deschooling.classroom(o^o)

Icon

collective self-education in the arts and culture…

BLOG RESSUME of the discussion THEORY – ART PRACTICE – ACTIVISM, HOW TO MAKE A UNITED CULTURAL FRONT

Sharp thougts je format javne debate, ailment
osimšljen tako da razjasni značenje pojmova oko kojih postoje dileme. Diskusiju vodi dvoje učesnika, s unapred pripremljenim, jasnim i preciznim tezama. Pošto ih iznesu u tri kruga izlaganja, učesnici pozivaju i publiku, da se uključi sa svojim pitanjima. Debata traje oko 45 minuta. Ovaj format diskusije osmislila je Ana Vujanović, a na Raškolovanom znanju, isproban je u toku prve letnje škole na Ohridu.

Sharp thougts s pitanjem: Da li nezavisnoj sceni trebaju strategije ili taktike?, vodile su Marijana Cvetković i Jelena Vesić.

U prvoj replici, Marijana Cvetković dala je kratki uvod o razvoju onoga što danas označavamo kao nezavisnu scenu. Govorila je o međusobnom povezivanju alternativnih, umetničkih praksi na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije i antiratnim akcijama koje su ove grupe sprovodile tokom devedesetih godina, u kontekstu bujanja nacionalnih država i nacionalističkih sistema. Nakon toga, govorila je o tome kako su novoformirane nacionalne države iskusile prodor „turbo-kapitalizma“ i tako definisala uslove u kojim funkcionišu nezavisne kulturno-umetničke scene.

Kao prvu važnu strategiju ovih scena, prepoznala je odluku da se njihovi akteri udruže u različite vrste mreža, platformi, kolektiva i plenuma. Kao primere navela je Asocijaciju iz Ljubljane, mrežu Clubture, Nomad dance akademy, Nezavisnu kulturnu scenu Srbije i Drugu scenu, koja je nedavno reorganizovana u formu plenuma. Odluke o udruživanju, za Marijanu Cvetković biloe su strategija opredeljivanja za rad, znanje i udruživanje resursa. „Svim akterima bilo je jasno da ukoliko ostanu da svije umetničke prakse realizuju van konteksta kulturne politike, neće imati dovoljno mogućnosti da ih učine vidljivim“, navela je.

Kao drugu strategiju, izdvojila je strategiju javnog zagovaranja, nastalu iz potrebe da se promene prakse lobiranja, partokratskog i „burazersko-kumskog“ odlučivanja, odomaćene u našim društvima. Navela je da ova strategija predstavlja emancipatorski koncept, koji je potekao upravo sa nezavisne scene.

Kao treću strategiju izdvojila je strategiju samoobrazovanja, navodeći da ova stretgija istovremeno razvija znanje ali i problematizuje njegovu klasifikaciju jer utiče na prpcese vezane za tržište i kapital. Strategiju samoobrazovanja prepoznala je kao značajnu i zato što predstavlja kontrabalans čudnim, obrazovnim praksama koje su se uspostavile na umetničkim univerzitetima, a kako jednu od takvih navela je pojavu „doktoranata u oblasti umetnosti“, izrazivši svoju skeptičnost prema relevantnosti diploma stečenih u ovoj oblasti.

Jelena Vesić odgovorila joj je da kao strategiju prepoznaje delovanje aktera scene u pravcu kulturnih politika. Navela je da onaj ko proizvodi sadržaj (u ovom slučaju: kulturni ili umetnički) brine o okviru produkcije i trudi se da ga menja…. Definisala je kako se nezavisnost  scene odnosi pre svega na državni aparat i zaključila da u odnosu na „kumsko-burazersko“ odlučivanje koje se praktikuje u državnim institucijama kulture, nezavisna scena pokušava da svoje poslovanje postavi u transparentniji okvir.  Skrenula je pažnju na činjenicu da termini strategija i taktika, podrazumevaju set manevara i da je interesantno to što su preuzeti iz militarističkog rečnika.  Navela je da strategija podrazumeva akciju koja treba da traje, i da pred sebe postavi dugogodišnji cilj. Taktičkim delovanjem nazvala je delovanje u okolnostima koje su „ovde i sada“, ali je zatim postavila i svokje ključno pitanje: u odnosu na šta je nezavisna, scena koju označavamo kao nezavisnu? „Sam termin nezavisnost pledira na neku vrstu automije, ali ako smo definisali da ga nezavisna scena ima u odnosu na državni aparat, pitanje je koji aparat kulture određuje naše mišljenje? Da li je on državni ili super –državni aparat?“, pitala je i zatim pojasnila, „Konkretno: da li je to aparat Evropske unije?“ … Nakon što je postavila ovo pitanje, Jelena Vesić iznela je tezu da nezavisna scena čak ni politički nije nezavisna od tog super-državnog aparata. Navela je da EU želi sektor dinamičnih radnika i radnica u kulturi, jer su ekonomični i sposbni da smanje troškove rada masovnih i glomaznih kulturnih institucija. „Dok otvaramo put u smeru nezavisnosti, zapravo srljamo u ralje zavisnosti“, kazala je.

Marijana Cvetković je nezavisnost scene, pokušala da definiše kao želju da se bude nezavisan, a ovu želju objasnila je zamajcem koji akteri ove scene dobijaju iz umetnosti i kulture. Baveći se različitim i autorskim estetikama i praksama, radnici u kulturi imaju potrebu da budu prepoznati kao nezavisni.

To je specifičnost kulture, kao sektora u kom rade. „Kultura“, kazala je Cvetković, „Nikada ne može biti servis za sprovođenje odluka Evropske unije“. Navela je organizacije koje rade u oblasti zaštite ljudskih prava ili životne sredine i uporedila ih sa NVO organizacijama koje se bave umetnošću i kulturom, pa je izvela tezu o tome da se nezavisnost umetničke scene mogo pre odnosi na umetničku želju da se bude nezavisan, nego na faktičku nezavisnost od fondova ili tržišta.

Jelena Vesić je preformulisala ovu tezu, kazavši da je nezavisnost zapravo cilj ove scene, ali je još jednom naglasila svoje pitanje o tome u odnosu na šta se ona uspostavlja. „Upadamo u spekulativnu strukturu koja je država umetnosti, i to država birokratizovana do krajnje mere“, zaključila je. Zapitala se da li su NVO samo nova vrsta institucija.

