razgovarali fotografije photo by Studio Olafur Eliasson (soe)

interviewed by Jens Ziehe (jz)

Markus Tretter (mt)
Santi Caleca (sc)
Poul Pedersen (pp)
portreti portraits Studio Olafur Eliasson (soe)

Maroje Mrduljaš Alan Kostrenčić

Umjetnost je Art is Frictional

frikcionalna

Oris — Dok smo na karti Berlina tražili vaš studio, uočili smo
da se nalazite blizu sveučilišta Humboldt, što je zanimljivo jer
se bavite spajanjem umjetnosti i znanosti; uvijek vas zani-
ma taj napredni kontekst, stoga je metaforično da ste ovdje.
Postavlja se pitanje odnosa između umjetnosti i znanosti u
vašem radu. ¶ Eliasson — Prilično općenito pitanje. Očito
je da nisam znanstvenik, nemam znanstvenu izobrazbu niti
imam nekih posebnih tehničkih vještina.
Oris — Ipak, Experiment Marathon koji ste vi i Hans Ulrich
Obrist organizirali u Serpentine Gallery Pavilionu u Londonu
u jesen 2007. godine, uključivao je predavanja i prezentacije
Razgovarali u studiju
Olafura Eliasonna, Berlin,
14. svibnja 2008.
Interviewed in Studio
Olafur Eliasson, Berlin,
March 14th, 2008
Oris — When we were looking at the map of Berlin, searching
for your studio, we noticed that you are situated near Hum-
boldt University, which we find interesting because you are
engaged in merging art and science; you are always interested
in this advanced context, so it’s kind of metaphorical that you
are here. The question is the relationship between art and sci-
ence in your work. ¶ Eliasson — It’s such a broad question.
It’s obvious that I’m not a scientist and I’m not scientifically
trained or particularly technically skilful.
Oris — Still, the Experiment Marathon which you and Hans
Ulrich Obrist organized at the Serpentine Gallery Pavilion in

