|
AS
IS THE CASE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD,
in Hungary, the institutions of art are based on three foundations: the
artist, the work of art, and the audience. The relations that operate
between these three imply different types of institutions. In order to
document the situation of contemporary art in Hungary properly, a few
words have to be said about the 1980s. During that period, there were
three main players in the Hungarian art world: the state museums (the
Museum of Fine Arts, the Hungarian National Gallery, the Museum of Applied
Art, the Hungarian National Museum, and a few other specialized collections,
such as the Falk Art Museum and the Hungarian Scientific Museum); the
so-called "Exhibition Halls" (state-owned) that presented the
modern masters as well as contemporary art (the Palace of Exhibition,
Ernst Museum, Vigadó Gallery); and, finally, commercial ventures
such as the so-called Commission Company.
Initially, Commission Company functioned as a regular commission
shop. The socialist regime was suspicious of this kind of activity because
an art object did not, after all, bear any real value. Yet since this
was evidently a flourishing business, the state produced legal institutions
through which art trading could be managed. One of these institutions
was the so-called Art Fund, a kind of "social net" for
artists. Apart from the Art Fund, there was the monopolistic, state-supervised
Fine Art Executive Company (Artex); Applied Art Company;
and Art Gallery Company, the latter specializing in international
trading. Artex was the only one among these institutions that was
allowed to sell art abroad. In later years, it was joined by "Artbeourou".
Together with Artex, Artbourou showed Hungarian art at international
fairs, Biennali, and other festivals. Naturally, the Foreign Trade Ministry,
which also organized joint exhibitions with the Art Fund, could
intervene in these activities at any time.
In spite of the existing censorship, this system had the advantage that
Hungarian artists could, at least to an extent, be present on the international
art scene. The institutions mentioned above functioned like other state-owned
firms in that there were norms to be fulfilled, sales quota to be met,
all topped by a good deal of central control. For example, once it had
been centrally decided how much art was needed in Hungary at a given point
in time, the respective amount of art objects was ordered and bought by
Art Gallery Company. The artists who were allowed to sell to Art
Gallery Company were selected by a jury which was once again appointed
centrally.
One must not forget that until 1989, Hungary was a socialist country with
a one-party system that ruled not only politics but literally all of social
and public life, including the arts.
By the late 1980s, political and economic life in Hungary began to undergo
important changes and it looked as if the old system would collapse soon.
During this period of change, Art Gallery Company with its rigorous set
of rules found itself to be utterly out of touch with the local avant-garde.
The members of the avant-garde almost never dealt with Art Gallery Company.
Instead they tried to build their careers by themselves. When during the
late 1980s a network of private galleries emerged, almost all the new
gallerists focused on this previously repressed avant-garde.
During the 1980s,
the museums and exhibition halls also went through important changes.
First of all, the Hungarian art museums had to change their way of doing
finances. Under the old regime, they had received subsidies from the State.
These were hardly lavish, yet at least there was some kind of secure and
regular income. Once the subsidies vanished, the museums were forced to
modify their less-than-accommodating opening hours and to provide better
services to their visitors. They began to issue leaflets showing their
opening hours and exhibition dates. They even introduced guided tours,
special hours for kids, and other such unheard-of amenities. At the same
time they attempted to collect money from anyone who was prepared to give.
Museums started to rent out exhibition halls to anyone who was willing
to pay. They also tried to raise entrance fees, but since these were out
of reach for the average Hungarian, they were lowered again. Compared
to Westerns standards, visiting one of Budapests great museums is
still very cheap.
After 1989, the official Hungarian art associations transformed themselves
into trade unions (such as Fészek Klub or the "Nest Club"),
artists associations, or other financially independent organizations.
In 1992, Art Fund was divided into the Hungarian Art Foundation
and the National Association of Hungarian Artists. The membership
of this latter association is quite heterogeneous. Anyone who graduated
from the Academy automatically becomes a member of the Association, regardless
of merit. As a result, NAHA is distinctly conservative. In fact, the principal
benefit it offers to its members is that once a year it organizes a large
exhibition in one of Budapests larger exhibition halls. The other
advantage is free entry to all state-owned museums and galleries.
There is now a separate section of the Hungarian Artists National
Association, the Association of Young Artists (www.c3.hu/fkse)
that was created especially for the younger generation (aspiring members
must be under 35 years old). This association ("Studio") is
one of the most successful Hungarian art institutions. The governing board
of "Studio" invites foreign curators and art historians to whom
it tries to "sell" the members of the association. They maintain
small studios that can be rented for a symbolic price, and they organize
slide shows and artists talks. Two or three times a year "Studio"
organizes a large-scale curated exhibition. Recently it has tried to expand
its business by inviting foreign artists to become members and exhibit
their works. One of the better known regular events organized by "Studio"
is the "Gallery by Night", a one-nighter exhibition that usually
takes place at the time of the Hungarian Spring Festival in March.
The most flexible
and inventive elements of the Budapest art scene are its galleries. In
the late 80s, more and more private galleries opened. By 1994, nearly
200 galleries existed in Budapest. Almost half of them were simply antique
shops, yet sometimes the owners of these shops became the best contemporary
art collectors and gallerists. The galleries in Budapest can roughly be
classified into seven groups: commercial (including the showrooms of the
big hotels and restaurants); galleries established and run by artists;
galleries that not only deal in fine and applied art but that also provide
services such as interior design, publishing, or real estate; non- profit
galleries owned by local governments; non-profit galleries controlled
and financed by the ministry, such as museums, libraries, or universities;
and finally, the galleries run by the various foreign culture institutes.
Naturally, almost every Budapest gallery specializes in some more or less
well-defined style, trend, or era. For example, Bolt Gallery is a gallery
for photography, while Artpool P60 exhibits Hungarian and international
Fluxus, as well as mail art. Tolgyfa Gallery usually exhibits young applied
artists. The manager of Liget Gallery, Tibor Várnagy, stages provocative
shows focusing on social and political issues. There are some galleries
usually owned by foreigners that focus on international art. Gallery owner
Hans Knoll, for example, also runs a gallery in Vienna and tries to promote
artists in both countries. Gallery 56 is run by the American-born Hungarian
Samuel Havadti who also happens to be the husband of Yoko Ono. The most
interesting exhibits, however, take place in those galleries that are
owned by the artists themselves. Tzolto (Fireman) Gallery was established
in 1991 by a group of young, dissident artists who took over an old, ruined
bath house where they began to stage performances, exhibitions and festivals
of alternative music. Later they moved into an abandoned cinema, the Uljak,
and started calling themselves the "Ujlak Group". They also
invited other artists to show in this rather unique exhibition hall. After
the building was razed, the artists took over an old food factory in Tzolto
Street (hence the gallerys name). In 1997, this building was demolished,
too. When the local government decided to tear down the factory, the gallery
was eventually closed. However, the artists managed to secure an alternative
place for themselves. The gallery is now called the "U.F.F."
and has become a regular exhibition hall that shows mostly young progressive
artists from the margins of contemporary art.
Apart from museums and galleries, the foreign culture institutes also
play a role in the Budapest art scene. For instance, the British Council,
Linstitut francais, the Austrian Kulturinstitut, and
Pro Helvetia provide great financial support for exhibitions and
artists-in-residence-programs. Through a program called Soros Contemporary
for Art (SCCA), the Soros Foundation has also been supplying financial
aid for the curating of exhibitions, the publishing of catalogues and
art magazines, the creation of a database of Hungarian artists, etc. Parts
of this SCCA have been transferred to a new program within the Soros Foundation,
the C3 Center for Culture and Communication (www.c3.hu),
which is now turning into an independent media institution. C3 represents
the high tech media art in Budapest. The institution itself works as a
media-lab where artists can apply for using the computers and digital
facilities of C3. In addition, C3 organizes yearly large-scale media events
and exhibitions ("Butterfly Effect"; the Flusser Symposium,
or the ongoing Perspective exhibition [www.c3.hu/perspektiva]).
Thanks to the persistent activity of C3, almost every contemporary art
gallery in Budapest now has internet access and maintains its own homepage
on the C3 server. In this way, they can publicize artists and exhibitions
to a much broader audience. Moreover, new art magazines have been created
exclusively for the web, such as "Nightwatch" (www.sztaki.hu/nightwatch).
The government still plays a crucial role when it comes to subsidizing
art. Unfortunately the Hungarian tax system does not at all encourage
support for the arts, which is why only the second-rate art dealers are
able to survive. Experimental non-profit galleries can barely exist. There
are no tax reductions for buying art or for the support of artists. In
Hungary, the notion of government subsidies is problematic, since it recalls
the censorship and the kind of centrally controlled art familiar from
the Communist regime. When a democratic government makes a decision as
to which artist or which institution to support, it necessarily becomes
inconsistent with itself. Needless to say, the decision to subsidize the
Ujlak Collective was not a majority decision.
|