Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros thématiques22Artelogie MondesExploring the crisis of subjectiv...

Artelogie Mondes

Exploring the crisis of subjectivity through the interplay between feminist ideology and historical consciousness in ‘postsocialist art history’, or the emergence of the Millennial art historian from the contradiction between the autonomization and privatization of culture

Natalya Antonova

Résumés

Consciousness-raising – positioned as the epitome of feminist method and its end goal – narrows feminist historical consciousness to an individual or group identity and overlooks the question of ideological formation: this is one of the markers of the crisis of subjectivity in feminist theory, as this essay suggests. The essay reveals the critical role of, and historicizes, feminist ideology in the Anglophone feminist critique of feminist cultural production evolving since the late 2000s in “postsocialist art history”. The feminist critique of feminist cultural production has raised the pertinent question of the autonomy of the art historian amid the ongoing privatization of culture inflicted by the global impasse of socialist politics since at least the last quarter of the 20th century and sustained by philanthropic capital. Emerging researchers of feminist art still face this historical conundrum.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Acknowledgements

Two international research seminars supported by the Getty Foundation as part of its Connecting Art Histories Initiative have been instrumental in bringing this essay to life through stimulating lectures and discussions: Periodization in the History of Art and its Conundrums. How to tackle them in East-Central Europe, a series of seminars organized by the Institute for Advanced Study, New Europe College in Bucharest and led by Anca Oroveanu in 2018-22; and Narrating Art and Feminisms: Eastern Europe and Latin America, a series of online seminars organized by the Institute of Art History of the Warsaw University and led by Agata Jakubowska and Andrea Giunta in 2021-23. My special thanks are due to Agata Jakubowska for her insightful comments on the first drafts. The work of the Platypus Affiliated Society has been an additional source of inspiration, primarily, as to the vital question of the conditions of possibility of freedom in an unfree society, in addition to the heuristic approach to reading historical experience through the lens of generations.

Introduction

  • 1 This essay does not use the ideology concept in an accusatory or pejorative sense. Raher, ideology (...)

1The business of beginnings is a notoriously fraught one, even more so when one risks a question: How and when does feminist consciousness, as it were, emerge in research associated with a remarkably perplexing phenomenon I refer to as a “postsocialist art history”? This is a threefold blind alley: it starts with a shattering, seemingly incurable “postsocialism” diagnosis, then lingers faintly and persistently in a “postsocialist art” phase, and finally culminates in the “postsocialist art history” department. While art practices inscribed in the “postsocialist” frameworks of analysis have a historical record of their own (the entirety of which this essay will not be able to address), an ideological aspect of the question, in my reading, has remained obscure to the critical eye.1 The strategies of periodizing “postsocialist” art has up to this point been strongly informed by what one can call a methodology of space (trans/regionality, geography and geopolitics), predominantly focused on the Eastern or East-Central European region. Spurred by the questions of place and positionality, center and periphery, domination and marginalization, “postsocialist art history” has inscribed itself into the narrative wherein universal concepts sanctioned from above (“Western art history”) are interrogated and contested by local art practices which can constitute an alternative history of art, autonomous of the center and on equal – horizontal, global, reciprocal and most importantly, non-ideological – terms with the center as well as other “non-Western” provinces and peripheries. Not only has “postsocialist art history” been pursuing to push back against “Western universalism” by drawing on, among other sources, a diagnostic reading of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations (1996); it has equally run against Socialist Realism (in art theory, history and policymaking) as well as the post-1989 excrescences of chauvinist particularism in the region (e.g. PIOTROWSKI 2008; 2009; ZABEL 2012; KODRES, JÕEKALDA, MAREK 2019; HOCK, KEMPE, DMITRIEVA 2023; JAKUBOWSKA, RADOMSKA 2023).

2The methodological concern of “postsocialist art history”, as this essay attempts to address it, lies elsewhere: in the category of historical consciousness. At the risk of presenting a homogenizing view of “postsocialist art history” and its methodology of space, I consider the latter frustratingly narrow to even touch upon the question of “postsocialist art history’s” own ideological claims – their socio-economic character – “East-West” dichotomy aside. It is, perhaps, due to the persistence of the latter that “postsocialist art history” has, at times, been persistent in reducing the phenomena related but not limited to “postsocialism”, including those of “post-communism” and the “post-Soviet”, to a “condition”: as though history can be put on a standstill, much less, assigned an ontological character (cf. ERJAVEC 2003; GROYS 2016; BUDEN 2020). In the light of the consciousness of what socialist politics was and what it could yet become, an “actually existing socialism” is emphatically not the sine qua non of socialism as an idea (e.g. KOŁAKOWSKI 1968); this bears importance beyond the periodization debates and indicates their tacit conservatism.

3For a lack of a better term, an “emergence” of feminist consciousness in “postsocialist art history” refers to a normative ideology of artistic, curatorial, and academic production in visual art practices assuming the centrality of “gender” as a universal signifying practice and a peculiar device of articulation (WEST, ZIMMERMAN 1987). By prioritizing the practical and theoretical recognition of gender as a universal signifying practice developed in and through art history, the approach this essay adopts is not exclusive to feminist art and cultural studies and differs from the research focusing on the institution, representation, and reception of women artists and female imagery in modern, modernist and contemporary art. On a par with the institutionalization of Women’s and Gender Studies in higher education in Central and Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet space at large since the late 1980s (ZIMMERMANN 2008/2005), I consider a biography of feminist historical consciousness in “postsocialist art history” in association with the post-1989 moment of transformation in which “gender” becomes a certain working concept. This concept operates not just on the plane of symbolic systems that re/constitute sexual difference in artistic practice and art history but is weaved into the fabric of social relations and relations of production: particularly, in the economy of contemporary art, including art history. Addressing art exhibitions and art catalogs is only one way of making sense of these social relations and relations of production this essay attempts.

