3. J ANEZ J ANŠA
4.2. Description and Analysis of the Anti-government Movement
4.2.5. Provocation and Shock
On 23 October, an installation appeared in front of the Ministry of Culture. Six desks were set up in front of the ministry building and were made to look like a bureaucratic space.
Each desk was labelled with the names of decision-makers in culture: Vasko Simoniti, Ignacija Fridl Jarc, Miro Petek, Alenka Gotar, Mitja Iršič and Vesna Jurca Tadel. The notes and agendas of the decision makers were visible on each desk, featuring the slogans “death to art”, “let’s evict Metelkova 6”, and “let’s enslave RTV”.241 A fictional letter with Simoniti’s resignation was placed on each desk. The desks were then covered in bright red paint, symbolising a bleeding and dying cultural sector.242 The protesters left the scene as soon as
240 Pina Gabrijan, “Odzivi Na Dogajanje Na Metelkovi 6: ‘Uničevanje Slovenske Kulture Se Nadaljuje,’” RTV SLO, October 21, 2020, https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/odzivi-na-dogajanje-na-metelkovi-6-unicevanje-slovenske-kulture-se-nadaljuje/539865.
241 Jurc, “Vrnitev Akcije Za Kulturo: ‘Ministrstvo Lahko Mirno Deložira Kar Samo Sebe.’”
242 Ibid.
they arrived, leaving behind ‘only a bleeding art installation - a bleeding culture whose fatal wounds were inflicted by employees of the ministry’.243
The installation, titled Acrylic is not Water, was the seventh Action for Culture
organised by the Cultural Workers’ Association, and was staged as a symbolic eviction of the Ministry of Culture. The symbolic eviction to the streets mirrored that of the NGOs at
Metelkova 6, as the action was, among other things, a response to the ministry's decision that NGOs must move out of the building on Metelkova 6 by the end of January due to the renovation of the building.244 On the subject, the Association wrote that ‘the ministry can evict themselves if they so please, and dump their amateurism, incompetence, lies and evil intentions there on the Visegrád landfill’.245
Journalist Vanja Pirc comments that the installation was a provocation, and unlike other appeals and protests from cultural workers that year, it saw an almost immediate reaction from Simoniti, who informed the public that things had gone too far.246 In response to the protest, Simoniti declared that the installation represented ‘the office after the murder’
and as such, was not only a death threat to him, but also to the bureaucrats who are merely doing their jobs.247 In a public statement, Simoniti asserted that the intervention was staged by people ‘who, while they allegedly invoke democracy, abuse and destroy it by their actions, and are essentially anti-democratic’ and ‘are attached to totalitarian methods, avoid any responsibility and do not have the slightest human empathy, let alone knowledge, talent or
243 Vanja Pirc, “Umetnost Je Provokacija,” Mladina, October 30, 2020, https://www.mladina.si/202433/umetnost-je-provokacija/.
244 Jurc, “Vrnitev Akcije Za Kulturo: ‘Ministrstvo Lahko Mirno Deložira Kar Samo Sebe.’”
245 Ibid.
246 Pirc, “Umetnost Je Provokacija.”
247 Vasko Simoniti, “Izjava Za Javnost,” Government website, GOV.SI, October 25, 2020, https://www.gov.si/novice/2020-10-25-izjava-za-javnost/.
creativity’.248 He also called on the police to identify the protesters and initiate proceedings to prosecute them for inciting violence and threatening death.249
Pirc comments that such a provocation was in fact necessary for the cultural workers to receive any response from the minister, and that ‘it was only through provocation that the authors of the installation finally succeeded in bringing culture into the spotlight and making it one of the most important political issues’. 250 Moreover, she comments that since is not a politician’s place to decide which art is appropriate or to critically evaluate such an
installation, the authors caught Simoniti in a trap, where they hit a weak spot and ‘forced an answer to the question of how the ministry will decide on the distribution of funds in
future’.251 Therefore, the provocative installation took advantage of Simoniti’s tendency for aggressive retaliation, and achieved what cultural workers had been trying to achieve for months: they received a response.
What stands out about this incident considering the legacy of the eighties, is the reaction of the minister to the installation. In terms of its shock factor, especially compared to installations and incidents carried out by groups such as NSK in the eighties, Acrylic is not Water was timid. However, the response it garnered was disproportionate to say the least.
While the authors of the installation used methods like those of the Alternative cultural movement, which is lauded as one of the champions for democracy, the authors were being threatened by a minister whose right-wing nationalist party declare themselves to be national heroes and defenders of Slovenia’s democracy. Furthermore, Simoniti’s comments point to the Janšist equation of communism, all leftist politics, and any opposition, with
248 Ibid.
249 Ana Jurc, “Minister Simoniti Petkov Protest Razumel Kot Grožnjo s Smrtjo,” RTV SLO, October 25, 2020, https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/drugo/minister-simoniti-petkov-protest-razumel-kot-groznjo-s-smrtjo/540260.
250 Pirc, “Umetnost Je Provokacija.”
authoritarianism. Moreover, what stands out is the irony of Simoniti’s accusation that the authors are democratic and attached to totalitarian methods, while he calls for anti-democratic measures to be taken against them.