Weld publication 2014
PATCHWORK ON COLLABORATION
Dušan Broćić, Igor Koruga, Jovana Rakić Kiselčić, Ljiljana Tasić, Marko Milić, Ana Dubljević
MAKING OF
Temporaries is an artistic project that was originally initiated to question the term and practice of “local dance community” by six artists who have been working in the field of contemporary dance and performance gathered around the activities of Station - Service for Contemporary Dance (www.dancestation.org) in Belgrade (Serbia).The group was invited to spend some days in Stockholm together with Weld Company, to mirror and reflect up on collaborative work.
OUR RESPONSIBILITIES
After more than ten years of systematic work on strengthening the local contemporary dance community (although much has been done), due to social and political situation in Serbia, currently there is no consistent artistic scene and structure. Moreover, contemporary dance and contemporary performance are not recognized as relevant artistic and cultural practices by most of the local cultural institutions.
Following this, conditions for generating artistic work are: no cultural policy, no planning for further development, small grants that are not certain even if one gets them, no space for work, totally marginalized independent cultural scene, very few or none budgets for the production of contemporary shows, lack of high institutional education. European funds are supporting only the international collaborations (if one wants to get support, one needs to have an international collaboration – as a condition) and our government never gives us a bigger amount of money that can invest, for example in a six people project. Due to such conditions, as actors of so called 'independent art scene' in Belgrade, all six people involved in this project are dispersed working on projects or studying mainly abroad. And so, basically, if we decide to work together we have to presume that such artistic exchange and collaboration will remain temporary. In that sense, we came up to the word temporaries used as a term in economy to describe a temporary employed person, temporary employees, that serves for a limited time.
WORK
Coming back to our project and its (original) aims, we saw and still see ourselves as a temporary working community. Therefore, we came up with the desire that residences and performances we want to do within the Temporaries project should provide us with continuity of our work. By that action we aim at creating ‘our scene’ – that could have many different forms and provide us conditions to work. We are not aiming to create a collective, but rather to work with each other 'con-dividually' (term coming from a philosopher Gerald Rauning, related to the principle of individuals interrelated by their similarities).
This doesn't mean that we want to create a 'con-dividual' work based on similarities only (such are i.e. similar cultural heritage, political history of country, professional and personal histories, same mother language etc). On contrary, we also want to underline the importance of our (individual, artistic, social, political etc) differences in this project and process as well, that will maintain our desire to collaborate, since we have never been working together (all six of us). By relying on our differences in this project, placing them to continuously exist next to each other within the whole specter of processes - from creation and production, to the everyday living together - we are designing a potential dynamics for not slipping into a collective identity. It isn't easy, especially considering the circumstances of nowadays art market, but still we do fight to achieve it. This is why during the project's first phase - which was realized in Berlin, with the support of APAP network, Tanzfabrik and Uferstudios organization, and also in Belgrade with the support of Belgrade City Council and Independent Cultural Scene in Serbia - we structured our work through a working alone together principle. This principle includes our individual works and approaches on ideas, practices, questions, but together – in situation where we are intensively interrelated with each other – discussions, consultations, production and exchange of knowledge, artistic support etc.
One of the references during our first phase of the work in Berlin that drew our attention, was the notion of 'Temporary Autonomous Zone' by a writer Hakim Bay, introducing ideas of socially-political tactics of creating temporary spaces that elude formal structures of control. Still, we agreed that our desires in this work don’t lie in a strongly political-leftist attempts to fight the Western (capitalistic and neo-liberal) social system through artistic activism, but through the attempt to think of new forms of ‘communal’ in public space. To identify or articulate a temporary community that by its form and content functions differently than usual forms of what ‘communal/community’ is, considering this especially within performing arts and its historical background. This further also touches questions of production of certain context or public space for our public practices, which isn't so much defined by where it exactly emerges, or exists, but it's rather articulated by communal bodily investments (and this would be a reference to Judith Butler's - Bodies in Alliance).
