TOMISLAV

GOTOVAC
CRISIS
ANTICIPA-
TOR
14 INTRODUCTION
CRISIS ANTICIPATOR: TOMISLAV GOTOVAC
Darko Šimičić and Miško Šuvaković

I MEMORY:
POWER OF THE ARTIST

24 MEDITATIONS IN HINDSIGHT ABOUT TOM

THE WAY HE’S REMEMBERED BY GORAN PETERCOL
AND GORAN TRBULJAK
Goran Petercol and Goran Trbuljak

36 FOUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF

THE CROATIAN NEO-AVANT-GARDE
Antiart – Absurd – Subversion – Individual Mythologies
A Study of the Case of Tomislav Gotovac
Miško Šuvaković
13 UVOD
ANTICIPATOR KRIZA: TOMISLAV GOTOVAC
Darko Šimičić i Miško Šuvaković

I MEMORIJA:
MOĆ UMJETNIKA

23 NAKNADNE MEDITACIJE O TOMU

KAKO GA SE SJEĆAJU GORAN PETERCOL
I GORAN TRBULJAK
Goran Petercol i Goran Trbuljak

35 ČETIRI TEMELJNA PRINCIPA

HRVATSKE NEOAVANGARDE
Antiumetnost – apsurd – subverzija – individualne mitologije
Studija slučaja Tomislav Gotovac
Miško Šuvaković
II FILM:
EXPERIMENTAL
AND / OR ANTIFILM

98 THE DECLINATION OF FILM ACCORDING TO

TOM / ANTONIO GOTOVAC / LAUER
Diana Nenadić

132 TO LIVE SELF-CONFIDENTLY WATCHING

Gotovac’s Film as Experiment in Content,
Structure and Culture
Marija Katalinić and Boris Ružić

III IN BETWEEN:
TACTICAL POSTMEDIA

180 I AM SOMETHING BETWEEN FILM AND PAINTING

Janka Vukmir

208 PAINTING – BODY – CAMERA

Ana Ofak

227 COSTUME, MASK, UNIFORM

Modes of Subjectivation in the Performances
and Actions of Tomislav Gotovac
Andrej Mirčev

246 THE NEWSPAPER ART OF TOMISLAV GOTOVAC

Darko Šimičić

262 IT WAS 100 PERCENT CRAZY

On Anna Halprin and Tomislav Gotovac
Ana Janevski
IV RECONSTRUCTED SUBJECT:
CONSPIRACY OF WORLD VIEW

302 SIGNATURE, EVENT, CONTEXT

Speech Act Theory, Institutional Critique and the Renaming
of Tomislav Gotovac to Antonio Gotovac Lauer
Suzana Milevska

320 GONE BEYOND A JOKE

Ksenija Orelj and Nataša Šuković

338 TOMISLAV GOTOVAC OR WHY THE UN IS LOCATED

ON THE EAST RIVER?
Suzana Marjanić

384 Artist's Biography

390 TRANSCRIPTS
(Selection)

408 Writers' Biographies

410 Bibliography
(Selection)
IV REKONSTRUIRANI SUBJEKT:
ZAVJERA SLIKE SVIJETA

301 POTPIS, DOGAĐAJ, KONTEKST

Teorija govornog čina, institucionalna kritika i promjena
imena Tomislava Gotovca u Antonio Gotovac Lauer
Suzana Milevska

319 KADA VRAG ODNESE ŠALU

Ksenija Orelj i Nataša Šuković

337 TOMISLAV GOTOVAC ILI ZBOG ČEGA SE UJEDINJENI

NARODI NALAZE NA EAST RIVERU?
Suzana Marjanić

383 Biografija umjetnika

389 TRANSKRIPTI
(izbor)

407 Biografije autora tekstova

410 Bibliografija
(izbor)
RECON-
STRUCTED
SUBJECT:
CONSPIR-
ACY OF
WORLD
VIEW
 [300]

Suzana Milevska
 [ 3 01] R E KO N ST RU I R A N I SU BJ E KT

POTPIS, DOGAĐAJ, KONTEKST

Teorija govornog čina, institucionalna
kritika i promjena imena Tomislava
Gotovca u Antonio Gotovac Lauer

Nisam imala priliku upoznati ovog umjetnika, ni dok se zvao Tomislav

Gotovac, ni poslije, kad je promijenio ime u Antonio Gotovac Lauer.1
Trebali smo se sastati 2009., kad je već djelovao pod novim imenom.2
Kontaktirala sam ga da porazgovaramo o mogućnosti njegovog sudje-
lovanja u mojem interdisciplinarnom istraživanju i kustoskom projektu
pod nazivom Stroj za preimenovanje: Knjiga, ali on se nije pojavio, a
kako je do otvorenja izložbe bilo ostalo premalo vremena, nisam mogla
uključiti njegove radove u taj projekt.3 Budući da su njegov rad i odluka
da promijeni vlastito ime bile značajne za projekt, u posljednji dio knjige
Stroj za preimenovanje uključili smo odlomak koji govori o njegovoj
promjeni imena, u sklopu dodatka koji je bio zamišljen kao kalendar i
rječnik relevantnih umjetničkih djela, povijesnih fenomena i neobičnih
događaja koji se općenito vezuju uz promjene imena:

1 Dugujem golemu zahvalnost Zori
Cazi Gotovac i Darku Šimičiću, koji čuvaju umjetniko-
vu ostavštinu u Institutu Tomislav Gotovac u Zagrebu,
što su mi omogućili pristup detaljnoj pravnoj i
umjetničkoj dokumentaciji vezanoj uz Gotovčevu
promjenu imena. Bez toga ovaj tekst ne bi bio moguć.
2 Imali smo zakazan sastanak 7.
veljače u podne, u zagrebačkoj kavani Dubrovnik,
dva dana prije njegovog 62. rođendana. Nakon što
sam neko vrijeme čekala, nazvala sam ga, a on se
ispričao i rekao da nije došao zbog zdravstvenih
poteškoća. Više nije bilo prilike da se sastanemo
jer sam već idućeg dana otputovala iz Zagreba.
Nažalost, Gotovac/Lauer preminuo je pet mjeseci
poslije, 25. lipnja 2010. pa se tako nije ostvario ni
naš sastanak, ni njegovo sudjelovanje u projektu.
3 Projekt Stroj za preimenovanje
sastojao se od triju izložbi, nekoliko konferencija,
seminara, video arhiva te knjige Stroj za preime-
novanje koju je 2010. izdao ljubljanski Institut
P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Izložba se u Zagrebu održavala u Ga-
leriji Miroslav Kraljević, od 20. svibnja do 3. srpnja
2009., a ostvarena je u suradnji s kustosicama
Ivanom Bagom i Antonijom Majačom.
 [ 3 02 ] R EC O N ST RU CT E D SU BJ ECT

