ArticlePDF Available

Reconstruction of Almir Mavignier's Personal Network and its Relation to the First New Tendencies Exhibition. The example of the Application of Network Analysis and Network Visualisation in Art History

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Brazilian artist Almir Mavignier's curatorial engagement on the first exhibition of New Tendencies, organized in 1961, in the cooperation with the Zagreb City Gallery of Contemporary Art , was based on Mavignier's excellent insight into the European neo-avant-garde scene at the time, as well as on his extensive personal social network. The creation, development and features of that network around year 1960, comprise for the analytical focus of this article. Description of Mavignier's personal network, presented by the series of network visualizations, aims at better understanding of its structural characteristics, and at establishing the relationship among these characteristics and poetic composition of New tendencies first exhibition. It is based on methodological encounter between art history, social sciences (social network analysis), and the application of ICT tools (network visualizations).
Content may be subject to copyright.
59
58
REKONSTRUKCIJA PERSONALNE
MREŽE ALMIRA MAVIGNIERA I
NJEZINA RELACIJA PREMA PRVOJ
IZLOŽBI NOVIH TENDENCIJA.
Primjer primjene mrežne analize
i mrežne vizualizacije u povijesti
umjetnosti
-
-
RECONSTRUCTION OF ALMIR
MAVIGNIER’S PERSONAL NETWORK
AND ITS RELATION TO THE FIRST
NEW TENDENCIES EXHIBITION.
The Example of the Application of
Network Aanalysis and Network
Visualisation in Art History
-
LJILJANA KOLE ŠNIK
NIKOLA BOJIĆ
ARTUR ŠILIĆ
-
Uvod
Većina studija o Novim tendencijama, koje donose pripovijest o
susretu brazilskoga umjetnika Almira Mavigniera i hrvatskog
likovnog kritičara Matka Meštrovića u Zagrebu u jesen 1960.,
opisuju ga kao trenutak u kojem otpočinje povijest toga
međunarodnog umjetničkog pokreta.1 Susret se zbio odmah nakon
što su obojica – svaki za sebe – posjetili 31. izdanje Venecijanskog
bijenala. Sličnost njihovih stajališta i zajedničko razočaranje
izložbom Bijenala, percepcija Matka Meštrovića kao obrazovane i
entuzijastične osobe, te opći dojam o zagrebačkoj umjetničkoj
sceni kao informiranoj i zainteresiranoj za eksperimentalne
umjetničke prakse, motivirale su Mavignierov prijedlog organizacije
izložbe koja bi na jednome mjestu okupila predstavnike različitih
poetičkih usmjerenja – sastavnica eksperimentalne margine
europske umjetničke scene s početka 1960-ih godina. Nedugo
nakon toga susreta, Meštrović je o Mavignierovu prijedlogu poveo
razgovor s upravom zagrebačke Galerije suvremene umjetnosti,
koja je prijedlog prihvatila, a ostatak te pripovijesti prelio se u
povijest Novih tendencija. Takav opis početka međunarodnog
umjetničkog pokreta Novih tendencija dobro je poznat, kao što su
dobro poznate i brojne pojedinosti koje okružuju organizaciju prve
zagrebačke izložbe. Ona zasigurno ne bi bila moguća bez brojnih
Mavignierovih društvenih kontakata, čija priroda ili preciznije –
priroda, struktura i veličina njegove personalne društvene mreže
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
RECEIVED: NOVEMBER 4TH 2016
ACCEPTED: NOVEMBER 11TH 2016
UDC: 316.353:7.037/.038
ABSTRACT: In the background of Brazilian artist Almir
Mavignier’s curatorial engagement on the rst exhibition of New
Tendencies, organized in the cooperation with Croatian art critic
Matko Meštrović and Zagreb Gallery of Contemporary Art, in
1961, there was Mavignier’s excellent insight into the European
neo-avant-garde scene at the time, as well as his extensive
personal social network. e creation, development and features
of this network around the year 1960, comprise for the analytical
focus of this article. Description of Mavignier’s personal network,
also presented by the series of network visualizations, aims at
better understanding of its structural characteristics, as well as
their relationship to personal and poetic composition of the rst
exhibition of New Tendencies. It is based on methodological
encounter between art history and social sciences (social network
analysis), supported by the application of ICT tools.
KEYWORDS: Almir Mavignier, New Tendencies, personal social
network, neo-avant-garde, quantitative analysis, digital art history.
Introduction
A majority of studies on New Tendencies, recounting the story
about the meeting of Brazilian artist Almir Mavignier and Croatian
art critic Matko Meštrović in Zagreb in the autumn of 1960,
describe this encounter as the inception of New Tendencies.1 This
meeting occurred immediately after both had visited – each on his
own accord – the XXXI Venice Biennale. The similarity of their
opinions, their shared disappointment with the Venetian exhibition,
Mavignier’s perception of Meštrović as a knowledgeable and an
enthusiastic person, together with his general impression about the
Zagreb art scene as being well-informed and interested in the
experimental art practices, motivated him to propose the exhibition
that would bring together the representatives of different poetic
tendencies constitutive to the experimental margin of the European
art scene at the beginning of the 1960s. Shortly after, Meštrović
discussed Mavignier’s proposal with the management of the
Gallery of Contemporary Art in Zagreb, the proposal was accepted,
and the rest of the story is now history of the international art
movement New Tendencies. Such an account of the beginnings of
New Tendencies is well known, as well as a number of other details
surrounding the organization of the rst Zagreb exhibition. The
exhibition would not have been possible without Mavignier’s
numerous social contacts, whose nature or – more precisely – the
nature, structure and size of his personal social network, somehow
IZVORNI ZNANSTVENI RAD
PREDAN: 4.11.2016.
PRIHVAĆEN: 11.11.2016.
UDK: 316.353:7.037/.038
SAŽETAK: U pozadini kustoskog angažmana brazilskog umjetnika
Almira Mavigniera na prvoj izložbi Novih tendencija, organiziranoj
u suradnji s hrvatskim likovnim kritičarem Matkom Meštrovićem
i Galerijom suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu 1961. godine, nalazio
se Mavignierov izvrstan uvid u europsku neoavangardnu scenu
toga vremena, kao i njegova ekstenzivna osobna socijalna mreža.
Stvaranje, razvoj i značajke te mreže oko godine 1960., nalaze se
u analitičkom fokusu ovog članka. Opis Mavignierove personalne
društvene mreže, prikazane i serijom mrežnih vizualizacija, koji ima
za cilj bolje razumijevanja njezinih strukturalnih obilježja i njihova
odnosa prema personalnom i poetskom sastavu prve izložbe Novih
tendencija, temeljen je ne metodološkom povezivanju znanja iz
povijesti umjetnosti, društvenih znanosti (analiza društvena mreža)
i primjeni alata informacijskih znanosti..
KLJUČNE RIJEČI: Almir Mavignier, Nove tendencije, personalna
društvena mreža, neoavangarda, kvantitativna analiza, digitalna
povijest umjetnosti
NOVE TENDENCIJE, SIMPOZIJ U BREZOVICI, 1965.
FOTO: INSTITUT ZA POVIJEST UMJETNOSTI, FOTOARHIV BRANKO BALIĆ.
NEW TENDENCIES, SYMPOSIUM IN BREZOVICA, 1965.
PHOTO: INSTITUTE FOR ART HISTORY, BRANKO BALIĆ PHOTO ARCHIVE.
58
61
60
– dosad nije privukla veću pozornost istraživača. U gotovo svakoj
studiji o Novim tendencijama nalazimo napomene o
Mavignierovim komunikacijskim sposobnostima i vezama s
drugim umjetnicima i umjetničkim grupama, no ni jedna od tih
studija ne pristupa njegovoj osobnoj društvenoj mreži kao
zasebnom i središnjem predmetu interesa. Osim što bi nam mogla
biti od koristi pri razjašnjavanju određenih organizacijskih i
poetičkih aspekata prve izložbe Novih tendencija, njezina
rekonstrukcija i analiza nesumnjivo bi pridonijela i razumijevanju
odnosa moći, koji su se nalazili u pozadini transformacije te
umjetničke izložbe, kao jednokratnoga događaja, u međunarodni
umjetnički pokret. U razdoblju svojeg najintenzivnijeg razvoja
– pred kraj 1960-ih godina – Mavignierova personalna društvena
mreža imala je transkontinentalnu protežnost, obuhvaćajući
umjetnike iz znatnog broja zapadnoeuropskih i nekoliko
latinoameričkih zemalja. Kao društvenu strukturu nastalu
povezivanjem osoba s interesom za specične (neoavangardne)
oblike umjetničkih praksi, možemo je smatrati primjerom
homoliske društvene mreže, čije težište je na razmjeni ideja i
informacija među njezinim akterima. Budući da je većina umjetnika
uključenih u Mavignierovu osobnu mrežu dijelila slične društvene i
kulturalne vrijednosti te identična ili slična politička stajališta, mogli
bismo je dodatno mogli opisati i kao vrijednosnu homolisku
mrežu2 – odnosno – kao vrstu mreže koja je privukla osobe sličnih
načina mišljenja i razumijevanja stvarnosti. No da bismo dobili
cjelovitu informaciju o veličini, internoj dinamici i topologiji takve, ili
bilo koje druge društvene mreže, potrebno je ponajprije identicirati
njezine osnovne strukturalne elemente – mrežne aktere i njihove
međusobne veze. U slučaju Mavignierove osobne mreže,
utvrđivanje tih strukturalnih elemenata svojevrsna je rekonstrukcija
umjetnikova kretanja kroz prostor-vrijeme poslijeratne europske
umjetnosti, a podrazumijeva identikaciju lokacija i situacija u
kojima Mavignier ostvaruje svoje društvene kontakte s drugim
umjetnicima, utvrđivanje njihove trajnosti te – konačno – opis
prirode tih kontakata u stvarnom životu i unutar topologije mreže.
Slično drugim socijalnim organizmima, društvene mreže
podložne su promjenama – šire se, stapaju s drugim mrežama,
fragmentiraju, dezintegriraju, itd. Njihovu rekonstrukciju potrebno je
stoga ograničiti na određeni vremenski sloj, najbogatiji
informacijama o vrsti i snazi personalnih odnosa koji osiguravaju
stabilnost promatrane mreže u nekom duljem vremenskom
razdoblju, kao i informacijama o relacijama te mreže prema
zbivanjima u društvenom okruženju i njegovom utjecaju na njezinu
internu dinamiku. Rekonstrukcija Mavignierove personalne mreže u
tom je smislu ograničena na godinu 1960., odnosno na trenutak
koji prethodi njegovom prvom posjetu Zagrebu. Zbog takve odluke,
među njezinim akterima nema Matka Meštrovića, Bože Beka,
Borisa Kelemena, Radoslava Putara i Ivan Picelja, organizatora
prve i svih ostalih, zagrebačkih izložaba Novih tendencija, koji – sve
do jeseni te godine – nisu poznavali ni Mavigniera, niti ostale osobe
u njegovoj mreži. Istovremeno, u nju smo uključili određen broj
umjetnika i likovnih kritičara iz drugih sredina koji, u tome trenutku,
također nemaju neposredan, osobni kontakt s Mavignierom, ali su
čvrsto povezani s njemu bliskim osobama. Rekonstrukcija
mreže utemeljena je na zbirkama podataka prikupljenima iz
arhivskih,3 tiskanih i elektroničkih izvora, koji – u velikom broju
slučajeva – nisu izravno povezani ni s Mavignierom, ni s Novim
tendencijama, niti pripadaju vrstama izvora informacija koje
povjesničari umjetnosti uobičajeno koriste pri svojim istraživanjima
(izvještaji o prodaji umjetnina, osmrtnice, najave izložaba, TV vijesti
itd.).4 Zbirke podataka procesirane su uz pomoć CAN_IS baze
podataka,5 informatičkog alata oblikovanog po mjeri istraživanja
umjetničkih mrežnih praksi moderne i suvremene umjetnosti, koje
se provodi na projektu ARTNET. Kvantitativna mrežna analiza i
iscrtavanje vizualizacije mreže provedeno je primjenom open-
access programskog paketa Gephi 0.9.1,6 koji je iskorišten i kao
alat za analizu strukture Mavignierove mreže i njezine relacije prema
personalnom sastavu i poetičkoj orijentaciji sudionika prve izložbe
Novih tendencija. Aktiviranje Mavignierove personalne mreže
pri organizaciji zagrebačke izložbe mogli bismo opisati i u
terminima ulaganja njegovog osobnog društvenog kapitala u prvu
izložbu Novih tendencija,7 čiji ishod je znatno povećao vrijednost
društvenoga kapitala i većine ostalih osoba uključenih u taj
događaj. Štoviše, a gledano iz perspektive personalne strukture
toga umjetničkog pokreta, mogli bismo čak ustvrditi, kako se
značajan dio pripovijesti o njegovoj povijesti između 1961. i 1965.
godine zasniva na tome Mavignierovu ulogu. Pritom ponajprije
mislimo na razvoj društvene mreže Novih tendencija, odnosno, na
latentnu prisutnost Mavignierove osobne mreže u pozadini druge, a
– donekle – i treće zagrebačke izložbe, koja indicira ne samo
personalni kontinuitet Pokreta, nego i njegovu (relativnu) stabilnost.
Možda je preuzetno tvrditi kako je nakon 1965. godine ona
nepovratno izgubljena, no zbivanja između 1968. i 1973. godine u
cijelosti su izmijenila personalnu strukturu toga umjetničkog
pokreta i generirala posve novu društvenu mrežu Novih tendencija,
drukčije strukture i znatno kompleksnije topologije. Na
proces formiranja svake društvene mreže utječe niz vanjskih,
kontekstualnih okolnosti, koje su – u ovome slučaju – denirane u
terminima kulturalnih, organizacijskih i operativnih taktika europske
neoavangarde, te opisane oslanjanjem na Mavignierova sjećanja na
prvu izložbu Novih tendencija. Njihov prikaz usko je vezan i uz
objašnjenja procesa formiranja Mavignierove personalne mreže
između 1951. i 1960. godine, odnosno uz prirodu informacija na
kojima se temelje mrežne vizualizacije uključene u ovaj članak.
Njihov je zadatak – između ostaloga – da posluže i kao alat za
analizu unutarnje dinamike, poetičke strukture i relacije te mreže
prema organizacijskim i poetičkim aspektima prve izložbe Novih
tendencija. U dodatku središnjoj raspravi, a kao ilustraciju teze o
prinosu Mavignierove osobne mreže personalnom kontinuitetu
Novih tendencija, nalazi se i vizualizacija bipartitne mreže prvih triju
eluded the attention of researchers. Almost every study done on
New Tendencies remarks on Mavignier’s communication skills and
relationships with other artists and art groups, but none of those
studies approaches his personal social network as a research
object in its own right. Adopting an approach that would rectify
such an oversight can be justied by numerous arguments. A
thorough analysis of Mavignier’s network would be helpful in
elucidating certain organizational and poetic aspects of the rst
New Tendencies exhibition, and it could also contribute to the
understanding of the power relations governing the transformation
of what was supposed to be a one-time art show into an
international art movement. In the period of its most intense
development – towards the end of the 1960s – Mavignier’s
personal network expanded throughout most of the West
European and several Latin American countries. As a social
structure composed of individuals with shared interest in a specic
(neo-avant-garde) art practice, it falls into the category of
homophilic social networks, which assumes the exchange of ideas
and information among the network actors. Since most artists
involved in Mavignier’s network shared similar social, cultural and
even political views, it could be more precisely classied as a value
homophilic network2 – the type of a network that attracts people
with a similar way of thinking and comprehending reality.
Considering that the objective of network analysis is to go beyond
such general denitions and obtain more comprehensive
information on network structure, internal dynamics and topology,
it was necessary to reconstruct basic elements of Mavignier’s
personal social network – that is, persons it has involved (nodes)
and their relationships (edges). More precisely, it was necessary to
reconstruct Mavignier’s movements through the space/time of the
post-war European art, identify the locations and situations in
which the relationships with his network actors were established,
to examine their durability and sustainability, and nally – taking
into account the inuence of the social environment – to describe
these social contacts in the context of real life and network
topology. Much like other social organisms, social networks
are prone to change – they expand, collapse, merge with other
networks, disintegrate, etc. Therefore, when reconstructing a
particular social network, it is important to restrict the
reconstruction to a specic temporal layer which could provide the
most comprehensive information on its features. The reconstruction
of Mavignier’s personal network was restricted to the year 1960,
and to the moment just before his rst visit to Zagreb. In effect,
Matko Meštrović, Božo Bek, Radoslav Putar and Ivan Picelj,
individuals who played a very important role in the organization of
the rst New Tendencies exhibition and the history of that
international art movement, do not appear among network actors,
since – at that moment – they did not have any social connections
with Mavignier. The reconstruction of Mavignier’s personal
network is based on datasets collected from the archives,3 and
from printed and digital sources. The latter were – quite often – not
directly connected to Mavignier or New Tendencies, and, at times,
did not even belong to a category of resources usually considered
in art historical research (art sales’ information, obituaries,
exhibition announcements, TV newsreels, etc.).4 The data was
processed using CAN_IS database, an ICT tool tailored and
developed according to the requirements of research on artists’
networking practices in modern and contemporary art, conducted
during the last two years within the project ARTNET, at the Institute
of Art history in Zagreb.5 The cartographic presentation of spatial
distribution of the exhibitions preceding New Tendencies was
composed using the features of CAN_IS database, while
quantitative network analysis and the creation of network
visualizations were performed by using open-access software
Gephy 0.9.1.6 The latter was also applied in analysing Mavignier’s
network structure, and in establishing its relation to the rst New
Tendencies exhibition. Considering the way in which
Mavignier had activated and used his personal network in the
organization of the Zagreb exhibition, it can also be considered as
his personal social capital,7 the value of which – by its investment
in the rst New Tendencies exhibition – signicantly increased and
beneted both Mavignier and other individuals involved in the that
event. Moreover, and taking into account the artists who took part
in the New Tendencies exhibitions between 1961 and 1965, it could
be claimed that Mavignier’s network also provided for a personal
continuity of the second and – to s ome extent – also the third
Zagreb exhibition. However, the concept of “personal continuit y”
does not imply that group of ar tists who took part at the r st New
Tendencies exhibi tion, or Mavigner himself, should be assign ed
with the merit for the course the Movement has taken after 1961.
It assumes in stead, a founding set of relatio nships, whic h formed
a core of New Tendencie s’ social network developed between
1961 and 1965, allowing the Movement to grow and change, while
contributing to its (relative) pe rsonal stability, that was lost after
1965, when those re lationships were exchanged for more
dynamic and a lso more unstable conne ctions amon g their
particip ants. The developments af ter 1965/1968 gathered – in
terms of New Tendencies’ persona l structure – a completely new
group of actors and generated a completely new social net work,
whose struc ture and topolo gy was quite different and much more
complex. The external, contextual circumstances th at affect
the formation of all social networks are de ned and desc ribed, in
this instance, in terms of cultural, organizational an d operative
tactics of the Eu ropean neo -avant-garde, approache d through
Mavignier’s recollections on the rst New Tenden cies exhibition.
This contextu al information is followed by the description of
situations and circumstances surrounding the development of
Mavignier’s network, between 1951 and 1960, thereby also
providing insight into the nature and type of information that served
as a foundation for creating network visualisations included in this
63
62
zagrebačkih izložaba i njihovih sudionika, te kratak opis njezine
pozicije i vidljivosti unutar te mrežne strukture. Iako bi se
mogao činiti previše općenitim i nepreciznim, termin
„eksperimentalni segment europske neoavangarde“, koji u ovome
članku ima funkciju oznake kulturalnog, društvenog i poetičkog
konteksta Mavignierove mreže u promatranome razdoblju, odabran
je upravo zbog (moguće) širine svoga značenjskog polja. Odnosi se
na eksperimente s optičkim, kinetičkim i materijalnim svojstvima
umjetničkog predmeta u relaciji prema ljudskoj osjetilnoj percepciji i
njezinim ziološkim i psihološkim osnovama, te podjednako pristaje
uz odrednicu programirane umjetnosti, kao i uz sve ostale
eksperimente temeljene na istim ili sličnim radnim procedurama,
usmjerene istraživanju izražajnih mogućnosti istih ili sličnih
materijala, ali s drukčijim sociokulturalnim ciljevima i uokvirene
otvorenom skepsom prema ideji vizualnih istraživanja kao
središnjem konceptu Novih tendencija. Takav terminološki izbor
čini se prikladnijim od primjene termina „programatski orijentirane
neoavangarde“ ili „neokonstruktivističke neoavangarde“, čije
značenje ne pokriva široki dijapazon umjetničkih praksi
obuhvaćenih djelatnošću aktera Mavignierove mreže.
