2020

DOBRILA DENEGRI, MARLO SAALMNIK & LINDA LOPPA

Linda Loppa: Dobrila, you are an art curator, interested in fashion, and you manage to bring those two worlds together beautifully. You directed an art museum in Poland, and you also did a project “Transfashional”, which interprets fashion as a performance and as an interactive dialogue with an audience that might feel attracted to what fashion could be. 
Can you talk about your work over the past years and how you see the future? 

Dobrila Denegri: I’m glad that you brought up “Transfashional”, because it was a project that engaged me for the last three or four years. And to be honest, when I started, I couldn’t imagine it was going to take so much and that it was going to grow so much as it did in the end. In the beginning, it was like a leap into the void; I was leaving the museum that I was running, and I was really eager to work without the framework of the big institution. I WAS TRYING TO CREATE SOME“MOBILE” AND “NOMADIC” PLATFORM, which would be made of a partnership between different educational and cultural institutions. I was lucky to work with the University of Applied Arts in Vienna, the London College of Fashion, as well as several other universities and museums in the UK, Sweden, Italy, Poland and Austria. When I say that initially it was like a leap in the void, what I mean is that first of all, it was, in a sense, that I didn’t want to have a concept that was somehow pre-outlined. I wanted that “Transfashional” was a guiding line, as it’s a word I invented; we could say it was an empty signifier, or some term that could become what we wanted it to become. So, the question was, HOW CAN WE GO BEYOND THE NOTION OF FASHION IN ITS MORE CONVENTIONAL TERMS? And therefore, I challenged artists, fashion designers, fashion practitioners, all these, let’s say  “Transfashional” people to do something together and to make this term acquire a meaning. In the end, I think, we reached that point where it was possible to say that there is something that we could call a fashion-based art or a practice that produces a discourse about fashion rather than something purely functional, A PRODUCTION OF IDEAS ABOUT THE TODAY AND TOMORROW OF CREATIVE WORLDS, NOT FASHION ONLY. Creating a world on a large scale was the outcome of a journey of three or four years. 

LL: And also two beautiful catalogues... 

DD: And two beautiful catalogues designed by Maximilian Mauracher. Since the whole project was like a perpetual process of editing and re-editing through the format of an exhibition, it seemed important to document all these stages. We did it through the web platform transfashional.com and through the books. I was really keen to formalise everything in the form of a book, and I’m happy that we had contributions from Hussein Chalayan to Lucy Orta, to José Teunissen, to everybody, actually, who took part in this project, and most of all those who were part of the exhibitions. The second volume had a subtitle: “Post/Inter/Disciplinary Lexicon”, and it was an attempt to create a vocabulary of terms that could be used to define and describe all these liminal, experimental, and “transfashional” practices. The exhibition was almost like a domino; what you left as the last mark in the previous exhibition would be the starting point for the next exhibition. So somehow it developed from one site to another, from one museum or gallery to another, into a situation that not only presented artefacts but also created a community. I remember, in the last exhibition, when we were all together in Rimini, almost a year ago, that there was the common feeling that WE MANAGED TO CREATE A COMMUNITY, AN “ENLARGED” FAMILY OF LIKEMINDED PEOPLE OF ARTISTS SLASH DE- SIGNERS SLASH RESEARCHERS - I think it’s always difficult to frame them in one term - in the end, they told me we never believed that we will feel that we have a family, finally, that we have a place where we feel we fit, because usually they feel they do not fit in either category because they are not commercial enough or because they are not artistic enough, or for any other reason. Existing categories didn’t seem appropriate for this type of research and creative work. So, I think this was one of the outcomes that I learned from this project, that WE NEED NEW CATEGORIES, WE NEED NEW LANGUAGES, WE NEED NEW TERMS. We really need to reassess, because multidisciplinary and creativity have brought us way beyond respect for where institutions are; many are still not entirely catching up with what people in the creative field are doing. 

LL: I think we all agree. I see Marlo saying yes because he’s doing it in another way, bringing a community together thanks to a strong identity, a particular eye, a particular aesthetic, and an open mindset toward education, magazines, print, galleries, and designers from different parts of the world. What I like about your website is the division into “analogue, catalogue and dialogue”. As I’m a very conceptual thinker, I would ask you to explain those three words. 

