Mapping the underground: Interview with Artpool Art Research Center

Tentative Transmits: When you and Galántai started the Artpool project, did you ever think it would grow into the institution and research center it is today?

Júlia Klaniczay: No, that was never our intention. Our main goal was to preserve documents related to alternative art and culture and provide a space where they could be researched. Galántai saw the need to build an archive and a collection of works that were not part of the official cultural sphere. This was also a way for him to connect with other artists – sending out works, receiving information, and facilitating artistic exchange. During the 1970s and 1980s, Hungary was quite isolated. We lacked information about what was happening in the international art world. That’s why it became so important to receive and distribute information through artistic networks.

When the political system changed, we realized that the ten years of Artpool’s activity had already created something of great value. Adding Galántai’s earlier Chapel Studio project in Balatonboglár, we had accumulated two decades of documentation on alternative art in Hungary. In retrospect, it’s clear that this so-called ‘alternative art’ was actually the progressive art of its time. Many of the artists we documented, who were marginalized by the authorities, are now recognized as some of the most significant figures in Hungarian art history.

After the system change, we saw the importance of making our archives public. While they had always been accessible within the underground scene, we wanted to establish a legal entity that could apply for grants and sponsorships, allowing us to open the archives more widely. Still, we never expected Artpool to become our life’s work!

At first, we assumed that once Budapest had a contemporary art museum, our work would be integrated into an institutional framework. However, when the Ludwig Museum of Contemporary Art was founded in the mid-1990s, they were not interested in taking over our archive. So, we had to continue.

Tentative Transmits: How did you maintain and operate the archives over the years, particularly in the beginning, in terms of storage, funding and materials?

Júlia Klaniczay: When we first started, the archive consisted of just a few books, folders, and artworks. The challenge arose as it grew into a substantial collection, requiring more space and resources. Our first dedicated space – after the change of system, in 1992 – was an apartment provided by the city of Budapest, which allowed us to formally organize the archive and welcome researchers. However, financial sustainability remained a challenge, as traditional institutions were not interested in supporting an alternative art archive. We had to find creative ways to sustain Artpool!

As for the structure of the archive, one of Galántai's early ideas was to organize archival materials geographically. He used a visual system where folders and boxes were arranged like a world map – northern countries at the top, southern at the bottom, and so on. This made it easy to see regional artistic connections at a glance. When we moved into our first public space – the apartment provided by the city of Budapest – we implemented the same system, and even today, we try to maintain its logic. We have separate sections for European countries, the United States, Latin America, and a significant portion dedicated to Hungary and Eastern Europe.

Tentative Transmits: We noticed the many artist address books during our tour in the archives. Beyond serving as contact lists, what role did they play in shaping artistic exchanges and collaborations?

Júlia Klaniczay: Before the internet, having access to addresses was essential for connecting with artists directly. One of our most valuable sources were biennial catalogs, which provided artists’ contact details and address lists from the mail art and Fluxus network. These listings made it much easier to establish direct communication, foster exchanges, and build a network of artistic collaborations.

Tentative Transmits: You also have a substantial collection of printed matter, including materials from samizdat activities. How did you manage to print and distribute them under state censorship?

Júlia Klaniczay: It was crucial to announce our projects, even as an underground initiative. The first step in connecting with artists was developing a visual identity for Artpool. Galántai designed rubber stamps, letterheads, graphics, and postcards. Postcards were especially important – they visually introduced Artpool and included a brief description on the back inviting people to send in materials. And it worked!

Printing was a challenge. Offset printing required finding small printing houses willing to do it discreetly, for extra money, when the bosses were absent. Photocopying was equally difficult, as machines were only available in state institutions, tightly controlled, and required official permission for use. Often, we had to find someone willing to make copies unofficially. We always had to bring our own paper, as every sheet was strictly counted.

Despite these difficulties, we managed to publish newsletters, such as Pool Window, which helped Hungarian artists join international mail art networks. We later moved on to samizdat magazines and experimented with cassette radio broadcasts. If the political system hadn’t changed, we might have ventured into samizdat television as well!

Tentative Transmits: Do you see Artpool eventually becoming a museum?

Júlia Klaniczay: Artpool is already a museum in a way! Its future, however, depends on how well we can continue our mission – whether we can sustain the network, attract new colleagues who understand its vision, and keep the collection active. For now, it still functions as an evolving institution, and Galántai remains deeply involved, even though he is in his 80s.

Tentative Transmits: Much of your material has already been digitized. Is your goal to eventually make the entire collection accessible online?

Júlia Klaniczay: We were one of the first institutions in Hungary to embrace digitization and among the first to have a website, which we launched in 1995. The internet felt like a natural continuation of the mail art network – a cheap and accessible way to publish materials and connect with a wider audience.

Before that, in 1992, we had already begun building a database for artworks – an unusual step for an art institution in Hungary at the time. Unlike libraries, which had standardized databases, no existing system could accommodate an archive like ours. We started using FileMaker, a database originally developed for Macintosh computers, because it allowed us to program and adapt it ourselves without external support. At that time, there were no experts around us who could assist with database development, so we had to learn everything on our own.

We also had to navigate hardware challenges. Our first computer was actually an Atari, which was more affordable than Macintosh, though eventually, we had to switch because Mac was better suited for digital art and archival work. Another major challenge was storage and digital memory limitations, particularly in the early years of digitization, when server space was expensive and difficult to maintain.

We always assumed that at some point, a national museum database would emerge in Hungary and we could integrate our system into it. However, that never happened – each institution still manages its own database independently. Even now, our FileMaker system remains more efficient for our needs than any standardized museum software.

Our website is now actually considered an art historical artifact in itself, which is why we try to preserve its original format, adapting only the necessary. Digitization remains a never-ending task, especially as we adapt our archival system to museum standards. Our file-naming conventions are based on dates which means they are better designed for intuitive searching, but don’t always align with traditional museum databases. Despite these challenges, we continue to work on making our materials accessible to researchers and the public.

Tentative Transmits: Artpool has survived technological and political shifts. What do you see as its lasting impact?

Júlia Klaniczay: I believe Artpool itself is a unique artwork – an evolving, living archive that has continuously adapted over time. From the beginning, our role has extended beyond mere preservation; we have actively participated in artistic exchange, shaping and documenting movements in real time. If we were to disengage from artists and function solely as an archive for researchers, Artpool would shift into a more traditional institutional model. While historical preservation is important, Artpool’s true significance lies in its continued involvement with artists and contemporary networks. Becoming purely a research archive would mean losing something essential – its role as a living archive that not only documents artistic practice but also actively contributes to it.︎