4Admittedly, my initial question on the “emergence” of feminist historical consciousness in art history comes with a caveat that seems peculiar to the standpoint this essay was written from, namely the standpoint of an Anglophone discourse of feminism, for it is precisely the latter that directly or otherwise contributes to the formation feminist ideology in arts and culture in the “postsocialist and “post-Soviet world” at large. An NGO-driven professionalization of feminism in the former “second world” since the 1990s is just one side of feminist ideology formation (see CÎRSTOCEA 2020): if feminism, as an ideology, could “speak”, it would do so primarily with reference to the New Left which it tends to perceive as an embodiment of an exemplary political (“anti-capitalist”) discourse. One can encounter this new wave of reaction against “Marxist orthodoxy” that has been given the name of the “second-wave revival” well beyond so-called liberal democracies (cf. DOHERTY 2023: n.p.).

  • 2 Speaking of the “ideology that universalizes modern art”, Piotr Piotrowski (2012/2010) points out t (...)
  • 3 As Clare Hemmings suggests (2011), “[Feminist theorists] can interrupt the amenability of the narra (...)

5I would like to suggest that a certain Anglophone character of feminist ideology today is one of the conditions of the possibility of feminist historical consciousness in “postsocialist art history”. I am aware that my proposition is a contentious one; in fact, it intends to be such; one of the goals of this essay is to provoke the reader to think about questions that otherwise seem to have gained the status of the “frustratingly illusive”: the workings of ideology in art history remains one such question (PARKER, POLLOCK 2013/1981: p. 134). I am far from asserting that feminist ideology, or any other type of ideology for that matter, works merely through an agentless copying of canonized linguistic blueprints and historicist ready-mades (cf. PIOTROWSKI 2012/2010),2 or is indeed a mere function of narrative discourses or “stories” (cf. HEMMINGS 2011).3 Rather, my intention is to somewhat shift the discussion by looking into the relationship between feminist ideology and feminist historical consciousness. In doing so, my intention is to raise the question of the crisis of subjectivity in feminist theory vis-a-vis the figure of the art historian: a certain auto-ethnographic bent of this essay, in the latter half especially, serves this specific goal.

1 The dialectic between feminist ideology and historical consciousness

6One of the facets of the crisis of subjectivity in feminist theory comes to the fore in how it understands the nature of feminist consciousness. The latter is perceived as something qualitatively and even quantitatively apparent, as if feminist consciousness can be discerned through differential measurements of “women’s and men’s thinking” already containing a seed of feminist identity and subjectivation (JOHNSTON CONOVER, SAPIRO 1993: pp. 1048, 1079–80). Construed as a system of belief, feminist consciousness can help women to develop specific categorical apparatuses foregrounding women’s social autonomy, and, relatedly, strengthening the bonds of sisterhood (GREEN 1979: p. 360). Feminist consciousness is portrayed as constituted by a collective subject driven by its recognition of social injustice and awakened by its participation in movements for oppressed groups led by civic organizations, the avatar of feminist consciousness to its bone (NGAN-LING CHOW 1987: pp. 286–90, 292–94; KLATCH 2001). Historical interpretations are drawn from the proletarian women’s movement where certain modes of female consciousness, stemming from their experience of oppression in the first quarter of the 20th century, motivated women workers towards insurrection, unionization, and labor strikes (KAPLAN 1982). It has been argued, concurrently, that the roots of women’s feminist consciousness stretch well beyond modernity, starting at least from the 7th century onwards in the written record of women’s thought (LERNER 1993, pp. 12–13).

  • 4 For an exposure of the hypostatization of feminist ideology, see Pearl Green (1979): “As the result (...)
  • 5 As discussed by Jane Mansbridge (2001), “Oppositional consciousness takes free-floating frustration (...)

7While all these various perspectives on the history of feminist consciousness are disparate in their claims, it does seem that what all of them have in common is a subject (individual or collective) whose self-awareness stems from its capability to think and thus objectify the ideological forces that spur it to action. The New Left classics (e.g. MACKINNON 1982) confirm: consciousness-raising is the epitome of feminist method and its major political end goal against male and class dominance. What we have as an effect of the identification of consciousness and ideology, I contend, is a flattening of the interplay between the subjective and the historical that makes feminist ideology a compelling philosophical category. Indeed, “[Q]uestioning of the concept of ideology makes sense only as the questioning of the specific socio-historical constellation with which the concept has been inextricably intertwined” (BAUMAN 1983: p. 116). Without interrogating the normative meaning of ideology, the concept of feminism is attributed a reified identity and hypostasized.4 The notion of feminist ideology, then, tends to be casually disqualified on the account of its illusoriness, hollowness, as a deviation that does not fit the straitjacket or dichotomy of social “structures” wherein power relations are maintained and contested by atomized individuals possessed by what they would like to refer to as “oppositional consciousness” (e.g. SMITH 2016).5 Feminist ideology is thus forced to capitulate unconditionally to the conservative discourse, as a synonym of false consciousness, a mere “gender ideology” animated by the evil intentions of singular persons against reasonable people (e.g. SHAPIRO, PETERSON 2020). My proposal: we should not make the same mistake by treating feminist ideology as a mere issue of identity, thereby delimiting the possible meaning of freedom, firstly, to the idea of power (economic or symbolic), or one’s capability to dissent against those who hold power, and, secondly, to one’s empowerment through resistance.

8Teresa de Lauretis’s (1990) approach to the questions of consciousness, subject and feminist theory is relevant in this context. As de Lauretis writes, “I … use the term “feminist theory”, like the terms “consciousness” or “subject”, in the singular, to mean not a single, unified perspective, but a process of understanding that is premised on historical specificity and the simultaneous, if often contradictory, presence of those differences in each of its instances and practices, a process that, furthermore, seeks to account for their ideological inscriptions” (116). In other words, recognising the dialectic between historical consciousness and ideology as a contradictory process of becoming rather that of a fixed state entails thinking about things and processes that motivate feminist ideology to interrogate its boundaries: objective and subjective, national and linguistic, institutional and historical, spatial and temporal, instrumental and definitional. It is precisely through interrogating its own boundaries when feminist ideology acquires its social situatedness; when feminist ideology can reflect upon itself, it becomes a form of historical consciousness, and vice versa – it is perhaps only then that we can speak about feminist historical consciousness sui generis.

