PART IV - OFF-OFF
1. "SOLIDARITY"
MS - What possibilities did the period of "S" open up for art?
PK - I believe, that new opportunities have appeared, mostly thanks to acknowledging pluralism as something normal. Consequently much more became dependent on individual drive, that had been deadened by organisations. The chances of the appearance of active individuals were greater - both in Poland and abroad. As an example we can quote "New Art from Poland" ("Nowa Sztuka z Polski") in Stuttgart organised by Zdzislaw Sosnowski, the then manager of the Studio Gallery. He could organise such a personal-choice exhibition on the basis of the state institution, although outside the ministry and its official programme of promotions. And there was nothing abnormal in it, on the contrary - this was just normal. Nota bene we participated in the exhibition.
MS - "The Construction in the Process" was a similar type of initiative.
PK - Yes. And we should assume that if that period had lasted longer, such practice would have become well-grounded. So, also in this respect - the sphere of social issues, that period was very good.
MS - "Solidarity" was an ally of alternatives?
PK - No...
MS - Was it an alternative itself?
PK - No.
ZK - It was the driving force of alternatives!
PK - No, no, no. "Solidarity" was simply a social force that guaranteed the introduction of new regulations in the sphere of administration and law. And it guarded their stability, it guaranteed them. However, I would not say that it was the driving force or that it introduced them. This is not true because many of those new regulations were also advocated by the people from the left or of communist or socialist orientation, if we are to be precise. Thus we should not confuse these notions. We imagine - this fact needs to be imagined today, so schizophrenic it is - that, e.g. in POP at ZPAP many people were also members of "Solidarity". Summing up, "Solidarity" was a social drive for renovation. Generally speaking, we should value that period positively. Yet, the manifestations of it in concrete examples of artistic life of various groups, lobbies, etc. - that is an entirely different matter.
ZK - I am convinced that the period of pluralism was too short to make a proper evaluation of it. I remember, for instance, the press articles that appeared after the exhibition "The Art of Fact" ("Sztuka faktu") in Bydgoszcz in 1981; they pinpointed the weak points of the event. Which ones? Mostly the fact that there simply were no interesting, good, moving works which would correspond to the topic of the exhibition.
PK - Even though, there was a huge number of paintings hanging that depicted tanks in streets - like those by Bieniasz about December '70, Then, in "Kultura" Ms. Hniedziewicz was able to articulate, or rather - write, the words Kwiek and Kulik for the first time. She was asking why we were absent at "The Art of Fact".
ZK - It was too short period to create something new on a larger scale, and nobody - which was an accusation also to the men of letters - had their drawers so fully filled. Was anything created in that period, any "symphony"?...
MS - Monuments?
PK - Phi, that's not my branch. I am not interested in monuments. One should demolish monuments. Another example of the event in that new spirit - "Kraków Meetings" ("Spotkania Krakowskie").
ZK - Yes, that was the only event, except for the static exhibition "The Garden of Cognition" ("Ogród poznania") organised by Ewa Kuryluk, in which we participated at that time in Poland. This was towards the end of the "Solidarity" period in November 1981. Coming back to those "drawers" - what turned out? There was a competition for the scenario of that exhibition and nobody from the former management of BWA nor the artist's association was able to propose anything sensible. If there were any projects, they were rejected. What won was the exhibition plan by Kostolowski, Pininska-Beres and Warpechowski - and it was realised. It was a fantastic international event - interesting works, interesting formula, good organisation, big attendance of the public. Summing up - a professional, good event. There was also an interesting project at the exhibition. The photographers of ZPAF46 contributed by making documentation of the artists' appearances and their photographs were immediately presented as exhibits.
PK - For the first time a state-supported video documentation was made, by Kolodrubec. What happened to it?
ZK - Yes. And Dzieduszycki from "Pegaz" was present as well, although there were many non-traditional works - performances, video installations... Mary Kelly, Stuart Bristlay, Rasa Todosijevia, Albert van der Weiden....
PK - It was the event based on the alternative movement which had suddenly appeared to bear the burden of official appearance. Moreover, not as an exciting experimental novelty.
MS - And the fact that it managed to get through to the mass-media?
PK - "Pegaz"! "Pegaz" broke its leash on which it had so far been faithfully walking. That indicated that everything was on a good road, that finally we were going to have relations from interesting events.
ZK - Relations from life were so interesting then that life absolutely exceeded art, ha ha...
MS - And in your own creative work? Did you manage to cope with that period, in your own opinion, today?
ZK - We became mute...
PK - Yes, but it should not be understood that we were overwhelmed by the glory of social phenomena. I believe that we achieved a terrible success. But, a moral success. And that was plain. Simply, thanks to those social events and through them, all our activity done to that day found its own ending beyond us, but in our spirit and our style. However, problems of a different kind appeared, nota bene, observed not only by us. I mean the situation when all critical activity of the previous period had been made so popular and absorbed by the society that we just became, let me say, unemployed. The same paradox was noticed by a member of the "Wprost" ("Directly") group Zbylut Grzywacz, with whom we by no means share the approach to art. He said that he had literally stopped painting because what he had previously shouted in his paintings, was then officially spoken about - the meat, the queues before shops which he used to tell about, the poverty of everyday life, etc. We, I think, were insured against such circumstances, that is "unemployment" in the sphere of social criticism with which we had dealt before. The insurance was our taking care of a certain channel of our artistic work, namely the formal issues connected with our technique, the quality in itself - harmony, composition, consistency, following one's own theory. Here I could repeat a list of names and topics which contributed to that quality of ours: Hansen, Szwacz, Kotarbinski, cybernetics, semiology, formal logic, Department of Praxeology at the Institute of Organisation and Management of PAN, Grzegorczyk, Rasiowa, Piekarczyk...