SIGNATURE, EVENT, CONTEXT

Speech Act Theory, Institutional
Critique and the Renaming of Tomislav
Gotovac to Antonio Gotovac Lauer

I’ve never had the opportunity to meet the artist in person, neither as
Tomislav Gotovac, nor under his changed name of Antonio Gotovac
Lauer.1 We were supposed to meet in 2009, when he already assumed
the name of Antonio Gotovac Lauer.2 I contacted him in order to discuss
the possibility of his participation in my long term cross-disciplinary
research and curatorial project The Renaming Machine, but he didn’t
show up for the meeting and due to the short time remaining until the
exhibition’s opening I could not include his works in the project.3 Be-
cause his work and the decision to rename himself were highly relevant
for the project, a passage about his change of name was included in the
last part of The Renaming Machine: The Book, an appendix conceived as

1 I am profoundly indebted and
grateful to both Zora Cazi Gotovac and Darko
Šimičić who take care of the archive and the legacy
of the artist (in the context of the Tomislav Gotovac
Institute in Zagreb) for providing me with detailed
legal and artistic documentation regarding the
artist’s change of his name, which made this text
possible.
2 We had a scheduled meeting
on 7 February at noon in the café Dubrovnik in
Zagreb, just two days before his 62nd birthday.
I called him after waiting for some time, but he
excused himself for not coming due to health is-
sues. There was no other occasion to meet because
I left Zagreb the next day. Unfortunately Gotovac/
Lauer passed away five months later, on 25 June
2010, so neither the meeting, nor his participation
could be possible.
3 The project The Renaming
Machine consisted of three exhibitions, several
conferences, seminars, a video archive, and the
publication The Renaming Machine: The Book which
was published in 2010 by the leading institution of
the project: P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Institute, Ljubljana. The
exhibition in Zagreb took place in the Gallery Miro-
slav Kraljević, 20 May-3 July 2009, in collaboration
with Ivana Bago and Antonia Majača, the gallery’s
curators.
 [ 3 03 ] R E KO N ST RU I R A N I SU BJ E KT

2005.
Ove godine poznati hrvatski umjetnik performansa i film-
ski režiser Tomislav Gotovac promijenio je ime u Antonio Lauer, uzevši
djevojačko prezime svoje majke. Dok imena Tomislav i Gotovac dolaze
s očeve, dalmatinske, strane, imena Antonio i Lauer s majčine su strane
(Gotovčeva majka bila je Nijemica rođena u Somboru, od oca Franza
Lauera, poznatog mesara). Gotovac tvrdi da Antonio Lauer nije ništa
drugo nego novo ime: promjena imena dogodila se tijekom njegove po-
trage za stvarnim identitetom; to nije učinjeno kao umjetničko djelo...4
Ovaj tekst, međutim, predstavlja moj prvi pokušaj da produ-
bim analizu Gotovčeve promjene imena, koja je neodvojiva od njegove
biografije, i to kroz prizmu teorije govornog čina i performativnog iskaza,
kao i u kontekstu suvremenih umjetničkih diskursa i institucionalne kritike.

Preimenovanje kao govorni čin: potpis, preimenovanje, kontekst

Čin preimenovanja često se spominje u kontekstu konceptualnih stra-

tegija unutar suvremenih umjetničkih pokreta. Umjetnici se već odavno
služe promjenom imena, neformalnom ili formalnom, kao sredstvom
stjecanja ili ponovnog stjecanja određenih umjetničkih ‘moći’ ili osvaja-
nja novih ‘teritorija’. Višestruka imena, pseudonimi i imaginarne persone
popularne su među umjetnicima od samih početaka umjetnosti. Žene
su nekoć morale potpisivati svoje umjetničke radove izmišljenim imeni-
ma zato što se umjetnost smatrala profesijom koja za njih nije prikladna
i koja im je u društvenom kontekstu nedostupna. Sjetimo se, primjerice, i
Marcela Duchampa i njegovih pseudonima Rrose Selávy i R. Mutt, zatim
projekata takozvanog višestrukog imena, kao što su Montsy Cantsin,
Karen Eliot, Mario Ross, Bob Jones, Klaos Oldanburg ili pak dobro pozna-
ti Luther Blissett u mail artu.5 Odluka umjetnika da ‘zamagli’ svoje pravo
na autorstvo često je bivalo popraćeno sporovima i skandalima, upravo
zato što je proturječna idejama jedinstvenog autorstva, autentičnosti i
genija koje se vezuju uz tradicionalno poimanje umjetnosti.
I profesionalni i privatni život Antonija Lauera a.k.a. Tomislava
Gotovca6 bili su ispunjeni kontroverzijama i proturječjem, upravo zbog
njegovih neprestanih nastojanja da ospori tradicionalna shvaćanja um-

