THE WAYS OF SEEING:
POWER OF POWER
This is the third version of the third blog! The impressions and memories are taking shape slower than events are occurring. I left America, briefly stayed in Serbia and soon after continued towards the research about East and West or East and Rest (“East & W/Rest”) at International Cultural Center in Krakow, Poland. I visited Krakow several years ago participating at the conference “Limits of heritage”. I expected complete disconnection with my “U.S. experiences”. Of course this was projection. Connections are not only in someone’s mind, but in realities as well.
My luggage was lost in Amsterdam. I suppose right where the new Rembrandt’s exhibition has just been open - luggage claim of the Schiphol airport. Yet the first thing I saw in Krakow was one of the Rembrandt’s landscapes. Dark scenery lit with single ray of light immediately reminded me of the Rembrandt’s life. Powerful. Let’s stay at the representation of power. Former U.S. President, Barack Obama, was the first ever American official to visit Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. It was during the Nuclear Safety Summit in 2013. Who else but the museum director presented the Gallery of Honour to the president? The press conference with Dutch Prime Minister Rutte was held in in front of the Rembrandt’s “Night Watch”. Why these two have chosen to stand in front of this image that Obama evaluated as the most impressive conference backdrop of all? Let’s call history and a bit of art historian’s “fiction” for help here. After the WWII the Netherlands was in debts so huge that wasn’t even able to service the interests. As a part of the Marshall’s Plan for Europe, the U.S. proposed the Netherlands the Offer: exchanging “Night Watch” for the debt. The proposal was refused[1]. These were demonstrations of real power. What about the metaphorical ones? Peter Greenaway, British (now Dutch) film director and art historian, on the occasion of the 400 years of Rembrandt’s birth (same one when the first colonists disembarked to Jamestown) made the film entitled “Nightwathing”. Soon after, he made the other one, even more provocative: “Rembrandt’s: J`Accuse”. According to Greenaway all the characters in the painting of Dutch Militia were involved into the murder of previous commander Piers Hasselburg, slammed in corruption, nepotism and brutal power games and illicit trades. After public presentation of the picture in 1642, Rembrandt’s career started to decline ending in poverty, isolation and later oblivion.
What kind of a message two officials are sending to the world? The countries Obama mentioned, beside US and the Netherlands, were Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Ukraine, and Mali. “Properly” interpreted scene of two officials in front of “Night Watch” could symbolize protectors of order, democracy and freedoms and new global police force. But what if the interpretation is improper? Than the power is concentrated in wrong hands and on the wrong place and message is utterly disturbing.
I “decided” yesterday that the American chapter must be closed. I visited the City Museum of Krakow to dive into the very local pasts. Unfortunately the museum is closed for several years due to the renovation, just as Rijksmuseum was prior to Obama visit. But two small exhibitions were at display. One of them is dedicated to Tadeusz Kosciuszko. Great, I thought, there’s a street in Belgrade next to my Faculty named after him, but I’ve never actually known who the gay was. Americans, Virginians, do you hear some bells? You should! If you remember LaFayette, there must be some space for Kosciuszko as well because in 1776 he was there fighting for your independence serving as an engineer. The Continental Congress appointed him as a colonel of engineers and he initially worked to build fortifications in order to protect Philadelphia from British attack. In 1778, General George Washington commissioned Kosciuszko to build the military fortifications at West Point on the Hudson River. Considered impenetrable the site eventually became the U.S. Military Academy. By war’s end, Kosciuszko was made a brigadier general and received U.S. citizenship, along with a medal for his service to the Continental Army.[2]
But, something else is more important for the rest of the story: After reading the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Tadeusz Kosciuszko was so moved that he sought a meeting with Thomas Jefferson. The two became close friends later and maintained a correspondence for more than 20 years until Kosciuszko's death in 1817. And here we come again to the power issues. Kosciuszko foercefully juxtaposed the idea of American independence to the injustice of slavery. Before he left U.S. in 1798 for the second, and the last time, he wrote the will in which he asked its executor, Jefferson, to sell Kosciuszko’s American estate for buying a freedom of black slaves and funding their education. But after the Kosciuszko’s death Jefferson did not fulfill his friend’s wishes, pleading inability to act as executor due to age (77).[3] Even though the case reached Supreme Court for three times till 1856 none of the money was ever used for the purpose.[4]
So, do we have to choose in exhibitions and museums between Militia, Obama, Jefferson, Trump and Rembrandt, Kosciuszko and numerous others with no names? The case is that people generally do not believe politicians anymore… Just look at whole set of Imagineering: their TV appearances, their tweets, news about them, campaign images, statements and (OMG!) promises. Distancing from the “elites” people just doesn’t find any identification with meaningless vocabulary, sweet messages, pink images and artificial environments. Let’s just recall the recent news of French president spending 26K € just for the make-up. When we include those facts in the museum narratives things get even more awkward.
