Aleksandra Jach, Construction in Process – A Community That Came?

 

A white cube with the inscription “Construction in Process” is moving down the street pushed by a group of people. Banners hanging between buildings read: “Nausea of Sense” and “Artificial discovery of art is the ultimate value for the audience”. is the geometric figure being revered so much? It attracts a crowd of people who carry the cube with the power of their bodies. The unusual parade was recorded on film by Jerzy Robakowski. The film was shot at Piotrkowska Street in Łodz in 1981. The banners were made by Andrzej Partum.

\"Peter

Thirty years have passed since the event, and the phenomenon of Construction in Process is no less astonishing today. The exhibition and event was one of the major achievements of the non-institutional art community. The community which was then created relied on heterogeneous powers which cannot be reduced to the slogan of an “international exhibition of minimalist and postconstructivist art”. Alliances which were built during the work on Construction in Process between organisers, artists, city authorities, Solidarity, workers and strangers, gave shape to an organism which foretold change of relations in cultural production. The aura around the event derived from the method of work on the exhibition, which exposed the process of production and highlighted possible worker-artist utopias, and from the spectacular closing of the factory building which housed works of art when martial law was introduced.

To better understand the legacy of Construction in Process, community has become a central notion, especially its vision as offered by Giorgio Agamben. A collective was not supposed to be based on grounds of nationality, ethnicity, religion or race; it should not deprive individuals of their separate identity, but rather join their forces for a time necessary to achieve a goal. So understood, community has become a starting point for revisiting the 1981 event, not only in artistic but also in social terms. The exhibition at the Museum of Art in April 2011 and the accompanying seminar treated Construction in Process as a case study in writing the history of exhibitions/events which are strongly rooted in “spontaneity and improvisation”[1]. The Łodz exhibition combined the tradition of the historical avant garde with minimalism and postconstructivism, industrial production with unplanned action, collaboration with Solidary and collaboration with city authorities. Construction in Process shifted the focus from works of art to the process of art production and the conditions of work of every individual involved in the event.

When Ryszard Waśko began to plan an international conference similar to Pier+Ocean (Hayward Gallery, 1980)[2], he did not expect the initiative to take this specific form. First of all, drawing on the experience of the London exhibition, he wanted to highlight process more than object. In Archives of Contemporary Thought Waśko writes: “Construction in Process does not cover the issue of „construction” as such but focuses on actions and materials which, first, reveal the very moment of structuring, creating a construction and, second, reveal the relations which exist outside the structure of the construction”[3].

The analysis of the process was to be reinforced by the structure of the exhibition, planned to take place in several cities at the same time. Ryszard Waśko sent out invitations to independent galleries: Foto-Medium-Art, Gallery L in Lublin, Remont in Warsaw. As there was no answer, Waśko had to rethink the format[4]. The situation was complicated by the fact that artists were not only offering to send their works but decided to arrive in person[5]. The format had to change as artists were to produce works on the spot, using available materials.

However, the substantive core of Construction in Process remained unchanged. The starting points included the tradition of constructivism and the independent movement in Polish art of the 1970s. The motto of the exhibition was a statement by Mieczysław Szczuka, a co-founder of the Blok collective and the co-author of the manifesto “What Is Constructivism?” [Co to jest konstruktywizm?, 1924], that “art cannot be a void ornament for society” while the artist must participate in organising life. Reference was also made to the “a.r.” collective, and thus the international avant-garde community, and the “a.r.” collection with its educational and social dimension. The folder accompanying the exhibition featured portraits of Strzemiński and Kobro. Continuation of the legacy of the avant garde was established by the figures of artists themselves and not only by reflection on “construction.” In a similar gesture, Henryk Stażewski, a member of the “a.r.” collective, was invited to join the Honorary Committee of the exhibition.

By connecting Mieczysław Szczuka with Strzemiński and Kobro, Ryszard Waśko showed two sides of social engagement through art, which use different languages, and thus define effectiveness differently. For the organisers, the space of experimentation was the domain of art. They did not intend to effect direct social change and clearly did not want to use instruments other than art. They did not employ the notion of “community” but were aware that work on the exhibition, conditions which required flexibility, and the political situation created a network of emotional relations which took that very form.

At the same time, Ryszard Waśko invited renowned Western artists[6] to take part in the exhibition, and thus put Polish art in an international context, which was connected also with the desire to educate the Polish public. \"Peter The transborder community was a manifesto against limitations imposed by the current geopolitical situation. In addition, artists invited to participate in Construction in Process were involved in political movements (Rune Mields, Les Levine). They claimed to be looking for the roots of their art in European constructivism; they associated the very act of construction with social engagement of constructivism, which at the basic level involved a description of the formal rules shaping the environment surrounding people.