Marlo Saalmnik: Well, everything Dobrila is telling us is very relevant and true; we need new categories. My whole idea of not being online, not having social media, and not joining it is because we were born before this era. I remember a time when the internet was not a given, and phones were not a given either; even now, my phones are secondary. For me, THAT ANALOGUE LIVING MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. We’re based in the countryside now. This was a deliberate choice in a country with no fashion history—nothing. Their historical knowledge was mainly from, for example, Dutch traders or even the French empire, such as the Rococo. For me, editing REVS magazine, or writing for Fucking Young, or working on various magazine projects for a long time, YOU’RE OUTSIDE THE INSIDE ALL THE TIME. And I really like this. I believe this, alongside categories, is very important too; in architecture, we can explore the dialogue between interior and exterior, as many artists do. I hope we can discuss this later, play with the idea of identities, which I don’t think can be created online. I think many young people struggle with the constant expectation of self-curation, imposed by others; a sort of pressure to join, to photograph, and to document themselves. I believe we can be more critical about this. That’s why my analogue stance on my website has been very understated for years. It’s vital to understand the tools we have today. The physical part, the knowledge, the research—these are equally important. That’s what I contribute to projects: working with artists as a curator involves the physical aspect. I enjoy books, literature, and engaging in academic debates without narrowing them, encouraging people from all walks of life to participate. Truly, we need new categories. I think the fashion system needs this as well. For a long time, there has been an elitist gathering in Paris that hasn’t truly opened up, and opening up isn’t just about online fashion shows for everyone to watch, but about having a dialogue with your customers, consumers, curators, and creators. That dialogue has disappeared—it was present in the 80s and 90s when magazines had more power and perhaps more identity, in my opinion. But today, that has faded into a culture of influence, becoming somewhat flat. I prefer the analogue and print; that’s why I produce two print magazines. I believe it’s important to preserve them. It’s also crucial to have dialogues in different settings and to involve young people, providing them with the tools. In the studio, we tell them, okay, don’t present a portfolio online—don’t show me Instagram posts—show me books. But we also need to give them opportunities to learn where to look, how to look, and to understand that they come from a past where entertainment wasn’t just TV, but books, films, and truly engaging with them, which I still do. This dialogue is very important, which is why it’s essential. 

Let’s discuss the museum and its exhibition concept, which I consider quite outdated and tired. What I was thinking while listening to you is that we should broaden our scope to include other cultures, cities, and neighbourhoods. All three of us are fascinated by creating exhibitions, and that’s what I personally enjoy the most. 
But how can we find a new way to make it more interesting globally? Dobrila. 

DD: This is a significant, profound question. I believe that what you have begun to outline in the first draft of the “New Fashion Container” project might indeed be one of the answers to it. When you reached out, I responded with great enthusiasm because I recognised that the idea you call “anti-museum” resembles a rhizomatic structure. Such a structure can occur in a large urban centre just as easily as it can in any other space or location. It exists in that particular moment through that specific event and resonates in this zone we inhabit and move in – the digital zone. 
Nevertheless, there is reciprocity: on the one hand, things happen in real time, in real spaces, with real people and audiences, connected through the network of contacts and the web. This was interesting to me, and it is undoubtedly an important idea to bring more into everyday life. 
What I appreciated about the structure you designed with the “NFContainer” project was that it envisioned a format that would be polyphonic, agile, nomadic, fluctuating, decentralised, and most importantly, human-sized. There are many different containers, many different spaces, which could be physical or interpreted through other forms of language. They coexist, exist in a continuum, and are present both online and offline. Simultaneously, it’s a decentralised model, so there's no need for a single space, such as a museum, to hold everything. I find the idea of decentralising, fragmenting, and adopting a nomadic, mobile way of operating across different places—connected in the digital realm and exchanging information with one another—very intriguing. It may seem like a dream, but it also reflects a sense of urgency to rebuild the fabric of our creative worlds, starting with feasible formats and direct human contact. Taking, sharing, caring... Just doing... 
For me, that’s one possible example of how it could be achieved. Honestly, I don’t believe this is something that hasn’t already been practiced. These ideas of grassroots movements have existed in various fields, including art and elsewhere, but they never became mainstream. Mainstream still revolves around models based on power structures, large centres, significant money, fierce competition, and vertical organisation. Therefore, ENVISIONING THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES, AS YOU DID WITH NCF FOR ME, felt very fresh and encouraging—dare I say, optimistic. So, the question is: when will we change our mindset? When will we only consider institutions that are part of the mainstream? And WHEN WILL WE LOOK TO OTHER PLACES AND SEE OURSELVES IN THESE NEIGHBOURHOODS, IN THESE OTHER, MORE HUMAN-SIZE EVENTS AND ENDEAVOURS? 

