reSourcing.platforma critica

STEFANIA FERCHEDAU

Despre activarea unei zone de cercetare a culturii contemporane in România

 

In 2007, un grup independent de artisti si teoreticieni, impreuna cu ECUMEST, deruleaza proiectul-pilot reSourcing. platforma critica - o cercetare multidisciplinara asupra istoriei culturale recente in România, propunandu-si documentarea si recuperarea unor miscari care au influentat dezvoltarea prezenta a scenei culturale, artistice si intelectuale. O privire din prezent catre trecutul recent, concentrata asupra unor intervale de timp diferite, pornind din anii 1960 si pana astazi, si, de asemenea, o incercare de a identifica instrumentele necesare pentru a scrie o istorie ramasa nescrisa pana acum, completata de nevoia evidenta de a propune posibile instrumente si moduri de lectura ale acestei istorii.

Proiectul aduce impreuna persoane-resursa pentru diversele domenii artistice, urmarind pe termen lung dezvoltarea unui spatiu-resursa de cercetare si de documentare asupra culturii contemporane, deschis publicului larg. O serie de proiecte pilot de cercetare - prezentate în acest supliment - au fost lansate în acest an si sunt la acest moment în diverse faze de desfasurare. Rezultatele lor se concretizeaza în variate materiale scrise, audio, foto, video, dintre care o parte au fost deja prezentate si puse în discutie, ca parte a cercetarii în desfasurare, la dezbaterile si prezentarile organizate în cadrul proiectului. Toate aceste materiale vor fi disponibile deopotriva ulterior spre consultarea publicului larg.

Intre initiatorii proiectului se afla Stefania Ferchedau, Mihai Mihalcea, Manuel Pelmus, Dan Perjovschi, Lia Perjovschi, Oana Radu, Corina Suteu, Stefan Tiron. Proiectul este organizat de Asociatia ECUMEST (Bucuresti) si sustinut de Fundatia ERSTE (Viena), in cadrul programului Patterns, ce reprezinta un cadru trans-national de cercetare a istoriei culturale.

Suplimentul prezent este realizat in contextul unui eveniment reSourcing ce are loc in 6 septembrie 2007 la Centrul National al Dansului din Bucuresti, si care are ca scop problematizarea si punerea in discutie a primelor rezultate ale cercetarii.

Contributiile artistilor si criticilor implicati in proiect prezentate in continuare adopta perspective diferite si dau seama de diversele stadii de desfasurare ale cercetarilor. Unele se concentreaza mai mult pe intentiile si modalitatea de abordare a proiectului, în vreme ce altele relationeaza si se ocupa direct de intervale specifice din interiorul cercetarii.

 

 

reSourcing. platforma critica. Perspective asupra istoriei culturale recente in Romania

 

reSourcing va invita la întalnirea pe aceasta tema organizata în cadrul programului, joi, 6 septembrie 2007, de la ora 11.00 la Centrul National al Dansului din Bucuresti (Bd. Nicolae Balcescu nr. 2, cladirea TNB, acces spre Laptaria Enache, etajul 4).

Evenimentul propune o serie de prezentari si discutii pe marginea cercetarilor prezentate pe scurt în acest supliment 22, oferind mult mai multe informatii, materiale, precum si video-uri de documentare realizate în cadrul lor.

Între participanti se afla Andreea Dumitru (critic de teatru), Manuel Pelmus (dansator si coregraf), Dan Perjovschi (artist vizual), Lia Perjovschi (artist vizual), Stefan Tiron (curator si teoretician independent).

Invitati sunt Janez Janša, dansator si coregraf stabilit la Ljubljana, director al Institutului MASKA, si Georg Schöllhammer, scriitor si curator stabilit la Viena, director al programului documenta 12 magazines, redactor-sef al revistei Springerin.

Limba de desfasurare a discutiilor va fi engleza.

 

 

ANDREEA DUMITRU

Seeding an Independent Theatre: 1996-2000

Note pentru o cultura a precedentului

 

Cine mai are nevoie de teatru dupa ‘89? este o cercetare realizata de criticul de teatru Andreea Dumitru. Studiul isi propune sa documenteze, cu rezultate concrete (un studiu, o arhiva minimala), intervalul de mijloc din istoria recenta a scenei românesti, cel in care s-a afirmat tanarul teatru independent, analizandu-i radacinile, consistenta, dar si influenta asupra "generatiei 2000", o generatie aparent mult mai coerent articulata, receptata, promovata. Cercetarea urmareste, in primul rand, traiectoriile individuale ale unor artisti (actori, regizori, dramaturgi, producatori) care au refuzat sa se manifeste in interiorul "sistemului" (al teatrului institutionalizat), perpetuat, cu toate avantajele si tarele sale, dupa ‘89. In prim-plan se afla exclusiv generatia artistilor tineri afirmati dupa acest an de cotitura, dar mai ales in intervalul 1996-2000. Cercetarea vrea sa identifice in ce masura au reusit ei sa creeze structuri independente functionale si alternative estetice reale, sa influenteze si sa contamineze mediul teatral traditional. Dincolo de marturiile lor subiective si de povestea unor companii particulare, a unor fundatii si festivaluri importante, proiectul incearca sa reconstituie contextul in care s-a nascut in România o adevarata dezbatere despre teatrul underground/experimental/alternativ.

O intalnire-dezbatere a proiectului a fost organizata in luna mai la Arad, in cadrul Festivalului de Teatru Underground.

 

"Ne aflam in anul 1999 (...), moment in care, in pofida eforturilor de aproape un deceniu, alternativa in teatrul românesc se revendica de la o genealogie ratata". Aceasta fraza, decupata din editorialul Catre un discurs critic al prezentei, care a deschis primul numar al (din pacate) atat de efemerei publicatii trimestriale de cultura teatrala ultimaT*, semnala inca de pe atunci unul dintre cele mai persistente simptome ale scenei românesti postdecembriste: atitudinea indiferenta, cand nu de-a dreptul ostila fata de precedent. Pentru criticul si dramaturgul Alina Nelega, autoarea randurilor citate, acest simptom justifica, in fond, situatiile aberante de tipul: "Toata lumea face acelasi lucru pentru prima data. E ca in povestea Mesterului Manole. Inseamna ca in ziua urmatoare o putem lua de la capat. Iata de ce mi se pare legitima nevoia noastra de a vedea ca lucrurile se asaza undeva, ca au o baza, un fundament".

Lipsa unei culturi a precedentului nu poate fi pusa exclusiv pe seama amneziei trecatoare, in firea lucrurilor, care-i afecteaza adesea pe martori, ea fiind mai degraba consecinta dezinteresului nostru perpetuat fata de cercetare si documentarea trecutului (in cazul de fata, chiar recent), fata de constituirea unui instrumentar de analiza teoretica, mult mai sensibil si eficient decat exercitiul critic de tip jurnalistic.

Constatarea ca teatrul românesc se consuma inca frenetic intr-o cultura a evenimentului, a extazului fata de fenomenul ivit din neant se afla, cred, la indemana oricui. Refuzand aceasta retorica paguboasa, studiul de fata (mai degraba, un capitol introductiv) isi propune sa identifice precedentele care ne indreptatesc sa vorbim astazi despre o istorie a miscarii independente in teatrul românesc de dupa ‘89, despre o genealogie asumata a acesteia si despre un statut de legitimare al ei.

Seeding an Independent Theatre reprezinta o formula-rapel la importantul proiect Seeding a Network initiat in 1991 de Consiliul Britanic, Teatrul National din Londra si Festivalul International de Teatru din Londra (LIFT) in parteneriat cu UNITER (coordonator: criticul Marian Popescu). Obiectivul lui programatic era sa creeze "o formula manageriala noua", o alternativa functionala la mostenirea retelei institutionalizate. De aici a luat nastere Teatrul Inoportun (septembrie 1991), condus de regizorul Victor Ioan Frunza, care, in ciuda activitatii temporare, a reusit sa puna in circulatie principalele "marote" ale deceniului noua: ideea de spatiu neconventional, nevoia de text nou (tradus sau original), sustinerea tanarului creator, actualizarea relatiei teatru/societate. Intre acest moment si anul 2001, de pilda, cand miscarea independenta iese din zona receptarii underground (Festivalul National de Teatru incluzand atunci in off sectiunea sui generis undergreenact la care participa, solidar, Teatrul Luni de la Green Hours, Teatrul Act si Teatrul Ariel din Targu Mures, prin programul sau experimental, Underground), ori anul 2002, cand un grup de studenti la regie din cadrul UNATC initiaza concursul dramAcum - o istorie sincopata, confuza si adeseori scandaloasa se desfasoara parca fara urme, fara consecinte si fara perspective.

