But the interpretator is the most important in this case. Different interpretators may make different ideas about what happend. Having several people narrate the same event, it could be some of us, it could also be the memory of someone present in the event. It is possible to find reality in that points where those narratives come in confrontation. When they start to narrate in one space same time, it is the turn towards real.
reality could be read, maybe this is as well a chiffre for history as a mean of interests, why at the same time we could wonder, if there can be a telling of history that is not entangeled in particular interests? if there is always an interest in looking at history, would just ask of us to lay open our interest, so that the manipulation history experiences through our renarration could become discussable right from the start? but whatever of both, it points at the relation we have ourselves with the material we are looking at or even more, with the acts, that are suggested in these moments

while I think somehow we engage with different moments that are meaningful for us because they can show something that has been possible in art and that can be possible now. I wonder if it is some form of resurrection?
there is a practice of pointing, of playing, of developing language and systems and jokes... which are maybe still open? Are these gestures still active, are their performative acts still ongoing?
I am interested in personal destinies which are forming the history of art. How they are transforming with influence of new standards, public view, how they became public. how their life became performative. I meant that some people's practice is forming the history, of course it is everywhere like this. But when not a lot of people inside the process, like in our country, it's more visible than in western countries. So we may read the history through some person's life and deeds. For example Solovievs life. Ore even Sidorenko, who built institution on his personal interest. So we may understand situation if will look how the decisions were made by person. that there appears a more visible relation between personal life and history, cause of a smaller number of people being involved - I think, Kafka wrote, that this also can be a reason, why every gesture can be a matter of politics, when it comes to small numbers
I am very interested in influence as such, maybe because my own history is very much about things which influence me.
I remember, we have it in the documentary by CCCK, that Chatskin said: "Somehow art was more ephemeral, more 'papery' then. Then there were no instutions and today there are no institutions either. Somehow that makes me glad
we can imagine works, that would remain still in the exhibition hall but in their way would only be markers, information signs, that would point the viewer to any other rooms, which can't be seen from the space the viewer is in. When the viewer watches the works, he understands, that he doesn't watch "it" that the event (or the absence of a deed) is happening elsewhere. The viewer knows that he sees wrong, but he can't turn his head, he can't see the right version. Right versions just don't exist, except only the space between the presence of the viewer "here" and the presence of the author or the event in a not recognisable "elsewhere" - Y.Leiderman