The curtain of the Albanian National Theatre came down. ‘Starving, skinny ribs wolves’ are coming. (Romeo Kodra)

The Albanian National Theatre is erased by the government of Edi Rama and the Tirana’s Mayor Erion Veliaj.

Albanian National Theatre, 17 May 2020

This erasure was expected, from 2014, when the government of Edi Rama, after the selection of a puppet National Theatre director, separated the workers from their working place (Dear Karl Marx, what would you do to explain, to a former marxist-leninist country, what does it mean!?!?!?), by changing their contracts from unlimited in time to fixed-term contracts (from 3 up to 18 months). In this manner, through precarization, the workers (not only actors) were easy pray of Prime Minister’s extortion. The result is that defending The Theatre, on May 17th 2020, beyond the citizen volunteers and activists, was only one of the actual contracted actors of the national institution, Neritan Liçaj (I am not sure if Mehdi Malkaj, the other actor actively involved against the demolition, is still under contract with the institution).

This blog is full of this kind of materials. In Albanian language, unfortunately, for lazy art researchers from abroad, or luckily, for those who know Albanian and can copy for free and sell it as their own research in different languages. Anyway, although the smartest ones will deliberately continue to copy without quoting, here it is a translated sample from AKSREVISTA of June 12th 2014 (link):

“Last week the actors of the National Theatre, unlike those of the Opera and Ballet, signed the “contemporary” contracts of the Ministry of Culture. Ndriçim Xhepa, Yllka Mujo, Rajmonda Bulku, Bujar Asqeriu, Fadil Kujofsa, Vangjel Toçe, Mehdi Malkaj, Marjeta Ljarja, Sokol Angjeli, Eva Alikaj, Vasjan Lami, Artan Imami, Dritan Boriçi, Dritan Boriçi, Helidon Fino, Anila Bisha Çisha, Indrit , Olta Daku, Neritan Liçaj, Arben Derhemi, Marjana Kondi, Alfred Bualioti, Anil Frashёri, Ermela Teli, Lulzim Zeqja, Genti Deçka, Gerti Ferraj are the current members of the troupe of the National Theater, that signed the new contracs limited in time, as proposed by the Ministry of Culture. I want to make public their names, because these actors – for their weakness, deliberate malice, or ignorance – deserves to enter the contemporary Albanian history as signatories of the demolition of the first public Albanian cultural and artistic institution.
The controversy that occurred years ago, between Edi Rama and the actors of this institution, for the demolition of the building of National Theatre finished with a concrete ‘nothing’. The National Theatre remained in its place. Now, this situation, if repeated, would undoubtedly see the country’s prime minister as the winner. I don’t have the magic sphere, but I have the impression that very soon we will see the Prime Minister’s hammer beating in the same place. Edi Rama, today, would easily succeed, because the real actors of the National Theatre are dead.”

So, the end was in the air. The same predatory strategy was and is still applied in Albania from 1991 by all the political parties that formed the government: separation of the workers from their working places and consecutive privatization of the whole country (industries, factories, mines, oil wells, etc.). However there is no focus in this issue in each protest I ever participated. And the protest against the demolition of The National Theatre is one of them. The difficulty to articulate this issue depends by the infiltration of every single protest from political and para-political forces, such as Democratic Party/PD, Socialist Party/PS, Socialist Movement for Integration/LSI or Open Society Foundation for Albania/OSFA/Soros, etc. Therefore there is no possibility for a democratic change based on progressive ideas taking place while these reactionary forces are around.

However, to be honest, in the last few weeks, I thought maybe even this time the National Theatre could resist Edi Rama’s attack, because of a very hard work of some protesters, part of Alliance for the Defense of Theatre, that proposed and obtained from Europa Nostra the status of “endangered European Cultural Monument” for the National Theatre (link).

But, unfortunately, Europa Nostra is not the European Union, the representative/ambassador of which in Albania is Luigi Soreca, that apparently, involved in more important activities to pave the way of the country towards EU, has no comments regarding the peoples revolt against the demolition. The Alliance in Defense of Theatre while I am writing have already sent a request (May, 18th) for pronunciation to the Ambassador (link).

Romina Kuko vice-minister of Interior and Luigi Soreca, some Albanian media reported a sex video scandal between the two with no concrete evidences.

Actually I do not know where the EU finds its representative to send in Albania. The last one, Romana Vlahutin, seemed a porno actress coming out from Pornhub milf category, with the same “accuracy” regarding sobriety (link).

The ass number 16 is that of the former minister of interior Tahiri, linked with the mafia according Italian prosecutors.

The Alliance for the Defense of Theatre has also sent a request of pronunciation to that Manchurian Candidate, named Yuri Kim, a cyborg that happens to be the US Ambassador in Albania. In this case, the request to me sounds so absurd that is even hard to believe. Our Big Brother, thanks to the Monroe Doctrine of which we, as Albanians, have our independence, but also the fruits of its psychotic struggle for hegemony, I am sure will be the biggest supporter of Edi Rama and, by defending his operation, will give him more credibility just to intimidate the protesters and return to “normality”.

As I see it there is no hope from nowhere, being EU or USA, except from the people resisting fascism with the adequate weapons. The Albanian history speaks for itself.

What can we learn from the history, not only the Albanian history actually, is that the fascism does not permit any choice: it evokes always and everywhere a Piazzale Loreto, it starts and finishes succumbing in its spectacle.

Actually it is not only my perception that this will happen later or soon in Albania. There are for example other artist that somehow, through their works, transmit and evoke the same feelings. See in this regard “REASSAMBLE” of Pleurad Xhafa, a video of 2017 focused on the traumatic history of the WWII and the donation of Walter Audisio, an Italian partisan, to the “heroic people of Albania” of the machine gun with which was executed Benito Mussolini, conserved at the National Historic Museum:

or Ergin Zaloshnja’s quasi-Fellinian “Naming the Halter in the Hanged Man’s House” of the same year, which tries to provoke after the newly designed Tirana’s Central Square and the mafia-government affair behind:

But before concluding it is important to mention a historical reference to this contemporary somber omens. There is a poet and writer I love. His name, Millosh Gjergj Nikolla, known as Migjeni (1911-1938). He was from Shkodra, serbian mother tongue, but deliberately wanted to write in a minor, foreign for him, language, like Albanian. His Albanian language, like his verses in terms of metre, are far from perfect. Yet, there is no other author in Albanian language that sounds as perfect as him in terms of tonality, in terms of relations, stability, attractions of images created through words, which makes his writing an incomparable distinguished gesture.

In one of his essays, entitled “Novel on Crisis” (Novelë mbi krizë), Migjeni writes about a city “the elite” of which, to “fight” poverty, “changed the face of the city” by constructing “wonderful monuments” (a clear reference to the Albanian situation of the time under the self-proclaimed King Ahmet Zogu). And the elite was “competing among each other” in this race of aesthetization of poverty (here the author refers to his historical and social context, but, one year after the death of Migjeni, with the fascist invasion in 1939, with a more intensive aesthetization of poverty, his words sound more as a prophecy or discerning premonitory vision). However, the poorest, still starving, felt “colorful like the monuments under the sun”. But, not too late, after the destruction of the monuments “the day of beggars’ lynch came”, the day of “starving, skinny ribs wolves”. The End.

To me these “beggars” that start “lynching” hungry like “starving, skinny ribs wolves” seem a good image to understand the Albania after the liberation and the partisans persecuting an entire so-called elite of the time, from aristocratic and conservators to progressive and social democrats or other center as well as moderate leftists, all guilty of being too soft, uncertain, or reluctant, according the partisans, to fight against fascism and privileged classes. The terror of the time is better described in some of Kasëm Trebeshina’s poignant and surgical pages. I also remember my grandfather, a member of “Çeta e Pezës”, the first anti-fascist military group in Albania, and later partisan, that during the last years before passing away, in 1994, was used to tell me stories of this terror while hunting the fascists or fascists collaborators in Northern Albania and Yugoslavia. He was used to say “there were no bones or tails left” (“as rrasht as bisht”), a phrase that brings in mind Migjeni’s “starving, skinny ribs wolves” devouring their prey.

The National Theatre in 1944 after the liberation was taken from the fascists and Nazis with real weapons. Was occupied by starving people, which had never had the possibility to frequent the elitist “Scanderbeg Circle”, this was the name of the multi-functional complex, which became after the liberation The Popular Theatre, a theater of the poorest for the poorest. And, during these times of resistance against the demolition, the history of under-privileged classes occupying the elite’s institutions, the symbolic institutions of colonization, converted in symbolic institutions of culture, if not at all, rarely came out or was clearly articulated as the real value to preserve of the history of National Theatre. And it is because of the aforementioned political and para-political infiltration of each protest that this value is continuously erased. However, now, with the demolition of the National Theatre by Edi Rama’s government and Mayor of Tirana Erion Veliaj, the elitist race towards the aesthetization of poverty is coming to an end. The Theatre’s curtain is down. The “starving, skinny ribs wolves” are coming soon.

P.S. It was impossible to defend The National Theatre from the demolition without clarifying its fascist roots, its instrumental construction to promote a spectacular fascist regime through architectonic modernization for the colonization of a country. It was impossible to defend from the demolition The Theatre without evidencing its fundamental value, in other words the power of the poorest to convert a symbolic building of colonization in a symbolic building of culture. Without this clarification Edi(p) Rama’s psychosis and all the neoliberal ass-lickers of the contemporary art system have reduced and will reduce the erasure of this European Monument of Cultural Heritage as an Albanian feud between government and opposition.

Chi parla? (Romeo Kodra)

Guardate bene questa merda, dalle sembianze umane, che parla! E, soprattutto, ascoltatelo! Si chiama Edi Rama. Non sta parlando all’Italia e neppure agli italiani! Addirittura non sta parlando neppure lui. Altri scrivono i suoi discorsi. Lui sta seplicemente, come un troll ai tempi del virus, lanciando delle password che in futuro scoprirete nel loro vero significato.

Caramellate dalle dolci parole della “fratellanza”, “amicizia”, “ospitalità”, “memoria” e altre stronzate, delle quali lo stronzo parlante non ha manco la più pallida idea, le sue password sono quelle che mirano l’UE e verrano riprese da una Meloni qualsiasi, la quale verrà presto alla ribalta politica italiana per rialzare “muri” ancora più alti sui confini (sparando sulle imbarcazioni di migranti come ultimamente in Grecia oppure speronandole come nel canale di Otranto qualche anni addietro), magari organizzando anche campi di concentramento proprio in Albania dallo stronzo parlante.

Credete che la LEGA ha distrutto la sanità in Lombardia con le privatizzazioni e un domani sarà sul banco degli imputati proprio per il disastro attuale? Ecco, la merda che parla in Albania sta faccendo la stessa cosa, le stesse politiche ma non andrà mai sul banco degli imputati, perché il banco, qui, non c’è da anni ormai con il beneplacito dell’UE&USA (quindi, neanche la LEGA ci andrà).

Come si fa a dire che una destra come la LEGA faccia la stessa politica di un “socialista” (perché la merda parlante è il Primo Segretario del Partito Socialista Albanese per chi non lo sapesse)? Facile, pensate a Renzi e le somiglianze delle sue politiche con Berlusconi, dove al centro delle loro visioni politiche non sono i lavoratori e il loro benessere, ma il profitto e il funzionamento della machina imprenditoriale. La differenza è che lo stronzo fatto uomo proviene dal laboratorio dei Balcani dove Soros e Trump, i quali sulla scena italiana e americana sembrano antagonisti dal punto di vista politico, hanno da tempo palesato gli stessi interessi e vanno d’accordissimo (si veda il ruolo di Alex Soros dietro l’accordo per il “mini-Schengen” balcanico tra Vucic e Rama con l’esclusione della Kosova e il suo Primo Ministro Kurti, il quale proprio l’altro giorno ha visto cadere il suo governo grazie all’inviato di Trump, Grenell, perché non accettava gli accordi Rama-Vucic e il cambio dei confini Kosova-Serbia su basi etniche).

In Albania, Kosova, Bosnia Erzegovina e dintorni il fascismo si sta già assorbendo, sta diventando normalità: lo stato è il governo e il governo è il leader. Da queste parti, che somigliano molto alla Lombardia e all’Italia di oggi, è il lider, il governo, lo stato che decide chi deve uscire per andare a lavoro ed essere libero. Quindi, il dado è tratto. Come si diceva una volta, Arbeit Macht Frei, no? E non mi pare siamo molto lontani da tutto ciò.