Kulturalni i organizacijski kontekst personalne mreže Almira
Mavigniera
U trenutku kad je predložio organizaciju izložbe koja će, posve
neočekivano, prerasti u ključni događaj početka 1960-ih godina za
brojne umjetnike orijentirane na racionalan i konstruktivan pristup
problemima svjetla, boje ili dinamike vizualne percepcije, Almir
Mavignier se zasigurno oslonio na svoj izvrstan uvid u zbivanja na
međunarodnoj neoavangardnoj sceni, ali i uvid u mehanizme
institucionalne kulture, što ih je – u tom trenutku – također već dobro
poznavao. Kratko razdoblje od svega dvije godine, što je dijelilo
njegov posjet Zagrebu od završetka studija na Hochschule für
Gestaltung u Ulmu u studenome 1958.,8 bilo je i razdoblje obnove
Mavignierove umjetničke karijere koja je, tijekom studija u Ulmu,
znatno izgubila na intenzitetu. Njegov povratak na lokalnu, a
postupno i na međunarodnu umjetničku scenu, bližio se svom
vrhuncu upravo u trenutku kad započinje i pripovijest o Novim
tendencijama. Potvrđuju to i likovne priredbe na kojima su se te,
1960. godine, mogli vidjeti Mavignierovi radovi poput, sad već
legendarne, izložbe Monochrome Malerei, održane u Städtische
Museumu u Leverkusenu; njegove samostalne izložbe u Galeriji
Azimut u Milanu, te sudjelovanja na Mostra Collettiva u istom
izložbenom prostoru; izložbe Konkrete Kunst – 50 Jahre Entwicklung,
održane u Helmhausu u Zürichu; The International Exhibition of
Abstract Painting održane u Taiwanu 9 ili Primeira Exposição Coletiva
de Artistas Brasileiros pokazane u umjetničkim muzejima u
Lisabonu, Madridu, Parizu, Utrechtu i Hamburgu. Osim što idu u
prilog tvrdnji o Mavignierovoj međunarodnoj prepoznatljivosti,
spomenute izložbe dopuštaju da se njegova pozicija unutar
tadašnjeg svijeta europske umjetnosti opiše kao pozicija između
institucionalne kulture i alternativne kulture neoavangarde. S
potonjom dijeli iste radne procedure i iste povijesne reference – od
nasljeđa Bauhausa i konkretne umjetnosti, preko rezultata
kinetičkih i luminokinetičkih eksperimenata Josefa Albersa, Victora
Vasarelyja, Maxa Billa, Yaacova Agama i Bruna Munarija iz 1940-ih i
1950-ih godina, do kritičkog stava monokromnog slikarstva – koje
čine i bitne poveznice među različitim smjerovima
eksperimentalnog segmenta europske neoavangarde, uključenim i
u prvu izložbu Novih tendencija. Prema Mavignierovim
sjećanjima,10 najvećim iznenađenjem te izložbe mogla se smatrati
„srodnost eksperimenata umjetnika iz najrazličitijih zemalja“, koji su
„malo znali jedni o drugima ili se, često, uopće nisu poznavali“, kao
i činjenica da je ona „po prvi put dovela u svijest [organizatora]
egzistenciju međunarodnog pokreta u kojem umjetnost otkriva
novu koncepciju što eksperimentira s optičkim istraživanjima
površine, strukture i objekta“.11 S obzirom na mudar izbor sudionika
i njihovih radova, a bez obzira na Mavignierovo suptilno inzistiranje
na određenoj dozi improvizacije u konačnom postavu izložbe,
konstatacija fenomena koji nadilazi dimenzije jedne izložbe, mogla
article. The visualizations are used as a tool for analysing the
network’s structure, its internal dynamics and its relations to the
organizational and poetic aspects of the rst New Tendencies
exhibition. In addition to the main discussion, there is also a brief
description of the position and visibility of Mavignier’s personal
network within the personal structures of the second and third
Zagreb exhibitions, indicating possible directions of useful, future
research o n New Tendencies’ so cial network. The term “the
experimental segment of European neo-avant-garde” used as a
designator of cultural, social and poetic context of Mavignier’s
personal network in the period of our interest, might seem too
general and imprecise. It assumes a range of experiments with optic,
kinetic and material properties of art objects in relation to human
sensory perception and its psychological and physiological
foundations that comply with the notion of programme art. However,
it also assumes other experiments which use similar working
procedures and explores the expressive potentials of the same
materials, but which have a different socio-cultural objective and
have demonstrated a considerable scepticism towards New
Ten d en c i es ’ p i v ot a l c on c e pt of visual research. Therefore, the term
“experimental segment of the neo-avant-garde” seems more
appropriate than “program-oriented neo-avant-garde” or “neo-
constructivist neo-avant-garde” which are quite exclusive terms and
cannot cover a wide range of art practices encompassed by the
activities of Mavignier’s network actors.
Cultural and organizational context of Almir Mavignier’s
personal network
At the moment when he proposed organizing the exhibition that
would – quite unexpectedly – turn into the dening event of the
early 1960s for a number of artists who adopted a rational and
constructive approach to the problems of light, movement or
dynamics of visual perception – Almir Mavignier certainly relied on
his excellent insight into the international neo-avant-garde scene
and the mechanisms of institutional culture, with which he was very
familiar at the time. A very short period of only two years which
separates his visit to Zagreb from when he graduated from the
Höchschule für Gestaltung in Ulm, in November 1958,8 was also a
period of Mavignier’s intense exhibition activities and renewal of his
art career that was put on hold during the Ulm period. His “return”
to the local art scene and increasing visibility on the international
art scene, reached one of its early peaks just at the moment when
the story of New Tendencies commenced. The exhibitions
and locations at which Mavignier’s works were displayed in the
year 1960 – from Monochrome Malerei, at Städtische Museum
Leverkusen, solo exhibition and participation at Mostra Collettiva,
at Gallery Azimut in Milan, the exhibition Konkrete Kunst – 50 Jahre
Entwicklung, at Helmhaus in Zürich, to the International Exhibition
of Abstract Painting, in Taiwan, and Primeira Exposição Coletiva de
Artistas Brasileiros, displayed that year in Lisbon, Madrid, Paris,
Utrecht and Hamburg9 – clearly denote the rise of his international
career, positioned between the institutional and the alternative
culture of the neo-avant-garde. With latter he shared the working
procedures and historic references – from the legacy of Bauhaus and
Concrete art, to the kinetic and lumino-kinetic experiments of Josef
Albers, Victor Vasarely, Max Bill, Jaacob Agam and Bruno Munari in
the 1940s and 1950s, and the experience of monochrome painting
– which all constitute the most important connecting points among
different tendencies of the experimental segment of the European
neo-avant-garde, which were also represented at the rst New
Tendencies exhibition in Zagreb. According to Mavignier’s
recollections,10 among “the biggest surprises of that exhibition was
PROSTORNA DISTRIBUCIJA IZLOŽABA ODRŽANIH IZMEĐU 1955. I 1961. GODINE, NA
KOJIMA SE BILJEŽI SUDJELOVANJE VEĆEGA BROJA BUDUĆIH PRIPADNIKA NOVIH
TENDENCIJA. VELIČINA TOČKE UZ POJEDINU IZLOŽBU INDICIRA UKUPAN BROJ NJEZINIH
SUDIONIKA, DOK ŠIRINA I BROJ POVEZNICA IZMEĐU DVIJU TOČAKA INDICIRA BROJ
UMJETNIKA KOJI SU SUDJELOVALI NA OBJE IZLOŽBE
(PROGRAMSKO RJEŠENJE: ARTUR ŠILIĆ, 2016.).
SLIKA 1
FIGURE 1
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE EXHIBITIONS HELD BETWEEN 1955 AND 1961
MARKED BY A CONSIDERABLE ATTENDANCE OF ARTISTS PARTICIPATING IN THE
NEW TENDENCIES. SCALE OF THE POINT MARKING THE EXHIBITION INDICATES THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS, WHILE THE WIDTH OF THE LINES LINKING THE
POINTS INDICATES THE INTERSECTION OF PARTICIPANTS BETWEEN TWO EXHIBITIONS
(PROGRAMING SOLUTION: ARTUR ŠILIĆ, 2016).
65
64
je biti iznenađujuća, ali ne i posve neočekivana.12 Stoga bi i tvrd nji
o ukorijenjenosti toga fenomena u „srodn e eksperime nte“
umjetnika koji se m eđusobno „n isu poznavali“, trebalo prići s
određenim oprezom. Naime, već kartog rafska prezentacija
prostorne i tem poralne distribucije izložaba održ anih između
1955. i 1961. godine, a odabranih p rema kriteriju brojčan e
zastupljenosti budući h sudionika Novih tendencija, dana na slici
1,13 ozbiljno dovodi u p itanje navede nu tvrdnju. Li nearne
poveznic e među lokacijama izložaba , čija širina označava b roj
istih umjetnik a koji su na njima izlaga li svoje radove, p okazuju
kako je r iječ je o skupi ni autora koja je – bez su mnje – vremen om
uspostavila i određe ne osobne kont akte, odnosn o o skupini čiji
su prip adnici imali b arem osnovna s aznanja o poetičkim i
formalnim obilježjima radova svojih suizlagača. Osim
prostorne dis tribucije izl ožaba, slika 1 zorno p okazuj e i intenzitet
neoavan gardnih aktivnosti između 1955. i 1961. god ine u
širokom prosto ru od Zagreb i Pariza , do Amsterda ma i Milana.
Prema ko ncentr aciji izložab a, Milano i Düsseldorf uk azuju s e
kao najaktivnije lokacije e ksperimentalnog s egmenta euro pske
neoavangard e, čija dominantna pozicija ne bi bila ugrožena ni kad
bismo ovaj prikaz nadopunili brojnim individualnim izložbama
održanim a u drugoj polovini 1950-ih godina. Tada bi se, doduše,
na našoj kar ti pojavile i neke druge lokaci je (Rim, Bern, L ausanne,
Rotterdam, A rnheim), a tako dobiveni obrisi europske umjetničke
scene, bili bi znatno drukčiji o d onih što ih je generirao umjetnički
mainstream toga vremena. Još jedna važna informacija koju
pruža ovaj prikaz povezana je s mjestom održavanja prikazanih
izložaba. Čak pedeset od ukupno dvadeset izložaba održano je u
alternativnim izložbenim prostorima, koji se pred kraj 1950-ih godina
pojavljuju širom Europe.14 Najčešće ih vode sami umjetnici, a
pozicionirani su na marginu tadašnje međunarodne umjetničke
scene. Posve je jasno da izlaganje na takvim, alternativnim
lokacijama diseminacije neoavangardnih umjetničkih praksi nije
moglo osigurati osobitu javnu vidljivost izloženih radova, no njihov
primarni cilj i nije bila promocija novih sustava estetskih i kulturalnih
vrijednosti, već prije osiguravanje uvjeta za susrete, razmjenu i
komunikaciju među umjetnicima sličnih stajališta iz različitih dijelova
Europe. Mreža takvih izložbenih lokacija, kojoj treba dodati i skupinu
malih privatnih galerija15 te određen broj malih neovisnih izdavača i
tiskara, činila je temeljni infrastrukturni okvir europske neoavangarde
kraja 1950-ih i početka 1960-ih godina. Razlog njihova nastanka,
osim konzervativizma i disfunkcionalnosti poslijeratne institucionalne
kulture, bila je snažna želja mlađe generacije umjetnika da artikulira
svoje vlastito razumijevanje umjetnosti. Ono često nije impliciralo
nikakav zajednički program ili predenirane, zajedničke formalne
procedure, već prije nezasitnu potrebu za eksperimentiranjem,
istraživanjem ili – kako je to formulirao Otto Piene: „… nije bilo važno
o kakvoj se glazbi, o kakvoj vizualnoj umjetnosti, o kojem se novom
mediju radilo, riječ je bila o doista vrlo snažnom impulsu, o nekoj
vrsti žarke želje za otkrivanjem i ukazivanjem na alternative“.16 U
nekim dijelovima Europe, a posebice u Njemačkoj, ta je želja bila
povezana s jednako dubokim osjećajem „duhovne izolacije“ i
„žudnje za internacionalizacijom“17 te s nastojanjem da se uklone
nevidljive barijere koje su – tijekom 1950-ih godina – još uvijek
dijelile Europu duž granica upisanih u njezin kulturalni prostor
traumama Drugog svjetskog rata. Serija jednodnevnih Večernjih
izložaba (Abendausstellungen), organiziranih u Pieneovu
diseldorfskom studiju između 1957. i 1961. godine, bio je jedan od
prvih pokušaja da se izađe u susret toj žudnji te da se povežu
umjetnici sličnih stajališta iz različitih dijelova Europe. No dok
su te, 1957. godine, Večernje izložbe još uvijek bile usamljen i
izoliran primjer umjetničkog umrežavanja, razvojem infrastrukture
europske neoavangarde početkom 1960-ih godina, takve inicijative
postale su njezina uobičajena praksa. Shodno tome, i slika
umjetnika koji razvija nove umjetničke ideje i eksperimentira s
novim materijalima izoliran u svojem studiju, iz pozadine
Mavignierovih prisjećanja na prvu izložbu Novih tendencija,18 imala
je malo toga zajedničkog s operativnim modelima upravo one
skupine umjetnika, iz koje dolaze njezini izlagači. Razlog
nesporazuma mogao bi se potražiti u pojmu javne vidljivosti, koji je
u Mavignierovoj interpretaciji19 bliži načinu razumijevanja toga
pojma u kontekstu institucionalne kulture, nego njegovoj
konceptualizaciji u krugovima tadašnje neoavangarde.
Daleko od toga da se javna armacija nije nalazila na popisu ciljeva
neoavangarde; no ona je podrazumijevala približavanje vlastitih
projekcija i vlastitih sustava vrijednosti daleko širem krugu publike,
onome čija se recepcija umjetnosti prije oblikovala na temelju
informacija prenesenih masovnim medijima nego elitnim
međunarodnim izložbama poput Venecijanskog bijenala, koje je –
prisjetimo se – i potaknulo Mavignierov prijedlog organizacije prve
izložbe Novih tendencija.20 Kao primjer takvoga stajališta
eksperimentalnog segmenta neoavangarde, može se navesti
promocija trećeg i zadnjeg broja časopisa Zero 1961. godine u
galeriji Schmela u Düsseldorfu.21 Organizirana u formi happeninga,
održanog uz sudjelovanje neočekivano velikog broja gledatelja, ta je
promocija prerasla upravo u ono što su članovi grupe željeli da bude
– „medijsko događanje, kojeg su entuzijastično dokumentirali i tisak i
televizija i fotogra”. 22 Repriza toga događanja, upriličena u svibnju
1962. za kamere lokalne TV stanice i emitirana dva mjeseca kasnije u
središnjem večernjem terminu, kao prva snimka nekog „live“
umjetničkog događanja ikada pokazanoga na njemačkoj javnoj
televiziji,23 nesumnjivo je bila „reklama za grupu Zero“, ali „barem na
trenutak i sama umjetnost te grupe“, koja je gotovo uspjela „učiniti
istinski pomak od Zera prikazanog na televiziji, prema televiziji grupe
Zero“.24 Nije posve jasno je li Mavignier bio među publikom
happeninga u Galeriji Schmela ili je čak pomogao pri njegovoj
organizaciji, budući da je u tome trenutku već čvrsto pripadao krugu
suradnika grupe Zero. Njegova uska suradnja s grupom započela je
već u travnju 1958. godine sudjelovanjem u izložbama Das Rote Bild
i Vibrations, posljednje dvije u nizu od sveukupno osam Večernjih
the amazing kinship of the experiments by artists from different
countries, who knew little about each other or frequently did not
know each other at all”, a phenomena which made the exhibition
organizers “conscious of the existence of an international art
movement ... engaged in investigations of surfaces, structures and
objects”. Concerning the prudent selection of participants and
their works,11 and regardless of Mavignier’s subtle insistence on
improvisation in the exhibition’s nal setting, the indication that the
phenomena was surpassing the scope of a single exhibition, could
have been surprising, but not completely unexpected. Therefore,
his claim that it was a phenomena based on “kinship of the
experiments” among artists who “frequently did not know each
other at all”,12 should be approached with caution. The
cartographic presentation of spatial and temporal distribution of
the exhibitions held between 1955 and 1961, selected according
to the number of artists who were also participants of New
Tendencies provided in Figure 1, raises some serious doubts about
the accuracy of Mavignier’s assertion.13 If we follow the lines
linking the locations on that map and indicating the
interconnections of participants between two exhibitions –
spanning from groups of eight to twelve, and even twenty-four
artists – it is safe to assume that some of them established direct
social contacts, while others had at least possessed some
knowledge about the formal and poetic features of the works
exhibited by their counterparts. In addition to the spatial
distribution of the exhibitions, Figure 1 also points out the intensity
of neo-avantgarde activities between 1955 and 1961, spanning
from Zagreb to Paris, and from Amsterdam to Milan. According to
the concentration of the exhibitions, Milan and Düsseldorf were the
most active locations of the experimental segment of the European
neo-avant-garde in the second half of the 1950s. Even if we were
to supplement the map with the information on individual
exhibitions, the central position of these two cities would not be
particularly affected, although some new locations would emerge
(Rome, Bern, Lausanne, Rotterdam, Arnheim), outlining a much
different geography of contemporary art than the one dened by
the locations of artistic mainstream at the time. Another
valuable piece of information provided in Figure 1 concerns places
where these exhibitions were displayed. Fifteen out of twenty
mapped art shows were held at alternative exhibition spaces.
Appearing in a greater number towards the end of 1950s all over
Europe,14 they were often run by artists and occupied the margins
of the international art scene. Exhibiting at such alternative places
that were disseminating neo-avant-garde practices, could not
provide artists with a greater public visibility, but it was never their
primary goal to provide new and alternative aesthetics and cultural
values, but rather to ensure the conditions that foster encounters,
exchange and communication between like-minded artists from
different parts of Europe. A network of such alternative art spaces,
also involving several smaller private galleries,15 independent
publishers and printers, comprised the infrastructural framework of
the European neo-avant-garde at the time. The incentive for their
establishment, apart from the conservativism and dysfunctionality
of post-war institutional culture, was a profound desire of the
younger generation to articulate its own understanding of art. It did
not imply a common programme or pre-dened formal procedures,
but rather an insatiable urge to experiment and explore, or as Otto
Piene put it “… No matter what the music, no matter what the
visual art, no matter what the new media, that was a really, very
strong impulse, some kind of burning desire to invent and present
alternatives”.16 In certain parts of Europe, particularly in Germany, it
was coupled with an equally profound feeling of “spiritual isolation,
… a desire for internationalization”17 and the annihilation of invisible
barriers that – in the 1950s – still divided Europe along the lines
imprinted on its spiritual space by the War trauma. The Evening
exhibitions (Abendausstellungen) organized in Piene’s Düsseldorf
studio between 1957 and 1961, were among the rst attempts to
meet those desires, and to connect with likeminded artists from
other parts of Europe. While in the 1957, the
Abenduasstellungen was still an isolated instance of a networking
initiative, with the development of its infrastructure at the end of the
1950s, such initiatives became a common practice of the European
neo-avant-garde. Accordingly, the image of an artist developing
new artistic ideas and experimenting with new materials isolated in
his studio, present in the background of Mavignier’s recollections
of the rst New Tendencies exhibition,18 had little in common with
the operative models of the neo-avant-garde artists who were
among its participants. The possible cause of this
misunderstanding could be the notion of public visibility that in
Mavignier’s interpretation19 was much closer to the institutional
understanding of the term, than to its meaning conceptualized by
the neo-avant-garde. Far from it that public visibility was not
on the list of neo-avant-garde’s objectives, but it presupposed the
inclusion of a much wider audience and the public perception of art
affected by mass media, rather than by the elite exhibitions such as
the Venice Biennale. If we recall the beginning of New Tendencies,
it was exactly the Venice Biennale that motivated Mavignier’s
proposition of holding the rst Zagreb exhibition.20 As an example
of this different and media-conscious notion of public visibility, we
should mention the promotion of the third, and also the last Zero
magazine issue, that is, a happening ZERO, Edition, Exposition,
Demonstration, which took place in July 1961 at Gallery Schmela in
Düsseldorf, 21 involving a huge crowd of spectators, and becoming
exactly what the members of the group wanted it to be – “a media
event that is enthusiastically received and documented by the
press, television and photographers”. 22 Restaged in May 1962, for
the cameras of the local TV channel and broadcast two months
later in prime time as a rst example of live-art recording at some
German public TV after the War,23 it also became “both an
advertisement for Zero and, at least in brief moments, verged on
67
66
izložaba održanih u studiju Otta Pienea. Iz današnje perspektive,
moglo bi se ustvrditi kako je sudjelovanje u tim umjetničkim
događanjima predstavljalo istinsku prekretnicu u Mavignierovoj
karijeri i najvažniji impuls razvoju njegove personalne mreže u
smjeru koji će je učiniti operativnom pri organizaciji prve izložbe
Novih tendencija.
