Karol Sienkiewicz, Without the Proverbial Pomp and Circumstance. The Beginnings of the Centre for Contemporary Art and the Cultural Policy of the State

 

The social and political changes that hit Poland at the turn of the 1980’s and 1990’s were also felt in the domain of contemporary art, especially in its modest institutional system. Anda Rottenberg, who held the post of Director of the Fine Arts Department at the Ministry of Culture in 1990-1991, recalls the period in an interview: “Izabella Cywińska was trying to convince me that if one did something for the opposition, also in relation to artistic life, then they now have the duty to legally support the new government. I agreed. It was actually taking over power. Seeing how the process went on, however, made me fall into depression”[1].

Warsaw institutions were subject to fundamental changes. In December 1989, Barbara Majewska became the director of Zachęta, which for a short while yet remained the Central Office of Art Exhibitions [Centralne Biuro Wystaw Artystycznych]. She took over from Mieczysław Praśnik, who had held the function continuously since 1976. It seemed that Zachęta had drawn a “thick line”, cutting itself off from the decades of its legacy as CBWA. In the 80’s, Majewska was active in the independent art milieu. Together with Kinga Kawalerowicz she had managed Galeria SHS at Piwna Street in Warsaw, and edited one of the most important samizdat publications – Szkice[2]”. Her arrival at Zachęta marked the beginning of a series of the so called “accounts settling” exhibitions [wystawy rozliczeniowe][3]”, which aimed at summing up the whole decade of the 80’s. And so, in 1990-1991, the following exhibitions were organized there:

• Galleries of the 80’s [Galerie lat osiemdziesiątych] (May 1990, which replaced the planned exposition of military artists The Road to Victory [Droga do zwycięstwa]), recapitulating the achievements of independent galleries, such as Warsaw’s Dziekanka or Wielka 19 from Poznań;

• … the red is losing [… czerwona przegrywa] (August 1990), an exhibition of underground graphic art of Solidarity curated by Karzy Brukwicki;

• What are artists in the destitute time? Independent art of the 80’s [Cóż po artyście w czasie marnym? Sztuka niezależna lat 80.], curated by Tadeusz Boruta, who was also the author of the scenography (turn of 1990/1991);

• The Polish Chic [Szyk polski], prepared by Andrzeja Bonarski and Maryla Sitkowska (January 1991);

• The Epitaph and the Seven Spaces [Epitafium i Siedem Przestrzeni] by Janusz Bogucki and Nina Smolarz (June – July 1991).

And so the edifice at Małachowskiego Square opened its doors to artists and curators for whom it would have been unthinkable to enter it just a few years before for reason of its mandatory boycott shared by all, including the most important animators, such as Bogucki and Bonarski. The image of Zachęta, and perhaps also the very identity of the institution, was now being redefined, its tradition now being the independent art of the 1980’s.

At the same time, a new institution began to emerge at Ujazdowski Castle [Zamek Ujazdowski], which was to play a key role for contemporary art in the 1990’s – The Centre for Contemporary Art. With the support of the Polish Section of AICA (which had a much more powerful position then now), as well as Solidarity, the position of director was offered to Wojciech Krukowski, who had also been connected with the independent movement of the 80’s, though a different faction than that of Barbara Majewska.

Krukowski had been the leader of Akademia Ruchu, a theatre he had managed since the 1970’s. He had also collaborated with Pracownia Dziekanka. The activities of Akademia Ruchu were many and diverse[4], including the publishing of the newsletter Obieg. They were continued in the form of the multidisciplinary functions of the Centre. From the very beginning, the institution’s profile tilted towards performance, fluxus, the media, as well as conceptual and experimental art in the style of early Dziekanka rather than what was exhibited in church premises, or even as part of the so called new expression. The different origins of, on the one hand, Barbara Majewska (and also Anda Rottenberg, who replaced Majewska in the position of Zachęta’s director in 1993) and, on the other, of Wojciech Krukowski and Akademia Ruchu, was what determined the shape and form of Warsaw’s art scene in the 1990’s.

The Centre also employed other people who had collaborated with Akademia Ruchu - Piotr Rypson and Janusz Bałdyga. In a recent interview, Rypson makes it clear: “In 1989 Akademia Ruchu was simply given Ujazdowski Castle and a mission to create a Centre for Contemporary Art, without a prior competition but by simple appointment. It was a refurbished part of a huge building in the middle of a gloomy grove of trees frequented by flashers. The entire exhibition area consisted of three halls with concrete slabs for a floor”[5].

The first press conference of the new director took place on 2 May 1990, in a relatively small office space in the attic of the Castle. Wojciech Krukowski openly spoke about the “thick line”, repeating the words which the first non-communist prime minister of Poland, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, had said in his famous opening speech at the parliament[6]. As was the case with the entire state, so too with the Centre, the „thick line” was to separate that which resulted in the founding of the Centre in the 1980’s, from what it was to become according to the vision of director Krukowski.