Olafur Eliasson

16 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008 olafur eliasson, Intervju olafur eliasson, Interview 17
 umjetnika, ali i znanstvenika iz različitih područja.
¶ Eliasson — Mnogi znanstvenici rade na razvoju alata po-
moću kojih možemo pristupiti svijetu. Slično kao u svijetu
umjetnosti, znanstvenici osmišljavaju načine gledanja na svi-
jet i zato umjetnost povremeno uzima u obzir znanstvene
alate ili način na koji znanost promišlja stvari. Ova tema ima
nekoliko aspekata i, naravno, ovisi o grani znanosti ili vrsti
umjetničkog projekta o kojem je riječ. U biti, u svojoj umjet-
ničkoj ili prostornoj praksi neprestano tražim alate koji mogu
uvesti nove kritičke poglede na rad i tako testirati određena
znanstvena načela. Ona se možda ne mogu primijeniti na
holističku prirodu mojih pitanja; mogu se djelomično primi-
jeniti samo na dio pitanja pojačavajući određenu kvalitetu ili
određeno kritičko načelo. ¶ Tema Experiment Marathona u
Londonu je bila razvijanje pripovijedanja; stvaranje čitavog
slijeda pokusa, jednog za drugim, više ili manje znanstvenih.
Otkrio sam da je sveukupna priča koja iz toga proizlazi pro-
duktivna, jer je Experiment Marathon dao gotovo psihografski
dojam o alatima pomoću kojih danas gledamo na svijet. Bilo je
to doista uzbudljivo. Ipak, razmjer znanstvenika u Serpentine
Pavilionu bio je minimalan u usporedbi s brojem znanstvenih
disciplina u svijetu. Mikroskopski, doista.
Oris — Nije bilo jednostavno pratiti sve te pokuse, prezen-
tacije i performanse. No na koncu je iskustvo ipak bilo silno
intenzivno jer ne morate u potpunosti razumjeti sve te kon-
cepte i ideje. Konačni rezultat je osnovna ideja i pregled onoga
što se događa i u svijetu umjetnosti i u svijetu znanosti.
¶ Eliasson — Budući da većina znanstvenika pokušava ma-
pirati svijet na ovaj ili onaj način, oni će uvijek imati osjećaj
preklapanja sa stvarnošću iako rade u okvirima vrlo specifičnih
područja. Gotovo sva znanost je na ovaj ili onaj način pove-
zana sa svijetom.
Oris — Društvu je potrebna i umjetnost kako bi formuliralo
opsežnije shvaćanje samog sebe. ¶ Eliasson — Ipak, bitno
je reći da bi umjetnost, barem ja tako mislim, trebalo gledati
u kontekstu društva i vremena u kojem živimo. Oduvijek me
zanimalo demistificiranje umjetnosti kroz naglašavanje neke
vrste uzročno-posljedičnog odnosa između umjetnosti i druš-
tva. Ustvari, umjetnost je više dijalog negoli stav. Treba biti
pažljiv sa stavovima da umjetnost ima mističnu moć učiniti
stvari zanimljivijima samo zato što je ono što jest. Kao i u zna-
nosti, iznimno se važno usredotočiti na sadržaj, a to ne mora
nužno biti vrlo specifično, ili objašnjivo ili programatično. Ipak,
na umjetnički bi sadržaj i formu trebalo gledati kao na nešto
frikcionalno, možda čak i kao na otpor našem društvu. Ako
eliminirate ideju da je umjetnost frikcionalna, onda ona ima
tendenciju postati nešto vrlo formalno.
18 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008
London in autumn 2007 included lectures and presentations
by artists but also scientists from different fields.
¶ Eliasson — Many scientists work on developing tools with
which we can address the world. Not unlike in the realm of art,
scientists are making ways of seeing the world and that’s why
art occasionally takes scientific tools or ways of questioning
things into consideration. The topic is multifaceted, and it of
course depends on the type of science and the type of artistic
project in question. Essentially, in my artistic or spatial prac-
tice I constantly look for tools that can introduce new critical
perspectives on the work, and in doing that, I can test certain
scientific principles. They might not apply to the holistic na-
ture of my questions; they might apply to part of the question
only, amplifying a certain quality or a certain critical principle.
¶ The Experiment Marathon in London was about developing a
narrative; creating a whole sequence of experiments, one after
the other, more or less scientific. I found the overall narrative
coming out of that productive as the Marathon gave you an
almost psychographic feeling of what tools we are looking at
the world with today. This was quite exciting. Still, the pro-
portion of scientists in the Serpentine Pavilion was minimal
compared to the number of scientific directions in the world.
Microscopic, really.
Oris — It was not easy to follow all these experiments, pres-
entations and performances. But in the end the experience
was still extremely intense because you don’t have to com-
pletely understand all these concepts and ideas. The end
result is a basic idea and survey of what’s going on in both
the artistic and the scientific worlds. ¶ Eliasson — As most
scientists try to map the world in one way or the other, they
will always have a feeling of overlap with reality, even though
they work from within very specific fields. Almost all science
is world-related in one way or another.
Oris — And society also needs art in order to formulate a more
comprehensive understanding of itself. ¶ Eliasson — It’s im-
portant to say, though, that art – in my opinion – should be
seen in the context of the society and the time in which we
live. I’ve been interested in demystifying art by emphasizing
a sort of cause-and-effect relationship between art and soci-
ety. Art is really a dialogue rather than just a statement. One
should be careful in claiming that art has a mystical power to
make things more interesting simply due to its being art. Just
as in science, it’s really important to focus on the content,
and this might not necessarily be very specific or explainable
or programmatic. Still, artistic content and form should be
seen as something frictional, even giving resistance to our
society. If you eliminate the idea that art is frictional, it tends
Oris — U nekim intervjuima govorili ste o kalifornijskom to become very formal.
