...and the background
 

If I endeavour to speak about Hungarian contemporary visual arts, then I have first of all to examine the discourse on the theme itself, thus, before the what, the questions why and how. Discourse about a decade of visual arts as analysis of the product, at once from an art-sociology, political history, economic history, technological history, media history - and yes, philosophical - approach, is necessary. This is required on the one hand by the theoretical milieu of the so-called contemporary art product (this product is so complex, so manifold - so plural - that it calls for talk about itself and the shading, the differentiation, the refinement - the pluralisation - of its occupation); and on the other hand by the Central European political-economic transformation (a radically fast change in the societal structure which is still in process, up to the present day). I believe that artistic creation can be interpreted also as collective product: as the corporative cooperation of the artist, the museum, the art market, the gallery, art history, art theory, art criticism, as well as anonymous powerful agents (e.g., foundations, sponsors); that is to say, the institutional Frame of art as its product. We cannot separate the participants of the Frame from the artistic creation, as from the product. The next few pages to follow will be concerned with these players. If the reader would like to establish contact with any of these organisations, the Institute of Contemporary Art --Dunaújváros will be pleased to provide addresses and contacts.

The Hungarian-language historical writing concerned with post-1945 era art, and prior to contemporary critical practice, is an enormous challenge. In order that adequate theoretical and critical literature on today's Hungarian visual arts be brought into existence, without a doubt, a written account of the past five decades of art history must be carried out to completion. This work - i.e., the writing up and publication of oeuvres and tendencies - could reduce the fragmentation which characterizes historical knowledge, and it would allow the advance towards contemporary art criticism. Presently, exactly such a methodological-terminological uncertainty, which "paralyses," characterizes the historical/critical harvest. In this way, for example, the criticism remains in the role of supporting criticism, and it has no effective influence upon the activity, neither of the historians, nor of the curators, nor of the collectors, nor of the dealers. The terrains and supporters of research are individual university departments (ELTE: Lóránd Eötvös University of Sciences, Budapest), the National Foundation of Scientific Research (OTKA), and the research scholarships and fellowships (Kállay, Eötvös) of the National Heritage Ministry; furthermore, some exhibiting institutions also inspire historical research (e.g., the Miklós Érdely exhibition in the Mucsarnok (Kunsthalle) Budapest in 1998). Presently it is impossible to work in Hungary as a freelance researcher or freelance curator: there is a need, therefore, for reserved positions (in a limited number) via the institutions, and for a much greater number of scholarships abroad, which support first of all, not specialised research themes, but mastery of the theoretical yield of the most recent decades. If we examine the references for theoretical texts, the theoretical basis of texts concerned with the post-war era is characterized by a time-lag of approximately two decades.

The institutional infrastructure must be developed, without a doubt: there is a need for a kind of specialisation which would allow everyone to cultivate her/his own area of expertise. That is to say, the critical writer, the art historian, the curator, the researcher, the newspaper editor, the PR-professional, the educator and the institutional director in Hungary are one and the same person.

At the beginning of the political-economic metamorphosis referred to as the change in regime, it seemed evident that the transformation of the institutional art system would occur equally in both the domain of theory (software) and the institutions (hardware). The debates in the beginning of the decade endeavoured to serve the transformation and its conceptual foundation. Their range of themes is the following: Hungarian art contra Western art (covering a range of topics including the methodological-terminological inelucidation of the center-periphery, regionalism, etc.), the lack of continuity and fragmentation equally in artistic theory and praxis, Lóránd Hegyi's estimation of the activity in the 1980's (this was typical principally of the debates at the beginning of the decade, but this year it was once again put on the agenda), criticism concerning the current director of the Mucsarnok (Kunsthalle) Budapest, as well as for the art-makers, as a mission for the intelligentsia within the changed political-economic-sociological relations. These debates are also symptomatic of today's artistic public life, but it does not appear that there would be much chance of the establishment of a professional concensus. The most recent debate took place at the Institute of Contemporary Art - Dunaújváros. This polemic by now was organised at the urging of a younger generation, and it raised the poetic question: "Is the current institutional system capable of producing domestic and international stars?" The question referred not to artificial star-production according to familiar formulae (see e.g., Hollywood), but rather as a presupposition taken literally from the commonplace frequently referred to by the older generation, according to which: "Hungarian art is compatible, and a part of, the international scene." It is obvious, namely, that a gifted artist cannot even step up to bat if a developed infrastructure does not stand behind her/him. Albeit s/he might still get lucky. But the luck (and the budget) are generally brought to Hungary by foreign curators visiting for one or two days.

The economy of art has not yet been written in Hungarian; nevertheless, I could include certain texts here. The fundamental observation is that the currently active generation of the new business system does not prefer to support art exhibitions or publications. Even in the case of international enterprises, the situation is the same. The sponsorship of visual art events is presently inadequate because this sphere is incapable of honouring such support with either appropriately intensive promotion or the social prestige deriving from this support.