9This returns me to the question I asked at the beginning of this essay regarding the “emergence” of feminist historical consciousness in “postsocialist art history”. Contrary to the claims about feminist consciousness being tied to specific dis/identification (cf. HOCK 2013: pp. 33–34), I suggest that feminist consciousness “gains entrance” to the field of “postsocialist art history” at the point when feminist ideology reflects upon, and negates itself – when it becomes critical – first and foremost, critical of itself (see DE LAURETIS 1990: pp. 138–39). That is to say that the full meaning of feminist ideology in “postsocialist art history” comes to full fruition through the feminist critique of feminist cultural production. This noticeable meta-position taken by feminist art critique vis-a-vis the art-industrial complex stands in sharp contrast to the 1970–80s wave of revision/ism in art history where a general concern was how to challenge the exclusion of women artists from the canon of modernism (see GOUMA-PETERSON, MATHEWS 1987). Rather, it was not the exclusion of women artists from the canon of modernism that seem to have worried the latest feminist critiques at best, but the terms, the meanings and the effects of women artists’ inclusion in the art-industrial complex.

2 Feminist art critique in “postsocialist art history”

  • 6 Baby Boomers is the generation “born during the baby boom occurring between the mid-1940s and the m (...)
  • 7 Curated by Cornelia Butler and held in The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, 4th March–16th (...)
  • 8 Curated by Maura Reilly and Linda Nochlin and held in the Brooklyn Museum, New York, 23rd March–1st (...)
  • 9 Curated by Juan Vicente Aliaga and held in the Galician Center for Contemporary Art, Spain, 25–27 S (...)

10A generational cohort whose work is closely associated with the rise of the Anglophone feminist art critique in “postsocialist art history” is the Baby Boomer generation,6 represented, most prominently, by Bojana Pejić (1948, b. Belgrade), one of the most distinguished art critics, historians and curators in Eastern or East-Central Europe. In her seminal essay Why is Feminism Suddenly so ‘Sexy’? Pejić (2008) has critically interrogated what she called the “sudden resurgence” of feminist art in the culture industry and the visual arts sector. On a descriptive level, the essay is a comparative discourse analysis of three art catalogs documenting three art exhibitions: “WACK! Art and Feminist Revolution”,7 “Global Feminisms – New Directions in Contemporary Art”,8 and “Gender Battle” (A batalla dos xéneros).9 Analytically, the essay can be read as an inquiry into the manufacture of feminist ideology and its symbolic value since at least the mid-2000s in the “art world” of the Global North. The aim of Pejić’s analysis, accordingly, has been to discern “what kind of critical – feminist – discourse(s) these publications offer to contemporary readers”, for “exhibition catalogues have a life of their own and can be consumed independently of the shows that occasioned them” (PEJIĆ 2008: n.p.).

  • 10 “Gender order” is a set of historically changing (yet temporally, spatially and geo-culturally spec (...)

11Pejić’s essay offers a symptomatic reading of the existing configuration of feminist discourse in cultural production, involved in selective if not deliberate forgetting: firstly, of the historical events that informed feminist politics in visual art and, secondly, of the historical actors whose work was instrumental in registering, articulating and exploring the unfolding crisis of “gender order”10 in capitalism. Pejić raises the question of an emerging antihistorical character of feminist discourse in the arts, art history, and art curating – and hence, an emerging antihistorical character of feminist ideology finding its expression in the fields of art, art history, and art curating. Indeed, the continuous crisis of “gender order” seems to manifest itself most sharply on the front of feminist ideology: as Pejić (2008: n.p.) points out, “[J]ust as feminism … was rejected by Socialist states before 1989 [as a ‘capitalist ideology’], [feminism] is again rejected today, this time as [the] ‘remnan[t] of the Communist ideology’ that introduced gender equality”.

  • 11 “Millennials” represents a “generation born between the early 1980s and the mid 1990s” (OED 2023b).
  • 12 Author’s notes made during the seminar Doing Feminist Art History and Curating Feminism(s). Feminis (...)
  • 13 A formative role of the art exhibition form in re/conceptualizing art history methodology can also (...)

12Having had come full circle, it is precisely the question of feminist ideology and its periodization that motivates me to look into the conditions of possibility of feminist historical consciousness, in relation to the Millennial generation,11 art historians in particular. For this essay, to explore the conditions of the possibility of feminist historical consciousness circa 2020s in “postsocialist art history” means to inhabit the methodological mindset upheld by Why is Feminism Suddenly so ‘Sexy’? – an inquiry into the role and place that feminist ideology occupies relative to the forces and relations of production in the economy of culture. An ever-more globalizing industrialization of creative labor in the post-1989 context, as the next section discusses, has given rise to an infrastructurally mediated feminist historical consciousness. It has been brewing for at least more than two decades and has resulted in amalgamating a rich constellation of thinking – feminist art critique meeting feminist art history. To refer to Bojana Pejić’s assessment of this constellation from the standpoint of 2019: “Feminist art history started in art catalogues”.12 Alternatively, as Pejić put it in her 2011 interview: “If we agree that there are two art histories, one written in the academic world and the other told via exhibitions,13 then the feminist rewriting of modernism and its aftermaths in the Eastern European context occurred in exhibition catalogues rather than academic textbooks” (PEJIĆ, KIVIMAA 2013: p. 174).

13This is an important observation because it raises the question of the autonomy of art history, and the art historian. Whether one would agree with the division of art historical practice into two institutional channels mediating the dissemination of art historical knowledge or not, I think that the significance of Pejić’s assessment lies in the assumptions that appear to underpin it. The first assumption: for one reason or another, feminist art history in Eastern or East-Central Europe was not able to set deep roots in art history departments and educational institutions, nor did it spring organically from and thrive spontaneously through existing social movements. By corollary, here comes the second assumption: the culture industry’s visual arts sector turned out to be more responsive to the spell of feminist ideas and was somewhat predisposed, perhaps institutionally, to articulate and accumulate feminist ideology via artistic, visual, and aesthetic means. What should we make of this? – Overall, it seems, the proposition of the apparently advantageous position of feminist art history in the context of cultural production tacitly expresses the division of labor between the culture industry and the academy that is not exclusive to feminist ideology alone but reflects a broader tendency.