ZK - Exactly at "Krakow Meetings" we made, I think for the first time, not a contextual work but a general one, although, it was based on our former Activities upon the head. It was the above-mentioned performance when we formed each other's heads of clay moving in the room in a way which would allow us to pass without any "obstacles".
PK - It was not for the first time in general; however, it was for the first time in the domain of performance that we made a work for the sake of the work itself. The work which was meant to influence with all its strata, both formal and contextual, that emerged from it. And what emerged was, let's call them - universal, human, spiritual messages. This was symptomatic: while losing something, we gained something else - we left the contextual sphere for the universal.
ZK - And that situation, if it had lasted longer, would have created the opportunity for all artists, I believe - the opportunity to think about oneself in a more general way, think about the world... And many artists flounder in temporary issues. Obviously, you can also master this domain, like Hans Haacke or Wodiczko, but there are few such masters.
PK - Thus the society took over part of the duties, which it should have performed from the beginning anyway and which the artists had to perform so far. Stefan Morawski in the discussion published in a pulped47 issue 4/1981 of "Sztuka" accentuates that there was nothing in the sphere of visual arts which would give testimony to the artists' playing the role of "foreshadowers" and critics, as one could have observed in the alternative circulation of poetry, in Baranczak's or Zagajewski's, or in film. Of course, I am talking about the seventies. Here, I must boast that he enumerated out names among the exceptions confirming the rule. It was very difficult for him, but he enumerated us, Dwurnik and Grzegorz Kowalski. However, his general evaluation of this sphere in visual arts was very negative. I, personally, do not agree with it, because I am convinced that this are simply missing points in his knowledge. He does not know anything about Elblag, the "Tak" Gallery, and things of that sort. Anyway, it is worthwhile explaining how the professor would envisage such a committed artistic stance. Being at Pawel Kwiek's event "The Self-organising Band" ("Samoorganizujacy sie zespol") at Dziekanka in January 1979 he was disgusted that such a large number of people, having the task to get organised somehow, divagates instead of starting the only proper activities... of the Kuron and Michnik type. Emm...
Summing up this period I shall repeat what I said at the beginning, because it is important. What was so characteristic and so conspicuous that it was hardly noticeable was the fact that all competent and active individuals were active. Which is something you cannot say about today. And in our field - before "Solidarity" it was the alternative movement, something "on the margin", "private views", and so on. Now we have a boycott. So, that was the only normal period. The period of total work, of everybody. I remember our feelings from that period as the feelings of something wonderful. Man, even expecting certain discomforts in life, the lack of money, which obviously could be occurring in a poor society for a long time, whatever the political system - he felt that... He simply felt excellent.
MS - He felt at home, didn't he?
PK - Yes. He was at home, he could do whatever he wanted to.
PART IV - OFF-OFF
2. BOYCOTT
MS - Was the boycott understandable for you? I mean your first reaction, this impulse: it is a war, we are not going to exhibit? And we will not appear on TV, we do not give any interviews for the press, and so on. Because the unions came later.
ZK - Przemek was of a different opinion; however, I think (although I usually criticise the herd instinct strongly) that in that case the artist could choose this form of protest and simply do not participate in events. Yet, I identify also myself with the administrative of national rationale - that after all this is Poland, that this makes a break, e.g. a consecutive biennial will not be organised, that this does irreparable harm, the loss, that the state without active citizens cannot exist, and so on and so forth. I agree, rationally thinking I agree. This is all true. However, the artist as a public person has the right to react in such a way, to express by his activity, or its lack, the wider public reasons. And he can do it in a model way, that is omitting all those rational motivations which I have enumerated. Because it belongs to his role. It is his duty.
MS - That's it!
ZK - However, I, as a person, am somehow torn apart. That means I am torn apart to such an extent to which I have always been, having the rational training - not even home upbringing - behind. Yet, I shaped myself in such a way that makes me a rational person, I was in a great conflict with myself. On the one hand I explained to myself that it is my right, on the other - when I looked at the state as at a certain structure, a kind of organism, I saw that harm is done to that organism. And my first reaction as a rational and practical person was that we could allow the situation when this organism would be terminally ill. Perhaps this is banal language, but it was like that. And I cannot make such a doctrinaire speech like Przemek and defend my individual conduct. As a matter of fact, I do not even know and would not be able to tell anyone how we should act. Nevertheless, as usual, I do not have objections to the boycott as such, but to certain circumstances that accompanied it. The pressure about which I heard... We were not pressed by anyone.
PK - How come not?!
ZK - Oh, I am sorry, we were, but a little bit later. However, we never have much to lose, so I think that, consequently, this pressure was not so strong. We have always acted at our own expense, as a counterpart to the state and individually accepting the full risk. We have never been in any channel...
PK - And we suffered such painful consequences of it, that they could not even be more painful.
ZK - The situation that appeared was such - and for us it was a thing not to be solved - that when the date of our appearance in the Studio Gallery came, arranged even before the Solidarity period, martial law was introduced.. What could we do? My individual reaction was - I won't participate, I must not. We must not because as artists we just cannot participate in it. We must not participate in the realisation of someone else's rationale, even if I understand it myself. So, where you have to do with the so called "artistic duo" then, the split can occur, ha ha ha...Two individuals split and one person participates, the other - does not.