pokretu Light and Space koji je imao utjecaja na vas. Izni- Oris — You spoke in some interviews about the Californian
mno je zanimljivo vidjeti da se zanimate i za fenomenološki Light and Space movement which influenced you. It’s quite
pristup, dok u isto vrijeme unosite i znanstveno znanje. To interesting to see that you have an interest in a phenomeno-
se čini kao logično spajanje. ¶ Eliasson — Dok sam bio mla- logical approach, while you also incorporate scientific knowl-
di student umjetnosti kasnih 80-ih i ranih 90-ih, poimanje edge. This seems like a logical merger. ¶ Eliasson — When
umjetnosti kao objekta bilo je iznimno dominantno, dijelom I was still a young art student in the late 1980s and early 90s,
zbog vrlo snažnog tržišta umjetninama, no i kao reakcija na the notion of objecthood in art was really dominant, partly
60-te i posebice 70-te godine. Umjetnost je na neki način bila because of a very strong art market, but also just as a reaction
zarobljena u fetišističkim idejama o tome što objekt doista to the 60s and particularly the 70s. Art was somehow caught
jest. Budući da sam bio vrlo skeptičan u tom pogledu, tražio up in these fetishistic ideas of what an object is. As I was very
sam alternative. Jedno od područja u kojem sam našao veliko sceptical about that, I looked for alternatives, and one area I
nadahnuće bio je pokret Light and Space, jer su se ti umjet- found particularly inspiring was the Light and Space move-
nici bavili dematerijalizacijom umjetničkih objekata – mislim ment, as these artists were involved in the dematerialized art
da je mnogo ljudi to radilo bez oduzimanja kontekstualnog object – I think there were many doing this, without taking
potencijala umjetnosti. Umjetnici iz pokreta Light and Space away the contextual potential of art. The Light and Space
htjeli su usmjeriti pozornost na iskustvo umjetnosti, na odnos artists wanted to draw attention to the experience of art, to
između svega što su radili, umjetničkog djela i promatrača, a the relationship between whatever they did, the artwork, and
isto tako i gledati na odnos kao na nešto progresivno i proak- the spectator, and they also wanted to see the relationship
tivno, ne samo kao na puki odnos. Na primjer, Robert Irwin se as something progressive and proactive, not just a formal re-
bavio psihologijom i drugim temama koje bi se mogle smatrati lationship. Robert Irwin, for instance, became involved with
izvan domene umjetnosti. To je bilo vrlo bitno – Irwin je, uz psychology and other topics that people might think were
ljude kao što je James Turrel,l bio izvor mog nadahnuća. Nešto external to art. This was very important – Irwin was a source
kasnije sam se počeo zanimati za pitanja kao što je fenomeno- of inspiration to me alongside people like James Turrell. Only
logija. Uopće nisam učen čovjek što se fenomenologije tiče, no a little bit later did I become more interested in issues such
gledao sam na to kao na dio svog školovanja. Čitao sam djela as phenomenology. I’m not at all a scholar of phenomenology,
Mauricea Merleau-Pontyja i Edmunda Husserla, te sam pre- but I looked at it as part of my schooling. I read some Maurice
ko Husserla došao do Henrija Bergsona. Bilo je to poprilično Merleau-Ponty and Edmund Husserl and through Husserl I
izravno – smatram da je bitno priznati da se Husserla može approached Henri Bergson. This was pretty straightforward
čitati na najmanje dva načina: ili kao vrlo akademsku filozofsku – I think it’s important to acknowledge that you can read Hus-
vježbu ili kao alate za različite načine propitivanja društvenih serl in at least two ways, either as a very academic exercise of
pitanja. Počeo sam se zanimati za fenomenologiju i propitivati philosophy, or you can look at Husserl as a toolbox for ways
odnos između ljudi i umjetnosti te način na koji umjetnost of questioning social issues. I took interest in phenomenology
djeluje u društvu. Kad me ljudi pitaju zanima li me osobito and started questioning the relationship between people and
fenomenologija, ja im obično kažem: ‘Ne, zanima me umjet- art and how art operates in society. When people ask me if I’m
nost,’ no fenomenologija mi pomaže dati umjetnosti glas koji particularly interested in phenomenology, I normally say: ‘No,
govori nešto s mjerom preciznosti koju je inače teško ostvariti. I’m interested in art,’ but phenomenology helps me give art
Fenomenologija kao područje proučavanja je nešto o čemu a voice that says something with a degree of precision that
nemam mnogo toga za reći. Osim umjetnika iz pokreta Light is otherwise difficult to obtain. Phenomenology as a field of
and Space, velikog su utjecaja na mene imali Fluxus, dadaisti, study is something I don’t have much to say about. Apart from
nadrealisti i kinetički umjetnici – ima toliko sjajnih stvari. the Light and Space artists, I was also influenced by a lot of
Oris — Smatram da je bitno istaknuti da se vaše zanimanje Fluxus, of Dada, by the surrealists and kinetic artists – there’s
za fenomenologiju ne svodi na pitanje percepcije ili spozna- so much great stuff around.
je jer društvenim pitanjima pristupate kroz fenomenološke Oris — I think it’s important to point out that your interest
koncepte. Ta je ideja utjelovljena u Serpentine Pavilionu, in phenomenology is not reduced to the question of percep-
koji ste dizajnirali s norveškim arhitektom Kjetilom Thor- tion or cognition, because you address social issues through
senom. Pavilion je očito izgrađen kao društveni prostor. phenomenological concepts. This idea was embedded in the
olafur eliasson, Intervju olafur eliasson, Interview 19
 Your Wave Is, 2006 Your Wave Is, 2006.
Instalacija za izložbu Instalacija za izložbu
François Pinault François Pinault
Collection, Palazzo Collection, Palazzo
Grassi, Venecija, Italija Grassi, Venecija, Italija
svjetleća žica, aluminij, svjetleća žica, aluminij,
čelik i kontrolna čelik i kontrolna
jedinica jedinica
Dimenzije: 21m x 36m Dimenzije: 21m x 36m
x 0,5m x 0,5m