  • 14 The limits of the late stage of Soviet modernity have yet to be clarified (MASLOVSKII 2015: p. 51); (...)

14On the one hand, scholars have discerned a tension between the two poles – “the museum and the university” – as the two channels mediating art historical knowledge and conditioning the respective division of labor between the curator and the academician, each aspiring to realize their intellectual and creative work in full autonomy from the market (see HAXTHAUSEN 2002; 2014). However, the process of negotiating one’s intellectual and creative autonomy in the art history field, as I will suggest in the following section, has also been paralleled by a progressive privatization of cultural production since late Soviet modernity.14 Concurrently, toward the mid-2010s, feminist art has obtained a permanent residence in the museums of modern and contemporary art in Eastern or East-Central Europe and around the globe (see DIMITRAKAKI, PERRY 2013). If indeed feminist art history in Eastern or East-Central Europe did start in art catalogues, perhaps one of the substructural reasons for that was that the global cultural production in the visual arts sector has been increasingly subsumed under the private philanthropic capital to hold ideological control and monopoly over the writing of art history in toto.

  • 15 Zygmunt Bauman (1983), who problematises the concept of ideology in the modern discourse of power, (...)
  • 16 The full title of the project is “Gender Check: Femininity and Masculinity in the Art of Eastern Eu (...)
  • 17 As Beáta Hock (2013) observes, "Gender Check was the first exhibition and research project to ventu (...)

15This is not to simply point out that feminist ideology has been co-opted, “unwittingly provid[ing] a key ingredient of the new spirit of neoliberalism” (FRASER 2009: p. 110), or that the concept of gender has been appropriated by the capitalist logic of cultural production and governmentality (GRŽINIĆ, TATLIĆ 2014: pp. 55–60); in other words, the point is not to “shift away” from capitalism (FRASER 2009: pp. 116–17), as if it were possible; nor is it to expose those who seem “complicit with power [and] money” (GRŽINIĆ, TATLIĆ 2014: p. 299). Imagining a leverage point beyond society, capital and history is itself ideological (here, misleading) inasmuch as it conceives of its opponents as acting upon erroneous motives (BAUMAN 1983: p. 115),15 and thus, yet again, construes history as a battlefield between reason and unreason. Rather, the existing social relations and relations of production in culture provide the conditions of the possibility for feminist historical consciousness, and vice versa – feminist historical consciousness is immanent to the existing social relations and relations of production in visual art. By mid-2010, Pejić’s statement had become a reality: the Gender Check research and exhibition project,16 as well as the two volumes accompanying the project (PEJIĆ 2009; 2010), have made a world historical impact on feminist ideas in the “postsocialist art” scene at large (DIMITRAKAKI 2012: p. 29; PLUNGIAN 2015: p. 182).17 The question to pursue further is: If feminist art history in Eastern or East-Central Europe did indeed start in art catalogs, how has its biography evolved further?

3 The privatization of culture and the crisis of autonomy

16Inquiring into the question about the present of feminist art history, I will draw on my experience as a member of the Millennial generation and as a participant in two research seminars in art historiography running from 2018 until 2023, a description of which follows below. I will start by saying that in comparison to the situation described by Bojana Pejić, the Millennial generation experiences feminist art history somewhat differently. By the late 2010s, feminist art history had become a teaching subject in art historiography, and one sustained, if only partially, by private philanthropic capital. This raises the problem of the privatization of heterodox culture and arts in “postsocialist Europe” (see DIMITRAKAKI 2012), and one that, in my view, can be discussed as part of the process unfolding for at least three decades, with the private philanthropic capital taking up the role of a financial donor merging itself with the state.

  • 18 For an alternative perspective on the privatization of culture as an artistic appropriation of the (...)

17The “privatization of culture” thesis was developed by George Yúdice (1999) in the context of redistributive and legitimation narratives around the National Endowment for the Arts (founded in 1965), and the respective “restructuring of governmentality” in funding cultural and artistic activities in the US in the period of the Cold War until the late 1990s.18 To outline a general descriptive framework for the “privatization of culture” in Easter or East-Central Europe, one should mention The Open Society Foundation (OSF) funded by the Hungarian-born, USA-based financier and philanthropist George Soros, arguably the key philanthropic player committed towards supporting “democracy” and “democratic development” behind the “Iron Curtain” since 1984. Since 1992, the OSF established the network of 20 Soros Centers for Contemporary Arts (SCCA) across Eastern or East-Central Europe, and the former Soviet Union, to “provide information on international grants, scholarships, and competitions, organize annual local contemporary art exhibitions, and support artists’ participation in exhibitions, conferences, and learning opportunities abroad” (THE OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS 2024). Today, apparently, the network has dissolved, leaving behind scattered online archives/post-mortem examinations (e.g. UNAUTHORED 2023; MOULTON 2022). Another important philanthropic player has been The ERSTE Foundation, an organization whose strategic interests include the “protection” of historical and contemporary heterodox culture against “authoritarian tendencies” in Europe (ERSTE STIFTUNG 2024). Among its other activities, including collecting, supporting and recognizing the work by the Eastern or East-Central European artists and curators, the ERSTE Group runs the transit – a “network of autonomous initiatives [or “independent associations”] in contemporary art” based in Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, as well as “across borders/peripheral zones of Europe” since 2002 (ERSTE STIFTUNG 2024b).

  • 19 Presently, an NGO-ization problematic seem to have gained substantial attention in social movement (...)
  • 20 For instance, the Budapest-based Soros Foundation was established in 1984 in close collaboration wi (...)