4 Ovaj odlomak odnosi se na
telefonski razgovor s umjetnikom, koji se odvio
7. veljače 2010., koji su objavile Suzana Milevska i
Biljana Tanurovska–Kjulavkovski u: „Thesaurus of
Renaming”, u: Suzana Milevska (ur.), The Renaming
Machine: The Book, P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E., Ljubljana,
2010., str. 393 - 394.
5 Blinky Palermo (rođen pod
imenom Peter Schwarze, a.k.a Peter Heisterkamp),
te namjerno odabrana anonimnost umjetnika koji
su potpisivali svoja djela grupnim imenom kao što
su Fluxus, Gutai, Irwin, Monument, itd., samo su
neki od primjera promjena imena u umjetnosti.
Usp. „Multiple name“ u: Sztuka Fabryka Mail-Art
Encyclopedia, http://www.sztuka-fabryka.be/
encyclopaedia/items/multiple_name.htm.
6 Ili Tomislav Gotovac a.k.a.
Antonio G. Lauer, što se češće pojavljuje u
umjetničkim kontekstima
 [ 3 04 ] R EC O N ST RU CT E D SU BJ ECT

a calendar and thesaurus of relevant art works, historic phenomena and

curious events involving acts of renaming:
2005
In this year, the famous Croatian performance artist and film
director Tomislav Gotovac changes his name to Antonio Lauer, which is
based on his mother’s maiden name. While the names Tomislav and
Gotovac came from his father’s Dalmatian side, the names Antonio and
Laurens are found on his mother’s side (she was German, born in Som-
bor, in the family of a well-known butcher). Gotovac says that the name
‘Antonio Lauer’ is nothing more than his new name: the change of name
came about in the course of pursuing his true identity; it was not done as
an artwork...4
This text is however my first attempt to expand the analysis of
Gotovac’s change of name, which is inextricable from this artist’s biogra-
phy, in the context of speech acts theory and performative utterances, as
well in the context of contemporary art discourses of institutional critique.

Renaming as a Speech Act: Signature, the Event of Renaming

and the Context

Change of name is often used as an extension of artistic conceptual

strategies in art movements and contemporary art scenes. Artists have
long used rogue or legal self-renaming as a way of gaining, and regain-
ing, certain artistic ‘powers’ and authority over different ‘territories’.
Multiple names, pseudonyms and imaginary personas have been pop-
ular with artists since the very beginning of art. Women artists were
forced to sign their art works with imagined names while art was still
seen as a profession not appropriate for women and socially was not
made available to them. Also consider for example Marcel Duchamp’s
several pseudonyms including Rrose Selavy and R. Mutt; the multiple
names Cantsin, Karen Eliot, Mario Rossi, Bob Jones, Klaos Oldanburg
and the well-known Luther Blissett Project in mail art.5 The decision to
‘obscure’ one’s singular right to authorship by overwriting one’s own
name has often been accompanied by copyright disputes and scandals
because it profoundly counterparts the idea of unique authorship, au-
thenticity and genius linked with the traditional understanding of art.

4 This passage referred to the 5 Blinky Palermo (born Peter

phone conversation with the artist which took place
on 7 February 2010 and was published in: Suzana
Milevska and Biljana Tanurovska–Kjulavkovski, “A
Thesaurus of Renaming” in: Suzana Milevska (ed.),
The Renaming Machine: The Book, P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E.
Institute, Ljubljana, 2010, pp. 393 - 394.
Schwarze, aka Peter Heisterkamp), and the inten-
tional anonymity of individual artists who signed
works under group names such as Fluxus, Gutai,
Irwin, Monument, etc. are only a few examples
of such artistic change of name. See the entry
“Multiple name” in Sztuka Fabryka Mail-Art Encyclo-
pedia, http://www.sztuka-fabryka.be/encyclopae-
dia/items/multiple_name.htm.
 [ 3 05] R E KO N ST RU I R A N I SU BJ E KT

jetnosti. Međutim, njegova odluka iz 2004. da promijeni vlastito ime, u

sjećanje na majku Bešku (prema podacima iz rodnog lista njezino puno
ime bilo je Elizabeta), predstavlja jedan od kontroverznijih poteza u nje-
govoj karijeri.7 Premda ova umjetnikova ‘akcija’ nije bila zamišljena kao
konceptualna umjetnost (to nije bilo ni objektno-orijentirano djelo, ni
performans), smatram da je sama odluka o promjeni imena neizbježno i
istinski utjecala na posljednje godine Gotovčeve umjetničke produkcije,
i to na brojne načine.8
Umjetnik svoje novo ime nije upotrebljavao dosljedno, niti
su to činili kustosi i teoretičari njegovog djela, i zato je ta promjena ime-
na stvarala zbrku. Pokušala sam rekonstruirati dokumentaciju i službene
podatke o tom činu, krenuvši s vrlo jasnom idejom o tome kako želim
da izgleda moj tekst. Međutim, naišla sam na brojne nepodudarnosti
u bilježenju datuma i u samim načinima na koje se staro i novo ime
pojavljivalo u raznim službenim dokumentima (rodni list, smrtovnica,
osobna iskaznica, putovnica, zdravstvena iskaznica) te na potpisanim
crtežima, kolažima i drugim umjetničkim djelima, i prije i poslije službe-
nog čina promjene imena. Neovisno o tome jesam li istraživala potpise
ovog umjetnika na njegovim djelima ili pak na službenim dokumentima,
prezimena Gotovac/Lauer predstavljala su pravu zbrku i to je bilo doista
frustrirajuće.9 Čak i njegov prvi rodni list stvara konfuziju jer već ondje
stoji da je njegovo prezime Lauer.10 Međutim, moja namjera u ovome
tekstu nije baviti se različitim načinima na koje je ova zbrka i odluka o
promjeni imena utjecala na recepciju, izlaganje, promoviranje i distri-
buciju njegovih djela (premda se to ne može osporiti i nije nevažno).
Radije bih se pozabavila nekim od teoretskih, performativnih i političkih
(čitaj: feminističkih) implikacija promjene imena na Gotovčev privatni i
umjetnički identitet.
U svome eseju „No Name“ Aldo Milohnič citira tvrdnju
Barbare Novak da je zadržavanje ili slobodno mijenjanje vlastitog imena

