

Agoraphilia, however, could be a descriptive term in relation to art before 1989 as well. A lot of dissident art in Central Europe was done outdoors, during plein-air meetings. This was also the case in the USSR. But also individual dissident performances were deliberately and provocatively performed in the public space. What is more – creating a network like the NET project was a sign of the willingness to participate in a shared space from which someone is excluded. The same endeavour motivated the ARI (Artist Run Initiatives) movement in Central Europe, which was the force that institutionalized the contemporary art of the period, i. e. the conceptualism of the seventies, and performance art. The ARI movement can therefore be studied as a case study of institutionalized agoraphilia.

Piotrowski called the global art network ‘politeia.’ He refers this term to ‘global democracy’ that seems utopian. But it is undemocratic governments that fear democracy, institutionalized democracy (NGOs, supranational institutions, democratic governments) that may deprive them of power. And it is happening on a global scale. Democracy has real power, and the source of that power is an idea.

The next key term for the methodology constructed here is ‘artistic geography,’ which is associated with another, complementary to it, that is ‘place.’ Geography is made up of places. The description of each place consists of not only geographical, but also political and historical (geopolitical) coordinates, as well as current social debates. The latter both re-actualize the place, but also present it as dynamic. A place is not defined by the given (the found, being there, existing), but dynamically (performatively) as a construction. Artistic geography (here after Irit Rogoff, Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann) is mainly ‘geopolitical context.’ Such a structure is not only a metropolis, such as Vienna, due to being a traditional political centre in Central Europe, but also distant places of open-air meetings of dissident art. Let us emphasize that pointing to Vienna has a purpose in this intellectual construction. The role of Vienna is special here, which, however, requires separate studies of both its historical and contemporary role, as proved by Piotrowski’s cooperation with the ERSTE Foundation. This is how artistic geography is created. Globalism (alterglobalism) and artistic geography complement each other on a horizontal basis. Thus a network of connections is formed. This is another methodological assumption that allows art to be studied in relations other than binary ones (West – East, centre – periphery, metropolis – province). According to Piotrowski, artistic geography is therefore a theoretical alternative to postcolonial studies (the methodology of which is also based on a binary assumption). Episteme, as Piotrowski says, is common, so the difference is elsewhere: in the dialectics of artistic geography. With regard to artistic phenomena, the geopolitical context has an impact on artistic production, as it determines the form of artworks and trends, but also provides a re-actualized interpretation of art.

*

Piotrowski’s methodology and one of its main assumptions – horizontalism – question the binary method in comparative research (East-West) in favour of a network comparative method between centres, places of art, be it in Central Europe or globally. At the same time, however, the global approach points to common sources of contemporary art, such as conceptual art, but also action art. More precisely, it involves the introduction of live art into the field of visual arts. In Piotrowski’s methodology, the role of action art is hardly emphasized. Rather, its case studies are considered as a useful tool for struggling with a totalitarian system and censorship.

This shift towards action art, as a trend and not individual works, which was visible from around the mid-1960s, had a global reach. Historically, this trend has its origins in the European avant-garde, futurism and dadaism. But the turn to action art also has also taken place where there was no avant-garde tradition, e. g. in Asia. And the development of a network of performance art festivals means institutionalization of a global approach to art. The two methodological assumptions, globalism and horizontalism, meet here.

As I emphasized above, the factor behind the global change of art is the introduction of action into the field of the visual arts in the 1960s. It is a happening that is associated with action painting, gesture, and at the same time painting associated with space (environment), but it is also Fluxus and its art formula involving modern dance, experimental music, poetry, and therefore all arts that contain a performative element as a structural one. It is this element that extends the field of visual arts. The global turn to action art lies in its inclusive abilities, and in creating opportunities for expansion of individual disciplines and their fusing into new media, intermedia wholes. But action has another feature: it is a radical, liminal, subversive art form. And this means that everywhere and always it is a challenge to power.

The dynamics of the history of countries in the Soviet bloc varies. The differences in these dynamics are so significant that linking art directly with the political context seems to make limited sense, unless this is at the meta level, the influence of the rules of the totalitarian system upheld by the Soviet Union. The basic periodization quoted above, adopted by Piotrowski on the basis of political history, omits the year 1975 and the time around the mid-1970s. Meanwhile, periodization according to contemporary art places a turning point here. This is the time of modernism/postmodernism breakthrough in the visual arts in general.

At the same time, around the mid-1970s, the influence of conceptualism becomes established, which, like action in the visual arts, is global in nature. Conceptualism changes art, at the metalevel of artistic methods and means, and inverts evaluation hierarchies. Actionism becomes one of the cases of an ephemeral form of conceptual art. Additionally, it is supported by new media (film, photography). Performance as actionism of the conceptual period has other basic assumptions – it is no longer participation as in a happening, but an individual physical and psychological condition.

The institutionalization of conceptual art (including action art) in the art of the 1970s and 1980s, initiated in the 1960s, is one of the main subjects of study in the field of contemporary art in Central Europe, and the research methodology should take this process into account. Exhibitions, workshops, as well as open-air (plein-air) events, symposia and conferences created collective situations that had their own audience consisting of specialized professionals. Together, the system of such events and places forms an institution, a network-type institution – the ARI network. Each such initiative is a network node. Institutionalization is based on the fact that milieus of art alternative to the official one work like official institutions, i. e. they do the same as the institutions of state power. So they conduct the process of evaluating artistic production based on its own criteria, define what is art (and what is not), and build an artistic hierarchy of signification. It is a system of art institutionalization that works parallel to the official one, and so contributes to horizontalization.

In the 1970s, artistic and research methodologies were developed on the basis of conceptual art which assumed the scientification of art, emulation of the world of academic science in the artworld, certification of artworks. Closer cooperation among a community of professionals, artists and theorists working together accelerates the process of institutionalization and the network is becoming denser and denser. Phenomena like mail art extend this network to the whole world. Again, based on the assumptions of conceptual art, all mail artefacts are works of art and are ephemeral in the sense that as prints they are not unique and each is an original. They are impossible to capture and destroy. In the mid-1970s, conceptual art was no longer a novelty, an artistic experiment, but a well-recognized practice, realized with the awareness of artistic consequences, such as changing the way art, artwork, artist and its role were defined. The ARI network consisted of symposiums, conferences, open-air events, plein-air meetings but also institutions nested inside other institutions and run by ‘conducive’ (supportive) people. In addition, there were private galleries, set up in apartments, studios, ateliers which were also archives of conceptual art, including action art, as it was assumed above, both phenomena are considered complementarily. In other words, and using historical methodology, after Frank Ankersmit, their functioning was based on microhistories (art histories).

ARI is a response to the totalitarianism of the political system. But that’s part of the explanation. The second part is that it was a response to purely artistic challenges and is their implementation, so it results from the nature of art of that time, i. e. actionism and conceptualism. It was also a response to another frequently posed thesis that conceptual art did not engage in politics, caring for its autonomy. However, at the same time it was involved on the basis of its assumptions. It was subversive art in relation to official art and its system, and in this sense it was dissident. Conceptual art, action art, ephemeral art is dissident by nature, and at the same time retains its artistic identity, or rather that is exactly why it is dissident.

Interestingly, these official and alternative systems do not intermingle. They did not make a dialectic of spheres. The analysis of artistic means reveals the difference between them. Even if we meet dissident political declarations from artists working in traditional media, their art does not belong to the ARI movement institution. It is not institutionalized within this network. Dissident art is defined on the basis of the inherently dissident means of art that is subversive to art using traditional means. A dissident narrative is therefore not the same as an inherently dissident art. So dissident art is defined through art, not political declarations. It was the artistic revolution that was the political revolution.