However, the Centre for Contemporary Art had already had a ten-year tradition. Let us here move back a decade.

“Report on the State of Criticism”

In the fall of 1980, a special editing committee was founded, composed of Wiesław Borowski, Janusz Bogucki, and Andrzej Turowski, which produced a “Report on the State of Criticism”. Together with other reports, the document was a component of the holistic “Report on the State of Culture”, prepared by the Negotiating Committee of Artistic and Scientific Committees [Komitet Porozumiewawczy Stowarzyszeń Twórczych i Naukowych], which had created and sent out a questionnaire to all the organizations associated in the committee. Among these was the Polish Section of AICA. The “Report on the State of Criticism” [7] dealt not only with art criticism, but also with the situation of institutions, art schools, art associations, etc.

In the spirit of the first Solidarity movement, the authors condemned conformist attitudes and careerism on the one hand, and „opportunistic policy in the domain of fine arts”, on the other. They wrote: “At every level, the propagation and promotion of art has ceased to be the domain of art itself, and instead has become the sphere of political propaganda by turning into an administrative mechanism of popularization”[8]. As a result “the activities […] of a large number of galleries do not reflect nor significantly contribute to the dynamics of the art life”. Similar was the situation with press criticism: “The empty rhetoric and apparent dynamism of criticism has led to the creation of the mentioned vacuum. A vacuum filled with cultural policy”[9]. The situation was described as a “policy of false pretences”. For example, the monthly Sztuka was described as “superficially impressive and international, superficially ‘open’ to different forms of innovative artistic activity”. This is how the report recapped the whole decade of the 1970’s. (Many years later, Piotr Piotrowski wrote an essay, “The Decade” [Dekada] based on these assessments).

However, as we read in the “Report”: “the ideological criticism of the mechanisms of culture is a political taboo”. The statement was, at the time, no longer entirely true as during the period of the so called carnival of Solidarity certain things could be expressed openly, also in the official discourse. The “Report” was published by the Wrocław-based Odra in January 1981.

Unions and Associations

The fundamental difference between the decades of the 1970’s and the 1980’s as described in the “Report” was that many subjects were no longer taboo. Just as censorship became more visible (the censored parts in the press were captioned with excerpts from the applicable legal paragraphs pursuant to which certain things had to be cut out), so did the cultural policy of the state and its tools become more open. It was one of the unquestionable achievements of the events of August 1980 [the so called August Accords concluded by the government and the Solidarity Trade Unions granting, among other things, the right to associate in independent trade unions – from the translator]. Apart from the political events, the most important problems of the time included the dissolution of the Association of Polish Artists (ZPAP), which was, to an extent, a means of punishment, a boycott of the media and public institutions by the art circles, the purges of the editorial staffs of the different periodicals, and the role that the Catholic Church began to play, plus – in later years – the discussion about the possible return of state patronage.

In 1980, the monopolist Association of Polish Artists and Designers [Związek Polskich Artystów Plastyków - ZPAP], with newly elected management, was the first official organization to declare its support for the strikes in the shipyard. In October 1981, an agreement on cooperation was signed with the Solidarity Trade Union. These documents preceded, in a way, the individual decisions on boycotting official institutions, when the Association was suspended in its activities upon the imposition of martial law on 13 December 1981. When the organization was allowed to function again in May 1982, a General Assembly was planned to take place in April 1983. The underground magazine, Kultura Niezależna reported: “Since the preparations and, in particular, the elections of the authorities in the regions and delegates to the General Assembly were not in line with the plans of the state authorities (independent candidates prevailed), a confrontational campaign of slanders against the Association was launched, accusing it of illegal political activities and neglecting the interests of the artistic community”[10].

The Board of ZPAP was required to repeal many decisions made after August 1980, in particular those which expressed solidarity with the workers’ strikes in Gdańsk and Szczecin, as well as the resolution of October 1981 on the Association’s collaboration with Solidarity. The refusal to follow these orders resulted in ZPAP being again suspended in April 1983, which made it impossible to organize the planned Assembly. On 20 June 1983, ZPAP was finally dissolved.

