Week 48: kuda.org

Hi Everyone,

This Tuesday is another event in a year-long series of weekly conversations and exhibits in 2010 shedding light on examples of Plausible Artworlds.

This week we’ll be talking with Branka Curcic and Zoran Pantelic of new media center_kuda.org, an independent organization in Novi Sad, Serbia, which brings together artists, media activists, and researchers interested in the political uses, creative misuses and social repurposing of free and open information and communications technologies.


“Kuda” means “where to?” and that open-ended query is pretty much the conversation-starter that underlies all the organization’s activities and programs. Initially, the question was quite literally about the world in which the small media center was trying to emerge. Its current day offices, and former activities space, is situated between a post office and a fishmonger in an industrial working class neighbourhood far from the city center. The original set of old computers that made up the center’s internet café were discarded Bavarian government machines from the 1990s, picked up by kuda.org director Zoran Pantelic, who hauled them to Serbia shortly after the NATO air raids, reconfiguring them all with Linux operating systems. Those prehistoric beasts now stand on a selfmade bar in one of the rooms of the center. Today as before, for all visitors to kuda.org, Internet access (on much newer machines!) is as free as a free beer.

Kuda.org’s work focuses on questions concerning the interpretation and analysis of the history and significance of the information society, the potential of information itself, and its influence on social policy making. New Media Center_kuda.org opens space for both cultural dialog and alternative methods of education and research through a series of programs, including kuda.lounge (a series of presentation, talks and lectures — some 100 events since 2000), kuda.info (providing free internet access), kuda.production (a matrix for publishing and exhibition) as well as offering free bandwidth to artists and activists.

Clearly, the world in which Kuda.org operates is utterly at odds with the mainstream political, cultural and artistic landscape of post-Socialist Yugoslavia and contemporary Serbia — a lifeworld adverse and often hostile to the types of practices kuda.org thinks of as “art”. Looking at kuda.org’s track record, one cannot but wonder whether worldmaking is not inevitably informed by a performative “where-to” logic. But at the same time, kuda.org has provided a platform for assembling answer’s to its eponymous question — one that seeks to extract its own consistency from the components of the assemblages which it has produced. The enduring question is how to do just that over the long term — how to assemble plausible collectivities that function as counter-currents against all the seductions of fall-back positions, become aware of their own pitfalls and blindspots, while finding ways to realize their potential, risking themselves in the face of others.



Week 48: kuda.org

Zoran: Hello.

Scott: Hello can you hear us okay?

Stephen: Can we hear him okay?

Cassie: Yes.

Scott: Super awesome.

Zoran: Can you hear us Scott? I'm going to turn this up a bit.

Scott: Yeah I can hear you. I think everybody here can probably hear you really well.

Cassie: Yeah sounds good.

Scott: Yeah so we're here with Michael, Chris, Cassie, Matthew, Quinton and Scott and there may be some other people trickling in. Just wanted to say hi to Branka and Zoran.

Stephen: Well let me introduce you to our – Scott are you guys hearing me okay?

Scott: Oh yeah.

Stephen: Okay. I wanted to introduce you to our two guests who are sitting right beside me here. Zoran on my left and a little bit further the extreme left…

Branka: The extreme left thank you.

Stephen: …Branka. Adam are you hearing us okay because Adam is reporting breakup.

Scott: I wondered if it was just because you stopped for a second or…

Stephen: Okay.

Scott: …initially. Okay cool.

Stephen: Good. Well you want to say a few words by way of introduction Scott or do you want me to say something?

Scott: Oh not at all just wanted to say hello first off. Hey guys thank for the intro.

Branka: Hey.

Scott: And hi to everybody else on Skype. We have a short write up but yeah Steven it would be great if you could give a super quick intro. Here's a short description for everyone if you haven't seen it.

Stephen: And it seems that I didn't make too many serious mistakes in the little write up except that I forgot to add that across the street in this working class neighborhood there is a park called the 88 Closest Park in honor of Martial Tito. And in the middle of the park there's a very large red star which kind of sets the little bit the ambiance for this neighborhood.

I'm not going to say really too much because I sort of wrote what I had to say but just that Kuda has been kind of one of those exemplary honing artworlds and I'm really glad that I guess it's the 49th, 48th week of the year we're finally able to actually talk to them. The Kuda played a – I'll let you guys fill us in on the details – but you've been around for awhile now and you've played a really instrumental role in promoting free and open information technology culture as way for creating an art sustained environment and also for creating another political sustaining environment. I mean I think if it's for you art and political action, culture action are quite indistinguishable and that distinguish is really very much in tuned with what we've been calling Plausible Artworlds last year.

So Zoran, Branka I'll turn it over to you. Do you want to like just give us a presentation of what this is all about and why and then we'll start firing questions at you.

Branka: Wow! So I think you should start basically because you were the starter.

Zoran: Yeah. I see what you said now it's already the case. And yes it sounds like we actually took a lot of the – we learned a lot also in the [inaudible 04:26]. Basically we started to snip and to establish ourselves as well and to invite as much as possible people from all around to be our guest here. And in this place here since 2000 to 2006 or '07 was a public space where we were to invite as much possible people who was started to be almost like part of the scene to share and to change all these knowledge and some particular aspects of new technology.

So last year has actually been we can talk more precisely of this relationship between our components. From the very beginning was actually just pulled when we actually more deeper and to learn about to this aspect. Later on according to some experts and some divisions what we actually developed it's also very much consist of the personal religion because at the moment for us actually we put that as a core structure of the organization. And during the year we actually established a lot of events includes a lot of the collaborate. So that's eventually the structure at the moment. And according the banquets are our personally responsibility it's also developed the tracts of our interest or some platforms of the projects and phenomenon work they would like to work. So I'm not going to say anymore and maybe Branka can just jump in.

Greg: But maybe Stephen has a question sorry.

Stephen: Very specific question when did you [breaking up] what year?

Zoran: It was actually the end of 2000, actually officially the program 2000-2001. The next year already came.

Stephen: Right. And this story about actually bringing the old computers down from Germany that is reported to be according to Snyder is actually true.

Zoran: Yeah.

Stephen: And you put them all together and you made it into an internet café actually.

Zoran: Sort of yeah. That was actually a free access point.

Stephen: A free access point.

Zoran: For the neighborhood.

Branka: Let me say that daily practice on the public space…

Zoran: Yeah.

Branka: …was to have a free access in this as you said working area of the city. And you have to understand it's Southeast Europe that 2000 infrastructure was not really developed so they actually had quite a lot of people coming into use the internet. It only became relatively obsolete to have things in taxes because of course technology came to the homes, infrastructures got better. So actually they function as a free internet access and free access to the library quite large library we've collected over the years. And then usually with some evening programs.

Yes some local artists or art critics giving a lecture, presenting the movies and discussions. So basically the public space was established not as a gallery space, not as the exhibition space, although we both for example come in there from the artistic background let's say, but it was intended to be place for discussions because we felt like really big lack of this kind of a state in indecision maybe all say in Serbia.