MS - And such was the case?
ZK - Yes, it was so. However, what stupid things can emerge from this! When almost all works are done together, can we say that the other person, who boycotts, does not present her works? What does it mean for me "not to exhibit"? Does it mean take the works off the wall or even destroy them? No-one knows, do they? But this is not all. On top of that I helped Przemek with this exhibition, not participating in it. I crossed out my name from the already printed invitation, I actually helped him hang the things, drive the nails into walls, make documentation, etc.
MS - But was it not breaking the boycott? At which moment was it exactly? After all the Studio Gallery is not banned by boycott.
PK - Not now! Mr. Taranienko, by no means! Yet, then it was Andrzej Skoczylas...
ZK - Unfortunately, it was exactly at the beginning of the boycott, April 1982. The reaction of our milieu was very interesting. The first from our circle to break the boycott was Partum who had appeared just before us in the same Studio Gallery, strongly criticised precisely because Skoczylas reigned there. However, Partum's appearance was not somehow noticed and Przemek's exhibition was. The fact that he made the exhibition - I have this impression - became a pretext to make against us, or rather - him, certain accusations. These accusations have appeared for a long time. And each such action like his then is like cutting off the branch on which you are sitting, that means it becomes a pretext for ill-disposed people. I would define this so. Some people are even surprised that we act in this way. However, I must recall our text from "The Separate Whole" - there is the following point there: "And the others know from the others and advise me to do it myself to be in the better, and I am still doing it in order to find myself in the better, and the others and the other others from the others, thanks to what I have done, are in the better, and I am constantly in the worse - so the others from the others laugh at me or break relations with me."
PK - On my part, while recalling this period, I do not have to say how lousy that time was in general - the martial law for us, people. Our feelings were probably like those of all Poles. Indeed, there was the feeling of some hopelessness, break down.... And that happened, I think, to both of us equally. Although, I tried to retain the image of a "strong man" under those circumstances. And a man who is simply mad. it was a mad move on my part. I did realise all this. But ... picking out some minor facts from the period when my exhibition was organised, at the time of its hanging, Geno Malkowski also was busy organising his next exhibition in Studio. I even witnessed his conversation about it with Skoczylas. Later, probably after my exhibition, I learnt that Malkowski had given up the idea. I am saying this because I think that at that time the boycott was already appearing. I did not witness any proclamation of the boycott on paper nor any directive concerning the issue. On the basis of what I know, I can propose a thesis that the idea of the boycott was only taking shape.
ZK - There were so called "night calls", but not to us.
PK - So at that time the idea was appearing. I know, for example, how hesitant Geno was. He did not know whether he should take part in it or not. He really wanted to participate! And everybody was waiting for the exhibition. To have an exhibition in the Studio Gallery was a kind of promotion. Crowds used to come there, the television visited it, it was a certain event. For us it was the first one-person show, in a sense, that means the first exhibition of hanging works. Organised with a lot of toil. After our participation in "Krakow Meetings", after the acceptance and publication - unfortunately for a paper mill - of our materials in "Sztuka", this exhibition could have been our public promotion after 10 years of activity. So it was a serious matter. At that time, I believe, the boycott was only appearing, and everything depended mostly on the individual's moral judgement. Zosia had one, I had another. And you cannot say any more here. If someone is interested, I can present my arguments in two words. We had been beyond the pale for the previous decade; however, one should not interpret it, that we were outside the margin of social or political life. Not at all. We were rather occupying the position of the fighting, vindictive left in that system. However, we were outside the margin of official life which, to be precise, was handled by ZPAP and MKiS. And these were the institutions which prepared such a fate for us in the past decade. This was not so much the fault of the state government but the Union. And suddenly that Union called everyone to boycott! Unexpectedly, such people-icons appeared like Puciata and others, who had connections with the "Solidarity" movement. Well - this is not important, but those people had previously been destroying the alternative movement in conspiracy with the government!
ZK - Tell about Wisniewski and Przyjemski.
PK - Oh, yes. The President of the Union, Puciata, at the beginning of the seventies was the President of Bydgoszcz Branch where Wisniewski and Przyjemski were registered as members. Well, this man normally closed the exhibitions sending "denunciations" to the authorities! Wisniewski mentions it in his "The Contester's Evidence". So, on my part, taking part in such an exhibition was the boycott of the boycotting people. Certainly, this was a crazy thing to do, because it created the opportunity - which I had accounted on - to someone to make use of the situation, to make a mountain of a molehill, in the case of my activities, when necessary. On the other hand, in our circle - the circle of the alternative movement in which we were active, there were no active repressions against us for that exhibition. They realised a little that it was a part of the game which we were playing. I will give examples: we were invited for a meeting, one of the meetings of "The Culture of the Whipround", at Kazimierz. Strictly speaking, by Partum who had organised the event. We could participate in the events outside the city, if we wanted to. Perhaps they would look ill at us, but, after all, every non-party member looked ill at us because we were still in the party at that time; nota bene, till the very end as candidates. Precisely speaking: Zosia returned her membership card after the introduction of martial law, I did it in 1984. And they immediately started to invite her - alone.
I think we should differentiate the following forces here: us in private, the alternative movement in which we had participated, i.e. our friends, and the boycott movement, which we identified with the Union of Artists - the most backward reaction for us, "the black Sotna"49, as we would call them. They were the reason for all the evil in the past ten or fifteen years.