II

Piotr Piotrowski is extensively quoted in studies on art in Central Europe, especially in the chapters discussing methodology. Two books of collected studies, published in 2018, are particularly important here. In this part of the article, I will present some methodological aspects discussed in the chapters that form these collections.

The first book:

Globalizing East European Art Histories; Past and Present. Edited by Beáta Hock and Anu Allas. New York: Routledge, 2018.

This book was published in memory of Piotr Piotrowski, and it is a post conference reader. The conference was held in 2014, just six months before Piotrowski passed away. The venue of the conference was the Labirynt gallery in Lublin, which was particularly important for the history of contemporary art in the second half of the 20th century in Poland and in the region of Central Europe. It was the last conference he chaired. This post-conference book is therefore also a testimony to the state of research on the issue of art in Central Europe located close to Piotrowski, in his aura. This is because, although researchers conduct their own research and operated in their own fields with their own methods, at the same time Piotrowski was a close reference point in navigation through this vast area of ​​art. And their research so far was, in a way, addressed to Piotrowski and focused on his methodology. The contextual nature of the research, i. e. the positioning of art in relation to socio-political processes, made it easy to extend the research field beyond the 1989 cut-off. However, is it still possible to do holistic research on the region? Research on the history of contemporary art is held together by the region’s political past, but can contemporary politics be such a keystone? Or, in other words, can the rise of populism and the questioning of democracy, as we are witnessing in Central Europe, be the key to a contextual interpretation of art, as was the case with totalitarian states before 1989? Will the research assuming the autonomy of art allow a distinction of its features that are common on a regional and global scale, as it was previously made possible by conceptualism and performance art? These questions will accompany future research.

In her introductory notes, Beáta Hock pointed out words, or rather a set of key words from Piotrowski’s well-known dictionary (also discussed in the first part of this article). According to the title (of the conference and the book), the central issue raised during the conference was the positioning of the region in the context of globalism. As Hock points out, such an approach was, therefore, not new. However, it established a method of global comparisons made in a broader historical perspective (historical periods) than just in the field of contemporary art. In this way, the diversity of regional research and its scope are established, but still based on the network of basic terms coined by Piotrowski. As the editor of the introduction notes, it is difficult for art researchers from the Central European region to completely reject references to the West, partly because of the geography, location of the region as a transit zone, on the frontier of Europe. However, the references in this geography are not only related to neighbourhood, but are global; the relationships may concern any near or distant regions. As the author notes, global art history overshadowed the study on Eastern European art. Therefore, no methodology was developed that was appropriate for regional research.

In the introduction, she re-discusses the term ‘horizontal art history,’ which is a ‘device’ that allows the vector of the research method to be inverted. The centre becomes a province when we adopt the perspective of an observer located outside the centre. This deconstruction of the existing dominant methodology was done by Piotrowski. We can develop its consequences in further research. Two features have been mentioned that form the foundation for building a new methodology (which is rather an extension of Piotrowski’s method). One of the characteristic features and, at the same time, an advantage of such a view is the dynamization of the perspective, its shifting, and thus the possibility of creating other interpretations, revisiting and rewriting the existing historical viewpoints. It is a permanent movement of art history. The second is to see art history as a network. It is also seen as a network of events, since connections are constantly being made between the points in this network; there is a constant shift of interpretation. So the network itself is constantly constructed in this movement of changes. Each local history of art, local research builds a network. These local networks are included in the global network. Otherwise, the global network consists of multilateral connections (and not binary one such as: periphery – centre). No point in the network loses its ‘sovereignty,’ but rather complements it. This is a profit from the use of the ‘diachrony with synchronous cuts,’ diachrony and the synchronous cuts (sections) method, described basically by Piotrowski, and its development is the construction of a network of events. The dialectics of the East and the West becomes dynamic. The editor announces that the book presents articles that consider local case studies, i. e. synchronicities occurring ‘side-by-side’ in the history of art in Central Europe. As she notes, global art history is a global challenge. Its aim is to go beyond the Europocentricity of research (or rather US centricity, as American art is based on European, but has developed its influence in line with America’s global political influence). But let’s go back to Europe. The book’s editor further notes that still, however, the East (defined as the area east of the former Iron Curtain) is a separate area of scholarship. She does not consider the reasons further, they are probably partly in the language(s), and also in the specificity of interpretive models. Nevertheless, this only points to the need to undertake the networking effort, which is probably a task for those places whose goals are to coordinate regional research. Undoubtedly, the cited book is a contribution to such research. It indicates a historically growing awareness of the existence of a cultural axis other than the traditional South – North axis, active since the Roman empire, i. e. the West – East axis (Larry Wolf, quoted in the text). At the same time, she emphasizes the pioneering role of art history as a research field that liberates the study from the limitations of the ‘national container.’ What is especially needed in perspective of the growing nationalism in Eastern Europe, but not only there. The dynamic methodological assumptions, as indicated above, assume a constructivist, transnational approach as opposed to the immobilizing nationalism. However, all these new, deconstructive methodological approaches are based on the fundamental method of art history: comparative studies. Thus, the analysis begins with works or, more broadly, cultural artefacts, on the basis of these analyses we identify processes, i. e. movement in the network, as described above.

Another issue that the editor of the book encountered was the spelling of the names of geographical locations: ‘east,’ ‘central-east,’ etc, and a decision was made not to standardize the spelling in the chapters of this multi-author publication. It is also an application, as explained in the introduction, of the method of introducing local themes into the global discourse rather than archiving (collecting) the results of local (national) discourses. However, since words represent consciousness, this issue is not entirely one of dictionary definitions or linguistic. Based on the exemplary signifié/signifiant relationship, it is the signifiant, i. e. artefacts that are subject to our analysis and interpretation, that are combined with a network of terms, signifié, and these include the terminology of a geographical description, which creates meanings or interpretations. So, for a precise definition of the research field, I propose another term: Middle Europe. The word ‘middle’ was chosen in addition to terms already existing in the discourse such as ‘Eastern Europe,’ ‘Central-Eastern’ or ‘Central’ because it locates more accurately the research region, while the word ‘eastern’ extends them too much and makes the geography of the research imprecise. In turn, the word ‘centre’ suggests unification, searching for the essence, concentration on one issue at a single point, on what is common for the art of the region, while the aim of the research is to capture the dispersion of artistic issues in the countries of the region, their diversity and local specifics. What is common is the world history of contemporary art, which is treated as a given. All the existing descriptive terms, like ‘Eastern Europe’ or ‘Central-Eastern,’ refer directly to the geography of the post-Yalta partition of Europe. And as such are suitable to describing a post-war situation. However, the post-1989 situation, and especially after the accession of former Soviet bloc countries to the EU, created a fundamentally new situation. The post-Yalta divisions were largely overcome and their effects annihilated. Therefore, today we need a new terminology for this new reality; a new language for a new discourse. I propose here the term ‘Middle Europe’ which suggests a return and revival of some historical descriptions of the region, and thus a revisiting of some guiding values that observe its diversity, such as cosmopolitanism and regional – European dialectics. The term ‘Middle Europe’ refers linguistically to the concept of Mitteleuropa, as it was originally formulated on the basis of the Habsburg monarchy, whose influence in the region was crucial and remains a reference point for a deep analysis of historical sources of contemporary issues. Such a point of view is historically grounded and forms the basis for overcoming the limitations of the simple method of collecting local discourses. At the same time, this historical perspective shows the possibility of a coherent approach to the region. Many states were established in the region after the First World War, and the tendency towards fragmentation continued after 1989. And because this part of Europe consists of many countries and in the art history of this region it is difficult to obtain a coherent description of it, such as is the case with other large European countries, including multi-regional ones, which are also characterized by regional diversity. National studies by national institutions only exacerbate fragmentation. The nationally-oriented research is methodologically diachronic, showing a local history. However, it is in the field of comparative studies of the history of contemporary art, research focused on formal analyses, that synchronicities (synchronic cuts) appear. It therefore seems necessary to institutionalize meta-regional research.

