Srđan Tunić

art historian, curator

Vilijam Kentridž na 51. Oktobarskom salonu / William Kentridge at the 51st October Salon, Belgrade (review)

Prikaz učešća južnoafričkog umetnika Vilijama Kentridža na 51. Oktobarskom Salonu u Beogradu 2010. U AFRIKA: studije umetnosti i kulture, časopis Muzeja afričke umetnosti u Beogradu, #2 2013.

Review on exhibiting South-African artist William Kentridge at 51st October Salon in Belgrade. In AFRIKA: studies of art and culture, journal of The Museum of African Art in Belgrade, #2 2013.

Download

(EN version below)

 

Vilijam Kentridž na 51. Oktobarskom salonu
Beograd, 8. oktobar – 16. novembar 2010.

Program 51. Oktobarskog salona Noć nam prija… je bio posvećen artikulaciji sećanja (i zaboravljanja) i predstavljanja svakodnevice koja oblikuje sećanje kroz savremenu umetnost. Kroz taj filter umetničke artikulacije sećanja, prolaznosti, nostalgije, alternativnih i intimnih istorija, su publici predstavljeni radovi jednog od najznačajnijih savremenih južnoafričkih umetnika, Vilijama Kentridža. Okrenutost prema ličnom, često hermetičnom ili naprotiv lako razumljivom, omogućuje kroz umetnost pristup svetovima koji ostaju iza manifestnog, poput „golog iskustva o poretku” kako diskurs definiše Mišel Fuko. Primarno su to, u ovom slučaju, ljudske emocije, misaoni procesi, kao i načini na koje se svet oko sebe percipira. Već odavno je u humanističkim naukama priznat značaj ličnih istorija (i privatnih života) koje pišu istoriju kao što to čine i ’veliki’ događaji, međutim intimno sećanje često može da ukaže na zaboravljene fragmente istorije, kao i načine manipulacije tog istog sećanja pod uticajem raznih ideologija i (dnevno)političkih potreba. Lično sećanje tako može da postane i subverzivno, ne uklapajući se u nametnute i veštačke kategorije, što dovodi u pitanje ’reprezentativnu’ istoriju. U radovima Vilijama Kentridža se može sagledati kako se problematizuje pojam političke umetnosti, promišljaju procesi sećanja i potiskivanja u svakodnevnom životu, kao i proces izgradnje identiteta u postkolonijalnoj savremenoj Africi.

Koliko se o umetniku može saznati kroz same radove, njegove intervjue i artikulaciju kustosa, koje su njegove ‘kulturne pretpostavke’, kako se on čita ili kako je moguće njega pročitati (i njegove namere) kroz radove? Posmatraču je neophodan neposredan, direktan i intuitivni dodir sa radovima na osnovu čega bazira svoj (estetski) sud i čitanje značenjskih slojeva. Umetnik, međutim, može izbegavati samosituiranje i kategorisanje, prepuštajući kritičarima i umetničkim tumačima da ga smeste u društveni i istorijski kontekst, ostavljajući da njegova dela govore za sebe. Kentridž je predstavljen kroz intervju sa kustosom Juanom Pusetom u katalogu Oktobarskog salona, gde se ocrtava u osnovi kontekst njegove umetnosti sa fokusom na noviji video rad iz 2007. (koji je jedini opširnije objašnjen od sva četiri predstavljena na Salonu).
Prvu celinu čine tri starija video rada/kratka animirana filma koji su u sklopu serije čiji su glavni protagonisti Feliks Titelbaum i Soho Ekštajn, likovi preko kojih Kentridž komentariše savremeno južnoafričko društvo, nastalih u periodu od deset godina, od 1989. do 1999. Pre opisa i analize radova, važno je predočiti ukratko tehniku nastanka filmova rađenih ne standardnom animacijom – crteži se rade ugljenom, a svaki segment se snima ne bi li se na kraju dobio animirani film. Za svaku stranicu – segment snimka – se koristi jedan papir na kome se crtež briše i dodaje dok ne bude zasićen ili dok se ne pređe na drugu scenu. Ugljen koji se mahom upotebljava za krokije i skice dobija pun zamah u ovakvim crtežima gde preovlađuje kontrast crno-belo (izuzev povremenih dodataka plave i crvene krede za naglašavanje pojedinih elemenata naracije i formi). Autorovo prisustvo se oseća kroz crtež jer ga on ne krije (iako njegove ruke koje crtaju nisu deo snimka), ne teži da crtež bude ispoliran, čak deluje i prljavo – vidljivu su prethodni crteži koji nikada nisu do kraja obrisani (i postaju sve manje vidljivi dok se crtež razvija). Na taj način on pravi kontinuitet između pokreta, radnji i akcije, prožimaju se oblici, ljudi i okolina – i fizički, i u sećanju; oni deluju kao podsetnici, kao ilustracija sećanja koje postepeno bledi. Na taj način je sećanje teoretski artikulisano u delu Vilijama Kentridža – u vidu narativa, kao i tehnike prikazivanja – a samim tim i povezano sa konceptom Oktobarskog salona.