Since I came to the U.S. two devastating hurricanes have hit the south of the country: Texas and Florida. Since I left the U.S. Puerto Rico was destroyed and the horrible massacre in Las Vegas terrified nation. In Europe (besides standard Balkans, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, refuges, UK) “differences” between Catalonia and Spain culminated in the (illegal) independence referendum. While I’m writing this latest version of the blog, new “masculine” hurricane is approaching New Orleans. These were and are the news. This is also the perspective of the future historians and official histories. In the heritage domain we name it as the Authoritative heritage discourse (AHD) – interpretation based on the political and key-events points of view.
And, again, people do not believe to/in politicians and current politics anymore. It’s obvious everywhere during the elections – somewhere not even the half of those eligible to vote use the right. It’s not institutional exclusion, it is self-exclusion from meaningless. Almost the same goes with the collective memory: all of the Founding Fathers (to finally turn back to Colonial Williamsburg) spoke one thing and did other – which probably means they thought third. Ideal leaders! These were the words of young T. Jefferson character subtly referring to nowadays politicians. Ordinary people rely on meta-narratives (like democracy, freedom, nation, international law) and global movements (like racism, classism, feminism, sexisms) as long as they have connections with peoples’ everyday lives. Everything beyond personal is ideology, indoctrination and voting machinery in services of power. Do I support a sort of anarchy? Absolutely not! But the structures we have in 21st century are simply not fitting our needs. This is exactly the area where cultural heritage could collapse or shine – somewhere between AHD on one side and content and (more important) values co-creation on the other.
Where is Colonial Williamsburg between these poles? It is a proper enterprise in terms of values. This “proper” should be most likely understood in its Victorian meaning of proper behavior. But, CW is outstanding in terms of size (first blog), structure and organization. Yet in terms of contemporary state-of-art museum and heritage practices (provocation, inspiration, participation, co-creation, platform to discuss relevant social issues and values) it is average. Yes, CW has got a great alibi – determined historical period that ended two centuries ago. And (that) history is over as the “15 minute celebrity” Francis Fukuyama noticed some 25 years ago. But he changed his mind during the time. It seems to me that Colonial Williamsburg did not. It still plays in the safe playground and own comfort zone – slavery is a historical mater to deal with and to face to, but its current mutation in racism is not. Declaration of rights was huge achievement of the Enlightenment zeitgeist, but what with the new forms and demands for freedoms? So, we can connect with historical contested narratives on ideological level just because they are historical. On personal level we lose that connection because it doesn’t affect our mindsets or emotions in our current lifestyles. That’s why a visitor’s note describes CW the best: this is the museum for history lovers. Of course, there’s significant market for this targeted group. But, that’s not what the world-class museum should be based on in 21st century. Obvious question comes to mind: Is CW’s management brave enough to deal with new challenges.
As soon as my fellowship started, my fellow colleague noticed that I’m in CW in the very exciting moment – layoffs, restructuring, financial and consequently human resources reorganization… But, when you consult the amazing document, CW Chronology (1935 to 2011) you can find out the complete documentation about the Foundation: events, people, changes, statements, visions, reorganizations, visits... It is the history of one enterprise’s history. Priceless! Yet, it ended in 2011! End of history. And one can very easily read CW has had its great ups and very bad downs, but it managed to go through diverse changes. There also were some notable benchmarks: one of the latest was only once performed “Auction” from 1994 (wrote about it in Blog2/3: Fifty Shades of Honesty).
Are there attempts that open new perspectives? Oh, yes! They are coming as bottom-up initiatives. These types of changes are better if we are talking about long term development, but only if the top management recognize them as a kind of a new strength and the developing platform. I wrote about “Journey to Redemption” performance in previous blog as well as about “What holds the future?”, “Faith, hope and love” „My story, my voice”. „To be seen as an American“. Accents were on slavery and social injustices. Here I’m adding great site-specific performing interpretation “Perfect Adornment”, “Secrets of midwives”, Mr. Mason and Mrs. Washington widowhood conversation, Aggy’s story (Donnors) and even some of the narratives of older G. Washington character.