7 Umjetnikov zahtjev za promje- 9 Katkad se potpisivao i kao

nom imena, predan Uredu državne uprave grada
Zagreba, prihvaćen je 25. svibnja 2004.
8 Za detaljnije i intimnije objaš-
njenje umjetnikove motivacije za promjenom
imena, pogledajte video snimku naslovljenu Majka
(snimio Darko Bavoljak): https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=aHN6DJHea_A U ovom video-mono-
logu Gotovac/Lauer vezuje čin promjene imena uz
svoju ljubav prema majci i tumači ga kao posvetu
majčinom teškom životu s njegovim ocem Ivanom
koji joj je bio nevjeran, seksistički nastrojen te nije
pokazivao nimalo brige za njezino zdravlje. Video
Majka predstavljen je kao dio izložbe Intima, u
koncepciji Jasmine i Darka Bavoljaka, održane u
Galeriji Klovićevi dvori (17. 10. – 19. 11. 2006.).
Antonius Lauer (1970., 1971.), katkad samo kao TO-
MISLAV® (1975.) ili Antonio Lauer. Prema detaljnom
kronološkom prikazu, koji mi je ustupila umjetniko-
va bivša žena Zora Cazi Gotovac, ideja o promjeni
imena mnogo je starija, a javlja se već 1970-ih.
Prema riječima Zore Cazi, umjetnikova želja za
promjenom imena u tom razdoblju bila je vezana
uz njegove težnje za ostvarivanjem međunarodne
karijere, a ne za odanost majci, kako on to poslije
objašnjava.
10 Gotovčev prvi rodni list bio je
izdan na mađarskom (Gotovac je rođen u Somboru,
gradu u kojem živi mađarska manjina). Isti rodni list
navodi dva imena: Tomislav i Antonius, a Gotovac
se pojavljuje kao očevo prezime, stoga se čini da se
promjena odnosi samo na poredak njegovih dvaju
imena, Antonius i Tomislav.
 [306] R EC O N ST RU CT E D SU BJ ECT

Both the professional and the personal life of Antonio G.

Lauer a.k.a. Tomislav Gotovac6 were abundantly attended with contro-
versies and contradictions because of the artist’s constant challenges to
the traditional definitions of art. His 2004 decision to change his name
in memory of his mother Beška (according to his birth certificate her full
name was Elizabeta) was one of his most controversial career moves.7
Although the artist’s ‘action’ was not conceived as a conceptual art work
(it was neither an object-driven work, nor a performance) I want to argue
that the decision to change his name inevitably and profoundly affected
the last years of Gotovac’s art production in various ways.8
The artist’s new name was not used consistently, either by
the artist, or by curators and writers following his works, and thus the
change of name created a lot of confusion. I first tried to reconstruct the
documentation and legal records starting with a very clear idea of how
I wanted to proceed with my text. However, I came across many contra-
dictions in the dates when and the ways in which the old and new name
appeared in various legal documents (birth certificate, death certificate,
identity card, passport, medical insurance card), and was used to sign
drawings, collages and other art works, before and after the change of
name. Regardless of whether I explored the artist’s signatures on his art
works or in legal documents, the situation with names Gotovac and Lauer
was a mess and very frustrating.9 The first birth certificate of Tomislav Got-
ovac (born in 9 February 1937) creates confusion because it already gives
his surname as Lauer.10 However, in this text I am not really interested in
reflecting on the different ways in which this confusion and Gotovac’s de-
cision to change his name affected the reception of and the confusion in
exhibiting, distributing and marketing of the artist’s works (although these

6 Or Tomislav Gotovac a.k.a. 9 Sometimes the artist signed his

Antonio G. Lauer as his name appears written in
the art context much more often.
7 The artist’s request to change his
name was officially accepted by the City Office of
General Administration of City of Zagreb with the
document dated on 25 May 2004.
8 For a more detailed intimate
explanation about the artist’s motivation behind
the decision to change his name check the video
Mother (recorded by Darko Bavoljak), https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=aHN6DJHea_A. During this
video monologue Gotovac/Lauer relates his deci-
sion to change his name to his admiration for his
mother. He interprets his change of name as an ac-
tion dedicated to her difficult life, according to him
a result to his father’s Ivan sexism, infidelity and a
complete lack of interest in her health. Mother was
presented as a part of the exhibition (consisting of
four video segments) Intima (Intime), conception of
Jasmina and Darko Bavoljak, Klovićevi dvori Gallery,
Zagreb, 17. 10. – 19. 11. 2006.
works as Antonius Lauer (1970, 1971), sometimes
just as TOMISLAV® (1975) or Antonio Lauer. Accord-
ing to the detailed timeline which I received by
courtesy of the artist’s ex-wife Zora Cazi Gotovac,
the idea for the change of name was much older,
emerging already in the 1970’s. According to her in
this period the wish to change his name was related
to the artist’s aspirations for pursuing an interna-
tional career, rather than his later explanation linked
to his memories of his mother.
10 The artist’s birth certificate is
written in Hungarian (the artist was born in Sombor,
an ex-Yugoslav town in today’s Serbia mostly
inhabited by Hungarian minority). The certificate
’gives two first names: Tomislav and Antonius, and
Gotovac appears as his father’s – thus his family
name (surname), so it seems that the change of the
original artist’s name was in the order of the two
first names.
 [ 3 07] R E KO N ST RU I R A N I SU BJ E KT

ljudsko pravo.11 Milohnič nadalje kaže da se veza između države i poje-

dinca, kad je riječ o mijenjanju imena, može tumačiti kao točka u kojoj
se sijeku područje politike, zakona i ekonomije.12 Činjenica da hrvatska
država nije u potpunosti udovoljila Gotovčevoj želji da se služi imenom
Antonius, nego je pristala na Antonio uz objašnjenje da ime Antonius
nije u duhu hrvatskog jezika, itekako govori u prilog ovom tumačenju
te nas podsjeća na to koliko su nacionalističke tendencije u zemljama
bivše Jugoslavije daleko od kozmopolitanizma.
Tomislav Gotovac počeo se potpisivati kao Antonio Gotovac
Lauer (ili samo Antonio Lauer) odmah nakon promjene imena, čak i
prije nego što je dobio nove dokumente. Međutim, to nije činio do-
sljedno. Problemi s izlaganjem starijih i novijih radova na kojima su sta-
jala različita imena, zatim najave izložbi, prodaja radova i sl. čak i danas
zadaju poteškoće i utječu na njegovu ostavštinu. Na primjer, tekstovi
vezani za sudjelovanje njegovog rada na Venecijanskom bijenalu
2011. (kustosice: WHW) navode oba imena, ali obrnutim redoslijedom
(Tomislav Gotovac a.k.a. Antonio G. Lauer, umjesto Antonio G. Lauer
a.k.a. Tomislav Gotovac), Institut Tomislav Gotovac u svojem nazivu
ne sadrži i njegovo drugo ime, a novije izložbe, poput one u galeriji
Alexander Gray Associates (2016.) gotovo da i ne spominju promjenu
imena, možda zato što su pretežno izlagale Gotovčeve starije radove,
potpisane prije promjene imena.13