Johanesburg, drugi najveći grad posle Pariza (1989.) ocrtava Kentridžov rodni grad kroz mračnu, kafkijansku priču o sukobu dva lika i dve klase – Feliksa, običnog čoveka, i Sohoa, industrijalca. Ova kritika kapitalizma je univerzalna, koliko se odnosi i na južnoafrički kontekst: zloglasni aparthejd je uočljiv u sceni kada kolona nezadovoljnih radnika (crnaca) prilazi Sohou koji oblaporno jede, oglušujući se o njih, ne bi li ih potom gađao tom istom hranom, što je i kritika konformizma belaca u Africi. Feliks je primer urbanog stanovnika sa svim tenzijama i neurozama; on je svedok nasilja – što fizičkog, što nad pejzažom i prirodom – koji gledaocima predočava posledice kolonijalnog sistema, a od kojih on pokušava da pobegne. Antagonizam Sohoa i Feliksa, kao i njihov odnos prema okolini, ljudima, predmetima, prirodi, Johanesburgu i Sohoovoj ženi (koja intezivira njihovo neprijateljstvo jer postaje cilj nadmetanja) – sve to čini osnovu narativa filma. U Kentridžovim filmovima ova dva lika vremenom postaju kompleksni i prožimaju se, predstavljajući polarizovane tipove, arhetipske odnose, a možda i individue kao anonimuse kroz koje čitamo južnoafričko društvo i odnose unutar njega. Johanesburg je urbano polje koje umetnik kodira autobiografskim sadržajima, ponekad hermetičnim, iscrtavajući svoju viziju života pod aparthejdom i njegovoj sveprisutnosti u svakodnevici.

Istorija glavne žalbe (1994.) je metaforična priča o potiskivanju svakodnevice. „Zaboravljanje je prirodno, pamćenje čini uloženi napor“ kaže Kentridž, sumirajući psihološko tumačenje procesa sećanja i zaboravljanja. Naš mozak funkcioniše kao neprekidni i selektivni filter spoljnih nadražaja, optimizam pamćenja čini da se suvišne informacije zaborave, kao i one loše (jer ljudi pokušavaju da zadrže pozitivnu sliku o sebi). Međutim s druge strane postoji i mehanizam potiskivanja koji nastaje kada čovek nije u stanju da se na pravi način izbori sa teškim životnim situacijama i jakim emocijama, tj. prevazilaženjem, koje čini narativ ovog rada. Soho leži u bolničkoj postelji i u komi proživljava svoje potisnute emocije i sećanja. Što više ulazimo u Sohoovu podsvest, jasnija je simbolika boja: povređivanje čoveka na putu koje Soho vidi dok vozi kola je predstavljeno crvenim krstićima koji se automatski registruju na rengentskoj slici kao frakture – ti krstići postaju manifestacija bolnih tačaka koje ispunjavaju iznutra i samog Sohoa; sećanja na nasilje su žive rane. Smatra se da ovaj rad referiše – kroz kreativni i kodirani jezik autora – na savremene događaje, kraj aparthejda i uspostavljanje Komisije za istinu i pomirenje, osnovane iste godine kada je rad nastao. Komisija je imala zadatak da pretrpljeni bol i nepravdu crnaca iz Južnoafričke republike dokumentuje, da bi se upamtilo ono što se događalo tokom trajanja aparthejda (1948-1993), ali i da se počiniocima hrišćanski oprosti i pruži mogućnost mirne i nenasilne buduće koegzistencije. Tako se, metaforično, ugljen može sagledati kao sredstvo pročišćenja, simbolišući vatru koja uništava, ali i čisti – nakon vatrenih emocija dolazi preispitivanje, sagledavanje postupaka*. Međutim, Soho nije u stanju da raskrsti sa onim što je u njemu, nasilju kome je prisustvovao i sećanju što ga tišti, on nastavlja sa svakodnevicom – bolnički krevet se pretvara u njegovu kancelariju. Južnoafrički pisac Dž. M. Kuci navodi da je na taj način predstavljena nemogućnost razilaženja sa starim režimom – zamka neokolonijalizma.