ZPAP was created by the regime, though the organization had an illustrious pre-war tradition. Headed by Jerzy Puciata, it could not have been saved, but it did play an important symbolic role, placing the artistic community on the morally correct side of the barricade. At an editorial discussion at the Szkice [Drafts] periodical in 1988, Barbara Zbrożyna, the last president of ZPAP Warsaw Region, calmly commented on the situation: “For forty years we were constantly told to be together. […] But I have the feeling that it was actually a meaningless communist organization. […] Despite that, the association became important because a handful of people decided to openly express their opinions about what they thought the authorities had been doing to this country”[11]. Another speaker said: “This association had a very pretty ending”[12]. This aspect of ZPAP was very much taken into consideration when the Association was being reconstructed during the round table talks in 1989 (as part of the subgroup on associations). Jacek Królak, a young artist, wrote: “We joined the [ZPAP Organisational] Committee because we wanted to identify with the Association in the moral sense as well”[13].

In a report written in 1983, when the Association was dissolved, the Department of Fine Arts at the Ministry of Art and Culture wrote about “the systematic anti-state activities carried out by the management of ZPAP”[14]. Karol Czejarek, the director of the Department, wrote elsewhere: “The direct reasons for the dissolution of ZPAP included the policy of the Management Board of the Association, which was subordinate to the activities of anti-socialist opposition, and which neglected the statutory tasks – to take care of the interest of art and the social and material status of the [artistic] community”, "the actual weakening of the Association’s interest in matters of art", as well as “the introduction of political issues to the organization, dictated by anti-socialist circles”[15]. The opponents of the old ZPAP would criticize, rightly to an effect, the “ageing of the old association”, which made it difficult for young artists to join, making the privileges stemming from membership inaccessible.

Jan Karczewski, a painter and party activist, whom I will mention on several other occasions in this text, expressed his sorrow by saying: “There are no youth organizations in art schools, and in the entire community there is not a single party member among students”[16].

The authorities noticed the split in the art community. Karol Czejarek from the Ministry wrote: “A part of the milieu, with an inclination towards the opposition, is aiming at creating new informal opposition structures on the basis of some of the cultural initiatives of the Church and is enjoying backing by some of the art schools. The main objectives of the opposition in the circles are to maintain the state of temporariness, to encourage the boycott of state art institutions, to resist any initiatives to organize new associations and unions, and to socially ban those artists who present their works in state institutions of art or who cooperate with the authorities”[17]. The authorities were right in their diagnosis of the processes in the community, however the tools at their disposal were too weak, and the steps they were taking too inefficient, to attract artists and pull them on their side.

When ZPAP was dissolved, it had 12 thousand members (or 14 thousand according to other sources), for whom it acted as an agent commissioning jobs. It also had its own service and production company, ART (printing houses, shops, galleries, workshops, etc.), holiday houses, and office spaces in 20 regional branches nationwide. Then the Association was assigned a liquidator, and a Liquidation Office was created. The assets it owned which, as it was written in Independent Culture [Kultura niezależna], “were public property, were appropriated by the state”. A state company Sztuka Polska was organized as a result which was “a centre of state management and control over artists”.

The authorities continued to apply the never changing rhetoric of propaganda of success. As we learn from the reports of the Fine Arts Department at the Ministry, 1983 was already closed with “a positive balance at PP Sztuka Polska: the annual plan has been exceeded by approx. 15%”[18].

A number of new associations were founded in replacement of ZPAP, this time dividing the artistic community according to professions – sculptors, painters, graphic artists and designers. The first organization, which had been created before the dissolution of ZPAP, was the Association of Sculptors [Związek Artystów Rzeźbiarzy - ZAR][19]. The others, were: Association of Polish Graphic Designers [Stowarzyszenie Polskich Grafików Projektantów] – September 1983)[20], Association of Polish Painters and Graphic Artists [Związek Polskich Artystów Malarzy i Grafików (ZPAMiG)] – March 1984, Association of Polish Artists [Związek Artystów Plastyków “Sztuka użytkowa”] and others.

The first General Assembly of ZPAMiG took place on 13 May 1984 with the attendance of deputy prime minister Mieczysław F. Rakowski, Minister of Culture and Art, Kazimierz Żygulski, Chairman of the National Council of Culture, Bogdan Suchodolski and Secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party, Waldemar Świrgoń[21]. All the participants were aware of the role that the new association had to play. In his speech, Rakowski “referred to the events from two years before and the situation in the former ZPAP, whose management went into opposition against the policy of the socialist state, rejecting the readiness of the authorities to strike a compromise”[22].

The new associations were mainly composed of party members. In the situation of the bipolar division of the society in the initial months of martial law, membership in the new organizations was seen as collaboration with the communist regime. In the summer of 1984, the first issue of presented contradictory data about the scale of membership in the new organization. In one of the texts, we read that ZAR and ZPAMiG associated approximately 110 artists[23], while in another we read that ZPAMiG had 300 and ZAR 290 members[24]. The numbers given by the official press were much higher – according to the newsletter of Sztuka Polska [Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska] by mid July 1984, ZPAMiG had 420 members[25]. In 1989, the membership of all the new unions and associations was estimated at 5 thousand[26].