Dintre etapele care jaloneaza tranzitia societatii românesti, intervalul 1996-2000 pare si astazi nu doar cel mai putin documentat, ci si cel mai ambiguu, mai putin "glorios". E intervalul in care creatorii emergenti pe scena teatrala au toate motivele sa participe la si sa sufere consecintele a ceea ce Dan Perjovschi numeste intr-un interviu recent "razboiul propriului context". Paradoxal, schimbarea din ‘96 anunta o epoca fasta nu doar pentru societatea, ci si pentru cultura româna. Ascensiunea lui Emil Constantinescu si victoria in alegeri a coalitiei CDR-PD-UDMR, cu un discurs bazat pe cuvinte-cheie precum "morala", "competenta", "spirit european", insemnau un enorm capital de speranta. Simplul inventar al seismelor inregistrate in valuri succesive si tot mai grabite de viata politica, economica, sociala, ofera insa privirii, patru ani mai tarziu, un peisaj complet diferit, dezolant: de la prabusirea marilor banci la scandalurile de coruptie in care sunt implicati noii lideri, de la ascensiunea lui Vadim Tudor si a PRM la tardiva legiferare a accesului la dosarele fostei Securitati (1999), culminand, incredibil, cu inca doua mineriade - totul lasa senzatia unei societati fara repere, neguvernabile, din care e mai simplu sa dezertezi decat sa incerci sa te adaptezi.

In cultura, paranoia nationala starnita de necesitatea mereu clamata, dar repetat amanata, a reformei institutionale lasa urme la fel de penibile. In teatru se discuta imens (revistele de specialitate inregistreaza in acest sens un numar record de dezbateri, mese rotunde, anchete) intotdeauna in cheie dilematica: liberalizarea completa a sistemului vs. pastrarea deplina a status-quo-ului. Ca intotdeauna insa, solutiile sunt de compromis. Perioada debuteaza totusi cu cateva semne bune: in 1996 intra, in sfarsit, in vigoare Legea privind drepturile de autor si drepturile conexe si, tot atunci, Alexandru Dabija se intoarce ca director al Teatrului Odeon in urma procesului castigat de Primaria Capitalei impotriva Ministerului Culturii (care ii semnase demiterea in ‘94). Vorbim apoi despre anii de ministeriat ai actorului si presedintelui UNITER, Ion Caramitru, care se concentreaza insa asupra patrimoniului, considerat o prioritate a politicii culturale nationale, ceea ce face ca breasla teatrului, oricum dezbinata, sa se simta "tradata" de reprezentantul ei. Intervalul se mai "distinge" si prin grevele actorilor pentru drepturi salariale, numeroase scandaluri legate de directoratele unor teatre, dar mai ales prin stabilirea unui jalnic record: in 1999, bugetul culturii se reduce dramatic, ajungand la o suma echivalenta cu abia 0,1% din PIB.

Dupa o prima serie de proiecte independente, mai repede sau mai lent esuate (Teatrul Levant al Valeriei Seciu, Teatrul Inoportun deja mentionat, ori Trupa pe butoaie a aceluiasi Victor Ioan Frunza), infiintarea in 1995 a Fundatiei Art-Inter-Odeon inseamna un motiv de speranta pentru viitorul miscarii alternative, confirmata, trei ani mai tarziu, de inaugurarea Teatrului Act, ramas (pana in prezent!) cel mai longeviv si influent proiect independent si singurul care beneficiaza fara intreruperi de un spatiu propriu amenajat. Unul dupa altul, actori, regizori, dramaturgi de varsta apropiata - fapt ce indreptateste sentimentul apartenentei lor la o generatie - construiesc, timid ori programatic, structuri independente (companii, festivaluri) care, fara a avea forta de a concura intr-adevar teatrul subventionat, propun "o forma de metisaj" cu acesta (formula, inspirata, ii apartine lui Mihai Maniutiu) si contribuie, astfel, din interior, la erodarea sistemului, la permeabilizarea si chiar la contaminarea lui estetica.

Abia acum insa, dupa zece ani, cand e limpede ca, in ciuda dificultatilor uneori insurmontabile si a blocajelor personale, protagonistii miscarii independente din perioada 1996-2000 continua, fara exceptie, sa practice alternativa si sa creada in valorile ei, necesitatea de a scrie istoria acestui "prim val" (Theodor-Cristian Popescu) nu mai pare nici ea o forma de rasfat critic "alternativ", ci un semn de normalitate.

Reproduc in continuare un fragment dintr-un interviu realizat exclusiv pentru acest proiect de cercetare - o mostra subiectiva dintr-o incercare de cartografiere a teritoriului teatral independent, care, ca orice poveste cu miza pe autenticitatea traitului, nu poate eluda marturiile "supravietuitorilor". In cazul de fata - al unor importanti creatori care vorbesc ei insisi despre un context (perioada hasurata: 1996-2000) care a facut mult timp ca aventura lor sa para mai degraba un mod de exprimare "imposibil".

 

ALINA NELEGA

"Indicele de toleranta era foarte scazut la vremea aceea"

 

Jurnalist de radio, critic de teatru, regizor si dramaturg, Alina Nelega a infiintat Fundatia Dramafest in 1997, cu un program axat pe "crearea unui microclimat de dezvoltare a noii dramaturgii românesti" (concretizat intr-o unica editie a Colocviului National asupra Noii Dramaturgii Românesti, un concurs de texte si doua editii succesive ale Festivalului Dramafest, al carui notoriu rezultat este si piesa debutantei Andreea Valean, Eu cind vreau sa fluier, fluier..., montata in premiera de Theodor-Cristian Popescu in aprilie 1998, in sala mica a Teatrului National din Targu Mures). Alinei Nelega i se mai datoreaza proiectul Underground, structura de productii experimentale semiindependenta, beneficiind de sustinere financiara si logistica din partea Teatrului Ariel din Targu Mures, caruia ii asigura, la randul sau, prin proiecte indraznete, iesirea din zona specializarii stricte (teatru de animatie pentru copii), precum si vizibilitate la nivel national si international. In acest spatiu s-au afirmat Radu Afrim si Horatiu Mihaiu, cu o contributie incontestabila la constituirea unei alternative estetice, in ciuda polemicilor privind insasi existenta unei astfel de alternative in teatrul românesc. A lucrat si in "sistem", ca director de proiecte al Nationalului din Targu Mures (in perioada cand conducerea artistica ii apartinea lui Nicu Mihoc), fiind demisa insa in 1999 de directorul general Zeno Fodor.

 

A fost Dramafest un "esec", asa cum l-ai catalogat chiar tu intr-un studiu recent?

In 1996, debutasem in Teatrul National din Targu Mures cu Nascendo, prima mea piesa "legata", dar m-am simtit total pierduta in repertoriul acelui teatru. Eu am pornit Dramafest ca dramaturg, din dorinta extrem de personala de a nu fi singura. De altfel, el s-a nascut intr-un atelier de management organizat la Piatra Neamt in care i-am cunoscut pe cei care initiasera in 1992 reteaua de schimburi teatrale româno-britanice NOROC si pe o extraordinara agenta si directoare de proiecte, Sonia Friedmann, fosta secretara literara la Royal Court Theatre, care crease la Londra o trupa independenta numita Out of Joint. Ideea mea de a promova textul nou de teatru a fost sprijinita de la inceput de Marian Popescu, caruia i-am trimis proiectul. El era atunci vicepresedintele UNITER si lucra la Ministerul Culturii, dar nu era inca directorul Directiei Teatrelor. Mi-a dat un telefon si mi-a zis: trebuie neaparat sa inregistrezi acest proiect ca sa aiba personalitate juridica. Asta era primul pas pentru ca structura sa poata fi finantata. Atunci am facut Fundatia impreuna cu Alex. Cistelecan, critic literar, redactor-sef la Vatra, si cu un prieten, critic de teatru si ziarist, Ion Calion. Pe urma, in acest fel, a fost destul de simplu sa aplicam si sa obtinem banii de care aveam nevoie pentru a ne dezvolta proiectele. Primii bani au venit chiar de la Ministerul Culturii, pentru organizarea acestui colocviu, dar pe urma am inceput sa aplic si la institutii transnationale, asa cum a fost Fundatia Soros, Open Society Institute, diferite fundatii si organizatii europene interesate, Consiliul Britanic, care a ajutat foarte mult Dramafest-ul, la fel si Royal Court. De aceea am fost realmente surprinsa anul trecut, cand Royal Court a venit la Festivalul National de Teatru si au facut workshop-ul de dramaturgie la Teatrul National, si absolut nimeni din presa nu a mentionat ca ei mai fusesera deja de doua ori la Targu Mures pentru astfel de ateliere.