Stereoskop (1999.) je interesantan rad za razmatranje procesa njegovog nastanka: Kentridž navodi da je imao nameru da sukobi dve paralelne slike koristeći se tehnikom stereoskopije, kao i da je želeo da iskoristi plavu kredu koju je kupio u Londonu. Na ishod rada je uticalo mnogo faktora koji su se u toku procesa pojavljivali, među njima i razni neredi i protesti u svetu za koje Kentridž navodi da ih je pratio na televiziji i koji su pojedine prizore definisali, stvarajući narativ o fizičkoj i emotivnoj podvojenost lika koji podseća i na Sohoa i na Kentridža. Feliks i Soho čine dve strane istog novčića, kroz koje spoznajemo i samog autora koji preko njih, kao marionetama, govori o ličnom i univerzalnom, sopstvenom sećanju i društvenoj stvarnosti. Za razliku od originalne stereoskopske slike gde se optičkom varkom koja na osnovu dve identične slike, gledajući kroz sočivo, daje utisak trodimenzionalnosti, u filmu se slike razilaze i prate se dve strane jednog lika – jednog neosetljivog na svet oko sebe koji je stalno u poslu i drugog koji je povučen i introspektivan. Tumačenja rada govore o post-aparthejd periodu i dvojakom sagledavanju prošlosti, stvarnošću s kojim se društvo Južne Afrike suočava. U prilog tome govori i poslednja (često reprodukovana) scena iz filma: Soho(/Kentridž) koji je spojen u jednu osobu, u praznoj sobi, iz koga kreće da curi plava voda – metafora unutrašnje preplavljenosti emocijama koje su potiskivane. Tako voda, odnosno plava boja simbolizuje (iz)lečenje, spiranje – isceljenja bolnih tačaka u i van sebe, preduslov prevazilaženja problema. Međutim ova libacija može takođe predstavljati utapanje i samouništenje; tanka je linija između oslobađanja i potiskivanja u stanju prevelike napetosti.

Četvrti film, Šta će doći (već je došlo) (2007.) predstavljen posebno, u drugoj prostoriji, jedan je od radova koji kritikuje (poput The Black Box i The Magic Flute) zablude i kontradikcije prosvetiteljstva, kao i mračne, potisnute istorije kolonijalizma – u ovom slučaju, Abisinijskog rata 1935-6. kada su Italijani koristili bojne otrove protiv Etiopije, poput uvertire u Drugi svetski rat. Video tehnički podražava anamorfozu: na okruglom stolu, projekcija dolazi sa plafona i rotira se, tako se stiče utisak da se sto vrti u krug; na stolu je data izobličena, dok se u centralnom delu – na uglačanom metalnom valjku – vidi ispravljena slika. Imajući u vidu tehničko izvođenje, kao i tematiku, rad se može protumačiti kao sagledavanje posledica istorije koja se ponavlja, poput kružnog procesa. On je dobrim delom hermetičan s obzirom da nam se nude samo fragmenti i sugestije – priče, likovi, scene, muzika… Ugljen je ovde poput bunara tame, odnosno bola, sećanja, nesvesnog, potisnutog; umetnik na ovaj način ima ulogu nekoga ko svedoči i govori o ljudskoj psihi i emocijama, kao i zaboravljenoj istoriji (ili onoj koja teži da se zaboravi ili/i potisne).

Šta je političko u umetnosti Vilijema Kentridža? Kentridž pravi omaž starim umetnicima poput Fransiska Goje, Georga Grosa i Alfreda Žarija, inspirisan pozorištem i pantomimom, evocirajući vizuelni prostor svog detinjstva – povratak jednom možda manje opterećenom i neiskvarenom pogledu i poimanju stvari. On svedoči o aparthejdu kroz umetnost i sopstvenu viziju, duboko ličnu i univerzalnu, ne kroz manifeste, političke simbole i ’veliku priču’ – već na onaj način kako se politka oličava u svakodnevici – kroz kontradiktornosti, ambivalentnosti i slobodnu interpretaciju. Moglo bi se reći je Kentridžov pristup oblikovan neokolonijalizmom koji je i sam neuhvatljiv i dvosmislen, koji čini opasno nasleđe nezavisnih afričkih država, pomerajući zavisnost od bivših kolonizatora na druge frontove – kulturu, ekonomiju… Sagledavanje afričkog kontinenta sa svojom kompleksnom istorijom i interakcijom sa evropljanima može biti teško, pogotovo kada se nečijim identitetom manipuliše već vekovima, a na razne suptilne načine vlada i dan danas.