Jörg Scheller, in his chapter “Eastern Europeanizing Globalization: Polish Artists at the Venice Art Biennale and the Historical Microcosms of Globalization,” which, in my opinion, is particularly important in terms of building a specific methodology, emphasizes the unity of the region from before the fragmentation after 1918. The author adopts (after Czesław Miłosz) the term ‘amorphous’ to describe the most characteristic feature of the region. However, it is still constructing a description on the basis of subsumption, i. e. subordination to one of the features. Moreover, amorphism, although it is a true feature, as a feature that defines (a region) indicates only diversity and not one specific feature, and thus it is a tautological definition. In other words, it is only literature that tells what Poles are like, for example. Whereas Piotrowski’s method aims to expose individual characteristics in each local (not national) component. The political geography of the region is an artificial and secondary divisions – ‘imagined community,’ as the author writes, adopting another term for discourse, and referring per analogiam to globalism as an imagined community as well. It also accepts the definition of globalism as ‘linking of localities.’ The author describes the situation of the region around 1900 through transregional exhibitions, and national ones in the post-1918 period, as a nationalist political trend par excellence. On the one hand, this is the cause of the present fragmentation, but also an anticipation of the features of today’s globalism. This is an interesting proposition because it offers a critical view of globalism not as a domination of the powerful (politically), but as a dynamic network of (horizontal) relations. Exhibitions enhance the image of the global network of relationships and offer a change in the image of the negative effects of globalization, such as migration. This is the case at exhibitions such as Documenta for example, which, due to their scale, become institutions of international politics. In the article by Maja and Reuben Fowkes “Towards the Planetary History of East European Art,” similar mechanisms concern the issue of the natural environment. Returning, however, to the methods of describing our region of Europe: the author refers to Yael Bartana’s project of ‘Jewish Renaissance’ in Poland (shown in the Polish Pavilion in Venice, 2011). Her exhibition for the author of the article is an example of addressing glocal problems through an art exhibition. The Jewish presence was extremely life-giving for the culture of the region. The Holocaust homogenized the culture of the region, so it has lost much of its amorphous nature. At the same time, referring to the issue discussed here, the Jews did not create a nation-state after 1918. Their presence is also an example of horizontalism, or synchronicity, in the culture of the region. The methodological horizontalism postulated by Piotrowski is so difficult to implement because the nation state with its immanent cultural verticalism stands in its way. The example of the subject of this exhibition is therefore a good example to support the thesis that Eastern Europe is the model of globalization. Several other articles in this collection deal with horizontal, and therefore translocal and transnational, historical relations in the region. This shows once again that the search and change of terminology is right, where the proposed term ‘middle’ reflects the character of this region, the constitutive feature of which is centrality, understood as transitory, interconnectivity, and thus reflects dynamism. This points to performance as the most appropriate practice.

For methodological considerations, the chapter by Beata Hock “Managing Trans / Nationality: Cultural Actors within Imperial Structures” is important. In her chapter, the author deals with the issue of borders, which is crucial in view of the fragmentation of the region into many nation states that did not exist on this territory before 1918. And today the borders seem all the more artificial. As she points out, the methodology of art history is immanently transnational. This means that considering the geographical whole of a region in the field of art history is a feature of the discipline, and not a feature of a specific subject of consideration. This approach creates a perceptual distance to works, especially to their national provenance. It also determines the priority of formal analyses over contextual interpretations, inevitably anchored in regional (national) specificity. It offers opportunities to learn about the synchronicity of art before linking it diachronically with national and regional history. The article is a review of methodological approaches to the relationship between the region and the rest of Europe, a critical review. The author introduces a term from anthropology, ‘diffusionism,’ into the research. It describes the traditional model of the flow of influence from the centre to the periphery, but also points to the local ethnos that uses these data. With this approach, art loses autonomy and turns into sociology. Another term taken from literary research is ‘intertextualism,’ or quotation. This is a more promising way of describing the impact, because the starting point for research is the work of art and its relationship with other works, and it is only over them that the superstructure of interpretation is built. In such a relationship, influences appear just like ready-made objects in a collage, which are used to make meanings. Each description assumes the construction of a description method based on data analysis, so it is critical, it rejects all presuppositions. However, to these considerations another term can be added, ‘iconosphere,’ introduced by Mieczysław Porębski, meaning the whole array of particularly organized visual information channelling and conveying or transferring a particular range of information distributed in the social sphere under particular culture condition. The iconosphere consists of visual data that come from many sources. Thus, the studies of the iconosphere can both explain the sources of forms and guide the interpretation. In this case, the works are analyzed as incorporated into the entire visual culture of the region, explicitly and not only implicitly, as imported avant-garde. For Porębski, research into the iconosphere functioned alongside comparative art history. Since the latter isolates the works too much from the context, the location of the work in the iconosphere makes it possible to avoid changing the history of art into sociology in the process of interpretation. The iconosphere allows iconology to be extended to visuality, as Porębski used to say – unorganized, e. g. offered by the mass media. The iconosphere’s weak point is that it depends very much on politics, hence it is criticized in works of art. The iconosphere as a comprehensive approach to the visual surroundings of the works analyzed in a given geographical location supports horizontalism, which allows avoiding the construction of a hierarchy of visual information sources considered appropriate for interpretation, i. e. relations labelled ‘parochial.’

Amy Bryzgel in her chapter “Performance Art in the Global Flow of Cultural Goods: Some Eastern European Position” described examples of actions by artists from Serbia, Bosnia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Moldova and Kosovo, which prove that they are both anchored in the local specificity, but at the same time they are present in institutionalized art and the economy of the European art market, albeit in a critical way. The lack of the European presence of their region’s art, indicated here by the artists themselves, reveals the incompleteness of European culture, and at the same time complements it (which is also what this article about these performances does). It is not enough, therefore, to refer to their work as a complaint or a minority complex. Showing one’s own specificity in the European melting pot of contemporary trends indicates the possibility of reconciling the contradictions, which is also the aim of Piotrowski’s method of combining diachrony and synchrony. At the same time, it proves the power of the action art to transfer meanings, which will be discussed later.

Anu Allas, in the article “Our Imaginings Unite with Reality”: Ideological Encounters with Milan Knižák Ten Lessons,” focuses on the case of Milan Knižák, discusses his action art in terms of its global relations. Knižák is a good example here, because his actions in a very powerful, even provocative way, referred to the policy of the authorities, which the authorities understood and consistently persecuted the artist (it was described in detail in the research carried out by Pavlina Morganova from AVU in Prague). Knižák managed to build real relationships with artists outside the Iron Curtain, mainly from the Fluxus orbit, which made then his career in exile easier. The author of the article places Knižák’s art against the background of contemporary, mainly (early) conceptual, art practices. At the same time, it is based on texts, a linguistic approach to art, and thus on the consideration of the definition of the term ‘art’ and related terms (signifié). In turn, the practice of art was to be rooted in everyday life, the surrounding reality (actual). Although the article does not analyze the actions, let us point out that performative or ephemeral forms were a way of making (actualize) the ideas conveyed in texts-manifestos, proving the importance of this type of forms in the countries of the region.