Consequently, the next important issue during the process was how we shall share this community to others, outside of our process. It became clear that our principles, aims, experiences, issues raised during our 'temporary con-dividual community' in order to be communicated out, have to become a concern of the spectator. This is where we came up to the idea for having people participating actively, within the first presentation of our work. The proposal was to create a situation in which we could confront serious social-art issues we were dealing with, and to possibly intervene over them in public space through the performance. However, I want to be clear on this point: it's not that we placed people in 'active participation' - because I'm always afraid that such articulation leads to misinterpreting our aims as attempts to actively engage audience – which is then problematic, since we don't want to treat anyone as inactive, even if spectator just seats and watches the whole event. This further implies that artist’s concerns in contemporary performance shouldn’t come down to considerations of spectator’s activity or passivity or models of their involvement, but rather to the forming of communicational community that is not something that already (pre-) exists. In other words, the audience that comes to theatre is not a pre-formed community, but a group of individuals coming from their own private lives. So, to form a temporary communicational community with spectators during the performance the procedurality of communication between the artist and spectator needs to be based on certain communicative tasks, ways, forms, and issues that would become the concern of spectators and therefore form their interest in becoming the part of such community. The question was how to propose these communicative relations between us and the audience in order for these relations to become collaborative relations? How does collaboration work?
QUESTION
If we would want to say a word about collaboration between us while working on the project, we could name some of the principles that this collaboration was based on. As we talk in Temporaries also about conditions of work in performing arts nowadays, it's good to mention that these conditions also shaped and influenced principles of collaboration in our work. Here are some principles, nothing new, just we observed them appearing in this project more often then others:
# Hanging out with each other, as a method of work. Very important.
# Not having preset principles of work, but reflecting, questioning and articulating the existing ones.
# Not having preset and/or fixed positions and roles. Everything or anyone can become something or someone else. As this text does.
# Everyone works on what he/she finds interesting. If there is at least two persons interested in an idea, the idea is developed. If there is no interest in the group for suggested idea, there is no development of the idea. Also selectivity of our memory sometimes decides for us.
# About "killing the babies" we decide together. "Babys"- amazing, fabulous ideas which emerged during the process, but perhaps had to be excluded from the presentation of the work.
# Working in smaller groups and then presenting a concept or idea to each other helps.
# Focusing on one question at the time and trying to solve it, or marking it well so we can clearly come back to that point. Or this is more a wish for our work.
# Providing space for variety of individual approaches, which comes not from formal tolerance or political correctness, but from interest for project development. Or from joy.
# We never voted, which does not mean that the option of voting was excluded.
# If there is crisis situation going on, minimum three people out of six are enough to gather and work.
# Working on the project when we have time. We have time when we're paid for that time. We are paid in euros or dinars. But also in other, very different currencies. Particular good becomes currency when we all agree upon it. Quality of work doesn't depend on a currency we're paid in.
# Taking time for what ever is needed. Not more not less then is needed, which often doesn't seem like that in the present moment. That leads us to the next # .
# Putting ourselves and the project in potentially vulnerable positions and unsafe situations. Sometimes without knowing it.
# Not taking things too seriously.
Our collaboration was initiated out of a pure need for collaboration. And it become a goal, a theme, a process, a product to itself. One would expect that after two years of work we have tutorial on how to collaborate. If we admit here publicly that this is the first time in our process that we're putting down principles of our collaboration on paper, we could conclude that this was not such a successful collaboration. But one could also see success in not looking for definite solutions, but having patience and fearfulness to stay with an open question. Stay with an open question. Stay with an open question. Repeat after me. Stay with an open question...
Dušan Broćić, Igor Koruga, Jovana Rakić Kiselčić, Ljiljana Tasić, Marko Milić, Ana Dubljević
MAKING OF
Temporaries is an artistic project that was originally initiated to question the term and practice of “local dance community” by six artists who have been working in the field of contemporary dance and performance gathered around the activities of Station - Service for Contemporary Dance (www.dancestation.org) in Belgrade (Serbia).The group was invited to spend some days in Stockholm together with Weld Company, to mirror and reflect up on collaborative work.
OUR RESPONSIBILITIES
After more than ten years of systematic work on strengthening the local contemporary dance community (although much has been done), due to social and political situation in Serbia, currently there is no consistent artistic scene and structure. Moreover, contemporary dance and contemporary performance are not recognized as relevant artistic and cultural practices by most of the local cultural institutions.