Afrički umetnici su u neprekidnom stanju introspekcije i borbe sa sopstvenim sećanjem (koje je uvek vezano za prostor odakle potiču), ali i neophodne konfrontacije sa savremenom, kao i prekolonijalnom istorijom, ističe kustos Simon Nžami koji je Kentridža u okviru poznate izložbe Africa Remix svrstao u one umetnike koji se bave identitetom i istorijom. Današnji umetnici su postali oni koji pamte, koji prave memoare svoje kulture, tražeći svoje mesto u vremenu i istoriji. Gledajući iz ovog aspekta, Kentridžov rad ima veliku ulogu u predstavljanju samosvesne lične istorije, ukazujući na načine kako se prema sećanju ophodi. U njegovom stvaralaštvu je prisutan konstantan osećaj sučeljavanja sa prošlošću, preplavljenost emocijama i sećanjima od kojih se beži u konformizam, četiri zida, san, poricanje, kao i mašinsku svakodnevnu repeticiju oličenu u poslu. Time se, suptilno (kakvo i jeste), održava nasleđe neokolonijalizma i strah od promena, kao i priznavanja sopstvenih grešaka i krivice. Na taj način njegovo delo dobija značajnu ulogu u društvu koje je od 1994. godine nastojalo da se izbori sa sopstvenim nasleđem i svedoči, bez pozivanja na osvetu, o svim negativnim aspektima aparthejda i kolonijalzma.

 

William Kentridge at the 51st October Salon
Belgrade, October 8 – November 16, 2010

The programme of the 51st October Salon titled The Night Pleases Us… was dedicated to the articulation of remembrance (and forgetting), as well as representing everyday life which shapes memories through contemporary art. It is through this filter of the artistic articulation of memories, transience, nostalgia, alternative and intimate histories that the works of one of the most significant South African artists, William Kentridge, were featured to the audiences. Focusing on the personal, often hermetic, or on the contrary easily understood in art, enables the admittance into worlds that are behind the manifest, such as “the raw experience of order” – as discourse is defined by Michel Foucault. These are, primarily in this case, human emotions, thought processes, as well as the ways we see the world around us. The importance of personal histories (and private lives) that write history as much as “great” events do, have been recognised for many years in the arts. However, intimate memories may also become subversive, and may not fit into imposed and artificial categories and all this leads to the question of a ‘representative history’. In the works of William Kentridge, one may recognise how the concept of political art is critically approached, how processes of remembering and suppression in everyday life, as well as the way in which the process of identity building in postcolonial, contemporary Africa are regarded.

What can be discovered about artists through their works, interviews and curator’s articulations; what are the artist’s “cultural assumptions” and in what way is it possible to read the artists and their intentions, through their works? The observer must have direct and intuitive contact with the works of art, on which he is able to base his (aesthetic) judgement and read layers of meaning. However, the artist can avoid self-labelling and categorisation, leaving his placement in the social and historical context in the hands of critics and art interpreters; leaving his works to speak for themselves. Kentridge was presented through an interview with Juanom Puset in the October Salon catalogue which gives a blueprint of the basic context of his art with a focus on his more recent video-work from 2007 (which was the only one that was more thoroughly explained among the four that were presented at the Salon).

The first section is composed of three older video-works and short animated films which are part of a series whose protagonists are Felix Titelbaum and Soho Eckstein – characters through which Kentridge is able to comment contemporary South African society and which were created during the course of ten years, from 1989 to 1999. Before describing and analysing the artworks it is important to convey in brief, the technique used to create the films which are not based on standard animation – the works are drawn using charcoal and each segment is filmed in order to finally achieve an animated film. For each page – filmed segment – one piece of paper is used upon which the drawing is repeatedly erased and drawn out until it is completely saturated, or until it finally dissolves into the next scene. The charcoal which is generally used for croquis and sketches reaches its pinnacle in such drawings that are dominated by black and white contrast (with the occasional addition of blue and red chalk for accentuating certain elements of the narrative and form). The author’s presence is felt through the drawing because he does not conceal it (even though his hands that draw are not part of the filmed material), he does not strive to make it ‘polished’; it even appears dirty – the previous drawings that are never completely erased remain visible (and become less visible with the development of the drawing). In such a manner he creates continuity between movement, the story and action, shapes merge, as do people and surroundings – physical ones and those from memory; they work as reminders, as illustrations of a gradually fading memory. In such a way, memory is theoretically articulated in the work of William Kentridge – in the form of narrative, as a technique of representation – and thus related to the concept of the October Salon.