So, that was the issue of the exhibition in the Studio Gallery. Now, as for the effects of that exhibition. Obviously there were some pathetic ones and some non-existent. I could feel that boycott on myself then because only 10 people came - this is one curiosity. The next curiosity is the fact that the censorship representatives were absent from the exhibition. And there were works which, e.g. today, could not appear in public. I repeated the performance "with the heads of clay", described in detail above. Need I really emphasise how up-to-date it was at the time?
MS - And Zosia? You need two people for the performance
ZK - I was documenting...
PK - Certainly there was "Zosia" , I had to manage somehow. There was an effigy sitting on a chair, natural size, modelled from wrapping paper - a bow towards my diploma "Old Hag" in front of the Grave of the Unknown Soldier and our identical effigy from the work "Art As They Want It To Be".
MS - From Lublin?...
ZK - Yes. March 1978, the Labyrinth Gallery. "Activity upon a Head". Then, in the static part of the evening the effigy was sitting in a box surrounded by "media" in the form of traditional drawings hanging around its head on three walls.
PK - And in Studio, a person invited from the public was standing behind a chair with such a "Zosia" and moved it. But what an ending there was! As you remember, the figures' heads get glued together, the people lay down and become still. In the heap of papers, just in front of the joined heads there was a TV set hidden. It became suddenly uncovered because of the movement of the figures. A moment of silence ... and the signal of our beloved TV Daily could be heard and on the screen appeared a announcer of martial law in army uniform.
ZK - Everything was synchronised in time.
PK - As for the exhibition, representatives of the government were present, e.g. Mr. Chejarek who was managing artistic life then and the director of Zacheta Mr. Ptasnik. Why am I mentioning it? Because, if the exhibition had been liked by the government we would have had some profit from it. Unfortunately, we had none. Which, again, gives us a good mark. It also proves that our game was right. It was others who gained profits, those employed by the state who were painting guts in a traditional way. Another positive thing from that step: the polarisation of stances. After all - what does boycott mean? Mroczek himself had exhibitions during martial law and everybody who had been invited participated in those exhibitions. To make things funnier, the martial law season was started there by Przyjemski himself, who had already emigrated to West Germany and who presented the most "Solidarity" biased expression and themes. By the way, it is worthwhile mentioning that while we were assembling our retrospective at BWA in February 1993, it was already after the first exhibition of "Gruppa" at Dziekanka. We sent the news to Mroczek immediately - finally they are here! The wild, up-to-date, with their intellectual mockery. And their following exhibition was in Lublin. And who can speak about the boycott! Some paranoid discussions start because Mroczek was not from the government side and Studio was. These discussions are a worn out and closed subject.
ZK - At any rate, it is connected with people, not institutions.
PK - However, the main reason for some concrete steps against us and, moreover, within the alternative movement itself, was our initiative of funding the Union of the Artists of Different Arts. That was the reason for some unpleasant steps which we have mentioned, particularly on the part of the Lodz milieu which deserted under the banners of the prepared ideology about which we have talked before. In Wroclaw the situation was similar. To this you should add the issue of foreign funds for the opposition in Poland and artistic careers connected with it, and so on, and so forth.
ZK - What actually happened? It happened that I was still invited, for example to the first Lodz "Pilgrimage", to various events...
PK - Without me. So it was an attempt to break our duo.
ZK - There is even a proof for it, the poster from "Pielgrzymka", that one, with the red sticks, here is - I do not know - a monogram, perhaps it is your brother, perhaps you, anyway?
PK - No, no. The invitation came only for you.
ZK - Besides... I am not sure whether I should confess things like that, but some people really tried to convince me that the future is in private activity and that - God forbid! - nobody should do anything under the state or institution aegis. We were told such things!
PK - But you must say this precisely - who told you this - a person working for the Museum of Art in Lodz!
ZK - Yes, and I was very surprised. I even asked him: wait, why don't you give up your state post then? And, besides, why aren't you propagating the art you support in here, in the Museum?
PK - Yet, what is pretty significant, this happening occurred during the collecting of signatures of the members of our Union.
ZK - Yes. After a few hours of conversation with that man I was not convinced either of him or his programme of the boycott. I think that his argumentation comprised contradictions. I do not remember them exactly now. At any rate, as a result of such activities - I am not saying of this particular man - some people who had already signed our founding list, withdrew their membership. I think it was altogether half of them. And surely, this happened because of the activities of that Lodz faction. Some would-be members came to us or wrote letters and asked for their names to be crossed out giving various sorts of motivation. Some explained that they did not want to be activists at all, they did not have enough energy and drive, no time, they preferred doing everything privately, etc. Others, for a change, claimed that the future was somewhere else - e.g. Konart. How did he motivate it exactly?
PK - That artistic activity did not need any institutions.
ZK - Such was the boycott pressure in the alternative movement.
PK - After these happenings we stopped receiving invitations for further events. For example, we were not invited to the second "Pilgrimage". Then certain facts occurred in the alternative movement. Certain instrumental facts that also had instrumental consequences. What does it mean if you do not invite someone who declares himself as a documentation maker or observer of the artistic movement? Moreover, if he makes this a part of his own activity? Then the professional consequences appear. The next was the fact which we noticed abroad during the meeting of Künstlergremium at Mönchengladbach in 1983. It was the annual meeting of the members. The Poles who belong to the gremium are: Potocka, Wasko, Bruszewski, Robakowski, Kozlowski, Stanislawski. At that particular meeting, apart from us, were: Bruszewski, Stanislawski, Kozlowski and Potocka. A letter from Robakowski was read in which he explained his situation and why he did not participate in the congress, that there were persecutions in Poland, that he was not allowed to leave the country, etc. etc.