It was the post-war reality of Poland that shaped the neo-avant-garde struggle for the autonomy of art. This was particularly important when independence of art enabled a kind of independence of institutionalised politics. This created an alternative politics as places of art practice were organised. This concerned both Poland and a large part of Eastern European neo-avant-garde, which mythologised private spaces, combined them into an international network, and made its dreams of communication come true. Miško Šuvaković pointed it out in reference to intense mail art and the will to manage the system of art[7].

Artists did not limit themselves to creating works; they also became organisers, curators, activists, producers. According to Miško Šuvaković, neo-avant-garde activity was a reaction against social realism and an attempt at exchanging ideas between the East and the West at a level of reflection involving not only linguistic analysis but also the conceptualisation of new means of presentation and intervention. So understood, conceptualism played an important role in the development of later strategies based on new media, performance, collaboration, activism.

Ryszard Waśko, who organised the exhibition, realised that as a private individual he could not invite prominent artists. Thus, he made up a fictitious institution as a tool of mediation between himself and more prominent artists. The Archives of Contemporary Thought were born. “I realised that it was unrealistic to get permission to establish an international private institution, so I decided to create it ‘illegally’”[8] - wrote Waśko. The linguistic intervention of Mariella Nitosławska, who translated exhibition documents, transformed “archive” into “archives”, evoking associations with things “enormous, extensive, important”[9]. In fact, however, the archives had no legal identity and were housed in Ryszard Waśko’s private apartment.

The work on Construction in Process engaged many individuals, including people who had already worked together in the art and film community. There were members of Warsztat Formy Fimowej: Lechosław Czołnowski, Ryszard Waśko, and Józef Robakowski. Active contributors of the organising committee of Construction in Process included Łodz Film School (PWSFTViT) students and graduates: Jacek Jóźwiak, Andrzej Kamrowski, Violetta Krajewska, Mariella Nitosławska, Tomasz Snopkiewicz, Maria Waśko, and Piotr Zarębski[10]. Interviewed in 2011, they said that the event was “a manifestation of sovereignty of each of us, film artists” (Czołnowski)[11], “living and experiencing freedom in different dimensions” (Jóźwiak)[12].

They stressed that «Construction in Process» spurred real change: "Artists who had been clients of the authorities, sponsors, cardinals took their life for a moment in their hands and were able to offer something, make a direct impact on the world" (Snopkiewicz)[13].

Joint work over nearly six months required sacrifices which were not financially rewarded as the exhibition had no budget. “I was in the centre of all this turmoil. Six months away from ordinary life, from working as a cameraman, doing my own thing: it was a sacrifice for the cause. This personal truth is so intense that it’s difficult to translate it into an objective truth, which may not even exist. We saw top-shelf artists, lived with them. We had only known their work from catalogues and stories. They brought with them ideas which we laboriously helped to materialise in that reality” (Snopkiewicz)[14].

Ryszard Waśko began to send invitations to artists around six months before the planned opening. He said: “The time for preparation and organisation was very short, only a few months, and we had no money and no venue for the exhibition. But we had something else, something important: the enthusiasm and faith of a small group of people gathered around an idea”[15].

As I have already said, the notion of community does not appear in texts accompanying Construction... According to Ryszard Waśko, that which brought people together was based on emotions, experience and engagement. \"Working There was no mention of the political aspect of the event, which seems obvious in hindsight. At that time, the term “politics” and its derivatives were reserved for institutional powers.

The organisers were looking for other things that could unite the community of artists, organisers, workers and the public. It turned out that the common denominator was art understood as a space of opportunity. Agamben’s vision of community was considered in the exhibition and the symposium to be a metaphor describing an unachievable potential; faith that making art can cause real change. The community emerged from a coincidence resulting from the actions of event participants. Collaboration with Western artists, who arrived in Poland without knowing what to expect, actualised the potential present in social networks. The lack of funding for materials and basic logistics like accommodation prompted negotiations with city authorities and Solidarity. These new connections inspired by the organisers of Construction in Process certified the possibility of interinstitutional co-operation.

What sets Construction in Process apart from other exhibitions is the very process of implementing an exhibition, exposing the mechanisms of production. At present, the economics of art is one of the most debated themes, which by itself \"«Construction does not imply more transparency of cultural institutions. In case of Construction in Process, it is impossible to circumvent a description of the mechanisms which make art projects possible.

Ryszard Waśko approached Solidarity when he found out that some artists wanted to come to Łodz, but he was unable to take care of logistics and funding himself. At a meeting with the board and the workers, he explained the goals of the exhibition, but the initial reaction to his presentation was negative. It was only after other interventions, among others by Jerzy Kropiwnicki, who said that Solidarity should support foreign artists in exchange for their support, that Solidarity’s partnership was unanimously decided. Ryszard Waśko later remembered how he entered the meeting room and saw workers cutting cigarettes and soap to distribute them among all enterprises. He then realised that it would be difficult to convince Solidarity to support Construction in Process: how to explain the value of symbolic support?