Similar conclusions can be drawn from the article by Katarzyna Cytlak “Transculturations, Cultural Transfer, and the Colonial Matrix of Power on the Cold War Margins: East European Seen from Latin America,” which concerns the relationship between Europe and Latin America, based on the example of Argentina and Jorg Glusberg’s contacts with artists from the Soviet Bloc in the 1970s. These contacts were wider than described in the article. Nevertheless, the author uses the examples of the theatre of Grotowski and Kantor, whose theatrical form was close to performance. At the same time, the discussed factor of building contact is based on mobility that is inseparable from the forms of action art. Performers and theatre groups have to travel to present themselves to the public. A comparison can be added here – like postal items in mail art, a practice that was equally important for the art of both regions and for the art exchange between them. Local exchange becomes global.

Agata Jakubowska in the chapter entitled “The Circulation of Feminist Ideas in Communist Poland” focuses on the feminist aspect. According to historical dynamics, however, she locates this in conceptual art. Its ephemeral formal nature is again a determinant of interpretations. The examples of Polish female artists are exactly such examples of the use of ephemeral forms, and it was this type of form that was used to overcome the limitations of the Iron Curtain. Even though considered as lacking (in Poland) or barely-existent, feminist discourse produced works. Feminism is an example of the intersecting discourse above states and nations and above the Iron Curtain, thus building synchronicities. Considering art formally as a form of action, for example, allows synchronicities to be similarly identified. The same is true of the LGBTQI discourse, Alpesh Kantilal Patel in the chapter “Artistic Responses to LGBTQI Gaps in Archives: From World War II Asian America to Postwar Soviet Estonia” examines this contextual discourse in the US to Estonia relationship (of Soviet era). Both discourses were distorted or suppressed as non-existent in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Today they are part of the discourse of inclusivity. And they are the measure of democratic freedoms in this part of Europe. Also in his article, the exemplification is based mainly on examples of the action art. All this proves the significant development of action art research, i. e. performance art and performance studies.

The collection also includes other valuable articles: Tomasz Grusiecki, “Uprooting Origins: Polish-Lithuanian Art and Challenge of Pluralism;” Kristof Nagy, “From Fringe Interest to Hegemony: The Emergence of the Soros Network in Eastern Europe;” Sarah M. Schlachetzki, “Modernism on the Margins: Breslau’s Architectural Future Between High-rise Utopia and Down-to-Earth Realism;” and Joanna Sokołowska, “Undoing the East: Towards the World’s (Semi-) Peripheries.”

III

The second book:

Performance Art in the Second Public Sphere. Event-based Art in Late Socialist Europe. Edited by Adam Czirak and Katalin Cseh-Varga. New York: Routledge, 2018.

The first part, “Geopolitics and transnationalism of art production,” is about general creative conditions in this part of Europe, including the field of action art. The second part “Locating the second public sphere” refers to specific countries, with the part about gender, with its meaning in women’s art being highlighted. The last part (one article) concerns the contemporary practice of re-enactment, returns to historical works in the art of post-socialist countries, after the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Due to the key role of performance in the study of contemporary art in Central Europe, this is an important publication. The book assumes the perspective of performance studies in research on live art, so there is no division into forms derived from theatrical and visual arts (happening, performance art), or even performances of social and political life, as in the article about the period of Solidarity in Poland (1980-1981), when the opposition in Poland gained influence over the power of a totalitarian state (Berenika Szymański-Düll, “From a local to a national to a transnational public sphere: the emergence of solidarity in Poland from a theatrical perspective”). The term that the book’s editors use in the subtitle, ‘event-based art,’ indicates the intention to emphasize the diversity of performative forms, although only incidentally the exemplification goes beyond the visual arts (dance, music, media). The title is too broad for what the content offers: it is not a complete description of either the ‘second public sphere’ or performance art in Central Europe. The editors of the collection hypothesize that performance art has been marginalized in the discourse in favour of theatre and performance studies. However, in Poland, in art criticism and artists’ statements, the separation between performance art and theatre has always been strongly emphasized. Performance art is rooted in the visual arts, and this artistic identity is emphasized. Performance art belongs to the research field of art history, not to theatre. Performance studies is an inclusive discipline, and at the same time a modern way of building narratives that expand far beyond art. But research on art forms, especially historical ones (art history), should take into account the difference between art and theatre, and the definition of performance art as an art practice based on the psychosomatic condition of the artist.

The term ‘second public sphere’ is a derivative of the term used by Jürgen Habermas, who considered the ‘public sphere.’ The general issue of the book covers this subject matter, which I refer to in my research as the ‘conceptual gallery movement’ based on the Polish example, where it was a very extensive practice (compared to other Soviet Bloc countries, but Poland was also the largest). This movement was possible because art forms became more and more conceptual and action-based from the 1960s onwards. And in the seventies, it was the domination of conceptualism that made it possible for the gallery to become an art project carried out by artists and non-artists. As part of the movement, galleries were created, often nested in official institutions, run by supportive persons or ‘conducive’ as it was then called. Hence, another term currently in use, artist run initiatives (ARI), does not fully reflect the nature of this activity, because they were not artists, although on the basis of conceptualism they often perceived themselves this way and their activity was to organize art. This is an example of how conceptualism changed the definitions of art terms. The movement included galleries, exchanges between them, their conventions, but also symposiums, conferences, plein-airs and other forms of organized art life. Conceptual art, including action, played a significant role in it, and the practices of this type on these occasions were used by artists who worked in other media on a daily basis. Therefore, today research on the art of that time may concern various art forms linked with conceptualism on the basis of participation in a broad conceptual movement. I am using the term ‘movement’ which better describes the dynamics of this phenomenon (than the ‘sphere’ which is rather a matter of location). In Poland, this dynamics was enormous, developing since the 1960s, in the late 1970s the movement was so strong that it was able to organize a large-scale international exchange (in the sense of artistic significance within the framework of conceptual and action art). I am writing about this issue as two institutionalisms, because the gallery movement did the same as official art, state institutions, galleries, museums and offices. Namely, it institutionalized art, so it built its own internal hierarchy of values, evaluation criteria, gave signification to artists and artworks according to its own internal rules, and these choices were respected and followed in this art world. It was a double institutional artistic life, a double world of art. At the same time, the description of these relations as ‘parallel’ does not reflect the dynamics of this practice and its performative nature. These two art worlds were nested in practice, but at the same time each cared about their position, the first cared about its relationship with power, the second about independence from it. Let us emphasize once again that various forms of live art played a key role in this movement for maintaining its existence and also for maintaining its functioning in the state. And the basis for creating the movement was art with conceptual provenance, not sociology. First, this serves to create art, not a form of just ‘communication’ that  concerns only the group of those included (‘conducive’ supporters) rather than society in general. However, one thing is certain, and this is also emphasized by the book’s editors – the study of this aspect of the dual functioning of art is crucial for understanding and interpreting the art issues during the Iron Curtain period. It is also an important factor in constructing a coherent research methodology for the art of the region. This factor is complementary to the study of live art. And there is no doubt that it has an ‘analytical potential’ as well as an interpretative one. At the same time, problems with accepting conceptual art were similar in other places around the world. So this is not just a feature of the modus operandi in countries behind the Iron Curtain, or even of a totalitarian regime, but of the reception of new trends in official art institutions. Nobody suffered such persecution as the Vienna Actionists on the democratic side of the Iron Curtain. This points to Vienna as the centre of subversive art in the region, in the middle of Central Europe, given the themes raised by the Viennese Actionists, for which the central issue was the criticism of post-Holocaust Europe, a particularly vital question for this part of Europe. After all, it was political art per se, not just because of the content. The problem here is in the art itself, not in the political system of the state. The models of social functioning in the countries of Europe behind the Iron Curtain described in the introduction are correct, but art develops transcending the divisions of political sociology explaining the mechanisms of power, but not of art. Again, the highlighted issue of performance for the camera (photo, film, and then video) was related to the development of conceptual art and its adoption of new media. There was, however, also live performance present at the same time in the same gallery movement. The decisions regarding the choice of the medium were as much artistic as political and social. This does not exclude or even strengthen the thesis about the importance of ephemeral forms as a means of escaping censorship. The ‘public sphere’ methodology is extremely useful in transcending the idiosyncratic reading of performance, the solipsism of looking at art as only an individual creation, presentation of the creator and selfishness of creation. And starting from art allows the avoidance of stereotypes about the situation of artists under a regime, censorship, totalitarianism. Which was true from the point of view of the system of Western liberal democracy. But inside the system behind the Iron Curtain, the spheres of life, not only culture, also social, economic, functioned in a symbiotic interaction. As Stefan Kisielewski, Polish journalist, said right at the beginning of the era of Soviet domination after Second World War: “It’s clear that we’re in deep shit. The problem is that we are starting to organize ourselves in it. ”

