One of my favourite Andrei Tarkovsky’s thoughts is that the most complicated aspect of the artist’s work is exclusively in the field of ethics. Certainly art and morals have a special relationship. Making art to please the public was never a good idea.

This is what Tarkovsky thinks:
“The most intricate, burdensome, punishing aspect of an artist’s work lies strictly in the domain of ethics: what is demanded on him is total honesty and sincerity towards himself. And that means being honest and responsible towards the audience. The artist is not allowed to try to please anyone . He has no right to restrict themselves with desire to success in the process of creating, and if he does so inevitably will have to pay…”

How cruel does this sounds ? Does that mean that if I am driven by success as an artist I am doomed to fail in my creative process ? Yes. It is a harsh true of artist’s life and work and not something one could see in other industries.

A few years after graduating Fine Arts University I realised how sad and humiliating is to try and life from art. I wondered is it possible that six years of practice and education have made me into a social parasite. I can do my job – but I can not live from doing my job.

This relationship was the idea behind my artwork Ethics = Aesthetics. Taken the circumstances, a money box (donation for art) seemed like a perfect artwork.
This hand made papyrus box has a sensor that turns the light on when a something (money) is put into the box. Then we can see this message Ethics = Aesthetics.

*SANU, Cvejta Zuzoric 2000; The Bienalle Vrsac 2001