1. "History", "Another version of History" and "The impact of History on a human being" are mentioned frequently in the texts and reviews about "YU Museum", while the term "cynicism" designates a demarcartion line between "History" and "Another version of History". According to you, when can or should Art distance from deceptive images of "History"?

Past never absents from Present. History is not an exclusive subject of historians who resemble divers. You just dive in,you find something, then you classify it, name it and leave it on the shelf, so it could be forgotten. Non-divers,i.e. people from the world outside, never run out of oxygen, they are never eaten by a shark nor does anything bad happen to them. These non-divers dress up nicely and go to a gallery or, better still, to a museum where they watch displayed exhibits from a safe distance and after, if they have enough time, they discuss them. Art is not what we see displayed in a museum in the same way as history is not an exclusive subject of historians. Art never absents from Present, which constantly sends us more and more terrifying bills that cannot be avoided. The peculiarity of our country is that these bills keep on coming in such ghastly, bloody and rapid forms. Therefore, the systems of avoding their payment are more than essential. Nevertheless, unbearable truths will not disapear if we simply stop paying attention to them. Many people asked me whether I was "really" going to create "YU Museum". A simple fact was being overlooked intentionally: "YU Museum" "really" exists. I tried to demonstrate everyone, including myself, its existence. This museum does not need halls and walls, you do not have to buy a ticket in order to enter it. You are for free in it every day, whether you want it or not, whether you can accept or not the fact that your identity has been built in a reallity that keeps on repeating:"There has never been neither war nor trauma; Goli otok (Bare Island) has never existed; comunists have never executed anyone; chetniks and ustashes have never slaughtered the innocent; the Karadjordjevics were great democrats; Serbian Orthodox Church despises secular wealth; Milosevic is not giulty for war crimes because there have been no war crimes at all; Kostunica is a nationalist but the moderate one; the Karics are capable businessmen, etc." A basic intention of "Yugo Museum" is: to use the tissue of historical facts as a material for shaping one nonexisting museum space which will become a real thing thanks to a large number of artifacts; to question a thesis about a museum as a place where art is stocked as well as to designate a construction of a museum as a process of creating art. A museum marked by our diving ventures and its exhibits, which once stood nietly on the shelfves, are going to cost us dearly. With a bit of nostalgia and cynicism in order to digest better.

2. We encounter an unambiguous concept of a politically engaged art in the " YU Museum" presentation that takes place in the Pavilion "Veljkovic".. Taking into consideration these engaged issues were entering your work in several logical steps, it would be interesting to tell us how
that process took its course.

I remember the first time I brought my work "A May pillar" - a turquoise, tiny, two and a half meter tall sculpture, representative of a ritual sacrifice for the sake of spring and a brighter future- among some round stones and iron cubes, to the exhibition of Yugoslav sculpture, that took place in Pancevo in 1983. It seemed as if it had "fallen from the Mars"… Those, who can recall the period right before the 80s, probably remember that breakthrough of new energy and tendency to express some fresh ideas in almost madly passionate and revolutionary manner. It is hard to compare the multicultural scene semi-liberated from ideology of the early 80s with the economic collapse and destructive nationalism of the 90s. Therefore, there are two false stereotypes in reading art of the 80s from today's point of view: an uncritical glorification and a critical simplification. It is true that in the 80s there was no direct engagement only a metaphorical way of expressing. It is a fact that the whole generation looked at the possibility of taking an active part in politics with great disgust, because it was more amusing to contemplate and create life in music rhythms at the time. This attitude was a feature of that period. Today it can be considered as a bad strategy. Besides, when I examine my works from the 80s, such as: "Bloody", "Iron Ages", "A Blacksmith" or "A Transformer", composed out of disunited bodies, with twisted constructions and a dislocated focus, I don't see anything that qualifies them as charming objects of an embellished world in any semantic category. On the contrary, I see them as a part of a voyage that is still going on. So typical for that age and attitude. At the inception of the war decade, it is a bit clearly in the works: "A table for a long goodbye", "Daddy's gift", "Giddap! Giddap! or Soldier's dreams", as well as in three exhibitions, that took place in Paris in 1990, 1992 and 1996 and have never been displayed unfortunately in Yugoslavia. Such a metaphorical way of expressing continues and focuses on withering and corroding the sculptural core intensively. These sculptural conglomerates are divided in two, never totally separated, just cut or duplicated as identical twins. A dictionary dated 1994/96, never shown on the whole, except, partly during one night's book promotion, is the first work with an entirely smashed core in which I recycled a photo material to a certain degree. The exhibition in the Pavilion "Veljkovic" , which represents "YU Museum", is the most complex whole. There is a need, above all, to include a leaflet-shaped historic documentation, photo material, symbols and completed objects that have to do with eighty years-long history of several and quite different countries named "Yugoslavia". This need is connected with a horrible intrusion of history and its alteration of population figures from 1998 to 2000 when the initial material was being created. Sculpture-like works or those virtual ones mainly maintain a plastic-shaped interest in the former period. Their function and position within the entire work of "YU Museum" are completely different.

3. Taking into consideration "the diversity of functions and positions", can one speak of a stronger subordination/package/"captivity" of sculpture media in regard with an idea whole, or does one discern a tendency towards a total work of art, on the other hand? Or is it a little bit of both?

