Post-symposium Conversation

Published on Monday, 11 March 2019 11:22

Post-symposium Conversation on Rites & Terrabytes: Traces, Keywords and Post-colonial Learnings

Afterthoughts of the two curatorial members Vytautas Michelkevičius and Andrew Gryf Paterson after the end of Inter-PAGAN Network (2017-2018) and Inter-format Symposium on June 20-25th 2018.

Vytautas: We are very close now to winter solstice (22nd December when shortest day comes), so it is a good occasion to remember what happened during summer solstice (and the longest day) in Nida Art Colony where we gathered for the 8th Inter-format Symposium On Rites & Terrabytes. Let’s start the conversation with the highlights of the symposium which have moved our feelings and positions. To be frank it was first time when I was actively involved in organising midsummer celebration and also trying to be discursive and reflexive on that occasion. During the programme we generated dozens of terabytes of content which is still being processed (some links are provided in the conversation). It is so immense that 5 months was not yet enough to process. Actually it was also an INTER-pagan celebration at most. Nida has never had so many different positions and art forms during that ‘neo-pagan’’ celebration. When I try to recall the event, I have in my memory Elisabeth Hudson’s  ‘’performance with sticks and landmarking’, a kind of secret intervention into public celebration with Erica Scourti, some tasting actions during a performative walk by Tessa Zettel and Sumugan Sivanesan and of course surprisingly effective Gwenn-Ael Lynn usage of his armpits as a medium of transferring smell (together with video programme).

Which contributions made an impression on you and left traces until now?

Andrew: The contributions were a various mix of presentation, discussion and performances, and there was the off schedule outdoor events, hanging around camp fire, and the midsummer night celebration itself, stretching far toward the sunrise. Resonating impressions are performative or participatory, and related to the art+ecology thematic of interest, especially how artistic or creative interpretation of rites take form borrowing from past and speculative forms. While I dislike highlighting some than others, I recall some examples: Latvian power symbols surprisingly of beetroot slices in the opening dinner soup; The positively euphoric response from participants who took part in the Sylvan Skinship workshop by Mari Keski Korsu; The tasty guided walk of Tessa Zettel & Sumugan Sivanesan which wove us into a narrative of a future lichenologist society; the playful naming and remembering of branches in Elizabeth Hudson's beating of the bounds; The rawness of the beach installation by Pony Express, exposed in a summer storm and disco heat in the sauna; Collective employment in serious-absurd forest protocol interventions in Phytopolitics by Špela Petrič; Seeking calm while laying down on the cut forest land during Jussi Salminen's Deus sive Natura; The tree-descending Interdimensional Transmission performance by Lilli Tölp and Eva Bulba; The use of the axe of Adrian Demleitner's liturgy for electronic waste; Consuming fossil and meteor 'spices' as part of Zane Cerpina and Stahl Stenslie’s Anthropocene Cookbook; Gareth Kennedy’s presentation which combined bog-wood mask cultural heritage with the local eco-protest of peat and oil.

These contributions related to our ecological environment, and I believe created a shared empathy and connectedness. However, there are topics raised in the process of organising and curating the symposium that still bear some weight on the mind, as we continue to discuss.

Vytautas: Firstly, I have the feeling that we had enough ‘rites’ but ‘terrabytes’ were a little bit under represented topic in the symposium. There was only a few contributions who bridged two sides from our topic like Adrian Demleitner and Małgorzata Żurada with techno-shamanistic performance “Feeding the celestial bodies”, Kevin Bartoli (RYBN) and a few others. I also enjoyed a remote video connection with Lithuanian artist Žilvinas Landzbergas being present next to his work in Vilnius. a I guess it is not easy to work parallely in these two lines and you always slip either to ethno or digital esoterism.