Roddy Hunter in the chapter “Beyond »East« and »West« through The Eternal Network: networked artists’ communities as counter-publics of Cold War Europe” presents examples of building a network as an art project of a conceptual but also performative nature because the network was to be a vehicle to create art, such as mail art exchange or the other forms of contact within projects. All these projects were proprietary, just like the works of art. They were based on the individuality of their makers. Such was the NET project mentioned above, although its originators stated that the idea was not in fact proprietary and anyone could take it up. ‘Counter-publics’ is a useful descriptive term in research methodologies for art dominated by a conceptual definition in which, as I wrote, its creators were various ‘actors,’ not just artists. An example is Artpool in Budapest, which was created as a conceptual art project, and in this sense was authorial, and was an art institution at the same time. Today, years later, it serves as an extremely important archive of art in the region. In the conclusion of the text, it was emphasized that the construction of the net in the conditions of the Iron Curtain and a totalitarian state was a utopian project of transcending borders, and at the same time this idea is still important today. Let us add that, even in an open EU, this is still an idea that is under threat by nationalism. The ‘Eternal Network’ is something we still have to build, this global, planetary thinking (see Maja and Reuben Fowkes’ article in the first book discussed here). And if such a wide network is to be built, then the old Yalta partition is a legacy that must be overcome, also in terms of nomenclature. The author says ‘former’ on East – West divisions, and this word ‘former’ must be taken seriously in constructed methods, not duplicated.

In the next chapter by Miško Šuvaković, “Tactical networking: Yugoslav performing and visual arts between East and West,” we will find other words useful for describing the relationship of art in the countries of the region. The author uses the term ‘tactical networking’ to describe the relationship between the official, state, and grassroots art movement. Then he makes a distinction within this term into macro and micro because of its political importance, with the first being international, the second being local, national in Yugoslavia (although it can usefully be extended to the pan-regional research methodology). It must be taken into account that we are talking about the conditions of Yugoslavia, a region that is strongly culturally and ethnically diverse, which resulted in the emergence of separate states in the nineties. Although the working hypothesis of the text is standard and assumes a difference or a strong opposition between the official and unofficial spheres in the countries of the region, the author describes the relationship in Yugoslavia as ‘hybrid.’ The terms ‘hybrid’ or ‘hybridization’ can be applied equally effectively to the situation in Poland. It seems, then, that this descriptive dictionary may be pan-regional. It is not about justifying a regime of a totalitarian nature, but about a description of the functioning of culture that reflects its dynamic character. Based on the example of Yugoslavia, it can truly be said that hybridization is associated with relative liberalization, especially in the field of culture (although the author subsumes the macro and micro levels under one principle, the political one). At the same time, while the dialectic of the thaw and repression was characteristic of the pragmatics of power in each of the Soviet Bloc countries, in various historical periodisation (micro), it also applied to international politics (macro) marked by periods of escalation and de-escalation. The description of the examples also confirms the strategies related to all countries of the Soviet Bloc: performance (theatre or para-theatre, or commune) was an alternative culture, and located within the student community, i. e. institutions of relative independence.

These observations based on Yugoslavia’s art milieu are confirmed in the next chapter by Ditmar Unterkofler, “Connection with the world: internationalism and new art practices in Yugoslavia.” Its author adds to this network of terms institutionalism as grouping (formal or semiformal or informal), artists working together on related art issues. An example is the role of Richard Demarco, who, from his external perspective, was able to find what was common in the Soviet Bloc countries, including Yugoslavia with its special status. Thus, the perspective of Demarco, who has travelled in these countries, proves the unity of the art of the region. Are there more figures like Demarco in the history of Europe? The special political status of Yugoslavia, also stated in other articles, is not reflected in the general formal character of the described works, which belong to the dominant art trends such as performance (they undoubtedly take individual forms, but this does not matter in my article). Rather, formal analyses prove the similarity of the direction of art development throughout the Soviet Bloc, presenting the synchronicities between the art of particular countries. It is only in interpretations that the specificity of the status and the political context of Yugoslavia begin to play a distinctive role as a country considered more liberal (free from some features of the totalitarianism of Soviet style). Interpretative methodologies take into account both historical specificity and political history. Thus, diachrony tends to disintegrate the narrative of art into the narratives of nation states, which excludes a holistic viewpoint of the history of Central European art. This was, in a way, confirmed by the break-up of Yugoslavia into countries, each of which builds its own history, including the history of art.

Also, the last chapter of the first part by Ileana Pintilie, “Questioning the East: artistic practices and social context on the Edge,” concerning Romania, assumes a clear division of ‘spheres’ and their parallel existence, but at the same time the description points to their relationship. Thus, in the constructed methodology, one should definitely abandon the assumption of the sphere separation characterizing the ‘East’ construct as a viewpoint based on wishes and presuppositions that are visible only from a historical distance. In the light of the examples described, it should be confirmed that such a viewpoint produces results for the comparative scale of the entire region. But at the same time it presupposes an omission of such aspects as the relationship of individual artists with the Security Services. When adopting such a perspective, the relations between the spheres become blurred. This is another example of the deconstruction of the leading methodology that divides culture (art) into ‘spheres.’ On the other hand, formal analysis based on works allows the use of such divisions. Moreover, these are moral and not formal research assumptions, and this would also be the resulting description. The regimes in this part of Europe were very ‘moral,’ which should be understood as meaning that this ‘morality’ resulted from the political assumption of differentiation from the liberal West. Hence the censorship of nudity (which the author describes using the example of Romania, but it was a practice everywhere). But also the idea of ​​situating oneself in opposition to state power through nudity and body, which enhances the role of this type of performance (live or for camera) as political art par excellance, potentially subversive, challenging official politics. It is also a methodological pointer. Contrary to the statements already mentioned in other articles discussed here, the conclusion is optimistic – after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the artists found international recognition. At the same time, the ‘second public sphere’ ceased to exist forever. However, this conclusion can be read a rebour – in the realities of the art market and the selling/buying system, institutionalization and the dominance of curators, the alternative – other sphere – is all the more needed. East lost its importance as an area of ​​art with its specificity, ‘otherness.’ Or maybe it never had one when we base this statement on the form, as the author mentions Demarko, who was surprised to see similar art forms in the East as in the West. Indeed, the descriptions of the action art pieces in this volume confirm that on the general level, the means of art are similar, and at the same time the works have individual character and forms. This only confirms that on the basis of comparative formal research it is possible to grasp the relations between national art centres and allows the building of an international network of artforms.

