[spectre] Groups and Space in Budapest, part 1: Trafo and Dinamo (from common_places) [u]

[Geert Lovink [c]]

> From: ugly <contact at commonplacesproject.org>
> additional images and text at http://www.common_placesproject.org/blog
>
> Groups/Spaces in Budapest: Trafo and Dinamo
>
> Trafo House of Contemporary Art - Liliom Utca 41, 9th District, 
> Budapest
> Dinamo - Tuzoltó street 22, 9th district, Budapest
>
> Trafo House of Contemporary Art in Budapest (www.trafo.hu) occupies an 
> intriguing position in the landscape of cultural institutions in 
> Hungary. At one end of the spectrum are the newly enlarged and 
> consolidated giant public institutions (the Ludwigmuzeum or 
> Kunsthalle, for instance, the big-boys of Hungarian cultural edifices, 
> organized architecturally in the new Palace of the Arts complex). At 
> the other are the various alternative cultural spaces, artist-run 
> galleries and (private or commercial) galleries. Trafo is big enough 
> as a cultural institution to demand serious support from the various 
> governmental agencies, yet small enough to not be beholden to 
> “official” culture. The focus here is on contemporary and (at times) 
> experimental forms of practice in theater, dance, music and the arts. 
> Trafo has exhibition, performance and production spaces,  runs 
> programs that include training studios and workshops and is very 
> active in developing international programs – involving foreign 
> artists in Budapest as well and Hungarian artists abroad. And, of 
> course, Trafo can afford to pay its staff.
>
> Most intriguing from our perspective was Dinamo (www.dinamo.hu), a 
> space maintained by Trafo quasi-formally and through limited 
> patronage, and located adjacent to it. Dinamo however is neither an 
> alternative space nor actually part of Trafo institutionally — the 
> fortunate position of this space (we feel it more than than a space, 
> it is a project) is that Trafo pays the rent, while not officially 
> running the programming. Katarina Sevic and Hajnalka Somogyi (curator 
> of Art at Trafo) run this space, which “serves as a gathering place 
> for the new generation of creative people (not essentially visual 
> artists) where they can organize events, lectures, screenings, series 
> of programs, one-night shows etc” (Somogyi). Dinamo is occasionally 
> referred to (by its keepers, participants, and friends) as a studio, 
> workshop, laboratory, autonomous cultural zone, think-tank, hub, 
> attitude, hang-out, while its official mission is “a space for work, 
> presentation, experiments in the field of art, culture and 
> communication, outside the established realm of art practice. ” What 
> happens here is both inside and outside of the establishment; a 
> potentially dangerous game turned playful by Sevic and Somogyi. This 
> has allowed them creative risk-taking while at the same time giving 
> the space more visibility and credibility as a project.
>
> Dinamo is proof that one need not have an institutional 
> infrastructure, a solid budget or even clean walls to become an 
> important and influential cultural space (though patronage helps). The 
> delicate negotiation of its becoming is an acknowledgement of 
> continuous flux: it is not built on aspirations for longevity, not on 
> a fixed notion of what, indeed, the (social and physical) space itself 
> actually is. The physical space of the room as well as the social 
> space it activates are far from the clean surfaces, clean identities, 
> clean politics of more institutional settings. The walls are rough and 
> far from white, the carpet is uneven, stairs lead to nowhere but act, 
> instead, as storage for a surprising assortment of furniture parts, 
> lamps, pillows and unassembled cabinetry. Everywhere you see residue 
> of former projects: signs painted by little kids, posters and cards 
> from previous shows, holes in the walls, bunches of tape, cloth 
> covers, the signs and smells of a well-lived  in, well-used 
> environment. Each new presence responds to, builds upon all those 
> before it — it is not necessarily a harmonious, pretty picture. Nor is 
> the social environment (that other, less physically bound aspect of 
> what Dinamo is) necessarily homogenous. The Dinamo-ees (caretakers, 
> visitors, collaborators, participants) range in occupation, age and 
> political affiliation — from established artists to young anarchists, 
> Hungarian and foreign alike. It is rough, fresh, and it smells a whole 
> lot like what autonomous collectivity might very well be.
>
> In its initial year (2003-2004), the programming was fairly tightly 
> organized, with calls for entries from local artists. Very quickly 
> however, a self-organized dynamic lead to a more organic way of 
> programming. Projects became initiated from many different sources, 
> intersecting in the physical space of Dinamo at times for a month, at 
> times for just an evening, with Sevic and Somogyi as main channels, 
> keepers of the schedule, hosts – themselves not one, but two, 
> gravitational presences. Because there is less of a centralized 
> organization, Dinamo may not have an official profile in the sense of 
> more institutional spaces; it seems, however, to attract a public, 
> projects and events through osmosis – once established, the space is 
> well-known and attended by a group of loyal followers who heavily 
> utilize and understand its unique character as a promoter of 
> interdisciplinary and collaborative production, with the relationship 
> between cultural practice and public space seemingly at the  heart of 
> the matter.