The Nationwide Party-Affiliated Artists’ Team [Ogólnopolski Zespół Partyjny Artystów Plastyków] was quite instrumental in the decision making process[27]. The activities of the Ministry towards artists were to be supported by the Art Council [Rada Plastyki], founded by K. Żygulski and started on 1 March 1984. The task of the institution was to issue decisions and provide advice to the Minister with regard to fine arts and their promotion[28]”.

The new structure was reflective of the typical multiplication of red tape, where many people worked at a number of different agencies and held different positions at the same time – be it in the associations, at the Ministry (Art Council), or the Party (Nationwide Party-Affiliated Artists’ Team). These organisations, however, had little to do with the actual milieu. For reason of their complex, multilayered structures, they were weak in any decision making, and if any decisions were actually made – they were not binding. No doubt, these bodies were there for political purposes, which was clearly stated by Karol Czejark, Director of the Art Department at the Ministry of Culture and Art: “The programme of the art patronage will promote esthetic values which create humanistic, socially constructive and ideological meanings, but will also negatively assess any attempts at popularizing negative phenomena” [29]. As we see, the authorities simply resorted to the old carrot and stick approach.

The Centre

In the already mentioned “Report on Criticism” from 1980, Borowski, Bogucki and Turowski pointed to the weaknesses of the system of institution: “There is no museum of contemporary art in Poland, which is a negative sensation in the global situation”. In the final conclusions to the report, they postulated an “expansion of Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź”, a “reorganization of the system of exhibitions at BWA and ZPAP”, or the “organization of a Centre for Contemporary Art or centres – interdisciplinary animators of the current artistic life in all its forms”.

The latter postulate was by no means new, it had been a recurring theme at least since the 1970’s. It was now again resorted to in order to rebuild the prestige of the authorities. From among the more or less successful initiatives, the idea to hand over Ujazdowski Castle for contemporary art purposes was, no doubt, received differently by different groups. For the authorities, however, it was to be a crown argument confirming their legitimacy. A few years later, it was also a crown argument for the establishment of the new artist associations. Ujazdowski Castle survived the war, though it was severely devastated. Whatever walls had remained were taken apart in 1954 by the order of marshal Rokossowski (the order still remains incomprehensible).

There were plans to erect Theatre of the House of the Polish ArmyTeatr [Domu Wojska Polskiego] in its place. In the early 1970’s, when decisions were made to reconstruct the Royal Castle in Warsaw, it was also decided to rebuild Ujazdowski Castle. The works began in 1974. Initially, the Castle was to be used for representational purposes. The initial completion of the reconstruction had been planned for 1978, but it was successively delayed – the cost estimates had to be constantly updated as a result of the deteriorating economic situation and rising prices. Despite the difficulties, an edifice of raw brick in the form of a Baroque castle slowly began to emerge from behind the wooden fence of the construction site.

The economic crisis also led the authorities to adopt a more modest approach in terms of their representational ambitions. In the early 1980’s, the idea to turn the Castle into a hotel for dignitaries was abandoned, and a change in the profile of the future tenant was announced. Different institutions and pressure groups began to fight for the place: Association of Polish Architects [Stowarzyszenie Architektów Polskich – SARP], or the National Museum (seeking to organize there the exposition of ornamental art). There is also the rumour, or perhaps an urban myth which I repeat after a reader of Stolica, according to which there was even a proposal to “temporarily organize a casino at the Castle, mainly for foreigners […] so as to generate hard currency in order to cover the construction costs”[30].

The first decisions pertaining to the future of the Castle were made during the so called carnival of Solidarity. In 1981, the prime minister handed Ujazdowski Castle over to the disposal of the Minister of Culture and Art. On 15 October 1981, the Minister announced his decision to organize a Centre for Contemporary Art in the Castle. On 7 June 1982, the mayor of the capital city of Warsaw bequeathed the Castle “with the adjacent area and all the structures there located” to the Minister of Culture and Art. In July the same year, the Minister declared the opening of the Centre for Contemporary Art Under Construction at Ujazdowski Castle – the decision remained solely on paper as the institution was never founded so, obviously, it could not be present at the Castle.

The more binding decisions were not made until 1984, when the Centre was actually founded for the second time. It seems that the biggest influence on such course of events was exerted by the Nationwide Party-Affiliated Artists Team. The leader of the group, Jan Karczewski, was a staunch advocate of the Centre for Contemporary Art, lobbying for it at party gatherings and in the official press. On 4 January 1984, the Staff for Cultural Policy at the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party made a decision on the gradual activation of the Centre for Contemporary Art based on the decisions made thus far. At the same time, in the resolutions from the 2nd National Conference of the Party, we read about the need to carry out the project of the Centre as quickly as possible. In the periodical Tu i Teraz [Here and Now], Jan Karczewski wrote that: “the delivery of the final decisions was complicated, indeed forceps had to be applied, but the newborn is alive and kicking. The task now is to keep it alive and to make it the beloved toddler of our administration responsible for culture and art”[31].