A continuation of this topic is an article by Cristian Nae (although it was published in the next part of this book), “Basements, attics, streets and courtyards: the reinvention of marginal art spaces in Romania during socialism.” The author takes up the subject of mail art. It is a way of creating art, which occupies a particularly important place in the research methodologies of Central Europe, more important than in Western art, where it was a marginal movement, which was the result of its own assumptions. In the West, it was an expression of opposition to the art market, while in the East it was a practical opportunity to communicate with the art world from the other side of the Iron Curtain. Mail art is a conceptual form and hence conceptual art research methodologies can also apply to it. At the same time, it should be a methodology compatible with studies of forms that take everyday life into account, mimicking or challenging it, as well as performances that take place in the street and in this sense do not distinguish themselves as art. This applies also to the methods of researching art institutions, as it uses the official institution, the Post, as the location of the project. In the description of the functioning of art in the countries behind the Iron Curtain, mail art, which uses the institution of a totalitarian state, gains an additional aspect contributing to the construction of an interpretation of the relationship between ‘spheres.’ Here, the institution of the Post contributed to the construction of an alternative art system, which shows the methods of nesting or hybridizing spheres (which I emphasize, rather than the commonly indicated separation of spheres). Including mail art in the art research methods allows us to recreate the ways of building relationships linking world art despite the existence of the Iron Curtain.

This issue is also considered in the next chapter by Andrej Mirčev, “Performing the proletarian public sphere: gender and labour in the art of Tomislav Gotovac,” the subject of which is art in Zagreb, so again in Yugoslavia, whose specific ‘liberalization’ was discussed above. It concerns performance in urban space. Artists in the region who used nudity in the public (mainly urban) space challenged the political system for which ‘order’ in the public space was a proof of control over social space, in short, over society. But such actions happened anyway. The author analyses the form of performance in the context of the bourgeois to proletariat relationship, which is an interesting assumption, considering the basis of the official political ideology of the ‘first sphere,’ the sphere of power, i. e. communism and Marxism. This is an interesting way of constructing interpretations, legitimized by ideas of power that take a paradoxical form in Central Europe – proletarian power is like the bourgeois. These methodological assumption applies to all Soviet Bloc countries, building interpretations at the level of the entire region.

Andrea Batorova in her chapter entitled “Outside by being inside: unofficial artistic strategies in the former Czechoslovakia in the 1970s and 1980s” provides a deep analysis of how the official sphere functioned. That is, unlike other researchers on this topic, she confines herself to stating the existence of these two spheres as a given, and at the same time focuses on researching the infrastructure of the second sphere. Her article is about Czechoslovakia, but the description may be applicable to any country in the region. The official sphere is the sphere of mimicry, adaptation, fiction, and thus the artists follow the strategy of the Surrealists or (more often referred to) Situationists, which are rooted in the attitude of art revolt as social revolt. Then the author describes artistic actions created in public space and categorizes such actions according to the artists’ strategies adopted to build a relationship with the official public sphere (power), as it was described above. She points out that this is characteristic of the entire Soviet Block, which is true. This is a ‘subversive affirmation’ strategy. In Poland, such strategies were described by Czesław Miłosz regarding the poets writing at that time, who, as expected, write positively, but strongly exaggerate with affirmation, probably consciously (The Captive Mind). Or another strategy, mimicry-type, is an emulation of the rituals of everyday life (the May 1 parade, a wedding, or distribution of information through a newspaper, as well as other behaviours in public space not authorized by the authorities or not typical to the existing cultural patterns). ‘Pseudo-public,’ this is how the author describes this type of activity taking place in public space, and at the same time being a critical viewpoint of this space and talking about the current exclusion from it. Thus, it provides a vocabulary for constructing a methodology for describing the relations between the spheres, which is a key issue in relation to art in all countries of the region.

Assuming the time-lapse perspective and historical distance, the relations between the spheres can be accurately described on the basis of the archives of the Security Service (Ileana Pintilie wrote about this in her chapter above). As in the chapter by Kata Krasznahorkai, “Surveilling the public sphere: the first Hungarian happening in secret agents’ reports,” which shows, using the Hungarian example, that rather than repression, which would consolidate the bipolar division, the authorities used a strategy of controlling the situation by trying to keep control of grassroots activity, so as not to harm the ruling power. The analysis of the reports proves ambivalence rather than hostility in the approach to the other sphere of culture, thus proving the liquidity of the boundary between them. Thus, it deconstructs the narrative – dominant after the collapse of totalitarian regimes in Central Europe – developed by those who felt wronged by the authorities. The issue of constructing the methodology is therefore to what extent the point of view of the authorities should be taken into account in it, because so far the dominant structure assumed a clear division into ‘spheres,’ where the second was the opposition of the first.

The chapter by Leine Kristberg, “Performance art in Latvia as international appropriation,” presents an interesting methodological solution. The author sketches the figure of Homo Sovieticus on the basis of literature, which during the times of Soviet domination was an ethical model propagated by official propaganda. It is a way of building a methodology, starting from the social side, not the artistic one, and thus art appears to be closely related to the social background. It is only against this background that she shows the functioning of the performers in Latvia, and the meaning of their actions is interpreted from the perspective of the adopted assumption of deconstruction of the official ethical pattern (Jesus Christ, which is as rejected as Homo Sovieticus). This methodological assumption is the basis for the interpretation of nudity and sexuality present in performances, where they play the role of liberation tools. In the example described, as in other countries, freedom of artistic action is obtained through nesting in official institutions.

The analyses by Adam Czirak in his chapter “Escape into nature!: the politics of melancholy in Czechoslovakian performance art” concern formal aspects and contribute to constructing a formalist methodology for studying European art behind the Iron Curtain. Their starting point is the relationship of land art and performance art, which are linked by being based on the assumptions of conceptual art, the ephemeral nature of form adapted for making meaning. For the author, the key is to situate works in nature, but outside cities and institutions. This is how the plein-airs, which are part of the broad ARI movement, are described in the Polish historiography of art history. From the point of view of the participants and the dominant description in the history of contemporary art, these were unofficial events, but in organizational terms, they constituted an example of combining the spheres of culture, the competences of political power and cultural organizations, such as Artists’ Unions. Localization in nature often led to interesting formal solutions, but is also the key to interpretation (motifs of melancholy, as a key-word describing the social mood of that time in Czechoslovakia). Supplementing the historical references indicated by the author, it can be added that land art (earth art) works referred to observatories and incorporated mythological and cosmic dependencies into the works. We should also remember that although land art artists took art beyond the galleries (white cube), they also brought it back to the gallery as installations consisting of objects, media works and their combinations that were commercialized and museumalised. Pro-ecological interpretations came later, as the author notes (however, in Poland at that time we will find ecologically conscious artistic actions). The article provides a very rich collection of references to deep contextual analyses of this type of performance.