Conoscendo l’Italia come un paese dove le revoluzioni sono sempre conservatrici e prendono pieghe solamente fascistoide, un domani, proprio per conservare il marcio e la putrefazione del modello “sanità d’eccellenza lombarda” che in mano ai privati ha dato i frutti di oggi, e non rovesciare il sistema in toto, lo slogan sarà quello già collaudato: “prima gli italiani”. Ma non detto da Salvini e le sue ciurme battezzate col rito celtico sulle fonti del Po, ma da una pura cattolicissima romana de Roma come la Meloni. Quindi, niente revoluzione. E, per far contenta l’intelighenzia sinistroida wikipediano-italiana con le sue visioni da cricetto sulla ruota, non ci saranno nemmeno privatizzazioni. Sarà lo stato ad occuparsi della sanità, ma solo per gli italiani, sul modello, anche questo collaudatissimo, corporativistico.

“It’s high time for bullets to tinkle across museum walls”. (Romeo Kodra)

Regarding the last exhibition Prova of Adrian Paci at The National Gallery of Arts in Tirana, at the end of the post, I wrote:

To conclude, in Paci’s National Gallery showcased works one is always in front of an art of ideas and never in front of an idea of arts, always in front of an idea expressed through a medium or media and never in front of an idea of medium or media. In other words, in front of the endless prove of consumerist reproduction and commodification of art, which more than with the aesthetic of arts has to do with anesthetic policies.

https://aksrevista.wordpress.com/2019/12/02/what-does-adrian-paci-and-prova-prove-romeo-kodra/

Recently, at The National Gallery of Arts in Tirana is open the new exhibition: Tirana Patience, curated by Nataša Ilić and Adam Szymczyk. According to the curators the idea is to open the paintings collection of socialist realism (actually it is written “realist socialist”, which I hope is the rough Albanian version given to the reader by the notary that The National Gallery payed for the “professional” translation) on which contemporary artists will act by performing or discussing with the public. In other words, according the curators, the idea is “not to exhibit/display the works, but to temporarily withdraw the artworks of the past from view of the visitors” (I am freely translating the Albanian version of the text).

I have not seen the exhibition. But do I need to see it? Do I need to visit The National Gallery of Arts directed by Edi(p) Rama’s nominated director Erzen Shkololli and judge afterwords the anesthetic artistic and cultural policies of the fascistoid regime installed in Albania? Do I need to visit the exhibition where the text’s concepts (I feel generous to call these bullshitting “concepts”) are clearly anesthetic (Tirana Patience, so to say “Tirana, do not act, stay at home and reflect, maybe reading Edi Rama’s and Ardian Klosi’s Refleksione or George Soros’ Theory of Reflexivity” … or just entertain yourself by playing patience game/solitaire)? Do I need to visit The National Gallery of Arts to understand that Nataša Ilić and Adam Szymczyk, if not two illiterates of the context, are just two contemporary art prostitutes prostituting their status as foreign curators – supposed as acknowledged – and sold to the – supposed ignorant of arts and contemporary art – Albanians, as usually is done in our contemporary version of panem et circenses way of governing? Do I need to visit Tirana Patience to see, once more, how the arts and artists, with or without their will (lucky the dead ones, that cannot see what is done to them and their works!!!), are prostituted? Do I need to visit the exhibition to see how Intervista of Anri Sala will be interpreted, again and again and again, through pseudo-Freudian lenses of unconscious repression and not through a correct translation of the Albanian and discover than the “hand” of the “mama’s wunderkind” but also of the French art professors that know very well the contemporary art market needs? Do I need to see the displayed and dis-covered artworks by the contemporary artists to understand that the same lenses will be used even in this exhibition, where enough is never enough when it comes to the reactionary exoticisation of “communism era” covered by the left-washing critical passwords such as “post-truth”, “neoliberism”, “paved ways of democracies”, “social and political revolutions”, and so on and so forth?

Actually the answer of these questions is obviously rhetoric. But fortunately in Albania there is art circulating, but out of the institutions. It circulates on the walls, intended as facades of buildings and social media profiles (sounds restrictive, limited and even ridicule, but the regime have already erased every other possibility for free art expression). One of these is the so-called campaign of some activists against one of the so-called Albanian oligarchs, which is not more than an ordinary mafia criminal that has made is fortune through money laundry, corruption of politicians as well as exploitation of workers. His name is Samir Mane, connected with Edi Rama’s government, but also with the former government of Sali Berisha.

The activists’ campaign started when Samir Mane, the owner of Albchrome, fired some miners of Bulqiza, because they dared to found a miners union with the help of Organizata Politike. It is normal in a fascist country governed by Edi Rama, that openly declares the lack of workers’ unions which makes the country more attractive for the investors. Anyways, the fact is that “Saimir Mane oppresses the workers” appeared everywhere.

OP thellon fushatën publike kundër Samir Manes

The Facebook page Bojkoto Samir Manen, calling to boycott all the products of Mane’s companies, was created. Yet, even Mane’s payed slaves entered in action, erasing the writings.

This erasures brought me in mind a work of 2014 with Sead Kazanxhiu, Erasure … We Would Prefer Emilo Isgrò, where me and Sead were destroying and erasing with “big bold strokes”, like Edi Rama, the children’s artistic creations. Unfortunately, time passes, and our provocative action does not seem any more as such, but sicks to the real wound of our reality.

IMG_9498

But not only. All these actions of writing and erasing brought me in mind, as some others followers of the Bojkoto Samir Manen Facebook Page also noticed, even a cartoon from the state socialism period. It is titled Parrulla V.F.L.P. (The Slogan: Death to Fascism, Freedom to the People), with author my late friend Gëzim Qëndro, when he was a creative and still not an art critic.

And again these actions project me to Lacan and the concept of littoral (in Lituraterre) when the psychoanalyst reading Edgar Allan Poe plays in a Joycean phonetic manner with the letter, litteral and littoral, with the coast+line or the border of the subjectivization. In other words, there where the art is taking place, where its aesthetics are challenged in their becoming by decodification and recodification. As the reader can imagine we are talking about the other pole of the prostitutional anesthetics of The National Gallery of Arts.

To conclude, I should add that this article it is not to show how prophetic I have been by anticipating The National Gallery of Arts anesthetics artistic and cultural policies, which were punctually materialized through Tirana Patience concepts. This article is to stress even more the cognitive influence of the capitalism that produces shitty persons, artists, politicians, societies as well as environment. Just take a look of these picture of Samir Mane and a caricature of a capitalist by Mayakovsky (it was also quoted somewhere in the page of Bojkoto Samir Manen, which I cannot find … however, Chapeau to the person who did it!). Is this a prototype of the capitalist? How could Mayakovsky figure Mane 100 years ago?

Samir Mane by Majakovski?

And please check what Mane Trade Construction Investments produces. Below you see the green periphery of Tirana and Mane’s urban and architectural intervention made of a complex of luxury (kitschy) villas.

Samir Mane’s Rolling Hills and Long Hill.

Rolling Hills Luxury Residencies it is not ironic at all. In this territorial and environment consuming gut is self-barricaded le crèm de la crème of the Albanian new money bourgeoisie. Even in this case the cognitive effects of capitalism are visible.

So, this article is written to make people somehow realize all the signals we are daily facing. And not only visual signals. All the Albanians know that Sali Berisha stands behind the deaths of the tragedy of Gërdec, Ilir Meta behind the deaths of 21 January as well as Edi Rama behind the large part of deaths of the last earthquake when people were left in damaged and unsafe houses. Therefore, it is not anymore time for metaphors and posting bullets (as the case of Armando Lulaj), but, quoting Mayakovsky, “[i]t’s high time for bullets to tinkle across museum walls” and make feel not the reality but the real to the prostitutes of the politics and arts in Albania and/or visiting Albania.

Western Balkans mini-Schengen as the art of neoliberalism monumentalisation and genocide normalization. (Romeo Kodra)

Me and Neoliberalism. In March 2017, with some French and international friends, I was involved in a project regarding monumentalisation, art and power. My ignorance regarding the French elections, happening in the same period, was almost embarrassing, but in the middle of an animated discussion, regarding the way Hollonde and Le Pen (according the polls and survays the two leading pre-elections candidates) were conducting their campaigns, I interfered with saying that the more neoliberal of all the candidates, the more apparently empty in terms of ideology, was Macron and for this reason I thought he will be the winner of the French elections. I did not know how distant was Macron in the polls/surveys before the elections, but was a lot behind Le Pen and Hollonde. I sustained my thoughts by saying that I was coming from the avant-garde laboratory of neoliberalism, so I was somehow “talking to them from the future” (Any occasion is good to show my modesty!).

With my friends, experts of the Balkan region, I had some other exchanges regarding the neoliberalism and its more advanced challenging laboratory: Bosnia and Herzegovina. I said that for me, somewhat connected with Bosnian war for familial reasons, it would be better dealing with Serbians killing Bosnians and Albanians or vice-versa, rather than installation of neoliberal states in Bosnia & Herzegovina, or Balkans in general. Because I see the ancestral ethnic hate of the region (it is good to remember that every hate has its love counterpart), an ethnic hate with which I and Balkan people are “used to”, or at least know “how to deal with”, I see it as a sort of barrier against neoliberalism. With this last, it is different. The neoliberalism transforms and deforms anthropologically all the social and cultural relations (that unite Balkan and its people), domesticating the human and its bios towards self+consumerism as an end in itself.

I do not know if I explained myself or just shocked my interlocutors. However I think there are still few studies regarding the neoliberalism and especially its effects, which I think, when done, will mitigate the shock of my thoughts regarding better living with Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian killers killing each other rather than dealing with neoliberalism as a unique alternative for any State. We’ll see.

Balkan’s mini-Schengen and geopolitics. Few days ago, in Tirana, was held a meeting between the representatives of Albania (Edi Rama), Montenegro (Milo Đukanović), Serbia (Aleksandar Vučić) and Northern Macedonia (Zoran Zaev), regarding the so-called Western Balkans mini-Schengen, a free trade zone, from which Kosova, bordering in the middle of these countries, is self-excluded. The main reasons for the Kasovars self-exclusion are not fully economic, but has to do mainly with the lack of Serbian recognition of Kosova as an independent state and above all with the Aleksandar Vučić genocide denial of Kosova’s war in 1999.

Unexpectedly, regarding Edi(p) Rama’s actions, I saw a lot of stupor in Kosova’s media and social meida. This stupor is turning gradually in various level of pity, refusal, hate, etc., against Rama.

Photo collage like this are everywhere online …

The reason of this reaction is because of the ignorance and ignoring the geopolitics, political representative figures like those we in Balkans have, and the laboratory of neoliberalism.

Let’s try to clarify some things.

Months ago Edi(p) Rama was pro and supporting the exchange of territories between Serbia and Kosova, a territorial exchange ethnically based, on which Kosova’s President Hashim Thaçi and Serbia’s homologue Aleksandar Vučić were talking during several meetings. Only the resistance of Kosovars in Kosova and Serbians in Serbia and part of their political representatives (by the way all claiming the territories as parts of the country they belong) as well as the subsequent intervention of Merkel impeded the factual exchange. The exchange was, not openly, but supported by the US and pushed further, openly, by Mogherini, EU Foreign Affairs higher representative.

The risk was, once more, to make Kosova a laboratory for the future, as in the case of military intervention of 1999, which justified the wars in Iraq, Syria, and so on. In this case, in the future, we could have seen some political representatives of states, “supported” by the geopolitical powers, exchange, sell or donate territories based on ethnicity. And all done by their “initiatives”, so reconfirming the “independence of the states” and the worldwide “democracy”. In other words, open doors to racism and creation of pure ethnic states … there is an urgent need of literacy on what was the ideal form of states according nazi-fascists.

What is most impressive in all this debate is the ignorance circulating in media and public opinion. Nobody sees that some shitty politicians like the Albanians, Serbians, Kosovars ones, think that have the power (really!?!?!?) to exchange territories, to intervene strategically in the geopolitical map, a luxury reserved only to the superpowers like US, Russia, China and no one else. This luxury it is not reserved neither to sates like Germany, France or Italy, which can only, with the permission of the US, have a voice in the tactical development of their interests and influence within the territories under US control.

Considering that, for the moment, the issue of territorial exchange was left behind. The next issue, mini-Schengen, or the mantra “neoliberalism above all”, even above your memories, victims, blood, rapes, came out: the above-mentioned meeting between Albania, Montenegro, Serbia and Northern Macedonia with Kosova self-excluded.

The public debates regarding these meetings are centered around the Albanian politics and politicians, which are not taking (at all or enough) in considerations the Kosova’s interests in this situation, as if the Albania was a sort of mother or father. Actually I am surprised how the people are still willing of paternalism. But soon it will come again, not in the form of a State, motherland or fatherland, but in the form of a still hierarchic, familar, Oedipal system.

Neoliberalism: what is this, beyond boring theorization? To explain neoliberalism in few lines, especially for Kosovars that do not know Edi(p) Rama, is better to make the example of George Soros.