Govorni čin kao kontradiskurs i institucionalna kritika

Na Balkanu, ali i drugdje (barem u zapadnjačkim kulturama), psovke i

pogrdne riječi obilježene su rodnim stereotipima i seksizmom koji se
usko vezuju uz patrijarhalne sustave, kulturu silovanja i općerašireno
nasilje nad ženama u medijima, javnom prostoru, pa čak i u umjetnosti.14
Premda jezik jednako pripada i muškarcima i ženama, na njegovu upo-
trebu znatno utječu kulturalno određene rodne uloge. Postoje određeni
lingvistički fenomeni koji su još dublje ukorijenjeni u kulturalno utvr-
đenim patrijarhalnim praksama, a u kontekstu zapadnjačkih kulturnih
tradicija, psovanje je svakako jedan od njih.

11 Barbara Novak, „Osebno ime 14 Za više informacija o razlikama

in človekove pravice“, Pravnik [Ljubljana] 52,
br. 1 - 3, 1997, str. 87., citirano u: Aldo Milohnič,
„No Name“, u: Suzana Milevska (ur.), The
Renaming Machine: The Book, P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E.,
Ljubljana, 2010., str. 393 - 394.
12 Ibid., str. 393.
u upotrebi jezika između spolova u tradicionalnim
zapadnjačkim kulturama: Edgar A. Gregersen,
„Sexual Linguistics“, u: Judith Orasanu, Mariam
K. Slater i Leonore Loeb Adler (ur.), Language, Sex
and Gender: Does ‘La Différence’ Make A Differen-
ce?, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
Vol. 327, New York, 1979., str. 18.

13 Tomislav Gotovac, „Public

and Intimate“, http://www.alexandergray.com/
artists/tomislav-gotovac/.
 [ 3 08 ] R EC O N ST RU CT E D SU BJ ECT

effects cannot be denied and are not irrelevant). Instead, I want to dis-
cuss some of the theoretical, performative and political (read: feminist)
implications of the change of name to his personal and artistic identity.
In his essay “No Name” Aldo Milohnič quoted Barbara
Novak’s statement that a person’s ability to keep or freely change their
name is a human right.11 According to him the relationship between the
state and an individual with regard to (re)naming might be interpreted as
a point of intersection between the spheres of politics, the law, and eco-
nomics.12 The fact that the Croatian state did not fully comply with the
wish of the artist, who would have preferred to use Antonius instead
Antonio, claiming that Antonius is not in the spirit of the Croatian lan-
guage speaks volumes in favour of this interpretation reminding us
how far the nationalistic tendencies in the ex-Yugoslav states departed
from cosmopolitanism.
Tomislav Gotovac started signing his works Antonio Gotovac
Lauer (or just Antonio Lauer) immediately after he changed his name,
and even before the acquisition of the new documents, but was not
consistent. The problem with exhibiting old works and new works under
different names, announcements of exhibitions, sales of works and so
on, even today cause a lot of difficulties and still affect his legacy. For
example, although the press material regarding his participation in the
Venice Biennial (curated by the curatorial collective W.H.W. in 2011)
stated both names, they were written in chronological and reverse order
(Tomislav Gotovac a.k.a. Antonio G. Lauer, instead of the more accu-
rate Antonio G. Lauer a.k.a. Tomislav Gotovac); the Tomislav Gotovac
Institute does not include his second name in the institution’s title, and
the more recent exhibitions of the artist, such as that in Alexander Gray
Associates (2016), hardly mention the change of name, perhaps because
they mostly present Gotovac’s older works, created and signed prior to
his change of name.13

Speech Acts as a Counterdiscourse and Institutional Critique

In the Balkans and elsewhere (at least in the Western cultures) swear-
words and vulgar expressions are charged with stereotypical gender
divisions and sexism closely linked to and determined by patriarchy,
rape culture and generally proliferated violence against women in
the media, public space and even the arts.14 Although language itself

11 Barbara Novak, “Osebno ime in 12 Ibid., p. 393.

človekove pravice”, Pravnik, Ljubljana, 52, nos. 1 - 3,
1997, p. 87. Quoted in: Aldo Milohnič, “No Name”, in:
Suzana Milevska (ed.), The Renaming Machine: The
Book, P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Institute, Ljubljana, 2010, pp.
393 - 394.
13 Tomislav Gotovac, “Public and
Intimate”, http://www.alexandergray.com/artists/
tomislav-gotovac/.
 [ 3 09] R E KO N ST RU I R A N I SU BJ E KT