In the opinion expressed in Sztuka: “the deed was accomplished mainly thanks to the systematic work of the Presidium of the Nationwide Party-Affiliated Artists Team and the support of the National Culture Council”[32]. The official communication of the Polish Press Agency included a description of the plans for the Centre: “The castle is to host: an information and documentation centre of contemporary art, a permanent gallery of Polish Folk Art created on the basis of the assets of the National Museum, as well as a presentation studio for the most outstanding current achievements in fine arts and other types of art created domestically or abroad. The Centre for Contemporary Art will also be a place of elaborating new methods for propagating and popularizing contemporary Polish art, creating opportunities for broader public participation, and in particular the participation of youth in the current artistic life and in taking advantage of its achievements”[33].

Franciszek Kuduk noted in his text in Sztuka that: “the Centre for Contemporary Art is inaugurating its activities in a completely different situation within the artistic community. The foundation of a number of associations and unions has initiated a process – difficult to say how long it will last - of revealing and establishing the differences in the needs and aspirations of the separate art disciplines. The task to provide artists with forms of activities which would not be limited to the framework of associations or unions seems to be the undisputable duty of the Centre in the given situation”[34].

Getting the institution started dragged on. It was not until November 1984 that the Minister appointed the Programme Council of the Centre for Contemporary Art. The body was headed by Mieczysław Wejman, a graphic artist managing the newly established Association of Polish Painters and Graphic Artists[35]. The Council was mainly composed of representatives of the new associations. The inaugural meeting took place at the Royal Castle. The celebration was attended by Waldemar Świrgoń (secretary of the Party’s Central Committee), as well as Minister Kazimierz Żygulski himself who “informed the assembly about the opening of the Centre of Documentation of Contemporary Art at Ujazdowski Castle which is to take place in a few months”[36].

When speaking about the future work of the Centre, the minister said that: “It should be of an interdisciplinary character, and should also integrate the artistic community”. Mieczysław Wejman, on the other hand, concluded his speech saying: “In ending, I would like to express my thanks for bestowing on me the function of chairing the Council. I accept it as a representative of the artistic community: though perhaps only a part of it, but the part that believes in creating values by being active – values exemplified by the centre”[37].

The president of the Nationwide Party-Affiliated Artists Team, Karczewski, stressed that: “The foundation of the Centre for Contemporary Art in Ujazdowski Castle in Warsaw is the fulfillment of the postulate that for decades has been put forward by artists, other creative communities, and the broadly understood public in this most neglected area of national culture”[38].

Karczewski was much more revealing in his article published in Tu i Teraz dated 15 February 1984 (on the occasion of the Centre for Contemporary Art Under Construction being transformed into the Centre for Contemporary Art). He wrote: “As paradoxical as it may sound, it was the time of overcoming the crisis and the economic reforms which can provide a unique opportunity for assigning the fine arts their proper position in the life of the nation. In any case, the former ZPAP had camouflaged the myths for too long, and had for too long provided patronage, to an effect doing the job for the state. This absence of ZPAP has already enforced certain new decisions”[39]. Karczewski thus underlined the fact that the decision of founding the Centre was a result of the new division of power which emerged after the dissolution of ZPAP. It should be noted that all the decisions were made despite the economic crisis and despite the refurbishment and expansion of the building of Zachęta, which had been started in 1983 with the aim to double the exhibition space.

The first working session of the Programme Council of the Centre for Contemporary Art took place at the seat of the Management Board of ZAR on 21 December 1984[40]. Initial programme assumptions of the institution were adopted; plans to open a permanent exhibition titled Canon of Polish Contemporary Art were mentioned.

In light of the banal and lofty declarations about the breakthrough role of the newly established centre, the reality of the castle was more than modest. Two years later, in 1986, the only space ready was that up in the attic, with a  separate eastern entrance marked with a sign saying: Centre for Contemporary Art. The editorial staff of Sztuka, managed by Andrzej Skoczylas, also moved to offices in the castle [41]. Concerned with the snail pace of works at the Centre, the readers of the magazine noted the “abandoned state of the building site, visible to the bare eye – randomly scattered construction elements, scaffolding”[42].

The Centre for Contemporary Art had its official inauguration in Ujazdowski Castle on 10 March 1986. The institution was placed under the management of director Witold Bobiński, who had a “fully employed” staff of thirteen. The opening was limited to only the library and the reading room. “The inauguration was untypical in every aspect, without the proverbial pomp and circumstance, invited dignitaries and the traditional ribbon-cutting ceremony, for which we will probably still have to wait a good few years”[43].