Why there’s new potential? Because it’s about ordinary people, universal stories, fears, hopes, wishes and ambitions, knowledge, passions, prejudices, revelations… List goes on and on… And all of these define the idea of being human – these are micro cosmoses to which politics, ideologies, revolutions, wars and freedoms can penetrate, pollute or ennoble it, or, just do nothing at all. We still do believe undoubtedly that heritage (or collective memory) is part of history, or to be more precise - public history. No, heritage is just chronologically based in past, yet, again, the discourses, symbols metaphors, interpretations and values could be relevant only today. Or, we do not speak about heritage. So, the time is relative when it comes to heritage. That’s why heritage is not equal to history – histories are there no matter what, they are facts and their combinations, sometimes not revealed to us yet, or revealed completely false. Heritage is not there per se. We must agree about it and create it, sometimes even when we do not know historical facts, or when we have too many of them. Heritage reflects our sense of contemporary values, it provokes our current acts and thoughts, and it even determines decisions for future. What do we prefer: Slavery is part of American history or slavery is American heritage? When it (slavery) is buried (even) in (living) history, there are no many consequences, except some distant feel of shame about our “brutal ancestors”. It is excusable just because I don’ feel connected personally. For being sympathetic and full of understanding as the member of the privileged companies I could feel even awarded for being so open and tolerant. But, if we collectively inherited slavery (agreed to make it our heritage) than it means we have some responsibilities – not just in sense of redemption because it still makes the imaginary anthropological difference between “us” and “them” – but in sense of building the platform for people becoming aware of others, of equality, of privileges, of the whole set of ideas that work only on paper, but not in the real world. And that means going towards humanizing narratives - it is not about slavery if it is not about people, it is not about trades if it is not about people, it is not about declarations if it is not about people, it is not about freedom and constitutions if it is not about people… Nothing is just black or white, good or bad, plus and minus – it is about more profound understanding of human existence. In order to achieve this one must actually think about and research contemporaneity, not history. History is just one of the resources for heritage creation. Paradoxical about the usages of heritage is that it is the most valuable when we simply don’t need it anymore. It means it became part of our pre-discursive realities. Thus we just live it, not accumulate and treasure it.
[1] Peter Greeneway, Nine Classical Paintings Revisited, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plWSGEAuD_0, 0:27.00)
[2] http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/tadeusz-kosciuszko
[3] Reference from Sense and Sensibility: 200th Anniversary of Tadeusz Kosciuszko death Exhibition Guide.
[4] Storozynski, Alex (2009). The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution. New York: St. Martin's Press.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
UGLOVI POSMATRANJA:
MOĆ MOĆI
Ovo je treća verzija trećeg bloga. Utisci i sećanja se oblikuju sporije nego događaji. Otišao sam iz Amerike, kratko bio u Srbiji, a potom nastavio ka istraživanju odnosa Istoka i Zapada ili Istoka i Ostatka (kako vam drago, “East & W/Rest”) u Međunarodnom kulturnom centru u Krakovu. Bio sam u Krakovu pre nekoliko godina – Konferencija Limits of Heritage. Očekivao sam potpunu diskonekciju sa “američkim iskustvima”. Naravno da sam preprojektovao očekivanja. Konekcije nisu samo u nečijem umu, već i u relanostima.
Prtljag mi se izgubio u Amsterdamu. Pretpostavljam baš tamo gde je otvorena nova Rembrantova izložba – prijem prtljaga na Šipolu. A, prva stvar koju sam video u Krakovu bila je jedan od Rembrantovih pejzaža. Mračni predeo obasjan jednim zrakom svetla odmah me je asocirao na Remrantov život. Moćno. Ostanimo na prezentacijama moći. Bivši predsednik Obama, bio je prvi zvaničnik Sjedinjenih Država koji je ikada posetio Rijks muzej u Amsterdamu i to tokom Samita o nuklearnoj bezbednosti 2013.godine. Kroz Galeriju slavnih proveo ga je, a ko drugi do, direktor muzeja. Konferencija za novinare sa holandskim premijerom Ruteom održana je ispred Rembrantove “Noćne straže”. Zašto su ova dvojica izabrala da daju izjave baš ispred ove slike za koju je Obama usputno konstatovao da je najimpresivnija konferencijska pozadina? Pozovimo istoriju i malo istorijsko-umetničke “fikcije” u pomoć. Nakon Drugog svetskog rata Holandija je bila u ogromnim dugovima i nije bila u stanju da servisira ni kamate. Kao deo Maršalovog plana za Evropu, SAD su predložile Holandiji da zamene “Noćnu stražu” za celokupan dug zemlje. Predlog je (naravno) odbijen.[1] To su demonstracije pravih moći. Ali šta je sa metaforičkim? Piter Grinevej, britanski (a sada holandski) režiser i istoričar umetnosti, je za svečanost obeležavanja 400 godina od rođenja Rembranta (1607.godine – iste one kada su se prvi kolonisti iskrcali u Džejmstaunu, 5km od Vilijamsburga) uradio film “Stražarenje” (Nightwatching). Ubrzo potom, napravio je još jedan, provokativniji: “Rembrantovo Optužujem” (Rembrandt’s: J`Accuse). Po Grineveju, svi likovi sa slike holandske milicije bili su umešani u ubistvo prethodnog komandanta Piersa Haselburga, ali i zaglibili u korupciju, nepotizam i brutalne igre moći i nelegalne trgovine. Nakon javnog izlaganja slike 1642.godine Rembrantova karijera je krenula silaznom putanjom završavajući se u potpunom siromaštvu, izolaciji i kasnijem zaboravu.