Your Wave Is, 2006 Your Wave Is, 2006

Installation view Installation view
at François Pinault at François Pinault
Collection, Palazzo Collection, Palazzo
Grassi, Venice, Italy Grassi, Venice, Italy
Light wire, aluminium, Light wire, aluminium,
steel and control unit steel and control unit
Dimensions: 21m x Dimensions: 21m x
36m x 0.5m 36m x 0.5m

(sc) (sc)

¶ Eliasson — Trebao je biti društveni prostor, no zamisao je
bila da društvenost ne bude prethodno određena, nego da to
građevina takoreći izvede sama. Kroz to izvođenje stvorio bi
se prostor, a ne obratno. Prostor nije bio normativan na način
da bude specifični referentni okvir za društvenu aktivnost. Ne
znam jesmo li uspjeli, no htjeli smo da prostor ne bude za-
ključan. Samo kroz njegovu privremenost i socijalnu frikciju
je postao produktivan. Bez ljudi, mislim da se još uvijek radi
o lijepoj skulpturi, ali ne postiže isti rezultat.
Oris — Ako pogledamo arhitektonske časopise, na većini
fotografija zgrada nema ljudi; jedini svjedok njihove materi-
jalnosti je leća fotoaparata. No arhitektura se bavi događajima
i ljudima koji naseljavaju zgradu, ne samo samom zgradom.
¶ Eliasson — Jedan od mojih radova je i vrteća spirala ovje-
šena o strop [Quadruple spiral, 2004.]. Nije pretjerano sofi-
sticiran rad, no svoju zadaću obavlja vrlo dobro. Ako stojite
na mjestu i gledate u spiralu, čini vam se kao da se pokreće
gore ili dolje, no ako je krenete obilaziti, fizički utjecaj vašeg
kretanja zaustavlja kretanje spirale. Način na koji vidite spiralu
ovisi o brzini vašeg tijela. ¶ No vratimo se na slučaj Serpen-
tine Paviliona: kad opisujete zgradu u časopisu, očito nešto
trodimenzionalno pretvarate u dvodimenzionalni prikaz. Ako
Serpentine Pavilion, which you designed together with the
Norwegian architect Kjetil Thorsen. It’s obviously construct-
ed as a social space. ¶ Eliasson — It was intended to be a
social space, but the idea of the structure was that social-
ity would not be fixed beforehand but should perform itself,
so to speak. Through that performance the space would be
constituted; not the other way around. The space was not
normative in the sense that it claimed to be a specific frame
of reference for social activity. I don’t know whether we suc-
ceeded, but we wanted the space to be inconclusive. Only
through its temporality and social friction did it become pro-
ductive. With no people, I still think it was a nice sculpture,
but it wasn’t performing.
Oris — When you look at architectural magazines, most of
the time buildings are photographed without people, the only
witness of its materiality is the camera lens. But architecture
is all about events and people inhabiting the building, not
just the building itself. ¶ Eliasson — One of my works is
a turning spiral, suspended from the ceiling [Quadruple Spi-
ral, 2004]. It’s not a particularly sophisticated work, but it
does what it does very well. If you stand still, looking at the
spiral, it seems to be moving either up or down, but if you

20 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008 olafur eliasson, Intervju olafur eliasson, Interview 21
 Notion Motion 2005.
Instalacija u Muzeju
Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam,
Nizozemska, 2005
HMI lampe, tronožac,
voda, folija, folija za
projekciju, drvo, najlon,
spužva

Notion Motion 2005

Installation view at
Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 2005
HMI lamps, tripods
water, foil, projection
foil, wood, nylon,
sponge

(soe)

oduzmete dubinu zgrade ograničavajući je na dvije dimenzije,
oduzimate i njezinu vremensku dimenziju. Na taj način ne
samo da objekt postaje plošan već ga činite bezvremenskim.
Vjerujem da smo u arhitekturi i prostornim znanostima došli
do faze u kojoj je vremenska kvaliteta izgubila svoju vrijed-
nost. Postala je eksternom i isključenom zato što se ona, a
i poimanje promjene, ne uključuju u komercijalne strukture.
Tržište vremensku kvalitetu i promjenu ne smatra profitabilni-
ma. Zbog toga smo morali ponovo uvesti vremensku kvalitetu
na produktivan način, budući da je vrlo vrijedan kritički alat
kojim ne dekonstruiramo nego ponovo procjenjujemo način
(soe) (jz)
walk around it, the physical impact that your own movement
introduces makes the spiral stop. How you see the spiral is
dependent on the speed of your own body. ¶ But to get back
to the Serpentine Pavilion case: if you depict a building in a
magazine, you obviously turn something three-dimensional
into a two-dimensional representation. When you take away
the depth of the building by reducing it to two dimensions,
you also take away its temporal dimension. So you don’t only
make the object flat; you also make it atemporal. I believe
that we have come to a phase in architecture and the spa-
tial sciences where temporality has lost its value. It has be-