Stephen: Yeah I think that maybe for the – I don't want to overemphasize local specificity but it's true that with the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s when the war that left Serbia extremely ostracized. Not only that getting bombed b the US Air Force, but left it ostracized from many progressive people throughout Europe. And so it must have been kind of a solitary experience and I imagine in that sense that technology – I don't want to make it sound more than it was but kind of a linking to the rest world and get other information. That must have been a pretty important political thing to do. I mean it's important for us to talk to you today so it's always important to talk to other people. But in those years that must have meant more presses no.

Zoran: It is I mean the ratio and the role of technology was actually much more very related to that end of the table was very interesting because it was a really important channel to get any of the scope, to be part of the [inaudible 09:33]. So for a lot of people it was a kind of really opportunity for a partner to kind of emerge already. But later on was actually decided we could be perfect especially when it was actually becomes professional from the agency and the telecoms and etc. But just because of this imagine and this kind of a search and this kind of critical approach was actually difficult even for us and was actually very important and we actually crate – first I must say it was actually very focused and we actually started to realize and to become more clear for ourselves to understand and how to retro. And then later on we actually started to give up as a more established platform. Branka.

Branka: Well I have to say that although at the end of the night is this whole intimate thing and the new technologies and the promise of that world that came with that kind of ideology somehow for a brief moment worked out maybe from giving the people a different kind of a new access to something outside of Serbia. But from the beginning, as Zoran said we started in 2001 basically things a bit changed, and from the very beginning actually when we started our interest was in the very beginning to explore what's going on in this critical internet culture or critical new media culture. So it was never looked at it as a kind of, I don't know, California ideology but what California ideology was preaching basically. But more to see what things behind the culture the functioning but kind of an alternative  to maybe the settled practices existing within that internet culture. And that's, how for example, in the very beginning we got the public methods from Vienna. They were quite, let me say, influential, important for our own work.

Stephen: Can you say a word about that?

Branka: Now it's something completely different it changed over time. This corporate organization and the name of the organization now they're called Burle Information Institute but back then they used to be a public internet based Institute for Progressive Internet Culture Network Culture, I forgot sorry. And they were originally from Vienna from the early 90s they started with this course, like you said, critical net culture. And not only that they were quite, like you say, critical in trying to act against, for example culture policies in Vienna, commercializing of misusing the whole public funds and many different – actually in a way also [inaudible 13:22] of the works. So but I wanted to say besides from this fickle media discourse but later on we actually did eventually many other things.

So when Stephen is saying our connection with art I'm still a little bit wandering what it is? What kind of connection is – what is political regarding? See that's something interesting that we can talk about or you can help us to figure it out.

Stephen: Well maybe – I know definitely that's what I'm here for – but maybe before that it would be important to talk about specifically your programs because you have about three or four different programs.

Branka: We have many…

Stephen: Okay.

Branka: …over all these years. So basically with those just to feel us and to feel people here with, let me use this phrase, typical internet culture. So for the first three years basically organizing lectures and presentations of really different people, from those mentioned from Vienna Florence Mider and Collective Berg. Really people quite kept wanting people really if it's important in that moment. A little bit we started to organize in 2003 with the [inaudible 14:57] for example because this kind of tutorial, but let me say not typical tutorial practices, are also like important for us.

What is interesting in my view of people that we are talking to actually of interest is that we're actually very well documented all that was going on in our space. We installed a little system of surveillance cameras inside our space so we were a little bit moratoria actually of what's going on but it gives us really nice possibilities to preserve all that like the same knowledge to use over the years. And since a couple of months now after almost a year it's finally available on our Web site so you can download or watch many different lectures that were given here in this.

Stephen: So this is like kind of an archiving of critical and creative culture basically.

Branka: Yeah like you say.

Stephen: First of all you produced it and then you archived it.

Branka: Yeah.

Stephen: But that archive is kind of a last you can have a history also in terms of practices today which is really quite essential.

Branka: Well yeah sure.

Stephen: Can we send a link to one of those things?

Branka: Yeah.

Zoran: Let me see where is it.

Branka: It's here but maybe you archive like Sales for example.

Stephen: And it's like 127 like that.

Branka: Yeah it's like 60 or more.

Scott: I was actually thinking – yeah sorry excuse me – I was actually thinking it might interesting if you don't mind, though I wouldn't necessarily always recommend this for these chats, but if you wouldn't mind giving us a kind of an intro to how to navigate your Web site. Just because I think you've set it up in a way that seems to match your programs. I thought and since it's sounds like anyway the beginning of your project it was setup as kind of an internet portal of sorts, maybe your Web site is pretty important it might help people to get a better understanding of the project overall.

Stephen: Okay you want to do that?

Branka: Yeah sure. That's actually a very good idea sometimes I forget. But it's actually on our Web site all our programs are quite well documented at least we try to have them well documented. So we started from this lounge of video archive just to maybe we also a little fascinating because we just setup this kind of a video archive on our Web site but also some video kind of a clue what kind of initiatives in people we were interested in from the beginning. So you see here one of the most inspiring things for us in 2003 was to have breaks of them discussions with critical art ensemble for example. I mentioned that since I guess you know that of course…

Stephen: Yeah we can paste that in for example.

Zoran: That's good.

Branka: Yeah.

Stephen: For example.

Branka: For example yeah, but this actually those studio operate much connection with those early years like I say 2004 is quite like I said biggest part of our activity. Then this is like in the main menu on the Web site its Kuda.lounge Kuda.info is basically the home page. Like the information connected to our own activities and on the right sidebar you can see that Zoran's choosing some kind of familiar or interesting events that we like to inform people about.

So Kuda.lounge you click on it there is like from 2001 to 2006 basically very well documented also video archive, but also a little textual like you say report about it. So you can see over the years how things also changed for u 2002 was the most like exploding one that I can get over, I don't know, 20 or 30, 2003 a little bit less because we started already with tutorial practice and also with the publishing project. And then time you can see that the number is a little bit shrinking to 2005 with a little bit more.

And then since 2006 we actually started a little bit to abandon our own public space to recreate it into the virtual space more or our own working space since we started to collaborate more with a couple of institutions in the city like. All those lectures held in 2006 were actually hosted by the museum of contemporary arts. Here actually was, for example now, hosting Stephen. There is a link in a couple of ways to go with the museum which is completely another story it's not really like all, like you say, museums of contemporary art where is total hierarchical organization. Like for example some of the cities in Western Europe. It's also quite flexible I can say. It's very easy in a way to establish the contact and to work it.

Stephen: Okay so the question was, Kuda.lounge is the largest part of Kuda activities, is that what you said, or did you say it was the largest part of some?

Branka: It was.

Stephen: It was.

Branka: It was. So maybe I can go just a bit more further. Perhaps you can see all the different…

Stephen: Yeah is this from the archive on Kuda production.