Kakvu onda poruku dvojica zvaničnika šalju svetu? Zemlje koje je Obama pomenuo, pored SAD i Holandije, bile su Sirija, Afganistan, Iran, Ukrajina i Mali. “Adekvatno” interpretirana scena dvojice zvaničnika sa “Noćnom stražom” u pozadini mogla bi da simbolizuje zaštitnike reda, demokratije i soboda oličene u novoj svetskoj (po)mi/liciji. Ali šta ako je interpretacija neadekvatna? Onda je moć koncentrisana u pogrešnim rukama, na pogrešnom mestu i potpuno uznemirujuća.
Juče sam “odlučio” da amričko poglavlje mora biti zatvoreno. Otišao sam u Gradski muzej Krakova kako bih zaronio u vrlo lokalne prošlosti. Na žalost, muzej je zatvoren zbog renoviranja koje će trajati godinama. Kao i Rijks svojevremeno. Ali dve omanje izložbe su dostupne. Jedna od njih posvećena je Tadeušu Košćušku. Divno, pomislih, pored Kalemgdana je (bila?) njegova ulica, ali nikada nisam znao ništa posebno o tom tipu. Amerikanci, Virdžinijci, čujete li zvona? Trebalo bi! Ukoliko pamtite Lafajeta mora postojati i malo mesta za Košćuška jer se od te čuvene 1776.godine borio za vašu stvar i vašu nezavisnost stavljajući na raspolaganje svoje inženjersko znanje i iskustvo. Kontinentalni kongres imenovao ga je za pukovnika-inženjera jer je radio na gradnji utvrđenja kako bi se Filadelfija odbranila od britanskih napada. Tada general Džordž Vašington, naručio je od Košćuška da izgradi vojno utvrđenje na Vest Pointu, važnoj odbrambenoj poziciji na reci Hadson. S obzirom da je smatran neosvojivim, lokalitet je postao Američka vojna akademija. Na kraju rata, Košćuško je imenovan za general-majora i dobio američko državljanstvo zajedno sa medaljom za službu Kontinentalnoj vojsci.[2]
No, nešto drugo je važnije za celu priču. Nakon što je pročitao Deklaraciju o nezavisnosti 1776.godine, Košćuško je bio toliko dirnut da je tražio da se sastane sa autorom Tomasom Džefersonom. Njih dvojica su kasnije postali prijatelji i održavali su kontakte sve do smrti Košćuška 1817.godine. Ovde ponovo dolazimo na tanak led pitanja moći. Košćuško je odlučno suprotstavljao ideju američke nezavisnoti ideji nepravde ropstva. Pre nego što je napustio SAD po drugi, i poslednji put, napisao je oporuku u kojoj je zahtevao od njenog izvšitelja, Džefersona, da proda Košćuškovo imanje u Americi, kupi slobodu robovima i finansira njihovo obrazovanje. Ali, nakon Košćuškove smrti Džeferson nije ispunio prijateljove želje, oslanjajući se na nemogućnost da deluje kao izvršitelj zbog svojih godina (77).[3] Iako je slučaj čak tri puta došao do Vrhovnog suda do 1856.godine ništa od sredstava nikada nije potrošeno u predviđene svrhe.[4]
Da li treba da biramo na izložbama i u muzejima između milicije, Obame, Džefersona, Trampa i Rembranta, Košćuška i brojnih drugih bezimenih? Ljudi više ne veruju političarima... Samo pogledajmo ceo taj proces kreiranja imidža: njihova TV pojavljivanja, njihovi tweetovi, vesti, slike iz kampanja, izjave i (tek!) obećanja. Distancirajući se od „elita“ ljudi jednostavno više ne pronalaze nikakve identifikacije sa tim besmislenim rečnikom, slatkim porukama, ružičastim slikama i veštačkim okruženjima. Prisetimo se samo skorijih vesti o predsedniku Francuske koji je potrošio 26 hiljada evra samo na šminku. Kada uključimo u priču muzejske narative, sve postaje još bizarnije.