MS: When looking at fashion this past year, in general, the big miss was a kind of societal comment or any digital reflection. I’ve seen very few fashion brands think about or use this opportunity for dialogue, for something new to think about in terms of new targeted audiences. And when I look back at artists that you can easily connect to fashion, like let’s say Bruce Nauman, for instance, who always said, “art should raise questions”, right? WHERE ARE FASHION EXHIBITIONS THAT ARE RAISING QUESTIONS, where are exhibitions explaining the craft of fashion to people who don’t know it, because don’t forget that FASHION CAN BE EXTREMELY INTIMIDATING FOR PEOPLE. If you look at popular media, you look at films, big Hollywood productions, “The Devil Wears Prada”, these kinds of films, they portray a perspective of fashion that is very one-sided, perhaps very elitist, very exclusive, but fashion is not that. It’s about actually enveloping, it’s about expression, and it’s about going somewhere. 
I remember an exhibition I saw last year in Holland at the Nieuwe Instituut, which was about the hoodie; the hoodie sweater, and they centralised, in a kind of young perspective, the whole exhibition historically, but also thinking of subcultures and going back to the symbolism of this garment, which a lot of people wear for different reasons, right? And this was such a simple artistic premise, without an overly academic analysis. It was very clear to the public because it showed a lower threshold for entering the fashion world and understanding it. And the same goes in Japan, where I’ve seen so many exhibitions dissecting the craft. I remember Yamamoto talking about how we make a sleeve and how far you can go in the shape, the length, the proportions. These kinds of elements, looking at subcultures and looking at why garments are worn a certain way, can be very relevant instead of just putting them on display, I would say. 

LL: I feel that we must bring fashion to a higher level, especially culturally, because it’s a hybrid culture, it’s a culture from different countries, different body cultures, different expressions of body culture. We need a new language, new parameters to express ourselves and see how fashion can evolve. We have to act and do something in smaller neighbourhoods and smaller cities, and bring other people together in a new language. What do you think, Dobrila? 

DD: Yes, I definitely agree. We recently discussed this feeling that, although decolonisation has become a buzzword, museums and other institutions claim they are “decolonising” themselves, but we are still mostly confronted with Western-centric perspectives. This is especially true with large, blockbuster exhibitions designed as touring spectacles meant to evoke fascination and awe among vast but passive audiences. I really liked your idea of investing in highlighting local creative communities as a complementary project alongside these grand displays of Western history. 
One question is this: how do we incorporate other types of visions? And on the other hand, I want to reinforce what Marlo was saying; what is really crucial is the dialogue. This is really what is missing, especially in these big exhibitions; they are big monologues, really. Somehow, you see that everything is a part of a very elaborate and sometimes really beautifully done outline that visually is compelling and, of course, works for a tremendous amount of people who want to be amazed and want maybe to go through this experience, which is, in a certain way, unreachable. Suppose I think about Dior or Alexander McQueen, these blockbuster exhibitions. In that case, they are extraordinary for what they are. Still, at a certain point, I think we are starting to be more aware that it’s not only about being a passive spectator in the exhibition, but also about being active there. 
So, instead of biennials occurring every two years or organising events that span over two years, we could have meetings every two, three, or five weeks—incorporating workshops, conferences, dialogues, and examinations where audiences, artists, curators, and participants come together. I think this represents an interesting model or approach that disrupts the idea that there must be a single large event. In such an event, we are just numbers paying for tickets, and the rest is almost like what you see on a screen—something intangible. I believe this is about resizing everything and bringing it into a new dimension. 