Branka: Yeah and there you get your exhibitions you get the publications to organizing [inaudible 22:32]. A project them some richer projects, rest of conferences, a little bit of media productions and some campaigns, and like you say, other lectures which we organize. But let me say that maybe those who the business in publications are something that we directed our main activities for 2004 forward. Exhibitions I think they're not given all of the documented here because some of them are also examples here in the actual product still going on. Because they are like for example collaborative projects that the lodging spending over a couple of years sometimes very difficult to put them under different categories on the Web site.

Stephen: If we look at them, I mean just off the top of my head I notice that they're largely I mean they're based largely around digital media in many cases. They're always collective almost always. They're invariably dealing with political issues and they're I think almost always an exception drawing on the political potential of conceptual art right.

Branka: Yeah I mean that was cool.

Stephen: We think of position of object and never…

Branka: No.

Stephen: I mean I could ideally think that you didn't but…

Branka: No. Maybe I should just give a couple of examples. For example, that those are like also different types of exhibitions. Some of the exhibitions for example are like you say imported. Like all the information goes all the exhibitions were produced by this nearly public message collection. But we felt like it's a really good moment to present that and to have it in Serbia. And that's really to basically containing some of…

Zoran: That's a different story totally.

Branka: To Jim my good friend he actually lives in new Philly.

Stephen: Okay.

Zoran: Very good.

Branka: So estimated to summarize somehow it's really, really about the art object. It's about concept, it's about maybe the most trying to contextualize art practices, not the actual object this is something that's really at least interested in but…

Stephen: If you contextualize it that's…

Branka: Try to contextualize it because to this notion of having the like autonomous piece of art is really not sustainable since long time ago but it was never interesting for us to look at the art as something isolated. I'd always put it in – and to try to look like the social, what some kind of economic background, production to this condition from that particular. And it's just I'd never really the art they're more interested into art practices, art as some intent or successful social engagement out of the process, out of the collective practice. It's something that we are trying to experience into practice our own.

So some of those exhibitions are actually already done for example, we did also this additional alternative economics of certain societies, one also actually [inaudible 27:20]. And then didn't object it was quite authorized it's really one author because he collected over the years interviews with really different people coming from different backgrounds and disciplines about possible or plausible alternatives in the economics and like we say social kinds of organizations. And I want to just you to pay attention the continuous odd place. This is something for example that is totally from our production our practice from the scratch.

Stephen: The continuous art class.

Branka: Yes.

Stephen: Great credit.

Branka: Yes. And in subtitles and other New Orleans guides are from the 60s and 70s. So basically there was a time of the breaking point in 2005 to start a little bit to go a little bit further in connectional to local context and how we felt like it's the right moment for that. So we decided to look a little bit in the history of [inaudible 28:40] basically something that the sphere might connected with international conceptualized of the 60s and 70s but it was slightly important for us to look in now our own backyard and to see what their kind of challenges that really are trying to build a little bit upon. Those were – maybe you can say I talk too much.

Zoran: Yeah okay. Basically I can just add in principle what you actually said is usually its actually collaborative practice. But to find out very interesting for us that all those groups from 60s I mean mirror [inaudible 29:26] and other side was actually pretty much concerned about this collaborative work. And we find out very interesting for us and something that we're actually doing and practicing very much is something that we actually find out is a very, very clear caricature and a very practice until just recently.

Stephen: Okay. You thought you were inventing something and in fact you find it very interesting.

Zoran: And we find accordingly we actually know it was the lack of [inaudible 30:00] that's their lives.

Stephen: Yeah.

Zoran: They're actually playing on some kind of machine parts. And that's the reason why the following parts of this publishing parts were actually called a [inaudible 30:11] because it's a little bit, it's never really done on a proper way. And then all those guide actually from the moment actually we put much unknown on the school in the education system.

Branka: Guys and girls.

Zoran: Guys and girls. And then we decide to work with them and then to try to establish at least to make them a strong spotlight on whatever. And to create something more clearer to what is our big now locally. And then it actually starts to be, an especially also.

Branka: This is a collection of the cultural practices like you say and our own we cannot prioritize it its simple. Sorry.

Zoran: So basically as Branka said since 2005 actually we start to reach our scope in certain length in this kind of capacity of the collective. And so then we started to be more active in this research part trying to develop another track of researching our own local base structure on then to going on both directions, going into the recent past and trying to connect with this practice with [inaudible 31:29] collective movements and their own practices and how we can share them to make them more connections with the present production. And on the other side it still connects with the international scene.

So that was actually since 2005 actually we tried to develop on both sides. So this continuing art class it's actually some title which is come from local Serbia gang which comes out in the guys from the product from Young and Newman. To notice how they actually performed public performances in a public space call it public art class which sounds in Serbian language Yamani class. And then continuous art class is actually trying [inaudible 32:31] so just continuing something actually creates this structure and [inaudible 32:39] how we actually include all those things. And that through this process actually still to now actually we tried to in some parts of to this specimen of opening this door, the structural door of the conception moment in Serbia, specifically [inaudible 33:01], we actually start to develop some other aspects of whatever they did. And with some still very active turbulence we actually continue to work.

So just recently actually we just made a DVD about selling [inaudible 33:23] directive from [inaudible 33:27] and essentially the whole process reactivates and to create this closing interaction with the programs from 60s still very active.

Stephen: Wasn't one of the major Yugoslav conceptual art collective after '56.

Bronco: '51.

Stephen: And they were from…

Zoran: No, no, they were from [inaudible 33:50].

Stephen: Yeah. What are some of the names that I should know from Novi Sad?

Zoran: From Novi Sad?

Stephen: Yeah.

Branka: There are many like individual artists that also joined in the different groups to work collectively. So they for example had a group called Codes. And they in a couple of cases tried to be very provocative. In other words, in some times in physical Yugoslavia like really hard and political times and they really tried to provoke a bit. And they employed from their perspective to call themselves the January Group in January, the February Group in February.

Stephen: I got.

Branka: In fact someone accused them like February Group did this and this…

Stephen: Yeah.

Branka: …but it happened in March. They said "No, no, the February Group doesn't exist anymore."

Stephen: Oh I see.

Branka: So they finally very short.

Stephen: It's a problem to hear that. That's what we have to do for the exhibition series it has to be basically a linear cycle that changes its name every linear cycle.

Scott: Oh man that's a good idea.

Stephen: Yeah.

Scott: Yeah I wanted to ask you another question though and I just pasted it but I'll read it out. I really like what – and you know what I just noticed the error on the posted question, but you know I'll go ahead and finish my thought just so that I'm not jumping all over the place here, and then we can get to that. But I was wondering if you guys are, I know you work with other people I mean the archive of different people that you've talked to and other things that you've been involved with is pretty extensive.