In other words, just as in the case of George Soros saving his life and making money by confiscating goods to Jewish people, during Second World War, the Kosovars and Balkan people should go beyond and erase their terrible memories, without elaborating anything, just making business “as in the market”, because “someone else will do it”. No matter that even more Kosovars, Albanians, and Serbians, will die every day, as slaves of neoliberalism, because of course never misses someone else that will have to do it, someone that will have to make money on memories, victims, blood. We’ll see.

Helsinki’s Boulevardisation Case. (Romeo Kodra)

La prostituée du boulevard de Clichy et l’inspecteur qui la surveille ont tous les deux de mauvais souliers et tous les deux ont mal aux pieds d’avoir arpenté des kilomètres de bitume.

Georges Simenon.

Prelude. Etymologically the “Boulevard/Bulwerk”, a Dutch term, in XIV Century, entered in French language meaning: a “bastion, walls of fortification (the flat walkway over the top of the bastion)”, a word connected with defensive militarization and control of political power; and later “a large city road, promenade”, indicating an urban space for the spectacular circulation of objects (commodities) and subjects (people).

The semantic transition, from a bastion to a promenade, occurred during Le Roi Soleil Louis XIV, when the old bastions of Paris, after the construction of the new ones in a larger perimeter, were erased to make space for a wide tree-lined promenade.

During my research on this topic, I found significant that the first examples of the boulevards as urban dispositive of political power control appeared almost in the same period: in Paris within Haussmann’s renovation in 1853, and Vienna “by the will” of Kaiser Franz Joseph in 1857, transforming the old fortification walls in Ringstrasse, demonstrating in this manner the “will of openness and democratic dialogue”.

In addition, the boulevard is also a clear imperialistic political gesture, in terms of urban space, which delineates the subjectivization of a changing regime of power and governmentality. Following the Lacanian reading, to have a subject there must be “the trace”, walls/fortification in this case, “the erasure of the trace”, transformation of fortification in boulevard, and “marking of the erasure”, monumentalization of the boulevard.

In fact, three points need to be distinguished: the trace, the erasure of the trace and the marking of the erasure. It is at this level that the signifier arises and the subject emerges.


PETTIGREW, David and François RAFFOUL. 1996. Disseminating Lacan. Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press, p.39.

This process can also be considered as a new governmentality (Foucault), changing from the societies of discipline to the societies of control (Deleuze Gilles, Postscript on the Societies of Control, October, vol. 59, Winter 1992, pp. 3-7, The MIT Press). This governmentality and this control become more clear when, in its support, a full state apparatus is revealed, made of financial institutions, laws, construction mega-companies, famous architects/artists.

And last, but not least, to complete this picture, the representational aspects of the political power gesture are almost always represented faithfully by the formal aspects of arts (urban planning, architecture, sculpture/monument), reproducing altogether or at least one of the following aspects:
a) the alignment with the boulevard,
b) the verticality of urban objects (architectures, monuments)
c) hermeticism/closure sense emanated by these objects.

Therefore, it is with Haussmann’s urban interventions in Paris (1853) and transformation of Vienna’s bastions in Ring Strasse (1857) that the boulevard’s double signification, from one side, conceptually, evidenced the “twofold nature of capitalism” and “formation of [its] sovereignty” (Deleuze/Guattari – Anti-Oedipus); and, from the other side, historically, “the change of regime and governmentality”, from despotic absolutism to enlightened despotism. In other words, seems like the Ancien Régime, after the Congress of Vienna, to “tolerate the bourgeoisie” to participate in political power and prevent further revolutionary atrocities and nationalism, by erasing the bastions, tried to demonstrate openness and democratic dialogue with its subjects, and, by constructing spectacular boulevards, to codify and control their consumption and circulation.

Since then, the boulevard marks and mirrors the change of regime and governmentality of political powers, with all its related political power discourse, the bureaucratic procedures, the organized rationality by defining, shaping, guiding and affecting people and their conduct in the city space, which make the boulevard a perfect dispositive to measure the social pressure and control of political power regimes.

Helsinki’s boulevardisation. In 2015 Helsinki’s Urban Plan was drafted by the Urban Environment Division of the Municipality. The first out of ten themes of the draft regarded “densification”, which was justified under the pretext of “increasing of the population” caused by the arrivals of “migrants”. The main urban tools used for the densification were “city boulevards”. Simultaneously the Urban Environment Division released another document, “City Boulevards in Helsinki”, where appeared an unusual term, namely “boulevardisation”.

In 2017 the plan was approved.

However, two problems can be noticed. Firstly, there is no information and deep analyses on Finnish tradition of “densification/boulevardisation” and the perception of the Finns regarding “densification/boulevardization”. Secondly, the participation of the migrants in public hearings and other platforms for public participation, being them the main reason that justified the densification and “boulevardisation”, until now, it is unknown.

So, what is Helsinki’s “boulevardisation”? In what type of “boulevard” is based? Following the etymology, to have a “boulevard” there must be an erasure. What is being erased though? At the beginning, after the Congress of Vienna, the boulevards were a sort of consequence of the decision of the Ancien Régime to tolerate the lower bourgeois class to participate in political power and avoid in this manner the nationalism. In this regard, is there any connection between this approach and the decision of Helsinki’s Municipality to densify and boulevardize because of the migrants? Moreover, to resist against the boulevardistation is somehow connected with nationalism and the resistance against the migration? Regarding the governmentality, what are the mechanisms of management and administration (work processes, procedures, rules, laws), as well as the ways of classifying individuals or groups (by income, nationality, and professional categories), which allow power institutions – in this case Helsinki Municipality/Urban Environment Division and Migratin Office – for their identification, classification, ordering, and control? And last, but not least, what are the similarities and differences in terms of representational aspects of art displayed in urban and public space of boulevard?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I am living in Finland, Espoo near Helsinki, from May of this year. I have never seen a city with more open construction sites in the same time as Helsinki. And I am coming from Tirana … In Tirana there is a lot of mafia and money laundry supported by the government. I do not know very well the Helsinki’s context, but there are a lot of signs that things are not much better. Yet, what most impresses me is the passivity of “Finns” towards this urban development booming. And, without knowing why, I feel like “something is rotten in the state of … Finland”.

There is a web pop-up that reminds me this feeling … and Pacific (1967) of David Alexander Colville.

What does Adrian Paci and “Prova” prove? (Romeo Kodra)

Adrian Paci’s exhibition Prova, at The Albanian National Gallery of Arts, is held in the framework of director’s (Erzen Shkololli) institutional policies. In other words, as it is required to a government nominated director, the exhibition is held to promote a florescent and vivid Albanian artistic context during “Edi Rama’s time” (just quoting Anri Sala), the time of Renaissance (Rilindje, in Albanian, a worldwide christologic term and patriotic related with the Albanian independence movement, which is the pompous name given by Edi Rama to his government, that has in its focus the patronage of art and artists, where, of course, the patron comes first … please check this one man show during the presentation of the Albanian Pavilion of Venice Biennial of Architecture 2014 at London AA School of Architecture in 2015 link). Yet, according these policies, no Albanian acute and actual pressing problems should be evidenced, because the promotion, as every marketing student knows in this age of cognitive capitalism, can be – God forbid – compromised in its shiny emanating lustrousity. Maybe, just a little, but always through illustrative and glossy representations, respecting and following the formal contemporary art curating canons, to make happy the self-critical spirit as well as the homologated aesthetics of the bourgeoisie that frequents these kind of exhibitions. And, of course, what can be better than blurry, pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-philosophical artistic strategy of “universalizing the Albanian context” and making it “global”, as the curator Adam Budak suggests to the reader of Prova throughout the exhibition’s text.

This kind of exhibition and these kind of artists (Adrian Paci, Edi Hila, Flaka Haliti to mention some of them promoted by the Gallery) serve to connect the Albanian public contemporary art institutions context with the neoliberal art system, led by a globalist, stateless, apparently apolitical, and post-bourgeois class, that measures everything in terms of consumption and profit, where everything and everyone is a consumable commodity for those in power, respecting and following the laws of a pyramidal hierarchy. And these artists are very happy with it, providing, through the commodification of the art, the system’s basic raw materials.

Reading exhibition’s curatorial text one could think that Adrian Paci is somewhat a deeply politically engaged artist. Prova is the “artist’s most mature and radical gesture of a political nature, expressing the urgency to take action and indicating the willingness to perform the civic responsibility”, says the curator. However, the author confuses the political gesture of the artist with Edi Rama’s Party/Renaissance gesture (see Edi Rama’s mantra “political action with colors” and his choice selecting Adrian Paci to evangelize through “a lecture” the Albanian Ambassadors in 2016).

The concepts like “Arendtian space of appearance” are totally deviating and inarticulate in their consistency. In this case the author, Budak, by using the word “appearance” (key word, in my opinion, but of a different kind, which I will try to explain below), wanted to make it more intellectually catchy and added “Arendtian space”, the relation of which with Paci’s work remain shrown in mystery. The same could be said regarding Paci’s painting of an “ethical subject at the moment of becoming and transition”, a pseudo-philosophical concept, which contradicts the “mise-en-scène” (term used by Budak, another key word in Paci’s work, but with different connotations in my opinion) that Paci always does. This means that, if we are spectator of a mise-en-scène, than there is no ethical subject at the moment of becoming, but only a pose, a mimic, a simulation of becoming (see also the men posing, as requested by their author/director/Paci, in the video Prova).

This contradiction in Budak’s text reappears again where the curator wants to evidence Paci’s scene:

“Paci’s scene has a quality of an ancient drama: we are spectators in the theatre of quasi-heroic gesture, on the ruins of enlightenment where the grand recit of morality are staged with pathos and splendor.”

This mishmash between ancient drama and quasi-heroic gesture (which is self-explained, because if we consider quasi-heroic the ancient drama, than what is heroic?) is further confused with morality, pathos and splendor (a refreshing of Nietzschean The Birth of Tragedy is needed, and, if it is not too much and hard to digest, followed by On the Genealogy of Morality of the same author). In addition, the grand recit, the syntagmatic expression which should bring in our minds Lyotard (?) and the Postmodern Condition(?), sounds, firstly, more like a strategy of the curator to highlight the philosophic concepts behind the artist’s work, and, secondly, a strategy of the artists, not to eliminate the hero (see this topic on the work of Lyotard), but to change his place, from the stage to the backstage, where the famous and worldwide known author/director/Paci, we (should) know, is placed.

Yet, despite this confusion, is because of Budak, that one can evidence the real fulcrum of most Albanian artist’s work, which consist precisely in the mise-en-scène that often appears in Paci’s showcased works at The National Gallery (I even agree with Budak to use grand recit referring to Paci’s work, but with another meaning, as it is used sometimes in France, which relates to the grand récits of the great leading actors of the Parisian Théâtre Boulevardier/Vaudevillesque). Moreover, being the artist, as Budak defined him, “self-referential”, one should know more on the “references” of Adrian Paci to understand better his mise-en-scène (Or not? Or the curator is defining the artist as “self-referential” just to provide him with a sort of license or Schengen Visa to freely ab+use artistic and philosophical concepts as well as art history? Personally, I am fine with that, but in that case we should talk on Paci’s art as a sort of amateur hour).

Firstly, to understand Paci’s mise-en-scène or grand recit, we should turn back to that being happily involved within the global neoliberal system of exploitation and commodification of art that consumes everyone and everything following the laws of the pyramidal hierarchy. Let’s take in consideration for example Home to go, a his early work present at The National Gallery of Art exhibition.

Home to Go, 2001.

In this case, the migrant – the artist himself, the great leading actor, as suggested by the resemblances of this work with the artist – is apparently represented as a sort of martyr, a Christological character. What an elitist, clerical, and bourgeois context, such as the Italy of 2001, could have expected more than this work? As I see it, it confirms and represents the imaginary of the majority of the Italian elitist artistic context of the time. But, what about the migrant and his specific characteristics? [Just a specification: the majority of the migrants in Italy and in Europe were and are not coming from a Christian tradition, so this Paci’s work do not “universalize” properly to make “global” the migration problem, but tries to make it more familiar to the host.] Being myself a migrant in Italy of 2001, I do not think that it represents the image of me and my imaginary at that time. I do not even think it represents the frustration and wrath of ordinary migrants that were and still are daily targeted by Lega Nord (I lived in Bergamo at that time, almost the same context of Paci). I think it does not represent even the imaginary of the Albanian migrants, that, after the Tragedy of Otranto, lost every illusion on the hospitality and open arms of the Italian and European Union States. Moreover, it is better to specify that the Italians culture of hospitality is something else, that has to do even with the Christianity, but it is not connected with the pathetic and patinated/glossy representations such as Adrian Paci’s Home to Go. In this regard, even Budak’s use of terms such as pathos and splendor, sounds deviating and ab+usive, because these Paci’s works, as a lot of works circulating and feeding the contemporary neoliberal art system, share more common traits with counter-reformation art period (certain Mannerism and Baroque, if you like) than Renaissance, as Edi Rama in Albania or the neoliberal contemporary art system want us to believe. In other words, these Paci’s works characteristics, instead of pathos and splendor, could be more appropriate to define as pathetic and glossy.