Razvoj Mavignierove personalne mreže između 1951. i 1960.
godine
Almir Mavignier stigao je iz Rija de Janeira u Pariz 1951. godine,
a zahvaljujući solidnoj stipendiji francuske vlade koju u tom
razdoblju dobiva i niz drugih latinoameričkih umjetnika. Prve dvije
godine svoga boravka u Parizu provest će polazeći predavanja na
umjetničkoj školi Academie de la Grand Chaumiere i iščekujući
upis na Hochschule für Gestaltung u Ulmu, obrazovnu instituciju
u osnivanju, koja će biti službeno otvorena tek 1953. godine.
Tijekom priprema za odlazak u Ulm, Mavignier će – zahvaljujući
posredovanju svojeg dugogodišnjeg brazilskog prijatelja Maria
Pedrose,25 lozofa, psihologa i likovnoga kritičara – upoznati i
Maxa Billa, kultnu osobu brazilskih umjetnika njegove generacije.
Prestižna pozicija Maxa Billa u Brazilu i susjednoj Argentini
početkom 1950-ih bila je posljedica Billove velike samostalne
izložbe održane u Riju de Janeiru 1950. godine te njegova
sudjelovanja na 1. Bijenalu u São Paulu sljedeće godine, na kojem
mu je dodijeljena glavna nagrada za skulpturu. Oba događaja
omogućila su brazilskoj publici da se – zahvaljujući brojnim
Billovim intervjuima objavljenima u lokalnim dnevnim i stručnim
časopisima – upozna s njegovim stajalištima o umjetnosti, dizajnu i
arhitekturi,26 kao i s njegovim konceptom obrazovanja, usmjerenog
prepoznavanju oblikovnih potreba modernog poslijeratnoga
društva, koji je ostavio posebno snažan dojam na najmlađe
brazilske umjetnike.
Nekoliko godina kasnije – 1953. i 1954. – nakon otvaranja
Hochschule für Gestaltung u Ulmu, među prvim upisanim
studentima našli su se tako – osim Mavigniera – slikarica Mary
Vieira, grački dizajner Alexandre Wollner i arhitekt Geraldo de
Barros. Dok su, nakon završetka studija, Mavignier i Vieira ostali
u Europi, gradeći svoje umjetničke i dizajnerske karijere, Wollner
i de Barros vratili su se u Rio, gdje su 1962. godine osnovali
prvu Escola Superior de Desenho Industrial do Rio de Janeiro.
Polazište njezina kurikuluma bio je elaborat Tomása Maldonada,
temeljem kojeg je, kasnih 1950-ih godina, trebala biti pokrenuta
Escola Técnica de Criação.27 Maldonado, argentinski slikar,
dizajner, teoretičar dizajna, predavač na HfG-u od 1955. godine
i Mavignierov dugogodišnji poznanik, pripada – zajedno s još
nekoliko predavača i studenata iz Ulma – prvom, u profesionalnom
smislu vrlo značajnom, proširenju Mavignierove personalne mreže,
nakon dolaska u Europu. U njoj su se, do tad, nalazili slikarica Mary
Vieira i Mario Pedrosa, susret s kojim je, kasnih 1940-ih godina,
snažno utjecao na Mavignierove poglede na umjetnost,28 kao i
pregršt drugih brazilskih umjetnika poput Ivana Serpe ili Abrahama
Palatnika, s kojima je Mavignier usko surađivao na početku svoje
karijere. Neke od tih kontakat a obnovio je poč etkom 1960-ih
godina, kad je još jedna velika skupina bra zilskih umjetnika stigla
u Europu, no ovaj put ne z bog razlog a umjetničke prirode, nego u
nastojanju da s e skloni pred r epresijom vojne hunte koja je došla
na vlast u toj zemlj i 1964. godine. Kao š to nemamo gotovo
nikakvih informacija o Mavi gnierovim vezama s francus kom
umjetničkom scenom između 1951. i 1953. godine, tako su i
informacije o njegovim druš tvenim kontaktima s umjetnicima i
dizajnerima izvan HfG-a između 1954. i 1958. jednako malobrojne
i teško provjerljive. Čini se stoga, kako su povremene i rijetke
izložbe što ih je odr žao tijekom studija u Ulmu,29 prije imale
za cilj održ avanje kontinuitet osobne umjetničke djelatnosti,
nego širenje mreže njegovih društvenih kontakata. Početak
suradnje s grupom Zero radikalno je promijenio takvu situaciju,
dovodeći Mavigniera u dodir s brojnim europskim umjetnicima
njegove generacije. Sudjelovanje u posljednjim Veče rnj im i zlož bama
– kratkotrajnim umjetničkim priredbama, koje su podrazumijevale i
osobne kontakte – omogućilo mu je susrete i s određenim brojem
budućih pripadnika Novih tendencija, poput Hermann Bartelsa,
Klaus Jürgen Fischera, Rupprechta Geigera, Gottharda Graubnera,
Oskara Holwecka, Adolfa Zillmanna te Günthera Ueckera, koji tad,
krajem 1950-ih, još uvijek nije bio član grupe Zero.30 Sljedeće, 1959.
godine, Mavignier sudjeluje u izložbi Dynamo 1, koju su u Galeriji
Renate Boukes u Wiesbadenu organizirali Heinz Mack i Otto Piene.
Osim što se pokazala vrlo važnom za internacionalnu armaciju
grupe Zero,31 izložba Dynamo 1 po prvi je put okupila i veći broj
umjetnika iz Francuske, Italije i Njemačke – tri najaktivnije lokacije
europske neoavangarde toga vremena te Mavignieru omogućila
susret s Jesús Rafael Sotom, Jeanom Tinguelyjem i Pierom
Manzonijem, od kojih je potonji upravo tad pripremao prvo izdanje
svoga umjetničkog časopisa Azimuth.32 Zahvaljujući suradnji
s grupom Zero, Mavignier je – tijekom njihovih samostalnih izložaba
u Galeriji Schmela u Düsseldorfu33 – upoznao Yvesa Kleina i Lucia
Fontanu. Fontana, umjetnik starije generacije i osoba ispod čije
„kabanice“ je izašao važan segment talijanske neoavangarde, bio
je za većinu suradnika grupe Zero – istinski ikonička gura. Osim
kompleksnih teorijskih objašnjenja, eksperimenata sa svjetlom i TV
tehnologijom, Fontanin opus posjedovao je i određenu metazičku
kvalitetu, neobično privlačnu širem krugu njemačkih, a čini se i
latinoameričkih autora. No, prema sjećanjima Otta Piena, čini se da
je Mavignier, kojeg su članovi grupe Zero doživljavali kao gorljivog
sljedbenika Maxa Billa i Billove averzije prema metazičkim i
metaforičkim obilježjima umjetnosti, ostao prilično ravnodušan
prema osobnom šarmu toga talijanskoga umjetnika.34
becoming Zero art itself – nearly shifting from Zero on television to
Zero television”.24 It is not quite clear if Mavignier was in the
audience of this happening in Gallery Schmella, or if he even
assisted in organizing the event, but it is plausible since he had
already become a close associate of the group Zero at that time.
His collaboration with the group Zero began in April 1958, through
the participation in the Das Rote Bild exhibition, and – a few
months later – in the exhibition Vibrations – the last two Evening
exhibitions held in Peiene’s Dusseldorf studio. These two
exhibitions certainly represented a turning point in Mavignier’s
career and supplied the most important incentive for developing his
own personal network in the direction that will soon become
operative for proposing and organizing the rst New Tendencies
exhibition.
The development of Mavignier’s personal network between
1951 and 1960
Almir Mavignier came to Paris from Rio de Janeiro in 1951, due to
the scholarship he had received from the French government, like
many other Brazilian and Latin American artists at that time. He
spent the rst two years in Europe attending the courses at the
Parisian Académie de la Grande Chaumière, and waiting to enrol in
the Visual Communications Department at the Höchschule für
Gestaltung in Ulm, which was established somewhat later in 1953.
Preparations for his departure to Ulm lasted for an entire year
during which Mavignier was introduced – with the help of his long-
time Brazilian friend, a philosopher, psychologist, art critic and
political activist Mario Pedrosa25– to Max Bill, who was an iconic
gure of Mavignier’s generation. The prestigious position held by
Max Bill in Brazil and in the neighbouring Argentina, was attained
on the basis of his solo exhibition, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1950,
and his participation in the First Sao Paolo Biennale, the following
year, when he was also awarded with the grand prize for sculpture.
On both occasions, Bill gave a number of interviews to the Brazilian
daily newspapers and scholarly magazines26 that enabled the local
audience to become familiar with his standpoints on art, design,
and architecture. At the time of the early post-war industrial boom
in Brazil, his concept of educating artists, designers and architects
while focusing on the social needs of the contemporary society,
resonated strongly with Mavignier’s generation. Consequently, a
few years later, after the opening of the Höch Schule für Gestaltung
in Ulm, among the students of its rst two generations were – aside
from Mavignier – the Brazilian painter Mary Vieria, a graphical
designer Alexander Wollner and architect Geraldo de Barros. While
Mavignier and Vieira remained in Europe, working as visual artists,
as well as building distinguished careers in graphic design, Wollner
and de Barros returned to Rio and established in 1962 the rst
Escola Superior de Desenho Industrial do Rio de Janeiro, following
Tomás Maldonado’s elaborate on Escola Técnica de Criação,
prepared in the late 1950s.27 Maldonado, an Argentinian painter,
designer and theorist of design, who had been a lecturer at HfG
since 1955, was Mavignier’s long-time acquaintance, and together
with a few other lecturers and students whom Mavignier met in
Ulm, comprised the rst, and – in professional terms – a signicant
expansion of his personal network. That network already included
the painters Mary Vieria and Mario Pedrosa whom he met in the
late 1940s and who, in turn, had a strong impact on Mavignier’s
view on art and his entire career.28 Other members of his personal
network at the time were a handful of Brazilian artists, for example,
Ivan Serpa and Abraham Palatnik. Mavignier maintained those
contacts long after he left Brazil, and some were renewed at the
beginning of 1960s when yet another large group of Brazilian artists
arrived to Europe, escaping the brutality imposed by the military
government who came to power in 1964. Just as there is no
available information on Mavignier’s connections established from
1951 to 1953 – before he left for Ulm – with the individuals from the
French art scene, the information on his new social contacts with
artists and designers, other than with those whom he met at the
HfG between 1954 and 1958, are also scarce and hard to verify. It
seems that his occasional exhibitions29 held during that time only
ensured the continuity of Mavignier’s art production, rather than
contributing to the establishment of social contacts. The
beginning of his collaboration with the group Zero radically altered
the situation and brought him in contact with a number of artists
from all over Europe. The participation in the last Evening
exhibitions in 1958 – a one-night art show encouraging personal
contacts – provided him with the opportunity to meet, amongst
others, some future participants of New Tendencies, such as, for
example, Hermann Bartels, Klaus Jürgen Fischer, Rupprecht
Geiger, Gotthard Graubner Oskar Holweck, Adolf Zillmann and
Günther Uecker, who, during that time, was still not a member of
the group Zero.30 In the following year, Mavignier participated in the
exhibition Dynamo1, organized by Heinz Mack and Otto Piene in
the Gallery Renate Boukes in Wiesbaden. Aside from being a rather
important event for the international afrmation of Zero, when
Mavignier was already perceived as a member of the group,31 the
exhibition gathered for the rst time a great number of artists from
France, Italy and Germany – the three most active locations of the
European neo-avant-garde at that time. This was also where
Mavignier rst met Jesus Rafael Soto, Jean Tinguely and Piero
Manzoni, the latter of whom was in the process of preparing the
rst edition of the magazine Azimuth.32 Due to his
collaboration with Zero, Mavignier also met Yves Klein and Lucio
Fontana during their solo exhibitions in the Gallery Schmela.33
Lucio Fontana, an artist of the older generation and under whose
“wings” emerged a signicant segment of the Italian neo-avant-
garde, was for the majority of artists associated with the group
Zero – a truly iconic gure. Apart from his theoretical explanations,
and experiments with light and TV technology, there was a
particular metaphysical quality surrounding his oeuvre that
69
68
Krajem 1950-ih, Lucio Fontana svesrdno je pomagao
razvoju karijera Piera Manzonija i Enrica Castellanija, podupirući
njihovu odluku – donesenu 1959. godine – o pokretanju časopisa
(Azimuth) i galerije (Azimut), a u cilju intenziviranja komunikacije
s lokalnim i inozemnim umjetnicima sličnih stajališta. Manzoniju i
Castellaniju pridružili su se u tome naumu Davide Boriani i Giovani
Aneschi, Agostino Bonalumi, arhitekt Franco Buzzi te također –
nakratko – likovni kritičar Gillo Dores.35 Osim relativne poetičke
šarolikosti, primjetne i u krugu umjetnika veznih uz Galeriju
Azimut, specičnost milanske neoavangardne scene ogledala se
i u njezinoj rodnoj strukturi, koja, za razliku od ostalih europskih
lokacija slične predilekcije, uključuje i umjetnice. Užem krugu
eksperimentalnog segmenta lombardske neoavangarde pripadale
su tri autorice – Grazia Varisco, članica upravo tad osnovane Grupe
T, te slikarice Nanda Vigo i Emilia Maino, pripadnice Manzonijeva
i Castellanijeva kruga. Osim njihove iznimno zanimljive umjetničke
produkcije, Nanda Vigo i Emilia Maino (Dadamaino) dale su i znatan
prinos izgradnji čvršćih veza između Milana i Düsseldorfa, pri
čemu su im, s njemačke strane, svesrdno pomagali Heinz Mack
i – nešto kasnije – Günther Uecker.36 Slično Macku, i Mavignier je
početkom 1960-ih višekratno boravio u Milanu te izlagao zajedno s
Manzonijem i Castellanijem. Posljedica zbližavanja s lombardskom
neoavangardnom scenom bila je i njegova prva samostalna
izložba u Italiji, održana u Galeriji Azimut u proljeće 1960. godine.
Slijedilo je nastup na Mostra Collettiva, na izložbi suradnika
Galerije održanoj u ljeto te godine, na kojoj je – zajedno s Heinzom
Mackom – zastupao grupu Zero.37 Mostra Collettiva bila je ujedno i
posljednja izložba održana u Galeriji Azimut, koja je u svom kratkom
životnom vijeku ugostila i buduće sudionike Novih tendencija – Enza
Marija, Manfreda Massironija, Bruna Munarija, Grupu N, Grupu
T, Oskara Holwecka, Günthera Ueckera, Getulia Alvianija i druge.
Tijekom posjeta Milanu Mavignier je svoju mrežu proširio i
kontaktima s umjetnicima izvan neposredne sfere utjecaja Galerije
Azimut, poput Bruna Munarija, umjetnika starije generacije, koji je
uživao posebno veliki ugled među pripadnicima francuskoga Novog
realizma (Tinguely, Spoerri).38 Tijekom 1959./1960. Munari je, zajedno
s Enzom Marijem, razvio vrlo zanimljivu i intenzivnu suradnju s
amsterdamskim Stedelijkom,39 uz koju je vezano i zbližavanje dvojce
umjetnika s nizozemskom i belgijskom neoavangardnom scenom.
Rezultat je bilo Munarijevo i Marijevo sudjelovanje u legendarnoj
izložbi Vision in Motion / Motion in Vision održanoj u Antwerpenu
1959. godine. Među Mavignierovim dugogodišnjim
kontaktima, neovisnima o dinamici zbivanja na liniji Düsseldorf
– Milano, nalazilo se prijateljstvo s Françoisom Morelletom,
uspostavljeno još 1950. godine u Brazilu;40 već spomenuto
prijateljstvo s argentinskim umjetnikom i dizajnerom Tomasom
Maldonadom; veza s Josefom Albersom, čija je predavanja na HfG-u
Mavignier pohađao 1955. godine, kao i poznanstvo s Abrahamom
Molesom i Mary Bauermeister, istaknutom protagonisticom
europskog Fluxusa. Toj vrsti kontakata, uspostavljenih prije prve
izložbe Novih tendencija, pripada i veza s Herbertom Oehmom,
bivšim studentom Umjetničke akademije u Münchenu i – u trenutku
uspostavljanja njihova kontakta, 1959. godine – studentom HfG-a,
koji će povezati Mavigniera s minhenskom umjetničkom scenom.
Slično kao i kartografska prezentacija izložaba održanih
prije 1961., broj i vrsta Mavignierovih kontakata s osobama iz
neoavangardnih krugova, a iz čijih su redova dolazili i sudionici
prvih Novih tendencija, dokazuje kako je riječ o izložbi koja je bila
sve drugo, do prezentacije radova skupine „izoliranih pojedinaca“
što usamljeni i ne znajući jedni za druge, simultano i na različitim
europskim lokacijama dolaze do sličnih rezultata. Prva izložba
Novih tendencija bila je, ustvari, a kako to uvjerljivo tvrdi Mariastella
Margozzi, „kulminacija formativne faze toga umjetničkog pokreta,
tijekom koje su konstruirani njegovi temeljni koncepti“, pa je stoga
ono što su prve Nove tendencije učinile, bilo pružanje mogućnosti
svim umjetnicima zaokupljenim različitim tipovima eksperimenata
u polju „čiste vizualnosti“ da „predstave svoja stajališta i odu korak
dalje u određenju budućih istraživanja“.41
Rekonstrukcija i kvantitativna analiza Mavignierove mreže
Imajući na umu pripovijest o nastanku Mavignierove mreže, kao i
namjeru da se rekonstruira njezino stanje u godini susreta s
Matkom Meštrovićem, uzeli smo u obzir samo kontakte višekratno
spomenute i opisane u različitim analognim ili digitalnim izvorima.