18The deeper social impact of these two representatives of the philanthropic capital – The Open Society and the ERSTE Foundation – remains to be explored and assessed with respect to the institutionalization and professionalization of heterodox culture in the post-1989 world (e.g. GALLIERA 2017).19 In light of that, to a large extent, marginalized history, “postsocialist Europe” is not merely a “region” but a concept whose meaning can be seen as ultimately and immanently intertwined with the hidden account of the privatized heterodox culture, backgrounded by the looming unionization of private philanthropic capital and state-run institutions (e.g. HOCK 2013). Contrary to Octavian Esanu’s (2021) claim about the Soros Centers for Contemporary Arts (SCCA) as a model to challenge and eventually “displace the state from the position of exclusive intermediary in interactions between artist and audience, institutions, or the market” (219), there are grounds to suggest that the relationship between the private philanthropic capital and the state is far from being unequivocally confrontational, taking into account, for instance, that philanthrocapitalism discourse has largely failed to account for the necessity of governmental support (see MCGOEY 2014).20

  • 21 I would like to highlight that the seminar had a rather implicit focus on feminist ideology and fem (...)

19The third, and much rarely considered, philanthropic player which has been facilitating the dissemination of feminist art history and which, in my opinion, has had a no less significant impact on heterodox culture in Eastern or East-Central Europe (as well as beyond) is the Los Angeles-based Getty Foundation. One relevant project run by the foundation is the Connecting Art Histories Initiative, a “strategic grant initiative” that “focuses on regions where economic or political realities have previously prevented collaboration. A key activity of the initiative is the training of younger scholars in countries where art history is an emerging [italics mine] discipline” (GETTY 2024). Overall, 6 research seminars hosted by Eastern or East-Central European institutions were organized and funded in the framework of the Connecting Art Histories Initiative (GETTY 2024b). An important side note: the claim that art history in “postsocialist Europe” is an “emerging discipline” should be seen as acutely problematic. And while I cannot adequately address the history of art history in “postsocialist Europe” in the framework of this essay alone, I do believe that the work of the two research seminars I will introduce in a moment stands as living proof that “postsocialist art history” has a deeper history of its own. The first seminar, organized as part of the Connecting Art Histories Initiative, is Periodization on the History of Art and its Conundrums. How to tackle them in East-Central Europe at the New Europe College, the Institute for Advanced Study in Bucharest (2018–2022, project lead Anca Oroveanu) (see NEW EUROPE COLLEGE 2022).21 The second seminar is Narrating Art and Feminisms: Eastern Europe and Latin America, organized by the Institute of Art History of the Warsaw University (2021–2023, a project led by Agata Jakubowska and Andrea Giunta) (see NARRATING ART AND FEMINISMS 2023).

  • 22 I owe this observation to Agata Jakubowska.
  • 23 Generation X is the “generation of people born between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s and follow (...)

20The work of The Getty Foundation in “postsocialist art history” can be inscribed into the post-1989 continuum where the privatization of culture coincides with the mis/recognition of heterodox culture as “autonomous” from the state-centralized regulation. How can the current “postsocialist art history” moment be conceived in comparison to the 2010s? It might be seen as occurring along the lines of institutional organization: it is not the art exhibition or art catalog but primarily educational institutions, such as the New Europe College and the Warsaw University, which hosted the two research seminars, that have been mediating and raising feminist ideology to consciousness in the early 2020s. No doubt, international research seminars in feminist theory had been held before the 2010s.22 However, the key change has been along the axis of time: the New Europe College and the Warsaw University seminar series took place for more than two years. From the standpoint of the Millennial generation, these two seminars present us with a major development: feminist art history has become teachable in longitudinal educational initiatives involving and targeting academic scholars in art history, independent researchers and artists from around the world. In my experience, the Bucharest and the Warsaw seminars provided an intergenerational platform for the exchange of knowledge and expertise, itself a valuable asset for a younger generation of scholars in art history and cultural studies, as well as perhaps their instructors (Baby Boomers and Generation X).23 If anything, this can be seen as a positive effect of the privatization of culture and art history education sustained by philanthropic capital. It is, admittedly, too early to assess how that might resonate politically, with the feminist activist milieux or society as a whole.

21However, more recent developments can shed more light on the privatization phenomenon. By the late 2010s or even earlier, the dissolution of the Soros network, previously seeking to connect the “postsocialist world”, has made apparent that the private sector, energized by the powers of the civil society, is prone to disintegration, and the moment it does disintegrate, it creates gaping lacunas that prove themselves too difficult to fill. With this ongoing difficulty comes the negative effect of the privatization of culture, creating temporary zones of autonomy wherein heterodox forms of education (feminist art history) can thrive, yet annihilating the possibility of their autonomy from philanthropic capital itself. The dependency chain is tied around the neck of heterodox culture. It suffocates slowly while painfully aware that the philanthropic capital is one of its conditions of existence.

Conclusion

22The emergence of the Millennial art historian from the conflict between the autonomy and privatization of culture, as I hope to have shown, is not unique to this moment of time. What appears to be unique, though, is the complicity of the Millennial art historian with the lingering dependence on the private philanthropic capital and its promise of creative autonomy. The apparent collision of the private and the public, embodied by the privatised sector of culture, turns the latter into a dynamic forcefield where the autonomy of the art historical profession is contested and negotiated. It is in this field where the Millennial art historian finds herself. The consciousness of the Millennial art historian – the First Post-Soviet Generation – appears forever mired in the global defeat of Soviet Modernity and the crisis of socialist politics on the world scale accompanied by an unholy alliance between the state and philanthrocapitalism. Exploring the crisis of subjectivity in feminist theory vis-a-vis the figure of the art historian means taking into account that particular background, for it serves as a dreary indication that the project of “postsocialist art history” has a future, however uncertain.

Haut de page

Bibliographie


ANA, Alexandra, 2023. Decolonizing Feminism: the NGO-ization Paradigm between the Global Circuits of Neoliberal Power and the Politics of Location. The Case of Romania. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.52323/794302.


BAUMAN, Zygmunt, 1983. Ideology and the Weltanschauung of the Intellectuals.
Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory [Revue canadienne de théorie politique et sociale]. Vol. 7, no. 1–2, p. 104–117.


BUDEN, Boris, 2020.
Transition to Nowhere: Art in History after 1989. Italy: Archive books, Bianca & Volta.