ZK - Which made the Poles present at the conference feel silly - they had obtained their passports, so what - did they collaborate with the regime? One could have interpreted the situation in that way. A reaction of some people was just madness and several Germans observed that Robakowski himself had left the country during martial law.
PK - For example Ms. Jappe, the organiser of the movement, especially in the field of performance, a wife of a pretty well-known German critic. I quote her as an example of a conscious intellectual of those circles. So, she, after hearing this letter and knowing very well about the dilemma in the whole issue, certain inconsistencies in it, told about a sad thing about which she felt helpless, and not only she. Namely, she said that the climate of that letter and the climate of such a stance was, unfortunately, considered true by the majority of the intellectuals in the West. Again, looking at it from the other side, when a man doing a thing like that is conscious of it, then you can accuse him that he acts according to the Populist expectations of the public opinion in the West and makes use of this opinion. My interpretation is as follows: this populist opinion belongs to the political programme of Western governments. The artist who acts for the benefit of some political powers, in this case that of the West, let's assume - conservative ones, does exactly the same thing which he boycotts in Poland. Whatever the moral qualification of such a deed and its rightness or not. Perhaps the other part is right, but - how can we speak about the independence and freedom of this particular artist? At any rate, it was martial law that caused for the first time or provoked - at least I met it for the first time then - instrumental manipulation in the body of the alternative movement. This had not occurred before. Well, I do not consider such cases when someone got offended by some one or someone compromises someone else on merit grounds. Those were normal things in the past decade. However, when instrumental phenomena appear which bring about financial consequences, consequences important for the artistic career, etc., then the situation is slightly different. Then people start pulling out their knives because the fight for survival begins. I have a concrete example: there was an auction in West Germany, organised by Rafal Jablonka - a sale of works of Western artists for the benefit of "Solidarity". About 200 thousand German marks was gathered. And the money is available - it is waiting for Polish artists. Obviously those from "Solidarity" circles. We were proposed for this grant, however, after a closer look at our files, among other things, the fact that we joined The Union of Polish Sculptors, they - certainly with great regret, because they had reasons based on our works, which speak for themselves, to grant us the money - well, they spread their arms helplessly.
PART IV - OFF-OFF
3. UNIONS
MS - Do artists really need a trade union?
PK - We understand it in the following way: if other social groups organised themselves in trade unions, so our group should do it as well. However, this does not prove that is must be so in general.
MS - And what does such an organisation actually give
PK - It gives a certain group a chance and allows it to appear as the equal of other groups. It is not discriminated.
ZK - t gives a lot. it gives me the confirmation of my status. When I go to the county authorities to arrange a thing they ask me who I am...
PK - I take out my membership card.
ZK - Yes, I've got the confirmation of my status. This is not a question of profession. I am simply defined and do not have to explain or prove my activity, talk about details each time. I do not have to talk about anything.
MS - And what was your union to look like? Maybe, at the beginning a few words about the history of this initiative.
PK - This initiative was started in the mid seventies. In February 1974 in Jablonna, during the meeting of the ministry, party and ZPAP authorities with young artists, we signalled the need for the creation of a new section of ZPAP and a centre dealing with that type of art - PDDiU. A nothing! While summing up the meeting the president Janusz Kaczmarski admonished us: As for the creation of the Section of Different Ones, I would warn against it because it would be too early..." Next, in December 1978, a group concentrated in Dziekanka - us, Zygmunt Piotrowski, Lukasz Szajna, Janusz Baldyga, Jerzy Onuch, Andrzej Partum, Pawel Petasz, Tomasz Sikorski, Jan Piekarczyk - presented an application for creating the Warsaw Artistic Society in the form of a lower level association, that is an unregistered association, which was included in legislation. Yet, this was forbidden, despite many appeals, it was simply forbidden. Nonetheless, the Warsaw Artistic Society held its event despite the restrictions. It was organised by Marek Lawrynowicz at Sigma at the University on 17 January 1979. We had a presentation "To Everybody According to Their Needs" there.
Next I animated the creation of the Section "Other Media" ("Inne Media") in the ZPAP. Well, the Black Sotna was wary there... yet, strangely enough The Section of Sculpture at the Central Headquarters of ZPAP under Wladyslaw Grycz supported my efforts and on 3rd April 1980 was our first meeting, the second one being on 12th April 1980, for the people included in the new section. At the first meeting the Organising committee was called up (Kwiek, Kulik, Zdzislaw Sosnowski, Jan Owidzinski, Jan Stanislaw Wojciechowski); at the second the text written with Owidzinski was read which explained the reasons for the new section in the ZPAP. We put forward a motion, dated 12th April 1980, to create a section called "Other Media" at the coming 16th General Assembly of ZPAP. The motion was not discussed at that assembly because "of the absence of the representatives of the bodies proposing the motion". And we asked in our motion for two delegates' seats to present the very motion. I interpreted the situation in my later letter of application of 25th June 1988 to create SASI 50"[...] the point was to preserve the existing structures in their unchanged form, both that of relations - between a ZPAP ready for directives and with a convenient pyramidal structure and the authorities, as well as a internal organisation of ZPAP - old fashioned, rather impossible to be changed because the appearance of a new section must be preceded by the change in the statute, which must be accepted by the majority. Through its delegates. And how can the artists who do not exist have their delegates at the assembly? Or the representatives of arts which are non-existent? Consequently, a humiliating and absurd situation will have to happen when a delegate who does not care presents a motion and the vote will be left to the delegates who are not interested in the proposal, especially in the appearance of something which is partially an antithesis of their notion of the artist, art and work." And, after all, what for!
