- The view taken of the former totalitarian countries of the East is often a totalitarian one, in that clear differences are subsumed to just one. This cannot be left unchallenged. The question is how history is reconstructed. My thesis is that in former Yugoslavia a significant change began in the 1970s and 1980s – before the fall of the Berlin Wall – with the formation of an underground scene, the struggle for a civil society, for an improvement in the position of gays and lesbians, and with the ecology and peace movements. The real issue is a mental space between the Balkans and the countries that were under Soviet influence. Cultural backgrounds in Eastern Europe differ greatly from country to country. The alleged cultural underdevelopment never actually existed. This world cannot be understood in blocks, neither then nor now. Thus the construction of history always appears artificial.

- After the construction of the new Europe a phenomenon emerges that tends to erase the memory of former Eastern Europe. Whereas it was previously said that there can never be enough Europe and that the fall of the Berlin Wall had finally brought back this lost part of Europe and made it a part of the European family again, today things are the other way around and this loss is no longer reflected upon, we are merely integrated. In this respect the East is always out of joint.

- Quite definitely, and therefore one can say that there is a non-existent Second World between the First and the Third Worlds. Through the process of “McDonaldisation”, excessively rapid integration and historicisation things are erased simultaneously – which is supposed to produce an allegedly pure European unity!

- I am not nostalgic and nor do I long in a romantic manner for the unity of Yugoslavia. Yet in my opinion the differences were not really cultural in nature. The destruction of Yugoslavia was carried out by various political lobbies and elites – in addition to the economic imbalance that prevailed throughout the state. Nevertheless, there was an active cultural exchange between Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana, Sarajevo and Skopje and even a common mental space in the areas of art and culture – far more than we dare to imagine. For this reason I called the special avant-garde movement that came from the East “Retro-Avant-garde”. In this schema Belgrade, Ljubljana and Sarajevo were connected with the entire ex-Russian territories in a single conceptual movement. Through contemporary productions and radical thinking powerful, important connections between these centres still exist today - the link is provided by the reflection on post-socialism.

- Yes, but also because the entire idea of culture has been turned upside down. Art and culture play an important role in the West but the question is how one can think and act on a cultural level. It is true of former Yugoslavia also that it is not possible to think radically and theoretically from just a national perspective, as this always reflects the perspectives of the state and the elite. The post-conceptual underground productions in contemporary art are certainly connected with each other, but not so much in terms of national unity – which is always a product of traditional culture – but more in relation to the question how a different form of culture could be built up.

- The conceptual movement in Russia, but also AptArt in apartments, worked with irony and parody. However, several artists from former Yugoslavia attempted something different. They took the socialist self-management ideology, which was a kind of third way, a block-free movement, quite literally. Their attempt to operate within this ethical socialist rhetoric that was extremely ideological ultimately turned out to be far more destructive for socialism and the state. They took things precisely as they were written and stated. The result of this approach was absolutely positive, but also absolutely horrifying, because it was understood without parody and, confronted with the absolutely different reality of society, it turned things upside down. The question about how history could be written differently and about which kind of art will be included in history and which not, is a question about the political level of art. For example, in the design of an “Eastern European art map” the issue was not parody but rather going back 50 years into history to reconstruct radical, non-Western positions. Combined in a single map this was intended to offer an approach to the history of the others.

- Here again the reference is to the difference between East and West, i.e. a political moment. What is interesting about the underground artists of the 1980s is that they emphasize the structural aspect. It is not enough to interpret the way the art business functions and its changes by using a psychological model. The issue is not only the sale of art works but also the positioning of artistic production in society. For example: at the “documenta 10” the focus lay on the theme “private apartments”. The aim was to investigate whether art is only for institutions or whether there are other spaces, outside the traditional art institutions, for which the production of art is a substantial issue. And what happened? Only a few committed artists from former Eastern Europe were involved. This was a paradox, because practically the entire SozArt as well as AptArt- and underground movements developed in all the Eastern European countries in private apartments.

- Something similar happened at “documenta 11” and at Manifesta – most of the artists invited came from Western Europe, a number from the Ukraine and none from the Balkans. This is like a kind of punishment for the three Balkans exhibitions last year that were all held in Austrian or Germany. We have had enough of the Balkans. And when we think about them we recall only the three curator father figures: Harald Szeemann, Peter Weibel and René Block. These names cling to the Balkans.

- Precisely, because the issue here is an already existing matrix of the “capitalist first world” that is dominated by the art world. This is most important, as it deals with the writing of books, critical works, curating projects... And all those involved play into the hands of this machinery. The importance of its role is often concealed, but actually it functions as a "trendsetter" and decides what is in and what is out. In fact, it is a censoring machinery with cannibalistic traits. A machinery that always sets boundaries. Crossing a number of these boundaries is not permitted – not because something obscene lies behind them but because critical contents are involved here that question the machinery's way of functioning. Naturally, artists who have become part of one big family must follow the rules in their art. But I also believe that wiser people could be found among the critics in Eastern Europe. Why? Because this Eastern European world was produced by ideology and politics. The view from outside is often far clearer than that from within.

- Our positions are indeed very different. Žižek is a genius like Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Rosa Luxemburg. However, I find it impossible to understand why these writings are produced if they ultimately don't want to be anything more than a Hollywood product and don't aim at social and political change. This is where our different backgrounds come into play. The underground is a “mother” for me and my “father” is the rock ’n’ roll and punk movement in Ljubljana. I grew up in the Ljubljana gay and lesbian scene and was thus closely linked with the theoretical power of the underground movement. Although I have a doctorate in philosophy, I am guided by the linking of theory and activist practice. Without the practical moment of involvement in a concrete situation and the attempt to change institutions and artistic and cultural practices theory doesn't make much sense to me. I am an avid defender of the linking of theory, politics and art. This is the only position that one can adopt in a world of inequality.

- The East is a body that functions poorly; the West represents the perfect body. But the advantage of the poorly functioning body that is not fashionably and magnificently developed is that it is in a position to understand the perfect body. Our (poorly functioning) body is a far more progressive machine because we can integrate both positions in our consciousness, which makes us far more flexible than the body that has everything.

- To assert that would be an inadmissible generalisation, this is something that depends very much on the particular context. All that really counts is the concept. That is, the concept must always be incorporated. We must attempt to think emancipation, in order to create a different, better world that shows more solidarity with those outside the first capitalist world. The issue is the implausible world, that doesn't yet exist but that could be created in the future. It is precisely this impossibility that can be exercised by the practice of art.