Od 1958. godine nadalje, odnosno, od trenutka kad započinje
svoju aktivnu suradnju s grupom Zero, Mavignier se uključuje i u
neke druge, međusobno isprepletene neoavangardne mreže toga
vremena, na čijim dodirnim točkama, a usporedo s procesom
njihova prerastanja u kompleksnu mrežu eksperimentalnog
segmenta europske neoavangarde, izrasta i njegova osobna
socijalna mreža. Budući da kompleksne mreže dopuštaju
klasteriranje, stvaranje pod-grupa i pod-mreža, vrlo je lako moguće
da su u to vrijeme Mavignierovoj mreži pripadale i druge osobe,
koje nismo mogli identicirati ili nismo imali dovoljno informacija
koje bi dopustile da njihov odnos s Mavignierom opišemo u
kategorijama prioritetnih društvenih kontakata – instrumenta za opis
društvenih relacija između bilo koje dvije osobe (čvora) u mreži,
razvijenog u okviru istraživanja umjetničkih mreža moderne i
suvremene umjetnosti unutar projekta ARTNET.42 Nakon
utvrđivanja aktera Mavignierove mreže, te nakon što je priroda
njihovih odnosa opisana sumiranjem svih prethodno prikupljenih
podataka o tome kada i kako je određeni odnos uspostavljen,
koliko je trajao, koju vrsta zajedničkih aktivnosti je uključivao te koji
je bio njegov socijalni/emocionalni sadržaj – svaki od njih opisan je
i odgovarajućom skupinom prioritetnih socijalnih kontakata (bračni
odnos, izvanbračna zajednica, ljubavnici, članovi obitelji, bliski
German, as well as Dutch artists, close to the group Zero, found
quite appealing. According to Otto Piene, only Mavignier, who was
perceived in Zero’s circle as a committed follower of Max Bill’s
aversion towards metaphysical and metaphorical properties of art,
was a bit resistant to Italian artist’s charming personality.34 At
the end of the 1950s, Fontana was closely involved with the work
of Piero Manzoni and Enrico Castellani, and highly supportive of
their intention, articulated in 1959, to launch a magazine (Azimuth)
and open a gallery (Azimuth) that would facilitate a more intense
communication between both local and foreign artists who share
the same ideas about art. Manzoni and Castellani were joined in
that project by Davide Boriani, Giovani Aneschi, Agostino
Bonalumi, and architect Franco Buzzi and also, for a brief period,
by the art critic Gillo Dores.35 Within an almost entirely male-
dominated segment of the European avant-garde, encompassing
the majority of artists from Mavignier’s network, Milan was sort of
an exception with three female artists intensively involved in the
activities surrounding Gallery Azimuth, as well as other similar
events happening at the time in the Lombardian and European art
scene. While Grazia Varisco was a full member of the recently
established Grupo T, Nanda Vigo and Emilia Maino were directly
connected to Piero Manzoni and Enrico Castellani. In addition to
being very productive and interesting artists, they also signicantly
contributed to forging stronger ties between Milan and Düsseldorf,
with Heinz Mack and – a bit later – Günther Ueceker, supporting
them in that endeavour.36 By the end of the 1950s, Mavignier, who
had exhibited his works with both Manzoni and Castellani on
several occasions until 1960, established and maintained his
connections with a number of artists from the Milanese circle and
– consequently – had his rst solo exhibition in Italy, held at Gallery
Azimuth, in the spring of 1960. Shortly afterwards, he participated
at yet another exhibition in the same gallery, held in the summer of
the same year, where he represented – along with Heinz Mack – the
group Zero.37 It was also the last exhibition held in Gallery Azimuth
which, in the course of its short existence (end of December, 1959
to mid-July, 1960) hosted a number of artists – Enzo Mari, Mafredo
Massironi, Bruno Munari, Group N, Grupo T, Yves Klein, Jean
Tinguely, Oskar Holweck, Gunther Uecker, etc. – a number of
whom would eventually participate in the rst New Tendencies
exhibition. During his visits to Milan, Mavignier’s network had
expanded with new contacts, such as Bruno Munari, also an older
generation artist, who enjoyed a particularly good reputation
among the representatives of the French New Realism (Tinguely,
Spoerri).38 In 1959–1960, Munari, together with Enzo Mari,
established an extensive cooperation with the Stedelijk Museum in
Amsterdam39 and, consequently, with the Dutch and Belgian neo-
avant-garde art scene, resulting with his and Munari’s participation
in the legendary exhibition Vison in Motion / Motion in Vision, held
in Antwerp in 1959. Among Mavignier’s long-lasting contacts,
we can include his friendship with Francoise Morellet, forged
already in 1950 in Brazil,40 the previously mentioned friendship with
Argentinian artist and designer Tomas Maldonado, the connection
with Josef Albers, whose classes at HfG he attended in 1955, as
well as his acquaintance with Abraham Moles and Mary
Bauermeister and several other professors and students from the
Höchschule für Gestaltung in Ulm. Among the contacts that were
established before the New Tendencies exhibition, with a similar
expanding effect regarding the scope of his personal network,
there was the relationship with Herbert Oehm, a former student at
the Munich Art Academy, and – at the moment when Mavignier rst
met him – the freshman at HfG, who became Mavignier’s
connection to the Munich art scene. The cartographic
presentation of the exhibitions held before 1961, and the number
and type of Mavignier’s contacts with the individuals from the neo-
avant-garde circles, some of whom participated in the rst New
Tendencies exhibition, prove that it was anything but the event
which brought together the group of “isolated individuals, coming
to similar results simultaneously and without knowing of each
other”. In fact, it was, as Mariastella Margozzi convincingly claims,
“the culmination of the movement’s originating phase in which …
the basic concepts of the movement were constructed”, and what
the rst New Tendencies have actually done was to provide all the
artists pursuing different types of research in the eld of “pure
visuality” with “the opportunity to express their points of view and
to go further in dening the following step of their investigations”.41
The reconstruction and quantitative analysis of Mavignier’s
network
Having in mind the process of Mavignier’s network development,
as well as the intention to reconstruct its state in the year 1960, at
the moment just before he rst met Matko Meštrović, we took into
account only the contacts conrmed by archival, printed and
digital sources, mentioned a nd described seve ral time s and at
different do cument s. From 1958 on, or from the momen t when
he bega n his active collabor ation with gro up Zero, Mavign ier got
involved in few oth er, interwoven ne o-avant-gard e networks, at
whose c ontact points and during the perio d of their unfolding
into a co mplex ne twork of the exp erimental segment of
European neo -avant-g arde, at approximatel y 1959/1960, grew
his per sonal socia l netwo rk. Since that complex netwo rk
allowed for inte rnal cluster ing, sub-gro uping, partitioning and
formin g of sub -netwo rks, it is quite plaus ible that there were st ill
other individuals wh o were also invol ved in Mavignie r’s network
at that t ime but whom we c ould not identify or did not have
enough inform ation to descr ibe their connectio n with Mavignier
using the categories of priority social contacts – the instrumen t
for des cribing any so cial relationship b etween two ind ividuals
(nodes) in the ne twork, that is developed in t he fram ework of
research on a rtists’ networks in m odern and contemporary a rt
within the project ARTNET.42 After ide ntifying Mavignier ’s
networ k actors (node s) and after de scribing the nature of their
71
70
prijatelji, prijatelji, prijateljski posjeti, kreativna suradnja, suradnja
na početku karijere, zajednički rad, zajedničko izlaganje, cirkularna
korespondencija, sukob, suparništvo, poslovna suradnja, poslovno
poznanstvo, znanci). Kombinacije navedenih kategorija
upotrijebljene su i kao osnova za određivanje snage odnosa
između parova aktera mreže, a prema ljestvici vrijednosti u
rasponu od 1 do 5, pri čemu vrijednost 1 opisuje najsnažniju vezu,
a vrijednost 5 najslabiju. S obzirom na to da je priroda svake od tih
veza opisana s prosječno tri kategorije prioritetnih socijalnih
kontakata, a uzimajući u obzir da postoji oko 4096 njihovih
mogućih kombinacija, odabrana metoda omogućila nam je
relativno precizan opis kako vrste, tako i snage odnosa među
mrežnim akterima. Kako bi veza između Mavigniera i određene
osobe mogla biti opisana na taj način, prikupljene informacije
trebale su zadovoljiti kriterije pouzdanosti i detaljnosti te – prije
nego li bismo tu osobu uključili u mrežu – i uvjet da je njezina
veza s Mavignierom bila aktivna u razdoblju od našega interesa.
Već smo utvrdili kako Mavignierova personalna mreža
pripada kategoriji homoliskih mreža, koje povezuju ljude
zajedničkih interesa, vrijednosti i uvjerenja. Ti interesi, vrijednosti i
uvjerenja osnova su homolske privlačnosti među akterima
mreže, pa je pri analizi mrežnih obilježja trebalo uzeti u obzir i
mogućnost njihova utjecaja na njezinu topologiju, kao i moguću
prisutnost klika ili grupa unutar mreže, koje u takvoj vrsti mreže
nastaju čvršćim povezivanjem manjih skupina osoba oko
određenog, specičnog elementa interesa, uvjerenja ili društvenih
vrijednosti u pozadini njihove potrebe za umrežavanjem.43 Još
jedno, opće svojstvo svake ljudske mreže, važno pri opisu njezine
strukture jest i veličina. U usporedbi s veličinom prosječne osobne
mreže, koja se obično sastoji od 150 aktera (čvorova),
Mavignierova mreža sa svoje 94 osobe i njihove 533 veze, pripada
međuprostoru osobnih društvenih mreža male i srednje veličine.44
Budući da pri opisivanju veza među mrežnim akterima, nismo imali
dovoljno informacija koje bi nam omogućile deniranje njihova
smjera, odnosno, utvrđivanje izvora veze (osobe koja je inicirala
kontakt) i cilja (osobe koja prihvaća ili odbija ponuđeni kontakt), a
koristeći podatke o njihovoj prirodi i snazi, iscrtali smo niz
neusmjerenih mrežnih vizualizacija, prikazanih u ovom članku na
slikama 2, 3 i 4. Topologija tako prikazanih mreža rezultat je
optimizacije algoritma ForceAtlas2 [forceatlas2] koji simulira zički
sustav privlačenja i odbijanja snage među masama s ciljem
stvaranja čitljive mreže u dvodimenzionalnom (2D) prostoru.45
Funkcija mrežne vizualizacije jest da omogući vizualnu
identikaciju određenih elemenata mreže – posebice onih manje
očitih, koji zahtijevaju određene statističke izračune. Upotrebom
rezultata izračuna za iscrtavanje vizualizacija, te, teže uočljive
mrežne karakteristike postaju vidljivima, što olakšava i njihovo
povezivanje sa specičnim ciljevima mrežne analize.
Najznačajnija strukturalna značajka Mavignierove osobne mreže, s
toga gledišta, njezina je modularnost. S obzirom da pripada, kao
što je već rečeno, međuprostoru malih i srednjih ljudskih mreža,
broj grupa formiranih unutar mreže razmjerno je velik, a njihov
personalni sastav korespondira s poetičkim izborom i umjetničkim
praksama njihovih članova. Prva – Mavignier-centrična grupa,
sastoji se od pojedinaca bez dodatnih grupnih alijacija. U odnosu
na ostale grupe u mreži, ona je najmanje koherentna i obuhvaća
periferne čvorove (osobe) mreže, odvojene od svih ostalih mrežnih
aktera, osim samoga Mavigniera, a uključuje i skupinu čvorova koji
su – u usporedbi s ostalim pripadnicima mreže – raspršeniji
(udaljeniji) i povezani s drugim osobama skromnim brojem slabih
veza. Unutar grupe 1 nalaze se i jedini klasteri mreže – klaster
HfG-a – koji je, s obzirom na Mavignierovu prioritetnu orijentaciju
početkom 1960-ih godina na razvoj svoje umjetničke karijere,
udaljen i labavo povezan s ostalim mrežnim akterima. Slična je
topološka pozicija i drugoga klastera, čija je relativna izoliranost
dijelom i reeks geografske udaljenosti njegovih pripadnika u
stvarnom životu. Uključuje brazilske umjetnike, koji su – uz
Mavigniera – s drugim akterima mreže također povezani malim
brojem slabih veza. Izuzetak je brazilski umjetnik talijanskog
podrijetla Waldemar Cordeiro, koji tijekom 1950-ih i 1960-ih djeluje
između tih dviju zemalja. Vođen neutaživom radoznalošću, taj pionir
kompjuterske umjetnosti u Latinskoj Americi uspostavio je još
1950-ih godina, temeljem svog tadašnjeg interesa za kinetiku i
mehaniku, snažnu i trajnu vezu s Brunom Munarijem, spiritusom
movensom talijanskog pokreta Arte programmata, preko kojeg je
povezan i s njegovim ostalim pripadnicima. Ovakav tip
analize moguće je provesti za svaki par osoba u mreži, no ona bi
zahtijevala puno više prostora i – u ovom slučaju – ne bi bila
posebno korisna. Zadržat ćemo se stoga samo na analizi odnosa
među grupama, opisanima u tablici uz lijevi rub slike 2, te na
usporedbi njihove pozicije i njihovih međusobnih relacija unutar
topologije mreže i u stvarnom životu. Grupa Arte
programmata (grupa 2), dobila je naziv slijedom prisutnosti Bruna
Munarija i članova Grupe N, kojima će se u bliskoj budućnosti
(početkom 1962.) pridružiti Grupa T te članovi francuskog GRAV-a,
čime je formirana najsnažnija poetička i ideološka alijansa unutar
Novih tendencija. Grupa 2 sastoji se od osam snažno međusobno
povezanih osoba, čvrsto ugniježđenih u svoje mrežno susjedstvo,
koje uključuje i Grupu Galerije Azimut (grupa 3). U stvarnom životu
osnivači grupe N razvili su u razdoblju od našega interesa vrlo
dobre odnose s krugom umjetnika oko galerije Azimut. U tom
smislu posebno se isticao Manfredo Massironi, koji je – kao što
smo već napomenuli – zajedno s Enzom Marijem, sudjelovao i u
kolektivnim izložbama te galerija, organiziranim 1959./1960.
godine. Ključno obilježje grupe 3 prisutnost je dvaju snažnih
mrežnih čvorišta (hub) – Piera Manzonija i Enrica Castellanija – s
velikim brojem ulaznih veza, koja i slijedom svoje pozicije u
topologiji mreže imaju mogućnost velikoga utjecaja na tijekove
informacija, odnosno moć iniciranja mrežnih aktivnosti. Razloge
njihove istaknute pozicije u mreži i načine na koji je Mavignier s
relati onship s (edges), usin g all previously collected data as – for
example – information on when and how the relationship was
established, how long it has lasted, which kind of joint activities it
has involved, and which was its social/emotional content – each of
these relationships was assigned with the combination of
appropriate categories of priority social contacts (marital relation,
extramarital relation, lovers, family members, close friends, friends,
friendly visits, creative collaboration, collaboration at the beginning
of the career, joint work, joint exhibiting, circular correspondence,
confrontation, rivalry, business collaboration, business
acquaintance, acquaintance). The combinations of the these
categories was then used as a foundation for determining the
strength of each relation against the scale of values ranging from 1
to 5, wherein the value 1 describes the strongest relation, and
value 5 the weakest one. Since there are approximately three
categories used to describe the nature of each contact, and taking
into account that there are approximately 4096 ( of their possible
combinations, the chosen method allows a rather precise
description of both the nature and strength of network actors
relations. Along with the information provided on the relationship
between Mavignier and a certain individual, which meets the
conditions of quality and reliability, still another, very important
condition that relationship had to full before its inclusion it the
network, was the conrmation that it was active at the period of
our consideration. Since we have already established that
Mavignier’s network is a type of a homophilic network, connecting
people of shared interests, values and convictions, which is the
basis of homophilic attraction, we also took into consideration that
this fact might affect topological properties of the network.
Although such an inuence might be manifested in a different
ways, in homophilic networks it is often connected to the
formation of cliques or groups to which people are attracted by a
particular element of whichever interest, conviction or social value
brought them together.43 The other, general property of all human
networks that had to be taken into account, when analysing any
human network is its size. Compared to the size of average
personal networks which usually consists of 150 individuals
(nodes), Mavignier’s network with its 94 individuals (nodes) and
533 established relations (edges) falls somewhere in between the
categories of small and medium personal social networks.44 When
describing the relationships amongst its actors we did not have
enough information to dene their direction – that is – who is the
source (who initiated the contact), and who is the target (person
who accepts or rejects that contact) of each relation. Therefore we
have used only information about their nature and strength of
these relations, and created a series of undirected network
visualisations. The results thereof are shown in this article in
Figures 2, 3 and 4. The topology of the network is a result of an
optimization algorithm ForceAtlas2 [forceatlas2] that simulates a
physical system of attracting and repulsing forces among masses
with a goal of creating a readable network in 2D space.45 The
function of the visualisations is to enable visual identication of
certain network features – both obvious ones and those less
obvious, which have to be calculated. Using the results of these
calculations for creating visualizations, the invisible network
features are turned into visible plots, which allow network analysis
to foster the insight into the network’s structural properties.
The most signicant structural feature of Mavignier’s personal
network, from the point of view of our analysis, is its modularity.
Considering that Mavignier’s network, as it was already stated, falls
somewhere between small and medium human networks, it has a
rather large number of groups that were formed according to the
poetic choices and shared practices of their members. The rst
one – a Mavignier-centred group consists of individuals without
additional group afliations. It is the least coherent if compared to
other groups in this network and, apart from encompassing the
most peripheral nodes (persons) in the network, who are
disconnected from all other individuals except for Mavignier, it also
includes a group of nodes that are – if compared to other network
actors – more dispersed (distant) and connected to the rest of the
network by a modest number of weak ties. The only two clusters in
the entire network, are also emerging from Mavignier-centred
group. The rst one encompasses persons connected to HfG (such
as Mary Bauermeister), who are a bit remote and loosely
connected with other network actors, which is the consequence of
Mavingnier’s real-life choices at the time, that were giving priority to
his artistic career. The second cluster, also a bit remote from other
persons, both in the network topology and in real life, includes
Brazilian artists who have, except when it comes to their relation to
Mavignier, a rather few, weak connections to other individuals in the
network. An exception is the Brazilian artist of an Italian origin –
Waldemar Cordeiro – who was operating in between these two
countries throughout most of the 1950s and 1960s. Guided by the
endless curiosity and interest in information technology, he became
a pioneer of computer art in Latin America. The interest in movement
and mechanics, preceding the involvement with the information
technology, forged his strong and lasting relationship with Bruno
Munari, spiritus movens of Italian Arte programmata that also
provided him with the contacts with other members of that group.
The same kind of an analysis can be conducted for each pair
of network actors, but since it is exhaustive and not particularly
useful on this occasion, we shall analyse only the relations among
the groups, comparing their positions in the network topology and in
a real life. The ve remaining groups are described in the table
on the left side of Figure 2, and designated as the group Arte
programmata (group 2), the name assigned to it due to the presence
of Bruno Munari and the members of Group N, who would become
associated in the following years with Group T and French GRAV to
form the strongest poetic alliance within New Tendencies. Group 2
consists of eight strongly interconnected individuals, rmly
73
72
njima uspostavio relativno snažne veze, već smo objasnili, no
budući da je Manzoni gajio određene rezerve prema Mavignierovu
radu, treba napomenuti i to da se u pozadini odnosa među
mrežnim akterima – slično kao i u međuljudskim odnosima u
stvarnom životu – mogu nalaziti i pozitivne i negativne emocije.
Grupa 3 sastoji se od 14 međusobno snažno povezanih
osoba, a s grupama 2 i 4 u svojem mrežnom susjedstvu povezana
je brojnim i jakim vezama te pozicionirana u topologiji mreže
između tih dviju grupa. Njezin središnji položaj rezultat je, s jedne
strane, homolske privlačnosti između Grupe N i Grupe T koja je, u
tome trenutku, još uvijek u sferi utjecaja Azimutha, a s druge
strane, intenzivne komunikacije između Azimutha i Grupe Zero.
Potonja, (grupa 4) najveća je u mreži, sastoji se od 35 osoba te
također ima dva vrlo snažna mrežna čvorišta – Otta Piena i Heinza
Macka, te brojne veze s još najmanje četiri grupe, što je ujedno čini
najmoćnijom i najutjecajnijom skupinom osoba u Mavignierovoj
mreži. Njezina pozicija u mrežnoj topologiji posljedica je već
opisanog, intenzivnoga umrežavanja s ostalim pripadnicima
neoavangardne europske scene u stvarnom životu, čiji su
protagonisti bili upravo Piene, Mack i Uecker. Grupa
francuskih novih realista (grupa 5) gotovo je iste veličine kao i
grupa 2, sastoji se od devet osoba i nema niti jednog mrežnog
čvorišta. Njezina personalna struktura snažno odražava odnose u
stvarnom životu između formalnih članova FNR i drugih osoba u toj
grupi, s kojima su novi realisti u to vrijeme uspostavili različite
oblike kreativne suradnje. Toj skupini umjetnika pripadaju Paul
Talman, Karl Gerstner, Deiter Roth i Marcel Wyss. Dvojca potonjih
od sredine 1950-ih usko surađuju na izdavanju časopisa Spirale,46
u kojem svoje priloge, između ostalih, objavljuju Gerstner i Talman.
U topologiji mreže, navedeni umjetnici relativno su udaljeni od
Yvesa Kleina i Jeana Tinguelyja, glavnih protagonista FNR, no bliski
Danielu Spoerriju, uz kojega su Roth i Gerstner u stvarnom životu
bili vezani bliskim prijateljstvom i suradnjom na njegovim MAT
izdanjima. Suradnici FNR-a relativno su bliski i grupi GRAV, s kojom
će Gerstner i Talman usko surađivati u neposrednoj budućnosti.
Klein i Tinguely, s druge strane, nalaze se u neposrednoj blizini
Piena i Macka, s kojima su – osim intenzivne radne suradnje –
povezani i bliskim prijateljskim vezama. Zahvaljujući upravo tim
vezama Günther Uecker će se, početkom 1960-ih, priključiti grupi
Zero kao njezin punopravni član.47 Grupa GRAV (grupa 6)
najmanja je u Mavignierovoj mreži i sastoji se od samo pet osoba.