The Centre also held something that resembled the beginnings of a video library (several films about the art of renowned artists), as well as the start of a documentation collection: “[…] there are efforts to create a computer documentation (on leased hardware)”[44]. The long corridors of the castle’s attic hosted an exhibition of graphic art, “consisting of works awarded in graphic art competitions held over the past 20 years, and bequeathed by the Management Board of the Association of Polish Painters and Graphic Artists”[45].

In April 1988, in the column “Issues of the Community” in Sztuka we read: “The Centre for Contemporary Art does exist though it seems as if it did not”[46]. A month later, the Minister of Culture and Art appointed Michał Matuszyn as director of the Centre – Matuszyn had been the Director General of the Association of Polish Painters and Graphic Artists. Again, in Sztuka we read: “Will the mood of stagnation hovering over the Centre for Contemporary Art finally be overcome?”[47].

But it was 1989 that was the year of radical changes, when the process of building an art institution, in the full sense of the word, was finally begun. The new director, Stefan Liszewski, employed Andrzej Mitan, the former manager of RR gallery. Soon others appeared at the Castle, including Alicja Kępińska, Anastazy Wiśniewski, Włodzimierz Borowski, Andrzej Dłużniewski, Janusz Byszewski, Bożena Kowalska.

The period is an episode in the Centre’s history which has for some reason fallen into oblivion. Most of the people mentioned had never become a part of the new team constructed by Wojciech Krukowski. The International Art Seminar organized by Mitan in 1988, was the true inauguration of the exposition activities of the Centre for Contemporary Art Ujazdowski Castle. It seems that Andrzej Dłużniewski had anticipated the political events which were to follow by exhibiting his work titled 'The Round Table'.

The case of the Centre for Contemporary Art at the Castle shows that throughout the entire decade the authorities were unable to make any genuine gestures towards the institutions.Not much was achieved. The policy was not really aimed at attracting new followers or new artists but at awarding those who were loyal. Any discussions about the Centre for Contemporary Art interested the independent art circles very little – after all, it was just another institution to be hand-steered by the Ministry, and its construction dragged on forever.

The youngest generation of artists, who had their debuts in the 1980’s, was the first not to take advantage of the privileges that were historically available. Just like the rest of the society, they would rather go abroad to make some money instead of accepting any propaganda projects commissioned at home. The youngest of them could not care less about the dissolution of ZPAP, with which they had not identified themselves (in an editorial discussion in Szkice Paweł Kowalewski said that: “unionization is symptomatic for the entire system”), nor about the activities of the authorities, even if some of them took the bait and took part in the widely advertised exhibition Arsenal ‘88.

Karol Sienkiewicz, born in 1980, art historian and critic, editor of books, e.g. Collection of texts on the art of the eighties, Draft by Anda Rottenberg (with Kasia Redzisz). As a critic he writes to dwutygodnik.com. A laureate of the Jerzy Stajuda Art Criticism Award (2012).

Początek strony ↑

Notes

1. “Pisanie równoległe. Z Andą Rottenberg rozmawiają Kasia Redzisz i Karol Sienkiewicz”, in: Anda Rottenberg, “Przeciąg. Teksty o sztuce lat 80.”, ed. Kasia Redzisz, Karol Sienkiewicz, (Warsaw 2009), p. 370. ↑

2. Barbara Majewski published under the pseudonim M. Wisnowska. ↑

3. See: Aleksandra Zientecka, “Działalność Zachęty w latach 1989-2001”, (Warsaw 2007), pp. 28-39. ↑

4. At the turn of the 1970’s and 1980’s, it was awarded the status of an institution; and in its seat at the ZPO Cora Factory Culture Centre at Terespolska Street in Warsaw’s district of Praga, we read that “in a new workers environment, diverse forms of cultural and social activities were proposed. There were series dedicated to the issues of theatre, film, fine arts, photography, activities which inspired the creative participation of children and adults”, including a street cinema on Szembeka Square, a film club [DKF] - by Anna Bilska, “Akademia Ruchu”, Radar 1986,13 November no 46 (615), p. 19. ↑

5. [“Piotr Rypson interviewed by Jacek Tomczuk”], Przekrój 2011, 19 November, no 38(3455), p. 43. ↑

6. The video recording of the conference was presented at the exhibition Schizm by its curator, Adam Mazur. ↑

7. Janusz Bogucki, Wiesław Borowski, Andrzej Turowski, “Sztuka i krytyka”, Odra, no 1 (239), year XXI, (January 1981), pp. 37-44. ↑