De fapt, pentru noi toti cei care am demarat atunci un proiect independent, a existat o motivatie personala si motivatia artistica. Am inceput ca artisti, or artistii au o gandire foarte concreta. Cu toate astea, s-a dovedit a fi foarte dificil, pentru ca n-am reusit sa ne coagulam. Aveam foarte putina experienta de conflict, de litigiu. Asta s-a vazut foarte bine si in politica acelei decade, pentru ca si politica este tot despre relatii umane. Or, teatrul este si el in primul rand despre oameni. Foarte multi dintre noi am fost extrem de virulenti, cinici, sarcastici si am inchis multe canale de comunicare in perioada aceea, ni s-au inchis si noua... Eram extrem de revoltati, ni se parea ca venise timpul pentru altceva, aveam foarte multa energie, pe care eu una marturisesc ca mi-am pierdut-o. E vorba de un context, de atat de multe lucruri care s-au conjugat, de la chestiuni politice si de istorie la chestiuni culturale. Dar pana la urma, e si o chestiune de educatie, ca si tonul discursului, al polemicii, ca si atitudinea fata de o anumita zona artistica. Unii gandesc teatrul ca pe o provocare permanenta, altii il gandesc ca pe ceva institutionalizat si extrem de cultural. Unii gandesc teatrul ca arta, ceilalti ca educatie, in primul rand, ca vehicul al memoriei culturale... Nu vad de ce aceste doua tipuri nu s-ar putea conjuga la un moment dat. Indicele de toleranta era insa foarte scazut la vremea aceea.

La fel gandeai si atunci? Nu erai tu insati intoleranta?

Cred ca trebuie sa existe o perioada de euforie si de negare a valorilor, pe care am traversat-o si noi... Din pacate, pentru multi au fost ani pierduti. Unii au plecat in strainatate, Adina Dabija, Cristi Popescu, Saviana Stanescu, extrem de dezamagiti, si asta a fost rezultatul unei politici culturale. Iti spuneam ca eu am lucrat in Teatrul National din Targu Mures ca director de proiecte. M-am lovit de extrem de multe obstacole, inclusiv partenerii mei straini au remarcat ca proiectele mele sunt foarte bune, dar nu sunt in locul potrivit. Ar fi trebui probabil sa fie in Bucuresti, unde ar fi avut intr-adevar vizibilitate si ar fi capacitat in jurul lor alti oameni. La prima editie a Dramafest-ului am organizat un colocviu international despre textul nou, la care au fost reprezentanti din toate zonele culturale, din Marea Britanie, Olanda, Franta, Ungaria, Bulgaria, Chisinau. Ei, asta se intampla in Salonul Alb al Hotelului Intercontinental, iar afara se desfasura, cu complicitatea directorilor de la Teatrul National, o expozitie de carnati, care capacita lumea din jur. Lucrurile astea nu trec fara urme. Ce-am scris eu atunci a fost foarte vehement, dar era normal. Tu te straduiesti sa te exprimi si vine altcineva care este, de fapt, un impostor si pe care nu-l intereseaza decat vulgaritatile cotidianului, dar care ocupa un nod de putere care pe tine te impiedica sa faci teatru. Deci e o chestiune de legitimitate, pana la urma. Eu cred ca asta ne-a deranjat pe toti si acesta este motivul pentru care chiar mi-am pierdut partenerii, motivul pentru care nu am mai continuat sa fac Dramafest-ul. Am continuat, insa, cu un alt proiect de teatru privat pentru texte noi romanesti si straine, care s-a numit Teatrul Direkt, pentru ca eu ma gandeam atunci la un tip de teatru in priza cu realitatea. M-am consultat cu toti cei cu care lucrasem vreme de trei ani, cu colaboratorii mei din strainatate, dupa care am cerut o audienta la ministrul Culturii impreuna cu directoarea de atunci a Consiliului Britanic, doamna Helene Meixner, care s-a aratat gata sa ne sprijine in masura in care acest lucru ar fi fost dorit... Teatrul Royal Court ne-a oferit inclusiv asistenta logistica. Am avut si o discutie cu Andreea Valean - chiar atunci incepuse dramAcum-ul, la care am fost invitata si mi-a placut foarte mult asta, pentru ca mi se pare ca intr-adevar ei sunt cei care trebuie sa faca ceea ce incepusem eu, in primul rand pentru ca sunt regizori si eu cred ca acolo e puterea. Pe mine m-au invitat, sa spunem, in calitate de matusa mai mare a acestui proiect. Nu ajunge ca tu ca scriitor sa creezi emulatie si texte bune, proiectul trebuie continuat de cei care au si puterea s-o faca. Or, ei erau tineri, vroiau altceva... Din nefericire, ministrul de atunci, domnul Caramitru, a spus nu. Mai mult decat atat, a spus textual: Nu cred in acest proiect, nu ai nici o sansa. Iata ca realitatea l-a infirmat. Eu sunt sigura ca si-a revizuit acele opinii, poate ca si vehementa noastra l-a speriat.

(Targu Mures, aprilie 2007)

 

* Editata la Targu Mures, intr-o prima formula, de Fundatia Dramafest, Facultatea de Jurnalism si Stiintele Comunicarii, Universitatea Bucuresti si Teatrul National din Targu Mures, cu sprijinul Fundatiei pentru o Societate Deschisa, ultimaT a disparut insa dupa al treilea numar.

 

 

MANUEL PELMUS

Suprafete

 

In cadrul reSourcing. platforma critica, proiectul Suprafete, realizat de dansatorul si coregraful Manuel Pelmus (beneficiind totodata de colaborarea coregrafei si dansatoarei Andreea Novac) reprezinta un studiu ai carui termeni sunt coregrafia si memoria. Intentia acestui proiect de cercetare centrat pe intervalul cuprins intre anii 1960 si 1990 este sa examineze indreaproape si sa documenteze o serie de propuneri coregrafice din trecut, in incercarea de a intelege si de a prezenta contextul istoric in care acele spectacole s-au nascut. Cercetarea îsi propune sa identifice martori si sa reconstruiasca anumite aspecte legate de aceste spectacole, vrand de asemenea sa formuleze întrebari legate de acea perioada si sa ofere o posibila interpretare, precum si sa scaneze contextul politic generator al acestor propuneri coregrafice.

 

"Esenta eforturilor in coregrafie este revizitarea trecutului si speranta ca acesta poate intr-adevar sa fie adus la viata in fiecare spectacol; in acest sens, coregrafia mentine o relatie stransa cu istoria, iar coregraful actioneaza ca un istoric, extragand semnificatie si forma din amintiri imaginare si musculare risipite. Dar ce se intampla atunci cand coregraful nu mai e acolo, cand ochiul lui disciplinat, comenzile sale intuitive hotarand ce calitate a miscarii este cea potrivita si care nu are continut, nu mai pot fi auzite?"

(Andre Lepecki, How Modern Is Modernism?, publicat in Ballet-Tanz, August 1996).

 

Proiectul Suprafete a inceput de la o serie de intrebari si nevoi din ce in ce mai urgente si mai evidente de investigare a domeniului dansului contemporan, chiar si dupa ce scena româneasca de dans si-a castigat stabilitatea si a fost oficial recunoscuta in România in decursul ultimilor ani.

