The Netherlands is respectful. Russia is corrupt.


An interview with Igor Stromajer door Annet Dekker

Last fall I was invited to Split, Croatia, to take part in a panel discussion consisting of Dutch and Croatian cultural representatives to talk about our views and experiences regarding the topic of European identity. Why the connection between Croatia and the Netherlands one could wonder. Well, the relation between Croatia and the Netherlands, as moderator Renato Baretic pointed out, is quite interesting. First of all there is a similarity in the national flags, both wear the same colours and - apart from the Croatian shield - while blowing in the wind you won't notice the difference. Furthermore there are several Croatians staying in Scheveningen waiting for their trial dates to stand before the international Yugoslavia-Tribunal. And thirdly, in the 1990's quite a few Croatians decided to move abroad, many of them choose to go to the Netherlands. But what does this say about the two countries and moreover about identity? Although answers to these questions are hard to distill in a single and short discussion some interesting points were raised. Most vivid in my mind was the remark that Croatians are to this day moving to other European countries after their studies, especially those with higher education and professional qualifications. One could say that the Croatian elite is becoming European (as Michaël Zeeman remarked in his article in De Volkskrant after the discussion), leaving their Croatian marketing slogan “Croatia, the Mediterranean as it once was” behind them. There certainly is a tendency with other countries as well to look at their history when forming their current or future identity. But does this give us something new, something to look forward to or will it repeat existing stereotypes and lead us further astray from the forming of a European Union? For our monthly program Visual Foreign Correspondents in which we invite artists to create site specific work for urban screens we asked Slovenian artist Igor Stromajer to give his comment on European identity. This resulted in the work “Netherlands is respectful. Russia is corrupt” (the work can be seen and more information can be found on the website Following is an interview I had with Igor about his work, about presentation, communication and art and of course about his view on Europe.

Igor Stromajer




[a.d.] Would you say that there is a shift taking place from the private to the public. Will there be a new meaning of public (and therewith private), maybe more related to your notion of privat and intimacy?


[a.d.] When I read some of your interviews you are very pessimistic about our society; the way we can, or better cannot influence things, our lives that have been totally ‘capitalised’ and our world that has changed from a 'philosophical concept' into an ‘economical concept’. Do you believe that there is still a place for art and do you think that art can help to overcome this situation?


[a.d.] Do you see any signs of this already? Are there maybe artists or groups that you can think of?

[i.s.] Sure. The radical YOMANGO collective from Barcelona and the »GWEI - Google Will Eat Itself« project by Alessandro Ludovico and Hans Bernald, to name just the two of them as referential examples. There are many artists and projects dealing with activism, biotechnology, hacktivism, social interventions, surveillance and other tactical topics.



[a.d.] Will change be possible at all?

[i.s.] It will be. But only after the serious and profound rethinking of the contemporary capitalism and our superficial consumer society. Let's re-read The Capital by Karl Marx. Quite some answers are there already.

[a.d.] Many artists try to make a statement by using humor as a strategy. Can you relate to that?

[i.s.] Partially. Perhaps I can relate more to irony, provocation and perverseness. I'm not so good in humor, but my irony often comes from using the twisted reality or tactical changes of contexts. I do serious projects in twisted contexts, and that creates irony.


[i.s.] Quite hard. But I have made a work which wins the competition with other outputs, because its visual and textual structure is so very different comparing to what the other urban outputs are offering in an urban cityspace. It even looks from the outside, at a glance, that – by having such a different appearance and message – my work doesn't want to compete with them at all. And this is the point where it beats them all.


[a.d.] What do you think about the remark that Gorbatshow made when he said »I for one am sick of the attempts by some politicians to teach others how to live and what policy to conduct. They proceed from the arrrogant assumption that the life and policy of their own country is an example and a model of freedom, democracy, economic activity and social standard.« What are the stakes in following this through?

[i.s.] Gorbachev was a very soft person, his rationality and sensitivity have saved millions of people's lifes (soviet transition period with a brutal hard-liner on power would be much worse and much more bloody). But he was a very bad statesman without a vision. That makes him a tragic figure.


Quite strange, isn't it?

What he wrote is also exactly what all the other guys (like Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, etc) are saying, when someone mentions democracy and civil rights to them, aren't they? And that is exactly what the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was repeating all the time.

I believe in equality and in the rule of law, so for me that »arrogant assumption« is not arrogant at all, but rather essential for the rule of law, transparency of the civil rights, and citizens' safe, healthy but critical relationship with the government.


Gorbachev's statement is an example of a very dangerous romanticism, and so many people has died in previous centuries because of glorifying such romantic differences and uniqueness which were often a disguise for autocracy. Ok, the history is not Gorbachev's fault (and at the end of the day he is a positive guy), but that doesn't put his statement into a better light.

[a.d.] This bring me to your project. What are your underlying thoughts in this project?

[i.s.] There is only one: We are all equal. But some are less equal as others.

[a.d.] Where and how did you assemble the texts?


[a.d.] On the basis of what criteria (if any) did you make the final selection?


I often lie, but I do not know when exactly.




[i.s.] Two lines are simply representing the two political and cultural groups: Western and Eastern Europe.



I have had no mercy at all ...

But because of the size of the texts and the crawling speed it is never possible to see or read the sentences in total on one screen, one has has to always read them in motion, with the eyes following the two text lines in parallel, so it is also possible to make a 'reading mistake', that is to assign one attribute to the 'wrong' country. The rhythm forces us to make mistakes, to confound one country with another, to mix east and west by mistake. Isn't that beautiful?

[a.d.] What does the division between East and West mean to you? Is there something like an East/West division in your opinion? If so, do you incorporate this in your work?



[a.d.] What or why did you move away from the east/west division?


[a.d.] Do you think the meaning of these sentences will ever change? Is there hope for Europe to overcome its own stigmata?


Well, we do same now, don't we? Because we are afraid of our own thoughts and of our own history.