22 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008 olafur eliasson, Intervju olafur eliasson, Interview 23
 The Weather Project, na koji pristupamo prostoru. Zamisao iza Serpentine Paviliona come externalized and excluded because it – and the idea of
2003.
bila je osmisliti paviljon bez prednje i stražnje strane. Bio je change – doesn’t fit into commercial structures. Temporality
Turbine hall, Tate
Modern, London, temeljen na vrlo jednostavnim geometrijskim načelima: kruž- and change aren’t considered profitable by the market. So we
Velika Britanija nici, elipsi, spirali i stošcu. Stvaranjem rampe uveli smo ideju have to reintroduce temporality in a productive way as it’s very
monofrekventna
hodanja po kosini, nešto što gotovo ne možete ni osjetiti na valuable as a critical tool with which, not to deconstruct, but
svjetla, folija za
projekciju, stroj za fotografiji. Na vrhu rampe, gdje završava krov, umjesto stan- to re-evaluate the way we address space. The idea behind the
proizvodnju pare, dardnog okulusa napravili smo elipsu. Elipsa ima uzbudljivo Serpentine Pavilion was to devise a pavilion with no front and
zrcalna folija, aluminij
svojstvo da se ne iskrivljuje gledano u perspektivi, za razliku no back. It was based on some very simple geometric prin-
i skele
Dimenzije: 26,7 m x od kruga koji postaje elipsa. Matematički gledano, elipsa se ciples: a circle, an ellipse, a spiral and a cone. By making a
22,3 m x 15,54m ne mijenja. To znači: ako pogledate Panteon u Rimu, okulus u ramp, we introduced the idea of walking on a slope – which
stropu na temelju deformacije kružnice u elipsu ugrubo otkri- is something you can hardly feel at all in a picture. At the top
The Weather Project,
2003 va gdje se nalazite u odnosu na središte zgrade. Moglo bi se of the ramp, where the roof ended, we made an ellipse rather
Turbine Hall, Tate reći da su orijentacijske upute uzidane u zgradu te da se akti- than the standard circular oculus. The ellipse has the excit-
Modern, London, UK
viraju fizičkim kretanjem kroz nju. Stavljanjem elipse na strop ing property that it isn’t deformed when seen in perspective
Monofrequency lights,
projection foil, haze mijenja se situacija jer vam elipsa ne pomaže na isti način, ne – unlike a circle which becomes an ellipse. Mathematically, an
machines, mirror govori vam gdje ste. Orijentiranjem i kretanjem uokolo, biva- ellipse does not change. This means that if you look at the
foil, aluminium and
njem u vremenu sami tvorite vrijeme. Elipsa ne funkcionira Pantheon in Rome, the oculus in the ceiling reveals roughly
scaffolding
Dimensions: 26.7 m x kao hijerarhijski ključ da vam objašnjava kad ste na lijevoj ili where you are in relation to the centre of the building, based
22.3 m x 15.54m des­noj strani prostora. Na to mislim kad kažem da zgrada ne on the deformation of the circle into an ellipse. One could
producira vas – vi producirate zgradu. Naravno da se radi o say that orientational directions are embedded in the building
(jz)
dijalogu; naravno da zgrada uvijek producira vas u nekoj mjeri, and these are activated as you physically move through it. By
no isto se tako radi o prebacivanju odgovornosti na korisnika. putting an ellipse in the ceiling, the situation changes because
I to je bila naša ideja s Experimental Marathonom – naglasiti it doesn’t help you in the same way by telling you where you
koprodukciju stvarnosti, koliko god to ludo zvučalo. are. By orienting yourself, by moving around, being in time or
Oris — Arhitekti često pokušavaju nametnuti univerzalni, ek- of time, you constitute the space yourself. The ellipse doesn’t
skluzivni red praktički radeći suprotno od uključivanja korisni- function as a hierarchical key, explaining when you are on the
ka. Većina vaših projekata uključuje gledatelja kao aktivnog left side of the space, when on the right. This is what I mean
sudionika u događaju. Vaša umjetnost je događaj gledanja, by saying that the building was not producing you – you pro-
bivanja i istraživanja. ¶ Eliasson — Povijesno gledano, smat­ duced the building. Of course it’s a dialogue; of course the
ram da je umjetnost općenito smatrana proaktivnom u stva- building always produces you to a certain extent, but it’s also
ranju individualnog identiteta; ona izaziva osobne odgovore i about handing over responsibility to the user. This was also
tjera ljude da promišljaju ono što jesu. Arhitektura ima snaž- our idea with the Experiment Marathon, to emphasise our
niju tradiciju bivanja normativnom jer teži predstavljanju druš- co-production of reality, as crazy as it sounds.
tvenih vrijednosti u određeno vrijeme; ne nužno na nekritičan Oris — Architects often try to impose a universal, exclusive
način, no još uvijek ima reprezentativnu dimenziju. Umjetnost, order, practically doing the opposite of inclusion of the users.
s druge strane, želi napustiti ideju predstavljanja – što također Most of your projects engage a viewer to be an active partici-
nije nužno istina. Ipak, umjetnost ne promišlja samo vrijedno- pant in the event. Your art is an event of seeing, being and
sti danog vremena nego radije propituje te vrijednosti; u tome exploring. ¶ Eliasson — Historically, I think art in general has
je temeljna razlika. Naravno, opet generaliziram. been considered proactive in the creation of individual identi-
Oris — Smatrate li da su vaša prostorna istraživanja poveza- ty; it elicits personal responses and challenges people to reflect
na s arhitekturom ili na njih još uvijek gledate kao na umjet- on who they are. Architecture has a stronger tradition of being
nost? ¶ Eliasson — Nikada nisam tvrdio da sam arhitekt, a normative because it tends to represent the societal values at
na kraju krajeva na sve gledam kao na umjetnost. Danas mi se a certain time, not necessarily in a non-critical manner, but it
čini relevantnim tvrditi da jednostavno nije bitno radi li se o still has a representational dimension. Art on the other hand
umjetnosti ili o arhitekturi dokle god se rad ponaša na način na claims to leave the idea of representation behind – which is
koji to želimo i dokle god kritičnost ima utjecaja. Smatram da also not necessarily true. Still art doesn’t just reflect the values
je ideja laboratorija, ideja eksperimentalnog platoa vrlo pro- of a given time; rather it questions those values, that’s the