*

The book contains an entire section on gender (part III). As already mentioned in the articles in the previous section, this was an issue that was treated ambivalently in countries influenced by Soviet Russia. Body, sex and eroticism were excluded from the public sphere when treated as a serious issue or pornography, but were present as entertainment in popular culture. In cinema, their critical role has been taken, for example, by Věra Chytilová (Sedmikrásky) as a social issue, or by Walerian Borowczyk’s films (Immoral Tales, The Beast) as Freudian and surrealism based image of libido power, but these are exceptions. In art, erotic representation was not present in the mainstream of art forms (avant-garde), also in art criticism. The obvious erotic aspect of the works was visually ignored, merging them with other narratives, while eroticism remained an unspeakable taboo. Magdalena Abakanowicz’s explicitly erotic works have not been discussed from this point of view. Gender comes up late as a political issue. Even conceptualism and feminism compatible with it did not cause a wider wave of interest in this topic in Central Europe. It is from a distance that today we interpret these works in this way. And it is from today’s perspective that we are adding a narrative to this art, which is understandable as gender is a factor of cultural change and identifying this subject is methodologically correct and useful.

In the chapter by Amy Bryzgel, “Gender, feminism, and the second public sphere in East European performance art,” she proves that she is aware of this ambivalence approach of the female artists in the Soviet Bloc countries and from the other side (Western) the false belief that they have resolved it (resulting from the facade of equality in the ideology of power). Thus, the constructs of the method must deconstruct beliefs about social reality (on both sides of the Iron Curtain). Whatever would be the pro-egalitarian propaganda rhetoric in the Soviet Bloc countries, social practice was phallocentric. The author points out the difference in the use of performance art: while in the West it was the preferred medium for feminists working in the public sphere, in Central Europe they were individual manifestations (examples are given in the text), although for female artists dealing with feminist issues the basis was the so-called new media. A large number of examples cited in the article including overall East Europe, comparative relations with examples in the West help index strategies of performance forms adopted by women: make up, household, initiations.

This part of the collection includes an article by Jasmina Tumbas, “Decision as art: performance in Balkans,” which should be read complementary to the previously mentioned articles by Miško Šuvaković and Ditmar Unterkofler. The author refers to the issue of gender, but describes still important forms of performance based on the individual condition of women artists. These performances very well meet the definition (already quoted here) of performance art. Therefore, they prove that in Europe behind the Iron Curtain the same issues of art were developed, and since these are issues arising from conceptual art, it shows that it was this broadly understood tendency and pattern of defining art that shaped art in this part of Europe in the same way. Conceptual methodologies are equally suitable for analyzing forms. The comparative analysis of examples (East – West synchrony) is contextually deepened. The accounts in Croatia, as proved, are akin to the rest of Europe in the region. In the conclusion of this article, the author talks about the aspect of normativity (state) that was broken by artists who had their own norms. Paying attention to this methodological aspect, compliance with the ‘state’ standard of communist country vs. another norm of the ‘second sphere’ is important here, as it additionally allows the legitimization of the assumption of ‘two institutionalisms’ and it is right to speak of two normative systems. The methodological assumption of the existence of two systems of norms serves to present the way they function between the spheres, their hybridization, which does not violate the same norms and systems built on these norms, hence the two spheres that could function in parallel despite contradictions, and on the contrary – thanks to it.

The chapter by Beata Hock “Communities of practice: performing women in the second public sphere” offers a methodological basis for gender studies in relation to the art scene of Central Europe and a broad historical context of such studies in the world (this article should open this section). At the same time, her article complements the previously discussed publication by this author (part II). Gender studies in Central Europe are part of the global issue, which is clearly presented in this article. Hence it follows that gender studies in the region transcend local specificity (local synchronicities) and are subjected to global diachrony. Gender research is therefore carried out according to a slightly different model than art research starting from the specificity of local Central Europe (although they are based on the same examples). The shifts in the method also result from the fact that in gender studies the starting point for research is discourse and its deconstruction is being made, i. e. contextual interpretation of works, while the history of art starts from works of art and their historically shaped formal and artistic features, considered comparatively. After presenting the broadest background of creating art by women in the context of avant-garde trends and in accordance with their formal specificity, the author juxtaposes this art with art that has not been recognized as a medium of art, i. e. textile. In the context of the part about art created by women, it is a special medium, because on the one hand it is very feminine in terms of its making, and on the other hand, it is beyond the mainstream of the development of art described by art media. These two factors overlapped, causing the marginalization of this medium (the question of choosing a medium as a key declaration that socially situates art was discussed in the chapters above, so it is a recurring methodological issue). However, today, in a postmodern, horizontal perspective, textile as medium is considered in the context of the meanings and narration of works, not the specificity of the medium itself. Therefore, the perspective adopted in this article omits the issue of art (the definition of art) and refers directly to the meanings of the medium, such as textile. Paying attention to textile also demonstrates the shift in the art media index, where there is room for non-artistic media (so far). This is the same change that extends the media index to include women’s work. Including the history of textile art in the history of art complements and corresponds to the creation of a feminist media index, which should be treated on the basis of gender equality. However, this treatment of textile works today means the projection of contemporary thinking onto the past. This is interesting as a description and interpretation of their contemporary image, but does not explain the dynamics and nature of works from that time (contemporary art history). The methodology should accumulate empirical knowledge and at the same time locate it in the processes of art history, which makes it a living discipline. As the author points out, the history of art is full of omissions about women, and its completion is the task of the art history of the region. This task is all the more important as these were works commenting on social issues, and without taking them into account, the discussion on these issues is incomplete. It is as much a problem of the deconstruction of the dominant discourse as the truth about the history of performance art or the art of the region, and also as a global issue.

Angelika Richter, “Artistic collaboration of performing women in the GDR” begins by stating that many artists from the East German art scene collaborated with the Security Services. Discovering such facts is a common point of research in this part of Europe (it returns in the articles in this book). However, it can be considered a kind of blurring of spheres. For examining art from the formal point of view, it does not matter. For an understanding of the context in which art functions, it does, however, it is a question of the narrative style of art history which may be more or less close to fiction. So it is a methodological decision how to put the facts and how to write history, but the discoveries in the archives of the secret services are already emotionless. The question remains how do we judge their influence on art. Another methodological position in this article that can be adopted as a methodological basis for research in the region is intermediality, here the connection between experimental music and action art, e. g. Warsaw Autumn, audio art, sound installation, sound performance, rock and punk (the article concerns the punk years after the mid-eighties, the last period of GDR’s existence). There is also the term ‘Sound Basis Visual Art’ in Poland. This category includes forms of modern/postmodern dance, such as the examples described in the article. Although ‘intermedia’ is an open category, the term intermedia is shifted here compared to the reference with intermedia by Dick Higgins. At the same time, this is another general methodological aspect, performance artists also worked with the use of other art media, which strengthens the thesis about intermediality. However, the author points out that this subversive potential was demonstrated by the action (although the article concerns performances by women).

*

The last part of the volume (part IV) is one article by Maja and Reuben Fowkes, “Socialist performance replaced: re-enactment as a critical strategy in contemporary East European art,” the authors refer to the issue of re-enactment as ‘critical strategy,’ however it is the purpose of such works to refer to various issues. The reasons that led to the emergence of this performative form (this is a wider issue than the visual arts) are indicated in the article, emphasizing the specificity of the reason for using this form in the art of post-socialist countries. Thus, apart from one reason for the existence of the ephemeral form, i. e. the possibility of its inclusion in museum collections, supplementing archival data, an interesting methodological proposal is to consider re-enactment as a way of pointing to local specificity and thus its enhancement in the situation of globalization, i. e. making it function more horizontal. In the historical diachrony these cuts – local synchronicities in this part of Europe are visualized, marked and underlined. But the authors also indicate the potential of re-enactment: the possibility of using it as a social activism referring to the present day, a way of pointing to parallels with the state socialist past, which can be a significant argument against the anti-democratic actions of the authorities using censorship, economic and legal persecution against their critics. As a method of artistic analysis, re-enactment can be read as a ready-made, and thanks to the idea and practice of ready-made all the performative works of art are now at the disposal of contemporary artists (along with the entire history of art).

