Starting from a situation of absence of any anticipation, that is, not expecting to win the award “Denes” for young Macedonian artists of the Centre for Contemporary Arts – Skopje, the group OPA (Slobodanka Stevceska and Denis Saraginovski) applies an unusual linguistic-fine arts cunning (installation with framed texts, a monitor presenting the web search tool Google and a cage with a “bird”).
The witty and sophisticated irony brought about in “The Proxy”, a part of their project, has ensured the final goal of their tandem work (with the group HA, i.e., Sasho Talevski) – the winning of the award “Denes”, notwithstanding their far less optimistic prospect as regards the outcome of their work.
The real legitimacy of this message is given by “The Proxy”, de facto and de jure registered by a notary, with a paid fee and parallel English translation. The elements of frivolity – the joke – and seriousness – the document – create a puzzle and convey the effect of unpredictability of a play placed in a real-life context. Hence, the cunning of the consignor of the right (OPA) has an interesting and original outcome in relation to the consignee (HA) at a level of a sophisticated neo-conceptual discourse.
For the Window to the World of the Group OPA
I vote FOR:
-Rereading the Modernist literature with taste
-The thing inside the framework/frameworks and the metaphorical contents
-The irony attached to the Macedonian (and is it only the Macedonian – my remark) art sensibility and the critics’ criteria
-The impertinence (anything is allowed to the author) in the announcement that they deserve the award
-The casual approach (to playing the game) to the creation act even when out of sheer need
-The preparedness (again fun) to hand over the “expected” benefits of the work to “others”.
Play with serious topics that you are not able to shift, as it is the only thing left to you. The irony is not only a familiar, but also expected act – I vote for retrogression.
I vote AGAINST:
-The “Macedonian death cage” or the insinuated relations among the elements of the work, regardless of Your feeling and the additionally announced contents.
Majority votes (6:1) in favour, but the literal and seeming transfer is principally placed at the bottom of the art gradation scale. The contents of the framework draw more contents beyond the written one and it seems to become self-sufficient.
Maybe I am right?
Why has the “Window to the World” by OPA&HA
My arguments related to the question why OPA were included in the immediate choice for winning the award stems from several dilemmas:
1. Is the act of consignation of the right to the award by Sasho Talevski a revolt to the Commission and the situation with the scene here, courage or defiance directed to the institutions?
2. Is the act of consignation incorporated in the work part of the project, considering the previous projects and having in mind the fact that the authors often include the factor of surprise of the audience?
3. Will Sasho Talevski give back the award because the proxy allows him to present or consign the award?
4. OPA were the clearest in expressing their attitudes although they used the most minimal expression means in comparison to the other works, but the nature of the work and its underlying idea did not bear anything more than that. In my view, the cage is even superfluous in the work – the Google screen and the notary statement were sufficient
5. “Window to the World” has had its premiere as well as the best conceptual character.
6. In light of the previous works, no regression in the work is indicated. The Window to the World possesses the same expression and quality as most of the previous works.
7. It introduces novelty and freshness into the scene and may influence the young authors and thus incite a new wave.
The statements by Slavica Janeslieva and Kalina Bunevska Isakovska are not given so far.