MS: I agree entirely, obviously. And what you say, Dobrila, about perspective, is indeed very Western, very often. 
I’m curating a show with Ugo Rondinone now, opening in January, and he is also a superstar artist. Still, you know, you’re bringing him to Norway, and nobody knows him in this museum, nobody knows this man. But the dialogue with an audience is there; we strip everything away—there is no screen, nothing, just a small pamphlet inside the room, except for THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN YOU AND THE ARTWORKS, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE THE AUDIENCE TO DEFINE IT. 
I find it very interesting that you mention attending a major couture shows in a museum setting, like the Met Gala, where many activities might not traditionally be seen as culture—if I may be quite frank—and perhaps they aren't very cultivated. What I find so fascinating is that a new audience can discover fashion in various ways. I enjoy hearing different opinions. I like listening to people who don’t necessarily have all the background to understand how a suit jacket is crafted. I appreciate those people as well. I would love for them to share how they experience things, which is also what we are exploring with Ugo Rondinone. We all know him—there are three of us, and we know how famous he is—but many people don’t know him.
There are four large artworks I curated that are very significant. Let them explore and interact with these pieces on their own. I designed the room with a door, which is a new concept and might initially feel intimidating. I can close this door, and you’re inside the gallery. I couldn’t lock it, which was perhaps one step too far for the Scandinavians. But the main point is for visitors to spend a little time in the room with these works, allowing themselves to begin a dialogue. 
And I believe that in fashion too, when you walk through these large exhibitions, it’s very difficult because you’re not allowed to touch anything; there’s nothing to engage with. Again, it’s just a display. I completely agree that it would be very beautiful to have a new voice – it doesn’t have to be a younger one – but for people outside this industry to foster new dialogues. 

LL: Talking about masters, I was thinking this afternoon about Jan Hoet; he was our master—my master in curating museum spaces, archives, and ideas. Jan Hoet was very strong in putting a painting upside down next to another on the floor. And you could see that in a different context, then suddenly you said, “Oh my God, I get it, I understand.” I know it’s (im)possible, but we have to be more radical. 

DD: We have to, and I agree completely. Paradoxically, as you mentioned, there are now more empty spaces. Yet, artists and other creatives suffer from the lack of opportunities to display and discuss their work beyond the confines of a computer screen and a Zoom talk. So, ultimately, it’s all just there. Sometimes things can be more straightforward than they seem if we choose to see them that way. I wasn’t born in 1968; I was born in 1970, but my parents come from that era, and they always tell me everything was simple; we just did things. A few months ago, we were laughing about how difficult it is to do things today. I believe this is what is truly missed. So, I wholeheartedly agree. Let’s create something in whatever space is available and start a conversation from there. Remembering Jan Hoet and his seminal “Chambres d’amis” show in Ghent is a wonderful way to inspire ideas for exhibition projects that could emerge from a mix of risk and goodwill, capable of reigniting a sense of pleasure in doing things spontaneously and authentically. THESE, OUR CONVERSATIONS, ARE ACTUALLY THE FIRST STEP! WE ARE ALREADY ON THIS PATH! 

LL: Yeah. Last word to Marlo. 

MS: Spontaneity is very important. I just finished reading John Giorno’s biography, the famous poet, and he speaks very vividly. Of course, there’s a lot of sex in there, a lot of rawness. It’s about this artist in the sixties and seventies, coming to New York and just doing things. “Dial-A-Poem”, fantastic concept. I think we have also lost a little bit of the playfulness in fashion. It has become somewhat elitist, still perhaps a bit cold. When I read this book, I got so excited again, especially with my own work, and thought, Oh, we are applying these things because I do — I LIKE TO ENGAGE, I LIKE PEOPLE TO COME TOGETHER. Some of his words are truly inspiring. The same goes for Jenny Holzer when she made her manifesto and statements, which many art museums have used to frame contemporary art – there’s so much truth in them; they’re free. But the idea of making us think again from a rebellious mind with a statement — this idea is totally true, and I’m ready. I think we’re already there. 

Published at: https://www.manifatturatabacchi.com/icebreakers-the-exhibition-container/