The closing section introduces us to the contemporary relationship between art and power. The methodology constructed for historical research may prove useful for art criticism, the social use of historical narrative, and the interpretation of power to art relationship, and building a civil society in the middle of Europe.

 

Conclusion

Considerations on and proposals for the construction of the methodology of contemporary art studies in the Central European region prove that its structure is as complex as the region itself. The dialectic of the common and the individual occurs at every stage of research, be they national or regional, or European or global.

The globalizing approach to the research matter of Central European art contributes to a comprehensive, holistic viewpoint of the region, especially to overcoming its fragmentation into nation states. Belonging to the EU is also a unifying factor, beyond nationalisms. However, this method has its limitations, especially when used explicitly to study art in particular regions. The global character of contemporary art can be explored on the basis of formal methods, that is, taking as a starting point both art and artworks. This is the first reading of art history and the first task of the historiography of the region. Contemporary art is built on its own, autonomous assumptions, and these are the basis of the global character of art.

Global art is a factor that acts above the divisions of political geography. The assumption that the analogies of political history that unified the territory of Central Europe after Second World War are also able to explain the connections in the field of contemporary art seems to be incorrect today. Repressions such as the suppression of the Prague Spring or the Martial Law in Poland do not stop the reception of new forms of conceptual art, but change and adapt their forms. Nevertheless, political history is the basis for the interpretation and expansion of the contextual narrative on the facts of art. Pointing to the politics and ideology of power as a common factor supports the thesis that this area is treated as a unit, even more broadly than the division by the Iron Curtain, because it includes the countries of ex-Yugoslavia, which had a special status. Immediately after the civil war there, the post-Yugoslav countries quickly built their own art institutions and recreated particular art histories. The history of Czech and Slovak art has been rewritten in a similar way. In the countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, particular histories of art have also been reconstructed. This is especially the case in the Baltic states, which have also found their own sources of contemporary art history in art created during the period of their subordination. A similar process is taking place in Ukraine today. What is more, this also justifies the inclusion of Russia in these considerations, where the foundations of contemporary art have been found similarly in conceptual art. It is interesting that despite the political dependence and the declaration of the political community, the relationship between Russia and the artists of the Soviet Bloc is unknown. However, when analyzing art, we see common grounds in conceptualism. The network of institutionalization of art in the conceptual movement did not include Russia, but at the same time there was dissident art, which was persecuted because of the form, and only then possibly for the opposition narrative. Dissident activity in individual Soviet Bloc countries should be based on different methodological assumptions, since the political history of these countries had its own dynamics, although it is subjected to the general principle of the dialectic of repression and thaw. Also, globalizing overviews of art/culture in the Soviet Bloc and individual countries should take these factors into account.

The place of the ‘public sphere’ in this methodological construction plays an important role, as art of conceptual provenance is inherently contextualized in reference to the public sphere. It is art, first, based on the conceptual definition of art as making meaning, and the form of presentation is secondary, open, ready-made. The conceptual definition of art is tautological, and such a definition presupposes the autonomy of art, not defining art as representation. This applies to a wide range of examples of works, including performances and actions of various types (their particular importance was the subject of the descriptions cited in the articles above). Second, it is ephemeral, and this generalizing statement means that it covers a wide variety of issues that share the conceptual definition of art. It is on the basis of conceptual art that the history of art of the region can be written. I emphasize that it is not only about the history of conceptual art in the region, but the basis defining activity in the field of art in this period when conceptual art was the dominant paradigm of thinking. So this concerns the art of various media. It is also on such grounds that horizontal art history is possible. Such a perspective becomes possible in a situation where there is no leading style, tendency, or medium of art, as it began to be defined along with the development of the postmodern trend. Thus, while the conceptual tendency is a factor unifying the art of the region and reconciliation with global art, it is also the beginning of postmodern equality in valuation, which is connected with time, when there is a gradual rejection of the paradigm of modernist avant-garde with all their principia and acceptance of the consequences.

The ‘public sphere,’ whether the first or the second, or its other divisions, presupposes the understanding of art as an institution, that is, as a social point of reference that gives meaning. Art is institutionalized either officially or not. Most often it is a mix of influences, information coming from various sources, not only centres of political power. In the situation of a totalitarian state, i. e. one political centre and complete control (assumed), this division into ‘spheres’ is sharply visible (however, the flow between ‘spheres’ still takes place). In methodology, this role is played by the identification of information sources that define art, or in other words, centres of power that define art, both through form and context, and thus interpreters. Thus, institutionalization, be it museums and art centres, the collector’s and commercial market, or the gallery movement and grassroots initiative (ARI), play a key role in the analysis, description and accurate reading of art, especially in a centralized and non-democratic socio-political system. That is, in relation to the art of the Central European region.

Performance studies, on the one hand, provides a useful methodology in the field of interpretation and contextual research. On the other hand, visual arts together with performance art in the research perspective of performance studies are only one of the cases and one of the research fields, where works of this nature are treated equally. So performance studies does not explain visual arts, it can be art history that analyses forms comparatively, but their place in culture and the political and social role of this art, especially when visual arts are combined with other disciplines in methodology. With the broadest understanding of performance studies, it explains global civilization processes and our functioning in the world. It is therefore a perspective of global art. Conceptualism and performativity are treated here, on this assumption, as the broadest inclusive categories on the basis of which the definition of art is expanded.

In Piotrowski’s methodology, the relationship of diachrony and synchrony plays a special constructive role. While the very principle of their mutual relationship is obvious, the functional principle is constructed and depends on the researcher’s decision. And so the diachronic construction may be located in various ways in history, it may be in Europe, Central Europe, or in individual countries. The diachrony of globalized art will look even different, while the diachrony in regional studies somehow sums up these different chronological and geographical cross-sections. Each time the diachronic construction will produce a different image of the studied history, or e. g. regional or global relations. However, this is what always allows the dynamics of changes to which the subject of research is subjected in the designated research field to be described. Despite the given data that limit the creativity of the researcher, he/she may shape the methodology of the research processes. On the other hand, it is the synchronous relationships that give the researcher more freedom to construct methods. The synchronicities can be built and marked in the study in a stronger or weaker way. They also create the possibility of constructing methodologies, i. e., the dividing ‘cuts’ can be determined and localized in various ways. They are also responsible for constructing methods of comparative studies. The synchronicities therefore have a decisive influence on the method and thus on the results. They can be synchronicities of contextual forms or narratives or their relationships. These ‘cuts’ determine the horizontal validation of the subject of research, regardless of the assumed scope of the research, it may be works of art or their contextual relations. The development of the methodology of studying synchrony is related to formal analyses of works of art, which additionally enhances horizontalism, which is the basic methodological premise.

All the above considerations are propositions and are linked with efforts to construct the most adequate and efficient research method suitable for the specificity of the region and its internal and external (global) relations. The dialectic of relations (East – West, local – global, regional – national, etc. ) is inevitable in methodology, especially historical (art history). What’s more, it allows us to capture the dynamics of these processes. Its limitation is horizontalism as a postmodern model (‘anything goes’). The articles quoted above concern various countries of the region, and at the same time prove that on the basis of the method of dialectical relations between them, it is possible to describe a horizontal network of exchange of meanings (definitions) and forms both in the region and globally.

 

published 2022