Johannesburg, 2nd Greatest City After Paris (1989) portrays Kentridge’s home town through a dark, kafkaesque story of the conflict of two characters and two classes – Felix, the ordinary man, and Soho, the industrialist. Such a criticism of capitalism is universal, to the same extent that it refers to the South African context: the notoriety of apartheid is evident in the scene in which a line of disgruntled (black) workers approach Soho who is eating avariciously and defying them, finally throwing his food at them, which represents white conformism in Africa. Felix represents the urban dweller with all his anxieties and neurosis; he is the witness of violence – both physical and that over the landscape and nature – which is conveyed to the observer as the result of the colonial system from which he tries to escape. The antagonism between Soho and Felix and their relationship towards the surroundings, people, objects, nature, Johannesburg and Soho’s wife (who intensifies their antagonism because she becomes the object of their rivalry) – all make up the narrative of the film. In Kentridge’s films, with the passing of time these two characters become more complex and start merging, representing polarised types, archetypal relationships, perhaps even anonymous individuals through which we are able to read South African society and relationships within it. Johannesburg is the urban landscape coded by the artist with autobiographical contents, sometimes hermetical, delineating his vision of apartheid life and its ubiquity in everyday life.

History of the Main Complaint (1996) is a metaphorical story of everyday life suppression. “Forgetting is natural, remembering is the effort one makes” says Kentridge, summing up the psychological interpretation of the process of remembering and forgetting. Our brain functions as an incessant and selective filter to outside stimuli, the optimism of remembering makes us forget extra information, as well as bad ones (because people try to keep a positive image of themselves). However, on the other hand there is the mechanism of suppression that occurs when man is not able to deal adequately with difficult situations in life and strong emotions, more precisely – overcoming, which is the narrative of this work. Soho lies in a hospital bed, in a coma, reliving his suppressed emotions and memories. The deeper we delve into Soho’s subconscious, the more clear the colour symbolism: a man being hurt while on the road seen by Soho who is driving by in his car, is represented with small red crosses, which are automatically registered on the x-ray image as fractures – these small crosses become the manifestation of pain that fill Soho within; memories of violence, are open wounds. It is believed that this work refers – through the creative and coded language of the author – to contemporary events, the end of apartheid and the instigation of The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established the same year the work was made. The Commission’s task was to document the pain and injustice suffered by the blacks from South Africa so that what happened during apartheid (1948-1993) was remembered, however also in order to forgive the perpetrators in a Christian way and open the possibility of a peaceful and non-violent future coexistence. In such a sense, charcoal may be metaphorically understood as a means of cleansing, symbolising fire that destroys, but also purifies – after hot emotions there comes reconsideration, reviewing ones acts.* However, Soho is not able to deal with what is in him, with the violence that he witnessed and the memories that trouble him, he continues with everyday life – the hospital bed transforms into his office. South African novelist J.M. Coetzee articulates that this represents the inability of separation with the old regime – the colonial entrapment.

Stereoscope (1999) is an interesting work for the analysis of the processes at work that brought about its conception: Kentridge states that he had the intention of opposing two parallel images using the stereoscope technique, and also so that he could use the blue chalk he had purchased in London. The outcome of the work was influenced by many factors that occurred during the process, among which were different upheavals and protests that, as Kentridge declares, he followed on television and that defined certain scenes, creating the narrative of the physical and emotional division of the character who resembles both Soho and Kentridge. Felix and Soho are two sides of the same coin through which we recognise the author himself who, by means of them, as marionettes, speaks of the personal and universal, his own memories and social reality. Unlike the original stereoscopic image that, through an optical illusion, is able to create the impression that two identical images seen through the lens are three-dimensional, in film the images part and two sides of one character are followed – one that is insensitive to the world around him, that is constantly working and the other who is withdrawn and introspective. Interpretations of the work speak of the post-apartheid period and the dual consideration of the past, the reality set before South African society. In support of this is the (often reproduced) last scene from the film: in an empty room we see Soho/Kentridge who has merged into one person and from whom blue water is pouring – a metaphor of being overwhelmed by inner emotions that have been suppressed. Therefore water, the colour blue, symbolise treatment, ablution – healing wounds within and outside oneself, which is the precursor of surpassing a problem. However this libation may also represent drowning and self-destruction; there is a thin line between liberation and suppression in a state of great tension.