U Sharp thoughts diskusiju, zatim se uključila i publika a razgovor se dalje vodio u pravcu termninoloških razlika između strategije i taktike, kao i oko adekvatnog prevoda za engleski termin advocacy (javno zagovaranje).
Sharp thougts je format javne debate, more about
osimšljen tako da razjasni značenje pojmova oko kojih postoje dileme. Diskusiju vodi dvoje učesnika, this site
s unapred pripremljenim, jasnim i preciznim tezama. Pošto ih iznesu u tri kruga izlaganja, učesnici pozivaju i publiku, da se uključi sa svojim pitanjima. Debata traje oko 45 minuta. Ovaj format diskusije osmislila je Ana Vujanović, a na Raškolovanom znanju, isproban je u toku prve letnje škole na Ohridu.

Sharp thougts s pitanjem: Da li nezavisnoj sceni trebaju strategije ili taktike?, vodile su Marijana Cvetković i Jelena Vesić.

U prvoj replici, Marijana Cvetković dala je kratki uvod o razvoju onoga što danas označavamo kao nezavisnu scenu. Govorila je o međusobnom povezivanju alternativnih, umetničkih praksi na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije i antiratnim akcijama koje su ove grupe sprovodile tokom devedesetih godina, u kontekstu bujanja nacionalnih država i nacionalističkih sistema. Nakon toga, govorila je o tome kako su novoformirane nacionalne države iskusile prodor „turbo-kapitalizma“ i tako definisala uslove u kojim funkcionišu nezavisne kulturno-umetničke scene.

Kao prvu važnu strategiju ovih scena, prepoznala je odluku da se njihovi akteri udruže u različite vrste mreža, platformi, kolektiva i plenuma. Kao primere navela je Asocijaciju iz Ljubljane, mrežu Clubture, Nomad dance akademy, Nezavisnu kulturnu scenu Srbije i Drugu scenu, koja je nedavno reorganizovana u formu plenuma. Odluke o udruživanju, za Marijanu Cvetković biloe su strategija opredeljivanja za rad, znanje i udruživanje resursa. „Svim akterima bilo je jasno da ukoliko ostanu da svije umetničke prakse realizuju van konteksta kulturne politike, neće imati dovoljno mogućnosti da ih učine vidljivim“, navela je.

Kao drugu strategiju, izdvojila je strategiju javnog zagovaranja, nastalu iz potrebe da se promene prakse lobiranja, partokratskog i „burazersko-kumskog“ odlučivanja, odomaćene u našim društvima. Navela je da ova strategija predstavlja emancipatorski koncept, koji je potekao upravo sa nezavisne scene.

Kao treću strategiju izdvojila je strategiju samoobrazovanja, navodeći da ova stretgija istovremeno razvija znanje ali i problematizuje njegovu klasifikaciju jer utiče na prpcese vezane za tržište i kapital. Strategiju samoobrazovanja prepoznala je kao značajnu i zato što predstavlja kontrabalans čudnim, obrazovnim praksama koje su se uspostavile na umetničkim univerzitetima, a kako jednu od takvih navela je pojavu „doktoranata u oblasti umetnosti“, izrazivši svoju skeptičnost prema relevantnosti diploma stečenih u ovoj oblasti.

Jelena Vesić odgovorila joj je da kao strategiju prepoznaje delovanje aktera scene u pravcu kulturnih politika. Navela je da onaj ko proizvodi sadržaj (u ovom slučaju: kulturni ili umetnički) brine o okviru produkcije i trudi se da ga menja…. Definisala je kako se nezavisnost  scene odnosi pre svega na državni aparat i zaključila da u odnosu na „kumsko-burazersko“ odlučivanje koje se praktikuje u državnim institucijama kulture, nezavisna scena pokušava da svoje poslovanje postavi u transparentniji okvir.  Skrenula je pažnju na činjenicu da termini strategija i taktika, podrazumevaju set manevara i da je interesantno to što su preuzeti iz militarističkog rečnika.  Navela je da strategija podrazumeva akciju koja treba da traje, i da pred sebe postavi dugogodišnji cilj. Taktičkim delovanjem nazvala je delovanje u okolnostima koje su „ovde i sada“, ali je zatim postavila i svokje ključno pitanje: u odnosu na šta je nezavisna, scena koju označavamo kao nezavisnu? „Sam termin nezavisnost pledira na neku vrstu automije, ali ako smo definisali da ga nezavisna scena ima u odnosu na državni aparat, pitanje je koji aparat kulture određuje naše mišljenje? Da li je on državni ili super –državni aparat?“, pitala je i zatim pojasnila, „Konkretno: da li je to aparat Evropske unije?“ … Nakon što je postavila ovo pitanje, Jelena Vesić iznela je tezu da nezavisna scena čak ni politički nije nezavisna od tog super-državnog aparata. Navela je da EU želi sektor dinamičnih radnika i radnica u kulturi, jer su ekonomični i sposbni da smanje troškove rada masovnih i glomaznih kulturnih institucija. „Dok otvaramo put u smeru nezavisnosti, zapravo srljamo u ralje zavisnosti“, kazala je.

Marijana Cvetković je nezavisnost scene, pokušala da definiše kao želju da se bude nezavisan, a ovu želju objasnila je zamajcem koji akteri ove scene dobijaju iz umetnosti i kulture. Baveći se različitim i autorskim estetikama i praksama, radnici u kulturi imaju potrebu da budu prepoznati kao nezavisni.

To je specifičnost kulture, kao sektora u kom rade. „Kultura“, kazala je Cvetković, „Nikada ne može biti servis za sprovođenje odluka Evropske unije“. Navela je organizacije koje rade u oblasti zaštite ljudskih prava ili životne sredine i uporedila ih sa NVO organizacijama koje se bave umetnošću i kulturom, pa je izvela tezu o tome da se nezavisnost umetničke scene mogo pre odnosi na umetničku želju da se bude nezavisan, nego na faktičku nezavisnost od fondova ili tržišta.

Jelena Vesić je preformulisala ovu tezu, kazavši da je nezavisnost zapravo cilj ove scene, ali je još jednom naglasila svoje pitanje o tome u odnosu na šta se ona uspostavlja. „Upadamo u spekulativnu strukturu koja je država umetnosti, i to država birokratizovana do krajnje mere“, zaključila je. Zapitala se da li su NVO samo nova vrsta institucija.