Budući da je GRAV osnovan tek u srpnju 1960. godine te da – u
trenutku obuhvaćenom ovom vizualizacijom – još nije bio posve
funkcionalan, većina osoba u mreži nije poznavala njezine mlađe
članove Julia le Parca i Joela Steina. Ni oni, kao ni Gregorio
Vardanega, nisu bili izravno povezani s Mavignierom, a našli su se
u ovoj mreži samo zahvaljujući svojim snažnim vezama s François
Morelletom, koji je odgovoran za većinu poveznica te grupe s
ostatkom njezina mrežnog okruženja. Među nekoliko rijetkih Le
Parcovih i Steinovih veza s drugim akterima mreže, posebno se
ističe ona s venecuelskim umjetnikom Jesús Rafael Sotom. Sotova
pozicija u topologiji mreže između GRAV-a i FNR-a (između grupa 5
i 6) posebno je zanimljiva jer vjerno odražava – jednako kao i
pozicija Yvesa Kleina prema grupi Zero – njegove veze s obje
skupine umjetnika u stvarnome životu. Iako Soto nikada nije bio
formalni član neke umjetničke grupe, u tom je razdoblju s
pozornošću pratio nastajanje teorijskog diskursa i estetike GRAV-a
te istovremeno održavao radne kontakte s FNR-ma, započete
krajem 1950-ih godina.48 Kao što postoji razlika između
pozicija moći grupa unutar mreže, tako postoje i razlike u utjecaju i
moći svakog njezinog aktera. Prema Hannemanu i Riddleu, „pitanje
izvora i distribucije moći unutar određene društvene mreže možda
je najkompleksniji aspekt mrežnih odnosa, ali i društvenih odnosa
općenito“, s obzirom na činjenicu da „moć individualnog aktera nije
i individualni atribut, nego obilježje koje izrasta iz njegove relacije s
drugim osobama“.49 Središnja pozicija moći u ego-mrežama uvijek
pripada osobi koja naseljava njezin fokus ili – u ovome slučaju
– Almiru Mavignieru. Distribucija moći među drugim akterima mreže
izračunata je primjenom Eigenvector mjere centralnosti, prema
kojoj je utjecaj i važnost određene osobe u funkciji zbroja mjera
centralnosti svih osoba s kojima je povezana.50 Koristeći se
izračunom EVC mjere centralnosti iscrtali smo i mrežnu vizualizaciju
koja prezentira distribuciju moći unutar Mavignierove personalne
mreže (slika 3). Priključena lijevoj strani toga prikaza, nalazi se
tablica koja donosi popis imena i izračune EVC-a za petnaest
najmoćnijih i najutjecajnijih osoba Mavignierove mreže. Prema tom
izračunu, najmoćnije osobe, nakon samoga Mavigniera, su – kao
što se moglo i očekivati – Heinz Mack, Piero Manzoni, Otto Piene i
Enrico Castellani. Slijedi ih gotovo homogena skupina talijanskih
umjetnika, budućih predstavnika pokreta Arte programmata (Biasi,
Massironi, Alviani, Munari), čije će ideje i radne prakse uskoro
postati jedna od pokretačkih snaga Novih tendencija. Nema
sumnje da je distribucija moći unutar Mavignierove personalne
mreže, na bezbroj kompliciranih načina, utjecala i na organizaciju
prve izložbe Novih tendencija – kanaliziranjem protoka informacija
kroz mrežu, blokiranjem i prekidom veza koje premošćuju njezine
strukturalne praznine, ali i promoviranjem i cirkulacijom
Mavignierovih ideja kroz druge mreže i druge komunikacijske
kanale. Važnost njegove personalne mreže za organizaciju Novih
tendencija postaje posve jasna pogledamo li još jednu mrežnu
vizualizaciju, koja razlikuje dvije skupine aktera – sudionike prve
zagrebačke izložbe i pozvane umjetnike koji nisu poslali svoje
radove u Zagreb (slika 4). Od sveukupno 28 izlagača s
Mavignierova kustoskoga popisa,51 njih 24 ili 85% sudjelovalo je
na prvoj izložbi Novih tendencija, a svi odreda bili su pripadnici
njegove personalne mreže. Usporedimo li poetičku strukturu
izložbe s poetičkom strukturom te mreže, uočit ćemo da se nalaze
u uskom dodiru te da je jedina uočljiva razlika, znatna
podzastupljenost umjetnika iz kruga Galerije Azimut na zagrebačkoj
izložbi. Najveću skupinu sudionika izložbe činili su umjetnici iz
embedded in their network neighbourhood, which also includes the
Gallery Azimut group (group 3). In a real life the founding members
of Group N, and in particularly Manfredo Massironi who had a
close contacts with Azimut, and – as we already said – together
with Enzo Mari, participated in the collective exhibitions held in
Gallery Azimut. Group 3 is critically marked by the presence
of two rather strong hubs (nods with a great number of incoming
ties), Piero Manzoni and Enrico Castellani, who have the power to
affect the ow of information through their part of the network and
to initiate network activities. Their prominent position in Mavigner’s
network and his strong ties with both artists we have already
explained, but since Manzoni did not have a particularly positive
opinion of Mavignier’s work, it is worth mentioning at this point that
the tie between two network actors – much like in a real life – does
not have to have a positive emotions in its background, to be rated
as strong. Group 3 consists of thirteen strongly interconnected
individuals, who are also connected to groups 2 and 4 through
numerous strong ties, also positioned between these two groups in
the topology of the network. Such, central position is the result –
amongst other – of the attraction among Group N which was just
formed at that time and Group T, that is still in Azimut’s sphere of
inuence, as well as of intense communication between Azimut/h
and group Zero (group 4) which is the largest one in the Mavignier’s
network. Consisting of thirty-ve people, and also having two
rather strong hubs (Otto Piene, Heinz Mack), as well as numerous
ties with at least four other network groups, it is the most powerful
and the most inuential group within this network. Such position is a
consequence of Zero’s intense networking activities in real life that
were already described. The French Realists group (group 5) is
of almost the same size as group 2, consists of nine persons and
does not have any hubs. Its personal structure strongly reects real-
life relations among the formal FNR members and other persons in
that group – Paul Talman, Kerl Gerstner, Dieter Roth and Marcel Wyss
– with whom they established different forms of cooperation at that
time. Roth and Wyss were from the mid-1950s closely collaborating
on publishing of the magazine Spirale,46 among whose contributors
there were also Gerstner and Talman, who are also relatively close to
group GRAV, with whom they will also establish cooperation in a near
future. In the topology of network, all of these artists are a bit remote
from Yves Klein and Jean Tinguely, the most prominent
representatives of FNR, but close to Daniel Spoerri with whom Roth
and Gerstner, who were contributing to Spoerri’s MAT editions, also
established a close friendship in real life. Klein and Tingely, on the
other hand, are in the close vicinity of Piene and Mack with whom
they were connected by close friendship and intense collaboration. It
was exactly that collaboration, which also brought Günther Uecker
into the group Zero.47 The group GRAV (group 6) is the smallest
one, and consists of ve people. Since it was established in July 1960
and, at that point in time, it was still not fully functional, the majority
of the people in the network did not know much about its youngest
members Julio le Parc and Joel Stein. Neither they, nor Gregorio
Vardanega, were directly connected to Mavignier, entering the
network due to their strong connection with François Morellet, who
is also responsible for the majority of the group’s connections with
its network neighbourhood. Among those few connections of Le
Parc and Stein with other network actors the important one is
established with Venezuelan artist Jesús Rafael Soto. The position
of Jesús Rafel Soto in the network topology is interesting, because
it closely reects – much like the position of Klein towards group
Zero – his real-life position in between GRAV and FNR (groups 5
and 6). Soto, who never was a formal member of any art group
closely observed both aesthetics and theories of GRAV (at that
time still in nascendo) and had a working contacts with FNR which
started towards the end of 1950s.48 As there is a difference in
position and power of each group within the network, there are also
differences in power and inuence of individual network actors.
According to Hanneman and Riddle, the question of sources and
distribution of power within the social networks is perhaps the
most complex aspect of network relations, but also of social
relations in general, especially given that the “power of individual
actors is not an individual attribute, but a characteristic which
grows from their relation to other persons.”49 The central power
position in ego-networks always belongs to the person who
inhabits the focus of that network, or – in this case – to Almir
Mavignier. Distribution of power amongst other network actors was
calculated by applying eigenvector centrality measure, according to
which the personal inuence and the importance of a particular actor
is the function of the sum of centrality measures of all other
individuals to whom s/he is connected.50 Using the results of
Eigenvector measure calculation, we created yet another network
visualisation outlining the distribution of power within its structure
(Figure 3). Adjacent to the left side of that image is a ranking table
displaying the names and calculations for the fteen most powerful
and inuential persons in Mavignier’s network. After Mavignier
himself, the most powerful individuals are – as it could have been
expected – Heinz Mack, Piero Manzoni, Otto Piene and Enrico
Castellani. They are followed by an almost homogenous group of
Italian artist – Biasi, Massironi, Alviana, Munari, etc. – whose ideas
and practices would soon become one of the driving forces of New
Tendencies. There is no doubt that the distribution of power
within Mavignier’s personal network inuenced the organisation of the
rst New Tendencies in a number of complex ways – by affecting and
channelling the ow of information through the network, by blocking
and breaking the connections, bridging the structural holes, but also
by promoting and circulating Mavignier’s idea through other
communication channels, and through other personal or group
networks to whom the artists involved in his personal networks also
belonged. The importance of Mavignier’s personal network in
organizing the rst New Tendencies exhibition becomes quite obvious
if we consult yet another visualization which distinguishes two groups
75
74
gravitacijskog kruga grupe Zero, uključujući i Gerharda von
Graevenitza te samoga Mavigniera (devet umjetnika); slijedi je
skupina talijanskih autora, budućih predstavnika pokreta Arte
programmata (pet umjetnika); autori iz šireg kruga FRN-a, među
kojima treba istaknuti Dietera Rotha i Paula Talmana, također bliske
grupi Zero (pet umjetnika); svi formalni članovi GRAV-a iz
Mavignierove mreže (tri umjetnika), dok je Azimut bio zastupljen
samo Manzonijevim i Castellanijevim radovima (dva umjetnika).52
Pozvani članovi FNR-a (Klein, Tinguely) propustili su poslati svoja
djela na izložbu, jednako kao i svi brazilski umjetnici (njih sedam),
koji ujedno čine najveću skupinu pozvanih autora, nakon grupe
Zero. Arhivski izvori ne nude objašnjenje razloga njihova izostanka
s prve izložbe Novih tendencija, koje bi možda trebalo potražiti u
previranjima na brazilskoj političkoj sceni tijekom prve polovine
1960-ih godina. Najavila ih je ostavka predsjednika brazilske vlade
Jânia Quadrosa, podnesena u kolovozu te, 1961. godine, a
događaji koji su joj prethodili, bez sumnje su mogli utjecati na
odluku da se ne izlaže u Zagrebu. Prema ovim brojčanim
odnosima, ali i prema obilježju radova pokazanih na prvoj izložbi
Novih tendencija, može se zaključiti kako je njome dominirala
poetika grupe Zero, koju Giovanni Granzotto opisuje kao
„vizionarsku, idealističku i zasnovanu na duboko romantičnoj
nordijskoj matrici“, upućenu na kretanje kroz „već istražene
teritorije na kojima kinetička i programirana umjetnost nije mogla
napredovati“.53 Bez obzira na to da li se slažemo s
Granzottovim mišljenjem, posve je točno da – na metanarativnoj
razini – postoje znatne razlike između produkcije njemačkih i
talijanskih umjetnika pokazane u Zagrebu, koje će biti dodatno i
jasno artikulirane kroz seriju izložaba i radnih sastanaka održanih na
različitim europskim lokacijama tijekom 1962. i 1963. godine te
snažno utjecati na poetičku strukturu druge izložbe Novih
tendencija. No na personalnoj razini, proces artikulacije i
konsolidacije pokreta nije umnogome utjecao – kao što pokazuje i
vizualizacija bipartitne mreže izlagača i triju zagrebačkih izložaba
održanih između 1961. i 1965. godine (slika 5) – na koheziju
inicijalne grupe umjetnika koja dolazi iz Mavignierove personalne
mreže. Osim Piera Manzonija, koji je umro početkom 1963. i Dietera
Rotha, više zainteresiranoga za europski Fluxus,54 nego za zbivanja
unutar Novih tendencija, svi sudionici prve zagrebačke izložbe
sudjelovali su i u Novim tendencijama 2, održanima u Zagrebu dvije
godine kasnije. I treća zagrebačka izložba odvila se u znaku
personalnog kontinuiteta s prethodne dvije likovne priredbe, čiji
reeks prepoznajemo u obilatoj zastupljenosti umjetničkih grupa
prisutnih in nascendo i u Mavignierovoj personalnoj mreži. S treće
izložbe izostali su neki njezini važni individualni akteri – uključujući i
samoga Mavigniera – a zamijenila ih je skupina mladih umjetnika,
čije priključivanje pokretu najavljuje neizbježne i radikalne promjene.
Zaokret prema “teritoriju na kojem je svijet kinetičke i
programirane umjetnosti mogao napredovati”, da parafraziramo
Granzotta, a koji se zbio u razdoblju između prve i druge
zagrebačke izložbe, presudno je odredio ciljeve toga umjetničkog
pokreta. Obujam i poetski sastav Mavignierove personalne mreže i
njezina latentna prisutnost u okviru Novih tendencija između 1961. i
1965. godine – uzmemo li u obzir te ciljeve – jasno ukazuje na
složenost problema s kojima se taj umjetnički pokret suočavao, kao
i na razloge zbog kojih njihovo rješenje nije bilo lako pronaći. Osim
činjenice da je bila mnogo veća i strukturalno složenija nego što bi
se moglo očekivati prema opisima u dostupnim studijama o Novim
tendencijama, Mavignierova personalna mreža – kao što to
pokazuje i mrežna analiza – ključno je polazište za rekonstrukciju
društvene mreže Novih tendencija, kao i za identikaciju odnosa
društvene mreže Novih tendencija prema ostalim neoavangardnim
mrežama toga vremena. Osim identikacije, rekonstrukcije i
opisa strukturnih značajki Mavignierove personalne mreže,
najzanimljiviji rezultat primjene tehnika mrežne analize i mrežne
vizualizacije – u ovom konkretnom slučaju – jest njezina topologija,
na mikro, kao i na makro razini, odnosno na razini odnosa među
njezinim pojedinim akterima mreže i na razini odnosa među
grupama. Oboje ukazuje na potrebu pažljivijeg, ‘dubinskog’ čitanja
topologije, kako u smislu ispitivanja i identikacije najkraćih putova
prijenosa ideja i informacija kroz mrežu, identikacije njihovih
ulaznih / izlaznih točaka, kao i na usporedbu tih točaka s
procesima, postupcima i lokacijama na kojima se takve ideje i
informacije generiraju u stvarnome životu, odnosno na identikaciju
pozicija moći koje omogućavaju nadzor nad njihovim protokom i
distribucijom – unutar mreže i u stvarnom životu. Podaci, koji se
mogu dobiti takvim ‘dubinskim čitanjem’ mogu biti izvor vrijednih
novih uvida i istraživačkih pitanja vezanih i uz dinamiku
neoavangardnih aktivnosti na različitim europskim lokacijama u
razdoblju koje je u fokusu našega interesa (vidi sliku 1). Jednako
tako, vizualizacije Mavignerove mreže ukazuju i na osobe poput
Nade Vigo i Emilie Maino, koje su zasigurno imale mnogo značajniju
ulogu u procesu umjetničkoga umrežavanja krajem 1950-ih i
početkom 1960-ih godina, od one koju im pripisuju dostupne
studije o Novim tendencijama. Arhivska istraživanja provedena
tijekom rada na ovome projektu potvrđuju da visoko mjesto tih
dvaju umjetnica na ljestvici pozicija moći unutar Mavignierove
osobne mreže nije slučajno te da – iz perspektive umjetničkih
mrežnih praksi – umjetnice zaslužuju puno veću pozornost.
Genealogija interpersonalnih i odnosa među grupama obuhvaćenim
Mavignierovom mrežom također mogu poslužiti – a s obzirom na
biograje, umjetničke prakse, kao i profesionalne i osobne odnose
njezinih latinoameričkih aktera s drugim osobama u toj i drugim
mrežama s kraja 1950-ih i početka 1960-ih – kao zanimljivo
polazište za istraživanje različitih dinamika i različitih geograja
neoavangarde u tome razdoblju. Istina je da je takvo
of network actors – those who attended the exhibition, and those
who were invited, but did not send their works to Zagreb (Figure 4).
Out of 28 exhibitors from Mavignier’s curatorial list,51 24 or
85% have sent their works to Zagreb, all of whom were also
included into his personal network. The poetic structure of the
exhibition follows the modular structure of that network – at the
poetic, as well as the level of inuence of particular groups – with
the except for the Gallery Azimuth group who was
underrepresented, and the FNR group present only through the
works of artists from a circle of its associates. The largest group of
exhibition participants were the artists associated with the group
Zero, including Mavignier himself (9 artists); this group is followed
by the future representatives of Arte Programmata (5 artists); the
artists associated with FRN by collaborating on joint projects,
among whom Dieter Roth and Paul Talman were also closely
connected with the group Zero (5 artists); all formal GRAV
members from Mavignier’s network (3 artists); as well as Manzoni
and Castellani, presenting network group Azimut (2 artists).52
Invited members of FNR, completely missed the exhibition, as well
as the Brazilian authors (7), who comprise the largest group after
Zero. The archival sources do not offer any explanation for their
absence, but it might be related to the turmoil on the Brazilian
political scene at that time, which was heralded by the events
preceding the resignation of the president of Brazilian government
Jânio Quadros, in August 1961, and most probably affected their
decision not to exhibit in Zagreb. According to the statistical
data, but primarily according to the characteristics of the works
displayed at the rst exhibition of the New Tendencies, one can
justiably claim that it was dominated by the poetics of the group
Zero, described by Giovanni Granzotto as “visionary, idealistic, and
based on a deeply romantic, Nordic matrix”, but also as the one
that was “representing already explored territories on which the
world of kinetic and programme art could not advance”.53
Regardless of whether we agree with Granzotto’s opinion, it is
completely true that – at the metanarrative level – there were huge
differences between the production of German and Italian artists
displayed in Zagreb. These differences were ultimately articulated
through a series of exhibitions and professional meetings held at
different European locations, strongly affecting the second New
Tendencies exhibition. However, on a personal level, the process of
the Movement’s articulation and consolidation did not affect – as
the visualisation of a bipartite network of all three exhibitions held
in Zagreb demonstrates (Figure 5) – the cohesion of the initial
group of artists arising from Mavignier’s personal network. Except
for Piero Manzoni, who died at the beginning of 1963, and Dieter
Roth, who was at the time more interested in Fluxus,54 all the
participants of the rst exhibition returned to Zagreb in 1963 and
participated in the exhibition New Tendencies2. The third exhibition
tendency 3 – maintained, in that regard, the personal continuity
established by the previous two exhibitions, due to the strong and
diverse presence of art groups that in 1961 were only in the stage
of formation, although some very important Mavignier’s network
actors – including Mavignier himself – were absent. The turn
towards – to paraphrase Granzotto – “territories on which the world
of kinetic and programme art could advance”, that happened in
that period between the rst and the second Zagreb exhibition,
signicantly changed the objectives of the Movement. The scope
and poetic composition of Mavignier’s personal network, and its
latent presence within the framework of New Tendencies between
1961 and 1965, clearly demonstrates the complexity of the
problems facing the movement and also the reasons why they were
not easy to resolve. Except of the fact that Mavignier’s personal
network was much larger and structurally more complex than it
could be expected relying on how it was outlined in the available
studies on New Tendencies, network analysis also proves that it is
certainly a starting point for the reconstruction of NT social
network, as well as for the identication of that art Movement’s
relations with and towards other neo-avant-garde networks at the
time. Apart from identifying, reconstructing and describing
structural features of Mavignier’s personal network, the most
interesting and valuable result of applying network analysis and
network visualizations in this particular case, is network topology
– at micro, as well as at macro level. That is, at the level of
interpersonal relations, and at the level of relations between the
groups within the network. Both point to the closer examination of
network topology, and also to the examination and identication of
shortest paths along which the ideas and information were
circulating through the network, to the identication of their
entrance/exit points and to the comparation of these points with
the processes, procedures and locations at which such ideas and
information were generated in the real-life. They also point to the
identication of the power positions, which allowed for monitoring
their ow and distribution, as a source of valuable new insights and
questions regarding a dynamics of neo-avant-garde activities at
different European locations (see Figure 1). Such, close reading of
Mavignier’s network visualisations could be also the source of
rather interesting information on persons who might have had a
much more important role in the process of artists networking at
the end of 1950s and at the beginning of 1960s than they were
credited for in the available studies on New Tendencies. We have
already mentioned in that context Nada Vigo and Emilia Maino.