Eventually, Waśko received a document confirming Solidarity’s support, which enabled him to approach enterprises in Łodz. Under these extraordinary circumstances, the art to be exhibited was not even discussed. What was important was the symbolic support of prominent international artists for Solidarity. The exhibition which presented postconstructivism and minimalism benefited from the visual identity of the biggest post-war social movement.

The city authorities were also co-operative and allowed the organisers to use hotel accommodations for guests of the exhibition. When Piotr Zarębski told Waśko about the empty facilities at PKWiN, the management of the city transport enterprise (MPK), which administered the property, did not object to housing the exhibition.

Construction in Process took place in a factory building previously used to repair tramway infrastructure. Apart from comments concerning the aesthetics of industrial space, the context did not impact the reception of the exhibition. \"«Construction The space where workers used to work was turned into a space for making art. The relationship between artists and contractors was aimed to implement the concepts of the artists. David Rabinowitch designed a work to be made from a sewage pipe with holes drilled in it[16]. Several holes were drilled by workers who only had manual drills.

Among recollections of the artists who took part in the exhibition, the story which Richard Nonas told The New York Times seems particularly interesting. He needed a long steel bar, which was found in a textile plant. As Nonas recalls, it weighed several tonnes and the artist wanted it to be welded according to his design. Nonas remembers that the supervisor asked workers whether they could stay overtime to do it. The workers agreed and brought the welded pipe one and a half days later. Nonas says that Solidarity paid for the material, but the cutting, welding and transport were offered for free[17]. These two situations suggest the huge impact of Solidarity’s support on the success of Construction in Process and indicate the engagement of the workers, who stayed overtime to make works of art.

The question is, why? Tomasz Konart argues that the workers who were helping the artists found some value in it, derived from the workers’ ethos and engagement in social affairs, of which Construction in Process was a part. Another artist, Hartmut Boehm, commented: “It was an experiment which cannot be repeated; it happened in a specific historical situation”. He also expressed some doubts: “I don’t know whether workers, who were then busy pursuing much more important social goals, should have produced works of art for artists on the side. I think to repeat it would be impossible, pointless and inappropriate. It happened only once. Besides, I don’t know of any significant cases where workers became the executive arm of artists”. “I’m ashamed” - said Rune Mields, an artist representing the Women’s Liberation Movement of Cologne, after meeting women workers of the Juliusz Marchlewski Plant. The artists took part in a general strike on 28 October 1981, having realised the scale of poverty in Poland and the lack of political self-determination of the working class". I wanted to talk to them about feminism, encourage their self-realisation […] What did I know about their life?" - wrote Rune Mields.

The plan was to keep most works in Poland after the exhibition closed. “The artists donated them to the revolution” - said Anda Rottenberg[18]. Ryszard Waśko deposited them with Solidarity. As the trade union had no place to store them, it was decided to create a space for contemporary art \"«Construction in the plant, accompanied by a permanent collection of Construction in Process. Agreements with city authorities and Solidarity were to be signed on 14 December, but it never happened.

The hall was closed down on 13 December 1981.The works of art were secretly moved from the hall at PKWiN to the Museum of Art at Więckowskiego Street. Museum Director Ryszard Stanisławski agreed to keep them in store. This was illegal because the donor, Solidarity, had been banned in 1981. The agreement between the Museum of Art and the trade union was signed in 2006.

When British media reported on martial law, Peter Lowe was certain that he would never see Ryszard Waśko again. Most artists who had taken part in Construction in Process were shocked by what happened shortly after their departure. Some of them decided to engage in work which would tell the story of the community created in Łodz in 1981. Fred Sandback, Peter Downsbrough, Richard Nonas, with the financial support of Sol LeWitt, published a catalogue of Construction in Process, which contained accounts of participants talking about joint work and support for Solidarity.

In discussions held during the symposium accompanying the exhibition at the Museum of Art, the effectiveness of making art became an important point of reference[19]. Participants talked about their own practice and theory, \"«Construction but the starting point was the use of making art during Construction in Process as an important social tool. The artists did not give up their autonomy in terms of formal language and content, but the context of the presentation of works and their method of production were attributed a social function.

The panel revealed some doubts about whether it is possible to really evaluate the effectiveness of art if it is expected to make a specific impact before action takes place. Questions were raised about ways of differentiating between the effectiveness of art and other powers operating in a project.