24 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008 olafur eliasson, Intervju olafur eliasson, Interview 25
 duktivna. Nalazi se između dizajna, umjetnosti, arhitekture,
mode, prostornih eksperimenata kao takvih, znanstvenih ek-
sperimenata, socijalno-etičkih eksperimenata... Zbog toga je
u mom studiju, tu gdje upravo sjedimo, 35 ljudi. Ja ga smatram
laboratorijem koji je dio većeg konteksta, dio Berlina. Iznimno
je bitno da ne kažem da ulaskom u laboratorij ostavljate Berlin
iza sebe. Ulazak u laboratorij znači još veće približavanje Ber-
linu. ¶ I sad ću još jednom ustvrditi da sam mainstream – ne
avangarda – zato što mi to daje potencijal stvaranja frikcije sa
stvarnošću koja me okružuje. Želim razgovarati s koliko god je
ljudi moguće, a biti avangardan je vrlo kontraproduktivno za
to. To je elitistički. Jedan od velikih izazova svijeta umjetnosti
je njegov elitizam i arogancija.
Oris — Časopis koji ste pokrenuli je također dio ovog projek-
ta, koji dokumentira što se dešava u studiju [TYT [Take Your
Time], Vol.1: Small Spatial Experiments], zato što se radi o
pravom laboratoriju koji zavređuje da ga se prikaže kao istra-
živački proces. ¶ Eliasson — Radi se o eksperimentu. Nakon
što napravimo još jedan ili dva broja, znat ćemo radi li se o
dobroj ideji ili ne. Smatram da je to uzbudljivo – možda je to
svima dalo mogućnost gledanja na sebe u kontekstu studija sa
stajališta trećih osoba; to je vrlo zdravo zato što uvodi odre-
đenu količinu kritike.
26 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008
fundamental difference. Of course, I’m generalizing again.
Oris — Do you see your spatial investigations as related to
architecture or you still see them as art? ¶ Eliasson — I’ve
never claimed to be an architect, and, at the end of the day,
I always see things as art. It seems relevant today to sug-
gest that it simply does not really matter whether it is art
or architecture, as long as it performs the way we want it to,
and as long as the criticality has an impact. I think the idea
of a laboratory, the idea of an experimental plateau, is very
productive. It’s in-between design, art, architecture, fashion,
spatial experiments as such, scientific experiments, socio-
ethical experiments.... This is why there are about 35 people
in my studio – where we’re sitting right now. I think of this as
a laboratory which is part of a bigger context, part of Berlin.
It’s very important not to say that when you step into the
laboratory, you leave Berlin behind. Going into the laboratory
means getting even closer to Berlin. ¶ I now and again claim
to be mainstream – not avant-garde – because this gives me
the potential of creating friction with the surrounding reality.
I want to talk to as many people as possible, and to be avant-
garde would be very counterproductive for this. It’s elitist.
One of the big challenges of the art world is its elitism and
arrogance.
Oris — Vaš je ured organiziran kao istraživački laboratorij,
no vi ste sada uključeni u organiziranje škole, što će biti neka
vrsta paralele ili kontrapunkt ovom studiju. Zanima me ta rad-
na metodologija i ideja prijenosa znanja. ¶ Eliasson — Či-
tava je stvar još uvijek vrlo dvojbena, no pokušavam pronaći
putanju koja uključuje sumnju na produktivan način. Izazov
je vidjeti možemo li učiniti nešto tako radikalno kao što je
škola, a u isto vrijeme dopustiti sumnji da nam bude vodilja.
Igramo se s nazivom instituta – razmišljao sam o Institut für
Zweifelhafte Raumforschung, što znači Institut za dvojbena
prostorna istraživanja. To je radni naziv, ali ga vjerojatno ne-
ćemo upotrijebiti. Radi se o dijelu veće suradnje koju bih htio
naglasiti između studija, muzeja i sveučilišta. Studio kao što
je ovaj se očito bavi različitim vrstama produkcije, a o muze-
jima ili izložbama cijelo vrijeme razmišljam na taj način da
omogućuju komunikaciju umjetnosti. Komuniciramo ono što
radimo ovdje. Isto tako sam htio raditi na proizvodnji znanja
koje se odvija u sveučilištima i u čitavom obrazovnom sustavu;
htio sam promisliti pedagoška načela. Zato praksu tih triju
institucija opisujem kao produkciju, komunikaciju i znanje.
Isto tako sam predložio ime ProCoKnow [PROduction COm-
munication KNOWledge]. Htio bih razviti koncept škole koja
omogućava prostorne i umjetničke eksperimente, socijalno-
etičke eksperimente, a koji opet ostavlja prostora za izložbe i
olafur eliasson, Intervju
Oris — The magazine you started [TYT [Take Your Time],
Vol.1: Small Spatial Experiments] is also a part of this project,
documenting what’s going on inside the studio because this
is a real laboratory and deserves to be shown as a research
process. ¶ Eliasson — It’s an experiment. Whether it’s a
good idea or not we will know after having produced one or
two more issues. I think it’s exciting – maybe it has given
everybody the ability to look upon themselves in the context
of the studio from a third-person point of view; this is very
healthy because it introduces a degree of criticism.
Oris — Your office is organized as a research laboratory,
but you are now also engaged in organizing a school, which
is going to be some kind of parallel or counterpoint to this
studio. I’m interested in this methodology of work and the
idea of transmitting knowledge. ¶ Eliasson — I’m still very
doubtful about the whole thing, but I try to find a trajectory
that embraces the doubt in a productive way. It’s a challenge
to see if we can do something as radical as a school and yet
allow doubt to be our guide. We are playing with the name
for the institute – I was thinking of Institut für Zweifelhafte
Raumforschung, meaning Institute for Doubtful Spatial Re-
search. That’s the working title, but we probably won’t use it.
It’s part of a larger collaboration that I would like to emphasise
between the studio, museums and universities. A studio like
olafur eliasson, Interview 27
 njihovo komuniciranje; škole također mogu imati internetske
stranice i časopis. Bio sam povezan s nekoliko arhitektonskih
i umjetničkih škola diljem svijeta, od Azije do Amerike, no
većinom u Europi. Alarmantno je jasno da nešto nije u redu,
no jednostavno je teško učiniti nešto u vezi toga. Kad kažem
prigrliti sumnju, mislim na sumnju kao vrstu progresivne kri-
tike. Ima jedan umjetnik, Carsten Höller, koji se bavio time. U
njegovoj terminologiji, u trenutku kad ste sigurni, rad nestaje.
Škola je dio Universität der Künste u Berlinu. Ja ću vjerojatno
imati između 15 i 20 studenata, ili sudionika, što je možda bolji
naziv, te će imati profesore-suradnike ili gostujuće profesore.
Bit će to laboratorij sličan onome u Serpentine’s paviljonu u
Londonu, osim što se neće sve dogoditi u jednom danu. Ne
tiče se to imanja studija ili škole. Radi se o imanju sfere s dvije
diskretne jedinice, zbog čega su one locirane tako blizu jedna
druge – gotovo u istom prostoru.
Oris — Htio sam vas pitati o elementu prirode koji uvodite
u svoje projekte na mnogim različitim razinama – od projek-
ta u kojem ste koristili boju kako biste obojili rijeku (projekt
Green River) do situacije u kojoj ste transponirali prirodu
na primjeru Kunsthausa u Bregenzu (The mediated motion,
2001.). ¶ Eliasson — Smatram da je priroda jedinstvena u
jednom pogledu: vrlo je neuhvatljiva i puna potencijala da nas
potakne da stvorimo osobne naracije ili priče. Neuhvatljiva u
smislu da je teško aktivno točno locirati jedan oblak; prolazne
kvalitete su s jedne strane toliko snažne. No s druge strane,