The fourth film What Will Come (has already come) (2007) separately exhibited in another space, is one of the works that criticises (like The Black Box and The Magic Flute) the fallacies and contradictions of the Enlightenment, and the dark, suppressed histories of colonialism – in this case the Abyssinian war of 1935-6, when the Italians used poison gas against the Ethiopians, as a sort of overture to the Second World War. In a technical sense the video supports anamorphosis: on a round table, the projection is cast from the ceiling and rotates creating the illusion that the table is spinning; the image on the table is distorted, while in the central part – on a sleek metal roller – the correct image is seen. Baring in mind the technical aspect of the presentation, as well as the theme, the work may be observed as a way of considering the effects of the repetitive nature of history, as a cyclical process. It is by large hermetic as only fragments and suggestions are offered – stories, characters, scenes, music… Charcoal is like a deep dark well, i.e. pain, remembrance, the subconscious, the suppressed; the artist takes on the role of someone who testifies and speaks of the human psyche and emotions, and the forgotten history (or a history that aims at forgetting and/or suppressing).

What is political in the art of William Kentridge? Kentridge creates homage to old artists such as Francisco Goya, George Grosz and Alfred Jarry, inspired by the theatre and pantomime, evoking the visual space of his childhood – a return to a perhaps less anxious and unspoiled way of seeing and understanding things. He bears witness of the apartheid through art and his own vision, deeply personal and universal, not through manifestos, political symbols and ‘the great story’ – but rather in the way politics appear in everyday life – through contradictions, ambivalences and free interpretations. One may conclude that Kentridge’s approach is shaped by neo-colonialism which is equivocal and ambiguous, which is the dangerous inheritance of independent African states, shifting the dependency from ex-colonisers to new frontiers – culture, economy… Considerations of the African continent with its complex history and interaction with Europeans may be difficult, all the more so when one’s identity is manipulated with over the course of centuries, and in numerous subtle ways governed to this day.

African artist are in a continual state of introspection and strife with their own memories (that is always linked to the place of birth), however also the necessary confrontations with contemporary, and pre-colonial history, as expressed by Simon Njami who, within the scope of the famous exhibition Africa Remix, defined Kentridge as one of those artists who deal with identity and history. The artists of today are the ones that remember, those who make memoires of their cultures searching for their own place in time and history. Observed from this point, Kentridge’s work has a important role in representing a self-conscious personal history, pertaining to ways of dealing with memory. Present in his work is the constant need to confront the past, the feeling of being overwhelmed by emotions and memories that make him escape into conformism, behind four walls, into dreams, denial; there is also the mechanical repetition embodied in everyday work. In such a subtle way (the way that it is), the heritage of neo-colonialism and fear of change are maintained, as is the fear of accepting mistakes and blame. Therefore his work gains an important role in a society that since 1994 has been attempting to deal with its own heritage and testifies, without calling to revenge, all of the negative aspects of apartheid and colonialism.

Translation: Ivan Epštajn

 

* tumačenje boja se oslanja na / color analysis relies on:

Susan Stewart, “A Messenger”, in “The Open Studio: Essays on Art and Aesthetics”, University of Chicago press, 2005.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Arhiva

Blogovi koje pratim

wanderlustplusone

Blog about the fun of travelling with children to weird and wonderful places across the world.

POGLED IZ SVEMIRSKOG BRODA

emisija o naučnoj fantastici, hororu i fenteziju

Daniel Kovač

Crteži, knjige, Jesenji Orkestar

Blog de Sylvia Marcos

Artículos y publicaciones de la investigadora feminista Sylvia Marcos

PAGINA DENTATA

the animals and culture blog

Beastly Histories

Researching and Writing More-than-Human Histories

Youthvoiceblog

This blog is dedicated to voice the voices of young generation hunger for change. Today many young people have important things to say but no one is listening. This blog is committed to giving them the tools to make their voices heard. This blogs deals with different areas including: youth policies, gender equality, climate change, youth political participation, conflict resolution, leadership…

%d bloggers like this: