REVIEW 2025 – WITH HRISTO KALOYANOV ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A BRIEF OVERVIEW
- viktoriadraganova
- 5 days ago
- 3 min read
Updated: 4 days ago
The Journal for Social Vision’s end-of-year survey gathers the perspectives of colleagues, curators and critics on the most important events and topics in art for 2025. Participants were invited to highlight standout exhibitions, projects, and figures; identify key international influences; note significant critical publications and media and reflect on the disappointments that generated tensions within the cultural landscape.
The last material we are publishing as part of the series is by Hristo Kaloyanov, a freelance curator and critic. In 2024, together with Nikola Stoyanov and Philip Stoilov, he founded the Temporary Space Foundation and its according Temporary Publishing.
At the end of November Viktoria Draganova and the Journal for Social Vision invited me to do a short run through some of the highlights from the visual scene of 2025. Such a task perhaps requires an emphasis on the local scene (a term that has acquired a new pejorative meaning in the Bulgarian context around some of the young social groups), but without missing the broader international context. One of the required points this overview should include is a commentary on a significant book, text, criticism, media platform or publisher – something that I have been actively working on especially in the last year. In conclusion, this overview should also include the biggest disappointment of the year, the important themes that have stood out, and the directions for development in the coming year.
After some reflection on the topic, I quite naturally came to the conclusion that it is impossible, and perhaps even more inappropriate, to make such a brief overview. Because listing the names alone only of some of the exhibitions and the artists included would exceed the given limit of this text, and wouldn’t allow even a brief commentary on the efforts of artists, curators, critics and cultural workers. Although the latter is often overlooked in the Bulgarian context, it is impossible to not be noting that during the year numerous exhibitions in some of the leading institutions such as the Sofia City Art Gallery, the National Gallery – Kvadrat 500 and the Palace, the visual program of Cube Gallery – Topolcentrala offered both exhibitions of quality, as well as some problematic ones.
A mention should be made of the several remaining private galleries, as well as festival formats, such as BUNA – Forum for Contemporary Art and Sofia Art Week, which allow international artists and their works to be presented in Bulgaria. This also inevitably leads to the exchange of ideas and perspectives with a wider scope within the region.
Regarding the available criticism and the media platforms which do publish criticism, it can be said that in the last year we heard active voices who speak out and can be considered as a positive in the scene. However, with the restructuring of Sofia University’s Cultural Center and the limitation of texts published in the “Atelier” section brings up the question of where criticism can be published in Bulgaria? Therefore we can agree that Portal “Kultura” and “Kultura” Magazine, with some incidental texts that do appear in “Atelier”, constitute the main sources for art reviews with a wider readership. This speaks more not about a crisis of criticism or the ability to criticize (this can be easily observed in different talks during exhibitions and it’s regularly demonstrated in various public discussions), but about the issue of resilience of such critical platforms.
This is how one of the leading issues facing the cultural scene, and in particular the visual one, takes shape, namely the sustainability of certain strategies for dialogue on artistic processes, as well as the need for long-term investment from both the private sector and the state. It still seems a struggle to maintain a cultural strategy with clear policies (the delay for the open call for the Venice Bienniale, as well as the delays of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) show nothing different). Every given effort for establishing a dialogue with these official institutions often showcases the deep inherited incompetentnce of how the National Culture Fund, as well as the Ministry of Culture operate. In this perspective, it’s perhaps worth mentioning one of these successful efforts, such as the newsletter "This Month" handled by Open Art Files which is the sole platform that provides systematic general information monthly about on-going exhibitions.
This review, which long ago exceeded the set limit, ultimately did not mention any of the high-profile names of exhibitions or any grand international event. And there certainly were ones worth mentioning, but if nothing else, it at least made an attempt to point out the impossibility of a brief overview and some of the missing elements in the infrastructure of the cultural context leading to such a circumstance.
Comments