CÎRSTOCEA, Ioana, 2020. Challenges and Pitfalls of Feminist Sisterhood in the Aftermath of the Cold War. The Case of the Network of East-West Women.
Aspasia. Vol. 14, p. 1–19. DOI 10.3167/asp.2020.140103.


CONNELL, Raewyn, 2009.
Gender. In World Perspective. Second edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.


CZEGLEDY, Nina and SZEKERES, Andrea, 2009. Agents for Change: The Contemporary Art Centres of the Soros Foundation and C
3. Third Text. Vol. 23, no. 3, p. 251–259.


DAVID-FOX, Michael, 2015.
Crossing Borders: Modernity, Ideology, and Culture in Russia and the Soviet Union. University of Pittsburgh Press.


DE LAURETIS, Teresa, 1990. Eccentric Subjects: Feminist Theory and Historical Consciousness.
Feminist Studies. Vol. 16, no. 1, p. 115–150.


DIMITRAKAKI, Angela, 2012. Feminist Politics and Institutional Critiques: Imagining Curatorial Commons. In: KIVIMAA, Katrin (ed.),
Working with Feminism: Curating and Exhibitions in Eastern Europe. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press. p. 19–39.


DIMITRAKAKI, Angela and PERRY, Lara, 2013.
Politics in a Glass Case: Feminism, Exhibition Cultures and Curatorial Transgressions. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.


DOHERTY, Caitlín, 2023. A Feminist Style.
The New Left Review, Sidecar. Online. 2023. Available from: https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/a-feminist-style.


ERJAVEC, Aleš (ed.), 2003.
Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art under Late Socialism. Los Angeles: University of California Press.


ERSTE STIFTUNG, 2024a.
ERSTE Stiftung. Protect contemporary culture. We believe that culture is a central part of our identity. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: https://www.erstestiftung.org/en/activities/protect-contemporary-culture/.


ERSTE STIFTUNG, 2024b.
ERSTE Stiftung. Tranzit. A network of autonomous initiatives in contemporary art. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: https://www.erstestiftung.org/en/activities/tranzit/.


EŞANU, Octavian, 2021.
The Postsocialist Contemporary: The Institutionalization of Artistic Practice in Eastern Europe after 1989. Manchester: Manchester University Press.


FRASER, Nancy, 2009. Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History.
The New Left Review. No. 56, p. 97–117.


GALLIERA, Izabel, 2017.
Socially Engaged Art after Socialism: Art and Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe. London; New York: I.B. Tauris.


GETTY, 2024a.
Getty. Connecting art histories. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: https://www.getty.edu/projects/connecting-art-histories/.


GETTY, 2024b.
Getty. Grants awarded. A component of Connecting Art Histories. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: https://www.getty.edu/projects/connecting-art-histories/grants-awarded/#CentralandEasternEurope.


GOUMA-PETERSON, Thalia and MATHEWS, Patricia, 1987. The Feminist Critique of Art History.
The Art Bulletin. Vol. 69, no. 3, p. 326–357.


GREEN, Pearl, 1979. The Feminist Consciousness. Vol. 20, no. 3, p. 359–374.


GROYS, Boris, 2008. Privatizations, or Artificial Paradises of Post-Communism. In:
Art Power. Cambridge; Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 165–172.


GROYS, Boris, 2016. The Contemporary Condition: Postmodernity, Post-socialism, Postcolonialism. In: HLAVAJOVA, Maria and SHEIKH, Simon (eds.),
Former West: Art and the Contemporary After 1989. Utrecht; Cambridge: BAK, basis voor actuele kunst, MIT Press. p. 37–45.


GRŽINIĆ, Marina and TATLIĆ, Šefik, 2014.
Necropolitics, Racialization, and Global Capitalism: Historicization of Biopolitics and Forensics of Politics, Art, and Life. Lanham: Lexington Books.


HAXTHAUSEN, Charles W., 2002. Introduction. In: HAXTHAUSEN, Charles W. (ed.),
The Two Art Histories: The Museum and the University. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. p. ix–xxv.


HAXTHAUSEN, Charles W., 2014.
Beyond ‘the Two Art Histories.’ Journal of Art Historiography. Number 11, December 2014. Accessed January 30, 2024. Online. Available from: https://arthistoriography.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/haxthausen.pdf.


HOCK, Beáta, 2013.
Gendered Artistic Positions and Social Voices: Politics, Cinema, and the Visual Arts in State-Socialist and Post-Socialist Hungary. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Mitteleuropa.


HOCK, Beáta, 2023. Evolving Networks: International Sponsors of Post-Socialist Art Scenes.
Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. Vol. 31, no. 1, p. 95–108. DOI 10.1080/25739638.2023.2182507.


HOCK, Beáta, KEMPE, Antje and DMITRIEVA, Marina (eds.), 2023.
Universal – International – Global: Art Historiographies of Socialist Eastern Europe. Wien; Köln: Böhlau Verlag.


HUNTINGTON, Samuel P., 1996.
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.


JACOBSSON, Kerstin and SAXONBERG, Steven (eds.), 2013.
Beyond NGO-ization: the Development of Social Movements in Central and Eastern Europe. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.


JAKUBOWSKA, Agata, 2023. Toward Alter-Globalist History of Feminist Art. In: JAKUBOWSKA, Agata and RADOMSKA, Magdalena (eds.),
Horizontal Art History and Beyond: Revising Peripheral Critical Practices. London; New York: Routledge. p. 99–108.


JAKUBOWSKA, Agata and RADOMSKA, Magdalena (eds.), 2023.
Horizontal Art History and Beyond: Revising Peripheral Critical Practices. New York; London: Routledge.


JOHNSTON CONOVER, Pamela and SAPIRO, Virginia, 1993. Gender, Feminist Consciousness, and War.
American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 37, no. 4, p. 1079–1099.


KAPLAN, Temma, 1982. Female Consciousness and Collective Action: The Case of Barcelona, 1910-1918.
Signs. Vol. 7, no. 3, p. 545–566.


KLATCH, Rebecca E., 2001. The Formation of Feminist Consciousness among Left- and Right-Wing Activists of the 1960s.
Gender and Society. Vol. 15, no. 6, p. 791–815.