Nevertheless, when soon after this, the period of "Solidarity" occurred a chance of settling this matter appeared because they were bound in this sense that it was difficult to oppose any initiative for legal reasons when the new was particularly sensitive to any shenanigans in this matter. Thus, there was an opportunity and the whole matter was to be finalised at the renovative-to-be Krakow extraordinary assembly. In the renovative movement in the Union I was a member of the Statute Committee. Nota bene the composition of it was mixed so you cannot speak about any bias. It was an utterly honest initiative and among the members of the committee were both Andrzej Skoczylas and some ladies from, let's call it, the opposition or other orientations of unions. The aim was simply to make reforms in the Union. I had prepared the final project of the Statute Commission dated 17th February 1981 which was later accepted by general meetings of particular sections in the Warsaw district. I find it an interesting document from the history of democracy: a proposal of de-centralisation of a union with the government in autonomous regional sections, with the representatives performing only representative and executive functions.
Coming back to the Other Media Section - by the end of 1980 our justification of the motion for the creation of the Section appeared in "Informator Zarzadu Glownego ZPAP" (The Bulletin of the Main Headquarters) no. 11(89). It was the first public presentation of the question on the national forum. And on 20th December 1980 I presented the question at the Extraordinary General Meeting of Warsaw district and it, as a motion concerning the necessity for the existence of the section, was accepted.
What caused me to be active in the field of ZPAP? Well, after August '80 some people in our milieu, according to the new spirit, developed a preference for a separate union. Consequently, on 13th October 1980, there was a new meeting of about 25 people in Dziekanka, and another - at the end of that month in PDDiU where it was finally accepted that we should not open the Section of Other Media while the present statute of ZPAP was still valid. I disagreed knowing that the ground had been already prepared there. Thus, whether I liked it or not, I had to tackle the reform of ZPAP at the same time. However, what a hangover I had.... Finally, on 5th January 1981, we sent a letter of intent to 120 members of ZPAP informing them that we wanted to create a new section with membership declarations. It was signed by the temporary Organising Committee at Dziekanka: Kwiek, Kulik, Jacek Kryszkowski, Zygmunt Piotrowski, Waldemar Raniszewski, Tomasz Sikorski, Lukasz Szajna, Jan Owidzinski, Anastazy Wisniewski, Jan Stanislaw Wojciechowski, Krzysztof Zarebski. Here are some fragments of that letter:
"A New Section is an attempt at creating an autonomous, independent structure in the body of ZPAP to create the opportunity for its members' activity, to inform themselves and society about the specific character and achievements of their art - different from generally known, classical disciplines of art, to create an opportunity for conceptual, experimental and research work, finally, to defend their professional and social interests and protect the right of the freedom of expression. We hope that the Section will begin to function legally no later than at the end of the Extraordinary Meeting of ZPAP[...] if not, certainly, our experience so far concerning the rules and aims of our co-operation will prove useful in the autonomous initiative[...] The New Section should, as we think, be only one, with its seat in Warsaw, its field of operation should not follow the regular district division, it should be represented by an elected Committee of the Section among whose members [should be] the representatives of local milieux and creative groups should find their place."
We received 50 applications! With such a piece of information I presented the letter of 5th October 1981 to the Meeting asking for the creation of the Section of Other Media at the coming Extraordinary General Assembly of ZPAP. I remind you - that was the second official motion for a consecutive General Assembly. That time it was the martial law that hindered us. We had to start everything form the very beginning. I did.
I was convinced that - especially after the dismissal of ZPAP - it was possible to carry out the project. I was constantly watching through, among others, my party membership until I gave up the idea of creating the organisation. I remained a party member on purpose and on purpose I agreed to be a founding member of ZAR51 because I wanted to have a practical insight into the way of handling those issues.
I started the talks with everyone anew. In January and February 1984 I wrote a series of individual letters to every person. Altogether we wrote to 36 artists , 20 of whom wrote their names on the founders' list. This time it was no utopia like the Section of Other Media, but the Society of Artists of Different Arts. I wrote the statute of SASI. The following agreed to become its members: Kwiek, Kulik, Jan Owidzinski, Andrzej Partum, Anastazy Wisniewski, Janusz Kolodrubiec, Tomasz Sikorski, Iwona Lemka, Tomasz Konrat, Janusz Baldyga, Ewa Zarzycka, Jerzy Onuch, Jacek Kryszkowski, Jacek Malicki, Teresa Gierzynska-Dwurnik, Edward Dwurnik, Pawel Petasz, Zbigniew Warpechowski, Anna Plotnicka, Jan Piekarczyk. Twenty people - sufficient to apply for a registration. Unfortunately, soon 6 people withdrew their names from the list and again there was only 15 of us, too few to apply... In the meantime other unions of artists started to appear, so slowly the situation came back to the starting point. That means, again, there was a situation of inconvenience and almost the lack of the need for such a union - on the part of the authorities, as well as colleagues. You could read sometimes: "we can consider the process of re-creating the structures of the former ZPAP completed." After all, what does it mean new, different arts? There are no departments or institutes of different arts or new media at any academy. Each graduate can belong to the regular, branch union. So, why have a Society of the Artists of Different Arts? Moreover, if we looked at the statute formulas through a magnifying glass, we could find some tricks. For example: what does it mean: the artist of different arts? Does it mean there are some artists who are different form other artists? The word "artist" itself denotes someone different from a common man, and here additionally appears "different artist"! And so on, and so forth. It would have been something like the union of the avant garde. Certainly, the situation that appeared after ZPAP , with many branch unions is the reflection of the condition of art which has nothing to do with the actual condition because that condition ceased to be valid long ago. Even more, in the whole world there are departments of different arts at academies, for instance the department "Time Art" with a section, as we would call it, of performance at The School of Art at the Art Institute of Chicago. Which, considering the freedom of making organisations, opens new possibilities which have been lost here.