U Sharp thoughts diskusiju, zatim se uključila i publika a razgovor se dalje vodio u pravcu termninoloških razlika između strategije i taktike, kao i oko adekvatnog prevoda za engleski termin advocacy (javno zagovaranje).

The Cultural Centre “Magacin”, pilule 4 Kraljevića Marka St.
Thursday, 1st March, 2012, 19h

Participants: Ana Vujanović and Iskra Gešoska


The regional meeting of the participants in the independent cultural and artistic scenes, organized as a closing segment of the three-year project Deschooling Classroom, will be opened with the presentation of the book “Deschooling Classroom Toolbook”.
The trilingual publication (in Serbian, Macedonian, and English), has been edited with combined efforts of the projects working team members, and the texts it contains not only summarize the process of the collective self-education, which was the focus of this project, but determine the place that Deschooling Classroom has within a wider perspective of the independent cultural scenes in the ex-Yu region.

One of the co-authors, Ana Vujanović, in the introductory notes, states that one of the main issues of the book is the one which concerns the socially political values of the contemporary cultural and artistic scenes in the region. The topic is addressed by numerous authors who have taken part in the project as the members of several self-organized groups, but also as lecturers and associates. The book also contains the texts which present the summarized facts of this multifaceted project which has gathered seventy participants and thirty associates from the entire region, and within which more than twenty public and semi-public events have been organized, in the form of workshops, laboratories, presentations, summer schools and study tours.

The book will be presented by Ana Vujanović and Iskra Gešoska, the co-authors of the project, and all the participants of the regional meeting are invited to enter the discussion and share their opinions on the issues it raises.
The regional meeting of the participants of cultural and artistic scenes, treat
organized as the closing segment of the Deschooling Classroom project, began after Jelena Knežević, the project manager and the producer, had addressed the guests and the participants. She welcomed everybody and presented all the members of the Deschooling Classroom working team.

She also announced the first programme: the presentation of the book “Deschooling Classroom Toolbook”, which was then introduced by the co-authors and editors: Iskra Gešoska, Ana Vujanović and Marta Popivoda. At this point, the audience had already taken the “Deschooling Classroom Toolbook”, and expressed their admiration for its conceptual design, made by Katarina Popović.  

Iskra Gešoska was the first to address the audience, saying that she had mixed feeling at the end of the three year project: „Deschooling Classroom closes, leaving many questions open. We were aware, from the very beginning, that we entered a laboratory project which explored the very bodies that assume the role of taking a critical stand towards context. However, the most complicated, the most exciting and the most excruciating point of the project, was the work distribution between the organizing team and the participants. The project was essentially based on non-hierarchical models and collaboration, but our memory is framed by hierarchical models. During the work, we kept facing the questions: what are the borders within the non-hierarchical, what are the limits of mentorship, who expects what from whom? There was discrepancy between the editorial team and the participants. We seemed to be expected to take a hierarchical position, which, in a way, was interesting. That gave birth to our most valuable lesson. For me, that was the conclusion of how much our consciousness is predetermined by hierarchical structures.”

Before she presented the content of the “Deschooling Classroom Toolbook”, Ana Vujanović acquainted the audience with the history of the project. She stated that it was initialized by the long-lasting TkH (Walking Theory) work. She reminded the listeners of the platform creation and the end of the nineties when she and several of her colleagues had gathered in an attempt to compensate for the shortcomings of the educational system. On one hand, it concerned the lack of information about contemporary art and culture, while on the other, they felt incapable of critical thinking. Walking Theory has, since then, organized numerous self-educational processes, but Deschooling Classroom was the first one with a budget, and the first one that was not organized by TkH members for themselves only.

“This was a project organized by the independent scene participants, for the independent scene participants. We accepted to work for others. Therefore, we asked ourselves if we wanted to work in the first place, and what does ‘not wanting anything in return’ actually mean. We did not want anything in return, but we did want to get an effect. We wanted to make an intervention in context”, she said.

Speaking about the book “Deschooling Classroom Toolbook”, Ana Vujanović pointed out that making methodology of self-education is not possible, as it always searches for models alternative to institutional methodology. “Therefore, this toolbook is permeated by self-reflection, with just an occasional naming of methods which could be useful to someone who would start a similar project in the region. In my opinion, the book lacks a slightly better articulation of the problem we were facing. The reason for that, I assume, is that the contributors were aware of the complexity of the organizational structure we had to deal with, so they did not want to criticize us.”

Ana Vujanović and Iskra Gešoska explained that the texts in the Toolbook could be divided into three categories. The first one consists of the texts which address the fact surrounding the project, the second one of the texts which reflect and self-reflect the process, while the third group of the texts are those written by Bojana Cvejić, Miško Šuvaković, Gerald Rowning and Aldo Milohnić, who also participated in the project and who were invited by Vujanović and Gešoska to write texts that would give an insight onto a wider reflection of the concepts that Deschooling Classroom is dealing with.

The concepts are: collectivism, collaboration, self-organization, and self-education.

Iskra Gešoska emphasized that, besides the book, a part of Deschooling Classroom’s toolbox is also the film Cultural Worker 3 in 1, directed by Marta Popivoda, which will be presented to the participants in the course of this regional meeting.

Marta Popivoda explained that the film is not a documentary which explains the Deschooling Classroom project. “My intention was not to become the project’s service, but to use the project as a framework for a film which touches upon my personal self-educative process. That is the film which involved people who participated in Deschooling Classroom. It does not present the independent scene; it was made from my personal point of view, or from the TkH point of view. In the film, nine characters express their attitudes on how the process of NGO-isation of culture has influenced their work. All the people were associates, participants in the project.”

After that, Ana Vujanović invited Milena Bogavac, who entered the discussion sharing her own impressions about the project Deschooling Classroom. As she was initially a participant and a coordinator, she pointed out that she witnessed a shift of perspective in her own view of the project. She also stated that she writes about the process of collective self-education which she went through within the Terms group and as a coordinator, in a text published in “Deschooling Classroom Toolbook”.

After a few questions and the answers, the participants decided to make a break before the next programme of the regional meeting.

The main partakers in the first discussion at the regional meeting of the participants of the independent cultural and art scenes were the university professors: Miško Šuvaković, ailment
Marina Gržinić, more about
Milena Dragićević Šešić i Jasna Koteska. The moderator of the discussion, Ana Vujanović, stated at the very beginning that her choice of the participants had been based on their specific sensibility or their susceptibility for the issues connected to the independent scene.