The question earlier sort of triggered this for me or the thing that you mentioned a moment ago triggered this for me. I wonder sometimes when people, especially tutorial groups who are involved in archiving, there seems to be I think among a lot of people interested in archiving collective culture in particular a sense of shared ownership and interest in breaking down some of what can easily become a sort of aggressive non-competitiveness for lack of better terms. And I was curious if you guys had had any thoughts or maybe had even been involved in any initiatives to try to merge some of those efforts, especially efforts around the getting a better sense of what collective creativity can be or what collectivity and art can do or the limitations of it and that sort of thing.

Branka: You mean merge like take over or…

Scott: I didn't mean takeover in particular I meant systems where say we're involved in some of that too and so are you, and yet in order to get that kind of information the best way that we can do it right now is browse to one another's Web sites. And of course we can talk to one another like we are now but how often do we really get to do it. And so I think one of the questions that I have is if there's an idea, and I'm not assuming that you have this, that there could be some kind of, whether it's social benefit or just general interest or whatever of this research into collective practice, that can add some value to someone one way or another? I'm curious if you think that there could be some value in accentuating that research or actually – what am I trying to say – mutually…

Stephen: You mean sharing an interest.

Scott: Yeah. Each one contributing to something that could sort of compound, or not necessarily only amplify in a mutual exclusive way but maybe compile or actually make better, if you know what I mean by catenating.

Stephen: Confederate to use a word that is not used very much in this part of the world anymore right. To confederate lack of energies you mean. I'm sorry I was just…

Scott: Yeah.

Stephen: That's sort of a joke.

Scott: Sure I think that's my question even though I'm stuttering through it. I think the question is about your level of interest in those sorts of possibilities.

Branka: Yeah. Our experiences really different let me say. And I personally find collective birth extremely important but also very demanding and very hard work, let me say, actually rarely now practice we meet other people in collectives that we can really exchange with. And this is something which is I would say also quite understandable but also maybe a little bit, if I may say so, a bit for me disappointing. Because you can see the people's interest are going really in different ways.

So it happens like many times and after the, for example, funding of one project has ended that the whole group is split or inside of the organizing one project or one network or many different factors are included. How this network or how this collaborative work is, or what basis is it set on? There are many cases that have been invited by interesting groups or individuals to start with new research projects for example based only on the funding opportunities. Of course that's rarely worked but in some cases it works. So I mean it really depends on the many different factors. But what I can summarize really and say this collaborative practice of me and I think for us if I can say, some kind of a sensual way of work, but I can also see how fragile it is. How people are really, really in a really fast moving attention let me say to this kind of a production or work. I don't know if this answers any of your questions but this is what I had in mind.

Zoran: More or less I mean it's actually something but is actually almost the case as you already mentioned before that this kind of collaborative structure it's going to produce more and more sublevels of producing and kind of discussions like platform. It's not necessarily to really produce something which could be kind of a final part of the communication but it's actually going to this kind of level of discussion causes and how we actually learn to really listen to each other.

So basically it's actually depends on the partner or someone who's actually collaborating in a particular phenomenon or some particular event. It's also pretty much interesting for us to learn about cultural differences. And also what Branka mentioned just recently it's also comes to these kind of very personal level when we're actually talking about sometimes a particular work. So in general I think this collaborative central is still getting as any medal with both sides but in general it's actually getting through much more open doors for getting more and more and more productive essential things than we actually never really ended this process. And it comes to be in a very, very exciting way.

Branka: Good questions.

Zoran: A list of questions.

Stephen: We have some questions here. Aaron has a question and he's had it for awhile. So Aaron do you want to ask that question or do you want me to read it out for you? Aaron asks it sounds like the local context that are important to you yet at the same time you're interested in making links with other locations plus the possible geopolitical contact such as critical art ensemble. Could you say what exactly the importance of that kind of interest and exploration?

Branka: Yeah well sure it's different geopolitical context. I mean as I said the local context is really is much of our concern but not only, we cannot look at local context without considering the broader picture as we say. In particularly if you are mentioning the practices the methods employed for example, the critical art example we are taking them as examples there. I cannot say something that could be applied here or there could be. It's not really important. I'm more referring to the methodology of their understanding of what collective and their collective practices in agricultural are they're openness and understanding I don't know current political situation compensation of odd in connection with science giving all those, like I say tune, or in a way several things more to the audience.

Stephen: More visible.

Branka: More visible let me say. So it's more like it's an ideology of them than on the first place there on the political context because I'm not sure I'm clear here.

Stephen: Well I think that maybe I would even disagree with the premise of the question because it seems to me that the people that you're interested in and the reason that we're interested in you is because you're interested in something like a very – I don't know if you would agree – like a contestitory culture. A culture of challenging existence and challenging it with a certain symbolic violence like not simply negotiating with it, negotiating with it but not really, running up against it is hard and proposing something else instead. And I think if I look at the list of guests and the list of projects it seems to me that more than geopolitical diversity it's political dissidence that would characterize your approach.

Branka: Yeah I mean I'm usually very hesitant to use this big words like…

Stephen: Dissidence.

Branka: Dissidence has really particular history over here but since we started to research in our local conceptual art and we are on guard here of closely got interested in particular need. I can say I never lived basically in Yugoslavia. I'm a younger generation but somehow growing up is always something that came after Yugoslavia. But to try to understand what was going on then and to see what kind of a different notion that dissidence had, not just official like common discipline. That's the first reference to me when I see political dissidence. This is not something that I'm interested in this picture of communist political dissidence is something completely, like you say, wrongly presented with a reason. But this is only around the finishing of the grain.

Stephen: Maybe this kind of links into what your friend Sedant said that, who speaking as a close collaborator and admirer of Kuda, thinks that Kuda always has a very good idea of what or who their enemy is. My question to my friends is thus who is the current and unique in your work and how do you envision future enemies in the future? That's a great question.

Branka: The enemies where should we start?

Stephen: Yeah.

Branka: Ourselves okay. Yeah ourselves that's a little bit connected with this experience of fertility of collective practices because although, for example, we are trying to have this structure without hierarchy or with this kind of motion of sloping hierarchy it's always small misuse of another person's time position etc. That I guess is still a kind of normal for different people trying to produce something or to break productively. They're much, much bigger. This starts from the stage for example.

Zoran: Because the social circumstances change a lot. I mean in general it's actually the whole society actually is very naïve position of unknowledged structure and we learn a lot of this kind of comparative analysis of what's going on in Europe and what's going on right now. And after the war during the 90s it's something that we actually grow up and some program we can create this kind of critical platform for some very strong positions for ourselves. But later on we actually find out that for some kind of social kind of capacity what they actually expect. It actually doesn't exist.

So in that way we can say that we are pretty much not really surprised but in a way with something we already expect them it could be kind of very helpful for the whole initiative and to spare the knowledge. It actually doesn't work on that way so in that terms it's much more enemies than we actually expect. So we had to step back in a way and to really work pretty much in terms very fundamental in a very basic social environment. Turning back to the political relationship something that [inaudible 51:09] actually mentioned now and from the question is something which deals our position and we call it sort of independent position. What does it mean independent? It's actually hesitant o explain the position of the very strongly monopoly controlled by political parties where they control complete very for some reason that just organization actually connect them with the part of the organization.