Following this, conditions for generating artistic work are: no cultural policy, no planning for further development, small grants that are not certain even if one gets them, no space for work, totally marginalized independent cultural scene, very few or none budgets for the production of contemporary shows, lack of high institutional education. European funds are supporting only the international collaborations (if one wants to get support, one needs to have an international collaboration – as a condition) and our government never gives us a bigger amount of money that can invest, for example in a six people project. Due to such conditions, as actors of so called 'independent art scene' in Belgrade, all six people involved in this project are dispersed working on projects or studying mainly abroad. And so, basically, if we decide to work together we have to presume that such artistic exchange and collaboration will remain temporary. In that sense, we came up to the word temporaries used as a term in economy to describe a temporary employed person, temporary employees, that serves for a limited time.
WORK
Coming back to our project and its (original) aims, we saw and still see ourselves as a temporary working community. Therefore, we came up with the desire that residences and performances we want to do within the Temporaries project should provide us with continuity of our work. By that action we aim at creating ‘our scene’ – that could have many different forms and provide us conditions to work. We are not aiming to create a collective, but rather to work with each other 'con-dividually' (term coming from a philosopher Gerald Rauning, related to the principle of individuals interrelated by their similarities).
This doesn't mean that we want to create a 'con-dividual' work based on similarities only (such are i.e. similar cultural heritage, political history of country, professional and personal histories, same mother language etc). On contrary, we also want to underline the importance of our (individual, artistic, social, political etc) differences in this project and process as well, that will maintain our desire to collaborate, since we have never been working together (all six of us). By relying on our differences in this project, placing them to continuously exist next to each other within the whole specter of processes - from creation and production, to the everyday living together - we are designing a potential dynamics for not slipping into a collective identity. It isn't easy, especially considering the circumstances of nowadays art market, but still we do fight to achieve it. This is why during the project's first phase - which was realized in Berlin, with the support of APAP network, Tanzfabrik and Uferstudios organization, and also in Belgrade with the support of Belgrade City Council and Independent Cultural Scene in Serbia - we structured our work through a working alone together principle. This principle includes our individual works and approaches on ideas, practices, questions, but together – in situation where we are intensively interrelated with each other – discussions, consultations, production and exchange of knowledge, artistic support etc.
One of the references during our first phase of the work in Berlin that drew our attention, was the notion of 'Temporary Autonomous Zone' by a writer Hakim Bay, introducing ideas of socially-political tactics of creating temporary spaces that elude formal structures of control. Still, we agreed that our desires in this work don’t lie in a strongly political-leftist attempts to fight the Western (capitalistic and neo-liberal) social system through artistic activism, but through the attempt to think of new forms of ‘communal’ in public space. To identify or articulate a temporary community that by its form and content functions differently than usual forms of what ‘communal/community’ is, considering this especially within performing arts and its historical background. This further also touches questions of production of certain context or public space for our public practices, which isn't so much defined by where it exactly emerges, or exists, but it's rather articulated by communal bodily investments (and this would be a reference to Judith Butler's - Bodies in Alliance).
Consequently, the next important issue during the process was how we shall share this community to others, outside of our process. It became clear that our principles, aims, experiences, issues raised during our 'temporary con-dividual community' in order to be communicated out, have to become a concern of the spectator. This is where we came up to the idea for having people participating actively, within the first presentation of our work. The proposal was to create a situation in which we could confront serious social-art issues we were dealing with, and to possibly intervene over them in public space through the performance. However, I want to be clear on this point: it's not that we placed people in 'active participation' - because I'm always afraid that such articulation leads to misinterpreting our aims as attempts to actively engage audience – which is then problematic, since we don't want to treat anyone as inactive, even if spectator just seats and watches the whole event. This further implies that artist’s concerns in contemporary performance shouldn’t come down to considerations of spectator’s activity or passivity or models of their involvement, but rather to the forming of communicational community that is not something that already (pre-) exists. In other words, the audience that comes to theatre is not a pre-formed community, but a group of individuals coming from their own private lives. So, to form a temporary communicational community with spectators during the performance the procedurality of communication between the artist and spectator needs to be based on certain communicative tasks, ways, forms, and issues that would become the concern of spectators and therefore form their interest in becoming the part of such community. The question was how to propose these communicative relations between us and the audience in order for these relations to become collaborative relations? How does collaboration work?