Archival research conducted during the investigation of Mavignier’s
social contacts, proves that their inuential position in his personal
network is not in any way accidental, and deserves – at least from
the perspective of artists networking practices – much more
attention. The genealogy of interpersonal and inter-group relations
encompassed by the Mavignier’s network could also serve –
concerning biographies, practices, as well as professional and
personal relations of its Latin American actors with other persons in
his, and other networks to whom they also belonged – as an
77
76
‘dubinsko’ čitanje topologije Mavigneirove osobne mreže zahtijeva,
osim poznavanja europske i ne-europske povijesti moderne
umjetnosti, poznavanje osnova mrežne analiza, ali – iz perspektive
autora ovog članka – riječ je o rezultatima vrijednim truda uloženog u
stjecanje takvih znanja. U ovom konkretnom slučaju,
kombinacija tradicionalne metodologije povijesti umjetnosti,
primijenjene u istraživanjima razvoja Mavignierove mreže i tehnika
analize socijalnih mreža, kao i tehnika mrežne vizualizacije,
primijenjenih u analizi rezultata tih istraživanja, pokazala se prilično
korisnom. No tijekom provođenja istraživanja i tumačenja rezultata,
projekcije i perspektive mrežne analize i vizualizacije mreža postupno
su se stopile s pristupom povijesti umjetnosti, pa je vrlo teško povući
liniju razgraničenja između tih bitnih sastavnica metodološkoga
aparata primijenjenog u ovome članku. Takvo nastojanje čini se
istovremeno i beskorisnim, a zbog toga što je upravo njihov suodnos,
kao i suodnos njihovih teorijskih pretpostavki osnova za proizvodnju
novih, relevantnih informacija, poput onih ponuđenih rekonstrukcijom
i opisom strukture Mavignierove osobne mreže ili ‘dubinskim’
čitanjem njezine topologije, koja se ukazuje i kao mogući izvor novih
istraživačkih pitanja. O ograničenjima primijenjene metodologije
može se i potrebno je raspravljati, no takva rasprava imala bi smisla
samo u relaciji prema primjerima sličnih istraživanja provedenih
sličnom analitičkom aparaturom, ali znatno s drukčijim rezultatima.
6 S obzirom na to da digitalna povijest umjetnosti – barem iz naše perspektive –
podrazumijeva, prije svega, razvoj novih analitičkih modela i novih načina dijeljenja
znanja i podataka, izbor Gephi-ja, umjesto nekog drugog, sosticiranijeg alata za
vizualizaciju podataka, bio je logična odluka, donesena temeljem činjenice da je riječ
o open-access programskom paketu, kojeg je jednostavno naučiti i koristiti, a koji će
omogućiti zainteresiranim povjesničarima umjetnosti da – onoga trenutka kad CAN_IS
baza podataka bude stavljena u javnu upotrebu – ponovno upotrijebe naše podatke.
7 O temi društvenog kapitala i njegovoj relaciji prema društvenom umrežavanju vidi u:
Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a eory of Practice, Cambridge & New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1977. Ronald Burt, e Network Structure of Social Capital”, Research
in Organizational Behav iour, Volume 22, 2000. 345423; Carl L. Bankston, Min Zhou,
“Social Capital as Process: e Meanings and Problems of a eoretical Metaphor?”,
Sociological Inquiry 72 (2), 2002. 285317; David Halpern, Social Capital, London: Polity
Press, 2004. Lee R ainie, Barry Wellman, Netwo rked: e New So cial Op erating Sy stem,
poglavlje: “Networked Creators”, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2014.
8 Kopiju Mavignierove diplome vidi na http://www.mavignier.com/hfg_gru_dip.htm
(pristupljeno 24.ožujka 2016.).
9 Monohcrom e Malerei , Sdätisches Museum Schloss Morsbroich, Leverkusen, od
8.ožujka do 8.svibnja 1960.; kustos Udo Ku ltermann; Almir Mavignier, Galleria Azimut,
Milano, od 5. do 15.travnja 19 60.; Mostra C ollettiva , Galleria Azimut, od 25.svibnja
do 24.srpnja 1960., Milano; sudionici: Alberto Biasi, Kilian Breier, Agostino Bonalumi,
Enrico Castellani, Giacomo Ganci, Edoardo Landi, Heinz Mack, Dadamaino, Piero
Manzoni, Manfredo Massironi, Almir Mavignier, Ira Moldow, Pisani, Marco Santini.
http://pierom anzoni.org/ EN/exhibi tions_group 2.htm (pristupljeno 9.studenoga 2105.);
Konkrete Kun st – 50 Jahre Entwi cklung, Kunsthalle, Zürich, od 8.lipnja do 14.kolovoza
1960.; kustosi: Max Bill i Margit Staber; u izložbi je sudjelovalo 40 umjetnika iz Europe
i Latinske Amerike, među kojima i četiri latinoameričke umjetnice (Mary Vieira, Lygi a
Clark, Lygia Pape, Judith Lauand); e international Abstract Painting Exhibition, Shen
Sheng Pao Press Building, Taipei, od 11. do 14.studenoga 1960., izložba u organizaciji
Galerije Azimut.
10 Almir Mavignier, „Nove tendencije 1. Slučaj koji iznenađuje”, Ten d e nc i j e 4 , katalog
izložbe, Galerija suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb, 1970., n.p.
11 Ibid, n.p.
12 Ibid, n.p.
13 Iznimka je izložba Le movement, održana u Parizu 1955., a uključena u ovaj prikaz
kao historijska prekretnica u procesu umjetničkog umrežavanj a 1950-ih godina i važna
povijesna referencija većine umjetnika zaokupljenih kinetičkim i lumino-kinetičkim
istraživanjima. Kustos te izložbe bio je Pontus Hulten, a umjesto kataloga objavljen je
deplijan (poster, presavijen u četvorine, obostrano tiskan) u kojem se našao njegov tekst
Mouvement - Temps o u les q uatre dime nsions de la PLASTIQU E CINET IQUE, članak
Roberta Bordiera Cinéma i L’O e u v r e T r a n s f o r m a b l e te Notes pour un Manifeste Victora
Vas a re l y i ja i l i „le Manifeste Jaune” („Žuti manifest”). Drugu iznimku čine dvije izložbe
održane na relaciji Zagreb – Pariz: Bloc – Pil let – Vasarely, Zagreb/Rijeka,1957. Bakić
Picelj – Srnec, Galerie Denise René, Pariz, 1959., uključene kao indikatori receptivnih
potencijala jugoslavenske/hrvatske sredine s obzirom na tip umjetničke produkcije s
kojom će se sresti u kontekstu Novih tendencija. Individualne izložbe Almira Mavigniera,
Françoisa Morelleta, Heinza Macka i Otta Pienea, održane u studentskoj Galeriji Nota u
Münchenu 1960. godine, također su svojevrsna iznimka, uključena u ovaj kartografski
prikaz kao tipičan primjer diseminacije neoavangardnih praksi u sredinama s manjim
brojem njihovih pred stavnika.
14 Među takve alternativne izložbene prostore i važne komunikacijske punktove mogu
se ubrojiti galerija Hanssehuis (Antwerpen), Galerija Azimut i studio Lucija Fontane
(Milano), studio Grupe N i Circolo del Pozzetto u Padovi, Circolo degli artisti (Savona),
studio Mary Baumeister (Köln), Galerie A (Arnheim), Galerie .31, (Dodrecht), i druge.
15 Na primjer, Studio f, Ulm; Galerie des Kleintheater, Bern; Georg Kasper Galerie, Lozana;
Galleria Pater i Galleria Apollinaire, Milano; Galleria La Tartaruga, Rim; Galerie Iris
Clert, Pariz; Galerie Schmela i Galerie 22, Düsseldorf; Galerie Renate Boukes, Wiesbaden,
Galerie Schindler, Berlin; Galerij De Posthoorn i Internationale galerie OREZ, Hag.
16 Vidi: http://americanart.si.edu/collections/mediaarts/paik/paik_pdfs/paik_archive_otto_
piene_intervie w.pdf (datum pristupa 20.svibnja 2016.).
17 Annick Bureaud, „From Zero to Sky Art. Interview with Otto Piene”, Art Press 322, April
2006, online verzija http://www.ann ickbureaud.n et/wp-cont ent/uploads /2011/01 /PieneEN.
doc.pdf (pristupljeno 2.svibnja 2015.)
18 Mavignier, 1970., n.p.
19 Ibid, n.p.
20 Ibid., n.p.
interesting starting point for investigating neo-avant-garde’s
different dynamics and different geographies in the observed
period. It is true that such close reading of Mavigneir’s
network topology requires, apart from the knowledge of European
and non-European history modern art, also basic knowledge of
network analysis, but – from the point of view of the authors of this
article – it is a rather rewarding effort. In this particular case,
the combination of traditional methodology of art history, which
was applied in the research of Mavignier’s network’s development,
and techniques of social network analysis and network
visualisations applied in the analysis of the results of that research,
seemed to have been a rather useful. However, while conducting
the research and results interpretation, the projections and
perspective of network analysis gradually merged with the
approach of art history, and it is quite hard, and – from the present
perspective – also unnecessary to draw some clear line of
demarcation between the two. In particularly because it is exactly
the interplay of both approaches and their underlying theoretical
frameworks which could produce relevant new information – as it is
reconstruction and description of Mavignier’s personal social
network structure and recognition of its topology as a valuable
source of new research questions. The limitations of applied
methodology could, and should be discussed, but such discussion
would make sense only in relation to the examples of similar type
of research conducted using different analytic apparatus and
obtaining different results.
1 See, for example: Jerko Denegri, Constructive approach art: Exat 51 and New
Tendencies, Zagreb : Horetzky, 2004; Peter Weibel (ed.), Bit international – [Nove]
tendencije – Computer und visuelle Forschung: Zagreb 1961– 1973, exhibition
catalogue, Neue Galerie am Landesmuseum Joanneum, Graz April 28th–June 17th
2007; Die Neuen Tendenzen: eine europäische Künstlerbewegung 1961–1973, exhibition
catalogue, Museum für Konkrete Kunst, Ingolstadt, September 29th 2006– January
7th 2007; Leopold–Hoesch–Museum, Düren, January 28th–March 25th 2007; round
table discussion New Tendencies and Architecture: Abstraction, Ambience, Algorithm,
International Architecture Exhibition, Venice, August 8th 2014; Margit Rosen, A
Little-Known Story about a Movement, a Magazine, and the Computer Arrival in Art
New Tendencies and Bit International, 1961–1973, MIT Press, 2011.; Armin Medosch,
New Tendencies Ar t at the reshold of the Information Revolution (1961–1978), MIT
Press, 2016;
2 Noah P. Mark, “Culture and Competition: Homophily and Distancing Explanations
for Cultural Niches”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, June, 2003, 319–
320; see at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily (last accessed on: 2 Feb. 2016).
3 We have consulted, amongst others, the New Tendencies archive in the Museum
of Contemporary art in Zagreb, Archive of Equipo 57 at Centro Andaluz de Arte
Contemporáneo, Seville; archival material from Bibliothèque Kandinsky, Paris;
documents from artists’ private archives, etc.
4 e list of information sources is too long for a footnote, and therefore available at
the ATNET project website: www.art-net-hrzz/data-sources.
5 Development of the CAN_IS database is a part of the research conducted within the
research project ARTNET at the Institute of Art History in Zagreb, and supported by
the Croatian Science Foundation.
6 Since – from our perspective – digital art history assumes, rst and foremost, a
development of new analytic models and new ways of data and knowledge sharing,
the decision of Gephi, instead of some other, more sophisticated visualization tool,
was a logical choice. It was based on the fact that Gephi is freely available, simple to
learn, and as such, will allow other interested art historians to reuse our data, as soon
as CAN_IS database will be made public.
7 On the subject of social capital and social capital’s relation to social networking see
in: Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a eory of Practice, 1972; Burt, Ronald, “e Network
Structure of Social Capital”, Research in Organizational Behaviour, Volume 22, 2000,
345–423; Bankston, Carl L. and Min Zhou, “Social Capital as Process: e Meanings
and Problems of a eoretical Metaphor?” Sociological Inquiry 72 (2), 2002, 285–317;
David Halpern, Social Capital, Polity Press, London, 2004; Rainie L, B. Wellman,
Networked: e New Social Operating System, chapter: “Networked Creators”.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT Press, 2014.
8 See the copy of Mavignier’s graduation diploma at http://www.mavignier.com/
hfg_gru_dip.htm (last accessed on: March 24th 2016).
9 Monohcrome Malerei, S dätisches Museum Schloss Morsbroich, Leverkusen, March
8th 1960–May 8th 1960; curator Udo Kultermann; Almir Mavignier, Galleria Azimut,
Milan, April 5th–15th 1960; Mostra Collettiva, Galleria Azimut May 25th– July 24th
1960, Milan, participants: Alberto Biasi, Kilian Breier, Agostino Bonalumi, Enrico
Castellani, Giacomo Ganci, Edoardo Landi, Heinz Mack, Dadamaino, Piero Manzoni,
Manfredo Massironi, Almir Mavignier, Ira Moldow, Pisani, Marco Santini. http://
pieromanzoni.org/EN/exhibitions_group2.htm (last accessed on: November 9th
2015); Konkrete Kunst – 50 Jahre Entwicklung, Kunsthalle, Zürich, June 8th 1960–
August 14th 1960, curators Max Bill and Margit Staber. ere were 40 participating
authors from Europe and Latin America, among whom on ly four female artists, all
from Latin America: Mary Vieira, Lygia Clark, Lygia Pape and Judith Lauand. e
International Abstract Painting Exhibition, Shen Sheng Pao Press Building, Taipei,
November 11th–14th 1960.
10 Mavignier Almir, “New Tendencies 1. e case which surprises”, Tendencies 4,
exhibition catalogue, Gallery of Contemporary art, Zagreb, 1970, n.p.
11 Ibid., n.p.
12 Ibid., n.p.
13 e exception to that rule is the exhibition “Le movement, held in Paris in 1955,
which is included in this selection as a historical landmark in the process of artists’
networking of the 1950s, and as a very important historic reference for the majority
of artists who were pursuing their experimental work along the lines of kinetic and
lumino-kinetic art. Another exception are the two exhibitions held in Zagreb and
Paris in 1957 and 1959 (Bloc – Pillet – Vasarely, Zagreb/Rijeka, 1957; Bakić – Picelj
– Srnec, Gallery Denise René, Paris, 1959), included as indication of Yugoslav/
Croatian local community’s receptive potentials regarding the type of art production
it would encounter in the context of the New Tendencies. Individual exhibitions of
Almir Mavignier, François Morellet, Heinz Mack and Otto Piene held at students’
Gallery Nota, Munich, in 1960, are considered as an example of the dissemination of
neo-avantgarde ideas in the communities that had a rather modest experience with
contemporary radical art practices.
14 Among such alternative exhibition spaces were Hanssehuis (Antwerp), Galleria
Azimut and Lucia Fontana’s studio (Milano), Gruppo N studio and Circolo del
Pozzetto in Padova, Circolo degli artisti (Savona), Mary Baumeister’s studio (Köln),
Galerij A (Arnheim), Galerij .31, (Dodrecht), and others.
15 For example, Studio f, Ulm; Galerie des Kleintheater, Ber n; Georg Kasper Galerie,
Lozana; Galleria Pater and Galleria Apollinaire, Milano; Galleria La Tart aruga,
Rim; Galerie Iris Clert, Pariz; Galerie Schmela i Galerie 22, Düsseldorf; Galerie
Renate Boukes, Wiesbadenu, Galerija Schindler, Berlin; Galerij De Posthoorn and
Internationale galerij OREZ, Hag.
16 See at http://americanart.si.edu/collections/mediaarts/paik/paik_pdfs/paik_archive_
otto_piene_interview.pdf (last accessed on: May 20th 2016).
17 Annick Bureaud, “From Zero to Sky Art. Interview with Otto Piene”, Art Press
322, April 2006, online version: http://www.annickbureaud.net/wp-content/
uploads/2011/01/PieneEN.doc.pdf (last accessed on: May 22nd 2015).
18 Mavignier, 1970, n.p.
19 Ibid, n.p.
20 Ibid, n.p.
21 ZERO – Edition, Exposition, Demonstration, Galler y Schmela, Düsseldorf, July 5,
1961.
22 For a brief outline of the event, see: http://www.4321zero.com/1961.html (last
accessed on: April 12th2016).
* This work has been fully supported by Croatian Science
Foundation’s funding of the project 6270 Modern and Contemporary
Artist Networks, Art Groups and Art Associations: Organisation and
Communication Models of Artist Collaborative Practices in the 20th
and 21st Century.
1 Na primje r, Jerko D enegri, Constructive approach art: Exat 51 and New Tendencies, Zagreb:
Horetzky, 20 04.; Pete r Weibel (e d.), Bit international – [Nove] tendencije – Computer und
visuelle Forschung: Zagreb 1961–1973, katalog izložbe, Neue Galerie am Landesmuseum
Joanneum, Graz, od 28.travnj a do 17. lipnja 200 7.; Die Neuen Tendenzen: eine europäische
Künstler bewegun g 1961– 1973, katalog izložbe, Museum für Konkrete Kunst, Ingolstadt, od
29.rujna 2006. do 7.siječnja 2007.; Leopold-Hoesch-Museum, Düren, od 28.siječnja do
25.ožujka 2007.; materijali uz okrugli stol New Tendencies and Architecture: Abstraction,
Ambience , Algor ithm, International Architecture Exhibition, Venecija, 8.kolovoza 2014.;
Margit Rose n, A Little-Known Story about a Movement, a Magazine, and the Computer
Arrival in Art New Tenden cies and Bit Inte rnational , 1961 –1973, MIT Press, 2011.; Armin
Medosch , New Tenden ciesArt at the reshold of the In formation Revolut ion (19 61–1978 ),
MIT Press, 2016.
2 Noah P. Mark, „Culture and Competition: Homophily and Distancing Explanations for
Cultural Niches”, America n Soci ological Revie w, Vol. 68, No. 3, lipanj, 2003., 319–320; Vidi:
https://en. wikiped ia.org/wi ki/Homophily (pristupljeno 12.veljače 2106.).
3 Istraživanja smo, između ostaloga, obavljali u arhivu Muzeja suvremene umjetnosti
u Zagrebu, u fondu Novih tendencija, u arhivu Equipo 57 Centro Andaluz de Arte
Contemporáneo, u Sevilji; u Bibliothèque Kandinsky, u Parizu; te u dostupnim privatnim
arhivima sudionika Novih tendencija.
4 Popis izvora vrlo je obiman i nalazi se na mrežnoj stranici projekta ARTNET www.art-net-
hrzz/data-sources, gdje ga je moguće konzultirati.
5 Razvoj baze podataka CAN_IS dio je istraživanja koja se provode na projektu ARTNET
Instituta za povijest umjet nosti u Zagre bu, uz podršku Hrvatske zak lade za znano st.
* Ovaj je rad nancirala Hrvatska zaklada za znanost projektom
6270 Moderne i suvremene umjetničke mreže, umjetničke grupe
i udruženja: Organizacijski i komunikacijski modeli suradničkih
umjetničkih praksi 20. i 21. stoljeća.
79
78
21 ZERO – Edition, Exposition, Demonstration, Galerie Schmela, Düsseldorf, 5.srpnja
1961.
22 Kratki opis toga događanja potraži na: http://www.432 1zero.com/1 961.html (last
accessed on: 12 Apr. 2016).
23 Pojedinosti o tome događaju, o njegovu snimanju i emitiranju na “prvome (i tad
jedinome) njemačkom televizijskom programu ARD (Allgemeine Rundfunkanstalten
Deutschlands)”, vidi u: Christine Mehring, „Television Art’s Abstract Starts: Europe circa
1944–1969*“, October, No. 125, ljeto 2008., 53.
24 Ibid.
25 Barros, José D’Assunção, „Mário Pedrosa e a Crítica de Arte no Brasil” u: Ars – Revista
do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Artes Visuais (ECA) do Escola de Comunicação e
Artes da Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Ano 6, vol. 11, 2008., 40–61.
26 Više o tome vidi u: Maria Amália García, „Ações e contatos regionais da arte concreta.
Intervençõe s de Max Bill em São Paulo e m 1951”, Revista USP, no.79, São Paulo, 2008.,
196–204.