Chiar daca un Centru National al Dansului a fost de curand infiintat (in conditii extrem de singulare), iar scena de dans a cunoscut o activitate intensa, fiind angajata atat artistic, cat si politic, daca avem in vedere actiunile de lobby angajate de comunitatea din acest domeniu artistic, se stie inca putin si lipseste o analiza a trecutului recent si a modului in care "corpul" ce performeaza si prezenta lui au fost concepute, percepute si proiectate in contextul artistic si social al perioadei totalitare si al foarte recentei perioade post-totalitare.

Vorbim deseori despre absenta, despre "legaturi" lipsa, despre goluri in istoria "corpului performator" in România, dar nu avem destule date, nici nu exista un demers de cercetare veritabil asupra a ceea ce a existat cu adevarat. Ce s-a intamplat atunci in dans si ce inseamna lucrurile acestea astazi? Ce fel de context conducea catre ce tip de context? Si, mai ales, ce fel de reprezentare a corpului a avut loc in dans? Care erau perceptia corpului si contextul de atunci si ce impact (daca a existat vreunul) au avut la nivel social si cultural asupra societatii românesti pre- si post-totalitare si a peisajului cultural?

Exista vreo legatura intre reprezentarea corpului in performance si statutul social al acestuia in contextul societatii totalitare si al celei actuale?

Scopul acestui proiect de cercetare este de a examina indeaproape nu numai practicile si educatia din domeniul dansului, ci si spatiile si conditiile specifice in care practicarea dansului era cu adevarat posibila. De asemenea, de a investiga in ce masura acesti factori au lasat urme sau au influentat conditiile sau lipsa conditiilor pentru dans si pentru reprezentarea corpului in ziua de azi. In abordarea acestui material ne-am axat pentru inceput pe anii ‘80, urmarind practicile si spatiile oficiale si neoficiale dedicate dansului. De la practicile underground la coreografia de propaganda. De la extrem de rarele elemente vizibile ale scenei de dans la multiplele zone albe pe care de-abia acum incepem sa le intelegem. I-am intervievat pe cativa dintre principalii actori ai scenei anilor ‘80, am rasfoit presa acelor ani referitoare la coregrafie si am vizionat inregistrari video rare. Cercetarea va continua in vederea colectarii si punerii la dispozitia unui public mai larg a unui material care sa serveasca unei analize si unei reflectii reale asupra acelei perioade.

In acest moment, percep istoria dansului românesc ca pe o linie lunga de spatii albe. Nici o inregistrare, aproape nici o fotografie, foarte putine "dovezi". In locul acestora... multe legende, povesti si atitudini. Martori... Cu siguranta, acest lucru lasa loc feluritelor interpretari posibile si face cautarea extrem de incitanta, dar in acelasi timp foarte greu de analizat si accesat.

Prima faza a proiectului are de-a face mai mult cu premisele unei asemenea cercetari si cu o reflectie atenta asupra acestora, decat cu angajarea unor concluzii, deopotriva concentrandu-se in mod special asupra articularii unei abordari a acestei cercetari si a rezultatelor ei. De asemenea, exploreaza cum se poate conecta la celelalte cercetari intreprinse in cadrul platformei critice.

Un alt aspect important ar fi sa vedem istoria specifica a dansului in România in contextul mai larg al regiunii si cum ar putea fi conectata cu alte istorii din fostul bloc estic.

In esenta, suntem mai putin interesati sa vedem istoria dansului din România dintr-o prespectiva "traumatica", ci mai degraba (asa dupa cum propune si proiectul East Dance Academy*) sa documentam ceea ce a fost performat in mod real. Sa ne referim la ceea ce a fost produs si ce a insemnat din punct de vedere artistic, cultural si politic.

Suprafete va pune bazele unei a doua etape de cercetare si va incerca sa semnaleze cateva intrebari pe care le consideram relevante pentru a intelege istoria corpului "performator" in România. Interviuri, inregistrari video, fotografii, istorii si marturii personale vor fi adunate si arhivate pentru a documenta si a face cunoscute felul in care se practica dansul si contextul in care aceasta arta se manifesta.

Suprafete inseamna o serie de investigatii care vor urmari practici din trecut si realitati prezente ce ar putea re-construi si aduce la lumina propuneri artistice din trecut, dar si contextul social si politic in care se desfasurau acestea.

Cercetarea isi propune sa calatoreasca intre spatiile goale si zonele rar abordate cu referire la corpul underground alternativ si practicile de dans din trecut, pana la prezenta artistica a coregrafiei oficiale comuniste si propagandistice.

Proiectul va propune o serie de evenimente publice, deopotriva practice si teoretice, care vor urmari re-construirea, re-discutarea, re-descoperirea, re-constituirea unor performance-uri din trecut si felul in care acestea sunt legate de prezent (daca sunt...). Deopotriva, proiectul intelege coregrafia nu doar ca o disciplina autonoma, ci ca o paradigma culturala (asa cum este mentionata si in conceptul East Dance Academy).

Suprafete propune documentarea, arhivarea si re-construirea unor performance-uri si a unor contexte din trecut, insa mereu printr-o abordare critica si in dorinta de a intelege conditia sociala si culturala a dansului din ziua de azi.

 

* EDA - East Dance Academy este un proiect de cercetare si educational care aduce impreuna cateva initiative si institutii internationale cu scopul de a revaloriza istoria dansului in Estul Europei, a modelului educational si a practicilor care se pot dezvolta pornind de la interpretarea dansului ca o categorie culturala, si nu una exclusiv estetica.

 

 

STEFAN TIRON & SEBASTIAN BIG

Spirit civic, pacifism si ecologie în artele martiale romanesti

- o perspectiva subcultural scuba divers -

 

Subcultural Scuba Divers, adica scufundatorii care nu folosesc tuburi de oxigen, care folosesc snorkel si ochelari... nu coboram la adancimi atat de mari, nu folosim batiscafuri, dar ajungem uneori în ape destul de tulburi, si acolo, chiar daca nu gasim amfore, sa zicem, mai gasim un bocanc sau un siret, si cu ajutorul lor încercam sa producem materiale, sa facem filme. Vrem sa arhivam în special zona de subcultura dintre 1985 si 1995, o perioada a copilariei noastre, legata mai ales de artele martiale romanesti, si de fapt de reconstructia lor fictiva si legendele urbane declansate de aceste arte.

Un proiect realizat de Stefan Tiron, curator independent si traficant de informatii, si Sebastian Big, mini dasein analist. Evenimente si prezentari au avut loc în intervalul aprilie-iunie 2007 la Timisoara, Bucuresti si Cluj, unul dintre rezultatele proiectului fiind reprezentat de filmul Îngerii negri, o serie de interviuri pe marginea unui mit urban al anilor 1988-1990.

 

În cursul cercetarii noastre, nu am încercat niciodata sa impunem sau sa aplicam o structura generalizatoare asupra rezultatelor gasite. Am început sa combinam amintirile prietenilor nostri si propriile noastre amintiri, în cautarea faramelor de informatii relevante dintr-o perioada situata undeva între 1985 si 1995. Pentru mediile academice rigide aceasta cercetare va parea ciudata sau echivoca, reunind cele mai rele aspecte ale culturii populiste si underground.

Pentru toata aceasta perioada nu ne-au preocupat obisnuitele descendente sau ierarhiile maestru/elev din cluburile de arte martiale din Romania sau din alta parte. În mod clar, nu încercam sa construim cronologii sau descendente paliative ale stilurilor artelor martiale romanesti. Teritoriul nostru îl constituie tot ce se întampla dincolo de dojo. Tot ceea ce a scapat ierarhiilor interne rigide sau banalitatii vietii cotidiene în acea perioada.