Od kada sam došao u SAD dva razorna uragana pogodila su jug zemlje: Teksas i Floridu. Otkako sam napustio SAD Portoriko je uništen i dogodio se stravični masakr u Las Vegasu. U Evropi su, pored standardnog Balkana, Poljske, Mađarske, Turske, izbeglica i Velike Britanije, “razlike” između Katalonije i Španije kulminirale (nelegalnim) referendumom za nezavisnost. Dok pišem ovu verziju bloga, novi “muški” uragan ponovo se približava Nju Orleansu. To bi bile i jesu vesti. To je ujedno i perspektiva većine budućih istoričara i zvaničnih istorija. U domenu kulturnog nasleđa to smo nazvali Autoritativnim baštinskim diskursom (AHD) – odnosno interpretacijom baziranoj na perspektivi političara i ključnih događaja.
I, opet, ljudi više ne veruju političarima i tekućim politikama. To je očito svugde tokom izbora – ponegde čak ni polovina od onih sa pravom glasa ne izađe da iskoristi to parvo. Nije to institucionalno isključivanje, već samo-isključenje iz besmisla. Gotovo isto važi i za kolektivnu memoriju: svi Oci osnivači (da se opet vratim na Kolonijalni Vilijamsburg) govorili su jedno, a radili drugo – što verovatno znači da su mislili nešto sasvim treće. Idealni lideri! To su reči interpretatora lika mladog Tomasa Džefersona koje su suptilno referirale i na današnje političare. Obični ljudi se međutim oslanjaju na meta narrative (demokratija, sloboda, nacija, međunarodno parvo) ili globalne pokrete (rasizam, klasizam, feminizam, seksizam…) samo kada oni imaju veze sa njihovim svakodnevnim životima. Sve izvan personalnog je ideologija, indoktrinacija ili pokrenuta glasačka mašina u službi moći. Da li podržavam neku vrstu anarhije? Apsolutno ne! Ali strukture koje imamo u XXI veku jednostavno više ne odgovaraju našim potrebama. To je ujedno i polje u kojem kulturna baština kolabira ili zablista – negde između autoritativnog diskursa sa jedne i sadržaja i (važnije) ko-stvaralaštva sa druge strane.
Gde je Kolonijalni Vilijamsburg između ovih polova? To je jedna umesna praksa sagledavajući sistem vrednosti. Tu umesnost treba razumeti u njenom viktorijanskom značenju, kao umesno (odgovarajuće, lepo) ponašanje. Ali, Kolonijalni Vilijamsburg je izvanredan “proizvod” imajući u vidu veličinu (prvi blog), strukturu i organizaciju. Opet, u smislu savremenog vrhunskog muzeja i baštinskih praksi (provokacija, inspiracija, učešće, kostvaralaštvo, platforma za diskutovanje relevantnih socijalnih pitanja i vrednosti) on je prosečan. Da, ima i “savršen” alibi – bavi se određenim istorijskim periodom koji se završio pre dva veka. A ta istoija je gotova, kao što je “petnaestominutna zvezda” Frensis Fukujama primetio pre nekih 25 godina. Ali on je vremenom promenio mišljenje. Čini mi se da Kolonijalni Vilijamsburg nije. Još uvek igra na sigurno i u svojoj zoni komfora – ropstvo je istorijska stvar kojom se treba baviti i sa kojom se mora suočiti, ali ne i njegovom sadašnjom mutacijom rasizmom. Deklaracija o ljudskim pravima bila je veliko dostignuće Prosvetiteljstva, ali šta sa novim oblicima sloboda? Tako se mi, posetioci, možemo povezati sa istorisjkim spornim narativima na ideološkom nivou samo zato što su oni istorijski. Na ličnom nivou gubimo tu vezu jer ona ne afektira naše umove i emocije u našim tekućim životnim stilovima. Stoga rečenica jednog od redovnih posetilaca najbolje opsuje Kolonijalni Vilijamsburg: “To je muzej za ljubitelje istorije”. Naravno, tržište ljubitelja istorije je veliko. Ali to nije ono na čemu bi trebalo da se zasniva izvrstan muzej u XXI veku. Postavlja se očito pitanje: da li je menadžment Kolonijalnog Vilijamsburga dovoljno hrabar da se nosi sa ovim izazovima?
