THE ARTIST AND HIS CENSORS

AIM Zagreb, February 9, 1996

Draft Law on Artists which was on the agenda of the Assembly in the beginning of February is one of those rare legal texts about which deputies of all political parties simply competed criticizing and reproaching it. Even hard-core members of the ruling Croat Democratic Community (HDZ), and Chairman of the Assembly himself, member of the Academy of Sciencies and Arts, Vlatko Pavletic, did not try to conceal their deep dissatisfaction with some of the legal provisions and solutions. The artistic circles have been buzzing for some time about the outrageous contents of its hardly twenty odd pages of text. That was the reason why all artistic associations awaited publicizing of the text of the law which was to determine issues vital for them with great doubts. Namely, through the usual lobbyists' channels, most drastic provisions became known to them, since the text was formulated a long time ago and for three long months "rusted" in drawers of the Ministry.

To make things worse, even the last chance to fundamentally improve the Draft Law before it reached the Assembly was missed, when about a fortnight prior to the Assembly session, the Committee for Education, Science and Culture thoroughly combed through the text of the law and, having assessed that it was not satisfactory, sent it back for improvement. That is why it is no wonder that members of this Committee were among the loudest critics, disappointed that their efforts and concern had simply been ignored by the Ministry of Culture.

What is so controversial in the text of the Law with such high ambition as to restrain the artists, as its title shows, and probably even art itself? The very first sentence is sufficiently indicative and illustrative to show that definitely some things have been confused: "This law regulates foundations of artists' creativity and carrying out activities of artists as physical persons in their own name and for their own accord, establishment and operation of artists' organizations, group creativity, special rights and obligations of independent artists, establishment and competences of the Croat Community of Artists, and other issues significant for participation in artists' activities and for artists' creativity."

Indeed, such formulations which strive to shove "artists' creativity" into Procrustes's bed made of completely inadequate and dry legal terminology, with the spectre of state control threatening it from behind, justly caused an epidemy of allergic reactions among the artists, fans of arts or simply educated people. And even worse than that: such formulations irresistibly remind of some long gone times, although, as Antun Vujic says, "not even during those times, would it be formulated as it is now, or at least, great care would be taken not to say anything of the kind, although everything would have been done to control things just like today." From the series of criticisms and comments of this specific gem among draft laws, which was among other "complimented" that it was a "voluntaristic document which looks as if written by Zdanov himself", one should be remembered: that 1996 was especially "convenient" to mark it with an adequate law, because it is the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov, "so it occurred to someone in the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia to observe this great jubilee by appropriately awarding the Croat independent artists" (Jasen Borko in "Slobodna Dalmacija").

In the same spirit is the repeatedly stressed complaint about the problem called centralization, since in arts, and culture in general, like in many other activities in Croatia, there is a wish to concentrate all decision-making in as few hands as possible. Precisely, in the hands of the minister of culture who decides about everything. For instance, in a few articles of the Draft Law which prescribe the manner in which the status of an independent artist is acquired, that is the manner in which it is possible to have one's name entered in the famous Register of Artists of the Republic of Croatia and be issued an artist's identity card, it is explicitly state that they are "public documents the content and appearance of which are determined by the minister of culture". It is true, though, that the Croat Community of Artists discusses applications, but it is in no way conceived as some sort of supreme organizations of all artists' associations as one could assume by its name, but it is in fact some kind of a service of the Ministry. Besides, "the minister of culture reaches the decision about an appeal against a decision of the Croat Community of Artists reached about an application for registration".

Another intriguing syntagm is an "independent artist whose works of art are an acknowledged contribution to Croat culture", because such a person may demand the privilege to have contribution to retirement, health and disablement insurance paid for them from the state budget of the Republic of Croatia". But, this category of deserving and valuable (one could almost say "state-owned") artists, is also subject to decisions of the minister of culture, with an alleged restriction, "at the proposal of a professional committee". But, this group of competent people does not consist of professionals at all, but it is in fact an agency of the ministry of culture, "formed of five members - one representative of the Ministry of Culture, one of the Croat Community of Artists, one is an independent artist engaged in the same sphere of art as the applicant, and two representatives of the relevant professional association of artists". In order to prevent any doubts about the composition, it is explicitly stated that "members of the committee are nominated by the minister of culture for a term of four years", and that the rules of procedure pursuant to which this group operates are also "enacted by the minister of culture", who will, alas, what generosity, before definitely formulating this document, acquire "the opinion of artists' professional associations and the Croat Community of Artists"!

This brilliant paraphrase of the well known practice "the judge accuses, the judge condemns", holds a few imperfections. After investing so much effort in the attempt to check all those who would undeservingly wish to acquire the privilege to have the state luxuriously subsidize them by paying them about 300 German marks a month, and after establishing that the status of a deserving artist will be reexamined every five years, cases when an artist loses the status are also enumerated. For example, it will happen if an "artist whose works of art are an acknowledged contribution to Croat culture" begins university education as a regular student or joins the army! Pursuant to this provision, one could assume that Croatia is obviously a country with the largest number of "children prodigies" in the world. An artist will lose the status of a "national wealth" "if an independent artist stays abroad longer than three months, or five months during a calender year, regardless of possible interruptions of the stay abroad", with a cautious restriction that the mentioned minister's rules of procedure may prescribe exceptions.

After just these few chosen examples, one can easily understand why such a terrible hue and cry was raised against the creators of the draft. But this is not the end of the list of absurdities. In a clumsy attempt to defend the effort of the Ministry of Culture, in an attempt to respond equally to complaints about inadequacy, vagueness, and pretentions long range of the Draft Law, a representative of the authors of the draft in the person of Deputy Minister of culture, Ivan Saric, made a new gaffe by uttering the following "historic" sentence: "This is not a law on arts, since a monument should be erected to a genius who would make such a law, similar to the one erected downtown Zagreb to our poet Tin Ujevic, about whom pupils in school learn that he was a bohemian, an he was not a bohemian but - a tramp" (!)

At a press conference a few days later, Minister of culture, Bozo Biskupic, tried to mitigate this remark which had been uttered in front of Assembly deputies and a host of journalists, and then recorded in the phonogram of the session. Accusing the journalists, of course, who wrote reports and commentaries about the "tramp episode" of his deputy, for having allegedly drawn the comment out of the context, he said that Mr Saric was confused and impressed by the auditorium! Because, a bachelor of archeology, cultured and educated, as Saric was described by Biskupic, simply could not utter such nonsense due to which so much doubt about deputy's competence was aroused.

Briefly, the deputy has a loyal lawyer, and the Minister obviously has a worthy deputy. And nothing but laws such as the Draft Law on Artists can be expected to come from such a Ministry of culture.

MERI STAJDUHAR