Andrew: The terrabytes, as a hybrid word, made a connection between land, earth, what grounds us, and the accumulated data transfers, storage and memory in our networked and digital life-worlds. That the open call provided both these contributions you mention, augmented by our partnerships with the experimental electronic music programme by performers SALA, Skeldos, and Two Moon Walkers (Robert Niziński from Księżyc, and Paweł Romańczuk), suggests that we as a curatorial group did find some balance to unpack this conceptual side of our interests. Furthermore, there was ambition to transfer experience across locations, in the case of remotely connecting to our Latvian partner Lauska’s preparations for midsummer, and sharing what happened during the symposium live. For many of the symposium events we tested the emerging potential and sensitivity needed in 360 degree video (stream) recording of a particular time and place, or performance event. There were occasions when it appeared to be a good tool for dynamic performances that were participatory in nature, but at other times iintrusive, an omnipresent recording of presence even in the margins (except what was below the centred documentor’s hands). Is it live sharing or archiving, online or offline? Afterwards, is it manageable to edit, delete, host or program a viewable file? Despite our efforts, there were still gaps produced intentionally and unintentionally, and we became aware of where the limits and border lines in such new immersive media technologies.

Vytautas: Yes, it was a real terabyte machine and we are still. One can glimpse into a few already edited fragments here: Opening Performance by Obelija and discursive and olfactory performance Fire is Form by Gwenn-Aël Lynn. They are quite different but they raise interesting questions about telepresence and representation of time and space.To go on with our conversation - which discussions and keywords enlightened you and made you learn something new? Which were productive and not at all?

Andrew: To start with the later question about which discussions or keywords enlightened, feminist pedagogies offered by Naomi Pearce and Sam Trotman, our partner Scottish Sculpture Workshop, aimed to raise up and highlight hidden narratives and traces in the land and the event itself, and foster empathy. Furthermore, I learned something new in the process of gathering more keywords from symposium participants, that raised interesting comments that question and problematize also the use of keywords: “Naming keywords legitimizes but also enables communication, but what does it prohibit? Choosing opacity, to not be visible. Safety in invisibility. Keyword legitimacy, who can give permission to capitalize? Language as safe space.” We learned our range of keywords was broad and wide ranging. We capitalized a range of topics, but in reflection, and reinforced via feedback received from some of those who attended, there was definitely not enough time made in the schedule to elaborate the various meanings our keywords might have had to people from different cultural and social contexts. Those who responding to the open call, and for those of us involved in the curatorial group, questioning our assumptions.

Vytautas: Andrew, as you are being with multiple identity from lived experience, could you share with us how it was moved or changed after symposium. You have put a lot of energy in bringing people from different contexts together. How can you relate to post-colonialism both in UK/Scotland and Nordic-Baltic countries?

Andrew: The experience of the Inter-Format symposium for me was strongly shaped by that of being a cultural bridge and intermediate, positioned in the cultural bases of the Anglophonic -Nordic group of participants, and as an insider-guest Baltic perspective. It confronted me with my affinities to both the north west and north east side of Europe. Is English language a safe space between these different histories? It is a privilege I am reading and speaking in English ‘natively’, however acknowledging this particular cultural inheritance and bias from UK and Scotland has contributed to, gained from, and suffered within the British colonial enterprise. At the time of writing, this sense is currently warped and twisted with the politics of Brexit, argued to be an English-led crisis of identity in Europe, under the rhetoric of taking back control (from the European Union). Disregard in the current UK Government for differing perspectives in the different British nations suggests that social and political power relationships still exist which are unequal and not equivalent.

For this reason ‘(re)constructed pasts’ and ‘roots’ are keywords or phrases that have some particular personal bite at the moment. To reveal something, a vulnerability, it is a subject that has personally stressed me increasingly this year, creating anxious limbo and depressed thinking patterns among the uncertainty of European residence status. Accordingly my cultural ‘inbetweenness’ or crafted multiple identity of Baltic-Scot has collapsed in confidence increasingly over the year, not knowing if it will be possible to maintain the working situation. A crisis of nomadism. Invented traditions of familiar, family and homelands are stretched thin under these conditions. What is the consequence or result trans-nationial experience, in the context of Brexit, other than the dread of reductionism, and potential loss of freedom of movement within the European Union? I learn something about the privileges afforded to me from the past.