8. Ibidem, p. 42. ↑

9. Ibidem, p.41. ↑

10. Jan Krajowiec, “Stan kultury polskiej w 1983 roku”, Kultura Niezależna, published by Komitet Kultury Niezależnej, no 1, (Warsaw, August 1984), p. 22. In the official Tu i Teraz, which replaced Kultura Niezależna, Jan Karczewski wrote: “After all, there were many ways of dissolving ZPAP – an association of 14,000 artists, the biggest organization of this type: from notifying the registering entity and declaring a will to cooperate – which, in any case, was stipulated in the bylaws – to the presidium stepping down. But it was the ambitions of the individual people that prevailed, who did not hesitate to put the interests of the entire artistic community at stake” by Jan Karczewski, “Osamotnienie. Po rozwiązaniu ZPAP”, Tu i Teraz, no 34, (24 August 1983), p. 1. ↑

11. “Dyskusja o środowisku artystów”, Szkice. Pismo poświęcone problemom artystyczno-społecznym”, 1988, no 8, p. 10. ↑

12. JK, Ibidem, p. 15. ↑

13. Jacek Królak, “Głos w sprawie ZPAP”, Szkice 1989, no 9, p. 66. ↑

14. “Działania Departamentu Plastyki w 1983 r.”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 1-2(3-4), p. 43. ↑

15. Karol Czejarek, “Raport o aktualnej sytuacji środowiska plastycznego”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 3 (6), p. 2. ↑

16. “Rozmowa z Janem Karczewskim”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 3(6), p. 35. ↑

17. Karol Czejarek, “Raport o aktualnej sytuacji środowiska plastycznego”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 3 (6), p. 3. ↑

18. Ibidem, p. 45. ↑

19. The Association of Sculptors was headed by Władysław Frycz. See.: “Krzątamy się w bryle. Rozmowa z Władysławem Fryczem, prezesem Związku Artystów Rzeźbiarzy”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 1-2(4-5), pp. 5-8. ↑

20. Marian Sztuka took over the position of president of the Association of Polish Graphic Designers, Stanisław Wieczorek became his deputy. See: “Stowarzyszenie Polskich Artystów Grafików Projektantów”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 1-2(4-5), pp. 9-13. ↑

21. “I Walny Zjazd Związku Polskich Artystów Malarzy i Grafików”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, nn 4-5. ↑

22. Kultura niezależna: “No pains were spared; there was a search for some king of a renowned and noble sage to join at any costs (a trick known from ZLP and ZASP). When it turned out that the recruiters had no luck with any of those designated by the Culture Department of the Party Central Committee, Mieczysław Wejman was picked. He accepted the position of president. His deputies were Stanisław Dawski and Leon Michalski, and secretary – Andrzej Vogt. The Board was also joined by Włodzimierz Buczek, Władysław Hasior (perhaps he will finaly get a studio in Zakopane?) and Jan Świderski”. – “Rekonstrukcja?”, Kultura Niezależna, published by Komitet Kultury Niezależnej, no 1, (Warsaw, August 1984), p. 82. In June 1985, Wejman was replaced in the position of president by Władysław Jackiewicz. See: “Nowe władze Zarządu Głównego Związku Polskich Artystów Malarzy i Grafików”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1985, no 8, p. 10. ↑

23. Jan Krajowiec, “Stan kultury polskiej w 1983 roku”, Kultura Niezależna, published by Komitet Kultury Niezależnej, no 1, (Warsaw, August 1984), p. 23. ↑

24. “Rekonstrukcja?”, Kultura Niezależna, published by Komitet Kultury Niezależnej, no 1, (Warsaw, August 1984), p. 82. ↑

25. “Informacja o Związku Polskich Artystów Malarzy i Grafików”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 4-5, p. 3. ↑

26. “ZPAP – sprawa w toku”, Szkice, 1989, no 9, p. 65. ↑

27. Nationwide Party-Affiliated Artists’ Team [Ogólnopolski Zespół Partyjny Artystów Plastyków] was formed in the 1950’s and stayed either under the auspices of the Culture Department of the Central Committee of the Polish United People’s Party or by the Management Board of ZPAP. It worked irregularly, more dynamically only before the General Assemblies of ZPAP. From 20 October 1983, the Team adopted new rules of functioning. It was composed of all the first secretaries of the Basic Party Organisation (POP), the first secretaries from art schools (two academies and five higher schools of art), people recommended by Voivodship Committees. The team operated at the Department of Culture of the Central Committee. It’s president at the time was Jan Karczewski. See: “Rozmowa z Janem Karczewskim”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 3(6), pp. 32-36. In March 1986, Karczewski was replaced by Julian Pałka. – Janusz Czechowicz, “Obrady Ogólnopolskiego Zespołu Partyjnego Artystów Plastyków przy Wydziale Kultury KC PZPR”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1986, no 4, p. 2. ↑