La început, am fost atrasi de cadrele naturale ale codurilor de conduita din artele martiale si de felul în care tu (ca practicant debutant) ai început sa ai acces la miscari secrete sau diverse pozitii ale corpului. Atitudini care, cumva, retrospectiv par mereu ridicole. La un nivel primar, s-a initiat astfel un sentiment de apartenenta si armonie. Poate ca totul a început cu vizionarea acelorasi miscari din aceleasi filme de pe casete copiate. Setingul este întotdeauna un hibrid. Poate fi un parc, mediu natural creat artificial. Sau poate fi apartamentul comunist, sufrageria, bucataria sau baia cu nelipsitii ficusi. La un alt nivel - încrederea a început si ea sa creasca. Trecerea de la copilarie la maturitate s-a realizat de fapt în lumea artelor martiale. Copilaria era deja întesata cu imagini ale eroilor din artele martiale. Figurile eroilor respectivi aveau o dubla legatura. Pe de o parte, filiera estica Hong Kong - China comunista, si pe de alta, originea americana. Exista o diferenta clara între cele doua linii. Eroii rasariteni erau rapizi, imbatabili, acrobatici, întelepti si în mod clar victime ale nedreptatii politice sau sociale. Cei americani erau mai degraba laudarosi, prea siguri de forta lor musculara, mereu într-o misiune secreta împotriva unei puteri politice malefice si adesea foarte înceti si castigand lupta cu prea multa usurinta. Cu toate acestea, ambele tipuri de eroi au influentat opinia romaneasca locala cu privire la cum trebuie sa te comporti, sa arati sau sa vorbesti. Am devenit, de asemenea, extrem de interesati de aura de "fantastic" a fenomenului legendelor locale, la scara mica, de cartier. De modul în care oamenii au început sa se înspaimante unul pe celalalt, ajungand în cele din urma sa guste starea de frica creata. Era oare legenda îngerilor negri o metoda de represiune? Cum ne-a afectat psihicul si dezvoltarea în copilarie? Cateodata avem senzatia ca nu am depasit niciodata acest moment.

 

Spirit civic

 

Spiritul civic era important pe vremea comunismului. Trebuia sa-ti ajuti aproapele, sa fii politicos cu varstnicii, sa-i salvezi pe ceilalti, sa intervii daca era necesar. Comunitatea era extrem de importanta, trebuia sa-i supraveghezi si sa-i ajuti pe ceilalti în timpul îndatoririlor de zi cu zi. Confruntati cu ranjetul si aroganta permanente ale celor de la putere, oamenii erau nevoiti sa ramana uniti. Mai ales pentru copii si adolescenti, karate era o metoda de a se provoca unii pe altii, de a creste împreuna, de a se simti importanti. Legatura pe care karate o crea nu era împotriva sistemului socialist. Scoala era mereu imbecila, un loc al închiderii, al învatatului fortat si mecanic - karate era si un mod de a sparge barierele sociale si de clasa. Unul din faimoasele locuri de exercitare a spiritului civic era "la sala", traducerea romaneasca a dojo-ului. La sala putea fi o sala de sport, un garaj, un uscator, o boxa etc. Multi parinti din randul familiilor mic burgheze considerau "artele martiale" o pierdere de vreme, o preocupare pentru neispraviti, repetenti si retardati.

 

Pacifism

 

În cadrul Artelor Martiale Romanesti (AMR), pacifismul este cel mai bine perceput ca asigurand o stare de gratie zen. Pacea nu are întelesul obisnuit dat de propaganda comunista, într-o vreme cand Romania pleda pentru pacea internationala si afisa imaginea porumbelului alb ori de cate ori era posibil. Oricum, Romania era duplicitara în privinta politicii armelor: în timp ce se lauda cu doctrina pacifista, producea si îsi aproviziona cu arme aliatii economici si ideologici. În AMR, pacea avea un înteles mai intim, mai personal si datator de placeri simple. Însemna si ca binecunoscuta ierarhie student/ maestru era bine mentinuta si agreata fara prea multa vorbarie. Pacifismul era adumbrit de aluzia ca exista întotdeauna un stil paramilitar de antrenament în cadrul populatiei civile. Antrenamentul militar iesea mereu la suprafata în timpul sesiunilor de fotografiere private.

 

Ecologie

 

Un cult al naturii s-a dezvoltat în cadrul grupurilor AMR. În acest context, karate, ramanand un fenomen urban, se deplasa înspre rural, cautand activ cadre naturale turistice si maiestuoase. Toate antrenamentele în natura aveau loc la munte sau la mare. Cadrele de la mare sunt plasate întotdeauna la apusul soarelui sau dimineata devreme. Muntii sunt mereu reprezentati de varfuri faimoase si locatii turistice recognoscibile. În afara de faptul ca era un loc ideal pentru antrenamentele de rezistenta si duritate, natura furniza de asemenea amplasamentul potrivit ca sa te regasesti pe tine însuti si sa te identifici cu mediul natural. Lucru ce duce cu gandul la ethosul sporturilor extreme, AMR fiind în mod evident predecesoare ale acestora. Din cauza ca mediul natural era deja peste masura de îmblanzit, presarat de toposuri turistice si valori medicale, exista mereu o tensiune interna. În acest sens, natura e reprezentata cat mai aproape de zonele verzi ale comunismului urban. Sanatatea e mai aproape de tratamentul special de relaxare si regimurile naturiste de care se bucurau familiile din Est.

 

LIA PERJOVSCHI

Shortcut

 

Shortcut, proiect realizat de Lia Perjovschi, artist vizual, isi propune recuperarea specialistilor (vizibili sau mai putin) din diferite domenii - experienta, strategia si felul in care au creat oportunitati pentru a-si exercita profesia si a-si trai viata intr-un mediu mereu neprietenos.

Cercetarea a inclus interviuri, vizite exploratorii in mai multe universitati din Bucuresti, precum si o intalnire informala cu jurnalisti, analisti politici, istorici, scriitori, pe tema Ce trebuie sa stiu ca sa fiu subiectul, si nu obiectul istoriei?, realizata in cursul lunii mai, cu participarea echipei editoriale a revistei 22.

 

 

reSourcing.

critical platform

 

STEFANIA FERCHEDAU

Activating research on contemporary culture in Romania

 

In 2007, a group of independent artists and theoreticians, together with ECUMEST, is developing the pilot-project reSourcing. critical platform, a multidisciplinary research on the recent cultural history in Romania, aimed at documenting and recuperating a variety of movements that had an impact on the present developments of the cultural, artistic and intellectual scene. A view from the present to the recent past, focused on different time layers inside the period between the 1960s and the present in Romania; a search aimed at identifying tools and approach for writing an otherwise silent history.

The project brings together resource-individuals for various artistic fields, aiming on the long run to develop a resource-space for research and documentation on contemporary culture, open to a larger audience. A series of pilot research projects - presented in this supplement - have been launched this year and are currently in different development stages. Their concrete outcome takes the form of very diverse written, audio, photo and video materials, many of which have already been presented and discussed upon as part of the work in progress during debates and presentations. All this materials will subsequently be available to the public at large.

Among the initiators of the project are Stefania Ferchedau, Mihai Mihalcea, Manuel Pelmus, Dan Perjovschi, Lia Perjovschi, Oana Radu, Corina Suteu, Stefan Tiron. The project is organized by the ECUMEST Association supported by  ERSTE Foundation (Vienna), in the frame of Patterns, a transnational programme with the aim to investigate, discover and understand recent cultural history.

The present supplement is prepared in the context of the reSourcing event which will be held on the 6 of September 2007 at the National Centre of Dance in Bucharest, intending to problematize and put into discussion the results of the first research phase.

The artists’ and critics’ contributions presented in the following pages are written from a variety of perspectives, and testify of the different stage of the projects’ development; some focus more on the project’s intentions and approach, some relate to or approach directly different time layers of this research.

 

 

reSourcing. critical platform. Views on recent cultural history in Romania

 

 reSourcing is pleased to invite you to the event on this theme which will be organised in the frame of the programme, Thursday, September 6, from 11.00, at the National Centre of Dance in Bucharest (2 Nicolae Balcescu bd, National Theatre building, access to Laptaria Enache, 4th floor).

The event proposes a series of presentations and discussions on the basis of the researches documented in the current supplement, while providing more information, materials, as well as video documentation prepared in their frame.

Among participants are Andreea Dumitru (theatre critic), Manuel Pelmus (dancer and choreographer), Dan Perjovschi (visual artist), Lia Perjovschi (visual artist), Stefan Tiron (independent curator and theoretician).

The special guests are Janez Janša, author, performer and director of interdisciplinary performances, director of MASKA, institute for publishing, production and education, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia; and Georg Schöllhammer, writer and curator based in Vienna, head of documenta 12 magazines, editor in chief of Springerin magazine.