Admittedly it is harder for me to comment as easily on the post-colonial context of the Nordic-Baltic region, Within our network partners conversations there were interesting comments related to intangible cultural heritage, cultural or political representation, multiculturalism, and transnational connections between Global North and Global South (in case of Finnish paper industry operating in South America). We (curatorial team) were also challenged that we were without a regionally or internationally recognised indigenous cultural voice, for example from Saami or Greenland Inuit position in our conversations. These were important points to reflect upon.

I am aware of the important NIFCA project from 2005-2006 ‘Rethinking Nordic Colonialism’ curated by Kuratorisk Aktion (Frederikke Hansen & Tone Olaf Nielsen), which focused on the Nordic region, and opened up conversations around the topic around narratives hidden, obscured or neglected. How might such a project be extended or considered in the Baltic States? Who are the forgotten people and cultures in the current National memories? Who are the minorities that are not included or forgotten? Within the context of colonial independence from Soviet Union, Symposium presentations by Anders Kruger’s art historical lecture on Finno-Ugric Ethno-futurism, and Jurga Jonutytė’s seminar contribution to on social ecology in 1980s Lithuania, contributed alternative perspectives. There are further historical layers of Danish, German, Swedish, Polish and Russian governance or occupation in the Baltic States which contribute to the understanding colonial power relations of the past, and how they might still exist in other forms.

I agree with the sentiment that post-colonialism as a term may not be particularly accurate, in that colonial conditions still exist in the contemporary world. It is not over yet, especially in economic terms via Corporations which often have national historical connections.

…

Vytautas: I am surprised how powerful were several keywords from our initial list. For example, “roots” and “indigeneity”. However in the end we were left with feeling that some of our keywords and questions were overshadowed by over discussion. Initially I had this question as an inquiry: What similarities and differences do we share in relating to indigenous cultures and natures in the Nordic-Baltic region?

My first guess was that we and our worldviews were closer to each other, however it actually appeared during the symposium that not quite. First of all, we had different concepts of what is indigenous cultures, and some of the participants didn’t want to accept that Baltic tribes and nations were indigenous to the places they live now and they were colonised as well. However I think this happened because of the lack of local knowledge: first they didn’t know the local histories and secondly some of them politicized the concept of “indigeneity” and attributed it only to colonial histories in Americas and Asias.

From ‘Westerner’s position it is dangerous to be traditional, and to refer to your own past and culture when building identity but for the countries which were occupied for centuries it is essential to construct their own identities and there are not so many sources to sculpt them from. I understand it is risky, so as not to navigate towards right-wings nationalism too much, but is crucial to develop a sane approach toward past and move to the future. For example, the Baltic States and Poland are rallying in they free territories almost in ‘teenager’ clothes - starting to build their identities again only since 1990s. What do you think? Do you see any way how can we find a common language?

Andrew: I am not sure why you think it is just a Western concern about being traditional and referring to an uncomplicated or simplified version of the past. Reaching back to only tribal or pre-modern identities ignores the complicity of involvement that people had in the intervening decades, centuries. A common language would be a critical one which looks for the gaps and erased histories, communities and perspectives. This is something that can be shared universally. The lack of knowledge of international guests about the Nordic-Baltic region’s colonial histories is not surprising considering how little is shared about this heritage outside the region. Even the less-well known and short-lived colonies, for example, of the Duchy of Courland in 17th Century in the Caribbean or West Africa are interesting in that they can offer perspective that question presumptions and inherited wealth about colonial exploitation and global trade. Even if they were operated by an aristocratic Baltic German class, within the context of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, they also brought wealth and resources to the land that later became Latvia.

Vytautas: One of the reasons is language, I assume. Not a lot was written and communicated westwards and still I think about Baltic region you can find more sources and reflections in Russian and German than English. Your example is interesting but very minor. If we speak about colonial histories, the role of Russian, Prussian (later German), Austro-Hungarian empires should be rediscussed. Very simple example, in the West Nazi symbols are forbidden, whereas USSR not (yet). This shows a lot until very recent manifestations in popular culture as well (like Adidas T-shirts with red symbols).