Secondly, to understand Paci’s “self-references”, which I would rather call “references”, we should still consider them as a sort of simulation, a mimic, a pompous boulevardier or vaudevillesque acting the great leading actor. With this in mind, his works in general, and Prova in particular, showcased at The National Gallery exhibition, suggest the Albanian artist par excellence: Kolë Idromeno. Idromeno is considered to be the first Albanian modern painter and artist. In this regard, if we follow the words of Budak, referred to Paci, we can easily have an idea of who Kolë Idromelo was:

“[T]he moving image (a film, a video) dialogues with the still image of the photographic series as well as with the image, captured within the frame of painting, the artist’s primary skill and vocation, proving […] formal versatility and his interest in a variety of expressions and languages”.

In addition, being Paci the curator in 2017 of some Idromeno’s photographic works, we can easily notice the similarities in terms of visual traits between some characters of Prova. However, although even in Idromeno the characters/actors are posing, the differences between the two are remarkable and similarities limited in the classical composition of the frame. Consequently, even the “reference”, looks superficial, pretentious.

For example, in Idromeno, if we want to hazard the Lyotardian reading suggested by Budak, we do not see the “description, illustration, narration” – as Adrian Paci himself explains in the interview above linked (“Idromeno nuk proteston me fotot e tij, ai nuk proteston as me pikturat e tija. Thjesht përshkruen, ilustron, tregon.”) – of a grand recit such as the Bible stories, but the meta-narration. And meta-narration means, etymologically, “beyond narration”, or, as Idromeno does, the contextualization of a known narration. So, within the grand recit of the well-known biblical infernal stories, we see not the characters of the picture perpetuating through characteristic poses all the tragedy and pathos of the biblical tradition, but a character of the context (Shkodra) during Idromeno’s time, which, as suggested by the pictures, is a context emanating a terrible and horrible comicality. And this makes a character, which doesn’t exist within the grand recit, a specific and original one, which is a very different thing from Paci’s impassive and lifeless characteristic characters, that confirm the mainstream and political power canons of representation, the grand recit precisely. I guess, to make understand the difference between being a character and having a character, a Quentin Tarantino’s fast-food philosophy quote can help Paci and Budak.

Thus, in Idromeno we do not see the narration of a grand recit, but a joyful play with the medium (theatrically or photographically), as he always did, with all the media, in all its artistic production, being it painting, photography, architecture, etc. In Paci we have only a superficial, glossy and pompous description, narration, illustration that intentionally confirms and is ready and happy to be marked, in terms of meaning, by the grand recits of our time, being it the elitist bourgeois clerical context of Shkodra and Italy or the confirmation and promotion of Edi Rama’s neoliberal policies.

And, what is most important, in Paci’s showcased works there is no play with the medium or media (even in painting Paci seems an imitator of Edi Hila, another artist adrift of mannerism, but of his own) from a technological point of view. In this regard, the Idromenoan “joyful play with the medium”, in Paci’s Prova for example, is limited in the alternation of camera focus between foreground and background objects. The focus goes from the microphone to life suffered faces of the filmed persons. The produced, generated or stimulated meaning according this very basic film syntax is: voice to the poorest? Wow! Isn’t it original? I do not know how to define this kind of cinematic take. To me, more than obscene, for which I have a lot of respect because is somehow connected with the transgression of an ordinary scene, this kind of illustrative use of the medium/camera looks like Albanian tallava video clips or pornography. It brings in mind not the history of the video art (maybe even scholastic in this case could sound too generous), but the new trends of luxurious porno films made in USA/Hollywood (it is a wide used cliché in these films the focal transition from genitals in action, a bouquet of roses on the table, placed in middle-background, and, in far-background, the “cozy” city view, seen from the extra-large window of the apartment placed on the top of the skyscraper where the action is taking place).

The same scholastic rigidity in terms of use of the medium is present in several Paci’s showcased works, where the balanced, centralized, symmetric and glossy images abound up to boredom and dullness.

To conclude, in Paci’s National Gallery showcased works one is always in front of an art of ideas and never in front of an idea of arts, always in front of an idea expressed through a medium or media and never in front of an idea of medium or media. In other words, in front of the endless prove of consumerist reproduction and commodification of art, which more than with the aesthetic of arts has to do with anesthetic policies.

P.S. There is a peculiar trait or red thread in Paci’s works, which I have considered for a long time as very important, if not the most important, to decipher the artist’s evolution. It is a sense of waiting, expectance. But throughout his works it seems spontaneous, never developed, quasi unconscious, and not rationalized. So, it is difficult to talk in this case of evolution. Maybe, in this regard, something should be written, but it is difficult without passing through the psychogenic aspects of his works, made of pious spirit and pomposity.

Rena Rädle and Vladan Jeremić at Tirana Art Lab’s Performative Exhibition, an interview, and some considerations on “art-washing” and “left-washing”. (Romeo Kodra)

[This text is written in English and not in Albanian, because, firstly, the Albanian readers of this blog know almost all the issues that will be discussed; secondly, because somehow, especially after the last visit in Tirana, few days ago, I felt more foreigner in my birthplace; lastly, because the text concerns mostly non-Albanians people involved in the discussed art event.]

In September I was contacted by my friend Vladan Jeremić, that sent me the link announcing his and Rena Rädle participation at Tirana Art Lab’s Performative Exhibition, and asking about my presence. Their idea was to organize an “action of barricades against gentrification of Paris Commune in Tirana”. Unfortunately I was in Brussels those days. Vladan, considering our intention from 2017 to collaborate, wanted somehow to involve me. But, as I explained to him, I had already closed my experience with Tirana Art Lab, as I lost “connection” with Executive Director Adela Demetja, that in my opinion “belongs to the other side of the barricade” and apparently whatever she does seems contaminated by the prevailing logic of doing art in Albania; in other words: promotion of political power, following the submissive models of Anri Sala, Edi Muka, Erzen Shkololli, Edi Hila, Adrian Paci & Co.

This affirmation can be considered too harsh, but I will try to explain it.

When I turned back at my B&B apartment, I opened the link to read the text presenting the Performative Exhibition 2. After reading it, I understood that my friends were totally out of the context, ignoring the history of Komuna e Parisit in Tirana. I contacted Vladan to clarify some obscure passages of the text, that, as Vladan said to me, was “written by him, Rena and Adela”.

It was immediately clear which part of the text was written by Adela Demetja, because “the ignorance” or voluntarily “ignoring” of the context was too visible (this is becoming a symptomatic trait of making art in Albania). Reading the text I noticed that one of the participants was Valentina Bonizzi, and discovered that “Komuna e Parisit, emerg[ed] during the socialist period”! What an epiphany! So, I told to Vladan that the text “sounds left-washing” and, as I saw it, “your work assembled in this manner will not produce effects”.

Obviously, Vladan reacted questioning on how could I judge their work without seeing it and added that after seeing it I “will be amazed”.

However, beyond his positive expectations, I told him that my opinion was based on the conceptual organization of the text and the bad use of my concepts produced during Tirana Art Lab experience. I also explained him that Valentina Bonizzi was working for Edi Rama’s Center for Openness and Dialogue (COD), and I thought that this should be enough to maintain the distances from her, or at least to be aware and challenge her to clarify on this issue, before any collaboration. In addition, in my opinion, one should consider a problem Bonizzi’s experience at COD, as she works there not because of her CV, but because of her partner, Driant Zeneli, that happens to be cousin of Falma Fshazi, director at COD (Fshazi is “worldwide famous” – who cares about a CV at COD!!! – for translating Edi Rama’s masterpiece KURBAN in Turkish! And that means a lot in Albania!). Moreover, one should also know that Bonizzi is “very interested in some teenage activists fighting against political power” … in Kamza Municipality (headed by opposition Party) … no matter Bonizzi works for Edi Rama, Prime Minister of Albania. So, for her, seems that the problem is elsewhere (According to me, the real question is whether Bonizzi’s work should be considered as “mass distractions or mass destruction” as the works of Sala, Muka, Paci, Hila & Co.). Finally, as I see it, all these facts are connected with the “means of productions” (I bet nobody asked Bonizzi on these issues during her presentation at Tirana Art Lab. But maybe I am wrong. Am I?), which represent a sensitive topic in the framework of Rena Rädle and Vladan Jeremić works (at least this was my impression on their work).

Furthermore, and what I found and considered as most deviating and reactionary, I told to Vladan that Komuna e Parisit in Tirana do not have anything to do with Paris Commune. Far from that.

Firstly, for those who are ignorant or want to ignore the context, Komuna e Parisit was not “emerged during socialist period”. During “socialist period” that part of the city was an Agricultural Cooperative and the state land was cultivated with corn and grain. After 1991, with the change of political regime, there were some scattered illegal buildings constructed (1, 2, 3 floors high). But it is after 2002, with Mayor Edi Rama, that the bulimic constructions of buildings boomed (at least 10 or more floors) and the real Komuna e Parisit “emerged”. And, what is most important, the name Komuna e Parisit, as a quarter, was given during Edi Rama’s period, just to left-wash the neoliberal urban practices (a lot of fans consider Edi Rama as a genius in this original political use of left-washing, but the roots can be easily found in George Soros foundation and Michael Bloomberg‘s way of administering a city).

Everyone in Tirana knows (for more information one should ask to Fatos Lubonja) that Komuna e Parisit was the real vision of Edi Rama for Tirana and, as we experienced in these years, for Albania.

The land of the Agricultural Cooperative at Komuna e Parisit, with the change of the regime, from state socialism to the capitalist free market, was meant to return to the former land owners. But Edi Rama, as Mayor, blocked the propriety certificates of the owners which should have been released by the Municipality of Tirana. In other words, nobody could have had the propriety certificate unless selling the land to the oligarchs of Edi Rama (it is considered that 20% of each building went from the “constructor” to the pockets of former Mayor now Prime Minister of Albania … is anyone still astound by Edi Rama’s bunker-villa in Surrel?). This is a known problem of the transitional Albania, where the legitimate land owners were blackmailed or deliberately robbed (in Albania you can often find three or four “certified” land owners for the same piece of land), or where the workers that became owners of the former state fabrics after the collapse of the regime were left in misery, easy prey for mafia, which in this manner bought for a pittance the whole Albanian assets.

Anyway, all this facts at Komuna e Parisit happened when Tirana was also transformed in a sort of new contemporary art paradise in the South-Eastern Europe and Balkans. So, beyond left-washing urban politics, there was an ongoing art-washing process. And the key figures were the same: Anri Sala, Edi Muka, Edi Hila & Co. Until now, none of them has ever questioned the neoliberal urban practices of Edi Rama.

So after all these missing information, that a curator should provide to the artists before contextualizing their work (but maybe Vladan and Rena needed a PR and a tourist guide for Tirana’s best restaurants), I asked Vladan if he was sure to continue with the idea of connecting Paris Commune and Komuna e Parisit in Tirana. After a hesitation he thanked me and added that a re-framing was going to happen, “more radical”.

