|
Yuri Albert March 2012 Yuri Albert on the site of Open Gallery What was your first work of contemporary art ? If I am not mistaken it was a work called «Air from the State Tretyakov Gallery». It was a simple jar filled with air. So this jar is sealed like a marmalade jam and on the label it is written «Air from the State Tetryakov Gallery». I have always considered this work like an in-between, not like a piece of art. The air of the museum was purely art itself. Did you really take this sealed off air from the State Tretyakov Gallery ? Yes. What room ? I don’t remember. From the «old» State Tretyakov Gallery ? There was only the old one back then. That’s right I am not sure. To me, there was only the old one. Have you e seen Marcel Duchamp’s «Air de Paris» («50 cc of Paris Air») by that time? No, absolutely not. I have seen it in some book, three years after that. What was the first work of contemporary art that you saw? I first saw reproductions in books like «Outrage Crisis» («Krizis Bezobraziya») and so on ... But in reality, my very first encounter with modern art occurred when — at the age of fifteen — I found myself in the studio of Komar and Melamid. How did it happen that you got there? You see, Melamid’s wife had a side-job — she prepared students to enter college, specifically for a drawing exam. And that’s the way I met her, accidentally. Our classes took place at the very same studio where Komar and Melamid were creating their works. It was actually just a large room in their apartment. What was in there at that moment? Well, practically everything you can find now in different museums. I remember that I was really struck by their project of the blue smoke plant. It was such remarkable classicist composition. There were two standing naked figures holding a scroll with this project. In the background there was this fuming blue smoke plant — in an antique, Ionic style. And it was supplemented by a letter to Konstantinos Karamanlis, the Greek prime minister. It announced to him that Greece as the cradle of all civilized mankind should surely construct such a plant. There was a big series of works with their top right angle cut. I mean, the idea was that the works could all be very different, but united in series only by this cut right angle. And once, when during my hosts’ absence I turned over the painting and the angle ended up on the wrong side, there was a terrible scandal. Who do you consider to be your teachers? At first studied in two different secondary-level art schools. And then I entered the visual arts department (Hudgraf) of the Moscow Pedagogical Institute, but I never finished it. I was expelled during my third year. For what reason? For absence. But in fact I studied with Katya Arnold, Alik Melamid’s wife. The things I learnt from what I’ve heard and saw in their shop was more important than any of these classes. I wasn’t their direct pupil like Gennady Donskoi, Mickael Rochal and Victor Skersis, but there was simply this atmosphere that carried you into another world. It was incredible for those times, when people, including me, dreamt of painting like Falk and suddenly there it was! But still, I didn’t have any particular teachers, apart from some books or newspapers that I found. Rather I had a group of friends or companions. They were Victor Skersis, Gennady Donskoi, Vadim Zakharov, Igor Luts, and Nadia Stolpovskaia. This was our company. Nadia, my wife, translated some English-language articles about conceptualism. We disseminated them in the limited circle of Samizdat. We were discussing it all the time, calling each other every day. We met a couple of times a week. The first translation of «Art after philosophy» By Joseph Kosuth (1969) , was made in 1979. A whole book was translated: «Environments and happenings» (A. Henri, 1974), as well as some articles in «Artforum». How do you think one should teach art? It is possible to teach art. The problem is that the result can’t be one hundred percent successful in each case. A couple of time I have been to the open doors events at one of the most famous European art academies — the one in Dusseldorf. They only teach modern art. They don’t even study drawing. And I think they don’t even have art history there. The problem is that there are no more good artists graduating from this academy than from the Surikov Institute. I don’t know, two people out of a hundred. The difference from the Surikov Institute is that graduated students don’t have any practical skills. Surikov Institute students can at least draw portraits, but these folks, unfortunately, can only do installations or become waiters. So there are two polar opposites. There are academic institutions like ours where they consistently teach you how to draw, like in Bryullov’s time. But they don’t in the least explain why one should do it. Or there are free academies like the one in Dusseldorf, where they seemingly teach modern art at the outset. But, first, they also don’t explain anything, because it seems obvious for Europe and the West. Secondly, as far as I understand, in such academies there is no obligatory program — the educational process is based on the master-class system. So, for example all the students of Markus Lupertz are doing big expressive paintings, they wear Romantic frock-coats, and they listen to Wagner, like Lupertz himself. But they are not able to do anything else. Then, all of Tony Cragg’s students are able to weld tubes and build certain things from ceramic materials. I think there should be compromises between the two poles. I think it is important for students and future artists to remember that modern art takes its origins from the classical art, and they have to know the history of art, preferably be able to draw. Though, basically, it’s not necessary. And secondly, they must be trained in modern theories and practices. What authors and what artworks were determinant for you? I have been most affected by the ones I have previously talked about — Komar and Melamid — and our company. Then I’ve been influenced by artists such as Kosuth and Hans Haacke. And many other very different artists of the post-conceptualist current keep influencing me, such as Allan McCollum or Maurizio Catellan, whom I really love. Recently I was very influenced by Santiago Sierra. Has your move from the country defined the circle of artists that you carry on a dialogue with? You see, I moved when I was already an adult man. And first of all, it’s difficult for me to judge what would have happened had I not left the country. More likely, there’s a different aspect. Those artists with whom I had been in a sort of absent dialogue, I saw their works in reality. Sometimes it was quite a comforting sight. For example it seems that many works of art — especially by pop-artists, who are well represented in Cologne collections —that had once been perceived as a heavenly ideal, shiny and very carefully made, turned out to be crooked and oblique, and that was very comforting. Secondly, I realized that there’s a lot of bad modern art. Because when we’d been casually flipping the pages of a random issue of «Artforum», the material reproduced there was preselected, none of it was bad, and if it was bad, it was a high quality bad art. And it turned out that there were as many of these installations as Soviet landscapes entitled «Zavecherelo.» («Here Comes the Evening»). It’s the same boring, banal production of nobody knows what. Of course, that’s disappointing. When did you start to realize that there is a lot of bad old art? You see, there is less bad old art than bad modern art. For a very simple reason: in traditional art there are always some minimum quality standards. Even in landscapes like «Zavecherelo», in the spite of the fact that they can be extremely banal. They are not as bad as an installation that irritates, because it can at least cast reminiscences of some fishing trip or a dacha evening. But a meaningless installation doesn’t provide any warm feelings at all, it simply irritates you by being senseless. What should the viewer/spectator know in order to understand your works? It’s enough to know what they teach you in school. The most important thing isn’t your background, but an intention to understand. Everybody has heard about the «Black Square», people know it exists. Everybody knows what it is, and that there is something very unclear called modern art. I mean those people who are unfamiliar with it. If there is an intention to understand and openness, then it is enough because my works are purely educational. They are basically explanations, they confront one with the process of questioning, they are oriented to a dialogue with a spectator — a spectator who is not necessarily very sophisticated. In general, it is possible to understand everything, but in your own way. For example, we can see Manet’s «Bar aux Folies Bergeres» («A Bar at Folies Bergere») as a scene from ancient Russian life. On one hand, there is always some degree of understanding. On the other hand, we can’t entirely understand any piece of art. My question is: What is the balance between understanding and misunderstanding? And it is very important to let some misunderstanding remain, but it should be correct misunderstanding. Are there some artists who you consider your antagonists? I stick to the idea that antagonists artists don’t exist. Painting is an artistic dialogue, and if all artists were taking the same direction and always agree the art couldn’t survive. It would be a terrible sadness. Why do you need collaborations with other artists ? In fact, it is impossible to put a name on my work or Yuri’s Albert creativity. It is a rigid and rational system. I am not doing work I can’t explain. I can’t, being Yuri Albert. But engaged in such strange alliances, I can do work for which I don’t have any exhausting answers. I have a fairly strong sense of artistic responsibility so I’m not doing and can’t do their work. Especially the three of us are working Victor Skersis and Andrei Filipov and I, there is a mutual responsibility like in "Swan, Crayfish and Pike". In mutual projects, там часть работ авторские, часть неавторские, часть совместные, часть такие, it is not a copyright because it is mutual ( need to be checked)I’ve said to Filipov. " Andrei, I’ve came up with an idea of a work for you, you must definitively do it, because it’s cool ( great)" And Andrei does it. Or vice versa. There is a very unstable and fexible Do you divide your art into any periods ? I’m thinking of 1979 during the Perestroika, it was perhaps the most interesting and fruitful period. It continues during the post -Perestroika period, for ten years. I’m forgetful with dates And also, the period where I’ve started doing administrative institutional projects type tours in museums blindfolded, or polls. What about the first and second period ? Well, the first period was a brewing one, I woke up every day with a new idea. It was a very interesting period of communication, despite the fact that there was almost no opportunity to exhibit. I think that this period was important for all artists of my generation, well actually it is for me. The second period, the post-Perestroika was a harsh socialization of art. I don’t mean that all the products became political or social but art, when it was absolutely popular and underground became a part of social life. When exhibitions were allowed, people just simply stood there like at rock concerts. All the time in Russian newspaper «Ogon’ke», there were articles about modern art and so on. Here it is the digestion of the social role of art and it lasted rather long. In the way it was expressed I now understand more classical form of products. Purely all the nineties was devoted with this comprehension of the social role of modern art , not only mine. What is your prevailing theme? What justifies such an opportunity? Which one? To be able to paint when art has already ended. Well, for me, a desire to settle this question justifies this possibility. What art movement do you belong to ? How do you identify this movement ? I don’t think that movements are important in 2012. But in theory, of course, conceptual painting. Are muscovite and international conceptualisms fundamentally different for you ? Which political events, happened in your memory, do you consider the most important ? I think the Soviet Union’s collapse — what an historical memory! This was the fall of the totalitarian communist system. What are your political views ? My political views can be defined as democratic and liberal. Do I need to explain? It is the belief that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the state or even of the society. Secondly, that these rights can only be achieved with a democratically control, that is, in the present circumstances — a representative democracy. And third, that democracy and pluralism are not possible without economic pluralism, which is private property. What is your attitude towards religion ? Quiet. I don’t believe in anything, I am an unbeliever but at the same time I don’t try to test believing people or religion with hostility. Like Laplace said " I had no need of that hypothesis«. What exhibitions that you have taken part in do you consider the most important ? It is probably the most difficult question. It wasn’t my very first exhibition but it could be the first exhibition I’ve organized in my apartment. It was an apartment exhibition from 1979 where Skersis, Don , Zakharov, Lits and Stolpovskaia participated and only ten people truly came. But there were «Toadstool» and Nikita Alexeev. It was an important moment where my professional life almost began. What is necessary to work ? Communication. Do you collect other artists’ works ? Yes , I have a rather big collection- about one hundred and fifty works. When did you begin to do that? Maybe when I’ve started to work. Naturally we began to exchange and give each other works of art. When it was not necessary or needed, we gave to each other. Then I started to beg for more focused works. My latest acquisition was a still life from Mikhail Roginsky called "Gas and Electricity". Cezanne, Pissarro, Jasper Johns, ... What irritates you the most ? «Spirituality». |