So what we are doing now is actually something that we are trying to keep our own, let's say, independent position because we are not in a court and we are not in [inaudible 51:50] party but It's the question of how to play me then because they strongest control the media, the public money, all the sponsors and you actually spark the system and you had to negotiate that. So in that way the whole structure of everyday life and negotiation with them will start to be pretty much strong and the [inaudible 52:21] and the least of enemies. And that will start to be much, much more open.

Stephen: You didn't mention his [inaudible 52:30] for example.

Branka: Yeah I was about too.

Zoran: Yeah.

Branka: Thanks Stephen.

Zoran: Yeah. I would say that the biggest enemy for us here in this moment is maybe more general emotional characterization. So the experience prioritization. It's only the manner of the ownnesses which is really the most fundamental project going on right here in Serbia. So basically prioritization of old public and stakes good factory are also public spaces. And what comes also as a kind of a consequence when I'm mentioning the prioritization in a broader term it's really not only the private ownnesses but the private interest no matter if they are like the powerful position or the capital driven they are like visible in every field, also in the field of culture.

So this transitory of positional liberal yet reality that we have here the good [inaudible 53:49] how do you call it, that we are facing. And it's really difficult as long as it makes step and you see what you are facing to try to somehow pose our tools are very modest I have to say, really, really very modest. For example, we are now producing the one exhibition that we are really enjoy. But I'm also struggling with this a little bit like kind of a cozy position to produce something coming from the culture field that is dealing with the transformation of City of Novi Sad under the new liberal circumstances. So we are making exhibition out of it.

And we are today having discussions with two other people and we are producing exhibition with what does it mean except that we really find it important that we are enjoying. Who do we go to? What do we want to do with it since revealing thousands of really like, not only a characterization of public spaces, but also like criminal actions going on. So it's really a question for me what can we do?

Stephen: So what's the answer?

Branka: The answer is I'm not sure if we should look into results.

Stephen: Okay.

Branka: If this efficiency is really our goal.

Stephen: Right.

Branka: So I'm not sure. I don't think that to say this was efficient in those terms. Have some kind of numbers of the variations. But there's something missing and I'm wondering what it is.

Stephen: Yeah. No I think this whole ethos of ownership is an incredibly presidios problem not only here in Serbia but I think just to contextualize it a little bit, I mean in Yugoslavia social property constituted almost all the property. Most of the factories, most of the means of production and distribution were publically owned not privately owned.

Branka: Correct.

Stephen: And now not that long after the end of like a socialistic economy as far as I understand although people are poorly paid in Serbia, they don't have much money they're being paid far much more than the economy is actually generating and the only way that they're maintaining that level of salary is because of the permanent selling off, or the bode as we say in French, it's the sort of the selling off at wholesale prices of the public property. Now as far as I understand there are only two things left to sell it's the electricity utility distribution and the telephone. And once those are gone what will happen unless there's some kind of miracle, which doesn't appear to be likely, there will be an Argentinean type collapse of the economy because it won't be anything left to float it with. And that's what happened under Carlos Maynheim in Argentina.

Branka: Yeah.

Stephen: And of course in a situation – and it's a tremendous amount of interaction in middle class Argentina society here is the situation where the political context is even more potentially explosive. I mean it's hard to say what this could lead to, particularly in the context to come back to the whole ethos of ownership where ownership is now sort of seen as, first of all I'm owner of myself it's a way of being in the world.

Branka: Yep.

Stephen: The only public property left is going to be the red star in the park across the street, anything that's of any potential value…

Branka: Yeah.

Stephen: …have already been sort of given away.

Branka: Exactly.

Stephen: But I think it's the type of work that you're doing. I even actually I just spent to do kind of collaborative action under those kinds of circumstances is potentially it's a lifesaving kind of an operation. I mean you guys when the day comes when the others have just failed because you're owned by somebody else so.

Branka: I didn't mean in that way I thought it was like the ownership of the concept of the ownership growth failed eventually yeah. I didn't get that was he complaining about – you don't want to talk to us about the owness?

Stephen: Feel free to turn on your microphone and ask or give your point of view, but don't feel obliged.

Scott: Yeah I'm getting a sense that there's a question that's sort of pregnant there or should we just move on pass that?

Stephen: Aaron is asking that do you see the ownership thing as a state private for artist issue and Serbia is asking? I think it is truly admirable to think and strategize what the collective is today. Well those are kind of both the same questions in a certain was because one at a time. [inaudible 1:00:19] was asking.

Branka;What Aaron is asking are I don't know I cannot be sure if those are like three different things or one because we are now under the pressure, as we said, of the craze of the product ownness. We had something as a source or public or in combination with the state onwness and that artistic issue I mean it could really quite a lot. For example, I don't know we extend from here what is the owness you think odd. That's something for example Stephen will probably talk about tomorrow because there's this conference here in Novi Sad about accumulation and trying to in a way know how to define it. Monetize and circulate art in those kinds of way. It tends also to prioritize.

Stephen: By the way, that was a remark that Scott made earlier is that the conference is organized at the museum but it's co-organized by Kuda.

Branka: Yes.

Stephen: So his question was so now you have seems to be in opposition to the museum and you have found some sort of way of working together. I mean that's an interesting development maybe you can talk about that as well because oftentimes I'm being very aggressive towards the conceptual architecture museum.

Branka: Yeah.

Stephen: And I'm happy that they paid me to come and talk to you. But in fact not really too interested in museum per say if there was no Kuda I wouldn't want to go talk to the museum. But at the same time, a museum is publically owned. I mean it is social property, it's public space. So there that was a stament…

Branka: Okay museum of contemporary art here in Novi Sad I would say really particular position. I mean I wouldn't compare it with any of the museums, for example, as far as I know in Western Europe and museums of contemporary art, because in this position process the state and institutions will also be crumbling down. So the museum of contemporary art actually doesn't own or its founders don't own the building for example. They are just renting the building of museum is ready now flying like historical museum of this area, like you say, of Serbia.

And there is obviously no kind of a political interest invested in the new building which could be of course a kind of a new city identity which could put Novi Sad on the map of me now used the cultural capital creative industries like everything but there's no even that kind of interest in culture here. And this is also something we're trying to fight. Not with the museum because they are all the time they're like changing strategies. But I have to say that there are only basically one of two decent exhibition spaces in Novi Sad. So somehow if you want to do exhibition it's usually in the own facilities. And to try organize exhibition in most places really are struggle.