QUESTION
If we would want to say a word about collaboration between us while working on the project, we could name some of the principles that this collaboration was based on. As we talk in Temporaries also about conditions of work in performing arts nowadays, it's good to mention that these conditions also shaped and influenced principles of collaboration in our work. Here are some principles, nothing new, just we observed them appearing in this project more often then others:
# Hanging out with each other, as a method of work. Very important.
# Not having preset principles of work, but reflecting, questioning and articulating the existing ones.
# Not having preset and/or fixed positions and roles. Everything or anyone can become something or someone else. As this text does.
# Everyone works on what he/she finds interesting. If there is at least two persons interested in an idea, the idea is developed. If there is no interest in the group for suggested idea, there is no development of the idea. Also selectivity of our memory sometimes decides for us.
# About "killing the babies" we decide together. "Babys"- amazing, fabulous ideas which emerged during the process, but perhaps had to be excluded from the presentation of the work.
# Working in smaller groups and then presenting a concept or idea to each other helps.
# Focusing on one question at the time and trying to solve it, or marking it well so we can clearly come back to that point. Or this is more a wish for our work.
# Providing space for variety of individual approaches, which comes not from formal tolerance or political correctness, but from interest for project development. Or from joy.
# We never voted, which does not mean that the option of voting was excluded.
# If there is crisis situation going on, minimum three people out of six are enough to gather and work.
# Working on the project when we have time. We have time when we're paid for that time. We are paid in euros or dinars. But also in other, very different currencies. Particular good becomes currency when we all agree upon it. Quality of work doesn't depend on a currency we're paid in.
# Taking time for what ever is needed. Not more not less then is needed, which often doesn't seem like that in the present moment. That leads us to the next # .
# Putting ourselves and the project in potentially vulnerable positions and unsafe situations. Sometimes without knowing it.
# Not taking things too seriously.
Our collaboration was initiated out of a pure need for collaboration. And it become a goal, a theme, a process, a product to itself. One would expect that after two years of work we have tutorial on how to collaborate. If we admit here publicly that this is the first time in our process that we're putting down principles of our collaboration on paper, we could conclude that this was not such a successful collaboration. But one could also see success in not looking for definite solutions, but having patience and fearfulness to stay with an open question. Stay with an open question. Stay with an open question. Repeat after me. Stay with an open question...
APAP publication - AUDIENCES OR COMMUNITIES / 2013
A survey about the relation between audience and other players in the live arts field.
Player 1 – The artist
Some concept around Temporaries: a project by Ana Dubljević, Dušan Broćić, Igor Koruga, Jovana Rakić Kiselčić, Ljiljana Tasić and Marko Milić.
Starting from a conversation with Marko Milić and Igor Koruga.
1.
Temporaries is an artistic project that was originally initiated to question the term and practice of “local dance community” by six artists who have been working in the field of contemporary dance and performance gathered around the activities of Station - Service for Contemporary Dance (www.dancestation.org) in Belgrade (Serbia). After more than ten years of systematic work on strengthening the local contemporary dance community (although much has been done), due to social and political situation in Serbia, currently there is no consistent artistic scene and structure. Moreover, contemporary dance and contemporary performance are not recognized as relevant artistic and cultural practices by most of the local cultural institutions.
Following this, conditions for generating artistic work are: no cultural policy, no planning for further development, small grants that are not certain even if one gets them, no space for work, totally marginalized independent cultural scene, very few or none budgets for the production of contemporary shows, lack of high institutional education. European funds are supporting only the international collaborations (if one wants to get support, one needs to have an international collaboration – as a condition) and our government never gives us a bigger amount of money that can invest, for example in a six people project. Due to such conditions, as actors of so called 'independent art scene' in Belgrade, all six people involved in this project are dispersed working on projects or studying mainly abroad. And so, basically, if we decide to work together we have to presume that such artistic exchange and collaboration will remain temporary. In that sense, we came up to the word temporaries used as a term in economy to describe a temporary employed person, temporary employees, that serves for a limited time.
Coming back to our project and its (original) aims, we saw and still see ourselves as a temporary working community. Therefore, we came up with the desire that residences and performances we want to do within the Temporaries project should provide us with continuity of our work. By that action we aim at creating ‘our scene’ – that could have many different forms and provide us conditions to work. We are not aiming to create a collective, but rather to work with each other 'con-dividually' (term coming from a philosopher Gerald Rauning, related to the principle of individuals interrelated by their similarities).