Na primjer, izraz Pun mi je kurac, na kojem se bazira

serija radova što ih je Tomislav Gotovac izveo u različitim formatima
u rasponu od dvadeset godina, počevši sa serijom grafika i knjizi
umjetnika te eponimskim performansom kao što je onaj iz 1978.,
te s nekim dopunama serija grafika iz 1991., nije samo muška psovka.
Iako uključuje riječ kurac, Gotovac se služi ovim izrazom kao kontra-
diskursom zbog njegovog ideološki i politički nabijenog značenja, a ne
zbog seksualnih konotacija.
Ako se gore spomenuta psovka doslovno prevede na
engleski kao my penis is full, neće se prenijeti mnogo od njezinog
originalnog značenja. Mnogo bliži prijevod bio bi I’ve fucking had it,
I’ve had enough, I am fed up ili naprosto enough is enough. Očito je
da se radi o frazi negativnog značenja koja se najčešće upotrebljava
za izražavanje ljutnje ili revolta izazvanog određenim situacijama,
institucijama ili politikom.
Analiza psovki i pogrdnih izraza zauzima važan prostor u
analizi kontrakulturalnih diskursa, no ovdje želim naglasiti da je Gotovac,
koristeći se već postojećim frazama, stvorio određeni idiolekt koji nije
postojao i koji nije bio dostupan u vrijeme kad su nastali spomenuti
radovi. Taj idiolekt stvorila je upravo Gotovčeva jedinstvena konceptu-
alna umjetnička praksa, kao odgovor na dominantnu umjetničku scenu
tog razdoblja. Možda je i njegova odluka da promijeni ime bio pokušaj
da svoje buntovničke govorne činove usmjeri na utvrđeni patrijarhalni
poredak – u kojem je vladalo licemjerje čak i u upotrebi psovki.
Važno je naglasiti da je i sam umjetnik bio svjestan uobiča-
jenih emocija vezanih uz ovu frazu, ali njega ne zanima negativnost i
agresivnost koje se inače asociraju uz psovke. Umjesto toga, on stavlja
naglasak na značenje koje ovu frazu vezuje uz osjećaje razočaranja,
očaja, zamjeranja, pa čak i frustracije. I doista, pogledamo li doku-
mentaciju performansa gdje se Pun mi je kurac prvi put pojavljuje,
shvaćamo da nema mjesta ambivalenciji i konfuziji: ova psovka govori
o Gotovčevoj ogorčenosti umjetnošću i kulturom koje su bile službe-
no prihvaćene krajem 1970-ih godina u bivšoj Jugoslaviji.15 Njegova
je namjera bila uzvratiti uvredom, reagirati na službenu umjetničku
scenu opscenošću koja je dostupna u jeziku, zato što je i njega boljela
i vrijeđala neukost, nezainteresiranost i ravnodušnost institucija. Kako
je i sam rekao, ‘Jebo me Bog’ u tom kontekstu nije ni antireligiozna ni
skaredna psovka, ta psovka je jedna narodska pučka psovka, pošta-
palica pasivnog karaktera koja točno odražava duh našeg, hrvatskog,
naroda, ta psovka nije agresivna, kao ni psovke ‘Pun mi je kurac’ ili ‘Jebe
mi se’. Te psovke su znak metafizičkog očaja, ne agresije.16 Serija grafika

15 Tomislav Gotovac, Pun mi je

kurac iz 1978., predavanje-performans u kontekstu
šeste izložbe Nove tendencije.
 [ 3 10 ] R EC O N ST RU CT E D SU BJ ECT

belongs equally to men and women, the use of the language is highly
influenced by culturally determined gendered roles. There are certain
linguistic phenomena that are even more profoundly rooted in the cul-
turally determined patriarchal practices and swearing is definitely one
of them in the context of Western cultural traditions.
For example, the expression Pun mi je kurac central to the
series of works that Tomislav Gotovac executed in different formats and
media in the span of twenty years, starting with the series of prints, an
artist book and the eponymous performance from 1978, and with some
amendments to the prints in 1991, is not just a manly expletive. Even
though it includes the word kurac (in Croatian kurac means dick) Gotovac
used this expletive as a kind of counter-discourse, for its ideologically
and politically charged meaning, rather than for its sexual meaning.
If one translates the literal linguistic meaning of the ex-
pression in Croatian language into English as my dick is full not much
information will be conveyed about the original meaning of the state-
ment in the Croatian language and its cultural use. It would be much
closer to the original meaning and usage if the phrase were translated
as I’ve fucking had it, I’ve had enough, I am fed up, or simply as enough
is enough. It is obviously a negative expression usually used in anger
or despair in order to convey a certain kind of annoyance and revolt
towards a person, situation, an institution or politics in general.
The analysis of curses and other expletives occupies a very
important part in any analysis of countercultural discourses, but I want
to emphasise that Gotovac created a certain idiolect out of pre-existing
phrases, not pre-existing and readily available in the dominant culture
of the period of the works’ emergence; rather, it was his unique artistic
and conceptual practice that constructed it in response to the dominant
art scene at the time. Perhaps his change of name was also an attempt
to stress his rebellious speech acts, aimed against the patriarchal order,
in which hypocrisy dominated even in the case of use of the patriarchal
language of cursing.
It is important to state that the artist himself was aware of
the usual affects associated with the phrase, but he denied the nega-
tivity and aggression that are usually related to swearwords. He put the
emphasis on the meaning that relates this statement rather to disap-
pointment, despair, resentment and one could say even with frustra-
tion. And truly, if one watches the documented performance when the
statement I’ve fucking had it originally occurred in Gotovac’s work for
the first time it is obvious that there is no place left for ambivalence and

14 For some exceptions from the
usual gendered distinctions between brusque
and impolite male and more subtle female use of
the language in the tradition of Western cultures
see: Edgar A. Gregersen, “Sexual Linguistics,”
in: Judith Orasanu, Mariam K. Slater and Leonore
Loeb Adler (eds.), Language, Sex and Gender:
Does ‘La Différence’ Make A Difference?, Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York,
Volume 327, 1979, p. 18.
 [ 3 11] R E KO N ST RU I R A N I SU BJ E KT

s njegovim potpisom i copyright simbolom iz 1978., koji uključuju slične

fraze mogu se odrediti kao žestoka vrsta institucionalne kritike.
U brojnim intervjuima što ih je dao domaćim tiskanim i
elektroničkim medijima, Gotovac se nije libio izraziti svoje nezadovolj-
stvo, pa čak i prezir, zbog čega je često ulazio u dugačke polemike i
zbog čega je općenito bio poznat kao ‘neposlušna osoba’, i u privatnom
i u profesionalnom životu. U svojem predavanju-performansu Pun mi je
kurac iz 1978., koji je izveo u kontekstu šeste izložbe Nove tendencije,
usporedio je stanje u kulturi i umjetnosti tog vremena sa stanjem na
međunarodnoj umjetničkoj sceni te je naveo sve institucije, pojave i
osobe kojih mu je bio ‘pun kurac‘, a tim je činom stvorio brojne neprija-
telje među lokalnim kritičarima.17
Ipak, ne smije se zanemariti činjenica da antagonizam
što ga sadrži ova fraza neizbježno poziva na promjene, na raskid s
prevladavajućom situacijom. Nadalje, ova se fraza protivi svakom poti-
skivanju i ušutkivanju vlastitog nezadovoljstva. A kad se to protumači u
takvom svjetlu, ova serija posve je u skladu s Gotovčevim uobičajenim
subverzivnim strategijama i postupcima kojima je provodio svoju tran-
sgresivnu politiku javnog pokazivanja svojeg golog tijela (ovdje mislim
na njegove streaking performanse, poput onog u Beogradu 1971. te
kasniji performans pod nazivom Ležanje gol na asfaltu, ljubljenje asfalta
(Zagreb, volim te!) izveden 1981. u Ilici i na Trgu Republike).
Riječima J. L. Austina, različite uloge mogu oslabiti iloku-
cijsku snagu govornog čina koji izvodi akciju. Austin kaže da lokucijska
snaga počiva na samom činu govorenja, za razliku od ilokucijske snage
koja proizlazi iz iskaza stvorenih s ciljem, svrhom, poput naredbe.18 Kad
se performativni činovi poslože u nekakav niz, u kojem će jedan govorni
čin biti u suprotnosti s prethodnim, za Austina će to biti jasan slučaj
‘kontaminacije’ potrebnih uvjeta koji nakon svojeg ispunjenja u prvom
činu ne mogu biti uspješno ispunjeni u idućem.
Da bismo dobili ‘sretan performativni čin’, mora biti ispu-
njeno više uvjeta. Poslužimo se jednim od Austinovih primjera perfor-
mativnog govornog čina – iskazima uzimam i da koji se izgovaraju na
vjenčanjima. Ako jedan od vjenčanih partnera izgovori isto na drugom
vjenčanju, s drugim partnerom (a da se u međuvremenu nije razveo),
to će biti vrlo jasan slučaj bigamije i stoga se ovaj performativni čin ne
može smatrati ‘sretnim’. Jedino u slučaju nepobitne moći kakvog vla-
dara, čiji su lik i djelo izvan svakog zakona, performativni čin će uvijek