As all the participants have also taken part in the Deschooling Classroom project, the moderator added that she had a feeling that all the lecturers would be willing to introduce a self-educational initiative in the work framed by the institutions in which they work. Therefore, she opened the discussion by posing a question: what would be the role of a self-organized, self-educational initiative within a large university: “Would our presence at university be perceived as a kind of intervention, or would we be assimilated?”, she asked.

Professor Miško Šuvaković was the first one who spoke, stating at the very beginning that he observed the Deschooling Classroom project with avid interest, sometimes from nearby, sometimes from afar, and not always with positive impressions. He referred to the discussion held at the previous programme, during the presentation of the book “Deschooling Classroom Toolbook”. He singled out two theses from that discussion, comparing them to “two beautiful stitches”. The first one was the theses on the chronology of independent scene and the differences between the end of the nineties and its “nth wave”, represented by the contemporary active artists and organizations. The second theses he addressed, was the statement made by Marta Popivoda, which in Miško Šuvaković’s opinion would be “an excellent text or a book title”. The title would be: “Education is a high-risk issue”.

He said that the question of the risk is always twofold, sometimes even threefold, given the fact that learning is a process which final outcome is not easily predicted.  … Speaking about the nineties of the last century, Miško Šuvaković remembered an article he had read at the time in a neoliberal American magazine. The article dealt with the university of the future, which would be a central hierarchical structure with a network of agencies. “In order to survive, University has to be surrounded by a network of independent groups active in various interests and professional spans. That would imply a hybrid structure and if we speak of university or alternative schooling, I think those two must be interdependent. Any kind of a serious educational venture is in its base self-educative, and what university education lacks is self- organizing. And that is an important factor”, he said. In the rest of his exposé, he refused to project envisage a scheme for such a university, calling it an utopia in itself. “It is a dream of a better university”, he said, “but I am of opinion that a dream should be dreamed, eyes opened or closed.” … Comparing the contemporary context with the one in the nineties, the time when the article was published, Miško Šuvaković noticed that today, artists and cultural workers might be facing even more difficulties than then. He described the contemporary ex-Yugoslav, and especially Serbian, society as a breach between “neo-bourgeoisie, national restoration and neoliberal capitalist apocalypse.” … The formulation was greeted by an affirmative laughter in the audience.

In order to illustrate, he analysed the notion of mobility and the idea of the nomad-artist which, in his youth, seemed very attractive.

“Today”, he said, “the flexible model shows something that Brian Holmes misunderstood. According to that model, neoliberal market is offered a new product, a new identity, a new something, every minute… Actually, you offer goods, you become goods, and the very fact puts you in grave danger. If you reject neoliberal capitals, you automatically return to national-bourgeoisie revolution. Restoring a thing of the past… Which poses a question: what can be done? One of the answers is: nothing, but it puts you in a dismal place and frustration. On the other hand, if you do resist, you clash with the mafia, with the remnants of secret services, the remnants of Masonic lodges, with neoliberal capitalism which requires flexibility while, actually, trying to use your product. You become both corrupting and corruptible. What is possible is to develop critical fascinations and obsessions. What I have learned from the Deschooling Classroom project, is that those individual obsessions and fascinations can be organized and self-organized.”

In the course of his presentation, Miško Šuvaković kept mentioning the importance of collective learning, and the fact that when fifteen people study the same thing, they turn into a movement which should be articulated, and by articulating a context made by several people, a revolution can occur. Mentioning “revolution”, he stopped his presentation, asking Marina Gržinić to take over, wittily noticing that “revolution, after all, is her area of expertise”.

Marina Gržinić posed the question of the difference between “universe as educational boiler and self-organization, on the other hand”. She said that the relationship must exist and that she tried to explain it through the notion of geopolitics. “It is of vital importance”, she observed, “to make note of where we address the issue. Are we talking about Belgrade, ex-Yugoslavia, or about a neoliberal society? We have to try to discover a mechanism which separates and connects university and self-organisation, as to opposing poles.” She concluded that the question of content is of key importance: “What is this content which is a part of self-education? What is the idea, the concept and the aim of the thus produced knowledge? … That question is closely connected to geopolitics, as it actually refers to the points of antagonism, the topics, the segments of history, which are absent from the official education but are constantly articulated by the self-educational practices.”

Continuing, Gržinić said that university is facing a crisis nowadays and that the crisis is not of solely financial nature. “The very educational reform, which ended in Bologna, has led the system to the point in which knowledge has become turned into mere skills, into mechanisms which prepare students for labour market. Consequently, it has turned the students into a subject for anything.  They are programmed to always follow the market needs, while actually they not only know nothing, but also have no position which they would take and defend, they can adapt to anything. I would call the process highschoolisation: one can do everything, but doesn’t know anything, there is neither a position nor a place which connects us in terms of geopolitics; one performs in the name of a universal ideal, stripped off any kind of critical programme. The very fact that contemporary universities are so hierarchically determined and discriminative has put knowledge in the hands of self-education.”

Having explained the functioning of mechanisms which, at universities, estimates knowledge as lower than the control of work and hierarchy, she concluded: “Time is the matrix of global capitalism, but time is not what remains, for we always work somewhere. We work in a space, in ex-Yugoslavia.”

Having been invited to speak, Milena Dragićević-Šešić announced that she would tell a personal story at the beginning of her presentation. She spoke about the year 1993, about the war, the sanctions, the collapse of all the social values, which made her and her colleagues, university professors, wish to self-organize in order to study. She spoke about a self-organized group, which consisted of twenty university professors from various faculties, electronics, mathematics, humanities, etc., and about Professor Ljubiša Rajić, from the faculty of Philology, who initiated their self-educational process. “We were desperate”, she said, “an incapable of finding interlocutors. From the feeling of nausea, we formed the group in the middle of university, but among the practitioners to whom I belonged, a similar thing happened. That is how Justat was founded.” Having given a detailed description of Justat as an organization, she explained what happened when Justat was tried to be integrated in university. “We integrated in our curriculum all the best from the independent network followed by Justat, which is how the interdisciplinary study of stage design started. However, once it lost self-organization, it soon ceased to exist.


Our curriculums started being “censured by the laws of the market”, she said.“

She referred to marina Gržinić’s presentation and the thesis that contemporary universities are based on the work control principles. Milena Dragićević-Šešić wanted to remind the participants that the model which Gržinića had called neoliberal was, actually, constructed in Yugoslavia during the “strong left wing” reign. She reminded of the educational system which was applied in the mid-level schools, the so-called Šuvarice, and stated that the only difference lies in the fact that the universities of nowadays are turning towards the labour market, whereas Šuvarice were trying to meet “the needs of the society”.