This doesn't mean that we want to create a 'con-dividual' work based on similarities only (such are i.e. similar cultural heritage, political history of country, professional and personal histories, same mother language etc). On contrary, we also want to underline the importance of our (individual, artistic, social, political etc) differences in this project and process as well, that will maintain our desire to collaborate, since we have never been working together (all six of us). By relying on our differences in this project, placing them to continuously exist next to each other within the whole spectre of processes - from creation and production, to the everyday living together - we are designing a potential dynamics for not slipping into a collective identity. It isn't easy, especially considering the circumstances of nowadays art market, but still we do fight to achieve it. This is why during the project's first phase - which was realized in Berlin, with the support of APAP network, Tanzfabrik and Uferstudios organization, and also in Belgrade with the support of Belgrade City Council and Independent Cultural Scene in Serbia - we structured our work through a working alone together principle. This principle includes our individual works and approaches on ideas, practices, questions, but together – in situation where we are intensively interrelated with each other – discussions, consultations, production and exchange of knowledge, artistic support etc.
2.
One of the references during our first phase of the work in Berlin that drew our attention, was the notion of 'Temporary Autonomous Zone' by a writer Hakim Bay, introducing ideas of socially-political tactics of creating temporary spaces that elude formal structures of control. Still, we agreed that our desires in this work don’t lie in a strongly political-leftist attempts to fight the Western (capitalistic and neo-liberal) social system through artistic activism, but through the attempt to think of new forms of ‘communal’ in public space. To identify or articulate a temporary community that by its form and content functions differently than usual forms of what ‘communal/community’ is, considering this especially within performing arts and its historical background. This further also touches questions of production of certain context or public space for our public practices, which isn't so much defined by where it exactly emerges, or exists, but it's rather articulated by communal bodily investments (and this would be a reference to Judith Butler's - Bodies in Alliance).
Consequently, the next important issue during the process was how we shall share this community to others, outside of our process. It became clear that our principles, aims, experiences, issues raised during our 'temporary con-dividual community' in order to be communicated out, have to become a concern of the spectator. This is where we came up to the idea for having people participating actively, within the first presentation of our work. The proposal was to create a situation in which we could confront serious social-art issues we were dealing with, and to possibly intervene over them in public space through the performance. However, I want to be clear on this point: it's not that we placed people in 'active participation' - because I'm always afraid that such articulation leads to misinterpreting our aims as attempts to actively engage audience – which is then problematic, since we don't want to treat anyone as inactive, even if spectator just seats and watches the whole event. This further implies that artist’s concerns in contemporary performance shouldn’t come down to considerations of spectator’s activity or passivity or models of their involvement, but rather to the forming of communicational community that is not something that already (pre-) exists. In other words, the audience that comes to theatre is not a pre-formed community, but a group of individuals coming from their own private lives. So, to form a temporary communicational community with spectators during the performance the procedurality of communication between the artist and spectator needs to be based on certain communicative tasks, ways, forms, and issues that would become the concern of spectators and therefore form their interest in becoming the part of such community.
3.
The people are welcomed to take part in a picnic with a certain artistically-cultural program. They are divided in two and they don't communicate among themselves. But both groups are divided into smaller ones on a picnic blankets and these smaller groups have the same rules as their parent group. One Group is guessing the name of certain principles related to the social and artistic conditions of our work (through the social game of pantomime played by the artists). Individuals have opportunity to win some high quality goods for their picnic (champagne, chocolate cake, drinks, sandwiches etc.) if they guess the term correctly. Still, they can't share these goods with others on their blanket, only consume it individually.
The other Group of the picnic has a different situation. Their blanket groups have some goods provided, but these goods are not independent. One blanket might have only drinks, and other one has only glasses. Thus, in order to experience full picnic, they need to share and exchange their goods. Also this side of the picnic collectively discusses and decides which of the guessed principles from the other side, matches the list of performative materials representing the content of the artistically-cultural program. Materials and principles could be connected in variously – depending on the group decision.