ZK - At least as far as SASI is concerned a certain opportunity was wasted. After the above mentioned people had withdrawn their names, firstly - we lacked a sufficient number of members for registration, secondly - our drive diminished.
PK - No, I think we still have it and that it was a precious initiative.
MS - Perhaps you started too early?
ZK - But that was the only period when there were any chances and conditions to make it appear - simply a certain void had appeared. Certainly, we can ponder whether we are entitled as artists to have a policy like that. Nevertheless, it is a fact that that was the only moment: there was nobody, everybody was boycotting or so it could have appeared. And now, when everything functions normally, classically and traditionally - there is no possibility to organise something similar.
PK - A year later I tried once again. Angry with "wypiska" 52- people's resigning from organisation membership - and the "private" movement in our milieu, I wrote a letter in January 1985 concerning the continuation of the founding process of SASI and sent it to individuals with my evaluation of the situation. Again, I received over 15 applications, however, I did not see any sense in arranging it, because it would not be achieved, as simple as that. However, if the number of candidates reached 50 again, there would be no obstacles to have the union registered. And if, additionally, the people in authority would commit - no problem! If the society were not registered, even then, it would be a social fact of great importance for our group and not only. Namely, it would be a fact showing public opinion that there is a certain group - professional, artistic, that something is changing in art. If that society had appeared then, it would have been an extraordinary breaking point, even in the world.
ZK - Remember, however, that the alternative movement exists in the world.
PK - Yes, one that has suffered a total defeat and now exists only in legend.
ZK - But it is re-appearing, and there are greater possibilities of re-creation there. Similarly to the programme of the Green Party programme that was incorporated by other parties in the West, alternative art finds its own place in noble halls.
MS - What needs does the existing association satisfy compared to the former ZPAP? In your case it is ZAR. Are you both members of it?
ZK - Yes.
PK - Trying to feel like those sculptors do, I see only positive things. They are happy that at last they are in their own, they can rule at their own territory - and that is the end.
ZK - As for our personal experience or impressions, mine are as follows: the association has fewer members, the hierarchy is somehow flattened and simply the access to everything and everyone is easier.
PK - Obviously, people know one another... ZPAP was a horrendous thing because of its organisational pyramid which had its origins in the social-realist, Moscow model. All those main headquarters, district government, sections, well - even sections were divided into main, district, and municipal - nonsense, absurd! And at the top the president, a party member or not - this did not matter, who participated in secret councils of the KC53 and nothing reached the members. However, that was the model defended by grey members of the Union because they believed that such a Union had power. It was to have great power because everyone belonged. And attempts to flatten that tower-like structure, including any pluralist ones, were attacked by virtue of that argument. Well, if the "Solidarity" epoch had continued and the Union still existed, it might have changed its structure and statute.
MS - Was there any chance to retain ZPAP?
PK - I think that there was a chance to retain the Union, which was after all declared by the government. After all, during the debates of the government with the leaders of the Union that we carried on in the ministry, the situation was such that the authorities wanted to cross out only two points in the declaration of the Union which was to be presented at the 17th General Assembly in Krakow in April 1983. The government was afraid of that assembly because of some international reverberations, or I do not know what - the insurrection of the delegates, revolution or what? That was the concrete reason. However, everyone knew in advance that the leaders of the Union wanted ZPAP to be dissolved. It was so.
MS - Really?
PK - Of course.
MS - You mean a gesture?
ZK - Yes. Creating their own image as that of martyrs.
PK - Obviously so. That was very convenient for them. From the artistic point of view they are mediocre artists. The only merit in their lives or in history could be gestures like that. Well, it is not even merits that are the point, because nobody would remember it. Perhaps, it was just the 5 minutes for one's name which might have echoed thanks to that after the storm, when people would discuss only art. Thus, either the government would have yielded and they could have won, or - the dismissal of the Union - that was the stake of that game. Obviously, the first possibility was out of the question, because if somebody managed with the whole "Solidarity", he would certainly cope with a few people or some union of artists - that's sure. Thus, there was the chance of the survival of ZPAP and I am convinced it should have been retained because some positive restoring tendencies had appeared in it. The situation of the unions which have not been dissolved confirms my point.
MS - Well! I do not know about the photographers, but as far as film people are concerned, the opinions vary.
PK - I am thinking of what Wajda did. He said "I'd rather resign to preserve the union than risk the union for my own victory." The same situation was in ZPAP.
MS - Different in the respect that the government did not care about Puciata himself. Wajda is Wajda.
PK - I participated in that crucial meeting on 20th March 1983 when the decisions were made, namely the resolution of Warsaw District, which was the summing up of all regional resolutions. The resolution of the Head Administration was based on all such resolutions and then presented at the General Assembly in Krakow, which, as we know, did not happen. I witnessed the vote and acceptance of the resolution. The team with Janusz Kaczmarski revealed itself. They governed the Union for many years - compare the afore-mentioned meeting in Jablonna in 1974. Anyway, almost everybody voted for....