priroda je uvijek vrlo opipljiva, vrlo fizička, vrlo tjelesna. Tiče
se aktivacije naših različitih osjetila. Jedan od razloga moje
fascinacije prirodom njena je sposobnost biti u isto vrijeme i
neuhvatljiva i taktilna – nešto u čemu arhitektura primjerice
rijetko uspijeva. Nažalost, arhitekt je često točno u sredini.
¶ Mene zanima stvaranje fenomena u koje ljudi mogu projici-
rati vlastita mišljenja i iskustva. To znači da moram odabrati
temu ili fenomen koji je vrlo otvoren za tumačenje. Priroda
ima sposobnost biti otvorena za različite vrste tumačenja.
Tako na jedan način priroda i prirodni fenomeni teže biti vrlo
dostupnima, vrlo demokratičnima. Duga, mahovina ili kamen
su lako pristupačni. Prirodu više koristim kao jezik ili oblik
kojim mogu pristupiti stvarima za koje sam zainteresiran. Mo-
gao bih upotrijebiti i drugačiji jezik – a povremeno upravo to i
činim. Općenito govoreći, ne pokušavam bit romantičan u vezi
prirode. Moj se rad ne bavi prirodom, nego ljudima.
Oris — Priroda funkcionira kao umjetnički materijal. Pri-
mjerice, u vašem projektu Your Black Horizon (2005.) prvo
ste uzeli uzorak promjenjivog svjetla u Veneciji, potom na
Lopudu, te potom upotrijebili taj prirodni fenomen i stvori-
li kognitivno fiziološki efekt. ¶ Eliasson — Da, nije uvijek
28 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008
this one is obviously about different kinds of production and
the way I think about museums or exhibitions, which I do
all the time, is that they facilitate the communication of art.
It’s the communication of what we do here. I’ve also wanted
to work with the production of knowledge as it takes place
in universities and the entire educational system; I want to
reflect on pedagogic principles. That’s why I call the practice
of these three institutions for production, communication,
and knowledge. I’ve also suggested the name ProCoKnow
[PROduction COmmunication KNOWledge]. I would like to
develop a school concept that allows for spatial and artistic
experiments, for socio-ethical experiments, and that also
leaves room for exhibitions and the communication of these;
the school can also have a homepage and a magazine. I’ve
been involved with several architecture and art schools around
the world, from Asia to America, but mostly in Europe. It’s
alarmingly clear that something is not right, but it’s just dif-
ficult to do something about it. When I say that I embrace
doubt, I mean doubt as a kind of progressive criticality. There’s
a wonderful artist called Carsten Höller, who’s worked with
this. In his terminology, the moment you’re certain, the work
disappears. The school is a part of the Universität der Künste
in Berlin. I will probably have between 15 and 20 students, or
participants, which is maybe a better name, and we will have
a co-professor or visiting professors as well. It will be a labora-
tory not unlike the one at the Pavilion in London, except not
everything will happen in one day. It’s not about having the
studio or the school. It’s about making one sphere with two
discrete units, which is why they are located close to each
other – almost in the same space.
Oris — I wanted to ask you about the element of nature you
introduce into your projects on many different levels from the
project where you used colours [Green River project] to the
situation where you transposed nature into the Kunsthaus in
Bregenz [The Mediated Motion, 2001]. ¶ Eliasson — I think
nature is unique in one respect: it’s very elusive and full of
potential for us to create personal narratives or stories. Elusive
in the sense that it’s hard to actively pinpoint a cloud precisely;
the ephemeral qualities are so strong on the one hand. But on
the other, nature is always very tangible, very physical, very
much about the body. It’s about activating our various senses.
One reason for my fascination with nature is this ability to be
both elusive and tactile – something that architecture, for in-
stance, rarely succeeds in. Unfortunately, architecture is often
right in the middle. ¶ I’m interested in creating phenomena
into which people can project their own opinions and experi-
ences. This means I need to choose a subject matter or phe-
Olafur Eliasson
zajedno sa pejzažnim
arhitektom Güntherom
Wogtom
The mediated motion,
2001.
Kunsthaus Bregenz,
Austrija
voda, drvo, tlačena
zemlja, stroj za
proizvodnju magle,
metal, folija, Lemna
minor i Lentinula
edodes
Olafur Eliasson with
landscape architect
Günther Wogt
The Mediated Motion,
2001
Kunsthaus Bregenz,
Austria
Water, wood,
compressed soil, fog
machine, metal, foil,
Lemna minor and
Lentinula edodes
(mt)
lako s prirodom. Pseudoromantični znanstvenici, arhitekti nomenon that is very open for interpretation. Nature already
ili umjetnici znaju tvrditi da priroda ima mističan potencijal. has the ability to be open to various types of interpretation. So
Nacionalna romantična tradicija u arhitekturi, primjerice kod in one way, nature and natural phenomena tend to be very ac-
Plečnika, poigravala se idejom univerzalnog formalnog jezika cessible, very democratic. A rainbow or some moss or a stone
koja se odonda pokazala netočnom. Potencijal ne bi trebao are very easily accessible. I use nature more as a language or
biti eksternaliziran u cilj, no rast kristala ili uzoraka i slaganje a form with which I can address the things I’m interested in. I
načela prirode, te se stvari mogu istraživati sve dok ne donosi- could also use a different language – and I occasionally do just
mo univerzalne zaključke. Na to mislim kad kažem da priroda that. Generally speaking, I try not to romanticize about nature.
ima mogućnost biti neuhvatljiva i vrlo taktilna u isto vrijeme. My work is not about nature; it’s about people.
To može biti nešto što doživljavamo osobno, no također kao Oris — Nature functions as artistic material. Like, for exam-
nešto pomoću čega možemo ostvariti kontakt kao skupina, ple, with the Your Black Horizon project [2005], you first took
u društvenom okruženju. ¶ Govoreći o pojedincu i skupini – a sample of the changing light in Venice, then in Lopud, and
to me dovodi do ideje koju sam posudio od filozofa Jean-Luc then you used this natural phenomenon to produce cognitive-
Nancyja; ‘Being singular plural’- biti jedinstvena množina. On physiological effects. ¶ Eliasson — Yes, it’s not always easy
tvrdi da je jedini način bivanja u svijetu biti sa. Nikada ne mo- with nature, especially pseudo-romantic scientists, architects
žete jednostavno postojati, možete samo biti sa, tj. skupa s or artists tend to claim that nature holds a mystical potential.
nekim drugim, u isto vrijeme kada i nešto drugo. Ne postojite The national romantic tradition in architecture, for instance
prije odnosa s drugima. Smatram to vrlo zanimljivim. Polazeći by Plečnik, played with the idea of a universal formal language
odatle, to isto tako smatram izazovom za ponovnim pristupa- which, I think, since then has been proved wrong. The poten-
olafur eliasson, Intervju olafur eliasson, Interview 29
 Olafur Eliasson Olafur Eliasson
zajedno sa pejzažnim zajedno sa pejzažnim
arhitektom Güntherom arhitektom Güntherom
Wogtom Wogtom
The Mediated Motion, The Mediated Motion,
2001. 2001
Kunsthaus Bregenz, Kunsthaus Bregenz,
Austrija Austrija
voda, drvo, tlačena voda, drvo, tlačena
zemlja, stroj za zemlja, stroj za
proizvodnju magle, proizvodnju magle,
metal, folija, Lemna metal, folija, Lemna
minor and Lentinula minor and Lentinula
edodes edodes