27 Vidi referencu “Alexander Wollner” u: Itaú Cult ural, digitalnoj enciklopediji brazilske
umjetničke kulture, dostupnoj na linku https://www.escritoriodearte.com/artista/
alexander-wollner/ (pristupljeno: 23. travnja 2016.).
28 Prema Mavignieru: „Pedrosina disertacija Utjecaj teorij e Gest alta na umjetn ičko dj elo
osvijestila mi je činjenicu da se sadržaj umjetničkog djela ne nalazi u asocijativnoj
vezi s prirodom. To saznanje dopustilo mi je da napustim naturalističko slikarstvo i
započnem rad na konkretnom slikarstvu oslobođenom svake asocijativnosti.”, vidi:
Almir Mavignier, „Depoimento”, u: Aracy Amaral (ed.). Projeto construtivo brasileiro
na arte: 19501962. Rio de Janeiro: MAM, 1977., 177., citirano prema jedinici „Almir
Mavignier” i z: Itaú Cu ltural, dig italne enciklopedije brazilske kulture, https://www.
escritoriodearte.com/artista/almir-mavignier/ (pristupljeno 23.travnja 2016.).
29 Tijekom studija u Ulmu, Mavignier je imao samostalne izložbe u Galerie 33, Bern,
1955. Galeria Gänsheide 26, Stuttgart, 1957.; Ulmer Museum, Ulm, 1957.; Galerie
Neumarkt 17 AG, Zu rich, 19 57.
30 Günther Uecker pridružuje se grupi Zero 1960. godine, ali surađuje s Ottom Pieneom
i Heinzom Mackom od 1958. godine, najprije kao prevoditelj za Jeana Tinguelyja i
Yvesa Kleina, supruga njegove sestre Rotraut Uecker, prilikom Kleinovih dolazaka u
Düsseldorf i Gelsenkirchen; vidi na: https://www.youtu be.com/watc h?v=96lyn Qzdi9I
(pristupljeno 9.studenoga 2015.).
31 Više o toj izložbi vidi na: http://www.4321ze ro.com/1959 .html (pristupljeno 12.
svibnja 2016).
32 Prvi broj časopisa Azimuth objavljen je 3. rujna 1959. godine (EPI editoriale periodici
italiani, Milano), a uključivao je, uz ostalo, priloge Piera Manzonija, Enrica Castellanija,
Guida Balla, Jeana Tingeluyja i Otta Piena. Drugi i posljednji broj objavljen je u
siječnju 1960., kao katalog tad održane izložbe Mostra Co llettiva (vidi bilješku 9 ovoga
članka), koji je uključivao i esej ‘Libera dimensione’ (‘Slobodna dimenzija’), jedan od
umjetnikovih najlucidnijih tekstova. Uskoro potom preveden na engleski i ponovno
objavljen u katalogu izložbe Mono chrome Ma lerai, povijesne likovne priredbe posvećene
genezi i razvoju monokromnog sl ikarstva.“; izvor podataka i navoda: http://ww w.
pieromanzoni.org/EN/ biography_1960.htm (pristupljeno 11. travnja 2016.)
33 Gallerija Schmela, (1957–2008), bila je prva privatna galerija u regiji Nordrhein-
Wes t fa l e n ek s k lu z i v no o r ij e n t ir a n a n a pr o m ic a n je s u vr e m e ne u mj e t n os t i . V i di n a : h t tp : / /
www.oac.cdlib.org/ndaid/ark:/13030/kt6z09s3jn/ (pristupljeno 23. ožujka 2016.).
34 Prema sjećanju Otta Piena, prvi susret Mavaigniera s Fontanom, bio je u neku ruku
specičan. „Fontana nas je impresionirao svojom osobnošću. Max Bill, koji nas je
uključio u svoju izložbu ‘Konkrete Kunst” 1960. godine predstavljao je posve drukčiji
tip ‘izazova’. Svima nama (osim Mavigniera, koji je studirao kod Billa) činilo se da
mu nismo ni do koljena kao umjetniku koji nije bio zaslijepljen raciom, odnosno
jednostranim intelektualnim stajalištem ‘vizualnih istraživanja’ kao jedinim interesom
vidi u: Otto Piene, “Die Entstehung der Gruppe ZERO” (1964), Dirk Pörschmann,
Mattjis Visser ( Hg.), 4 3 2 1 ZERO, Richter Fey, Düsseldorf, 2012., 22–23.
35 Vidi: http://www.4321z ero.com/195 9.html (pristupljeno 12.ožujka 2016.).
36 Razgovor s Ottom Pieneom: https://www.youtube .com/watch?v= 96lynQzdi9 I (datum
pristupa 12. tr avnja 2016.)
37 Otto Piene, e Development of the Group Zero”, Zero, ed., Heinz Mack &Otto
Piene, Cambridge, Mass.: M IT Press, 1973., 23–27.
38 O njegovu specičnom odnosu s Tinguelyjem vidi u: Bruno Corà, „Tinguely and
Munari”, kat alog i zložb e Ting uely e Muna ri – l’ Op ere in azi one , CAMeC – Centro
Arte Moderna e Contemporanea, La Spezia, 2004., 1–4.; Munari je 1959. surađivao i s
Danielom Spoerrijem, čijoj je ediciji multipla M.A.T. pridonio svojim radom Fosil iz
godine 2000.
39 Više o suradnji tih dvojice umjetnika s amsterdamskim Stedelijkom vidi u: Stefano
Collicelli Cagol, „De Vitaliteit in de Kunst (1959-1960) and Van Natuur tot Kunst (1960)
at the Ste delijk Museum , Amsterdam”, Stedlijk Studies, 2, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam.
http://ww w.stedelijkstud ies.com/j ournal/e xhibition- history- and-the-i nstitution- as-a-
medium/ (pristupljeno 19.veljače 2016.).
40 Mavignier i Morellet prvi su se put susreli u Riju 1950. godine, u koji je Morellet stigao
tražeći mjesto na koje bi se preselio u slučaju trećeg svjetskog rata, koji se tih godina,
zbog Korejskoga rata i vrlo napetih odnosa među velesilama, činio gotovo neizbježnim.
Vidi u: Hans- Ulr ich Obri st, „Sy stem mati c i nki ng b y th e L ate Franç ois More llet ”, Art,
srpanj 2016.; preuzeto s http://www.culturedmag .com/fran cois-morel let/ (pristupljeno
20.srpnja 2016.).
41 Mariastella Margozzi, „Arte programmata, arte cinetica. Categorie e declinazioni
attraverso le poetich e”, u : Arte pr ogrammata e cinet ica Itali ana, katalog izložbe, MACBA
– Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Buenos Aires, od 10.listopada do 8.prosinca
2013., 15–16.
42 Drugačiji pristup primjeni kvantitativnih metoda u povijesti umjetnosti demonstrira
projekt Artl@s, pokrenut 2009. godine. Riječ je o projektu prostorne (digitalne)
povijesti umjetnosti, koji se odvija na École Normale Supérieure u Parizu, a orijentiran
je prostornom prikazivanju umjetničkih pojava. Projektni tim Artl@sa izgradio je
post-GIS bazu podataka izložbenih kataloga od 18. stoljeća do danas na globalnoj
razini (BasArt), obuhvaćajući Afriku, Latinsku Ameriku, Europu, Sjevernu Ameriku,
Aziju, Bliski istok i Australiju. Projekt ARTNET, pokrenut je, međutim, 2014. godine,
u Institutu za povijest umjetnosti u Zagrebu, a usmjeren je razvoju interdisciplinarne
metodologije koja povezuje povijest umjetnosti, povijest arhitekture, povijest medija,
sociologiju i ICT-a, s naglaskom na istraživanju umjetničkih mrežnih praksi u 20.
i 21. stoljeću, kojima pristupa iz perspektive teorije društvenih mreža i povijesti
medija. Rezultati tih istraživanja, kao u slučaj ovoga članka, predstavlje ni su mrežnim
vizualizacijama i prostornom prezentacijom podataka, a uz upotrebu analitičkih alata
ugrađenih u CAN_IS bazu podataka, čiji je razvoj još uvijek u tijeku.
43 Bonacich, Phillip, „Factoring and Weighing Approaches to Clique Identication”,
Journal of Mathem atical So ciolog y, 1972., 2, 113–120, citirano prema: Nicholas A.
Christakis, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H, James H. Fowler, Ph.D., „Social Network Visualization
in Epidemiology”, No r Epidemi ol, 2009, 19 (1), 516.
44 R.A. Hill, R.I.M. Dunbar, „Social network size in humans”, Human Nature , Vol. 14, no.
1, New York, 2002., 53.
45 Jacomy, Mathieu, et al. “ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy
network visualization designed for the Gephi soware.” PloS one 9.6 (2014): e98679.
46 Spirale: internationale Z eitschri für junge Kunst, Bern: Spirale-Verlag, M. Wyss,
[1953]-1964, čitavu ediciju časopisa čini devet brojeva. Pokrenuo ga je Eugen Grominger,
asistent Maxa Billa na HfG, kojem su se sredinom 1950-ih, u ulozi suurednika pridružili
Dieter Roth i Marcel Wyss. Časopis je objavljivao originalne grake poznatih umjetnika
(Mondiran, Arp, Bill, Lohse, Sophie Taeuber-Arp, Albers, Kandinsky), zajedno s radovima
umjetnika mlađe generacije, kojoj su pripadali i njegovi urednici. Uz vizualne umjetnosti,
prato je i zbivanja u polju vizualne p oezije. Više o tome časopisu vidi u: Annemarie Bucher,
Spirale. Eine Künstlerze itschri 19531964., Baden, Lars Müller, 1990.
47 Vidi bilješku 27 ovoga članka.
48 O vezama Jesúsa Rafael Soata s obje grupe vidi na http://www.jr-soto.c om/fset_ savie_
uk.html (pristupljeno 21. ožujka 2016.).
49 Robert A. Hanneman, Mark Riddle, „C entrality and power”, u: Introduction to social
network methods, Department of Sociology, University of California & Department of
Sociology, University of Northern Colorado, online tekst na poveznici http://facu lty.ucr.
edu/~hanneman/nettext/C10_Centrality.html#Summary (pristupljeno 13.svibnja 2015.).
50 Ibid.
51 Vidi u Rosen, 2011., 535.
52 O Manzonijevim dvojbama u vezi s prvom izložbom Novih tendencija vidi u: Giovanni
Rubino, “Sviluppi dell’ arte programmata italiana in Jugoslavia dal 1961 al 1964”, Studi di
Memofonte , 9/2012., 66–67.
53 Giovanni Granzotto, „Arte programmata e cinetica: origini, successo, declino, rinascita”,
u: Arte pr ogrammata e cinet ica Itali ana, MACBA – Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de
Buenos Aires, od 10.listopa da do 8.prosinca 2013., 10.
54 „Interview with Emmett Williams: Fluxus Artist Extraordinaire, UMB RELLA / ožujak
1998.; vidi na linku: http://colop hon.com/umb rella/emm et.html (pristupljeno 14.veljače
2016.).
23 For the description of the event, of the recording and bro adcasting “on Germany’s
first (and, at the time, only) television program ARD (Allgemeine Rundfunkanstalten
Deutschlands)”, se e in: Christine Mehring, „Television Art’s Abstract Starts: Europe
circa 1944–1969*“, October, No. 125, Summer 2008, 53.
24 Ibid.
25 Barros, José D’Assunção, “Mário Pedrosa e a Crítica de Arte no Brasil” in: Ars
– Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Artes Visuais (ECA) do Escola de
Comunicação e Artes da Universidade de São Paulo (USP). ISSN: 1678-5320. Ano 6,
vol.11, January–July 2008, 40–61.
26 More on the reception of Max Bill’s ideas see: Maria Amália García, “Ações e
contatos regionais da arte concreta. Intervenções de Max Bill em São Paulo em 1951”,
Revista USP, no. 79, São Paulo, September–November 2008, 196–204.
27 See the notice “Alexander Wollner” in Itaú Cultural, a digital encyclopaedia of
Brazilian culture. https://www.escritoriodearte.com/artista/alexander-wollner/ (last
accessed on: April 23rd 2016).
28 According to Mavignier: “Pedrosa’s doctoral thesis e inuence of Gestalt theory on
the work of art informed me that the content of the artwork is not found in association
with forms of nature. is knowledge allowed me to abandon a naturalist painting and
to begin with a concrete painting free form any associations”, see: Almir Mavignier,
“Depoimento”, in: Aracy Amaral (ed.). Projeto construtivo brasileiro na arte: 1950–
1962. Rio de Janeiro: MAM, 1977, 177. Cited according the citation in the note “Almir
Mavignier”, in: Itaú Cultural, a digital encyclopaedia of Brazilian culture. https://www.
escritoriodearte.com/artista/almir-mavignier/ (last accessed on: April 23rd 2016).
29 During his studies at HfG in Ulm, Mavignier held the individual exhibitions at
Galerie 33, Bern, 1955; Galeria Gänsheide 26, Stuttgart, 1957; Ulmer Museum, Ulm,
1957; Galerie Neumarkt 17 AG, Zürich, 1957; see: http://www.mavignier.com/aus_ein.
htm (last accessed on: December 12th 2016)
30 Günther Uecker, who joined the group Zero in 1960, had collaborated with Otto
Piene and Heinz Mack since 1958, rst as a translator for Jean Tinguely and Yves Klein
during their visits to Dusseldorf and Gelsenkirchen. Klein’s wife, Rotraut Uecker, was
Günther Uecker’s sister. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96lynQzdi9I (last
accessed on: November 9th 2015).
31 For more information on that exhibition see: http://ww w.4321zero.com/1 959.html
(last accessed on: March 12th 2016).
32 e rst issue of the magazine Azimuth, released on 3 September 1959, (EPI
editorials periodicals italiani, Milano), included, among others, the contributions
by Piero Manzoni, Enrico Castellani, Guido Ballo, Jean Tingeluy and Otto Piene. Its
second and the last issue, was published in January 1960, as a catalogue to then held
exhibition Mostra Co llettiva (see note 9 in this article). It also included “the essay
‘Libera dimensione’, one of the artist’s most lucid writings [that] was shortly thereaer
translated to English and reprinted in the exhibition catalogue for Monochrome Malerai,
the historic show dedicated to the genesis and development of the monochromatic
painting.”; source of information and citation http ://www.pierom anzoni.org/ EN/
biography_1960.htm (last accessed on: April 11th 2016).
33 Gallery Schmela, (1957–2008), was the rst private gallery in the Nordrhein-Westfalen
exclusively oriented towards the promotion of contemporary art. See at http://ww w.oac.
cdlib.org/ndaid/ark:/13030/kt6z09s3jn/ (last accessed on: March 23rd 2016).
34 According the recollection of Otto Piene, “Fontana impressed us with his winning
personality. A very dierent ‘temptation’ came from Max Bill, who included us in his
exhibition Concrete Art in 1960. Most of us (except for Mavignier, who had studied with
Bill) remained on his feet as an artist, who was not blinded by the ratio, that is, by one-
sided intellectualist attitude of ‘visual research’ as a singular interest”, see in: Otto Piene,
“Die Entstehung der Gruppe ZERO” (1964), Dirk Pörschmann, Mattjis Visser (Hg.), 4 3
2 1 ZERO, Richter Fey, Düsseldorf, 2012, 22–23.
35 See: http://ww w.4321zero.com /1959.htm l (last accessed on March 12th 2016).
36 For the video of the conversation with Otto Piene, see: https://www.youtube.co m/
watch?v=96lynQzdi9I (last accessed on April 24th 2016).
37 Otto Piene, e Development of the Group Zero”, Zero, ed., Heinz Mack &Otto
Piene, Cambridge, Mass.: M IT Press, 1973, 23–27.
38 About his specic relation with Tinguely, see: Bruno Corà, “Tinguely and Munari”,
exhibition catalogue Tingue ly e Mu nari – l O per e in az ion e, CAMeC – Centro Arte
Moderna e Contemporanea, La Spezia, 2004, 1–4.; According to Corà, Munari also
collaborated with D. Spoerri in 1959, contributing to Spoerri’s editions MAT the work
Fossil from th e year 2000.
39 Both artists closely collaborated with Stedelijk in 1959/1960. See: Stefano Collicelli
Cagol, “De Vitaliteit in de Kunst (1959–1960) and Van Natuur tot Kunst (1960) at the
Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam”, Stedlijk Studies, 2, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam.
http://www.stedelijkstudies.com/journal/exhibit ion-history-and-the-institution-as-a-
medium/ (last accessed on: February 19th 2016).
40 ey rst met in Rio in 1950, where Morellet arrived looking for a place to live in
case of World War III breaks out due to the Korean crisis. See: Hans-Ulrich Obrist,
“Systematic inking by the Late François Morellet”, Art, July 2016; http://www.
culturedmag.com/francois-morellet/ (last accessed on: July 20th 2016).
41 Mariastella Margozzi, “Arte programmata, arte cinetica. Categorie e declinazioni
attraverso le poetiche”, in: Arte programmata e cinetica Italiana, exhibition catalogue,
MACBA – Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Buenos Aires, October 10th – December
8th 2013, 15–16.
42 A dierent approach to application of quantitive methodology in art history is
demonstrated by the project Artl@s, initiated in 2009. It is a project of a Spatial
(digital) history of art. It is based at École normale supérieure in Paris, and oriented
towards spatial presentation of artistic phenomena. e project team has built a
Post-GIS database of exhibition catalogues from the 18th century to the present
on a global scale (BasArt), from Africa and Latin America to Europe, to North
America, to Asia, and to the Middle East and Australia. Project ARTNET, initiated
in 2014, at the Institute of Art History in Zagreb, is oriented towards development
of interdisciplinary methodology which brings together art history, history of
architecture, media history, sociology and ICT, focusing on the research of artists
networking practices in the 20th and 21st century, approached from the point of
view of social networks theory and media history. e results of the research, as it
is also the case with this article, are presented by network visualizations, and spatial
data presentations, using the analytic tools built in the CAN_IS database, whose
development is still underway.
43 Bonacich Phillip, “Factoring and Weighing Approaches to Clique Identication”,
Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1972, 2, 113–120, cited in: Nicholas A. Christakis,
M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H, James H. Fowler, Ph.D., “Social Network Visualization in
Epidemiology”, Nor Epidemiol, 2009, 19 (1), 5–16.
44 R. A. Hill, R. I. M. Dunbar, “Social network size in humans, Human Nature, Vol.14,
no. 1, New York, 2002, 53.
45 Jacomy, Mathieu, et al. “ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy
network visualization designed for the Gephi soware.PloS one 9.6 (2014): e98679.
46 Spirale: internationale Zeitschri für junge Kunst, Bern: Spirale-Verlag, M. Wyss,
[1953]-1964, entire edition consists of nine issues. Magazine was initiated by Eugen
Grominger, Max Bill’s assistant at HfG, w ho was joined in mid-1950s by Dieter Roth
and Marcel Wyss as co-editors. It was presenting original graphics by the renowned
artists (Mondiran, Arp, Bill, Lohse, Sophie Taeuber-Arp, Albers, Kandinsky), along
with the works by artists of the young generation, to whom its editors also belonged.
Along with the visual arts, Spirale was also publishing articles on visual poetry. More
on that magazine see in: Annemarie Bucher, Spirale. Eine Künstlerzeitschri 1953
1964., Baden, Lars Müller, 1990.
47 See the note 27 in this article.
48 About Soto’s connections with both art groups see at http://www.jr-soto.com/
fset_savie_uk.html (last accessed on March 21st 2016.)
49 Robert A. Hanneman, Mark Riddle, “Centrality and power”, in: Introduction to social
network methods, Department of Sociology, University of California & Department
of Sociology, University of Northern Colorado, available at: http://faculty.ucr.
edu/~hanneman/nettext/C10_Centrality.html#Summary (last accessed on: May 13th
2015).
50 Ibid.
51 See: Rosen, 2011, 535.
52 On Manzoni’s doubts regarding his attendance at the rst New Tendencies
exhibition, see: Giovanni Rubino, “Svi luppi dell’ arte programmata italiana in
Jugoslavia dal 1961 al 1964”, Studi di Memofonte, 9/2012, 66–67.
53 Granzotto Govanni, “Arte programmata e cinetica: origini, successo, declino,
rinascita”, in: Arte programmata e cinetica Italiana, MACBA – Museo de Arte
Contemporáneo de Buenos Aires, October 10th–December 8th 2013, 10.
54 „Interview with Emmett Williams: Fluxus Artist Extraordinaire”, UMBRELLA /
March 1998; http://colophon.com/umbrella/emmet.html (last accessed on: February
14th 2016).