ZK - The motion stipulated that the statute was to be left unchanged and that was the only reason you voted against.
PK - Yes. If we are to talk about my personal motivation, I voted against the motion solely because of my moral feeling that the union which through its resolution rejected the creation of the Section of Other Media at the General Assembly was, in my eyes, finished. I did not vote with the majority because I would vote against myself then. And against the people whom I supported - this ground of poor, hungry artists of "other media". What were the details? There was a point in the resolution which stipulated that because of the power of the Union no attempts to reform the statute of ZPAP would be made during the General Assembly. That would mean - since the clause about the existence of the section was registered in the statute - that no new section could have ever appeared. The matter was clear.
MS - It was clear for you, but was it so for others? You know that particularly in that period, when the memory of the issue of the statute of "Solidarity" was still fresh, any change in the statute, any amendment, etc. was understood as an attempt to limit the organisation by the government. Did you explain clearly to the voting gremium what the point was? Did they realise it?
PK - Certainly, they did not realise it, because nobody except me cared about it. I did not speak about it at the meeting because, I believe, there was not much sense in it. Everybody was in confusion, so I as one of the few, voted against and all the party members left in order not to vote. Well, I am sorry, except for three people. Gorol was one of those who left, everyone left to avoid troubles or because they secretly supported that decision? Moreover, there was another trick in it, which I as a professional could not simply stand. Half of the resolution concerned matters of merit and of the statute, among others the clause that one should not change the statute or propose any initiatives to reform the Union in order not to weaken it in the then political situation. I emphasise - the resolution forbade initiatives to reform the Union! That was one part of the resolution, the other half demanded freedom for political prisoners. Later, when Kalina walked around with a petition for the release of the prisoners I also signed it. However, such moral blackmail is unacceptable. You must not mix the issues of blood and sweat with the issues of the clauses in the statute. Simply because it is blackmail, especially if people do not vote for particular points in the resolution but the entire resolution at once. You are welcome if we are having a ballot for particular points, then I will vote for the release of political prisoners, for freedom, etc. And I will vote against the point forbidding amendments in the statute. Then it is OK! However, when someone prepares such a voting manipulation? How come a thing like that can happen, so what - does it mean there are dupes in the voting hall?
ZK - Again, you suffered for others.
PK - Consequently, the result of all that, that whole fuss was that the people who were indifferent but who always cared about their stomachs and cars won in that whole game. For example Mr Frycz who is not a political personality, does not interfere in these matters, but wants the sculptors earn a lot, and himself too, he wants them to have many commissions, to have their own galleries - and he has achieved all this; this is what he wanted. And very well! Yet, why be surprised? If Puciata's concept had won, we would not have Mr Frycz and other people, only that same old company, now real luminaries.
MS - In the period of those events - in Spring 1983 - that whole game was just art for art's sake, because everyone knew in advance that nothing would come of that, that ZPAP could only make a nice exit from the stage. Perhaps that was the reason that the game had such an .... aesthetic value?
PK - Oh, yes...ha ha.. In accordance with Nietzsche.
And as for our Association, it would be worthwhile quoting several points from the statute. For example, such interesting point which constitute an exotic trait of the alternative movement, that "SASI is a registered association and is a legal entity. SASI can be a member of national and foreign organisations of a similar character". And, yes, the main points are "The character, the objectives and the means of acting: SASI is an autonomous, supra-regional, free association of artists whose practice does not fall within classical disciplines of visual arts and other arts (although it often stems from and alludes to them). Its expressions often are not classical, widely known means of communication; it often is an activity of: inter discipline, experimental, research-like and study-like character that occurs in time, is a process, a theory, a concept finding its expression in the new media."
The next point is very important: "The activity of SASI is based on the individual actions of each member for which everybody is personally responsible". Such a point, acknowledged in the statute, excluded any herd behaviour and observes the artist's individuality, I believe. And it could have a tremendous significance in the activities of such an association. "Any individual or group activity in the bounds of the Association, undertaken as a realisation of any of the points in the statute, remains the author's property." This, I reckon, was also a novelty. That might have been a very valuable initiative, at least because of such clauses in the statute, if it had been validated. Further: "To instil the culture of originality, independence, mastership. To strengthen the role and position of the artist as a non-commercial artist - innovator, experimenter, researcher, discoverer. To notice and promote new phenomena in art. To propagate, develop and protect a common, non-conventional creation, creativity, and expression. The humanisation of the material and psychological environment of man. To elaborate and introduce new forms of education through art to the social practice. To propagate Polish "different" art in a partnership and dialogue with current art in the world as the latter's integral and original part". Well, what about such two points, which if they had been introduced into life, would have proved very precious: "SASI organises - I stress: it was a statutory duty - an international event concomitant to the General Assembly; the part of the event will be the presentation of the works and appearances of the members and candidates to the Association as well as invited guests, once in two years. SASI issues "SASI Annual" being a documentation of thoughts and achievements of its members and other people whose activity falls within the limits of SASI interests in Polish and English. SASI runs the SASI Centre, the place of presentations, meetings, an information and archives base, a place for resting, recreation, a place for guests." And one more funny point: "The SASI artist can deal with traditional genres of art." Those were basically the main points, the remaining clauses were merely routine. However, if those points were realised according to the statute, it is certain that, taking the example of other associations - not necessarily artistic, that ideals for which we are constantly fighting, namely introducing Polish art into life and into world circulation - they would become true. Certainly, those tasks would have to be financed by the state.
MS - Well... if it were additionally possible to create your own state... (we laugh)