Drawing on her experience and knowledge of how universities function, she concluded that it is not easy to set up a “self-organised sub-collective within a wider university skill”. In order to support this thesis statement, she mentioned legal processes in the way of obtaining accreditation, and the country which issues them only to the universities with predefined and precisely planned curricula. She explained that she has, during her career as a lecturer, tried to persuade students to make their personal study diary, in which they would make notes of their educational process on daily basis, and that it would not only reflect which part of the book they passed that day, but also what happened in their lives, what they read, heard, and experienced. However, even if there were any students interested in the idea, the professor Dragićević-Šešić was prevented by her colleagues to put it through. Their reason was that such a diary would require “additional time and energy” which could prevent the students from meeting other requirements defined by the formal university plans and curriculums.

“Learning through research”, she noticed, “was left to the students who were doing their PhD, and even then it was not a personal choice. What it actually meant, was to involve a new student-researcher into an institution-led research project.”

She continued by saying that in our country it is not possible to think about what is called “the validation of self-acquired knowledge”, which is common at some of the European universities. “The possibility for someone who has not attended a single course at university to submit a request, after which his or her knowledge would be verified, would be seen in our country as a legal way of purchasing a degree”, she said.

She spoke about ambition as a characteristic which is not highly deemed in our culture: “Self-organization requires something that is not popular among the left-wing supporters. That is a level of leadership for, someone has to stir the action. Ideally, the someone would be a student, not a professor or a teaching assistant, but someone has to do it. If not, mediocre people would remain in the leading positions, as they are the only ones brave enough to express their craving for leadership.”

Milena Dragićević-Šešić concluded her presentation by speaking about Deschooling Classroom in which she participated in the capacity of a lecturer and a consultant. “The closing segment of this project is neither the book, the film, nor the toolbox you have created. The only valuable product of Deschooling Classroom will be if all the participants, from now on, continue to initiate learning processes in their surroundings.”

The professor Jasna Koteska told us about the summer-school application for she has once received, concluding that she could not make out the real subject of any of the listed disciplines. The participation fee for the three days event was €750, so Koteska started by humorously mentioning all the things she would rather spend the money on, as all of those seemed more worth it than the skills named: bridging or remodelling or something equally abstract.

After this, she noticed that every university is constructed around false disciplinary partitions. “Self-education”, she said, “can tear down the false discourse, by structuring learning around notions. A notion can be butterfly, eye. A notion can be toilet, and all the notions can be tackled through a variety of disciplines.”… She also reminded the participants of a quotation of one of Sigmund Freud’s psychiatrists: “Theory is good but it doesn’t prevent things from being.” … The interesting quote was followed by laughter, while many of the participants noted it down.

Koteska, then, drew a parallel between knowledge and weapons.

“There isn’t a single movement which was created in the street”, she said. “Movements are made in classrooms before they go out in the streets.”

She mentioned numerous historical examples in support of the thesis and, after asking herself about the reason, she concluded that, regardless of the hierarchical structure, university framework offers more freedom to its students than they would have after they graduate and find the jobs in corporations and institutions.

She gave a detailed presentation about hierarchy, saying that it often contradicts logics and common sense, stating charming examples from her own university experience.

After her presentation, the discussion continued and the participants asked succinct and practical questions, but theoretical ones as well.

As it was initially stated, the working languages of the meeting are all the languages that all the participants can use and understand.

P.S.

The discussion finished informally, at the dinner in a restaurant which was especially chosen for the participants by the TkH organizational team. The atmosphere was cheerful, so here a few photos to illustrate it :)


Discussion “Theory – Art Practice – Activism”, mind
how to make a united cultural front?” was organized after the screening of the film “Cultural Worker 3 in 1”, and the participants were: Tomislav Medak, Vida Knežević, Marko Miletić, and Ana Vujanović, all of whom are also the main characters of the film. Therefore, Vladimir Jerić, the moderator, was inspired to open the discussion with a charming comment: “We will now talk with your favourite heroes from the film which has just been premiered and awarded with the Oscar of the independent scene.” After that, he took the regional meeting’s programme and read the full name of the discussion, noticing that one word in particular stands out. That is the word “front”, and Vladimir Jerić wondered about the choice of it. “In the beginning, we were individuals, interested in a range of things”, he said. “After that, we got actively involved in them, and we organized ourselves into groups, and into NGOs. The middle of the first decade of the XXI c. was known for networking, and our groups interweaved into various networks. However, we are now dealing with a whole new expression: front. I am interested in the actual meaning of it.”

Ana Vujanović, the author of the concept of the meeting, and the author of the title of the discussion, was the first to speak. She said that the reconstruction made by Vladimir Jerić is partly correct, but she added that networks also represent a kind of formal, functional associations. “I wouldn’t say that we go from networks towards front, but rather from platform towards front. I think that the term “front” relates to some kind of tactical connections with the entities with which we do not necessarily have everything in common. We recognize some kind of political interests, and we identify with them in an anthropological manner”, she said. She referred to the film “Cultural Worker 3 in 1” and she said that it shows this kind of association in the example of Zagreb scene. She said that there are similar tendencies in Belgrade, but that those have never been clearly and fully articulated. “I refer to Other scene, which was supposed to be a network, and then a platform, and now it’s a plenum.” We, the Belgrade scene, lack a kind of determination which would result in courage and decisiveness to make demands in a way which oversteps the dirty and corrupted context. For me, “front” means the step from reactive towards proactive approach. We are usually in the defensive, and these are times when we should agree about some minimal political consensus and become proactive.”

As Zagreb scene was touched upon, Vladimir Jerić called Tomislav Medak, as its participant, to speak. Before he started speaking, Medak informed the audience that he takes part in the discussion as an activist of the initiative “Right to the City”, instead of Teodor Čelakovski who was forced to renounce his participation due to medical reasons.

