In the morning before the opening of the exhibition "Just do it. Biopolitical Branding", the Bureau of Melodramatic Research was personally announced by the director of PAVILION UNICREDIT that Simina Neagu, as curator of this particular exhibition and assistant director at the same institution, would be fired, if we don't exclude from our work all the facts and figures about the budget of the exhibition (that is the exact sum of our fee plus production costs). Moreover, we were informed that if we didn't agree upon this condition, the Director would additionally cancel the opening due at 7 PM the same day.
The aforementioned financial infos were part of our work and since we haven't signed any contract or confidentiality agreement, we didn't expect any opposition on the part of the institution. Following tense negotiations, we were told that we could publish the budget, only if we include all the current expenses of PAVILION for the period of the exhibition (electricity, salaries of Pavilion's employees etc). The director of PAVILION calculated an amount of 1400 Euro per artist/artist group. This amount is 7 times higher than our production costs+fee altogether. And it is 100 Euro less than the whole exhibition's initially announced budget (at least considering what we were told by the PAVILION employees when we were invited to take part in this project). Since we were interested only in the publishing of the artist fee+production costs and weren't allowed to disclose the detailed budget or any parts of it, the 1400 Euro were of no use for our work. Nevertheless, we had to publish this mystified amount of 1400 Euro, in order to avoid the firing of the curator and the canceling of the exhibition.
We acknowledge that, besides the amount for fee+production costs, whose publication was censored, we got the support of Pavilion for the transportation of all the pieces of furniture and installation. Moreover, the Director himself has initially approved of our work's concept (at least, most of it).
Considering all these facts, we are inclined to believe that the ending of Simina Neagu's contract (officially announced today) is no melodramatic coincidence. And this should be a reason to worry for the all the artists and curators, be they employed or unemployed (or unemployable). To which extent do spaces "of the critical thinking" such as PAVILION UNICREDIT really encourage critical thinking? How come/how is a curator proposing an exhibition about "the use of soft power" consequently affected by Power itself? What is the politics of PAVILION UNICREDIT's organizational scheme? When answering this question, please consider that, at least from our experience, gender discrimination is undeniable in this institution. During our collaboration with Simina Neagu within the institutional frame PAVILION UNICREDIT, we noticed several concluding facts: only men could speak out, only men had the final word, only men solved or tried to solve any problem/misunderstanding with the artists (aka BMR), even if it directly concerned the concept and realization of the exhibition proposed by the woman-curator. In harmony with the sexism of much of the Romanian society today, a "good curator" in this institution, has to acquiesce every whim of her male director, and probably part of the unmentioned job description would be to become a complete YES-person in his presence. Also how come that a space that "promotes an artistic perspective implying the social and political involvement of the art" is censoring the publishing of the artists' fee as part of their work which was overtly dealing with the conditions of production (and the function of branding assigned to art through categories such as sustainability)? Why have all the works which include the questioning of the politics of art as a field of work been rejected (see Vilenski's case) or partly censored (our case)? Why cannot the precarious work conditions of the artists be openly addressed (see also Societe Realiste during BB4)?
We already witnessed many instances of PAVILION UNICREDIT discrediting itself, the last one being the expelling of the curator Simina Neagu. On this occasion we wish her good luck for her future career as an independent (or at least less dependent) curator.
Evacuation Plan - first version proposed by BMR in the evening before the opening of the exhibition. It contains the legend of all the contents of the installation, together with a more detailed account of the financial conditions which led to the existence of the artworks present. The information in the plan is based on UniCredit's sustainability page for part concerning Elena Andrei and Doina Roman's works, and on verbal agreement with the curator and the director for the part concerning BMR's participation in the show.
These series has been realized with the support of the UniCredit grant, amounting to 2400 euro/person for the master students of the Arts University in Bucharest, Painting Department. The grant program is part of the bank's sustainability strategy, as is the support provided to the contemporary art center Pavilion Unicredit (sections Education and Sport, Art and Culture respectively). For the fee and production of the Soul of Sustainability BMR will receive 200 euros, while the whole budget of the whole exhibition being 1500 euro.
Evacuation Plan - after censorship. The changed sentence was composed by the director and was a result of the threat to cancel the opening and fire the curator.
These series has been realized with the support of the UniCredit grant, amounting to 2400 euro/person for the master students of the Arts University in Bucharest, Painting Department. The grant program is part of the bank's sustainability strategy, as is the support provided to the contemporary art center Pavilion Unicredit (sections Education and Sport, Art and Culture respectively). For the Soul of Sustainability the total production costs (including the current expenses of Pavilion Unicredit such as heating, light and salaries) have been of 1400 euro. Generally, there are no fees for artists.