After that, we have been in touch during the organization and production of the event. I was glad to see the correction of the ignorance or voluntary ignoring of the context, regarding the emerging of Komuna e Parisit in Tirana, on Tirana Art Lab’s webpage:

But what I felt, especially after seeing the online live intervention, was, again, a total abusive reformulation of what I have done in Tirana Art Lab during 2014-’18. Anyway, before “judging without seeing the work”, I asked to interview the artists and waited to visit Tirana and see what have remained from “amazing” and “more radical” art event, before expressing my opinion. Here is the interview:

Romeo Kodra: What is the connection of the exhibition “Komuna e Parisit revisited” with the historical Paris Commune?
Rena &Vladan: Our starting reference for this work in Tirana is the meaning of the Paris Commune considering the relation between art and politics. The Paris Commune marks a historical instance of political subjectivization of the working class, at a time when new bourgeois art institutions as the academy and art salons flourished in Paris. Realist painter Gustave Courbet was one amongst many cultural workers and artisans who solidarized with the communards and took over important functions in the 72 days lasting workers-led self-government of Paris. The practice of him and his fellow artists was an early example of the avant-garde principle that art and life needs to be brought in one, and that artists need to become a political subject on the side of the working class. Remembering this historical reference, our major question was if such practices have any significance in contemporary Albania and other European peripheries. Our intention was to test and to discover if it is possible to perform the unity of art and politics in Tirana, having in mind that each artistic event is after all limited to a cultural public and can hardly become a mass social manifestation.
Another connection between the title of the exhibition and the local context in Tirana lies in the fact that there exists a street named Paris Commune in Tirana. Despite this fact, the original meaning of the Commune in Tirana is not a common knowledge and it is in a way suppressed by the on-going building and real-estate speculations in the city. Therefore we aimed with the exhibition to underline the emancipatory heritage of the Commune and to recuperate the primary meaning of this name.
R.K.: What is the overall relation of the performative exhibition concept with this historic event?
R&V: The performative exhibition is a format suggested by the curator Adela Demetja, director of TAL. This format is demanding, but it is in the same time very inspiring. In the framework of this format, it is important to realize a kind of constant mobility of artistic production, a certain discoursivity and ability to foster movement. The whole setting was inspiring for us because we managed in the past to develop a specific practice that we determine as transformative artistic practice. This kind of artistic practice puts in the foreground the use value of art and tends to integrate art as a relevant actor in the struggle for social justice. Transformation is a process in which artistic production becomes useful in a concrete political conjunction, but within that transformation art does not loose its artistic qualities. In contrary, the process of transformation provides a new quality of art.
The connection between the artistic transformation we have performed at TAL and the historical notion of the Paris Commune lies in the idea of the political transformation of the artwork, which began during the Commune. Historically, the communards first decided to tear down the Vendome column and then the (unrealized) idea was born to put artworks from Louvre on the barricades, in order to protect themselves from the bourgeois cannons. In that way, the art work became useful for the political purpose and the previous autonomy of the artwork was transformed and in this way art has got a completely new value. With our work in Tirana we went back to the roots of this ideas and performed it concretely with our last intervention together with people from of Aleanca për Mbrojtjen e Teatrit.
R.K. Why this kind of intervention? How did you involve other people? What was their contribution (if any) in terms of concept and production?
R&V: With the aim to produce artistic objects that can function within a protest situation and as symbolic barricades in defence of common space in the urban fabric, at TAL we developed objects from cardboards and wooden sticks that can easily be moved and carried out in the streets. The objects are covered with drawings that conceptualize the struggle against capitalist destruction, some of them refer to the condition of production in the arts, others are more general. At the exhibition at TAL, we have exhibited these objects together with didactic drawings that we made in 2013 in Bucharest for the event “Parasites and Prophets, International Conference on Artistic Production, Organization and Struggle” and as a result of our seminar “Art Production in Restriction. Possibilities of Transformative Art Production and Coalition-Building”. This event we organized in 2015 in Norway and it brought together artists, writers, critics, and curators from Europe and the United States who were active in groups (such as W.A.G.E., ArtLeaks, Occupy Museums, etc.) that are struggling for better working conditions in the arts and society at large. The aim of this event was to come up with a common method for organizing and coalition-building in the art world and beyond. So, both artifacts served as a kind of didactic tools for the visitors in order to politicize their relation to art and labor.
The performative exhibition included as well artistic and research practices by invited colleagues Valentina Bonizzi, Raino Isto and Filip Jovanovski and discussed the function and use value of an artwork within social surroundings, modes of participation and possibilities of artists’ organization in the region and from the socialist past of Albania.
We had already heard some time ago about the plan of the government to remove the National Theatre and about the protests against its demolition and against the privatization of public space in general in Tirana. We’ve established contact with a group of people organizing events at the occupied theater, most of them member of Aleanca për Mbrojtjen e Teatrit and among them Lindita Komani and Elvis Kazazi, and offered them to use the objects for their activities. With them, we organized a joint action and carried the objects from the exhibition space at TAL to the National Theater. Now it is up to them, how they make use of them further in their struggles.
A very interesting “transformative moment” of our work was exactly in the act of carrying the objects trough the city, when they were moved to the theatre by the people who are defending the theatre from demolition. In a very personal manner the activists and artists from the theatre reshaped our mobile art objects and flags and walked with them via major streets of Tirana. They walked along the boulevard and passed by the governmental buildings of prime-minister Edi Rama and National Gallery. The parade had lot of attention by the passers-by and it was a clear message that a protest is performed in front of their eyes.
R.K. Is there any thing new that you discovered from the context (in terms of art, culture, politics)?
R&V:We have been here in Tirana for the first time in 2005 when we participated in the Tirana Activism Festival organized by MJAFT, but these were different times. Now the change is quite visible. We are very surprised at how much the ideology of liberalism and free market is present in the city. Tirana has become one big building construction experiment.
R.K. What can you say in terms of means of production during the entire event?
R&V: TAL is a self-organized art organization with no state funding and it has limited resources. We have been aware of the limitation when it comes to means of production. However, with a lot of enthusiasm we coordinated the whole production with Adela Demetja on a very high level. Our common goal was to imagine different ways of distribution of art.
The wider economy of art is, as financial capitalism, based on speculation. Similar to trade with assets, profit is made not through production, but through circulation (distribution) of the artwork. Our answer to the current situation is to create art that conceptualizes the aspect of its distribution, but in a diametrically opposed way. The distribution we aim at is the circulation of the art work due to its (political) use value, in this case for the struggle against privatization and commercialization of public space and institutions. So, as the last instance of the performative exhibition at TAL, we invited activists to reshape the objects and they were transformed into tools for common use. We think that we’ve managed to fulfill the initial goal and to transform art into means of production of struggle.

I do not know why, but reading the answers I had the feeling that by “means of productions” Rena and Vladan mean financial aspects of art production, which for me instead should mean the concepts, theories and techniques of producing art; in other words the laboratorial aspects, or what stands behind of art production.

In addition, the way the subjectivization is treated, “the art and life needs to be brought at one”, seems contradictory with the way Performative Exhibition is done, where there is no subjectivization, but only subjectification of art, because the life intended as protest or resistance is absent and the art, theatricalized, present.

However, the most impressive fact for me was that the intervention happened as if everything started from zero/0. How was it possible that after the ironic and sarcastic intervention of Georgia Kotretsos and Tirana Art Lab (Yes, Tirana Art Lab, an institution, has an artwork in its portfolio, the same as the Artist Prime Minister Edi/p Rama!) on the boulevard space, as well as after dozens of AKSREVISTA’s writings on the boulevardization of art and artists, Tirana Art Lab organized an artistic intervention on the boulevard which had a “lot of attention by the passers-by and it was a clear message that a protest is performed in front of their eyes”? Really, a lot of attention? A performed protest? Maybe, someone should have informed the artists and the leftists activists Vladan and Rena that the same day, on October 12th (Google helps a lot searching “Unaza e Re 12 Tetor”), six protesters were jailed at Unaza e Re/New Ring of Tirana. It is incredible how the leftist artists were not aware of the protests, which, by the way, is ongoing daily from 2018. Or the Performative Exhibition was just an artistic intervention to deviate the attention from the real problem? Are we talking even in this case for the art as a weapon of “mass distraction or mass destruction”, distracting the masses or destroying the becoming massive of the protests?

Anyway, it is very strange that a connection between the urban revolution of the Paris Commune, which happened as a clear consequence of Georges-Eugène Haussmann’s urban speculations and spectacularizations in Paris, and Tirana’s New Ring, which is happening as a clear consequence of Edi Rama’s urban speculations and spectacularizations, was not made. I know that Adela Demetja is allergic of reading, but Vladan and Rena I guess have heard about David Harvey, especially when they deal with neoliberism, urban speculation and spectacularization of politics through art.

But, let consider the possibility that the artists did not know anything regarding what was and is still happening in Tirana. Let consider them as ordinary tourists that wanted to taste the delicious Albanian dishes and make some money through recycling a former art project and adopt its objects in an alien context, just to finance the accommodation and per diem.

So, if we focus only on the power of art to stimulate and/or generate new meanings, I would like to know what is new in the boulevard parade of Vladan, Rena and other activists for the protection of National Theater? Where is the transformative power of art? In this regard I saw a picture on facebook page of Tirana Art Lab, proclaiming: This is what we mean by Performative Exhibition!!!

For those who do not know, the man on the picture is Robert Budina, a film director that, honor him, with bare hands resisted with other citizens against the police and governmental forces that wanted to destroy the National Theater few months ago. He is there resisting and defending from the destruction the National Theater, although the “workers/proletarians”, the actors of the National Theater (except two or three of them), disappeared, fearful of losing the working place and being fired by the government (This fact I guess shows the difficulty to articulate concepts and discourses through ready-made and consequently pseudo-marxist terminology in Albania).

So, questions rise: where is the transformative power of Rena’s and Vladan’s piece of art that Budina holds in his hands? Is the piece of art stimulating and/or generating new meanings, or is absorbing meanings from Budina? If is Budina that tranforms the artwork, then what is the difference between Budina’s picture holding the art piece of Rena and Vladan with this other picture?

Personally, I do not see any difference, except Budina being a very kind and collaborative man and Ronaldo a well payed millionaire.

But maybe I am wrong, these pieces of art transported in a parade on Tirana’s main boulevard, have nothing to do with the representational, showy, decorative aspects of arts. Maybe even the protesters of Aleanca për Mbrojtjen e Teatrit, that used the art pieces as props during their artistic events, are completely wrong. Maybe, maybe, maybe. There are a lot of maybes. Maybe a better research and contextualization should have been done.

P.S. In Albanian is considered “butaforì” (promps, in English) a decorative art, an art which is too obvious and superficial and is very different, if not contrary, from the “radical” or “amazing” art.

P.P.S. Unfortunately, in the case of Unaza e Re/ Tirana’s New Ring as well as in the case of National Theater there is no discourse or articulation from a leftist point of view, which per se seems paradoxical, but knowing the Albanian politics of the last 30 years is perfectly coherent. At the moment, being in opposition the right wing is trying to gain consensuses supporting the protesters, although it is this same opposition, which, when was governing the country, made the fascist laws for the expropriation of houses or tried to destroy artistic and cultural heritage objects (such as the case of the “Pyramid”), for mere financial profits of the oligarchs. Moreover there is a clear tendency of dividing the protesters from each other. I remember protesting students impeding the protesters of the New Ring to join them; I remember protesters of Zharrëza doing the same to the students of Lëvizja për Universitetin; even Aleanca për Mbrojtjen e Teatrit had some similar problems with Oragnizata Politike. So, in other words, the occasion to intervene through this type of projects was very appropriate, but it necessitates strong research on the context, courage and above all no art-washing and left-washing, because of these lasts Albania is plenty.

Çështja e Teatrit Kombëtar si kthesë e rrjedhës së historisë së institucionalizimit të artit. (Romeo Kodra)

Ky shkrim merr shkas nga një nevojë e mbajtjes hapur të një diskutimi i cili, në çështjen e mbrojtjes së Teatrit Kombëtar – nga shembja që rrezikon prej pushtetit të mafias së bërë shtet – nuk është artikuluar sa duhet. Nga të paktët, që kam dëgjuar ta artikulojë deri në një farë pike dhe pjesërisht këtë diskutim, është Kastriot Çipi, i cili në disa raste, gjatë fjalës së mbajtur ditëve të ngrysura apo netëve të gdhira në mbrojtje të Teatrit, ka folur edhe për rimarrje dhe ripërdorim të emërtimit “Teatër Popullor”, apo edhe shndërrimit të “formës institucionale” të Teatrit Kombëtar, pas braktisjes që i ka bërë qeveria, drejtori i institucionit dhe trupa. Pa i hapur të gjitha videot dhe shprehjet publike të Çipit, mendoj se është e mjaftueshme intervista e tij dhënë Zërit të Amerikës brenda sallës së rihapur të Teatrit Kombëtar. Prej kësaj interviste do të shkëpus disa pika që përbëjnë interes për argumentin e institucionalizimit të artit në Shqipëri.

Por para se të filloj, duhet thënë se Kastriot Çipit i duhet njohur përtej angazhimit të padiskutueshëm qytetar edhe një lloj ndershmërie dhe pasioni përkundrejt lëmës që lëvron. Por, shpresoj të mos fyhet për lesa maestà, dua në këtë shkrim të evidentoj edhe disa paqartësira që do të ndihmonin të hapej e të shtyhej mëtej diskutimi mbi argumentin në fjalë.