28. The following persons were appointed to the Art Council: Roman Artymowski, Zbigniew Bednarowicz, Włodzimierz Buczek, Bogdan Chmielewski, Wojciech Czapski, Karol Czejarek (director of the Fine Arts Department at the Ministry), Władysław Czuba, Franciszek Duszeńko, Andrzej Fogtt, Władysław Frycz (president of ZAR), Wiesław Garboliński, Zbigniew Horbowy, Władysław Jackiewicz, Andrzej Janota, Ireneusz Kamiński, Jan Karczewski, Franciszek Kuduk, Eryk Lipiński, Krystyna Łyczywek, Jerzy Madejski, Andrzej Matynia, Leon Michalski, Jan Muszyński, Julian Pałka, Eugeniusz Piliszek, Andrzej Rajewski, Leszek Rózga, Andrzej Skoczylas, Artur Starczewski, Marian Sztuka, Andrzej Voellnagel, Mieczysław Wejman, Bronisława Wilimowska. On 28 March 1984, a presidium of the Council was formed, composed of: Andrzej Rajewski (Director General at the Ministry) – president, Wiesław Garboliński – deputy president, Zbigniew Bednarowicz – deputy president, Jan Karczewski, Mieczysław Wejman, Włądysław Frycz, Marian Sztuka, Andrzej Janota, Wojciech Czapski, Marian Pałka, Andrzej Voellnagel. – “Powołanie Rady Plastyki przy ministrze kultury i sztuki”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 1-2(4-5), pp. 1-2. ↑

29. Karol Czejarek, “Raport o aktualnej sytuacji środowiska plastycznego”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 3 (6), p. 9. ↑

30. “W sprawie Zamku Ujazdowskiego”, Stolica 1986, 9 II, no 6 (1977), year XL, p. 15. ↑

31. Jan Karczewski, “Żaby i zjadacze żab”, Tu i Teraz 1984, 15 II, p. 5. ↑

32. Sztuka 1984, no 2/3, p. 89. ↑

33. Sztuka 1984, no 2/3, p. 89. ↑

34. “Franciszek Kuduk, Centrum Sztuki Współczesnej – nadzieje, możliwości...”, Sztuka 1984, no 2/3, p. 45. ↑

35. Janusz Czechowicz, “Inauguracyjne posiedzenie Rady Programowej Centrum Sztuki Współczesnej”, Biuletyn informacyjny. Sztuka Polska, no 11, 1984, pp. 1-4. ↑

36. Ibidem, p. 2. ↑

37. Ibidem. ↑

38. Ibidem. ↑

39. Jan Karczewski, “Żaby i zjadacze żab”, Tu i Teraz 1984, 15 II, p. 5. ↑

40. The meeting was attended by 49 people. The council selected its Presidium. A motion was also accepted by the Council’s chaiman, Mieczysław Wejman, "proposing that the Minister appoint Krzysztof Hnatkowski to the position of the Centre’s administrative director". – “Posiedzenie Rady Programowej Centrum Sztuki Współczesnej”, ed. Liliana Koperska, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1984, no 12, p. 9. ↑

41. Sztuka 1986, no 2, p. 1. ↑

42. W sprawie Zamku Ujazdowskiego, Stolica 1986, 9 II, no 6 (1977), year XL, p. 15. ↑

43. Janusz Czechowicz, “Inauguracja działalności Centrum Sztuki Współczesnej”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1986, no 4, p. 3. ↑

44. Ibidem. ↑

45. Ibidem. In March 1986, the first exposition prepared by the Centre was opened – an exhibition by the Wektor collective at the book store in Nowy Świat Street. Janusz Czechowicz, “Obrady Ogólnopolskiego Zespołu Partyjnego Artystów Plastyków przy Wydziale Kultury KC PZPR”, Biuletyn Informacyjny P.P. Sztuka Polska 1986, no 4, p. 3. ↑

46. Sztuka 1988, no 4, p. 58. In 1985 – 1986, the future exploitation programme of the Castle was established: the basement was to hold a club and a café, on the ground floor – temporary exhibitions and specialist studios (including the “graphic workshops open to visitors, where they can learn about the different techniques of copying, and where professionals can also expand their skills and knowledge”), a multifunctional room, a reading room, and – on the first floor – a permanent exhibition entitled the Gallery of Polish Contemporary Art, with a specially equipped Zigismund Room; the entire second floor, i.e. the attic, was to host the centre for documentation and information. The management and administration, the storage facilities for the art works, the technical facility, the printing house and hotel rooms were planned to be located in the pavilions of the former hospital. ↑

47. Sztuka 1988, no 5-6, p. 113. ↑

Początek strony ↑