Visual art production - with the exception of a few artists - stems from the non-profit sphere. Within this sphere, a procedure arises for the realisation of projects and productions. Yet this sphere offers practically no artist's fee for artistic work; thus, in the case of most artists, their artistic activity functions as a kind of secondary employment. In Hungary - especially if we examine the younger generation since the beginning of the 1980's - we can observe a traditional, multiple-stage system. Galleries of the non-profit sphere present the artists at home and abroad. We cannot claim any longer that "the state produces them" - as a well-known gallerist expressed with great accuracy - because these non-profit galleries belong to the municipal and local governments, foundations and associations, and their projects are generally financed by cultural foundations (or in rarer cases, by sponsors). Of great importance are the National Cultural Foundation (which is the principal federal government resource since the change in regime), municipal and local government support, and international foundations and embassies (e.g., Pro Helvetia, The British Council, Austrian Cultural Institute, Goethe-Institut, Institut Français, etc.). In Budapest, the Studio Gallery (Gallery of the Studio of Young Artists Association), Bartók 32 Gallery, Liget Gallery, U.F.F. Gallery and the Óbuda Cultural Centre Gallery, and in Dunaújváros, the Institute for Contemporary Art, for example, apply to them for support. In this phase, therefore, artists make their living from "other" resources: most often from teaching, and from graphic and other applied work. On the other hand, the tendency in the case of the galleries is the prevalence of "project-mentality," whose content is the application-fundraising-PR activity/pursuit, whereby they strive to create the material conditions necessary to realise the exhibited artwork. These galleries, in fact, additionally undertake the function of producer. Moreover, the artists present themselves to the institution directors not with works of art, but with "projects."

The consequential step in the artistic career is the appearance of new commercial galleries. I do not have precise data - and I do not believe that anyone does - regarding who profits by how much during each commercial exhibition. Clearly, the oversupply characterizes the market for contemporary artworks, and in this situation, everyone plays several matches in parallel. In any case, I consider it an extremely positive sign that young artists are already able to sell their works (e.g., Attila Szucs), that there exists an example of long-term collaboration (e.g., Róza El-Hassan - Knoll Gallery), that some galleries regularly exhibit the works of young artists (e.g., Spiritusz Gallery, Illárium Gallery), and that there are such galleries that are able also to reconcile their interests with the international non-profit sphere and to work together with them (e.g., Knoll Gallery).

The Mucsarnok (Kunsthalle) Budapest and the Ludwig Museum (which is at the same time the Contemporary Museum of Art) are the pantheon of art. As a rule, what kind of image evolves regarding Hungarian contemporary art, both on the homefront and abroad, depends on the curators of these institutions. Consequently - as leading institutions - they are in command of representative function. One symptom of the lack of a professional concensus is the permanent criticism of the conception of these two institutions on the part of the professional community.

The smaller non-profit institutions listed above are the terrain of the introduction and re-introduction of artists. I would surmise that the fact that these galleries are gambling with their survival and continuity compells them to complete each project, be it an exhibition, foreign-exchange programme or a publication, on an increasingly higher professional level. They organise for the most part solo or group shows, and they very rarely undertake the presentation of some type of tendency or theoretical representation. The exhibitions represent first and foremost artistic output, and secondly the preferences of the given gallery. Together with this, their primary interests are the maintenance of continual information gathering and freshness - while at the same time, they compete with each other.

Some active centres: U.F.F. Gallery is the legal successor of the Újlak Group's exhibition space: it fills a similar role within the changed circumstances - in the same way as the new Trafó (The Young Artists' Club), under preparation for its grand opening this October. The Soros Center for Contemporary Arts - Budapest has been operating as C3: Center for Culture & Communication since the success of the exhibition organised under its auspices in 1996, The Butterfly Effect. The conception of C3 is, for all intents and purposes, an adequate response to the artistic-cultural developments of the 1990's, from various points of view. The institution has committed itself to research and productivity as a common project of foundations and commercial firms, first and foremost in the domain of digital media. C3 incidentally works together with the Intermedia Department of the Hungarian Academy of Fine Arts in an intimate symbiosis. The artists emerging from the Intermedia Department - theoretically - should play a determinant role in the domestic art scene of the coming decade. The Institute of Contemporary Art - Dunaújváros (ICA-D) resides not in Budapest, but in Dunaújváros. Nevertheless, it is desirable to come here, as the activity is of an international nature, and the artists of the Budapest scene readily work in the three exhibition spaces. The ICA-D has been running exhibitions, theoretical conferences and an artist-in-residence programme since 1997. The reorganisation of the Balázs Béla (Film) Stúdió has inauspiciously put us into contact with those authors who continue to produce moving image works. While everyone refers to László Moholy-Nagy and Gábor Bódy when asserting the progressivism of the Hungarian visual arts, it is rather curious that the situation has never been so difficult for the visual artist desiring to work with film as it is today.

By now, numerous exchange programmes and artist-in-residencies, nevertheless, have proved to be viable. The Studio of Young Artists' Association did not simply survive the change in regime, but by the middle of the decade, serves as an extremely effective backdrop for young artists (e.g., an informational basis, international exchange programmes, curator calls, scholarships and grants, ateliers, etc.). The Independent Art Studios League, supported by Pro Helvetia for three years, is of a different organisational form, under which six non-profit exhibition spaces are assembled. The League finances exhibitions and travel abroad, as well as publications, from its common budget.

The reputation of contemporary art, in comparison with the other spheres of culture, is bad. We can realise this not only from the projects' and artworks' financial difficulties, but also from the fact that the artists and their productions remain largely unknown. One of the biggest troubles with Hungarian contemporary art is that it is closed, like a reserve. There are historical precedents for this, as well as current infrastructural causes, but it is also that the visual arts - and primarily the art of the 1990's - still seeks its outward forms, which are new, authentic and building relationships with the world outside of the field. For my own part, in this moment, I see in the projects of the non-profit institutions and in connection with them, but increasingly in the theoretical and critical practice, a vitally strong potential, in view of the fact that the institutional renewal determines their course. The basis for this is the continued striving for survival, the work demanded to attain an increasingly higher professional standard, and the circumstance of competition. The large-scale representative institutions, the foreign partner institutions and the art market should exploit this basis.

Translated by Adele Einsenstein