 

 

ANDREEA DUMITRU

Seeding an Independent Theatre: 1996-2000

Notes for a culture of the precedent

 

Who still needs theatre after ‘89? is a research developed by theatre critic Andreea Dumitru. The research intends to document, with concrete results (a study, a minimal archive). The project is focused on the mid-1990s, the period of affirmation of the (young) independent theatre in Romania, in order to analyse its roots, its consistency, as well its influences on the "2000 generation”, at first sight a generation that is much more articulated, better received and promoted.

The research mainly follows the individual paths of several theatre directors, actors and playwrights, that rose between 1996-2000, who refused to work inside the "system” (inside the institutionalized public system perpetuated after ‘89, with all its advantages and disadvantages). To what extent have they succeeded in creating functional independent structures, real esthetical alternatives, or in having an impact on and contaminating the traditional theatre scene? Beyond their subjective recollections and the story of those private companies, foundations or festivals, the project tries to reconstruct the context in which a real debate on the underground/experimental/alternative theatre started in Romania.

A presentation of the research findings and a discussion were organised in May 2007 in the frame of the Underground Theatre Festival in Arad.

 

"We are in the year of 1999 (…) when, in spite of an almost entire decade of efforts, the alternative in the Romanian theatre claims its roots in a failed genealogy”. This phrase comes from the leading article Towards a critical discourse of the presence opened the first issue of the (unfortunately) ephemeral magazine of theatre culture ultimaT*. It was already signaling one of the most persistent symptoms of the post-1989 Romanian scene: the indifferent, if not hostile, attitude towards the precedent. For Alina Nelega, theatre critic and playwright, author of the above quoted lines, this symptom justified in fact aberrations such as: "Everybody is doing the same thing for the first time. It’s like in the famous legend of Master Manole. That means the next day we can all start from scratch again. This is why the need to see things having a basis, a foundation, seems perfectly legitimate to me”.

The lack of a culture of the precedent cannot be exclusively imputed to the temporary amnesia, "so in the nature of things”, that often affects the witnesses. It is rather the consequence of our continuous indifference towards research and documentation of the past (in this case, the recent past), towards creating the tools of theoretical analysis, much more sensitive and efficient than the critical journalistic exercise.

Anyone, I think, can conclude that the Romanian theatre still frantically consumes itself in an unhealthy cult of the event and of the phenomenon burst out of nothingness. By refusing this undermining rhetoric, the present study (an introductory chapter, to be precise) endeavours to identify the precedents which entitle us to speak today about a history of the independent movement in the Romanian theatre after ‘89, about its assumed genealogy and about its legitimate status.

Seeding an Independent Theater paraphrases the important project initiated in 1991 by the British Council, the London National Theatre and the London International Festival of Theatre (LIFT) in partnership with UNITER - the Romanian Theatre Union: Seeding a Network (Coordinator: theatre critic Mihai Popescu). Its programmatic aim was to create "a new management formula”, a functional alternative to the inherited institutionalized network. This is how the Inopportune Theatre originated in September 1991. Under the leadership of director Victor Ioan Frunza, and in spite of his temporary activity, it managed to disseminate the main "obsessions” of the ninth decade: the idea of an unconventional space, the need for new writing (translated or original), the needed support to young creators, the revisiting of the theatre/society relationship. Between that moment and 2001 for example, when the independent movement was no longer perceived as pertaining to the underground (the National Theatre Festival included then the off undergreenact section in which brought solidarily together the MONDAY Theatre from Green Hours, Act Theatre and Ariel Theatre from Targu Mures with its experimental underground programme) or the year 2002, when a group of students in theatre directing in UNATC (National University of Theatre and Film) initiated dramAcum competition - a broken, confused and often scandalous history had been unfolding seemingly without traces, without consequences and long-term prospects.

Among the stages that mark the transition of the Romanian society, the 1996-2000 interval seems even today not only the least documented but also the most ambiguous, the least "glorious”. It is the interval in which the emerging theatre creators had all the reasons to participate in and to suffer the consequences of something that Dan Perjovschi tagged, in a recent interview, "the war of our own context”. Paradoxically, the political change of 1996 was heralding a positive era not only for the society, but for the Romanian culture as well. Emil Constantinescu’s ascension and the election victory of the CDR-PD-UDMR coalition with a discourse based on key words such as "morality”, "competence”, and "European spirit” had meant an enormous capital of hope. The mere inventory of the upheavals undergone in successive and evermore impetuous waves by the political, social and economical life unveiled, four years later, a completely different, desolate landscape: from the collapse of big banking firms to the corruption scandals involving the new leaders; from the ascension of extremist politician Corneliu Vadim Tudor and the Romania Mare Party; to the delayed adoption in 1999 of the law allowing access to the files of the ex-Securitate, and culminating with two more mineriade (miners’ rebellions) - everything conveys the image of a society without benchmarks, impossible to govern, from which it is easier to desert than to try to adapt.

In culture, the national paranoia kindled by the always claimed, yet repeatedly postponed, need of an institutional reform had left equally pathetic traces. In the theatre sphere, intense discussions were carried out (the magazines register a record number of debates, round tables, inquiries), always on a dilemmatic tone: the complete liberalization of the system vs. the total maintaining of the status-quo. As always, solutions found involve compromises. Nevertheless, the era begins with some good signs: 1996 marks the enforcement of the copyright law and it’s the year of Alexandru Dabija’s come back as head of the Odeon Theatre, following a lawsuit won by the Bucharest municipality against the Ministry of Culture (which signed his destitution in 1994). These were also the years when holder of the minister of culture portofolio was the actor and UNITER president Ion Caramitru, who however chose to focus upon the heritage, considering it the key priority of the national cultural policy. As a consequence, the theatre guild, divided as it was, felt "betrayed” by its very representative. This interval was also "graced” by the actors’ strikes claiming salary rights, by numerous scandals involving the directors of several theatres, but especially by the settling of a pathetic record: in 1999, the budget for culture was dramatically reduced, reaching a record low of only 0,10% of GDP.

After a first series of independent projects, more rapidly or slowly failed (Valeria Seciu’s Levant Theatre, the already referred to Inopportune Theatre, Trupa pe butoaie led by the same Victor Ioan Frunza), the founding in 1995 of the Art-Inter-Odeon Foundation gave a reason to hope for the future of the alternative movement. It was confirmed, three years later, by the inauguration of the ACT Theatre, which continues to be (up until now) the most long-lasting and influent independent project, and the only one benefiting without interruptions of a proper venue. One after another, actors, directors, playwrights, of a more or less similar age - which justifies the feeling of their belonging to a generation - built, shyly or programmatically, independent structures (companies, festivals) which, without having the strength to really compete with the subsidized theatres, set forth "a form of crossbreeding” (the inspired formula belongs to Mihai Manutiu) and thus contribute from the inside to the eroding of the system, to its increased permeability and even its esthetical contamination.

Ten years after, in spite of sometimes insurmountable difficulties or personal failings, the protagonists of the 1996-2000 independent movement clearly continue, without exception, to practice the alternative and to believe in its values. It’s only now that the necessity to write the history of this "first wave” (Theodor-Cristian Popescu) doesn’t seem a form of an "alternative” critical whim anymore, but a sign of normality.

I will further on reproduce a fragment from an interview made exclusively for this research project - a subjective sample out of an attempt at mapping the independent theatre territory which, as in any story with stake on the life authenticity, cannot elude the testimonies of the "survivors”. In this case - the testimony of some important creators who speak themselves about a context (the underlined period: 1996-2000) which made their adventure seem more like an "impossible” way of expressing themselves.

 

ALINA NELEGA

"The tolerance level was very low at that time”

 

Radio journalist, theatre critic, director and playwright, Alina Nelega founded the Dramafest Foundation in 1997, with a programme focused on the "creation of a microclimate of developing the new Romanian drama” (materialized in a sole edition of a National Symposium on the New Romanian Drama, a writing contest and two successive editions of the Dramafest Festival, whose notorious result is the debut play of playwright Andreea Valean, When I want to whistle, I whistle, directed by Theodor-Cristian Popescu in April 1998 at Ariel Theatre in Targu Mures). Alina Nelega also initiated the underground project, a platform for experimental productions, benefiting from the financial and logistic support from the Ariel Theatre in Targu Mures. Through courageous projects, the project allowed the Ariel Theatre the way out from its area of strict specialization (theatre for children), as well as a visibility at national and international level. It was a launching pad for directors such as Radu Afrim and Horatiu Mihaiu, undeniably contributing to the creation of an esthetical alternative in the Romanian theatre, in spite of the polemics regarding the very existence of such an alternative. She had also worked inside the "system”, as project manager in the Targu Mures National Theatre (at the time when Nicu Mihoc was its artistic manager) until 1999 when she was fired by the general director Zeno Fodor.