Let me just put the long story short it is because of this crumbling decent exhibition space. Decent exhibition space is to have at least painted walls and at least to have walls. Because really there's just a couple of exhibition spaces in Novi Sad and not really much of them, more so than actually are privately owned and managed. The museum is really part of the rare public institutions. And besides that it's very important to say that one of our – the public that comes to visit really it depends on the event that kind of public discipline. We always try to do our best to really motivate as broader audience as possible. So I have to say that we have actually reorganize something in museum and we have large audiences more thanks to our own effort than to PR in Museum Service for example.

Scott: So I have a question. Did I just speak before someone?

Stephen: Go ahead.

Scott: Okay. We often ask things like this in these discussions about Plausible Artworlds because we're really trying to get to look at different examples of how people structure their sustained or that make possible or even understandable a creative practice that differs from what's in front of mainstream. I mean from looking at your Web site it definitely seems like the mainstream that I'm aware of there's a lot of difference clearly between the programming that you guys do and the topics that are arrived at.

But I'm really curious about how you guys - oh I don't know it's both structure what you do and they've described that a little bit a bit, but also how people there identify what you guys are doing as art or do they? I mean and if they do, I guess is a multipart question, if they do what kind of benefit do you guys think that the events that you do and the kinds of issues that you're attempting to cover or are covering benefit from being qualified as art in the minds of the people that come.

Zoran: Hey there's a question.

Branka: Yeah that's a good question.

Scott: I mean I'm only asking you because it seems like a lot of the people that show up might not really care whether or not it's art or not. And they may only sort of use that moniker because it's in fact in a museum, otherwise you might actually wanted to talk about some of the other projects, conceptual as they are, something not art necessarily just something else. And if not I guess I was curious about why? And if you can pinpoint anyway what the things that you do or maybe like even a specific strategy that you've talked about tonight or haven't talked about yet helps to accentuate that.

Zoran: Right.

Branka: I had to wait for it.

Zoran: I mean a lot of things are put on the table and in general what Branka actually started to explain in this role is how we actually collaborate with the museum. We had to actually explain that Novi Sad is actually first of all a small town and the whole field of the culture it's actually expressed in a very narrow space. So the whole scale in something where we can present on the bottom of the scale is something that we can present in some phase or some places. And then it's on the top could be let say the Museum of Contemporary Arts sounds very big. But in general the whole infrastructure of country is actually not developed on their terms as the [inaudible 1:08:51] our system on the west.

In general we are living in a society without our critic, without any kind of critical structure than we really extract kind of a variable argumentation. What's beyond and how it contextually comes up. So in that terms the relationship in between some very lawful chronic exhibition in some space and the museum is almost let's say the same. So that's actually the very frustrating position in that terms calling the cultural event, so –called culture event.

In their terms what we're doing is we can also edit as a kind of opportunistic asterisk then through this kind of visibility sharing some value and the bottom of the particular, let say, phenomenon what you present. For instance, what you're actually doing around the [inaudible 1:09:55] from Novi Sad we are very much insist to present in a museum of contemporary just to establish such a particular part as an admitted history in the local circumstances. But on the other hand we actually do a lot of different places which is actually doesn't get any connections to the museum. So in that case it's actually pretty much broke in many different positions. Sometimes you're doing some public actions so we are actually making a new social space and we're actually very much interesting how we should develop kind of new public who is actually the new public for the art production, art production. Who's actually following this action or any kind of critical approach which comes to the artistic actions?

And specifically when Branka mentioned this problem of lack of infrastructure it's a question that we have just two places where we can call it sort of gallery space. So sometimes what we learned actually you are living here in society actually without proper infrastructure the gallery system it means an artist already knew and somehow broke with and laid with it then to be able to adopt for themselves in a public space or some other aspect to promote what they're doing. And in that time check I think that still maybe from your point of view it looks and it's scary it's much bigger than what we're doing. But totally on the local circumstances all this care is actually pretty much narrow.

And it's something again Branka mentioned this our intention to focus on this population section we just simply learned and without knowledge and without proper position that you can articulate very precisely what you're to get and why you are doing this. We would start to publish as much as possible just to share this knowledge and to establish as much as possible this diffusion of knowledge and to create something that it's really impossible at least to criticizing everything what is done in the museum, as well as in kind of a small gathering. So that's something that it's a very complex process I must say. I'm teasing of course. And for us it's actually just to kind of this collaborative process it's very important to care as much as possible to spread and to organize more and more collectives around this, not only with all others I will be more easy you know.

So that affects the way that traveling going up and down is good just because of this unstable situation that we never know what will be happening with the museum because at the moment we have this very good relationship just because of this, let's say, personal relationship in a such a structure of criminal as Branka said. At the moment we have a good relationship with directors so who knows maybe after elections we have a completely different situation so no museum at all. So I think it's…

Branka: Since you k now that, for example, directors of the public culture institutions have to be party members.

Zoran: Yeah.

Stephen: Really?

Zoran: Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. So who knows what will happen after the election. So that's the way that we actually floating with it and then playing with this kind of structure of visibility in a way. So in that terms sometimes we're actually choosing which event we should particularly or very precisely put on a very strange life in museum. But basically you suggest the following with the media and everything which is actually following the political events.

Stephen: You know what interests me about this is really that the focus is not on art but they really quite decomplex the boat art. Their focus really is on what does it mean to build a collective that won't fall into the traps of other collectors?

Branka: What are the transpartical?

Stephen: We can come to that in a second.

Branka: Okay.

Stephen: But I wanted to say something else. One of the traps is that it's linked to the fact that when we met earlier in the restaurant I said "So are you both artists?" And you both said "No" and you laughed and you said no. And then I had to like cry and work to get the information that actually both were trained as artists but you do not self-describe or self-understand as artists today. And yet you do always work around art. I mean if you were artists it would just be self-interested. That would be a trap of a collective. It's in fact a collective community cannot be based on your self-interest right. It can't be just based oh we created Kuda because we didn't have any place to show so we created this place and now we're able to show our work more. Of course we showed our friend's work too but really we only showed our friend's because they're better artist than us they attracted more audience than we were able.

What I'm saying so maybe if you could comment a little bit about, actually when I push Branka it turned out maybe she actually is a sort of art related practitioner who practices theory. But what is specifically the thing we call art that strange ontological. We always like to say oh it doesn't matter but in fact we know it kind of does matter because it changes somehow everything while everything remains the same.

Branka: Yeah I'm really personally interested in what is political art or what is political in art? And what I learned and still feel like pretty much is the ignorant there because I'm really trying to be careful about it and I think that one first thing to discover what is political in art is abandon this self-sufficient position of feeling art produce like individual producer. And to work in collective would be kind of a first step. And then you are facing lots of other problems to in this kind of a work. And yet this is just me trying to make clear some things to myself, maybe somebody else can help with me, but for sure political art is not art that is dealing with political issues that's rarely the case.

But what is interesting the art or the art practices or collective art practice that could influence in a way the environment that could maybe change something in, as you say, change yet remaining the same. I'm not sure about that second part it does have to do with something that is disconnected with this efficiency subject or not I'm not sure. But yeah.

