A wall, in architecture, is a spatial element that separates space, whether internal or external. Three such elements were initially displayed, accessible and open to “everyone,” ready to accept traces of “everything” in the central area of the city. These elements were then brought into the space of the institution/museum and displayed again for analysis and discussion. The work represents an example of architectural intervention, as well as a performative act in public space (both external and internal) that offers the possibility for participatory engagement of the community in the process. The work is situated in the field of participatory projects, i.e. practices recognized within the field of art that bring about change from establishing relationships between objects to establishing relationships between subjects, which shift the focus of artists from dealing with objects and installations to engaging with subjects and enabling their participation in artistic activities. Historical artistic examples date back to the early twentieth century and have distant predecessors in; the practice of Italian futurism (Serate futuriste), the revolutionary practice of the Soviet Union (“Attack on the Winter Palace,” 1920, Leningrad, reenactment of the revolution), a series of Dada manifestations (André Breton, “Artificial Paradises,” 1921, Paris). The theoretical foundation for analysis includes texts starting from Umberto Eco’s “Poetics of the Open Work,” “Avant-garde Negations of the Autonomy of Art” by Peter Bürger, via Roland Barthes’ “Death of the Author” to Nicolas Bourriaud’s “Relational Aesthetics” and Claire Bishop’s “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics.”

Dominantly inscribed on the work/wall are words, most often handwritten, crossed out/erased, rewritten, one stenciled. The first question arises: do walls “speak”/“communicate” words as text, singularly or in a multitude/plurality? Furthermore, the institution (curators) and the audience groups (high school students), where a role reversal and a process of decolonization of positions in the art world occurs is often readable and recognizable. From this arises a second question: is it possible to conceive participatory art outside the verification regime of the institution of art? The criterion for evaluating participatory artwork is not (only) aesthetic and according to Claire Bishop, the aestheticization of participation is reflected in the replacement of “monologue” with “dialogue” and is, above all, political and ethical. The “relations” produced by this work are assessed, as are the consequences within a given constellation, both temporal and spatial, as well as societal.

A third question therefore arises: to what extent does the current sociopolitical situation, which has lasted for more than six months, free up social relations that were previously unimaginable, especially in this case where the relationships established between the audience and the artistic object are not directed by specific formal instructions from the artist? Furthermore, does the (empty) space of presumed vandalism and destruction — which has often been the case — “speak” through the multitude by leaving traces in signatures, banal slogans that pop into one’s head, commonplace problems in society, culture, and art? What emerges from the clutter of voices within the multitude?

Finally, does the observation by the participants in the discussion, which a small number of attendees interpret as a primary consequence of societal immaturity and disinterest, testify to discomfort (the tension between observers, participants, context) stemming from dissatisfaction with the community? This can also be the result of social antagonism (Claire Bishop, Ernesto Laclau, and Chantal Mouffe), since social antagonism is a condition for participation. Ultimately, perhaps dissatisfaction with the community and the discomfort of being a member opens the possibility of that coming community (Italian: La comunità che viene) by Giorgio Agamben as a critique of existing forms of community and an attempt to envision a community not based on identities, essences, or belonging, but on the pure power of being — what Agamben calls “community without predicates,” a community as an open space where a being can be what it is without the need to be confirmed or verified.

Mariela Cvetić is an artist, art theorist, and full professor at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade. She is head of the doctoral study program Theory of Art and Media at the Interdisciplinary Studies University of the Arts in Belgrade. She is also the author of a large number of solo exhibitions, artist's books and a participant in numerous group exhibitions. She is one of the authors of the exhibition in the Serbian pavilion at the 11th International Architecture Exhibition in Venice in 2008. She organized exhibitions of artists' books by students of the Faculty of Architecture. She published the book "Das Unheimliche: psychoanalytic and cultural theories of space" (Belgrade, 2011), "Artist's Book" (Belgrade, 2014), "On scale: monumentalizing the miniaturized" with Jasmina Čubrilo (Belgrade, 2019), as well as a large number of chapters in monographs. In her artistic and theoretical work, she deals with the problem of the relationship between subject and space.