 

Was Dramafest indeed a failure, as you labelled it yourself in a recent study?

In 1996, I had my first play - Nascendo - put on stage at the National Theatre in Targu Mures, but I felt completely lost in the theatre’s repertory. I initiated Dramafest from a playwright’s perspective, out of a very personal desire not to be alone. Besides, the project was born in a management workshop organized in Piatra Neamt, where I met the initiators. Back in 1992, of NOROC - the network of Romanian-British theatre exchanges, as well as Sonia Friedman, an extraordinary literary agent and project manager, former dramaturge of the Royal Court Theatre, who had created in London the independent company Out of Joint. My idea to support the new theatre writing was backed since the beginning by Marian Popescu, to whom I sent the project proposal. He was at that time the UNITER vice-president and was working in the Ministry of Culture (thought not yet as head of the Theatres’ Directorate). He called me and said: you must absolutely register this project in order to have legal entity. It was the first step to take so that the structure could be financed. Then together with Al. Cistelecan, literary critic, editor in chief at Vatra and a friend of mine, and Ion Calion, theatre critic and journalist, we started up the foundation. In this formula, it was easier to apply for and obtain financing for our projects. The first financing came from the Ministry of Culture, for the organization of a symposium that would take the pulse of the new Romanian drama at that time. Afterwards, we asked for funds from trans-national institutions such as the Soros Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and various foundations and European organizations. The British Council, as well as the Royal Court, helped Dramafest a lot. This is why I was really surprised last year, when the Royal Court came to the National Theatre Festival and had a drama workshop at the National Theatre. Absolutely nobody mentioned in the press that they had already been in Romania (in Targu Mures) to provide such workshops.

In fact, all of us who embarked on this independent project had a personal motivation apart from the esthetical one. We started as artists, and artists have a very substantial thinking. I thing we lacked a theoretical leadership, someone to explain to us why we had these needs, to configure a common image, to give us legitimacy in a way. That’s why it proved to be very difficult to coagulate ourselves. On the other hand, we lacked experience in dealing with conflict, in litigation. This was very obvious when you analyze the politics during that period, since politics is about human relations, just like theatre. Or, very many among us were extremely virulent, cynical, and sarcastic and thus we closed down many communication channels back then, just as we ourselves were confronted with so many closed doors… We were extremely revolted, we thought it was high time for something else, we had so much energy (which, I confess, I had lost). It was about a context, about so many things which conjoined, from political issues to cultural ones. In the end it was also a question of education, just like the tone of the discourse, of the polemic, as well as the attitude towards a certain artistic zone. Some perceive the theatre as a permanent challenge, others understand it as something institutionalized and extremely cultural. Some perceive the theatre as art, others - in terms of education, mainly, a vehicle of the cultural memory… I don’t see why these two types couldn’t be brought together at some point. But the tolerance level was really very low in those times.

Is this what you believed back then? Weren’t you equally intolerant?

I believe there must be a time of euphoria when values are denied, which we underwent ourselves… unfortunately, for many of us these were lost years. Some left abroad in a state of extreme disappointment: Adina Dabija, Cristi Popescu, Saviana Stanescu. This was the result of a cultural policy. I’ve already told you I used to work at the National Theatre in Targu Mures as project manager. I was confronted with a lot of obstacles; my foreign partners couldn’t but notice that my projects were very good, only that they were unfolding in the wrong place. They should have probably took place in Bucharest, where they could have gotten greater visibility and could have involved more people, thus strengthening them. During the first edition of Dramafest, we organized an international symposium on the new theatre writing, attended by representatives from all cultural areas: Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, Hungary, Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova. The event took place in the White Room at the Intercontinental Hotel, while outside, with the complicity of the National Theatre’s directors, a sausage festival was unfolding, attracting everybody around. These things don’t go away without leaving traces. What I wrote back then was very vehement, but it had been a normal reaction. You make efforts to express yourself and here comes someone who is in fact an impostor and who is only interested in the everyday vulgarities, except that he is in a position of power which hinders you from doing theatre. Therefore, in the end it was a question of legitimacy. I believe this is what we all resented and this was the reason for which I lost my partners, for which I stopped doing Dramafest. I went on, however, with another project of a private theatre dedicated to new Romanian and foreign writing, named Direkt Theatre. I was then reflecting upon a type of theatre in touch with reality. I had extensive discussions involving everybody with which I had been working the previous three years, my foreign partners; then I asked for an audience with the minister of culture, accompanied by the former head of the British Council in Bucharest, Mrs. Helen Meixner. The Royal Court Theatre offered us support, including logistic assistance. Unfortunately, Mr. Caramitru, the then minister of culture, turned it down. More than that, he said, I quote: "I don’t believe in this project, I won’t give you any chance”.

One memorable evening, I had a discussion on this subject with Andreea Valean - she had just started dramAcum. I was really pleased. I really think they are the ones to continue what I began, first of all because they are directors and have the power to promote new plays, while the playwright remains a presence in the second line in the theatres. I was invited as, let’s say, an old aunt of this project. A writer generating emulation and good plays is not enough, the project must be carried forward by those who have the actual power to do it. Or they were young, they wanted something else. Reality today proved them to be right, since thanks to them the repertoire in the theatres began to change. They’ve created a "trend” encouraging those who want to take up playwriting… Things have obviously started to move.

 

* Edited in Targu Mures by Dramafest Foundation, the Faculty of Journalism and Communication Sciences, the Bucharest University and the National Theatre in Targu Mures, with the support of the Foundation for an Open Society. UltimaT died out after the third issue!

 

 

MANUEL PELMUS

Suprafete

 

Suprafete, the project developed in the frame of reSourcing by dancer and choreographer Manuel Pelmus (with the collaboration of dancer and choreographer Andreea Novac) represents a study dealing with choregrafy and memory. The research project focuses on the period between the 1960s and the 1990s and aims to take a closer look and document some performances of the past of which very little - if anything - is known today, while better understanding and presenting the historical context in which those performances were created.

The research starts from identifying "witnesses” and follows by reconstructing some aspects of these performances. It wants as well to ask questions about that period; it wants to look at the political context that informed those performances. Did they influence in any way the context of the time? Can there be traced an influence on the nowadays context?

 

"The core of choreography’s labour is the revisiting, and its hope is that the past can indeed be once more brought back to life in every performance; in this sense, choreography maintains a close relationship to history, and the choreographer acts as a kind of historian, organising sense and shape out of scattered muscular and imaginary memories. But what happens once the choreographer is no more, when her disciplined eye, her intuitive command that decides which movement quality is the right one, which lacks content, can no longer be heard?”

(Andre Lepecki, How modern is modernism?,published in Ballet-Tanz, August 1996)

 

Suprafete/Surfaces started from several questions and needs that became more and more obvious and urgent, even after the contemporary dance scene in Romania became more established and gained recognition in the last few years.

Even with the establishment of a National Centre of Dance (which happened under very particular conditions), and the significant activity in the dance field, both artistically and politically - in the sense of lobbying actions in support to the field -, there is still little knowledge and analysis regarding the recent past. Also, little focus is placed on the way the performing "body” and its presence were set up, perceived and projected in the artistic and social context of the totalitarian period and of the very recent post-totalitarian period.

We do speak often about lack, about missing "links”, about voids in the history of the Romanian performing body but in fact there is not enough knowledge and there is no research on what has been really happening before. What was performed and what does it tell us? What kind of context is leading to what? And especially what kind of representation of bodies characterized the dance field in Romania in different periods? What perception of the body and what reality was actually existing, what impact did this have (or not) at a social and cultural level on the pre- and post-totalitarian Romanian society and cultural landscape.

Is there a link between the representation of the body in performance and its social status in the totalitarian and nowadays society?

The aim of this research project is to closer examine not only the dance practices and dance education, but also to browse for the venues and the specific conditions in which practicing dance was really possible. Also, to investigate to what extent these left traces on or produced the present conditions (or their lack) for dance and body to be represented today.

