The „necessary discourse“ is an initiative, which wants to break out of given understatement of showing art simply as a static reflection.
We start with an analysis of actualities to identify a predicament or dilemma. On the turning point we recognize the need of intervention, to explain our views through a medium, through a contemporary art exhibition. On that point we need to proceed to phase two which is the relation to the public sphere.
Here the main work of the initiative “necessary discourse” starts with the elaboration and conception of concrete measures, which point out on the sensitization of perceiving the recognized irrational evolution.
Through visualization, thanks to flexible and engaged artists we invite, of relevant issues regarding the scheme we’ve identified, supplemented through textual, vocal or other contributions by scientists, intellectuals and other public persons, we try to stimulate awareness and public discussion on the topic of the discourse.
After that, during the four weeks lasting occupation of the museum we proceed in this stimulation and sensitization through different performances, lectures and other events. All focused on the same aim, the identified predicament, all related issues regarding it and the evolution that may follow.
The process itself should be evident and therefore we act in the most transparent way, starting with an absolute empty museum.

The following thoughts were fundamental for the necessary discourse and emphasize what we want to reach through our initiative:

1
Starting with the origin of the “museum”, of the institution “museum”, that in the encyclopaedias such as Brockhaus, Britannica and others is defined, as “building in which objects illustrating art, history, science, etc. are displayed”, we think this definition has reached its limits and needs to be rewritten.
Our question regarding that is, who has the power to define, which objects are worth to be preserved and consequently displayed? We especially point out the museums of contemporary art, but even others have to respond to this question! Who has the power to define and on which criteria?
As it is the Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Brockhaus aren’t produced in Uzbekistan, in China nor in Kosovo, neither in Bangladesh. Already in the bible one thing is clear, not God named everything there is in the world, Adam did and with this action of his he put everything there is in existence!
At this point it seems that nothing but the market has the power to define. This is done by the mechanism of offer and demand, which arbitrarily sets value and prizes that certain artworks reach.

The question being: who is Adam today; not only who invents the game, but also who defines the rules?
So we find ourselves in a world where market determines history of art as also history in general , the quality gets a new dimension, the right can be false and otherwise, depending only on interests of these new “Adams”.
And we, the citizens, take it as true, as real and only option, as high quality, as important, without asking any questions why or how? We accept the mystification of the contemporary art as its way of existence (modus operandi).

The true velocity of events and their multitude, preformed by the media is covering our complete visual field to prevent a ‘horror vacui’, with the only intention to keep us away from boredom, which could create, ‘ex nihilo’, new ideas and thoughts that lead to transformation, revolution and redistribution of power and wealth.

This latest evolution of global capitalism, of consumerism has brought us here. We accept without asking, we suffer without criticising, we act without thinking. It’s the dictatorship of capital (profit) that rules the world.

Quality is defined by the market and prices are defined by few individuals, and we are made to believe and we accept the fable that the mechanism of market is by nature fair.
How can humanity evolve positively when we accept this predominance of economy, when evolution is controlled (steered) by the few, legitimated only by capital, they’re dealing with.

This system brings even the contemporary art to standstill and degrades everything to a commodity…and we cannot accept that!

These thoughts are the reason.

2
A second important motivation was the lost meaning of state; of the state-run museums for contemporary art which we think do not accomplish their responsibilities towards the public, not even according to the definition, “buildings in which objects illustrating contemporary art are displayed”.
We don’t accept the situation where only market is the arbiter who decides which objects of art should find their way into the museum. We think there’re others, private spaces where this kind of art should be presented. We believe that art cannot be observed isolated from the society and especially contemporary art has to react on contemporary issues. That should be the criteria for state-run museums of contemporary art!
We believe that the private sector, private galleries and investors, should not have such an influence on defining contemporary art.
It’s not important whether private capital finances state-run museums, it’s important that they are state-run, and therefore they have to accomplish the specified public responsibility.

3
The synthesis of these two mainstreams of our thoughts leads us to the “necessary discourse”, which intents to reactivate the museum of contemporary art. This can be done by dealing with current arguments and presenting them through different media not only visual but also through literature, theatre and performance, to activate the place itself as a place of constructive and positive communication and critic.