Čim je moja stipendija započela, moj kolega, takođe stipendista Fondacije Vilijamsburg, zapazio je da sam se obreo u muzeju u veoma uzbudljivom momentu – restrukturiranja, finansijske, a sledstveno i reorganizacije ljudskih resursa. Ali, kada konsultujemo jedan izvrstan dokument – digitalizovana Hronologija Kolonijalnog Vilijamsburga koja se redovno vodila sve do 2011.godine – postajemo svesni malog muzeja o muzeju (muzeizacija): događaji, ljudi, promene, izjave, vizije, reorganizacije… To je istorija jednog istorijskog poduhvata. Neprocenjivo! A opet, okončano je 2011.godine. Kraj istorije! A lako se da iščitati da je Kolonijalni Vilijamsburg imao svoje sjajne uspone i veoma gadne padove, ali je uspevao da prođe kroz različite promene. Takođe su uočljive i izuzetne okosnice: jedna od poslednjih je samo jednom izvedena teatarska interpretacija “Aukcija” iz 1994.godine (blog: Pedeset nijansi iskrenosti).
Ima li pokušaja da se otvore nove perspektive? O, da! One dolaze kao inicijative odozdo-nagore. Ove vrste promena su bolje ukoliko govorimo o dugoročnijem razvoju, ali samo ukoliko ih vrh menadžmenta prepozna kao vrstu nove snage i razvojne platforme. Već sam pisao o programu “Put ka iskupljenju” u prethodnom blogu, kao i o “Šta nos budućnost?”, “Vera, nada, ljubav”, “Moja priča, moj glas”, “Biti viđena kao Amerikanka”. Akcenti teatarskih interpretacija bili su na instituciji ropstva i socijalnim nepravdama. Ovde dodajem i sjajnu site-specific performativnu interpretaciju pod nazivom “Savršeni ukras” (Perfect adornment), “Tajne babica” (Secrets of midwifes), “razgovor” o udovištvu g. Mejsona i gđe Vašington, kao i neke od narativa u interpretaciji starijeg Vašingtona.
Zašto je baš ovde nataložen novi potencijal? Zato jer se radi o običnim ljudima, univerzalnim pričama, strahovima, nadanjima, željama i ambicijama, znaju, strastima, predrasudama, otkrovenjima… Lista se može nastaviti unedogled… A sve definišu ideju ljudskosti – to su mikrokosmosi u koje politike, ideologije, revolucije, ratovi i sobode mogu prodreti, zagaditi ih ili oplemeniti, ili jednostavno ne učiniti ništa. Još uvek bez reserve mislimo da je nasleđe (ili kolektivna memorija) deo istorije ili, preciznije, deo kolektivne istorije. Ne, nasleđe je samo hronološki bazirano u prošlosti, a opet diskursi, simboli, metafore, interpretacije i vrednosti mogu biti relevantni samo danas. Dakle, vreme je relativno kada dođemo do nasleđa. Zato nasleđe nije isto što i istorija – istorije su tu bez obzira na sve, one su činjenice i njihove kombinacije, ponekad još neotkrivene, ili otkrivene potpuno pogrešno. Nasleđe nije tu per se. Oko njega se moramo dogovoriti stvoriti ga, ponekad čak i ako ne znamo nijednu istorijsku činjenicu, ili kada ih znamo previse. Nasleđe reflektuje naše savremeno shvatanje vrednosti, provocira tekuće misli i dela, i čak određuje odluke važne za budućnost. Šta nam se više dopada: Ropstvo je deo američke istorije ili Ropstvo je američko nasleđe? Čak i kada je sahranjeno u “živoj” istoriji, nema mnogo posledica, osim bledog osećaja srama o “brutalnim precima”. Oprostivo je i jer Ja ne osećam ličnu vezu. Pride, zato što imam saosećanja ili razumevanja kao pripadnik privilegovanih zajednica mogu se čak osetiti i nagrađenim zato što sam tolerantan. Ali ukoliko kolektivno baštinimo ropstvo (dakle dogovorimo se da je ono naše nasleđe) to onda znači da imamo neke obaveze i odgovornosti – ne samo u smislu iskupljenja jer ono još uvek pravi imaginarnu antropološku razliku između “mi” i “oni” – već u smislu izgradnje platforme kroz koju ljudi postaju svesni drugih, jednakosti, privilegija, čitave lepeze ideja koje dobro funkcionišu na papiru, ali ne i u stvarnom životu. A to znači kretati se ka humanizaciji narativa – nije o ropstvu ako nije o ljudima, nije o veštinama ako nije o ljudima, nije o deklaracijama ako nije o ljudima, nije o slobodi i ustavima ako nije o ljudima… Ništa nije samo crno ili belo, dobro ili lose, plus ili minus – uvek je o dubljem razumevanju ljudskog postojanja. Kako bi se ovo postiglo mora se misliti o i istraživati današnjica, ne istorija. Istorija je samo jedan od resursa u kreiranju nasleđa. Paradoksalno je kod upotrebe nasleđa to što je najvrednije kada nam jednostavno više nije potrebno. To znači da je postalo sastavni deo naših preddiskurzivnih realnosti. Odnosno, da ga jednostavno živimo a ne trezoriramo.