In some way the performance does become their concern, since spectators also take responsibility for the dynamics and flow of the event, equally as we take as authors. The audience is actually implicated in the different/unusual organization of the whole event (from the very beginning) and so they act on that situation. There is something that is proposed to them, certain set of rules that pre-exist but can be/will be transformed by their presence (rules don't need to be followed, right?).Thus, the event can go in various directions. It’s a delicate border because it’s not about asking them to participate directly in order to make the work, to perform etc. Of course they do participate by taking parts in the games, in social situation or a performance situation: the audience is the performance. But what reflects through this situation/event, is process of switching between representative/aesthetic and social regimes of performing, that creates an antagonistic playground where everything that appears, which is to be seen and heard on the (public) stage becomes a potential agent of the social. Such playground designs a communicational community among artist, artwork, and spectators, where their territories become limitless/open and mediated. Therefore, relations, questions and issues emerged during our research, are intertwined with social relations (between artists and spectators, between spectators, between artists etc.). In this sense, our project carries something like 'a product with a research', since it also communicates, is being affected (always differently) by certain context where it is produced or performed etc.
4.
There is an interesting quote from the Albert Camus’s acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize:
"For myself, I cannot live without my art. But I have never placed it above everything. If, on the other hand, I need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, such as I am, on one level with them. It is a means of stirring the greatest number of people by offering them a privileged picture of common joys and sufferings. It obliges the artist not to keep himself apart; it subjects him to the most humble and the most universal truth. And often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realizes that he can maintain neither his art nor his difference unless he admits that he is like the others. The artist forges himself to the others, midway between the beauty he cannot do without and the community he cannot tear himself away from. That is why true artists scorn nothing: they are obliged to understand rather than to judge. And if they have to take sides in this world, they can perhaps side only with that society in which, according to Nietzsche's great words, not the judge but the creator will rule, whether he is a worker or an intellectual."
Within an aim to try to develop a discourse behind nowadays "urgency" of reaching new audience in performing arts field - where artists are rather neglected in institutional strategies and tactics to find new audience in relation to the more visibility, bigger numbers etc – the question that arises is whether the point is to develop a community instead of a new audience, or at least a different relationship with the audience? Following this, one may as well ask if there’s a desire for a creation of an instant community (a tribe) within the Temporaries project just for the time of the show and if this is the proposal for reaching new audience from the perspective of an artist/ artists?
The point on searching for an audience as a community is interesting. But what would need to be further thought through or discussed in general terms is the name of that community (what is it, what kind of, where is it...). I don't think that Temporaries project creates a tribe - because tribes are structured hierarchically, they have leaders. We (artists) are not leaders in this situation. We are moderators and artists. We are simply there for helping, but people are navigating themselves throughout the event. On the other hand, 'instant community' is something that's at the same time fantastic and problematic. Because it’s a temporary situation, such community is present within a short time, during the show. But what I disagree with here is the term 'instant' since to me it might pretty much allude on a capitalistic background and the notion of fast consumption, individual choice adapted only to the individual needs, production as a criteria for the existence etc, which all together diminishes the potential of a 'common'. Project Temporaries proposes a temporary community which analyzes certain socio-political aspects intertwined with the aesthetics. Moreover, we accept the fact that notion of aesthetic ‘carries the productive contradiction of art’s autonomy and belief in art as inextricably bound to the promise of better life to come’ (Bishop 2004:185), which thus, contains a promise for a social change. This change mirrors less through the social and political activism in art and relies more on the politicality as an aspect of an artwork or art practice, which in words of Ana Vujanovic:
'addresses the ways it acts and intervenes in public space, in regard to discussions and conflicts around the subjects and objects that perform on it, the arrangement of positions and powers among them, the distribution of the 'sensible', and the ideological discourses that shape a common, symbolic and sensorial order of society’.
Thus, to me, we are proposing a framework for analyses of the social and public, questioning the criteria of 'common' within such entities, since those are the entities that further determine our artistic works and as well our audiences. But, I don't think that such analysis ends only when the show ends. I optimistically believe it continues afterwards on and in the minds of individuals that were the guests and that did relate to the proposed concerns – collectively or individually – during the event. In other words, Temporaries project doesn’t attempt to analyze and exercise the entity of ‘a common’ on a global or a macro-level, since such attempt would remain fatalistic or utopistic. On contrary, this project proposes an analysis, a change, a questioning, a try-out of ‘common’ on a micro-level, in certain context within which it’s performed and within individual level of the guest that participates. Because those are the levels within which in my opinion an artist can contribute to the “urgency” of reaching the new audience.
Igor Koruga, Jacopo Lanteri and Marko Milic