Referring to our previous discussions about differences between UK (and your homeland Scotland) and Baltic countries (and in some cases Finland), aswell your experiences with Herbologies project both in Latvia and Finland, we have discovered that there are different relationships to the land, past and traditional knowledges. For example foraging and healing with traditional herbs and sauna rituals are almost extinct in UK probably because of “successful” modernisation and industrialisation.

Do you think it was in play when misunderstandings and miscommunications between different groups happened? I assume this might have been also one of the reasons for different interpretations of indigeneity?

Andrew: The dislocation to land and traditional knowledge, with your referencing of how people might collect wild plants and use them, is not just about early historical cycles of modernism and industrialisation, including the movement of people to the cities, but also a consequence of internal state power relationships, exploitation and displacement of peasantry living from the land, enclosure of the commons, consolidation of land rights and ownership within the British Isles. The land has been intensively industrialised, resulting in little biodiversity or wild meadows or forests. It is only in recent decades, that scholars, commons researchers, lawyers and land activists have raised awareness of this history. In Scotland, the research writing of Andy Wightman is a prominent example.

While there have been different waves of interest in ecology and relationships to a traditional culture connected to local environments in the 20th Century in the British Isles, and I have found there is a difference in the North Eastern European nations such as the Baltic States. In Finland, Latvia, Estonia, etc. societies have transformed rapidly from agricultural to majority urban society within a couple of generations. The knowledge that people have combined with access to the countryside, emphasised by those agrarian societies also being elevated from serfdom and peasantry into national cultural heritage, has meant that this knowledge has been promoted more. Within the Herbologies project research, we found that people maintained or passed on traditional plant knowledge out of practical interest, self-determined well-being and health care, but also necessity. Some of that necessity formed during the Soviet period, and sometimes afterwards with rapid capitalism and increased costs of medicine.

The distance that some people might have from their homeland, from working on the land, from being able to name the landscape, knowing and foraging local plants, are arguably factors of reference in claiming indigeneity. However, was it a factor in misunderstandings? I am not convinced. As far as I understand, there are different interpretations of indigeneity, of what classifies belonging, knowing, stewarding (caring for) a particular locality, place, geography over a longer or shorter period of time. How far back historically is it important to reference continuous practice? What has been revived or invented along the way? We should be honest and critical, but also examine who holds the power to say so. Recognising this is an important factor.

Vytautas: These things also relate to my initial question “How do local cultural and belief traditions inspire/limit both political imagination and new nationalism?” During the symposium and post-symposium discussions we have tried to differentiate “good” and “bad” or “healthy” and “dangerous” nationalisms. It turned out, not only for me, but also for other co-curators (Jurij and Jogintė) that the presentations and positions we included in the symposium as examples of healthy nationalism were treated as dangerous ones by some of the guests. So tolerance and standpoint are very different. We were thinking what would have happened if really right-wing nationalists would have been invited/accepted to the symposium? Actually, we had a big pressure from them (personally and via open call) to participate, because they felt very knowledgeable and proud of their positions in the framework of our keywords and questions. To cut the long story short, for new, fragile and developing democracies a healthy portion of local traditions and narratives are essential to construct their identities. Of course localism is blended with globalism, and in the end we have very interesting cocktail. Any comments on this from your position?

Andrew: I am aware of distinctions of civic and ethnic nationalisms, the former being supposedly good in comparison to the later, bad. I am also glad that there was an important recognition of who was not invited or welcome. However, I don’t think there was enough discussion about this topic in the symposium, and I am sure that not many of the partners or symposium invited guests were aware of this factor or pressure from the local Lithuanian context in the background. Historically and in contemporary populist politics, there are close and explicitly expressed relations between the right-wing and nationalism, referencing local heritage, as we are aware. A local and globalist mix which is explicitly not this would include a wide range of contributions from the various minorities within those democracies, as part of civic inclusiveness. How do you consider this in your curatorial roles, now or in the future?

Vytautas: To my mind my curatorial practice is based on civic inclusiveness and I don’t make distinction if I do a project with Lithuanian artist who is ethnic Lithuanian, Polish or Russian.
I also think that the neglect of the so-called Global East in the tensions between Global North and South also has done its job in the symposium. We could easily feel it in between our guests from UK, USA, Australia, and us from Baltic-Polish realm.