Zoran: Do you have a question?

Stephen: I've got a couple of more questions here.

Branka: Again you have a question.

Zoran: What does it mean the glue that collapsed?

Stephen: Yeah that doesn't fall into the traps of many other artists. One of the traps may be that an artist collective if it's composed of artists there's a high degree of inevitable self-interest. How can you have a successful collective based on self-interest? I'm pretty sure you can't I mean that would be my answer.

Branka: Yeah.

Stephen: I don't know what your thoughts on that.

Branka: Yeah I'm also pretty sure. It's not based – to be based solely on self-interest I wouldn't say that's very short term collective probably then. There must be another kind of common interest.

Stephen: I guess so like some sort of common goal or something like that you mean. Maybe let's just take Aaron's question because maybe it takes some things into more positive kind of direction. On a different note, you mentioned knowledge which sounds a bit like a vibrant knowledge as in stuff you learn and applying the future. Is that a correct assumption?

Branka: Wow Aaron you ask like good questions.

Stephen: Yeah.

Branka: It sounds a bit like the library of knowledge except you really apply in the future.

Stephen: Maybe what he means is we often talk about like artistic research producing knowledge but it's kind of a little bit mysterious as to what kind of knowledge art is able to produce. I mean it could produce the same sort of knowledge, maybe not quite as well as the social sciences or something like that, but what kind of knowledge would it predict let's say or what kind of knowledge would you predict specifically? I think he may be [inaudible 1:20:03].

Bronco: Yeah.

Zoran: When I assume the knowledge actually I'm actually focused on this kind of general view of the cultural production. In general that would include all these circumstances but what's going on and what's come up from the educational system and the artists. So what we have at the moment and still it's actually having this kind of myth of 19th Century era of the artists and still it's actually also added this sector of the artists where it actually comes from the socialism which is very, very interesting. I mean in general in socialism that it's actually very specific you know reservation artistic position. They actually already include themselves as a part of the heritage anyway. And it's a very important thing that actually have to be established as an succession for the artists and that they're already immediately start to be a part of this assembly and then comes up.

So basically we have his kind of very weak position of our system that they're actually just waiting from the stage to solve all these problems how they can just express their own quality or bright ideas. So that's actually why I'm actually say to just – and it also comes to this way a lot of artists, and especially the new generation, play at this kind of level of shifting with everything that comes up with this kind of everyday component of advertisement. And they actually make a lot of jokes of some kind of given positions but in general it's something which pretty much relates with this surface of everyday life. It's not really come deeply in the stature of what is really beyond the idea and why they're using some particular medium or any kind of business. So in that term actually I use knowledge just to be more critical for confidence itself.

So that was actually the way we actually approached the knowledge. Just to be able to argue more specifically what they would like to develop in the future. So I must say that capacity in general, capacity of art production in Novi Sad in Serbia is actually not so much developed. And then we actually looking on that to support or to given some kind of a positive kind of mood for any kind of collective we liked to start trying in our native.

Stephen: Sure.

Chris: I was going to say I would have no problem with self-interest as long as everybody in the collective got a turn.

Scott: That's interesting what does that mean.

Chris: Meaning if it's going to be collective it's just going to be one or two people and everybody just works on their projects and nobody else gets an opinion or whatever that I would have a problem with, but if everybody had a vote and a turn I don't have a problem with that.

Stephen: It wouldn't really be a collective it'll be some aggregate of individuals wouldn't it.

Chris: Yeah sort of I imagine.

Stephen: I guess you'd have a whole time where some of the parts would just be equal to some of the parts.

Chris: I supposed. Okay.

Stephen: I don't know.

Chris: I guess. Yeah.

Stephen: There's a question from – Branka is the study inside of art or perhaps the outside of knowledge for the art to be outside this powerful position and also to build oneself as a witness to chance is also charged with some kind of power. Now that Kuda is asked to solve some problems that others cannot do, how will Kuda approach these problems which are beyond the description of what it does at the moment? A bit abstract.

Branka: The second part, because they appeared in one minute time but it is already resourcing the kind of reaction that I cannot reconstruct now.

Stephen: Okay.

Branka: [Inaudible 1:25:16] can help us with that. Are we fantasizing the idea of the art collective?

Scott: Well I mean I'm actually glad that Chris asked that because on the one had well that certainly is one idea of what an ideal collective is you know. It's a sort of happy balance somehow or like some kind of happy marriage between full recognition of individuality and a kind of trusting togetherness or something like this where you kind of like can all share and take turns in some kind of ambulatory fashion. And true I mean a lot of the many art collectives some of the most interesting ones do operate that way in effect if not in presentation.

And it is a good idea I think to define what kinds of collectives that you guys are interested in and us too probably. If we're talking about the word collective I mean it's such a vast term but it's also sort of generic too it just means more than one thing that we're talking about at the same time. For instance, we've been talking about collective as a kind of like in the local situation there a collective or a public or something like that we've been talking about collective in that way or a larger collective sort of like collective memory or something like this. And then the sort of small tight knit groups that we often describe as this autonomous entities that are self-organized. And there's a kind of ambiguous with an ambiguous radical edge.

And many art groups actually even ones that are structured very differently than the most basic or the most, oh I don't know the most obvious ones, still are all structured totally differently. In our investigations or our – not investigations our interactions with other groups I mean the way that they structure themselves are setup as I mean they vary so widely from one to the other and even changes over time within the same group. So I don't know I think there might be a good idea to describe that. You guys probably have.

Stephen: Maybe you could address it just by talking about how you structured your own life. I mean you call it an organization and sometimes it feels like it.

Branka: It's basically like registered as a nonprofit organization like association of artist in some kind of interest to work together. That's…

Stephen: Done by load it's actually more…

Branka: Yeah it's a legal kind of a definition. But how do we operate? It's something that I would I don't know the closes definition would be that's the commission even kind of as much as I would like to have or its own thing equality. It's more like floating hierarchies so each of us are from project-to-project initiative-to-initiative give a kind of logic input, more entity. But of course there's the kind of discussions before that. So kind of a personal accumulative also plays a role. I for example am very much interested in starting and developing the publishing process. So that's kind of a mind thing but of course I'm trying to connect others to somehow have kind of a consensus about what the theme of the next publication will be. So I don't go and, I don't know, do something totally not relevant to the others.

So we tried to have based everything on the common decision. Of course it's sometimes some projects are more individually done than some others. And of course it depends as I said on the obscenities of people I'm more into the publishing than into the writing. Zoran is more into the organization and management. He's the person who can organize things very well. So someone with a different infinities and different capabilities, I don't know how to define it, the – I have to find the right it's important and so…

Scott: It sounds very much like what Chris was talking about.

Branka: No it's not healthy. So [inaudible 1:30:45] personality somehow.

Stephen;We'll get there.

Zoran: Definitely the [inaudible 1:31:07].

Branka: Yeah it's this script here in a way.

Stephen: Nice.

