Rasa Todosijevic

The artist who once screamed at his wife in German, yelling
“Was ist Kunst?!” over and over
until he was hoarse, smearing her face with paint, quietly
calls to her now in English: “Darling…,” followed by a question in Serbian, trying to recall a past event or name. Rasa Todosijevic is an artist whose work spans
many genres, but my interest in his work focuses on the 1970s, when he was part
of an informal group of artists active at the Student Culture Center in
Belgrade (SKC). Together with artists such as Era Milivojevic, Nesa Paripovic,
Gera Urkom, Zoran Popovic, and Marina Abramovic, these six artists formed the
nucleus of the avant-garde activity that was happening in Belgrade at the time.

The Student Culture Center was a bi-product of the student
revolutions of 1968. Understanding that students needed a place in which to
express themselves, yet also wanting to keep that expression from “exploding”
into the streets, Tito created these centers across Yugoslavia as a way to
contain the rebellious activity of the nation’s youth. In these places, students were left to themselves, to experiment and create freely,
outside of the more official art institutions, such as the art academies, which
took a more traditional approach to art-making.

The heyday of SKC Belgrade was short-lived. For just a few
short years, between around 1971 and 1978, artists gathered there – spent their
entire days there – discussing and creating art, putting on exhibitions and
performances. Because they existed completely on the margins, the powers that
be didn’t take them seriously, Rasa told me. This gave them free reign to experiment, outside of the strict confines of the Art Academy. What they were doing was, for the most
part, ephemeral, which is also why it escaped notice. Since performance, installations and conceptual works of art did not
fit into the category of “high art,” as painting or sculpture did, artists were able to create their experimental works that were, in a way, “uncategorized.” Avant-garde
filmmakers however, for example those associated with the Black
, did have problems with the authorities in relation to their unconventional work precisely because of the fact
that they were working in film – a genre that had the capability of wide
distribution. The fact that the work of the artists at SKC was not only
contained, but difficult to disseminate, made it tolerable. A consequence of
this, however, is the sheer lack of documentation from that time. Very little
artwork or records of the work exists, because there simply wasn’t a
consciousness about the significance of documentation. Nevertheless, Rasa told
me that they – the young artists active in that group – were certain that they
were going to create a new type of art.

SKC connected artists with the contemporary art scene
outside of Yugoslavia’s borders as well. In conjunction with the April Meetings for
Expanded Media that were held there, many artists and critics were invited to the center to exchange
ideas with the artists there. Joseph Beuys, Gina Pane and Germano Celant, among
others, were present.

Much of Rasa’s performative work from the SKC days remains
concerned with the nature and limits of art. For example, in Decision as Art (1973) he invokes the
spirit of Duchamp by giving primacy to the thought-process behind the work of
art. Two years earlier, he turned his wife, Marinela, into a readymade art
object, by exhibiting her in the exhibition Drangularium
at SKC, next to a small table with a bottle placed on it. From 1976-1981 he
repeatedly posed the question “what is art?,” in German, to a female subject
(in one of the performances, this female subject was his wife, Marinela
Kozelj). The language used, he has often remarked, could not be anything other
than German, as it is a “command” language. Aside from the fact that the artist
is asking the unanswerable, he is also rehearses the subjugation of the female
subject in a patriarchal society, which parallels the situation of all subjects
in a totalitarian regime, who must submit to the control of the state.

In Water Drinking
, the artist attempts to create temporal limits for the performative act
by involving another living being (a fish) and pushing his own body to its
physical limits. He drinks 26 glasses of water in 35 minutes, attempting to
synchronize his drinking with that of the fish, which has been taken out of the
water and placed on dry land. Because of the quick tempo with which the artist
must drink, he vomits, but does so on a table covered with a tablecloth, under
which is a violet pigment. The piece would last until the entire tablecloth is
colored purple. Thus the entire performance is defined by the rhythms and
exhaustion of the body.

His 1975 performance, Art
and Memory
, involved the artist sitting and reciting all of the names of
artists that he could recall, from memory. This performance brings to the fore
the workings of the artist’s mind, once again establishing the limits of art,
and the history of art, therein. This work recalls a similar approach by conceptual artist Robert Barry, who constructed works of art that only existed as ideas in his mind, unknown to the audience. Rasa chooses to share these ideas with the audience through communication. For Rasa, it is the conceptualization of the piece followed by
the act of doing constitutes the art work. This was carried through in his
1976-77 project, Not a Day without a Line,
which involved the artist drawing a line on the wall (the most basic element of
artistic creation) in both public and private spaces.

mso-fareast-font-family:”MS 明朝”;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;

During this time, Rasa Todosijevic was operating as an
artist in an interesting and unique liminal space. As a Yugoslav artist, he was
working in a place devoid of a real art market, with no space for avant-garde
activity. However, the artist had traveled extensively throughout Europe, both
as a teenager, hitchhiking through, and as a young artist – traveling to
Edinburgh, for example, where he performed Decision
as Art
in 1973. Thus he was both part of and yet not part of the international
dialogue concerning art and the market. He could criticize from an external position, which adds a unique element to his work. While his work certainly responds to
questions of the commercialization and institutionalization of the art object,
he was not necessarily subject to those pressures in a tangible way. As the
artist himself described it, what theirs was a “homeless” art, being isolated
within their own country, if they wanted to exhibit or sell their work, they
had to do it abroad.