Olafur Eliasson with Olafur Eliasson with

landscape architect landscape architect
Günther Wogt Günther Wogt
The Mediated Motion, The Mediated Motion,
2001 2001
Kunsthaus Bregenz, Kunsthaus Bregenz,
Austria Austria
Water, wood, Water, wood,
compressed soil, fog compressed soil, fog
machine, metal, foil, machine, metal, foil,
Lemna minor and Lemna minor and
Lentinula edodes Lentinula edodes

(mt) (mt)

njem nekim djelima ekspresionističke arhitekture: proučavao
sam njemačke ekspresioniste, ideju utopije u arhitekturi Ta-
lijana Paola Solerija, učenje Rudolfa Steinera i antropozofski
pokret. Pregršt je zanimljivih istraživanja koja su zanemariva-
na iz dogmatskih razloga. Nije irelevantno ponovo razmotriti
neke od tih eksperimenata sada kad se pozicija pojedinačne
osobe može drugačije definirati.
Oris — Zanima li vas na bilo koji način koncept utopije ili hete-
rotopije vezano za ta istraživanja? ¶ Eliasson — Tradicionalno
poimanje utopije smatram vrlo normativnim – ono se tiče
generalizacije ciljeva društva, definiranja zajedničkih ciljeva
koji ne ostavljaju puno mjesta individualnosti. Utopiju radije
smatram internim nego eksternim ciljem. Naravno, još uvijek
je vrijedno imati snove, stremiti nečemu. Pojedinačne utopije
su zanimljive – vaša osobna ambicija postajanja preciznijim
u načinu na koji vodite svoj život. To je velika stvar, naravno.
Problem s tradicionalnim poimanjem utopije je što je to defi-
nirano kao mjesto. Možda je izazov razumjeti da utopija nije
mjesto nego samo putovanje. Prema tome, pretpostavljam da
tial should not be externalized into a goal, but the growth
of crystals or the patterns and stacking principles of nature,
those things can be investigated as long as we don’t make
any universalizing conclusions. This is what I meant by saying
that nature has this ability to be both elusive and also very
tactile. It can be something that we experience personally,
but also something we can relate to as a group, in a social set-
ting.¶ Speaking of the individual and the group – this leads me
to an idea that I’ve borrowed from the philosopher Jean-Luc
Nancy: ‘being singular plural’. He states that the only way of
being in the world is being-with. You can never just be, you
can only be with, that is, together with someone else, at the
same time as something else. You don’t exist before the rela-
tion with others. I find this very interesting. Coming from here,
I also find it challenging to readdress some of the expression-
istic architecture: I’ve looked at the German expressionists, at
the idea of utopia in the architecture of, for instance, Paolo
Soleri from Italy, the Rudolf Steiner schools and the anthro-
posophic movement. There’s a lot of interesting research that
je vjerojatno na koncu odgovor na vaše pitanje ‘ne’, jer sam
uglavnom definirao što utopija nije.
Oris — U biti, postoji obzor ideje razvitka. To je suvremeni
način razmišljanja o utopiji. ¶ Eliasson — Smatram da ima
smisla govoriti o stvarnosti kao o konstrukciji ili nizu kon-
strukcija. Takvo shvaćanje omogućava veliku razinu kritično-
sti; možete govoriti o svijetu u kojem živimo kao o modelu
ili izgrađenom okolišu. Stvarnost se stvara kako i dok živimo
svoje živote; ne postoji sama po sebi. Smatram da ima smisla
tvrditi da je svijet model. Ta tvrdnja je, s druge strane, također
model, no isto tako i vrsta stvarnosti. Sviđa mi se taj način da
se samo producira: svaki put kad doista shvatite da je ono što
ste učinili stvaranje stvarnosti, stvarate novi sloj stvarnosti i
to integrirate u svoj svakodnevni rad i život.
Oris — Smatram da je to vrlo demokratično jer je očito da po-
stoje mnoge stvarnosti, ne samo jedna, što je upravo problem
singularnog pluraliteta. ¶ Eliasson — Rasprava o biti jedin-
stvene množine (’Being singular plural’) je ontološka, no isto je
tako možemo uvesti u suvremenu političku klimu i dovesti je
has been neglected for dogmatic reasons. It’s not irrelevant to
reconsider some of these experiments, now that the position
of the singular person can be defined differently.
Oris — Are you interested in any way in the concept of utopia
or heterotopia in relation to these investigations?
¶ Eliasson — I find the traditional notion of utopia very nor-
mative – it’s about generalizing the aims of society, of defining
common goals that don’t leave much room for individuality.
I prefer to think of utopia as something internal rather than
an externalized goal. It’s of course still worthwhile to have
dreams, to strive towards something. Singular utopias are in-
teresting – your personal ambition to become more precise in
the way you conduct your life. That, of course, is a big matter.
The problem with the traditional conception of utopia is that
it’s defined as a place. Maybe the challenge is to understand
that utopia is not a place, but that it’s the journey itself. So,
in the end I guess the answer to your question is probably ‘no’,
because I mostly defined that which utopia isn’t.
Oris — Essentially, there’s this horizon of the idea of devel-

30 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008 olafur eliasson, Intervju olafur eliasson, Interview 31
 u vezu s parlamentarizmom i Europskom unijom; onda se tiče
isključivanja ili uključivanja različitih kulturoloških programa.
Isto tako se tiče mogućnosti demokracije da stvarno prigrli i
održava različitost. Trenutno smo svjedoci vrlo snažne bujice
osjećaja antiraznolikosti u Europi, ne samo na razini kseno-
fobije, rasizma i drugih očitih načina, no i na parlamentarnoj
razini, gdje nam manjka sposobnosti da ponovo raspravimo
demokratske vrijednosti na opsežnijoj razini. EU jednostavno
ne primjenjuje ključnu samokritičnost koja bi omogućila ra-
znolikost na dubokoumniji način. Nekolicina ljudi, primjerice
Bruno Latour ili Peter Sloterdijk, uvode diskurse koji postupa-
ju s raznolikošću u demokratskim modelima društva na vrlo
profinjen način, a ja uopće nisam stručan govoriti o tome s
istom razinom složenosti. Općenito gledajući, jednostavno
nema rasprave o tome što demokracije jest. Smatram da se
neki alati kojima možemo pristupiti takvim pitanjima stvaraju
u okviru umjetnosti.
32 oris, broj 51, godina 2008  oris, number 51, year 2008
oping. This is an updated way of thinking about utopia.
¶ Eliasson — To me it makes sense to refer to reality as a
construction or a series of constructions. This understanding
allows for a high degree of criticality; you can talk about the
world in which we live as a model or a constructed environ-
ment. Reality is made, as and when we live our lives; it isn’t
simply there. I think it makes sense to claim that the world
is a model. This claim, in turn, is also a model, but it’s also a
kind of reality. I like this way of it being self-producing: every
time you actually realize what you did was a construction of
reality, you create a new layer of reality and you integrate that
into your work and life on a daily level.
Oris — I think it’s very democratic in the way that it’s obvi-
ous there are many realities, not just one. That’s the issue of
singularity.¶ Eliasson — The discussion about being singu-
lar plural is ontological, but we can also bring it into the con-
temporary political climate and relate it to parliamentarianism
and the EU; it then becomes about the exclusion or inclusion
of different cultural agendas. It’s also about democracy’s abil-
ity to actually embrace and sustain diversity. We experience
a very strong surge of anti-diversity feelings in Europe right
now, not just at the level of xenophobia, racism and other
obvious ways, but also on a parliamentary level, where we lack
the ability to renegotiate democratic values on a broader scale.
The EU simply doesn’t exert the self-criticality that would be
the key and allow for diversity in a more profound way. A few
people such as Bruno Latour or Peter Sloterdijk are introduc-
ing languages that handle diversity within the democratic
models of society in a very sophisticated way, and I’m not
really competent to talk about that with the same degree of
complexity. In general, there’s just no debate at all about what
democracy is. I think some of the tools with which we can
address such matters are being created within art.
Beauty, 1993.
Minding the world, ARoS Århus Kunstmuseum, Denmark, 2004
reflektor, voda, štrcaljke, drvo, crijevo, pumpa
Beauty, 1993
Minding the world, ARoS Århus Kunstmuseum, Denmark, 2004
Spotlight, water, nozzles, wood, hose, pump
(pp)
olafur eliasson, Intervju olafur eliasson, Interview 33