Pikësëpari, në video-intervistën e lëshuar për Zërin e Amerikës, Çipi shpesh ngatërron shtetin me qeverinë dhe me Edi Ramën. Këto nuk janë njësoj dhe duke mos qenë të tillë duhen specifikuar mirë për të parë sesi duhet vepruar në lidhje me çështjen e Teatrit.
Historikisht, duhet specifikuar, në kulturën demokratike perëndimore ka lindur shteti, si medium midis sovranit dhe të nënshtruarve të tij/subjekteve. Pastaj lindi qeveria, si horizontalizim i mëtejshëm i hierarkisë së pushtetit absolut të sovranit. Në epokën moderne, pas parlamentit, lindën gjykatat dhe media informative, si sigurues të shtetit demokratik.
Mund ta pranojmë që, në situatën në të cilën ndodhet sot Shqipëria – ku gjykatat, për arsye që dihen (reforma), nuk funksionojnë – një këlysh kurve mund të kapë, falë lidhjeve mafioze me pronarët e media-s informative, në mënyrë autoritare një Parti të caktuar, të fitojë zgjedhjet, të zotërojë parlamentin dhe të shndërrohet – duke parë mediokritetin e kabinetit me shurraqet dhe bythlëpirësit që e përbëjnë – de facto e de jure (nesër?) në qeveri. Pra duhet të kemi parasysh që në lojë kemi të bëjmë me një figurë politike që është Edi(p) Rama=qeveria=pralamenti.
Por nuk është ende shteti, i cili ka – nuk dihet edhe për sa kohë – një president. Për fatin tonë të keq e ka emrin Ilir Meta, as më pak e as më shumë sesa një i singjashëm i aventurierit të sipërpërmendur, në mos gjë tjetër, katapultues i vetëdijshëm i tij në pushtet.
Pra, në këtë panoramë, nëse Çipi kërkon ta ndajë Teatrin Kombëtar nga Rama=qeveria=parlamenti=(nesër)=presidenti/mbreti, unë dhe shumë të tjerë do të ishin dakort; por jo nga qeveria; jo nga shteti; jo nga parlamenti; jo nga mbreti; jo ndarje të artit nga asnjë instancë e pushtetit.
Personalisht (këtu do të dukem paksa kontradiktor), kam bindjen që shteti është e keqja absolute, duke qenë dispozitivi i një shoqërie për rregullin dhe sigurinë. Rregulli dhe siguria janë fjalëkalimet e fashizmit, jo vetëm të atij shoqëror, por edhe individual, ndërqelizor do të thosha duke cituar, pak a shumë, Michel Foucault-në.
Ndërsa Teatri, si art, që prej Athinës së Lashtë, është dispozitiv i anarkisë, pasigurisë, i vënies në pikëpyetje të “shumicës demokratike”, e rregullit, ligjit, sigurisë shoqërore dhe individuale të saj (Eskli fiton Dioniziet e Mëdha – festat e përvitshme pranverore që kulmonin me shfaqjet teatrore – me Persianet, një pjesë ku fituesit athinas, “shumica demokratike”, u shpalosej ana tjetër e medaljes së lavdisë së fitores, tragjedia e humbësve, prej të cilës mallëngjeheshin e iluminoheshin si qenie njerëzore, falë teatrit, deri në katharsis; Antigona e Sofokliut vinte në pikëpyetje ligjin e shumicës demokratike me anë të të drejtave edhe më thelbësore, të pamohueshme individuale … thjeshtë për të cituar dy shembuj).
Pra, mendimi im është, nëse duam demokraci sovrane, nëse duam shtet demokratik, nëse duam qeveri demokratike, parlament demokratik apo mbretëri demokratike, duhet patjetër – nëse duam t’i vëmë veshin historisë sonë perëndimore – të kemi teatër/art të lidhur ngushtësisht me to. Por ky i fundit duhet të jetë njëkohësisht, institucionalisht, pavarësisht se i atashuar, i pavarur prej tyre, për të mos i lënë hapësirë që teatrin/artin ta bëjë sovrani/Neroni/Edi(p) Rama, për të mos lejuar që teatrin/artin ta bëjë shteti/Republika Popullore Socialiste e Shqipërisë/Realizmi Socialist i PPSH-së, për të mos lejuar që teatrin/artin ta bëjë qeveria=parlamenti i Edi(p) Ramës me Bjarke Ingels-at e vet.

Së dyti, jam absolutisht dakort me Çipin për shndërrimin e Teatrit në një “institucion demokratik popullor”, por jo duke kopjuar modelin e SHBA me anë të atyre që atje quajnë public trust. Edhe këtu duhet specifikuar që public trust vjen jo prej Shteteve të Bashkuara, por prej Mbretërisë së Bashkuar. Është një formë paksa rétro, e vjetër dhe nuk ka referenca të sakta, analoge, në kontekstin shqiptar (i përket më shumë logjikës korporativiste dhe jo asaj sindikale, me të cilën jemi pak a shumë mësuar, kemi një ide, por që po e humbasim përfundimisht falë sulmit të praktikave neoliberale të Edi(p) Ramës). Kjo do të ishte një mish i huaj, mish-mash i mëtejshëm, për inkuadrim ligjor. Nuk kam nevojë t’i përmend Çipit ndonjë citim nga Arturo Ui dhe mendimin që kishte Brecht-i mbi to.
Më e mira dhe më e natyrshme për historinë dhe kuadrin ligjor shqiptar do të ishte të inkuadrohej ky institucion në atë që vetë Çipi, mesa duket pa dashje, tha: “institucion demokratik popullor” dhe, për të arritur aty, referenca është Republika Popullore Socialiste e Shqipërisë, demokracia e vetme popullore që kemi njohur (nuk po flas për kafshërinë që prodhoi dhe sesi përfundoi … jemi akoma në nivel teorik dhe nuk duhet të paragjykojmë për shkak të Enver Hoxhës dhe Partisë së Punës të gjitha arritjet e popullit shqiptar siç është bërë këto vite të patranzitueshme tranzicioni). Pra, mendimi im është se, kemi mundësi të përmirësojmë kafshëritë institucionale të së shkuarës, pa patur nevojë të eksperimentojmë duke huamarrë forma aliene për kontekstin.

Së treti, Çipi kujton përciptas prej studimeve të tij larta universitare/akademike Leninin, ku, sipas të cilit, “shteti-qeveria (!?!?!? Çipi nuk bën dallimin edhe këtu) nuk ka pse të financojë artistë që nuk mbështesin linjën politike (duke përmendur problemet që lindin, si censura, auto-censura, shantazhi, etj., etj..)”. Edhe në këtë rast do të sugjeroja leximin e Leninit dhe jo përkthimet enveriste të Shtëpisë Botuese “Naim Frashëri” (nuk do zgjatem me citime ekzakte të Leninit, sepse shkrimi do dilte nga binarët, por do të mjaftohem duke thënë që “modeli leninist” ka kontribut të pamohueshëm në modelet e social-demokracive skandinave prej nga po shkruaj dhe të cilat, mesa di, janë model mbarëbotëror, përfshi këtu edhe SHBA). Madje, përsa i përket po kësaj çështjeje, Çipi çuditet sesi historia enveriste e censurës, auto-censurës dhe shantazhit me internime, dëbime apo burgime “vazhdon edhe sot sepse përveç shetit/qeverisë edhe privati kërcënon nëpërmjet rrogës ata që mbrojnë Teatrin”. Pra, instikti prej artisti të lirë, Çipin, e shtyn ta kuptojë analogjinë midis asaj kohe dhe kësaj kohe, por njohuria apo dija jo e mjaftueshme e pengon të pikasë problemin dhe parashtruar aty ku e si duhet. Për informacion, pa dashur të bëjë pedagogji, thelbi i shtrimit të kësaj çështjeje, për mendimin tim – por jam mëse i hapur nëse do kishte ndonjë sygjerim më të thelluar – quhet “pushteti” dhe “mendësia qeverisëse” (governmentality) që ka përshenjuar territorin shqiptar historikisht, dhe është koncept i cili duhet shqyrtuar filozofikisht, politikisht dhe artistikisht. Edhe një herë pra, problemi duhet parashtruar nën shqyrtimin filozofik, politik e artistik të marrëdhënies, të marrjes dhe dhënies, së çfardolloji, të artit dhe pushtetit dhe duke patur e parashtruar cognitio causae, njohuri dhe dije të qarta mbi to.

Sëfundmi, Çipi, në mënyrë paksa kontradiktore pranon se “institucionet e artit nuk mund të mbijetojnë pa fonde publike”, por atyre u duhet ndërruar “forma juridike, ende socialiste (duke nënkuptuar historinë tonë të shkuar nën regjimin e socializmit shtetëror)”. Nuk e di nëse kontradikta është pjellë e njohurisë së mjegullt dhe përgjithësuese apo e dëshirës për të dalë përpara Zërit të Amerikës si palë me vëllain e madh amerikan, për të cilin gogolizimi i socializmit është kthyer në fe. Por, fundja, kjo pak rëndësi ka. Interes për këtë shkrim përbën bindja e Çipit se “institucionet e artit nuk mund të mbijetojnë pa fonde publike dhe nuk mund të pretendohet të jenë for profit“. Duhet thënë se edhe këtu jemi dakort, por për arsye diametralisht të kundërta. Institucionet e artit dhe artistët mbijetojnë pa fonde publike e ç’ke me të (nuk po bëj analiza shembujsh sepse ka pafund në librat e historisë që nga Komedia e Artit, Dighilev, Living Theater, etj., etj.). Por, nga njëra anë, janë institucionet publike që degjenerojnë në kafshërira autoritare e dikatatoriale pa art/teatër dhe, nga tjetra, arti/teatri nuk ka profit të matshëm, sepse potencialisht ka gjithnjë humbje (nuk është vetëm van Ghog-u që “ka dalë me humbje” duke bërë art, por edhe Michelangelo-ja, më i paguari i kohës së vet, veprat e të cilit ende gjenerojnë para për pronarët që i kanë; pra, nëse do të ishim të ndershëm deri në fund, nuk është paguar mjaftueshëm për ç’ka prodhoi, për të mos folur për Shakespere-in).

Në mbyllje, për të mos e lënë pa propozim të qartë këtë shkrim e për të mos u dukur sikur interesi është për të gjetur qimen në qullë, duhet thënë diçka mbi formën institucionale demokratike popullore, për të cituar Çipin, që mund të ketë një institucion tashmë i dekompozuar i artit dhe kulturës shqiptare si Teatri Kombëtar. Duke qenë se jemi përpara një kthese të mundshme epokale të formave të institucionalizimit të artit, mendimi im është se duhen rihapur statutet dhe riparë inkuardimi ligjor i formave kooperativiste, jo sociale, as shtetërore, por popullore. Pra, prona e këtyre institucioneve, e cilësdo formë e natyre qoftë (materiale, jo materiale/shpirtërore), duhet të lidhet si e patjetërsueshme me konceptin e popullores (jo të individit, as grupeve të interesit, e madje as kombëtares, sepse kombi ka fashizmin pas dere dhe duke parë tentativat me ndarjet etnike në Kosovë e shoh drejt degjenerimit situatën). U duhet bashkangjitur dhe integruar këtyre kooperativave forma e ojf-ve të sotme, sidomos përsa i përket thjeshtësimit të burokracisë së praktikave admistrative financiare. Ky model me bazë popullore do të ishte një formë alternative e agjensive elitiste (jo elitare=për+bërës të elitave, pra elitiste, ndjekës, të nënshtruar ndaj etiketave, emërtimeve, emërimeve, famës, imazhit përfaqësues) që po promovon Kapitali, Soros-i dhe praktikat neoliberale prej vitesh tashmë në Shqipëri (shih COD – Center for Openness and Dialogue & Co.). Thjeshtë, po propozoj një model me të cilin Kapitali nuk ka marrë ende masat, një model jo alien për kontekstin, që nuk gjendet as në vendet e tjera të ish-Bllokut të Lindjes, ku pikërisht falë transformimit të formave institucionale dhe alienimit tërësor prej praktikave kontekstuale është mjelë një pasuri e tërë popujsh në dukje të pashpresë (këtë problem e ka edhe Gjermania, pas “bashkimit” të Lindores dhe Perëndimores). Thjeshtë një model/armë për të përballuar tsunamin e shkatërrimit të pronës popullore … tashmë, nuk më pëlqen ta quaj publike, sepse më sjell në mendje spektatorin teletrumpiksur dhe pasiv shqiptar. Si komponentë të bordeve të këtyre institucioneve teatrore, që do i bashkangjiteshin institucioneve shtetërore, qeveritare, ministrore, bashkiake etj., etj., do të thoja mjafton një anëtar prej institucionit të atashuar dhe katër prej opozitës, shoqërisë civile, kulturës dhe artit specifik (teatri, opera, filmi, arti pamor, etj.). Si koncept praktik dhe krijues teatror do të mjaftonte fokusi mbi kritikën e përhershme dhe të pashtershme të vetë institucionit të atashuar teatrit.