The approach to this material was to focus for the beginning on the ‘80s, on both the official and unofficial practices and venues. From underground practices to official mass propaganda choreography. From the very few visible spots to the many blank ones that we are now just beginning to understand.

Some of the main participants to the ‘80s scene were interviewed, reviews from the press of the time referring to choreography were collected and rare video footage was investigated. The research will continue in view of collecting and providing further material for evaluation and reflection on that particular period.

At this moment I perceive the history of Romanian dance like a long line of empty spots. No footage, almost no pictures, very little "evidence”. Instead… lots of legends, tales and attitudes. Witnesses… This gives certainly a lot of space for possible interpretations and makes the journey very exciting but also very hard to evaluate and to access.

The first phase of the project is therefore more about premises and "setting the stage” than about reaching conclusions, and mostly about a better articulation of the approach to this research and to its findings. It also explores how this can connect to the other researches done in the frame of the reSourcing programme.

One other important aim would be to see the particular dance history of Romania in the larger context of the region and how this could be connected to other histories from the former Eastern block. Also, which is of most importance, we are less interested to see the history of Romanian dance from a "traumatic” perspective but rather (as also East Dance Academy project* proposes) to document what was actually performed. To refer to what was produced and to see what it meant from an artistic, cultural and political point of view.

Suprafete will lay out the ground for a second research phase and try to bring into attention some questions that are relevant in order to understand the history of the performing body in Romania. Interviews, footage, pictures, personal stories and testimonies will be gathered and archived in order to document and introduce both the practices and the context within which they took place.

On the longer term, Suprafete wants to propose a series of investigations that would trace past practices and present realities, that could re-construct works and bring to light practices of the past but also their social and political context.

The research wants to travel between the blank and rarely visited spots of alternative under-ground body and dance practices of the past to the never questioned artistic presence of official communist propaganda choreography.

The project will propose a series of public practical and theoretical events that aim to re-construct, re-discuss, re-discover, re-enact performances of the past and how are they linked with the present (if in any way). It also looks at choreography not as an autonomous discipline, but as a cultural paradigm.

Suprafete intends to document, archive and re-construct performances and contexts of the past, in a permanently critical approach, motivated by a wish to understand the present social and cultural condition of dance.

 

* EDA - East Dance Academy is a research-educational project gathering several international initiatives and institutions with the goal of revalorization of East European dance history, educational models and praxis that can develop on the basis of thinking dance as a cultural, not solely aesthetic category.

 

 

STEFAN TIRON & SEBASTIAN BIG

Civic spirit, pacifism, and ecology in the Romanian martial arts

- a subcultural scuba divers perspective -

 

Subcultural Scuba Divers… we are the divers who do not use oxygen tubes, but snorkel and glasses, who don’t use bathyscaphes, who do not reach deep waters, but who sometimes reach quite troubled waters. From there, even if we don’t find any amphorae, we might find a boot or a shoe string, and with their help we try to produce some materials, to make movies. We try to put into archives the subcultural area situated between 1985 and 1995 - the time of our childhood, related in particular to the Romanian Martial Arts, more precisely to their fictitious reconstruction and the urban legends which these Arts generated.

The project developed by Stefan Tiron, independent curator and information trafficant, and Sebastian Big, mini dasein analist. A series of events and presentations in this frame took place between April-June 2007 in Timisoara, Bucharest and Cluj. One of the resulting documentation materials of the project is Black Angels - a 85-min video including a series of interviews exploring an urban myth of the 1988-1990 period.

 

During our research we never tried to impose or apply any over-arching structure on our findings. We started combing the memories of our friends, and our own memories in search of bits of relevant information from a time roughly situated between 1985 and 1995. For the usual rigid academic milieus this research might seem whimsical and quirky, gathering the worst aspects of low brow culture.

For this entire period we were not concerned with the usual lineages and master-to-pupil hierarchies of the martial art clubs in Romania, or elsewhere for that matter. We are clearly not trying to build make-shift chronologies and lineages of martial art styles in Romania. Everything that escaped the dojo was our province in fact; everything that escaped the rigid internal hierarchies or the flatness of ordinary living during that period.

We were at first attracted by the natural settings of the martial art codes of conduct and the way You (as a low grade practitioner) started to gain access to secret moves, body positions. Attitudes that somehow always seem a bit ridiculous in retrospect. At a primary level all this entailed a feeling of belonging and harmony. Maybe it all started by watching the same moves within the same often copied movies. The setting is always a hybrid. It can be the man-made park natural environment. It can be the communist home, apartment, living room, kitchen or bathroom with the usual Ficus plants.

At another level - confidence also started growing. The passage from childhood to maturity was actually achieved within the martial arts world. Childhood was already full with images of martial art heroes. These hero figures had a double connection. There was the Eastern Hong Kong/Communist China link and the American strain. There was clearly a difference between the two strains. Eastern heroes where quick, unbeatable, acrobatic, wise and clearly the underdog type. American ones were mostly boastful, too secure in their muscle power, always running on a secret mission against some evil political power, and sometimes very slow and winning much too easily. Still, both of these heroic types influenced the local Romanian views on how one should behave, look or speak.

We also became particularly interested in the "bogus” dimension of local storytelling, small scale, neighbourhood phenomena. Ways in which people start scaring and warning each other, and end up enjoying it. Was the story of the black angels a method of repression? How did it affect our psyche and childhood development? In fact we get the sense that we never completely got over it.

 

Civic Spirit

 

Civic spirit was important during the communist times. You were supposed to help others out, to be polite with old people, to save others in need, to intervene if necessary. Community was very important, you were watching and helping each other during the daily chores. In the face of prevalent sneer and arrogance of those in charge, people stayed together.

Karate was, for children and teenagers in particular, a way to challenge each other, a way of growing up together, and of feeling important. The bounding was not against the socialist system, nor was it the result alone of simply attending the same school. The school was always shitty, a place of closure, of enforced and mechanical learning. Karate, on the other hand, was also a way to break social and class borders. One of the famous places to exercise the civic spirit was the dojo - the hall, which could be a sports one, a garage, a drying room etc. A lot of parents from petit bourgeois families considered "martial arts” as a waste of time, a thing for losers, school drop outs, retards.

 

Pacifism

 

Pacifism in terms of Romanian Martial Arts (RMA) is best perceived as ensuring a state of zen grace. Peace did not have the usual propaganda meaning of a period when Romania was advocating international peace and displaying the white pigeon image as often as possible. Romania was anyway duplicitous on arms policy; while showing off its pacifist doctrine, it was building up and supplying its ideological and economic allies with weapons.

Peace in the context of RMA was more intimate, more personal and enjoying the simple pleasures. It was also ensuring that the usual hierarchy of student/master was well maintained and agreed upon without much ado. Pacifism was stained with the implication that there will always be a sort of paramilitary style of training among the civil population. Former military training was always surfacing during private photo shooting sessions.

 

Ecology

 

A cult of nature developed within the RMA groups. In this context, karate, while remaining a city based phenomenon, was always drifting towards the country side, actively searching for touristic and majestic frames of nature. All the outdoor training sessions were situated either at the seaside or in the mountains. Seaside framing was always either at sundown or early morning. The mountains settings were always celebrated peaks and recognizable touristic locations. Nature was the place to train for strain, resistance, toughness, but also the proper place to find oneself, and to be one with the natural environment. This is closely linked to the extreme sports ethos, and RMA was clearly a forerunner of it.

Because the environment was already heavily domesticated, full of touristic topoi as well as medical values - there was always an internal tension. Nature in this sense was represented as closer to the green areas of the communist urban environment; health was closer to the spa’s special treatments and the naturist regimes enjoyed by families throughout the East.

 

 

LIA PERJOVSCHI

Shortcut

 

Shortcut, a project developed by visual artist Lia Perjovschi, aims at recuperating specialists (more or less visible) from various fields - their experiences, strategies and the way they created opportunities in order to practice their profession and live in an ever unfriendly context.

The research included interviews, exploratory visits to various universities in Bucharest, as well as an informal debate with journalists, policy analysts, writers, on the theme What do I have to know in order to be the subject and not the object of history? The event was held in May, with the participation of the editorial board of the 22 magazine.