“In my opinion, creating a front is an aspect which puts culture in a wider social sphere. In the “Right to the City” initiative, the front was formed around the topic of social justice. Work or cooperation of the independent cultural scene participants was directed towards structural conditions. It was concerned with the social process of privatization of goods which could have belonged to the public as well. This showed a cohesion which proved that independent scene can enter the spheres that are not directly connected to its own existence. Cultural scene has, in the past several years, been trying to find alliances in some more related spheres, as for example the sector for issues related to young population, or sectors of science, of ecology, or among workers’ unions. The decision to take a step into the public came out of the problem concerning the lack of work spaces. Every organization needs a work space, which gave rise to alliance that tried to protect public goods, while workers from various fields of work supported each other in their struggle for space. This type of action is intrusion into someone else’s area of economic and political power which is why that struggle, from the point of view of the culture, is always something that always depends on alliances.”

Vladimir Jerić said that front always means heterogeneity. “In the event of war, everyone goes to front regardless of how they feel about it, as they are all threatened by the same enemy. Who was that enemy from the point of view of Zagreb?”

Tom Medak said that he would remain reserved towards the term “front”. “I do not think that the enemy was clearly defined. The positions of the participants were significantly different, the alliances were formed according to the tactical needs, not according to some common principles, and I am not sure that front necessarily there is a unity which front implies.” However, he agreed that there was a sort of cohesion within independent scene and that it was created because their actions were structural and not particularly interested in their particular selves. “It was a difficult thing to communicate”, he said. “When you approach the ones who make political decisions, and suggest them to give an abandoned factory to artists, they are instantly interested which organization you come from. As soon as you say that you do not need the space for your organization, but you want a development of cultural policy, there is an absolute break in communication.”

Vladimir Jerić asked the participants who on the other side of the front is, and concluded that independent scene is mostly in conflict with the state. “Independent scene inspects the state closely, and asks everything from it. The state is always guilty for all the problems independent scene has to face, which is why the state is always somehow equaled with the whole state, despite the fact that states have become apparatuses that in no way frame the society as a whole.”

After this comment, members of Kontekst kolektiv, Marko Miletić and Vida Knežević, entered the discussion.

Marko Miletić said: “The question of cultural front is what I, as a participant of independent scene, perceive as imprecise. Here where we act, organizations and networks haven’t even managed to communicate some basic questions of infrastructure or funds, so there is a question whether there is any point to create some front of cultural scene, or it would be better to enter a wider front with students, unions, and workers.

Vida Knežević added: “We act within Other scene, within the NKSS network, but we are trying, through our programmes, to make the field of activity accessible to other groups as well. We think that such experience gives us an insight into the question of problems of forming organizations within independent scene, which absolutely lacks solidarity necessary for creating a wider cultural front. Insufficiently deliberate attempt to self-reflect our common position, the position of precarious worker who acts in uncertain conditions, and a great divide between independent and public, state, institutionalized… The constant divide obscures the fact that everyone has the same problems, which is why it becomes impossible to create a strong, long, and united action.”

Asked to talk about their latest conflicts with institution, Vida Knežević and Marko Miletić explained that Kontekst kolektiv has spent the past six months using the premises of a local area government in Novi Belograd. They shared the space with another two organizations which see themselves as independent scene participants. Although they shared the space and the rights in it, the three organizations were not united when they were officially informed that they are losing their rights to that space. “The contract required from us to completely bureaucratize our position, to submit weekly and monthly reports about our work, and informed us that we can carry out our programmes only if allowed by the county government. If not, the programmes were to be postponed. The contract also stated that we are obliged to talk about the county only in a positive way, and that they have an absolute freedom to break the contract if and when it suits them”.

Explaining the situation, Vida Knežević added that they were invited to the county’s premises only to sign the contract, without the right to take it out of the office. Their demand to negotiate working conditions were rejected, and they were told that the other two organizations had already signed it.

Knežević and Miletić explained to the participants of the regional meeting that they would not sign the contract as they do not want to legitimize “the abnormal position demonstrated by the county which conducts censorship and auto-censorship in a most overt manner which is not even known within institutions”.  After a longer expose, Vida Knežević asked: “If our disunited positions are visible in such a narrow context, what “front” can we talk about?”

After that, Ana Vujanović referred to the first question posed by Vladimir Jerić, and the genesis of the discussion’s title. “I think that some attempts to create a wider cultural front can be recognized in Belgrade, but there is no consensus within culture itself”, she said and added that the creation of a wider front can only come after the participants of cultural scene resolve their internal issues. “Perhaps”, she said, “we could reach a minimum consensus about the position that within a society culture and art must be treated as public good, i.e., as a space within public sphere in which we could subject society to close scrutiny, think about its better future, or at least fantasize about it. I cannot side with the tendency to observe state in an unambiguous manner”, she added and concluded: “Today, state is the agency of capital, it protects private property, and that is the reason we have so many problems with defining art and culture as public good. We should try to conquer that, or start negotiating about it at least.”

Vladimir Jerić replied that the alliance of the state and the capital is one of the definitions of fascism in Italy. After that, Tomislav Medak replied, saying that Zagreb experience with “Right to the City” shows that those who make political decisions were very unpleasantly surprised to learn that there is a group which is as eloquent as the best PR experts engaged by politicians:

“The power would not be institutionalized, but it does not easily disappear, for, when you are an expert in some field, the media will ask you to comment on its issues, they need antagonism, at least those media that are not completely controlled. Of course, that control is always present and it is not only political but economic as well. An important aspect is the struggle to win public support. That answers the question of where you act in political context and how you acquire the power to act. Every now and then, you need a scandal”, he advised. “To be constantly within the scope of the legal is ok, institutions and civility of actions open space up to a certain point, but the power players do not play a fair game… That is why I think that there is an important dimension in occasional excess, which should be timely performed.”

The audience eagerly followed his idea.

“As for the “Right to City” we were tremendously helped by illegal action and one should be prepared to that when necessary. That does not mean that it can or should be applied under any circumstances, for it probably can undermine the legitimacy obtained given by the masses. However, an occasional form of illegal action can change a situation in struggle for social issue. All those won battles are won for a short period of time. It is not an ongoing struggle because we are not strong enough, but because capital interest is persistent enough. After two or four years it returns and completes its aim”, he said.

Vladimir Jeric asked the members of Kontekst kolektiv whether they would be ready to fight an illegal battle. Before they replied, several people commented: “Even if you would be, don’t tell us that.”

Marko Miletić said that Kontekst gallery got its place in county premises in Novi Beograd, due to a small excess. In this way, they profited, but “the state and particracy retaliates now”, Miletić said and added that those who, in both cases, represent the state come from the same political party.