P.S. Ka edhe art+istë të painstitucionalizuar, por në këtë shkrim nuk flitet për to.
P.P.S. Arti i painstitucionalizuar është ai art që ka dijeni dhe merr parasysh gjithnjë dhe gjatë gjithë procesit krijues fuqinë e institucionalizimit duke ruajtur distanca sigurie prej tij.

Teatri që duhet shembur. (Romeo Kodra)

Provokim pas provokimi, dhunë pas dhune prej pushtetit të Edi(p) Ramës, kësaj figure të trishtë të teatrit politik shqiptar dhe tranzicionit të tij të pafundmë, ndërtesa e Teatrit Kombëtar, kjo karakatinë musoliniane e spektakolarizimit dhe mendësisë qeverisëse të pushtetit fashist italian, prej mëse një viti e gjysëm qëndron ende në këmbë. Çuditërisht për të paditurit e artit dhe kulturës, karakatina e Teatrit Kombëtar, e rrezikuar prej trashëgimtarit më të denjë të mendësisë qeverisëse fashiste që e prodhoi, Edi(pi)t tonë kombëtar, po qëndron në këmbë falë teatrit që bëhet jashtë saj, falë asaj që brenda atyre katër mureve nuk është bërë kurrë, përtej edhe patetizmave me “shpirtra të kombit” të vetë anëtarëve të Aleancës për Mbrojtjen e Teatrit. Ndërtesa e Teatrit Kombëtar qëndron në këmbë falë rezistencës qytetare për të patur, atë që mund ta quaj me “t” të vogël, teatër! Shkurt, teatër i një rezistence, jo rastësisht me “r” të vogël. E quaj teatër të një rezistence, sepse Rezistenca e vërtetë nuk mund të teatralizohet dhe nëse do të ishte e tillë do të ishte kontradiktë në terma. Rezistencë e vërtetë qe ajo e 1991, kur njerëzit donin të hynin në Bllok, apo ajo e 21 janarit; të dyja ngjarje të prostituuuara prej një teatri politik me të cilin jemi mësur tashmë.

Kjo nuk do të thotë që në atë që po bëjnë disa njerëz në mbrojtje të Teatrit Kombëtar nuk ka Rezistencë të vërtetë dhe Teatër të vërtetë, me shkronja të mëdha. Nuk do të kishte ofendim më të madh të mohohej përleshja fyt më fyt e vëllezërve Budina apo Neritan Liçajt, apo edhe ajo e njerëzve të thjeshtë me policinë. Kush e mohon është thjeshtë këlysh kurve, bythësqullur ose troll interneti. Por, për mendimin tim, Rezistenca ishte e përkohshme dhe përkonte vetëm me përleshjen fizike. Pra, aty kishte, në disa disa momente, edhe Teatër, sepse ai i vërteti, ai që përkon me Rezistencën, është i pandashëm nga jeta (po flas sipas Deleuze-it, “akti krijues si rezistencë”, por edhe sipas Artaud-së, “teatri dhe dyshtori i tij”).

Pra, atë ç’ka shihet prej thuajse një viti e gjysëm përpara sheshit të Teatrit Kombëtar e quaj rezistencë qytetare për teatër apo teatër i një rezistence, e cila synon qytetërimin e tiranasve dhe shqiptarëve nëpërmjet gjësë më jashtë apo jo-qytetare par exellance: teatrit. Kjo, sepse, qytetërimi i vërtetë, i denjë për t’u quajtur qytetërim, ka nevojë të pranojë dhe të tolerojë brenda vetes jo vetëm jashtë ose jo-qytetaren, por edhe të paqytetërushmen (pra me paragjykimet ndaj malokut, katunarit, jo-tironcit dembabadem është e kuptueshme që fshij bythën, sepse për të qenë qytetarë duhet pranuar edhe e paqytetrueshmja).

Absurditeti i situatës së krijuar, për mendimin tim, është thuajse përtej mundësive që na lejon gjuha shqipe për ta shprehur: Teatri, ajo gjëja e papërcaktueshme së cilës më shumë nga të gjithë i është afruar Nietzsche me konceptin e dioniziakes, që më shumë i përket kafshërores sesa njerëzores, e aq më pak qytetarisë, do të qytetëroka shqiptarët! Çfarë kërkojnë këta njerëz që kanë dalë në mbrojtje të Teatrit Kombëtar? Kërkojnë të mbrojnë karakatinën spektakolare fashiste (Teatrin Kombëtar) apo dioniziaken e paqytetrueshme (Teatrin)? Kësaj pyetjeje i duhet dhënë përgjigje.

Personalisht, do të isha pro prishjes së Teatrit Kombëtar, por vetëm nëse brenda tij do të ishin dhe do të fusnim të gjitha kufomat aktoriale, ende vegjetuese apo të vdekura, të teatrit dhe politikës shqiptare ndër vite. Vetëm kështu Teatri (pra nuk po flas vetëm për tullat dhe llaçin e enës mbajtëse brenda të cilës është gatuar çorba teatrore e derimësotme) do të kishte një mundësi për të rifilluar jetën brenda një komuniteti qytetar. Pra diskutimi do të ishte i njëjti me atë të ditës së parë kur athinasit e lashtë futën Teatrin brenda qytetit, kur Teatri nuk ishte “hapje dhe dialog” por monolog (vetëm Eskili nuk ka dialogje, pra degjenerimi i teatrit në pedagogji dhe dialektikë paskësh filluar që herët, e jo me Edi(p) Ramën) i asaj qënieje shtazarake me të cilën qytetari grek përballej deri në ekstazë (katharsis do ta quante një pedagog me emrin Aristotel).

Kjo mundësi, për fatin tim të keq, nuk duket e praktikueshme, sepse nuk është ekskluzivisht në dorën time dhe lehtësisht do të bënte lojën e pushtetit neoliberal dhe oligarkik, që na ka rënë për hise të kemi, të cilëve, nëse teatri do të shembej, do u hapej fushë e lirë për përfitime edhe më të majme.

Por, pavarësisht mospraktikueshmërisë së zgjidhjes së sipërpërmendur, kundra pushtetit oligarkiko-neoliberal duhet luftuar në të gjitha shtresat, fushat dhe dimensionet apo përmasat e jetës, qofshin hapësinore (Teatri Kombëtar, Astiri, studentët, minatorët, punëtorët), qofshin kohore (dje kundra Salës dhe Likes si me 21 janar, apo Lulit të cilit i ishte bllokuar Bulevardi prej Edi Ramës deri sa ishte në Bashki; sot kundra çdo ligji të qeverisë së Edi(p) Ramës; e nesër kundra kujtdo që abuzon me pushtetin … meqë ra fjala, me pushtetin mundet vetëm të abuzohesh, pra, duhet gjithmonë me qenë kundra, në Rezistencë të përhershme).

Pra, duke mos qenë e praktikueshme mundësia e shembjes së teatrit të politizuar (jo politik!!!) shqiptar, me gjithë kufomat e gjalla (që nga Robert Ndrenika, maksimumi i dinjitetit teatror dhe minimumi i dinjitetit qytetar, e deri te Ema Andrea, personifikimi i qytetarisë dhe teatrores së shndërruar në shurrëuthull) e të vdekura (që nga Kadri Roshi & Co., përjashtoj Kasëm Trebeshinën, sepse është i vetmi në dijeninë time të ketë Rezistuar dhe jo vetëm aktruar), sot në Tiranë, gjithsesi, ekziston, edhe një herë, një mundësi që të rivendoset marrëdhënia e teatrit me jetën, gjë që kurrë nuk kemi patur, për aq kohë sa ka egzistuar shteti shqiptar, që prej 1912. Egziston pra mundësia të artikulohen edhe një herë ato pyetja tërësisht athinase, tërësisht të mendësisë qytetare perëndimore, pjesë e të cilës jemi apo pretendojmë të jemi: ç’na duhet teatri? ç’teatër na duhet? na duhet teatri enë mbajtëse, si Teatri Kombëtar, apo një Teatër i papërmbajtshëm? na duhen aktorë që vënë në skenë e luajnë role të bukura (maksimumi që mund të kemi do të jetë gjithmonë ai i llojit Robert Ndrenika) apo aktorë të luajtur (gjenezat e të cilëve mund të shihen tek Edmond apo Robert Budina e Neritan Liçaj që kapen përfyti me policinë), që ç’aktrojnë të luajtur duke hequr nga skena çdo rol të paracaktuar prej pushtetit (qoftë i regjisorit, apo edhe i kryeministri)?

Për të patur përgjigje duhet filluar nga vënia në diskutim e të qenurit tonë qytetarë. Një prejardhje etimologjike e “civiles” dhe si rrjedhojë e “qytetit” e lidh rrënjën e saj me “të qëndruarit, të banuarit në një vend të caktuar” (edhe në këtë rast, siç shihet, është absurde që Teatri, i nënkuptuar si dioniziakja nietzsche-iane, të ketë pronë, të ketë një vend. Por çështja këtu është, a do qyteti i Tiranës t’i lërë një hapësirë boshe, siç thoshte Peter Brooke-u, Teatrit, a do qytetërimi shqiptar një hapësirë specifike ku të shprehet e paqytetërueshmja?). E pra, duhet filluar të hapet diskutimi mbi llojin e qytetarisë tiranase e shqiptare, një lloj qytetarie që, siç është përpara syve të të gjithëve në rastin e Teatrit Kombëtar, nuk njeh e nuk ka, në kohë, memorie mbi vendin në të cilin gjallon e jeton më larg gjyshërve e, në hapësirë, më larg hundës së vet, sepse i shitet materialisht dhe, rrjedhimisht, shpirtërisht parasë fare lehtë (gojëdhanat tona plot besë e nder janë të mbushura me stigmatizimin e këtyre karakteristikave … kush e di pse!?!?!? ndoshta ngaqë jemi të prirur drejt tradhëtisë!?!?!?).

Dhe meqë jemi te tradhëtia, a i dhemb ndokujt ajo lutje e Edmond Budinës “Mos na tradhëtoni!”, drejtuar Lulëzim Bashës. Mua, po! Më dhemb që tani, pa u materializuar tradhëtia. Lulëzim Basha, si politikan, ontologjikisht dhe de-ontologjikisht e ka të pamundur të mos tradhëtojë. Pra nuk po them që është apo nuk është këlysh kurve sa Edi(p) Rama që u premton banorëve të Astirit legalizimet ditën para zgjedhjeve dhe ditën mbrapa u prish shtëpitë; është apo nuk është këlysh kurve sa Erjon Veliaj që shastiste me premtime edhe Andi Bushatin për ndalimin e betonizimit të Tiranës. Thjeshtë po them që politikani dhe qytetari Lulëzim Basha nuk ka mundësi të mos tradhëtojë teatrantin Edmond Budina, atë kafshë jo të shtëpiakëzuar dhe, aq më pak, të qytetëruar demokratikisht, i cili u kacafyt me policë e u ngjit në skenë. Politikani, nëpërmjet kompromisit, pra teatralizimit dhe prostituimit të politikës, do i shkojë pas fillit rehatisë së qytetarit, atij individi që në mediokritetin e vet mendon për familjen dhe fëmijët, atij që mendon sot me nesër, pa menduar për qytetarinë (për informacion më të gjerë duhet lexuar Platoni). Teatranti (pra, jo aktori, jo regjisori apo ku di unë cili profesion i nëndarë i superstrukturës piramidale që quajmë sot teatër, por teatranti, ai që gjallon Teatër) nuk ka shpresë në këtë mes, përveçse t’i bëjë thirrje politikisht qytetarisë (politika dhe qytetaria, do të thoja si koncepte platoniane, por këtu janë të nënkuptuar jo si stade të kapshme, apo arritje prej të cilave nuk lëvizet më, sepse kur janë të tilla do të thotë që janë prostituuar; por të nënkuptuara si praktika të përditshme, që duhen praktikuar për të fituar lirinë [Foucault] brenda komunitetit dhe të komunitetit).

Dhe për të mos luajtur teatër apo prostituuar me dhimbjen që ndjejmë sapo u kërkojmë mbajtje premtimesh politikanëve – dhe Edmond Budina e ndjeu teksa po e kërkonte atë premtim, duke thënë që nuk e nënshkruante kontratën pa e nënshkruar të gjithë të pranishmit në teatër atë ditë, pra praktikisht pa e nënshkruar – duhet vënë në diskutim qytetërimi ynë si tiranas dhe shqiptarë e u duhet dhënë përgjigje pyetjeve të shtruara më sipër: ç’na duhet teatri? ç’teatër na duhet? na duhet teatri enë mbajtëse apo një Teatër i papërmbajtshëm? na duhen aktorë që vënë në skenë e luajnë role të bukura apo aktorë të luajtur që ç’aktrojnë duke hequr nga skena çdo rol të paracaktuar prej pushtetit?

