Page 126 - Darko Štrajn, Umetnost v realnosti, Dissertationes 18
P. 126
Umetnost v realnosti
was ideologically brutally stigmatized in the exhibition of “degenerate
art,” (entartete Kunst) thus predated the repression of political oppo-
nents, the Jews and others.
The theatre of Pupilija Ferkeverk was a phenomenon in the world of
theatrical movements in 1960s as simultaneously an aesthetical and so-
cial movement. Pupilija brought on stage a kind of acting, which exceed-
ed or determined the theatrical play as a culture, which integrates play-
ing almost in the area of meaning of the word “play” in a sense of primal
instinct. This Theatre also envisaged the media effect. Its messages and
often reduced gestures broke through the framework of theatre by being
challengingly multi-meaningful, even inexplicable, what hasn’t been un-
intended. As much as 1960s are known for introducing a rehabilitation
of insanity, which has been implemented by anti-psychiatry in a frame-
work of wider “counter-cultural” movements, Pupilija proved with its
play as a participant of this rebellion on the side of craziness against the
“madness of the system.” The theatre of Pupilija was also very productive
and effective in view of presentation of the body. However, it should not
be forgotten that along with naked scenes, which in a given culture were
sexually coded, the movement of bodies and constellation of actors on
the Pupilija’s stage should be taken into account. In the final act of the
performance Pupilija actually evoked a lost link to rural life and it sig-
nalled the Slovenian shift away from tradition. Therefore, Pupilija trig-
gered a liberating transition, which much in advance preceded the noto-
rious transition after the “end of communism.”
The phenomenon of the artistic group Laibach shares a fate com-
mon to most other examples of ground-breaking signifying aesthetic
practices, at least from the early sixties all the way to the almost arbi-
trarily shifting boundary of the period of avant-garde-ness in all its vari-
ous “post-”, “retro-”, “para-” and other manifestations. Laibach, certain-
ly, holds a somewhat unique place among such phenomena, since there
can be no doubt that, in its case – including of course its whole connec-
tion with Neue Slowenische Kunst – we are dealing with the most prom-
inent and, in terms of its concepts and symbols, most sharply articulat-
ed example of a signifying practice within the processes of communism’s
collapse and the questionable “victory of democracy.” The Laibach phe-
nomenon, at least at the outset, needs to be viewed in relation to the cat-
egory of event, particularly because of the circumstances, period and so-
cial changes in which it occurred. Laibach’s and whole NSK’s work was
turning around adaptations and re-enactments of significant events or
originals from multifarious contexts and buried remembrances. Central
was ideologically brutally stigmatized in the exhibition of “degenerate
art,” (entartete Kunst) thus predated the repression of political oppo-
nents, the Jews and others.
The theatre of Pupilija Ferkeverk was a phenomenon in the world of
theatrical movements in 1960s as simultaneously an aesthetical and so-
cial movement. Pupilija brought on stage a kind of acting, which exceed-
ed or determined the theatrical play as a culture, which integrates play-
ing almost in the area of meaning of the word “play” in a sense of primal
instinct. This Theatre also envisaged the media effect. Its messages and
often reduced gestures broke through the framework of theatre by being
challengingly multi-meaningful, even inexplicable, what hasn’t been un-
intended. As much as 1960s are known for introducing a rehabilitation
of insanity, which has been implemented by anti-psychiatry in a frame-
work of wider “counter-cultural” movements, Pupilija proved with its
play as a participant of this rebellion on the side of craziness against the
“madness of the system.” The theatre of Pupilija was also very productive
and effective in view of presentation of the body. However, it should not
be forgotten that along with naked scenes, which in a given culture were
sexually coded, the movement of bodies and constellation of actors on
the Pupilija’s stage should be taken into account. In the final act of the
performance Pupilija actually evoked a lost link to rural life and it sig-
nalled the Slovenian shift away from tradition. Therefore, Pupilija trig-
gered a liberating transition, which much in advance preceded the noto-
rious transition after the “end of communism.”
The phenomenon of the artistic group Laibach shares a fate com-
mon to most other examples of ground-breaking signifying aesthetic
practices, at least from the early sixties all the way to the almost arbi-
trarily shifting boundary of the period of avant-garde-ness in all its vari-
ous “post-”, “retro-”, “para-” and other manifestations. Laibach, certain-
ly, holds a somewhat unique place among such phenomena, since there
can be no doubt that, in its case – including of course its whole connec-
tion with Neue Slowenische Kunst – we are dealing with the most prom-
inent and, in terms of its concepts and symbols, most sharply articulat-
ed example of a signifying practice within the processes of communism’s
collapse and the questionable “victory of democracy.” The Laibach phe-
nomenon, at least at the outset, needs to be viewed in relation to the cat-
egory of event, particularly because of the circumstances, period and so-
cial changes in which it occurred. Laibach’s and whole NSK’s work was
turning around adaptations and re-enactments of significant events or
originals from multifarious contexts and buried remembrances. Central