Vida Knežević said that they do not want to use illegal methods in their struggle. “We want to make interventions within the legal, public context and to change it. I agree that the state should be presented with a cultural policy that would provide space for all of us… That is the policy which would require a legal procedure on both local and state level, so artists and cultural workers would never be offered such a contract… An official procedure does not exist, everyone deals with one’s own problems, we need a front in order to enact the law”, she said.

Ana Vujanović expressed her opinion regarding making illegal methods legitimate. “Legal methods are impossible, because our society is ruled by particracy. It implies non-transparent procedures and a corrupted system. On the other hand, in order to perform illegal actions, front is necessary, or otherwise one would be seen as a petty offender chased away by the police. To prevent that, front and the public sphere are necessary. We have no power in society, and the only one we could have would be to constitute a public sphere”.

Vida Knežević agreed with Ana Vujanović, adding that turning to illegal methods would be the simplest thing to do at the moment, but that “trying to drill a hole in the wall, to open public space” is a much bigger stake. She noticed that independent scene makes one step forward and two steps back, and wondered about why it is like that. “System is in favour of us opening marginalized spaces and practices. Those are the things they do not have to deal with, and they suit them because they support the flow of capital, because they produce contents, carry out programmes, etc”.

After that, Vladimir Jerić asked about institutions and read one of the definitions of the notion. According to the definition, institution is a public tool which is used in order to reduce the choice. “The more effective the reduction, the better the application of the resources to the remaining choices. All the big decisions, which characterize institution, are made in advance. If the front was an institution, which decisions and principles do you think would be non-debatable? What is it that makes the front strong?”

The question was answered by Ana Vujanović, who expressed her skepticism regarding the attitude that it is necessary to institutionalize everything that is done. “Institutionalization is a trap, and the front can be flexible, it can win the battle for the public good, and that can be its only aim”.

Tom Medak said that in order to create a front, one must first clarify the position of antagonism, as well as a demand which is not marginalized and insignificant.

The discussion lasted for another thirty minutes, and Marina Gržinić, Nebojša Milekić and Dubravka Sekulić shared their opinions as well

http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/myspace_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_48.png

BLOG RESSUME: The presentation of the book DESCHOOLING CLASSROOM TOOLBOOK

www.shareconference.net
Speakers and moderators:

Ana Vujanović was born in Belgrade in 1975 and now bases herself in Belgrade, viagra sale
Berlin and Paris. She works as a freelance theorist, approved
researcher, writer, lecturer, organizer and dramaturge in the field of contemporary performing arts and culture. Vujanović graduated in Theatre and Radio Production at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, Belgrade, and wrote her PhD dissertation on the field of Theatre studies. She also attended the School for Image and Politics at the Centre for Contemporary Arts in Belgrade, and graduated from the Culture and Gender Studies department at Belgrade’s Alternative Academic Educational Network. She is a member of the editorial collective TkH (Walking Theory) Platform (Belgrade), and is editor-in-chief of the TkH journal for performing arts theory.

Iskra Geshoska is executive director of NGO Kontrapunkt(Cultural center Tochka). She is working in the field of cultural policy especially concerning the issue of independent cultural scene. She was consultant in the Ministry of Culture of Macedonia in the period of 2002-2006. She is publishing essays and theoretical overviews concerning cultural studies and performing arts.

Dr. Marina Grzinić, philosopher, artist and theoretician. She works in Ljubljana and Vienna. Grzinic is Professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, Institute of Fine Arts, Post Conceptual Art Practices. She is researcher at the Institute of Philosophy at the ZRC SAZU (Scientific and Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Science and Art) in Ljubljana. She also works as freelance media theorist, art critic and curator.

Milena Dragićević Šešić is Cultural policy amd management professor, researcher, author, consultant and editor. Author of numerous books and studies translated in 15 languages. An international lecturer on cultural policy and management. Expert and consultancy work in cultural policy and management for European Cultural Foundation, Council of Europe, UNESCO, Foundation Marcel Hicter, Pro Helvetia, British Council…

Jasna Koteska (born 1970, Skopje, Macedonia). Works as an Assistant Teacher at the University Sc. Cyril and Methodius, and as a Lecturer at the Center for Women Studies in Skopje. Holds master degrees in literature (University of Skopje) and in gender studies (Central European University, Budapest). She is the editor of Sexualities in the journal Identities. Jasna Koteska was editor of Blesok Reviews.

Miško Šuvaković was born in 1954 in Belgrade. He was a co-founder and member of conceptual artistic Group 143 (1975-1980), a co-founder and member of informal theory and art group “Community for Space Investigation” (1982-1989), and is a member of platform for performing arts theory and practice Walking theory (TkH, from 2000). He is a professor of aesthetics and theory of art at the Faculty of Music and Interdisciplinary studies at the University of Arts, Belgrade. He published numerous essays and books in Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, German, Hungarian, Chinese and English languages: Impossible Histories (2003, 2006), Epistemology of Art (2008), Konceptualna umetnost (2008),The Clandestine Histories of The OHO Group (2010).

Tomislav Medak is a philosopher with interests in constellations contemporary political philosophy, media theory and aesthetics. He is co-ordinating theory program and publishing activities of the Multimedia Institute/MAMA (Zagreb, Croatia). He’s a free software and free culture advocate. He’s project lead of Croatian Creative Commons team and board member of international commons organization iCommons. He’s member of urban activist initiative Right to the City.He is a member of the Zagreb based theatre company BADco and of Multimedial institute, Zagreb.

Jelena Vesić is independent  curator, cultural activist and editor based in Belgrade. Co-editor of Prelom – Journal of Images and Politics 2001-2009 and founding member of independent organization Prelom Kolektiv . Also, founding member of the network of independent organizations Other Scene (Belgrade)  and co-editor of Red Thread – Journal for social theory, contemporary art and activism (Istanbul) since 2009. Her research is dedicated to the politics of representation in art and visual culture, practices of self-organization and politization of cultural work. Her curatorial practice often experiments with frameworks, methodologies, and contextual and collaborative aspects of art.

Teodor Celakoski is project coordinator at Multimedia Institute, Zagreb. In last ten years he initiated several projects and platforms focused on advocating change in the Croatian culture policy field like Clubture, Zagreb Culture Kapital of Europe 3000, Alliance for Center for Independent Culture and Youth. Recently he is engaged with The Right to the City campaign fighting against devastation of public spaces in Zagreb and Croatia.