16 Tomislav Gotovac, „Gotovac 17 Vidi: Jadranka Vinterhalter,

kontra Gotovca“, Nedjeljna Dalmacija, Split,
26. 12. 1991. str. 20 - 21, prema: Jadranka
Vinterhalter, „Riječi, riječi, riječi... Tomislava
Gotovca“, u: Branka Stipančić (ur.), Riječi i slike,
Soros centar za suvremenu umjetnost, Zagreb,
1995., str. 76.
op. cit., str. 75 - 76.
18 J. L. Austin, How to Do
Things with Words, (ur.), J. O. Urmson i Marina
Sbisa, drugo izdanje, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge MA, 1975., str. 100.
 [312] R EC O N ST RU CT E D SU BJ ECT

confusion: Gotovac’s revolt against the predominant officially accepted

art and culture in the late 1970s in the former Yugoslavia is the reason
for his expletive.15 In a way his intention is to offend in return, to respond
to the official art scene with obscenity available in the language in the
same way in which he as an artist feels hurt, offended because of the
ignorance, lack of interest and indifference with which art and artists
were being treated by officials. In the artist’s own words In my opinion,
‘God screw me’ in this context is neither an antireligious nor foul curse,
it is a folksy curse, a phrase of a characteristically passive character that
accurately reflects the spirit of us Croats; this is not an aggressive curse,
just as ‘I’ve fucking had it’ and ‘I don’t give a fuck’ are not aggressive.
These curses are an expression of metaphysical despair, not of aggres-
sion.16 The series of posters with his signature and the copyright symbol
of 1978, which include similar phrases, might be defined as a fierce kind
of institutional criticism.
In many interviews for local printed and electronic media
he was not shy at expressing his discontent, disgruntlement and even
contempt, ’to do with which he would often get into long polemics in
the media, having a reputation for recalcitrance in his professional and
private life. In his lecture-performance I’ve fucking had it from 1978 that
Tomislav Gotovac gave in the context of sixth edition of the New Tenden-
cies exhibition, he compared the current conditions in art and culture
at the time in the local and the international art contexts, listing all the
institutions, phenomena and persons with whom he was fed up, creating
many adversaries among the local critics.17
However, it should not be neglected that the antagonistic
feeling behind this phrase also inevitably assumes a call for a certain
change and closure, an end to the ongoing condition, resisting every
suppression or silencing of ’individual dissatisfactions and discontents.
When interpreted in this light, this series fully complies with Gotovac’s
usual subversive artistic strategies and procedures through which he
exercises the transgressive power of public exposure of the naked body
(e.g. here I refer to the series of his streaking performances in Belgrade
in 1971 or the later performances Lying Naked on the Asphalt and Kissing
the Asphalt (Zagreb, I love you!) put on in 1981 in Ilica and on Trg Republike
[Republic Square]).
In J. L. Austin’s words, the various roles may weaken ’the
others’ illocutionary force of the performative speech that does the

15 Tomislav Gotovac, I’ve Fucking Jadranka Vinterhalter, “Words, Words, Words…

Had It, a lecture performance held in 1978 during by Tomislav Gotovac”, in: Branka Stipančić (ed.),
the 6. New Tendencies exhibition. Words & Images, SCCA, Zagreb, 1995, p. 76.

16 Tomislav, Gotovac “Gotovac 17 See: Jadranka Vinterhalter,

vs Gotovac”, Nedjeljna Dalmacija, Split, 26 op. cit., pp. 75 - 76.
December 1991, Profile 20 - 21. Quoted after:
 [ 3 13 ] R E KO N ST RU I R A N I SU BJ E KT

biti ‘sretan’. Međutim, važno je naglasiti da se ovi različiti registri često

miješaju i lako mogu proturječiti jedan drugome, stoga je katkad teško
razlučiti uspješan performativni čin od neuspješnog.
Iako psovke koje upotrebljava Tomislav Gotovac možda
nisu uspješni govorni činovi u smislu njihovih uobičajenih seksualnih
implikacija, one svakako imaju težinu ciljanih i uspješno izvedenih
(ili ‘sretnih’) govornih činova u području rane institucionalne kritike.
Gotovac je utjelovljavao snažan umjetničkokritički glas, bilo u razgo-
lićenim nastupima u javnom prostoru i razotkrivanjem genitalija, što
simbolizira razotkrivanje kulturalnog i institucionalnog licemjerja u hr-
vatskom i bivšem jugoslavenskom kontekstu, ili pak u svojem ‘pisanju’
i ‘ponovnom pisanju’ kritički nastrojenih psovki koje srećom nisu imale
ništa zajedničko s uobičajenim seksualnim konotacijama psovanja.
U kontekstu teorije performativnog govornog čina, upo-
treba psovki (premda su i dalje jedan od najočitijih relikta patrijarhal-
nog jezika) u radu Antonija Gotovca Lauera a.k.a. Tomislava Gotovca
i njegovoj odluci da promijeni vlastito ime (neovisno o tome je li to
učinio radi umjetničke karijere ili zbog sjećanja na majku) dovodi me do
Derridainog skepticizma. U svojem članku „Potpis, događaj, kontekst“
Jacques Derrida preispituje prva dva predavanja iz Austinove knjige
Kako djelovati riječima, nasuprot Searlovom nekritičkom prihvaćanju
Austinove teorije. Naime, Derrida osporava mogućnost jasnog razliko-
vanja govornih činova od konstativa.19
Prema Derridainom tumačenju teorije govornog čina, opo-
zicija uspjeh/neuspjeh koju utvrđuje Austin u kontekstu perfomativnih
iskaza je nedovoljan ili derivativan.20 Austin kaže da je kontekst najvaž-
niji faktor uspjeha performativnog govornog čina zato što izgovaranje
neke fraze ili rečenice može biti ‘sretno’, ili može doista djelovati, samo
ako su tijekom tog govornog čina zadovoljeni svi pravni, teleološki ili
kulturni uvjeti. Stoga bismo Derridainu sumnju u to da postoji čisti per-
formativ te njegovu tvrdnju da je Austinova distinkcija između konsta-
tivnog i performativnog govora otpočetka uzaludna trebali promotriti
upravo u kontekstu onog a.k.a. umetnutog između starog i novog imena
Toma Gotovca.21 Ovaj a.k.a., koji je skraćenica za also known as označava
beskonačno sitnu i krhku identitetsku nesigurnost, odnosno prostor koji
je sadržavao najdublje sumnje u vlastiti privatni i profesionalni identitet,
a koji je istodobno omogućio stvaranje njegovih najsloženijih i najbo-
gatijih radova. Naime, bez obzira na to jesu li njegova dva imena bila
upotrebljavana kao pseudonimi ili službena imena, ovaj umjetnik bio
je toliko kompleksan da je gotovo nemoguće napraviti razliku između
njegovih persona.

19 Jacques Derrida, Margins 20 Ibid., str. 324.

of Philosophy, preveo Alan Bass, Prentice Hall,
London, 1982., str. 309 - 330. 21 Ibid., str. 325.
 [ 3 14 ] R EC O N ST RU CT E D SU BJ ECT

action. According to Austin, illocutionary force rests in the performance

of an act in saying something as opposed to performance of an act of
saying something, such as in the acts of orders.18 When the performative
acts are put in a sequence, if the next performative speech contradicts
the previous one for Austin it would be a clear case of ‘contaminating’
the necessary conditions that, having been fulfilled in the first case, can-
not be successfully fulfilled and repeated in the next contradictory case.
In order to have a ‘happy performative act’ several condi-
tions always need to be fulfilled. To use one of Austin’s examples of a
performative speech act, the utterance of I do or Yes – uttered during
wedding ceremonies: if one of the wedding partners utters the same
sentence in another ceremony with another partner (without getting a
divorce in the meantime) it would be a clear case of bigamy and thus
the performative cannot be treated as ‘happy’. Only in the case of the
unquestioned power of the sovereign whose body and actions are
outside the law will the ‘performative act’ always be ‘happy’. However
it is important to acknowledge the fact that these different registers can
often be confused and may easily contradict each other, so one might
easily confuse successful and failed performative speech acts.
Having said all this and to conclude this text, although the
swearwords of Tomislav Gotovac may not be successful speech acts in
terms of the usually intended sexual and cultural implications of a curse,
as an offense to those cursed, they definitely bear the weight of intend-
ed and successfully conducted (or ‘happy performatives’) speech acts
of early artistic institutional critique. Gotovac embodied such a critical
artistic voice either when performing naked in public space by expos-
ing his genitalia to the viewers as a kind of transgression and revelation
of the cultural and systemic hypocrisy in the Croatian and pre-war
ex-Yugoslav context, or simply when ‘writing’ and ‘overwriting’ critically
charged swearwords on paper that fortunately had nothing in common
with the usual sexual linguistics of cursing.
When put in the context of performative speech act theory,
the use of the expletive speech act of cursing (although still one of the
most evident remnants of patriarchal language) in Antonio Gotovac
Lauer a.k.a. Tomislav Gotovac’s work and the artist’s decision to rename
himself (regardless of whether for the pursuit of a more successful
artistic career or in memory of his late mother), with which I began this
text, only bring me closer to Derrida’s scepticism; in his article “Signa-
ture Event Context” Jacques Derrida questioned the first two lectures of
J. L. Austin’s book How to Do Things with Words, opposing John Searle’s
uncritical acceptance of Austin’s theory. Derrida contested the possibility
for clearly distinguishing speech acts from constative statements.19

18 J. L. Austin, How to Do Things Second Edition, MA, Harvard University Press,

with Words, J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa (eds.), Cambridge, 1975, p. 100.
 [ 3 16 ] R EC O N ST RU CT E D SU BJ ECT

According to Derrida’s interpretation of speech act theory,

the opposition success/failure made by Austin in the context of perform-
ative sentences is insufficient or derivative.20 Austin posits the context
as the most important factor in the success of the performative speech
acts because the utterance of a certain phrase or sentence can be ‘hap-
py’, or can actually do things only if the required juridical, teleological
or cultural conditions are met during the performative speech act. Thus
one has to consider Derrida’s doubt that there can be no pure perform-
ative and that Austin’s distinction between constative and performative
speech was hopeless from the start, exactly in the context of the a.k.a.
placed between the old and new name of the artist.21 This a.k.a. which
stands for also known as marks an infinitesimal and fragile identitarian
insecurity, a space which, while it was inhabited by the most complex
and profound artistic doubts in his own personal and artistic identity,
also enabled the creation of a highly complex and prolific body of art
work because regardless of whether the different names were pseudon-
ymous or legally documented, the artist pursued so many various lines
of thinking that it is next to impossible to draw a distinction between his
different personae.

19 Jacques Derrida, Margins 20 Ibid., p. 324.

of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass, Prentice Hall,
London, 1982, pp. 309 - 330. 21 Ibid., p. 325.