Branka: Thank you. That is funny. It's not really like that but it's…

Stephen: It'll be a great burger if you have them like that.

Zoran: Yeah.

Stephen: You know what we're running up to 2:00 in the morning here so we're going to have to end pretty soon.

Scott: Yes you guys are getting slap happy over there.

Branka: Funny.

Scott: But yeah for sure it's definitely getting late. You guys are troopers for staying up so late. I really hope that we can continue the discussion at some point about collectives. And actually I mean if you do still have a few more minutes we always try to end right on time at 8:00 but we could end earlier, it's six minutes until 8:00 though.

Stephen: Oh it's only six to well I was looking at the clock it's the wrong time here, sorry. No I didn't want to cut anybody short.

Branka: It's 2:00 am here.

Scott: We could…

Stephen: We'll come back to the collective thing but I just wanted to point out one interesting thing is that at one point in Plausible Artworlds we attempted to identify six different kinds of artworlds that we're interested in. And I maybe can't remember them off the top of my head but one of them was definitely the – maybe Scott you can help me – one of them was art having agriculture. One of them was a plausible art www artworlds and…

Scott: Yeah open source culture and online worlds in a sense. Yeah exactly.

Stephen: Yeah. But in a certain sense Kuda seems to – and another was autonomous production – but in a certain sense Kuda is kind of a reputation of our rather clumsy typology because they seem to be sort of like…

Branka: Going through.

Stpehen: Yeah sort of transversing the…

Bronco: Transversing is right.

Scott: I think that's a good point I mean in fact I think a number of the – not to reduce your particularities, but it's been very difficult for us to look at example and put them in a single category actually. I think what we are – I just pulled up another one of our old whiteboards but the different, not categories but kinds of artworlds that we've been looking at. I think you definitely have aspects of that people that in a process of instituting on some level. And either partnering with taking order in some cases just sort of Trojan horsing or other people transforming. Some just in bed with existing institutions.

And another example, not example but kind of succession in other social experiments, in my mind sort of the opposite of organizational art people who are saying well fuck these existing institutions we're out of here, we're doing our own thing completely off the grid or as close to it as possible. And it sort of sounds like the description of your local environment almost has that built in but yet you are making use of existing structures if you can. We've also like one of those was like what Stephen said art.www.worlds or something, open source culture and online worlds. And it seems like you're beginning to sort of portray that one.

Alternative economies is another kind of artworld or those structured around alternative economies. I don't know if you guys are involved in that as much as just sort of theorizing about it or an interest in that in general. And then the other two were autonomous information production which is definitely you're involved in and archiving creative culture which obviously you also are. So yeah.

Branka: And sometimes I have impression and some people accuse of for being inconsistent with our practices, but I think that's actually the main thing. Consistency for the state consistency is not leading us anywhere. So we are in away trying to accommodate our practices to the moment in time and place and to finish also to other times and place.

Scott: Yeah exactly. I mean it's one of the benefits from my point of view of using the art status at all. There's a kind of built-in inter or sometimes transdisciplinary leaning that you really can draw from or touchdown on any other existing field of study or practice without raising an eyebrow. And not necessarily designate any time to it either any specific amount of time. I mean I'd say that's one of its benefits. You know it's funny like what Stephen was mentioning earlier about your - I don't know if you necessarily said unwillingness to describe yourself as artist, maybe, but at least that you didn't initially yet we're trained that way. I mean that goes to a lot of people I think that are engaged in what some people describe as more open forms of cultural practice or who are interested in or basically interested in some kind of critical community building in general and who draw from art and other fields.

But I think I have to say it's kind of strange that we're doing this series of talk called Plausible Artworlds right. Why would we do we talk to all of these people who do all these widely different things and yet somehow try to like lasso them all together under this and say "Oh you're all artists and you're all building artworld?" It sort of seems stupid doesn't it I mean in a way, but I have to say just on one hand one of the reasons that we do that I think, at least from my point of view, is that artists are really good often, and rethinking the structures of almost anything else in the world. Often except for our own field.

And the problem is that often even when we're making up our own, especially if it's because of limited circumstances whether its location or whatever, if we make up our own path well that doesn't necessarily exempt us from pitfalls of existing art structures. And I don't necessarily just mean institutions with a capital I or big places necessarily but the kinds of structures that are setup that lead to certain results often and that we kind of know what those results are often. Not to say that they might not change in other circumstances that we can't change because I think that we can depending but I think that when we don't sort of acknowledge that we're working with all the benefits that comes with that if not history at least whatever sentiment comes along when you describe what you're doing as contemporary art. And if we don't focus our attention or our thinking to feel that we're working it what happens is all these efforts, all these alternative efforts that we are involved in gets funneled and represented through the existing structures sort of nullifying a lot of the efforts that we're involved in.

Stephen: Well I totally agree with that. I think it's the first time I heard you say that Scott. That's kind of like the reason we do Plausible Artworlds right. You guys want to wrap it up.

Scott: Yes. Michael was just saying he'd like to hear some specific examples of that kind of defaming process as we sometimes call it. But I think now we've actually gone over the 8:00 the 2:00 a.m. limit for you. But I just wanted to sort of mention that if nothing else, not to hear myself talk and I hope I didn't, but for maybe – I know I just had a two hour conversation but maybe another kind of conversation topic opener for next time or for a future exchange.

Branka: Yeah definitely would be great to continue.

Zoran: Yeah.

Branka: Because it was quite inspirational talk which we haven't had for a long time.

Zoran: Yeah.

Branka: That was.

Zoran: Yeah something to add just briefly is something you know that we actually do and actually establish something to be kind of a legal body is suggests one of the strategical tactics. Of course a lot of friends of ours and the other artists also in doing some other kind of petitioners and practice which is actually not necessarily has to be presentable. So basically it's a focal question of factual positions and how we deal with kind of art in society. And of course we share a lot of in the image of us but it includes all these circumstances of one of the town where we're from and some of the centralizing and economy of the country where we come from spiritually decided this kind of illegal body could be kind of the proper measure. But who knows maybe next year is always the case maybe summarize to create completely the [inaudible 1:42:21]. So the whole platform of presenting the collaborative works could be presented in many, many different ways. And it's a question of something…

Stephen: Okay well maybe we the word us is a good word to between us is a good one to end the conversation on.

Scott: Absolutely. Well guys thank you so much for staying up so late drinking and talking with us.

Branka: Thank you for inviting us. Interesting as well. It was a great stuff.

Zoran: Yeah.

Stephen: Thank you.

Zoran: Thank you bye.

Stephen: Until next week.

Scott: Until then guys.

Stephen: Yeah. Goodnight Scott.

Branka: Bye.

Scott: Goodnight. We need some music.

Stephen: Actually we're talking on Sunday right with Incubate.

Scott: Oh hey you're still there. Yeah absolutely we are planning to talk on Sunday.

Stephen: Okay. Bye.

Scott: Until then everyone.