-
LJILJANA
KOLEŠNIK /
NIKOLA BOJIĆ /
ARTUR ŠILIĆ
-
REKONSTRUKCIJA
PERSO NALNE MREŽ E
ALMIRA MAVIGNIERA I
NJEZINA RELACIJA PREMA
PRVOJ IZLOŽBI NOVIH
TENDENCIJA. PRIMJER
PRIMJ ENE MREŽN E ANALIZE
I MREŽNE V IZUALIZACIJE U
POVIJESTI UMJETNOSTI 1/2
RECONSTRUCTION OF ALMIR
MAVIGNIER’S PERSONAL
NETW ORK AND ITS
RELATION TO THE FIRST NEW
TENDENCIES EXHIBITION.
THE EXAMPLE OF THE
APPLICATION OF N ETWORK
ANALYSIS AND NET WORK
VISUALISATION IN ART
HISTORY 1/2
SLIKA 2
VIZUALIZACIJA MODULARNE
STRUKTURE PERSONALNE
UMJETNIČKE MREŽE ALMIRA
MAVIGNIERA OKO GODINE 1960.
MREŽU ČINE 94 OSOBE POVEZANE
S 533 PRIJATELJSKA, RADNA I
POSLOVNA KONTAKTA, A VRSTA I
SNAGA TIH KONTAKATA REZULTIRA
IZDVAJANJEM NEKOLIKO ZASEBNIH
GRUPA (MODULA MREŽE), OPISANIH
U TABLICI UZ LIJEVI RUB PRIKAZA.
AUTORICA VIZUALIZACIJE: LJILJANA
KOLEŠNIK, 2016. (OPEN-ACCESS
PROGRAMSKI PAKET GEPHY 0.9.1).
FIGUR E 2
ALMIR MAVIGNIER’S PERSONAL NETWORK
AROUND THE YEAR 1960. THE NETWORK
CONSISTS OF 94 PERSONS (NODES)
ASSOCIATED BY 533 FRIENDLY, WORKING
AND BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS (EDGES).
THE TYPE AND STRENGTH OF RELATIONS
RESULTED IN FORMATION OF SEVERAL
GROUPS (MODULES) WITHIN THE
NETWORK, WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN THE
TABLE AT THE LEFT SIDE OF THE IMAGE.
AUTHOR OF THE VISUALISATION: LJILJANA
KOLEŠNIK, 2016 (OPEN-ACCESS PROGRAM
PACK AGE G EPH Y 0 .9 .1) .
DIGITAL ART H ISTORY DIGITAL NA POVIJEST U MJETNOSTI
SLIKA 3
VIZUALIZACIJA MAVIGNIEROVE
PERSONALNE UMJETNIČKE MREŽE
OKO GODINE 1960 S TEMELJENA NA
IZRAČUNU MJERA CENTRALNOSTI
ZA SVE MREŽNE AKTERE. UZ LIJEVI
RUB PRIKAZA NALAZI SE TABLICA S
IZRAČUNIMA MJERE CENTRALNOSTI
ZA PETNAEST NAJUTJECAJNIJIH
OSOBA UNUTAR TE MREŽE.
ISTAKNUTE POZICIJE ŠTO IH NA TOM
POPISU ZAUZIMAJU PIERO MANZONI,
ENRICO CASTELLANI, HEINZ MACK I
OTTO PIENE, ODRAZ SU TADAŠNJE,
USKE SURADNJE MILANSKE I
DÜSSELDORFSKE NEOAVANGARDNE,
ZAHVALJUJUĆI KOJOJ SU SE NA TOJ
LISTI NAŠLE I UMJETNICE NANAD
VIGO I EMILIA MAINO. AUTORICA
VIZUALIZACIJE: LJILJANA KOLEŠNIK,
2016. (OPEN-ACCESS PROGRAMSKI
PAKET GEPHY 0.9.1).
FIGUR E 3
VISUALIZATION OF CENTRALITY MEASURE
FOR THE PERSONS IN MAVIGNIER’S
PERSONAL NETWORK. ON THE LEFT
SIDE OF THE IMAGE THERE IS A TABLE
WITH THE LIST OF THE FIFTEEN MOST
INFLUENTIAL PERSONS AND THE
COEFFICIENTS OF THEIR CENTRALITY
MEASURE. PROMINENT POSITIONS OF
PIERO MANZONI, ENRICO CASTELLANI,
HEINZ MACK AND OTTO PIENE REFLECTS
A CLOSE COLLABORATION BETWEEN
MILANESE AND DÜSSELDORF NEO-
AVANTGARDE AT THE TIME. THANKS TO
THE MULTIPLICITY AND STRENGTH OF
THEIR TIES TWO FEMALE ARTISTS, EMILIA
MAINO (DADAMAINO), AND NANDA VIGO
ALSO FOUND THE WAY TO THE TOP OF
THE LIST. AUTHOR OF THE VISUALISATION:
LJILJANA KOLEŠNIK, 2016 (OPEN-ACCESS
PROGRAM PACKAGE GEPHY 0.9.1).
DIGITAL ART H ISTORY DIGITAL NA POVIJEST U MJETNOSTI
REKONSTRUKCIJA
PERSO NALNE MREŽ E
ALMIRA MAVIGNIERA
I NJEZIN A RELACIJA
PREMA PRVOJ IZLOŽBI
NOVIH TENDENCIJA.
PRIMJ ER PRIMJEN E
MREŽNE ANALIZE I
MREŽNE VIZUALIZACIJE U
POVIJESTI UMJETNOSTI 2/2
RECONSTRUCTION OF
ALMI R MAVIGNIER ’S
PERSO NAL NETWO RK
AND IT S RELATION T O THE
FIRST NEW TENDE NCIES
EXHI BITION. THE EXAMP LE
OF THE APPLICATION OF
NETWORK ANALYSIS AND
NETWORK VISUALISATION IN
ART HISTORY 2/2
SLIKA 4
VIZUALIZACIJA MAVIGNIEROVE
PERSONALNE UMJETNIČKE MREŽE
OKO 190. GODINE, KOJA INDICIRA
NJEZINU ULOGU U ORGANIZACIJI
PRVE ZAGREBAČKE IZLOŽBE NOVIH
TENDENCIJA. OBOJENI ČVOROVI
OZNAČAVAJU SUDIONIKE IZLOŽBE
KAO I UMJETNIKE KOJI SE NISU
ODAZVALI POZIVU. AUTORICA
VIZUALIZACIJE LJILJANA KOLENIK,
01. (OPENACCESS PROGRAMSKI
PAKET GEPHY 0.9.1).
FIGUR E 4
VISUALIZATION OF ALMIR MAVIGNIER’S
PERSONAL NETWORK AROUND
THE YEAR 190, REGARDING ITS
INVOLVEMENT IN THE ORGANIZATION
OF THE NEW TENDENCIES FIRST
EHIBITION. COLOURED NODES
INDICATE THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE
FIRST NEW TENDENCIES EHIBITION
AS WELL AS THE ARTISTS WHO WERE
INVITED, BUT DID NOT SEND THEIR
WORKS TO ZAGREB. AUTHOR OF THE
VISUALISATION LJILJANA KOLENIK,
01 (OPENACCESS PROGRAM
PACKAGE GEPHY 0.9.1).
DIGITAL ART H ISTORY DIGITAL NA POVIJEST U MJETNOSTI
-
LJILJANA
KOLEŠNIK /
NIKOLA BOJIĆ /
ARTUR ŠILIĆ
-
SLIKA 5
VIZUALIZACIJA BIPARTITNE MREŽE
ZAGREBAČKIH IZLOŽABA NOVIH
TENDENCIJA ODRŽANIH IZMEU
191. I 195. GODINE. MREŽA SE
ZASNIVA NA PRIKAZU ODNOSA
IZLOŽBA  SUDIONIK I UKLJUČUJE,
OSIM IZLAGAČA, SAMO NAJUŽI TIM
ORGANIZATORA IZLOŽABA. AUTORICA
VIZUALIZACIJE LJILJANA KOLENIK,
01. (OPENACCESS PROGRAMSKI
PAKET GEPHY 0.9.1).
FIGUR E 5
UNWEIGHTED BIPARTITE NETWORK
VISUALIZATION OF THE NEW
TENDENCIES EHIBITIONS HELD
BETWEEN 191 AND 195 IN ZAGREB.
REPRESENTING RELATIONS BETWEEN
EHIBITIONS AND PARTICIPATING
ARTISTS, IT ALSO INCLUDES
MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZING
TEAM FROM ZAGREB GALLERY OF
CONTEMPORARY ART. AUTHOR
OF THE VISUALISATION LJILJANA
KOLENIK, 01 (OPENACCESS
PROGRAM PACKAGE GEPHY 0.9.1).
DIGITAL ART H ISTORY DIGITAL NA POVIJEST U MJETNOSTI
Chapter
Full-text available
As an example of social network analysis in art history, the chapter is focusing on the feature of social network developed in the background of the international art movement New Tendencies tracing a development of that complex, almost rhyzomatic networking structure form its nascent in the framework of the neo-Avant-garde subculture at the end of 1950s to the dissipation at the beginning of the 1970. Taking a critical stance towards the very concept of New Tendencies as an art movement, study is focusing on the programmed, kinetic, optical, and computer generated art comprising for its production, and on the process of New Tendencies transition from the Avant-garde subculture to the mainstream artistic culture in the 1960s. Observed in correlation to modifications, changes and ruptures in the structure of its social network, (re)constructed relying on data about exhibitions and discursive events pertaining to each of four temporal stages outlining a rather long history of the New Tendencies, the said process of transition is analysed from the perspective of Movement’s initial programmatic orientation and its close proximity to the ideas of European New Left. While confirming already well-known and elaborated role of art criticism in New Tendencies’ inclusion in the international artistic mainstream, analysis of changes and ruptures in the structure of its social network, points to still another, critical role of art critics in the (ideological) crisis and deterioration of the Movement in mid-1960s largely overlooked in majority of studies on the New Tendencies.
Chapter
Full-text available
The International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM) was the leading forum of modern architecture and urban planning from 1928 to 1959. Over the course of ten thematically focused congresses and numerous meetings, CIAM evolved as an extensive international network of architects. The logic of its organization combined two opposing models, which were typical for architecture and fine arts of the 19th and 20th century – a model of artistic/architectural groups that were founded on ideologically and formally close standpoints, and a model of professional association. Whereas the first model of organization is often based on informal, non-hierarchical relations, the second model is often characterized by a centralized decision-making process. As we argue in this paper, the frictions of these essentially different organizational concepts, are one of the main causes of discursive ruptures that lie behind the turbulent evolution and finally the dissolution of CIAM. Although gathered around a common idea of modern architecture, CIAM members did not have the possibility of independent creative action and expression of personal stances, nor any real opportunity to participate in the overall decision-making. The second, not less significant reason of discursive ruptures were the differences in the understanding of architecture’s social role and the associated political views of CIAM’s members. From the perspective of groups close to the left political spectrum, the role of architecture surpassed the technical and formal aspects of the profession and delved into the domain of social and political action. This view was opposed to the idea of architecture as a technical discipline with no predefined ideological position, which can easily align with different political standpoints. Ideological conflicts were also the conflicts between two generations of architects advocating different models of CAM’s organization and action. Despite different standpoints and frequent conflicts, CIAM was perceived as a monolithic organization. Relying on archival sources (GTA Archives at ETH Zürich, Fondation Le Corbusier, Het Nieuwe Instituut) and the existing scholarship on CIAM (Mumford, Evelin Van Es et al., Somer, Risselada, Van Heuvel), this paper for the first time analyses CIAM as a spatio-temporal social network. The aim of this approach is to trace the formation and transformation of left tendencies within the overall CIAM network and detect discursive ruptures which they directly or indirectly caused. This research was carried out using digital tools for network analysis and visualization developed within ARTNET project at the Institute of Art History in Zagreb.
Article
The contemporary art field is increasingly the object of distant reading, in particular when examining the globalization of the immensely expanded field and the complexity of relations that configure it. Despite the rise in the availability of structured data that such a practice presupposes, lacunae reflecting global asymmetries remain. Highlighting the issue for Croatia, the paper examines the impact of globalization processes on the contemporary artists from Croatia.Artists’ biographies are used as a source for mapping the artists’ circulation, and as a data source for network analysis. The analysis of the exhibition activity of sixty-one artists for a twenty-year period brings insights into the geographical and institutional distribution of the exhibitions, as well as into the construction of artists’ international “careers.” The examination of artists-institutions networks sheds light on the conditions of their international intersections. Finally, an indication of future research is given, directed towards uncovering potential subsystems, beyond those which have thus far been recognized to have been created under the impact of territorial or status-related factors.
Article
Continuing the argument of Nuria Rodríguez Ortega and Pamela Fletcher according to which digital art history should be positioned in relation to the epistemological and methodological specificities of the discipline, this paper analyses the relationship between digital and traditional art history by tracing historical contacts between art history and computer technologies. The author focuses on tendencies 4 - a series of exhibitions, educational seminars, conventions, and symposia organized by the Gallery of Contemporary Art under the title Computers and Visual Research (August 1968 - August 1969). Several basic theoretical starting points have defined our approach to this case study. Firstly, it has been approached from the perspective of reestablishing digital art history within the framework of the discipline as such, which has resulted in a focus on historical values shared by all researchers from the field of digital humanities, such as interdisciplinarity and teamwork. In this context, the role of scientists and engineers who were included in the organization of tendencies 4 on equal footing (Zdenko Šternberg, Vladimir Bonačić, Božo Težak, Vladimir Muljević, and Branimir Makanec) has been examined, as well as their emphasis on the need of a synthetic approach to the issue of computers and visual research. This position was defined by their own professional activity in institutions such as Ruder Bošković Institute, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, and the Referral Centre at the University of Zagreb as the central Croatian institution for the collection, processing, and transmission of information. The second theoretical starting point is related to the statement of Rodríguez Ortega that in discussing digital art history one should take into account the impact of new information technologies on the entire art world, which - besides art history as a scholarly discipline - includes the activity of museums, art publications, art criticism, and the reception of artworks. In that context, the role of art historian Radoslav Putar has been emphasized, since in 1971, in his talk at the 7th Congress of the Union of Museum Associations of Yugoslavia - based on his work in the New Tendencies and the editorial board of Bit International - described in detail the benefits of using computers and their mode of operation, suggesting that they should be introduced in museums to "computerize their routine work." Eventually, the introduction of computers in art practice has been considered from the angle of Yugoslav socio-political and cultural setting at the time, as well as the general initiative for introducing computers in various spheres of the society. In Zagreb, the new technologies were publicly accessible and free. In this context, the paper discusses the introduction of the first time-sharing computer system at the Multimedia Centre, primarily used for education purposes, the foundation of the University Computer Centre SRCE, and the fact that artists could freely use computers at Ruder Bošković Institute and the Faculty of Electrical Engineering for the duration of tendencies 4. The role of self-management and social planning in Yugoslavia has also been considered, as these processes influenced the perception of informatization and computerization through the prism of responsibility that the government had towards its social base and the right of all workers to have access to information, as well as the specific position of Yugoslavia in the global distribution of power, which made it - according to Božo Težak - an ideal intersection point for the global information system.
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines social network size in contemporary Western society based on the exchange of Christmas cards. Maximum network size averaged 153.5 individuals, with a mean network size of 124.9 for those individuals explicitly contacted; these values are remarkably close to the group size of 150 predicted for humans on the basis of the size of their neocortex. Age, household type, and the relationship to the individual influence network structure, although the proportion of kin remained relatively constant at around 21%. Frequency of contact between network members was primarily determined by two classes of variable: passive factors (distance, work colleague, overseas) and active factors (emotional closeness, genetic relatedness). Controlling for the influence of passive factors on contact rates allowed the hierarchical structure of human social groups to be delimited. These findings suggest that there may be cognitive constraints on network size.
Book
This book documents a short but intense artistic experiment that took place in Yugoslavia fifty years ago but has been influential far beyond that time and place: the “little-known story” of the advent of computers in art. It was through the activities of the New Tendencies movement, begun in Zagreb in 1961, and its supporting institution the Galerija suvremene umjetnosti that the “thinking machine” was adopted as an artistic tool and medium. Pursuing the idea of “art as visual research,” the New Tendencies movement proceeded along a path that led from Concrete and Constructivist art, Op art, and Kinetic art to computer-generated graphics, film, and sculpture. With their exhibitions and conferences and the 1968 launch of the multilingual, groundbreaking magazine Bit International, the New Tendencies transformed Zagreb—already one of the most vibrant artistic centers in Yugoslavia—into an international meeting place where artists, engineers, and scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain gathered around the then-new technology. For a brief moment in time, Zagreb was the epicenter of explorations of the aesthetic, scientific, and political potential of the computer. This volume documents that exhilarating period. It includes new essays by Jerko Denegri, Darko Fritz, Margit Rosen, and Peter Weibel; many texts that were first published in New Tendencies exhibition catalogs and Bit International magazine; and historic documents. More than 650 black-and-white and color illustrations testify to the astonishing diversity of the exhibited artworks and introduce the movement's protagonists. Many of the historic photographs, translations, and documents are published here for the first time. Taken together, the images and texts offer the long overdue history of the New Tendencies experiment and its impact on the art of the twentieth century.
Article
In this study, we suggest that the difficulty in defining, locating, and measuring social capital is at core a philosophical confusion of language, and not just a consequence of excessively wide application. The term “capital” refers to resources for investment. Financial capital consists of specific quantities of assets. Human capital, a metaphorical extension of financial capital, also consists of specific quantities of assets, in the form of skills or credentials. However, social capital, a third metaphorical construction, does not consist of resources that are held by individuals or by groups but of processes of social interaction leading to constructive outcomes. Therefore, we argue, social capital is not located at any one level of analysis: it emerges across levels of analysis. The confusion over the meaning of this term, then, is a consequence of a metaphorical confusion of a substantive quantity (capital) and a process that takes place through stages (embedded, goal-directed social relations). Locating and defining social capital is further complicated by the variability, contextuality, and conditionality of the process. Stages of social relations that lead to constructive outcomes for one group of people or in one situation may not lead to constructive outcomes for another group or in another situation. To illustrate empirically how social capital may be thought of as a process consisting of stages and to demonstrate why the concept is inherently problematic, we employ data from the 1995 interviews of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). These data enable us to examine connections among the stages of the social capital process found in the literature and to look at predictors of academic achievement, a central topic in research on this topic.
Book
introduction to social networks, interesting the centrality chapter.
Article
Why do different kinds of people like different kinds of culture? Two answers to this question are formally analyzed and empirically tested: the homophily model and the distancing model. Computer simulation demonstrates that these models are alternative explanations for the finding that different cultural tastes and practices are concentrated within different sociodemographic segments of society. Conflicting implications of the two models are identified. Although both models predict that cultural forms compete for people (i.e., people are a scarce resource on which cultural forms depend), the distancing model differs from the homophily model in that the distancing model predicts a dual ecology: Not only do cultural forms compete for people, but people compete for cultural forms. According to the distancing model, the larger the segment of society in which a cultural form is liked, the smaller is the proportion of people in that segment of society who like that cultural form. The homophily model predicts that people do not compete for cultural forms. Instead, it predicts a local bandwagon effect: The larger the segment of society in which a cultural form is liked, the larger is the proportion of people in that segment of society who like that cultural form. An empirical test using 1993 General Social Survey data supports the prediction of both models that cultural forms compete for people. The analysis also reveals a local bandwagon effect, yielding further empirical support for the homophily model and disconfirming the distancing model's prediction of a dual ecology.
The Network Structure of Social Capital
  • O Temi Društvenog Kapitala I Njegovoj
O temi društvenog kapitala i njegovoj relaciji prema društvenom umrežavanju vidi u: Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Ronald Burt, "The Network Structure of Social Capital", Research in Organizational Behaviour, Volume 22, 2000. 345-423;
Nove tendencije 1. Slučaj koji iznenađuje
  • Almir Mavignier
Almir Mavignier, "Nove tendencije 1. Slučaj koji iznenađuje", Tendencije 4, katalog izložbe, Galerija suvremene umjetnosti, Zagreb, 1970., n.p.
From Zero to Sky Art. Interview with Otto Piene
  • Annick Bureaud
Annick Bureaud, "From Zero to Sky Art. Interview with Otto Piene", Art Press 322, April 2006, online version: http://www.annickbureaud.net/wp-content/ uploads/2011/01/PieneEN.doc.pdf (last accessed on: May 22nd 2015).