[1] Peter Greeneway, Nine Classical Paintings Revisited, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plWSGEAuD_0, 0:27.00)
[2] http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/tadeusz-kosciuszko
[3] Reference from Sense and Sensibility: 200th Anniversary of Tadeusz Kosciuszko death Exhibition Guide.
[4] Storozynski, Alex (2009). The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Former U.S. President Barack Obama and former Dutch PM Mark Rutte at the press conference on the occasion of Nuclear Safety Summit in 2013 in front of the Rembrandt Van Rijn's masterpeice Night Watch, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
Rembrandt was master of baroque art, artificial light, movement, and drama. Night Watch is famous, among many other things, for representing almost theatrical performance of history and "staged" document of Dutch Musketeers. their wealth and pride. Yet, accusing us of being visualy illiterate in the world dominated by words and literature, Peter Greenaway, British film maker and art historian, interepreted the image completely different in his so called power-point cinematic "Rembrandt's: J`Accuse"
Bivši američki predsednik Barak Obama i bivši holandski premijer Mark Rute na pres-konferenciji upriličenoj povodom Samita o nuklearnoj bezbednosti 2013.godine ispred remek dela Rembranta van Rijna, Noćna straža u Rijksu, Amsterdam.
Rembrant je bio majstor barokne umetnosti, veštačkog svetla, pokreta i drame. Noćna straža je poznata, pored mnogo čega drugog, zbog toga što predstavlja gotovo isečak pozorišne predstave i "scenski postavljen" dokument holandskih musketara, njihovog bogatstva i ponosa. Optužujući nas da smo vizuelno nepismeni u svetu kojim dominiraju pismo i jezik, Piter Grinevej, britanski režiser i istoričar umetnosti, ima sasvim drugačije viđenje pretočeno u film Rembrantovo optužujem.
Peter Greenaway, Rembrandt's: J`Accuse, 2008. Independent production after "Nightwatching" supported by Rijksmuseum on the occasion of 400 years of Rembrandt's birth (1607).
Piter Grinevej, Rembrantovo optužujem. iz 2008.godine. Nezavisna produkcija nakon filma Nightwatching koji je podržao Muzej Rijks povodom obeležavanja 400 godina or rođenja Rembranta (1607)
Portraits of Thomas Jefferson in fur (left, by Rembrandt Peale, 1805, The New York Historical Society), Engineer Tadeusz Kosciuszko (middle) and Kosciuszko's servant Domingo (right). Domingo's portrait is done by Polish artist Jan Sikorski in 1840. Today is part of the collection of Polish Army museum in Warsaw.
The friendship of Washington and Kosciuszko lasted for almost 20 years. Yet, Washington failed to fulfill the Kosciuszko will to after his death in 1817. The will obligated Jefferson to sell Kosciuszko’s American estate, buy a freedom for as many slaves as possible and fund their education.
Portreti Tomasa Džefersona (levo, umetnika Rembranta Pila, iz 1805.godine), Inženjera Tadeuša Košćuška (sredina) i Košćuškovog sluge Dominga (desno). Domingov portret izradio je poljski umetnik Jan Sikorski 1840.godine. Danas je deo kolekcije Poljskog vojnog muzeja u Varšavi.