KODRES, Krista, JÕEKALDA, Kristina and MAREK, Michaela (eds.), 2019.
A Socialist Realist History? Writing Art History in the Post-War Decades. Wien; Köln: Böhlau Verlag.


KOŁAKOWSKI, Leszek, 1968. The Concept of the Left. In: Zielonko Peel, Jane (tran.),
Toward a Marxist humanism: essays on the Left today. New York: Grove Press, Inc. p. 67–83.


LERNER, Gerda, 1993.
The Creation of Feminist Consciousness from the Middle Ages to Eighteen-seventy. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.


MACKINNON, Catharine A., 1982. Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory.
Signs. Vol. 7, no. 3, p. 515–544.


MANSBRIDGE, Jane, 2001. The Making of Oppositional Consciousness. In: MANSBRIDGE, Jane and MORRIS, Aldon (eds.),
Oppositional Consciousness: The Subjective Roots of Social Protest. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. p. 1–19.


MASLOVSKII, Mikhail, 2015. The Soviet Model of Modernity and Russia’s Post-communist Political Transformation.
Historická sociologie. No. 2, p. 45–60. DOI 10.14712/23363525.2015.11.


MCGOEY, Linsey, 2014. The Philanthropic State: Market–State Hybrids in the Philanthrocapitalist Turn.
Third World Quarterly. Special issue: New actors and alliances in development. Vol. 35, no. 1, p. 109–125.


MOULTON, Aaron, 2022.
The Influencing Machine. research study conducted by Aaron Moulton. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: https://the-influencing-machine.com.


NARRATING ART AND FEMINISMS, 2023.
Narrating Art and Feminisms: Eastern Europe and Latin America. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: http://cah.wnks.uw.edu.pl.


NEW EUROPE COLLEGE, 2022.
New Europe College, Institute for Advanced Study. Periodization in the History of Art and its Conundrums. How to tackle them in East-Central Europe. A program supported by the Getty Foundation as part of its Connecting Art Histories initiative. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: https://nec.ro/programs/completed-programs/research-seminars-on-periodization-in-the-history-of-art/.


NGAN-LING CHOW, Esther, 1987. The Development of Feminist Consciousness among Asian American Women.
Gender and Society. Vol. 1, no. 3, p. 284–299.


OED, 2023a.
Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “baby boomer, n.”, July 2023. Accessed January 25, 2024. Online. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1137454484.


OED, 2023b.
Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “millennial (n.), sense 2,” July 2023. Accessed January 17, 2024. Online. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9061450675.


PARKER, Rozsika and POLLOCK, Griselda, 2013.
Old Mistresses: Women, Art, and Ideology. London; New York: I.B. Tauris.


PEJIĆ, Bojana, 2008. Why is Feminism suddenly so
»Sexy«? Analysis of a»Resurgence«based on Three Exhibition Catalogues. Accessed January 25, 2024. Springerlin. Online. No. 1. Available from: https://springerin.at/en/2008/1/warum-ist-feminismus-plotzlich-so-sexy/.


PEJIĆ, Bojana (ed.), 2009.
Gender Check: Femininity and Masculinity in the Art of Eastern Europe. Cologne: Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig Wien, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walter König.


PEJIĆ, Bojana (ed.), 2010.
Gender Check: a reader: Art and Theory in Eastern Europe. Köln: Walther König.


PEJIĆ, Bojana and KIVIMAA, Katrin, 2013. Gender Check, Feminism and Curating in Eastern Europe: An Interview with Bojana Pejić. In: DIMITRAKAKI, Angela and PERRY, Lara (eds.),
Politics in a Glass Case: Feminism, Exhibition Cultures and Curatorial Transgressions. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 173–183.


PIOTROWSKI, Piotr, 2008. On the Spatial Turn, or Horizontal Art History. WILCZYŃSKI, Marek (tran.),
Umění LVI. P. 378–383.


PIOTROWSKI, Piotr, 2009.
In the Shadow of Yalta: The Avant-garde in Eastern Europe, 1945–1989. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.


PIOTROWSKI, Piotr, 2012.
Art and Democracy in Post-Communist Europe. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.


PLUNGIAN, Nadia, 2015. Feminist Art in Russia in 2014-15: The Problem of the “Turn to the Right.”
Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society. Vol. 2, no. 1, p. 181–221.


SHAPIRO, Ben and PETERSON, Jordan, 2020.
Jordan Peterson debunks leftist gender ideology on The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special. Accessed January 25, 2024. Online. Available from: https://youtu.be/HKd_DjBl7gc?si=fwne6RvknA3b5_2_.


SMITH, Anna Marie, 2016. Subjectivity and Subjectivation. In: DISCH, Lisa and HAWKESWORTH, Mary (eds.),
The Oxford handbook of feminist theory. Oxford University Press. p. 955–972.


THE OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS, 2024.
History of the Open Society Foundations. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are/our-history.


UNAUTHORED, 2023.
The Soros Center for Contemporary Art - Almaty. Accessed January 26, 2024. Online. Available from: https://universes.art/en/nafas/articles/2007/the-soros-center-for-contemporary-art-almaty/the-soros-center-for-contemporary-art-almaty.


VOLOSHYNOV, Valentin, 2000.
Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


WEST, Candace and ZIMMERMAN, Don H., 1987. Doing Gender.
Gender and Society. Vol. 1, no. 2, p. 125–151.


YÚDICE, George, 1999. The Privatization of Culture.
Social Text. Vol. 17, no. 2, p. 17–34.


ZABEL, Igor, 2012.
Contemporary Art Theory. Zürich: JRP Ringier, Les presses du réel, Igor Zabel Association for Culture and Theory, ERSTE Foundation, and Moderna galerija, Ljubljana.


ZIMMERMANN, Susan, 2008. The Institutionalization of Women’s and Gender Studies in Higher Education in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: Asymmetric Politics and the Regional-Transnational Configuration.
HARBORD, John (tran.), East Central Europe. Vol. 34–35, no. 1–2, p. 131–160.