Edhe në këtë rast Edmond Budina, për mendimin tim tërësisht pa dashje, por plot sinqeritet, na dha një shembull flagrant: në momentin që u ul e puthi skenën u tha të pranishmëve “ju kërkoj ndjesë, sepse mund të duket patetike”. Pra e ndjeu se, duke mos qenë i mësuar të ruaj atë kafshën e paqytetrueshme brenda vetes, e cila kacafytej me policinë me gjithë ankthet, frikërat por edhe vullnetin e çlirimin, mori një sjellje që kultura patetike shqiptare na ka ngulitur të gjithëve: një sjellje apo gjest teatral, banal si gjithë gjestet e teatrit tonë, të cilat nuk kanë asnjë shans të propozojnë vërtetësinë e asaj kacafytjeje me rrjedhojat e saj emocionale që Budina dhe fatlumë të tjerë në lëkurën e tyre provuan.

I gjithë ky shkrim është për të hedhur të zezë në të bardhë nevojën e kontekstit shqiptar për këtë lloj vërtetësie, për këtë lloj Teatri dhe për ndërprerjen një herë e përgjithmonë e atij teatrit që mbllaçisim prej sa kemi teatër e që siç mund të kuptohet nuk paskemi patur kurrë.

Këtij Teatri dhe vërtetësisë së tij i duhet gjetur një hapësirë brenda qytetrimit tonë. Por kjo nuk është e mundur duke i thurur apologjinë Teatrit Kombëtar, dhe pa kuptuar mendësinë fashistoide dhe fashistogjene që e prodhoi e që sot e kësaj dite strukturalisht/arkitektonikisht prodhon (duhet lexuar hapësira e tij për ta kuptuar këtë të fundit); pa kuptuar “dopolavoro-n”, që siç thoshte në një shkrim Aurel Plasari nuk ka qenë asnjëherë, por që duke qenë një teatër i konceptuar, i prodhuar e i drejtuar prej atyre nga lart drejt atyre poshtë, gjithsesi përcjell trumpiksjen e spektakolarizimit të pushtetit.

Ajo që për mendimin tim duhet bërë është ruajtja e hapësirës së Teatrit Kombëtar ashtu siç është, pa e fshirë, për të mos rënë pre e sugjestionit të fshirjes që ajo godinë dhe mendësia që e prodhoi gjenerojnë. Ajo duhet të vazhdojë të jetë, por e zaptuar prej atyre që e merituan, qytetarëve të Tiranës që u a hoqën kthetrave të mafias së bërë shtet.

Për mendimin tim duhet fshirë bytha me kontratat e Bashës apo kujtdo tjetër (il Contratto con gli italiani që firmoste Berlusconi më ngjeth akoma mishtë). Aty, meqë qeveria e braktisi, duhet themeluar një insitutucion de-institucionalizues, një institucion non-profit që ruan e konservon hapësirën e jashtme e të brendshme të Teatrit Kombëtar, që kritikon në çdo aspekt të veprimtarisë veten dhe institucionet bashkëvepruese (artistikisht, financiarisht, teknikisht), pa lëmoshë nga institucionet shtetërore e qeveritare. Gjëja është e mundur dhe njerëzit vullnetarë për t’u përfshirë janë (vullnetarë nuk do të thotë të punosh falas, por të paguhesh me projekte … fjalori shqip dhe ai bythëlëpirësve të ojf-ve apo institucioneve private nuk e përmban këtë shpjegim). Nëse do të mbetet institucion i qeverisë, i atyre lart për ata poshtë, atëherë Teatri Kombëtar do të vazhdojë të riprodhojë teatrin e mbllaçitjes së përhershme. Do të shohim të tjera kontrata që do të lidhjen e të tjera figura prostitutash që do të garantojnë prostitucionin, si ato që po nxjerr Rama që prej ditës së zbythjes.

Këtë shoh si alternativë të vetme kundër institucioneve të vdekura si Teatri Kombëtar apo kurvlliqeve sorosian-neoliberale si Qendra për Hapje dhe Dialog që na shiten si alternativa, ku nën emrin agjensi qarkullojnë agjentura para-politike për trumpiksjen e popujve (nuk e kemi vetëm ne si problem dhe për fat të keq modele të gatshme nuk kemi në botë … duhet ta sajojmë një vetë, në kontekst … diskutimi duhet hapur publikisht, besoj, s’ka nevojë njeri për eminencat gri si Plasari, sepse po të kishte idera gjeniale do kishim Bibliotekën Kombëtare si model).

Sokol Beqiri në Galerinë Kombëtare: zbukurimi që vret … artin dhe artistin. (Romeo Kodra)

Para, pak a shumë, një muaji, në Tiranë, pashë ekspozitën e Sokol Beqirit, artistit të rradhës, pjesë e paradës spektakolare të zbukurimeve që na ofron drejtoria e Galerisë Kombëtare të Arteve. Pak ditë më vonë pashë edhe intervistën e Beqirit dhënë Elsa Demos në RTSH titulluar, as më pak e as më shumë, “Bukuria që vret”. Nuk u çudita aspak, por ndjesia e përgjithshme, sintetizuar prej këtyre eksperiencave, është ajo e një çorjentimi pështjellosës, që kristalizohet në alienim. Por, ndoshta, jam unë i alienuari dhe këto eksperinca i shoh në mënyrë të alienuar; ndoshta, prej tyre, diçka më rrëshqet pa i kapur thelbin.

Ndoshta.

Në hyrje të ekspozitës teksti mikpritës dhe shoqërues ishte i kuratores me origjinë hebraike Galit Eilat. Origjina e kuratores më bëri të mendoj se mund të merrej si një përpjekje për të hequr ndonjë paralelizëm. Gjithsesi edhe në tekstin e saj, dedikuar punës së artistit Sokol Beqiri (? … mmm … po t’i hiqej tekstit emri i artistit, për mendimin tim, ai tekst mund t’i kopsitej kujtdo), nuk mungonte Adorno dhe ajo ç’ka filozofi mendonte për të krijuarit poezi pas eksperiencës së Auschwitz-it. Siç duket, paralelizmi absurd midis Shoah-së dhe çlirimit të Kosovës – absurd, si çdo paralelizëm i hequr me Shoah-në pa u artikuluar denjësisht – ishte diçka më shumë sesa një përpjekje. Dhe që përpjekja ishte e tepërt dhe e sforcuar, kjo dukej më shumë prej tekstit tejet përgjithësues dhe të vagullt, me të cilin ekspozita kishte pak ose aspak të bënte.

Dhe nuk bëhet fjalë vetëm për paralelizmin e sforcuar midis Auschwitz-it dhe ngjarjeve traumatike të luftës së Kosovës, por edhe për “stilin e drejtpërdrejtë dhe faktik” të Beqirit si një “dëshmitar i mbijetuar”, zgjidhjeve estetike të të cilit “nuk e lejojnë shikuesin të largojë shikimin” nga punët. Kështu shkruhej në letër, por, në realitet, shikuesi ishte mëse i lejuar me një gotë verë (skadente, besoj, si zakonisht) të sodiste vërdallë spektaklin e pastërtisë së Galerisë Kombëtare të Arteve dhe dritave që çlironin të gjithë potencialin e tyre vezullues. Punët e Beqirit, në këtë mjedis, ishin të stërzmadhuara për të mbajtur një lloj barazpeshe me spektakolarizimin e sallës.

Por, ndoshta, jam unë i alienuari dhe mjedisi p.sh. i dokumentuar në fotografitë e mëposhtme dëshmon vërtetë një tragjedi shakespeare-iane (Pylli i shenjtë, titull i frymëzuar prej tragjedisë Macbeth, përzjerë si në një gjelltore me vepra të tjera, lidhja me të cilat nuk kalon nëpërmjet asgjëje tjetër përveçse nëpërmjet fillit të ekzagjerimit të përmasave).

Ndoshta.

Por, kjo ekspozitë, prej një “shikuesi” naiv, mundet edhe të keqkuptohet e të interpretohet si një pompozitet i ekzagjeruar i punëve intime – siç, me vështirësi, arrija të dalloja tek ato punë të Beqirit të ekspozuara në Galeri Kombëtare – të artistit kosovar, të cilat, në vetvete, mund të qendrojnë e të transmetojnë gjithë pathosin e vërtetë të Sokolit, një herë e një kohe, por që sot, duke u ekzagjeruar në përmasa, degjenerojnë duke çliruar, nga pathos, thjeshtë patetizëm. Ndihet, pra, një lloj prirjeje psikotike për të rendur pas dimensionit/përmasës kohë, nëpërmjet dimensioneve/përmasave fizike.

Pra, e gjithë ekspozita mund të keqkuptohet prej një “shikuesi” naiv dhe të interpretohet nëpërmjet versionit të gjelltores, ku suxhukët e Kosovës na shiten si nouvelle cuisine franceze. Dhe mund të zgjerohet ky diskutim i ekzagjerimit të teatralizuar jo vetëm për përmasat e veprave, por edhe për ekzagjerimin e pritjes, në një heshtje televizive “mallëngjyese” (min. 26.02, plot 10 sekonda), të lotëve të artistit, kur kujtonte ndjenjat e frikshme të tij gjatë luftës dhe rrezikut për sigurinë e vajzave (Aman, qaj, se përndryshe nuk e bëjmë për vete publikun e telenovelave turke!!!).

Por, siç thashë, ndoshta jam unë i alienuari dhe punët e Sokol Beqirit mund të mos jenë aq pa lidhje me kontekstin hapësino-kohor (qoftë shqiptar, qoftë kosovar) sa ç’më duken mua. Ndoshta artisti nuk është i lidhur ekskluzivisht me një gjuhë, qasje konceptuale dhe ide që mund të bënin sens në fillimvitet Nëntëdhjetë, me të cilin pushteti i fituesit të sotëm (ne shqiptarët/kosovarët karshi serbëve) kërkon të qahet e vetëmallëngjehet mbi lotët e dikurshme kur ende nuk ishte pushtet dhe në pushtet.

Ndoshta!

Por, gjithashtu, mund të duket edhe si një pompim i sforcuar edhe cytja që i bëhet një artisti, i cili duket person përsëmbari, por që ka “10 vjet pa kriju e pa u marrë me art” (min. 43.45 e videos me Elsa Demon), përveçse në rastin kur e ftojnë në dOCUMENTA dhe të krijojë “posaçërisht për ekspozitën e Tiranës Pyllin e shenjtë“. Ndoshta kjo gjë mund të interpretohet prej “shikuesit” si një përpjekje e pushtetit të sotëm për të ringjallur Llazarin/artistin, e vdekur prej 10 vjetësh, dhe për të treguar që është gjallë printohen gjigandografi të punëve pa kurrëfarë lidhjeje tjetër përveçse asaj të të qenurit me gjithë mend gjallë; madje jo vetëm gjallë, por gjigand, më i gjallë se kurrë (qasje klasike psiko-konjitive, ku ç’ka mungon del në pah, si simptomë kundrapulsionale, në formën e një përpjekjeje për të mbuluar me çdo kusht mungesën nëpërmjet ekzagjerimit).

Dhe, nëpërmjet këtij interpretimi të mundshëm, rezultati për “shikuesin”, që ka aq merak kuratorja Eliat, është ai i vizitës së një morgu të tipit Rue Morgue. Falsifikim i një kasaphane të vërtetë. Teatër i inskenuar ku na paraqitet një artist i vdekur dhe vepra të vdekura, që nuk përcjellin aspak atë ç’ka përpiqen të përcjellin: traumën individuale të artistit dhe kolektive të Kosovës, që deri diku, pavarësisht spektakolarizimit turkoshak, del më shumë nga intervista me Elsa Demon sesa nga kurimi i ekspozitës.

Madje, te ky i fundit, te kurimi shoh dorën e kuratores Galit Eliat (e cila me shumë mundësi injoron totalisht kontekstin historik, social, politik dhe kulturor shqiptar) të shndërrohet në dorën e ngjashme të një kurimi idiotesk e kafshëror, me të cilin na ka mësuar pushteti i Rilindjes së Edi(p) Ramës. Në pak fjalë, shoh apoteozën e rafinuar të stilit Shkololli, ku krahas suxhukëve të Kosovës të shitur për nouvelle cuisine, ndihet edhe era ndikuese e modelit alla Bunk’Art.
Dhe efektet tek “shikuesi” janë të njëjtat, mbajnë një lloj koherence, e cila, mesa duket, është kthyer në kulturë tashmë, me efekte katastrofike, sidomos te brezat e Shqipërisë së re e bashkëkohore, ku përballë çdo Auschwitz-i kemi të gatshëm një spektakël.

Por, ndoshta, jam unë që jam i alienuar.

Ndoshta?