Prijateljstvo između Vašingtona i Košćuška trajalo je preko 20 godina. Međutim, Vašington nije ispunio Košćuškovu poslednju želju nakon smrti 1817.godine. Oporuka je obavezivala Džefersona da proda Košćuškovo imanje u SAD, kupi slobodu za što je moguće više robova i plati njihovo obrazovanje.
1798: Kosciuszko to Jefferson:
I beg Mr Jefferson that in case I should die without will or testament he should buy out of my money so many Negros and free them them, that the restant Sum should be Sufficient to give them education and provide for their meintenance. That is to say each should know before, the duty of a Cytyzen in the free Goverment, that he must defend his Country against foreign as well as internal Enemies who would wish to change the Constitution for the worst to enslave them by degree afterwards, to have a good and human heart sensible for the suffering of others, each must be married and have 100 ackres of land, wyth instruments, Cattle for tillage and know how to manage and Gouvern it as well to know how to behave to neybourghs, always wyth kindness and ready to help them – to them selves frugal, to their Children give good education I mean as to the heart and the duty to the Country, in gratitude to me make themselves happy as possible.
Kurt Benjamin Smith portraying the character of young Thomas Jefferson at Colonial Williamsburg:
For me this is the image of the fellowship. Still not able to define whether something is wrong to me or amazing about it, but in a way keeps me wondered about... everything, but especially about similarities in hand gesture in Rembrandt's painting. Is it commanding, showing the way, or pointing out?
Glumac Kurt Bendžamin Skot kao lik mladog Tomasa Džefersona u Kolonijalnom Vilijamsburgu:
Po meni, slika čitavog boravka u Americi. Još uvek ne mogu da definišem da li mi je u ovoj fotografiji nešto pogrešno ili zadivljujuće. U svakom slučaju neprekidno me intrigira po pitanju... svega, a naročito sličnosti u gestu ruke sa Rembrantovom slikom. Da li je ovo komanda, pokazivanje puta ili naglašavanje?
Authoritative Heritage Discourse (AHD) and Politics: "New arictocracy", disconnected from realities and preoccupied with Imageeniring: promoting meaningless vocabulary, pink images and artificial scenery...
Autoritativni baštinski diskurs (AHD) i Politike: "Nova aristokratija", diskonektovana od realnosti i zaokupljena kontinuranom proizvodnjom "slika": promocija besmislenog vokabulara, ružičastih slika, artificijelnih okruženja...
Excellent site-specific theatrical interpretation combined with "regular" guiding: The perfect adornment, conducted by four great women. The story of slavery, inhumanity, weird priorities...
Izvrsna site-specific teatarska interpretacija kombinovana sa "regularnim" vođenjem: Savršen ukras izvode četiri fenomenalne žene. Priča o ropstvu, nehumanosti, čudnim prioritetima...
Another amazing stage performance about ordinary people, birth, life, death, prejudices and knowledge, faith and intangible heritage of Africa, genders, human relationships... The secrets of the midwives introduce nine characters (six physically present and three invisible) to the audience of the Charlton's stage.
Još jedna sjajna teatarska interpretacija o običnim ljudima, rođenju, životu, smrti, predrasudama i znanju, veri i nematerijalnom nasleđu Afrike, polovima, ljudskim odnosima... U Tajnama babica na Čarlton sceni pojavljuje se devet likova - šest fizički prisutnih i tri za publiku nevidljiva.
Nation Builders programs in Tucker's house in Colonial Williamsburg: Aggy or Great Aggy, touchy performance about the enslaved woman in love with her master and in struggle to define notions of freedoms.
Program Graditelji nacije u kući Taker u Kolonijalnom Vilijamsburgu: Agi, ili Velika Agi, dirljiva interpretacija o ženi ropkinji koja je bila u emotivnoj vezi sa svojim gospodarom i u stalnoj borbi da definiše predstave o slobodi.
Journey to Redemption, after the theatrical performance at Charlton's stage: Reactions of the audinece. Sharing human aspects of any relationship, strengths and weaknesses of the actors themselves during dilivering the piece, and balancing between being in and out the roles was awarded by amazing emotional reactions coming from the public.
Put ka iskupljenju, nakon teatarskog izvođenja na Čarlton sceni: rekacije publike. Deljenje ljudskih aspekata bilo koje veze, snaga i slabosti samih glumaca tokom izvođenja i balansiranje između bivanja u i izvan uloga bilo je nagrađeno fenomenalnom emotivnom reakcijom gledalaca.