Haut de page

Notes

1 This essay does not use the ideology concept in an accusatory or pejorative sense. Raher, ideology refers to the philosophy of language, which compares ideology with semiosis and creative activity of meaning-making. As elucidated by Valentin Voloshynov (2000/1930), “The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs. They equate with one another. Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too. Everything ideological possesses semiotic value” (10).

2 Speaking of the “ideology that universalizes modern art”, Piotr Piotrowski (2012/2010) points out that “The history of art from the margins … develops within the context of the Western art canon and of the Western stylistic categories. Artist and art historians relativize their own artistic and analytic experiences in order to fit them into those categories [emphasis added]. The Western canon of particular art movements serves as a point of reference for their reception and transformation within particular locations beyond the centre” (32, 35).

3 As Clare Hemmings suggests (2011), “[Feminist theorists] can interrupt the amenability of the narratives that make up dominant Western feminist stories and tell stories differently” (2).

4 For an exposure of the hypostatization of feminist ideology, see Pearl Green (1979): “As the result of exposure to feminist ideas, consciousness-raising and other processes, and experiences, women become feminists. To be a feminist means that one has developed a feminist consciousness. This consciousness, or the lack of it, makes a difference in the way women perceive the world. Feminism is not merely a rhetoric or ideology verbalized in situations designed to elicit rhetorical or political statements. Feminism becomes a pervasive force in structuring a woman's consciousness-the way she experiences and interprets reality. Because this consciousness is real, and its reality can be demonstrated” (373).

5 As discussed by Jane Mansbridge (2001), “Oppositional consciousness takes free-floating frustration and directs it into anger. It turns strangers into brothers and sisters, and turns feelings for these strangers from indifference into love” (5).

6 Baby Boomers is the generation “born during the baby boom occurring between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s, following the Second World War (1939–45)” (OED 2023a).

7 Curated by Cornelia Butler and held in The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, 4th March–16th July 2007.

8 Curated by Maura Reilly and Linda Nochlin and held in the Brooklyn Museum, New York, 23rd March–1st July 2007.

9 Curated by Juan Vicente Aliaga and held in the Galician Center for Contemporary Art, Spain, 25–27 September 2007.

10 “Gender order” is a set of historically changing (yet temporally, spatially and geo-culturally specific) social relations patterned around labor, reproduction, ideology, identity, and desire (see CONNELL 2009).

11 “Millennials” represents a “generation born between the early 1980s and the mid 1990s” (OED 2023b).

12 Author’s notes made during the seminar Doing Feminist Art History and Curating Feminism(s). Feminist ‘Inscriptions’ in Art’s Histories and the Politics of Display. Introduced and moderated by Edit András and Bojana Pejić in the framework of seminar series Periodization in the History of Art and its Conundrums. How to tackle them in East-Central Europe. Bucharest, New Europe College-Institute for Advanced Study. December 3, 2019.

13 A formative role of the art exhibition form in re/conceptualizing art history methodology can also be observed in “horizontal art history”, an approach developed by Piotr Piotrowski. As argued by Agata Jakubowska (2023), “The mid-1990s, when Piotrowski’s text [The Old Attitude and the New Faith] was written, was a period during which the foundations of horizontal art history were established. Its creation was initiated mainly as a critical commentary on the art exhibitions of Central and Eastern Europe organised by the (former) West after 1989 …. Their analysis led Piotrowski to the conviction that it was necessary to rethink how to write the history of the region” (100–101).

14 The limits of the late stage of Soviet modernity have yet to be clarified (MASLOVSKII 2015: p. 51); for a general discussion of the Soviet model of modernity see Michael David-Fox (2015).

15 Zygmunt Bauman (1983), who problematises the concept of ideology in the modern discourse of power, explains that “The perception of the world as a battle between reason and error – as a ‘civilizing’ struggle of reason against passion, of true against false interests, of needs against wants – reserves the word ‘ideology’ for either side of the barricade and articulates men and women as bundles of motives” (115).

16 The full title of the project is “Gender Check: Femininity and Masculinity in the Art of Eastern Europe”.

17 As Beáta Hock (2013) observes, "Gender Check was the first exhibition and research project to venture upon a comprehensive overview of artistic interpretations of gender identity in contemporary Eastern Europe" (33).

18 For an alternative perspective on the privatization of culture as an artistic appropriation of the scattered symbolic discourses left amid the decomposition of the Soviet state, see Boris Groys (2008).

19 Presently, an NGO-ization problematic seem to have gained substantial attention in social movement studies (e.g. JACOBSSON, SAXONBERG 2013; ANA 2023) rather than visual art and cultural studies, with the significant exception of Beáta Hock (2023).

20 For instance, the Budapest-based Soros Foundation was established in 1984 in close collaboration with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (CZEGLEDY, SZEKERES 2009: p. 252); likewise, the opening of the Budapest-based Soros Foundation Fine Arts Documentation Center in 1985 was possible due to an agreement between the Foundation itself and the Budapest Kunsthalle (Műcsarnok) (IBID., 253).

21 I would like to highlight that the seminar had a rather implicit focus on feminist ideology and feminist consciousness in the arts and culture. Feminist art history was the theme for two seminar discussions that took place during the second iteration of the seminar (November 24–December 4, 2019). Ruxandra Demetrescu’s Femininity/Feminism in Romanian Modern and Contemporary Art, introduced and moderated by Cristian Nae, and Doing Feminist Art History and Curating Feminism(s). Feminist ‘Inscriptions’ in Art’s Histories and the Politics of Display, introduced and moderated by Edit András and Bojana Pejić.

22 I owe this observation to Agata Jakubowska.

23 Generation X is the “generation of people born between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s and following the baby boomers” (OED 2023c).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Natalya Antonova, « Exploring the crisis of subjectivity through the interplay between feminist ideology and historical consciousness in ‘postsocialist art history’, or the emergence of the Millennial art historian from the contradiction between the autonomization and privatization of culture »Artelogie [En ligne], 22 | 2024, mis en ligne le 13 décembre 2024, consulté le 12 mai 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/artelogie/15427 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/12wv9

Haut de page

Auteur

Natalya Antonova

PhD, independent researcher

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search