Probably, a little bit of both. A sculpture or "an object with artistic pretensions", viewed within the scope of contemporary comprehension of art , gets confirmation in the context in which it is shown and created. On the parking space, between cars. It does not lose anything of its original meaning. Koons in an antique shop, between other relics, loses a great deal of its provocative character and meaning. There is nothing to regret. Some new semantic categories have been established and we must count that also in today. Therefore, " Y U Museum" promotion took place on Slavija Square in 1999. The Pavilion "Veljkovic" was chosen for the first promotion of "YU Museum" for the same reason. Isolated, with its own prehistory which is parallel to the political situation in Yugoslavia, an unsolved ownership status, and at the same time so flexible and easily adjustable cocoon-like space. That is why it is taken a great care regarding to display, atmosphere, lights , dimensions - all these things make an unit with a sculpture. As far as single pieces are concerned, a lot of attention is paid to so-called fine arts technique (in the traditional sense of the concept), material, proportions, relations as well as their place in the exhibition viewed as a whole. On the other hand, there are plans for some new segments of "YU Museum", a few series of real souvenirs and digests created together with the Belgrade Cultural Center, web site, etc. - so that tendency towards the all-inclusive emerges logically out of this whole idea .

4. " YU Museum" is a perfect and encircled whole whether we speak about an idea of "a total work of art" or the very creation of works. A question imposes itself about the ways and sources of realizing such an ambitious project. " YU Museum" is, as far as I know, a sort of "self-produced" work of art for the time being.

An artist, especially an artist in the field of fine arts, is required to finance his/her own works in this country, since nobody finances or buys them, according to my knowledge. An artist is compelled to organize an exhibition him/herself since galleries are in the business of hygiene and light balls changing. If an artist wanted to publish a catalogue, it would be very wise to find sponsors. If he/she wanted an atelier, he could rent it freely on the market. He must follow contemporary world art scene but he must never be a copy cat. He must study and contemplate his/her national identity but surpass local at the same time. He should not be employed because it takes a lot of precious time. Therefore, plenty of local artists are acustomed to this situation that I wanted to make public. It was very important for this project to be self-financed, especially in the times of its inception. It was significant because I was my intention to creat " YU Museum " as a completely autonoumous insitution. Now, when this aura is closed, diverse " collaborations " with other institutions are possible.

5. In the course of the first half of the 90s, crucial remarks regarding to Belgrade fine arts scene were made on its "escapism" and "silence".. Does art have any right to appear in the area of politics, how and in what quantity? Does art have any right to be silent and never to enter the area of politics?

Briefly: art has every right never to enter the area of politics but it has never right to be silent. Neither do I insist nor find it obligatory that all artists express their political stand through their work directly. On the contrary, it is sometimes so utterly stupid. Artists, who are in completely different areas, such as : body or perception, or geometry or what ever, sometimes bring out more profound expression of anxious reality. To be silent is something quite different. To be silent as a public figure and to pretend not to understand the context of social and political circumstances in which you live, is more than miserable. I find, thus, it was more honourable, I should say, even obligatory to express your views rather than to be silent in the course of war decade, especially in that decade, at the beginning of which 5 million inhabitants of Serbia voted for the platform of Slobodan Milosevic :MaybeWeDoNotKnowHowToWorkButWeDoKnowHowToFight (afterwards it turned out that we were not so good at fighting either). I did the same thing as many people. Not only through my work, which was my choice, but also through some simple human gestures. I spoke on the Plateau in front of the Faculty of Philosophy rather than gave intervies either to the "Politika " , a daily newspaper, or on RTS. I did not also have a single exhibition in the Serbian Academy of Science and Art in 1992 nor did I work with the Museum of Contemporary Art in ay way during its famous eight years-long management situation. I chose rather to have a exhibition in a deep freezer. My last signle exhibition was in 1988 in Belgrade. There was no purchase, no catalogue. I gave a pecuniary part of the "Sava Šumanovic" Award to the branch of "Resistance" from Novi Sad. Briefly, I did not want to feel "Better with Culture" nor did I want to take part in these shenanigans. It was also my choice, my feeling towards inseparability of the aesthetic and the ethic. Those ,who think that it was not too harmful, could try themselves the same while it was lasting. Naturally, this position of ignoring institutions and self-isolation was not too efficient because you were missing an opportunity to express your views. That subtle and soft existence on the margins was a speciality and contribution of the previous system to the history of censorship. And it seems that imagination is crucial and inexhaustible in this field.

6. Finally, since this e-mail correspondance has been going on for several days, after and before 11th September, I am interested in your impressinons regarding to those scenes and images of catastrophy that represent a sort of live coverage of history ?

Awful and frightening. Viewed from an image level, it was a fascinating and universal event at the same time whose impact is going to be felt by the whole civilization. Those images clearly transmit the vulnerability of our illusion regarding to security, apart existence and protection of an individual. This direct planetary coverage of people dying, who did not think in their wildest dreams that they could be objects of some global political intrigues nor that their death could be a necessary factor of someone's political statement. The gruesome at work. Observing from media standpoint, there is that well-known careful way of blotting out reality from the images of death and blood. An idea about absolute evil is nourished and nurtured. It is contrary to absolute good which is reserved naturally for the side that interprets the event. Equal to our situation from 1999, political centres of might manipulate true feelings of an individual through media claiming he/she is not responsible for anything nor did he/she do any harm. At the same time they compel an individual to think of him/herself in the first person of plural. Then those I-people with projected innocence become pastry that is being shaped by a mould. If an individual, that became I-people, had not caused any harm, he could not have prevented it in any way, and if he had not been able to prevent it, it means only that any engagement of an individual is redundant, because we all think and say the same things. I do not think so. Past does not absent form Present so easily and obviously.