Ioan Augustin Pop. ”Undoubtedly, names like Pollock, Warhol, Jeff Koons, Sean Scully, Bruce Neuman, etc. are often brought up in Romanian art communities and schools.”

 Ioan Augustin Pop, b. 1955, artist

1. What American art exhibitions did you see between 1965 and 1989?

- The Visual Artist at Work in America, Expo Transilvania, Cluj-Napoca, 1979.

- THE MUSEUM - The American Museum/A Mirror of Community (with short presentations of American art, as well as comparisons with XIXth century and avant-garde art), Cluj Museum of Art, 1980.

2. Between 1965 and 1989, did you see American art in Romania or abroad?

I never went abroad. At the Cluj Museum, I witnessed spectacular art, monumental and even overwhelming.

3. Which American artists and what American approaches/trends/styles interested you at the time?

Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning were my favorite artists for a long time, then Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns and, secondarily, Andy Warhol and pop art. Naturally, the New York School and/or American abstract expressionism held my interest for many years.

4. What position did American art and visual culture have in the artistic milieu you frequented at the time; was it a topic of conversation, was it influential?

Please compare it with the influence of European art or art from communist spaces.

The first contact, in 1979, was intense, but personal, while the context accrued mixed feelings from ambiguity and ignorance to "resistant" perception. In academic as well as artistic circles people would just shrug. I know (engaged) topical art and (non-dogmatic) spiritual tendencies didn't really account for American art. 

Symptomatically, I'd say, at the time of both the American exhibition and Eugen Tăutu's personal exhibition at the museum, I overheard the statement "Tăutu's got all these Americans beat". After the MUSEUM... exhibition in 1980, American art only remained a curiosity. Illustrated and bibliographical resources were lacking. Starting in 1984, within the context of the (A.35) group from Oradea, once topics and information on XXth century European art came in, I was part of interesting discussions that carried a lot of questions and ambiguity towards Americans. I don't believe American art played a straightforward role in the Oradea art scene (same as, as far as I could see, in Cluj, Timișoara, Maia-Mare, Bistrița), as much as being influential due to the perception of Western creations, a mixed bag of Euro-American trends and approaches. I think the result of the creations of that time was a mixture of playful instinct (first and foremost), the desire to do things differently, personal intuition, and remnants of antebellum modernism. If I were to point to something emblematic, I would call it Metaphorized-West-German-Pollock-neoexpressionism, alternating with symbolizing object mixtures. Describing the scene between '64 and '89 in dogmatic terms or in terms of something between propaganda imagery and Western attitudes would be an exaggeration, if not outright false. The mindset was dominated by play and juvenile irony, except for some more or less private reactions unveiled after '89. If such a thing as remnants of the regime persist, I'd say they are to be found deep in the undeclared and well-trodden, conceptually clichéd cracks.

5. Retrospectively, do you think that American art and visual culture were a decisive factor in your development as an artist/theoretician?

I'm not a theoretician. The The Visual Artist at Work in America exhibition is one of the most beautiful events I attended and a story I like to tell all the time. What was I left with and how did it impact my work? In short, remembering that event and coming into contact with Western events after '89, I gradually discovered that people and their creations have a more complex potential, beyond the usual programs and clichés served up in any community. I'm positive that was the beginning. I'd found out that freedom is placed alongside consciousness, the place human beings are born and evolve from, the sense of value and history in present time. As a result, throughout my development, I've discovered art within life and that one doesn't do work just by straining one's eyes on evanescent horizons. 

6. Did the American art exhibitions organized in Romania during that period contribute decisively in this sense, or did the information you had about American art and visual culture in general contribute more to this impact?

American art of the '50s-'70s was a seed for my subsequent understanding of myself and my work, coexisting with life's landscape. I think this applies for the Artist, for the person that has seen idiocy become a ruling force in history. As far as I'm concerned, '79 was the centre of the universe around which all information first fell into its proper place. Then came my purpose, the judgement by which I contextualized myself through what was to follow in terms of creation.

7. Do you remember whether the presentation and reception of American art and visual culture were encouraged by the communist regime?

To be honest, I never could fathom how the visual arts and cultural events of the past regime were possible. It may have had to do with certain diplomatic relations in Eastern Europe. I don't know, it's strange. When it comes to American cinema that reached Romania, I thought the sop-stories Love Story and Sunshine from '70-'73 were so successful because of certain themes that were critical of American society, reactions to the war, personal dramas dominated by the middle class, etc., etc. I don't think American art could have been encouraged, there wasn't anyone/anything to encourage it – I'm thinking of art schools, cultural institutions, and last but not least, artists' initiatives. Introductory discourses, namely Jimmy Carter and Ronal Reagan quotes, at various events could be stimulating for Romanian artists. They did not resonate, though. The years 1979 and 1980, that brought us the aforementioned exhibitions, came way after 1970, the year of Ceaușescu's visit to Korea and his meeting Kim Il-sung, followed by his meeting with the Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung. The Chinese Cultural Revolution influenced events like Daciada, Cântarea României, National Salons, and the famous homage exhibitions. 

8. Was being a sympathizer of American art esthetically/ideologically/politically risky?

I think the position of sympathizer was pretty neutral compared to that of the militant or regimented activist. But yes, if the sympathizer happened to be called Ai Weiwei, if they initiated movements on the scale of the avant-garde in nazi Germany, if the hippy movement were to take root on the banks of the Dâmbovița, if Polish neoexpressionism were born in the context of a local Solidarity sindicate. And I have to add that the risk beyond the status of sympathizer, opposing resident gestures of a national bent, only becomes relevant within the bubble of Sighet painters. Because the painters from Sighetul Marmației, who painted and drew with their own blood, are nowhere to be found. 

9. Retrospectively, do you think the influence of American art and visual culture on Romanian art and visual culture between 1965 and 1989 contributed to the transformation/development of Romanian culture and society? If so, in what way?

Klaus Honnef tries to draw some distinctions between American and West European art between 1960 and 1990, without claiming judgements of "specificity". Actually, the issue of American vs. Western art has gradually faded alongside the redistribution and multiplication of important capitals around the world, as well as capital. Which makes me think that if the continental distinction after 1960 involves an effort towards intercontinentality, towards interaction within the free world etc., the subject of American art's influence up to 2023 is a treacherous one to judge. I think that under totalitarianism American art's direct influence was exerted in isolated cases and depending on what we saw as "Western art", while its perception in Romania after 1990 is far reduced in general. Undoubtedly, names like Pollock, Warhol, Jeff Koons, Sean Scully, Bruce Neuman, etc. are often brought up in Romanian art communities and schools. But we're talking about a long-term process, half a century, and about a larger cultural space, unlike what we would wish for, the direct impact and direction-setting of the elite. Personally, I don't think we can point to direct, radical changes, in the absence of direct contact with the art in question, which you have to have a personal and palpable encounter with, and actually setting foot in the land where that art was born.