The post-symposium grief like mood allowed me to look for reflections on this unfair situation and enabled me to find some relevant writings. As Martin Muller  points out “The demise of the Second World’s political project – communism – wiped the East off the global map, any distinctiveness of more than 70 years of communist rule erased. The East is too rich to be a proper part of the South, but too poor to be a part of the North. It is too powerful to be periphery, but too weak to be the centre. Power relationships run every which way. The East includes both colonizers and colonies, aggressors and victims; some countries were both at the same time (Tlostanova 2008). <...> In the global circulation of signs, the East is not nearly as legible as the Global South, where colonialism has created shared languages, institutions, knowledge systems and social bonds. Uganda is more easily knowable in the global centres of media and scholarship than Ukraine, Chile more familiar than Czechia, Laos closer than Latvia. Vargas Llosa, García Márquez and Coetzee have a ring of instant recognition, whereas Aleksievich, Müller, Szymborska sound outlandish. All six are recent laureates of the Nobel Prize in Literature”.

I am insider of the Global East, whereas you are more from Global North with some eastward deviations. Do you think this concept is productive and in what ways?

Andrew: I feel uncomfortable with making distinctions and emphasising differences inbetween international guests and the ‘Global East’. I can appreciate and understand you associatin with this term, and it is a useful conceptualizaton for geopolitical generalizations. It is also for each to decide for themselves where they identify, and how many layers to wear. As I have tried to write above the so-called Global North also includes those who have been both colonizers and colonies, aggressors and victims, and not always is it acknowledged, or it is part of hidden histories. I appreciate the Global East does too. Each combines personal and global political identity terms, which are more complicated than simple categorization.

Vytautas: I don’t see a problem to mix personal and global identities since we are working in culture and not in scholarship (research) and our personal aspirations are melting in global flows. I certainly have learned something for the future. What can we share with the others? I became aware of very important insight that there is still quite a big gap between “former West and former East” despite 30 years of integration. Some of the things and trauma needs more time to be solved, and more mutual involvement.

…

Andrew: This reflection has focused on some aspects of what you and I among the curatorial group have appreciated or learned from the process of being involved in the Inter-Format Symposium 2018. The discussion here circles around on a few keywords rather than many, and how they connected to a couple of complex subjects - post-colonialization, or nationalism - large political subjects, and how they can manifest at the personal level. To be honest, I believe that we bit off more than we could chew for a three day symposium and a midsummer celebration.

I learned then that we need to give more space and time in the future to listen to the different positions, sometimes dissent, and absorb the feeling in it. Over the days (and in the network in general) it was not always in group discussion but the smaller group and 1-to-1 conversations, that thoughts and insights seeped out to me, to become bigger issues we gained: Unease with the particularities of context and contentious issues, questions such as who gets to claim indigeneity, how are rituals and symbols mediated and shared without appropriate context, what spaces are safe to share in or not, who is given a voice or not, who holds power and feel oppressed, in what way is language both an enabler of exchange, and also one's confinement or limitation for understanding.

At the same time we need to keep attention on how politics, nationalism and the far right has been involved in historically and contemporary utilization of cultural heritage traditions and how they inter-relate. And keep asking the questions: Do our practices and event actively challenge this? Do we in our cultural organisational work create spaces for fostering alternatives?

Vytautas: We have gathered quite a lot of documentation material, some of it is already available as videofilm and 360 degree videos on our vimeo channel or photo documentation on our website, however more discursive ones are to come and be published in Nida Art Colony Log.

In the end it was a productive symposium which expanded both knowledge of curators and participants. All of us have realized that the topics of symposium were super sensitive and we need to invest more time to understand each other’s positions and stop promoting our personal positions as universal ones.

I am sure these topics referred to above will reoccur in our future conversations and works because some of them really need time to be answered. Luckily we were aware with the problems from far right and one of goals of the symposium was to spread critical awareness of dangers of using traditional culture and beliefs.