Paweł Mościcki referred to the ideal of the artist who does not differentiate between reflection and action and incorporates the former into the latter. In addition, the artist should work on the community of reception, which could be different from that predominant in social interaction. As a result, aesthetics could be combined with ethics and the social, which is possible in the space of criticism, where all \"«Construction interactions of the above can be analysed.

Jan Sowa warned against uncritical faith in the effectiveness of art practices and attributing the effect of different social mechanisms to making art. He raised the important problem of the language of art which produces mimicry. So understood, the practice of art may cause mutual passivity and demobilisation when one has understood that the topic has already been worked through. Sowa sees a way out in actions focused on structural solutions and actions which uncover the cycle of production.

To summarise, as a result of a series of coincidences, Construction in Process became a social event which allowed negotiation between the individual and the collective. The meanings of the exhibition were produced in the course of the installation as artists and organisers came up with proposals, and they derived from participation in non-artistic events. As a result of such action, the phenomenon of the exhibition could be considered both in terms of aesthetics and ethics, subversion and potentiality.

The white cube found its believers - not only among artists.

Aleksandra Jach, born in 1983, art. historian, critic and curator, e.g. Controlled Image, RCA London, 2009, Mamuta, Jerusalem, 2010; Carpet Cleaning, Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi, 2011; Construction in Process 1981 – the community that came?, Museum of Art in Lodz, 2011. Works at Museum of Art in Lodz.

Top of page

Notes

1. “Construction in Process – A Community That Came?” [Konstrukcja w Procesie 1981 – wspólnota, która nadeszła?], exhibition folder, A. Saciuk-Gąsowska, A. Jach, eds., 15 April – 29 May 2011, Museum of Art in Łodz, 2011, p. 23.

2. “The exhibition naturally made me think that it was a pity such presentations were unknown in Poland. I thought it was a shame. On the other hand, I thought that the London exhibition was dead: it was a dry, museum presentation of objects which were lifeless, removed from the context in which they had been made. In other words, the London exhibition skipped the process of making an object […] In my opinion, the absence of the “process” was a weakness. Hence, I made sure that the title of the Łodz exhibition, Construction in Process, highlighted the importance of both these relevant aspects of art of the 1970s, where the word ‘process’ should be understood in a very broad meaning and context”, after: “Muzeum Artystów. Międzynarodowa Prowizoryczna Wspólnota Artystyczna Łodz”, Komitet Wykonawczy Muzeum Artystów, Muzeum Artystów, (Łodz 1996), p. 6.

3. Ibidem.

4. Ibidem.

5. The text is based on unpublished interviews with Ryszard Waśko, Peter Lowe, Tomasz Konart and Hartmut Boehm. Most of the interviews were made for a film accompanying the exhibition Construction in Process – A Community That Came? scheduled to premiere in 2012.

6. The exhibition featured 15 artists from the USA, 7 artists from Poland, 6 artists from the UK, 6 artists from Germany, 5 artists from Denmark, 4 artists from Japan, 2 artists from France, 2 artists from Hungary, 1 artist from Australia, 1 artist from Canada, 1 artist from Czechoslovakia, 1 artist from Italy, 1 artist from Yugoslavia.

7. Presentation of Miško Šuvaković at the symposium accompanying the exhibition Construction in Process – A Community That Came?, 28 May 2011, Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi, unpublished.

8. “Muzeum Artystów […]”, op. cit., p. 15.

9. Ibidem.

10. Three years after Warsztat Formy Filmowej was closed in 1977, its members founded Ruch Odnowy Uczelni, which again focused on the reform of PWSFTViT. Their demands included removing the party secretary from meetings of the School’s Senate and his influence over decisions about the School’s curriculum.

11. “Konstrukcja w Procesie 1981 – wspólnota, która nadeszła?”, op. cit., p. 14.

12. Ibidem.

13. Ibidem, p. 15.

14. Ibidem, p. 23.

15. “Muzeum Artystów […]”, op. cit., p. 19.

16. David Rabinowitch’s Holed Pipe IV (1967) looks like it is moving closer and farther away from the viewer thanks to the holes drilled in the pipe. It was important for the artist to physically recognise the movement back and forth and to later realise that fact.

17. Grace Glueck, “An Art Blackout in Poland”, The New York Times, 24 January 1982, after: Muzeum Artystów […], op. cit., p. 77.

18. A. Rottenberg, “Łódzkie rondo artystyczne”, Kultura, 13 December 1981, reprinted in: A. Rottenberg, Przeciąg. Teksty o sztuce lat 80., (Warsaw 2009).

19. This concerns in particular a panel discussion moderated by Tomasz Załuski with the participation of Paweł Kowzan, Paweł Mościcki, Marcin Polak and Jan Sowa.

Top of page

See also: