Andrea Zlatar About Matica, Zarez, and Vijenac

Nacional, Zagreb, Croatia, March 10 1999

Andrea Zlatar, the heir of Slobodan Prosperov-Novak and Boris Maruna as editor-in-chief of Vijenac, Matica Hrvatska's [Mother of Croats, an all-Croat cultural organization] magazine for culture, has these days finished the second issue of Zarez [Comma], the paper considered by many to be the only legitimate heir of the former Vijenac [Wreath] which had a cult-like following.

Zarez, as is known after the well-known scandals in Matica dating from last Fall, is not published by the oldest Croatian cultural institution: it was too political for Matica, and besides was leaning politically "towards the wrong side". Some members of the old editorial staff say that they have left Matica, others that they were "banished". What's most important is that Zarez a magazine for culture and social issues, continues to gather the most respected names from the Croatian cultural scene, which do not shirk from activity (and trouble) in connection with the Croatian politics and are not coy about their opposition to the current authorities.

Andrea Zlatar (38) is an assistant professor at the Department for Comparative Literature of the Philosophy Faculty in Zagreb. The young Ph.D. is the author of two scientific books - "True, Fake and Fabricated", and "Marulic's Davidiad", and a book of essays "Big Cleaning" in which she successfully connects thoughts about the female side of daily life (including baking of cakes, which is her publicly acknowledged hobby) with thoughts about politics and culture.

NACIONAL: I must admit that Zarez [Comma] seems to me to be a pretty humble name...

There was a lot of pressure to call our new magazine Novi Vijenac [New Vijenac], but we couldn't do that for legal reasons. Just recall problems with Novi Danas [New Danas] and Start Nove Generacije [Start of New Generation], which ended up in court because of the law about unfair competition. Vijenac is owned by its publisher, and we could bring with us from Matica only our concept of a paper. Then, a whole slew of magazines such as Pecat [Stamp], and Plamen [Flame] hoping to become heirs to Krlezian [Miroslav Krleza, according to some the greatest Croatian writer of all times] publications active between the two world wars, appeared on the scene, adding additional pressure to look for a "strong" name. Most of the proposals raised by the members of the editorial team were rather "literary", for example Tragovi [Tracks], Razlike [Differences], Razlog [Reason], ABC... We were also aware that the cultured public has a perception of Telegram as the best Croatian magazine for culture ever. Consequently, there were proposals to name our magazine Brzojav [same as Telegram; brzojav is supposed to be a "Croatian" word, unlike telegram, which is supped to be "Serbian"], to continue that tradition. But we did not want to do that, we did not want to continue somebody else's tradition. There were various reasons for that... Especially, because the key question was whether this editorial board has it in itself to come up with its own story, its own concept for a newspaper. The best negative criticism came from Berkovic. He said: "Zarez, that is terrible. Comma is a punctuation mark which may or may not be used. Therefore, do not name your newspaper by something which one can go without." However, we like that undetermined nature and openness of the comma, and also the possibilities for graphic design.

Did the first issue sell well?

We went with a minimal print run of 8,000 copies. It sold well, especially in the cities. We raised the circulation of the second issue to 11,000, and we'll see how well it will sell.

What about your competition? The new Vijenac?

As far as I know, from unofficial sources, they printed 15,000 copies, but 7,000 to 8,000 of those were sent to the members of Matica who are obliged to subscribe to Vijenac as a part of their membership dues.

Emancipation from Matica

I do, in the sense that I have received a letter from Prof. Bratulic, in which he requested a report about the financial results of Vijenac in 1998. Therefore, there is unfinished business and, finally, unpaid wages for the last few months. Matica is responsible for there arrears. These meetings were not confrontational, but neither too pleasant.

Have you now finally cleared up what was happening with Vijenac? You were fairly discrete in your comments in the past.

Many things are clearer now. I think that the basic problem is that in the Fall of 1998, the battle about the character of Matica itself was waged over Vijenac's editorial board. There were demands that the editorial board become more or less political. Matica needs Vijenac as the means for spiritual legitimacy, while the editorial board did not want to publish a paper with the main purpose to serve as the means for anyone's legitimacy, even though Matica was its nominal publisher. Therefore, Matica wanted to have it's own paper, while the editorial board wanted to have certain freedom in the publishing of the paper, which by definition clashes with the needs for legitimacy.

In that process of emancipation from Matica we were especially hurt by the insistence of our elder colleagues, those who had been connected with Matica for decades, for example Branimir Donat and Zeljka Corak, that we had to stay with Matica, and that Vijenac, the way it used to be, was the most important Matica's project, the only living and future oriented aspect of the organization. However, we as an editorial board were neither able nor willing to resolve the problems of the identity of Matica. Especially, since it was obvious that Matica's Board rejected the concept of culture that we had offered.

Did HDZ exert any pressure on Matica, or was that its autonomous decision? Does the neutralization of Matica actually serve for HDZ's entry into that organization?

I do not think that HDZ has directly entered Matica. But it serves their purpose if Matica is not a pronounced and public opposition stronghold. In that sense, the dismissal of the editorial board is a part of the last Fall's purge on the eve of the election year. One public voice less. Although I still do not understand how someone could have viewed a magazine with such a small circulation as a political problem. It would have been better for them had we remained in Matica's reservation. The dependence on state budget has become a gauge for the political dependence of institutions. That is why HDZ's [Croatian Democratic Union, ruling political party in Croatia] penetration of cultural institutions is proportional to their dependence on the state budget.

Is that visible after the three issues of Vijenac prepared by the new editorial team?

After these three issues of the new Vijenac it is obvious that they are seeking legitimacy as an apolitical newspaper. They want to confirm cultural values which have been "untouchable" for decades and centuries and do not want to even touch "soft" material which would demand further assertiveness in the field of uncertain values and lead to the danger of making mistakes.

What is actually Matica's political orientation?

Matica's president or one of the vice-presidents should answer that question. As far as the public is concerned, all decisions in Matica are made unanimously. That unanimity is, however, the result of a voting system which leads to the dissipation of mutual differences and the right for different opinion, all for the sake of a united position. By doing that, Matica has managed to find a "common denominator" for its 7,000 members. In their opinion, it is apolitical and unrelated to political parties, but it is so abstract that it has lost all relation to the reality. In the moments of worst conflicts between the former editorial board and Matica, Professor Bratulic always sought solutions in the statements such as: "No one can differentiate bad from good. We are here to sow the seed and others will harvest it". I understand Mr. Bratulic's position. He believes that Matica Hrvatska is too important and valuable an "institution of the Croat people" to be wasted and exhausted on daily politics. On the other hand, a distancing of Matica from reality will lead to its marginalization in society. As Zeljka Corak wrote in support of the former Vijenac: "Matica bypasses in order to be bypassed. The root of Matica's insistence to continue to publish Vijenac is its recognition that a magazine is the strongest means for to achieve legitimacy in the public".

No Wages

It is not fair to compare the team which has produced three issues of the new Vijenac with the team which has produced Zarez, since we had already published 88 issues of Vijenac. We have had a chance to learn how to produce a paper and to spot - putting aside the political orientation for the moment - editorial mistakes made by the new editorial staff. Journalism needs professionals. There is some improvement in the third issue, but they should have made an effort to ensure that the first two issues were very strong, and they weren't. And everyone knows that circulation falls quickly and grows very slowly.

As far as the funding goes, Zarez has also applied for funding to the Croatian Ministry of Culture. Our application is currently being processed and we are hoping for some funding. It is almost certain Zarez will receive less than Vijenac. We missed the deadline for the grants issued by the city of Zagreb. Nevertheless, we shall submit a belated application and if they reject us, at least they will have a formal excuse.

Have you paid your collaborators for their work?

No, so far everything on Zarez has been done on the voluntary basis. Among other, because foreign foundations have become rather reluctant after bad experiences during the last eight years. I am not referring to the Open Society, which has gave us office space and initial funding for the preparation and printing of the first few issues. If we paid wages now, we would have to stop with publication by April. This way, we'll have to draw a line in June and take a look at the sales and reactions from the foundations. Both European and American foundations have detailed information about media projects which have received large sums of money, as much as $1.5 million, since 1990 and which either failed or had too short a duration to produce any effect. Because of that, whenever we ask for funding, we face the story of Tjednik which, in spite of its quality, failed to achieve effects interesting to the foundations, namely democratization of the public.

Another reason is probably that you are producing a magazine dealing with culture.

Yes, it is. Although Zarez may seem to someone as the worst kind of political thrash, for most foundations we are too "soft". Their explanation is that our target is a small portion of the population, which already shares our views. Therefore we can't tell anything new to our likely readers. Hence, the foundations believe that our project cannot significantly assist the change in the state of the Croatian public because it cannot reach new circles of readers. And that is especially important this year when the majority of foundations intend to invest in short-term projects related to the upcoming elections. They do not care whether Zarez has 10,000 or 20,000 readers, while that is a life or death issue for us: with 10,000 readers we cannot survive without external grants, while with 20,000 we would do great on our own. Thus we would have to be satisfied with a series of small grants. Another lesson learnt by the foreign foundations is that Croatian cultural projects are a bottomless pit. Namely, projects keep spending money but are unable to finance themselves. Since the time of socialism we have gotten accustomed to being provided with all the infrastructure, especially if we believe that we are producing a high quality product, while we are not used to taking care of our own funding. American foundations are offering significant grants to Zarez, but only for marketing, and they expect from us to fund the rest on our own. They will not give $20,000 for salaries, but only for precisely defined marketing programs. We have realized that in Croatia there are no people who could do something like that - develop marketing plans for culture.

Culture Devours its Makers

An honest and, I am afraid, correct answer would be: no, there is not. However, I am convinced that our cultural workers must get used to the fact that our culture will never again be fully financed from the state budget. As social security, one of the good achievements of socialism, was lost in the public life, the same fate befell the public subsidies for culture. Unfortunately, a replacement funding system has not been set up. There are no tax breaks for sponsors of culture, there is no legal framework for setting up endowments, and funds haven't been decentralized. Both publishers and directors of theaters are in that sense in the same boat: they are struggling with identical financial problems, struggling to pay wages and to maintain their equipment. Thus, they are forced to do jobs for which they haven't been prepared, or do not have talent for in most cases: they are their own economists, lawyers and producers. If some of them are successful in that, as for example Mani Gotovac, Vili Matula, Nenad Popovic or Slobodan Prosperov Novak, then they with their projects hide the true reach of general poverty and with their own energy make up for the lack of system. That cannot be a solution in the long term. Such culture devours its makers, wears them out and uses them up.

It has been said for Zarez that it is a proof that it is possible to make a magazine for culture, which would be better than culture itself. Does Zarez have a vision of the Croatian culture? What do you think about the Croatian culture today?

It is crazy, but obviously true that a magazine, in spite of a critical approach towards certain aspects of culture, can present culture in general as better than it actually is. In the magazine, everything falls into its proper place: there is film and theatrical criticism, which obviously follow cinematic and theatrical life, no matter how good or bad they are... In the second issue of Zarez there are reviews of four books on philosophy. An uninformed reader could come to the conclusion that philosophy is blossoming in Croatia.

In that case, Zarez gives a false picture of the Croatian culture?

Namely, a magazine, whether it likes it or not, simulates the existence of culture by providing a framework for its presentation or, what's even worse, for its reproduction. That framework forms an illusion of order, a scale of values, while in reality our cultural scene is in total chaos. What is most worrisome is that young generations, who have been entering the cultural space in the last few years are accepting the current state as the only possible and are improvising since they want to do something. Even the rest of us, who know that it used to be better and different in the past, are adapting to the new situation because we wish to continue doing our own jobs. Regardless of conditions, regardless of the breakdown of every value system - moral, esthetic - which could regulate living. Why do our writers continue to write? Certainly not because of financial rewards, because they are non existent; even less because of the readers, because there are only a few hundreds of them... Someone has recently made a cynical remark that in Croatia almost all publications are rarities in European terms, because they are published in extremely small editions. Maybe, in every issue of Zarez we should point out in the section of Art reviews that every year in Croatia only about 2,000 titles are published while in Finland [roughly the same number of inhabitants as Croatia] more than 11,000 titles are published every year.

Theater?

I think that theater is facing the same problems as the publishing, and culture as a whole. Namely, disorientation in the conditions of the breakdown of funding from the state budget. The social structure of professional theaters is similar to paupers with permanent health insurance. Is there, anywhere in Croatia, a normal turnover of employees? Do the people who work in cultural institutions have to work at the same place for forty years, as in a post office? Moreover, since a large number of people must participate in the production of a play, the "consensual culture" (a polite term for the system of mutual dependence and blackmail) is more present than elsewhere. There is also extreme professional solidarity (which in my opinion is totally absent among the writers!) which often protects individuals in cases where the principle of professional capability should be applied. Of course, an especially heavy burden has been imposed on the theater by the authorities, which view theater as the means for its cultural reproduction. That is why it is so important who will be a director and secure a flattering portrayal for the authorities.

Pollution Above Croatia

There is no use from such accusations. The authorities will change, if they do, in an election, and will not resign because of the objections raised by the public. With and without those authorities, the same problems remain because they are much larger than ten individuals who currently hold executive power in cultural matters. I do not think that the authorities are innocent and that cultural workers should be blamed for everything, but I simply do not expect anything from the authorities anymore and believe that we must rely on our own forces. However, we must not fight for individual short-term projects, but for the general principles, for systematic solutions. We simply must move from the current spot buried under a pile of social frustration, stop working below our capabilities, stop serving on somebody else's projects and start working on our own projects. What I definitely would not like to see is that the possible future authorities include people which carry frustrations from this period, since we to a large extent owe our current problems to those who are trying to cure their frustrations from the Communist era. In cultural matters there must exist a consensus about the common good.

When you mention politics, Zarez, unlike Vijenac, is a magazine for culture and social issues. How do you define your political position?

If the word opposition is precise enough, than it is without any doubt a label for our position. I believe that Maruna's articles are sufficiently clear in that sense: pollution above Croatia. It is difficult to today write about reality without an opposition perspective. However, there are various ways in which that can be done and in the first two issues of Zarez there is a series of authors with clearly defined but different political positions: Radja, Kusan, Vedris. I think that the majority of authors in Vijenac do not have a need to assume direct political allegiances. They write from the position of an independent civic intellectual, and their political positioning is the consequence of their classification in the spectrum on the current Croatian political scene.

It can frequently be read in the papers that Croatian intellectuals have sold out to the authorities. Do you agree with that assessment? How much support have you found during the preparation of Zarez and in what circles?

Regarding the first question about selling out of intellectuals, I do not think that the situation is so bad. It's only that those who have sold out are in good positions, are very loud, and the impression is that they are numerous. Regarding the rest, the other part, the majority of intellectuals, in hindsight they were too quiet. As far as the support to Vijenac and Zarez is concerned, that is a nicer part of the story. If that support were lacking we probably would not today talk about Zarez, since it would simply not exist. By all means the most important was the first meeting under the title "What kind of Vijenac do we need?", when more than 200 people gathered in the hall of HND, many of whom had not sat down together in years. Therefore, they moved away from their private quarrels, suppressed their reservations regarding Vijenac, and publicly declared their support. Vjeran Zuppa, Ivan Zvonimir Cicak, Josip Sentija, Ivo Banac, Karmen Basic, Velimir Viskovic, Hrvoje Turkovic, Slaven Letica, Ivo Zanic all spoke at that meeting. When we published in Vijenac the transcript of the discussion, we received support from Zoran Kravar, Miljenko Jergovic, Branko Cegec, Ivo Skrabalo... All of them and many others have inquired during the two-month brake when would "the new Vijenac or whatever its name" appear and agreed to collaborate on the first issues. Even though they were aware that we were not able to pay them. Actually, the most valuable asset is that we now have that relationship with the critical public where each one of them will without reluctance provide constructive criticism and at the same time offer to write for the magazine.

What were you hoping to achieve with the continuation of the discussion about Matan's book?

Briefly speaking, instead of a comma, we wanted to put a full stop on that discussion with the publication of the best articles on the topic of the war and guilt from the round table held in Zagreb. Although I do not think that we have left Matica because of Matan's book, his fate and the fate of the editorial staff are a part of the same story. Because of that it seemed most natural to publish that discussion in Zarez.

how do you personally feel after the publication of the second issue?

I must admit that after the publication of the second issue I feel well. After the first issue, which received good reviews regarding the articles, there was a panic. We were missing a big interview, there was not enough politics. The first issue seemed like a miracle. Now we know that we can repeat that miracle every two weeks.