Marta Popivoda (Belgrade, 1982) is film and video maker, but also cultural worker from Belgrade. She is part of the TkH collective of theorists and artists (TkH=Walking Theory), which deals with the problematics of performance paradigm in art, culture and theory. TkH is mostly active on the independent art scenes in Belgrade and Paris. In her solo projects she explores cinema as a medium and format of contemporary art and as a tool of knowledge production. Her most widely known work is illegal_cinema (2007-…), which has been presented in France, Turkey, Spain, Croatia and Serbia. She also collaborates in theatre performances and contemporary opera as video artist. Occasionally publishes theoretical texts and reviews

Slavčo Dimitrov (b. 1984) holds a diploma for Comparative and General Literature at the University of St. Cyril and Methodius and holds MA in Gender Studies and Philosophy, on the subject of: Genealogical Deconstruction of the Confessional Subject: Political and Ethical Implications. He is a PhD candidate in Gender Studies and Philosophy. He is working as a researcher, teaching assistant and project coordinator in the Visual and Cultural Research Centre at the Institute for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Euro-Balkan, Skopje.


Marijana Cvetković is PhD candidate at the University of Arts in Belgrade (museum management and development). Founder of Station Service for contemporary dance and Nomad Dance Academy, Balkan platform for development of contemporary dance and performing arts. Cultural activist at the independant cultural scenes of Belgrade and Serbia. Since 2009 teaches as guest lecturer and teaching assistent at the MA in cultural management and cultural policy at the University of Arts in Belgrade (UNESCO Chair). Since 2011 teaches at MA in performance research programme at the same university (in cooperation with Warwick University, UK and University of Amsterdam).

Vida Knežević and Marko Miletić are working together within Kontekst collective. Through their work, constant learning process and interaction with local and international art and activist scenes, they developed an understanding of their work as a space for critical and political action through contemporary art and culture.

Vladimir Jerić Read the rest of this entry »

http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/myspace_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_48.png

PRESENTATION OF THE BOOK: “DESCHOOLING CLASSROOM TOOLBOOK”

Speakers and moderators:

Ana Vujanović was born in Belgrade in 1975 and now bases herself in Belgrade, treatment Berlin and Paris. She works as a freelance theorist, researcher, writer, lecturer, organizer and dramaturge in the field of contemporary performing arts and culture. Vujanović graduated in Theatre and Radio Production at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, Belgrade, and wrote her PhD dissertation on the field of Theatre studies. She also attended the School for Image and Politics at the Centre for Contemporary Arts in Belgrade, and graduated from the Culture and Gender Studies department at Belgrade’s Alternative Academic Educational Network. She is a member of the editorial collective TkH (Walking Theory) Platform (Belgrade), and is editor-in-chief of the TkH journal for performing arts theory.

Iskra Geshoska is executive director of NGO Kontrapunkt(Cultural center Tochka). She is working in the field of cultural policy especially concerning the issue of independent cultural scene. She was consultant in the Ministry of Culture of Macedonia in the period of 2002-2006. She is publishing essays and theoretical overviews concerning cultural studies and performing arts.

Dr. Marina Grzinić, philosopher, artist and theoretician. She works in Ljubljana and Vienna. Grzinic is Professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, Institute of Fine Arts, Post Conceptual Art Practices. She is researcher at the Institute of Philosophy at the ZRC SAZU (Scientific and Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Science and Art) in Ljubljana. She also works as freelance media theorist, art critic and curator.

Milena Dragićević Šešić is Cultural policy amd management professor, researcher, author, consultant and editor. Author of numerous books and studies translated in 15 languages. An international lecturer on cultural policy and management. Expert and consultancy work in cultural policy and management for European Cultural Foundation, Council of Europe, UNESCO, Foundation Marcel Hicter, Pro Helvetia, British Council…

Jasna Koteska (born 1970, Skopje, Macedonia). Works as an Assistant Teacher at the University Sc. Cyril and Methodius, and as a Lecturer at the Center for Women Studies in Skopje. Holds master degrees in literature (University of Skopje) and in gender studies (Central European University, Budapest). She is the editor of Sexualities in the journal Identities. Jasna Koteska was editor of Blesok Reviews.

Miško Šuvaković was born in 1954 in Belgrade. He was a co-founder and member of conceptual artistic Group 143 (1975-1980), a co-founder and member of informal theory and art group “Community for Space Investigation” (1982-1989), and is a member of platform for performing arts theory and practice Walking theory (TkH, from 2000). He is a professor of aesthetics and theory of art at the Faculty of Music and Interdisciplinary studies at the University of Arts, Belgrade. He published numerous essays and books in Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, German, Hungarian, Chinese and English languages: Impossible Histories (2003, 2006), Epistemology of Art (2008), Konceptualna umetnost (2008),The Clandestine Histories of The OHO Group (2010).

Tomislav Medak is a philosopher with interests in constellations contemporary political philosophy, media theory and aesthetics. He is co-ordinating theory program and publishing activities of the Multimedia Institute/MAMA (Zagreb, Croatia). He’s a free software and free culture advocate. He’s project lead of Croatian Creative Commons team and board member of international commons organization iCommons. He’s member of urban activist initiative Right to the City.He is a member of the Zagreb based theatre company BADco and of Multimedial institute, Zagreb.

Jelena Vesić is an independent curator, art critic and editor, member of Prelom editorial board and Prelom kolektiv.

Teodor Celakoski is project coordinator at Multimedia Institute, Zagreb. In last ten years he initiated several projects and platforms focused on advocating change in the Croatian culture policy field like Clubture, Zagreb Culture Kapital of Europe 3000, Alliance for Center for Independent Culture and Youth. Recently he is engaged with The Right to the City campaign fighting against devastation of public spaces in Zagreb and Croatia.

Marta Popivoda (Belgrade, 1982) is film and video maker, but also cultural worker from Belgrade. She is part of the TkH collective of theorists and artists (TkH=Walking Theory), which deals with the problematics of performance paradigm in art, culture and theory. TkH is mostly active on the independent art scenes in Belgrade and Paris. In her solo projects she explores cinema as a medium and format of contemporary art and as a tool of knowledge production. Her most widely known work is illegal_cinema (2007-…), which has been presented in France, Turkey, Spain, Croatia and Serbia. She also collaborates in theatre performances and contemporary opera as video artist. Occasionally publishes theoretical texts and reviews

Slavčo Dimitrov

Marijana Cvetković

Vida Knežević

Marko Miletić

Vladimir Jerić Read the rest of this entry »

http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/myspace_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_48.png http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_48.png

Tag Cloud