What, after all, is the Nikos Alexiou Collection? Isn’t it for Alexiou a means of communication with the artists who are included in it? Isn’t the acquisition of a new work in every case a “lover’s caress” addressed each day to the loved one through co-existence with the particular work? It is my belief that his lover’s approach to the artists in his collection greatly outweighs any other factor which could affect his behaviour as a collector. In a conversation which we had about the possibility of publishing a catalogue of the works in the collection, the title he was thinking of with enthusiasm was Lovers in Athens.

We regard the collection as a product of the personal preoccupation of Nikos Alexiou, a cultivated man who is first and foremost an artist, and it is his capacity as such which has given the collection the shape, the form, and the character which it possesses. It embraces within it works of autodidacts such as those of his father, Lefteris Alexiou, or juvenilia of artists from their student years. How much interest can studies from the student days of an Alexandros Psychoulis or a Manolis Zacharioudakis have for us today?

If we detach the works from their ‘connective tissue’, which is precisely Alexiou himself and his work as an artist, we probably diminish the special value of the collection. As was pointed out in a previous section, very few of these works on their own would attract the collector’s interest of a museum of contemporary art. The works as a whole, however, if presented together with the oeuvre of Nikos Alexiou would seem to lend the collection the following surprising qualities:

1. An exceptionally tightly bonded whole, extremely fascinating and with great resonance, is achieved.

2. The individual works succeed within this whole in bringing out their worth in creating very interesting groupings of ‘conversation’ — the works of the Greek and the non-Greek artists together. This is in itself an exceptional achievement which raises to the heights both the educational value of the collection, and the projection, with masterly care, of the Greek artists. In Lovers in Athens, if we stay with this title, Alexiou invites contemporary Greek and non-Greek artists to a festival of communication. It is difficult to remember very many exhibitions of contemporary art in Greece which have managed this in such an affectionate and tender way, while achieving so disarmingly powerful a result. We are speaking here, of course, of the potentialities which we see the collection as possessing. The question of what would be the best solution in museological terms for the presentation of the collection remains open. On this, having had the actual experience of the ‘exhibition’ of the collection in Alexiou’s former studio/home, at 80 Spyrou Merkouri St, our thoughts inevitably lead us to the following proposals:
• We would insist on the incorporation into the collection, if possible by purchase, but even by loans, of some further works which had already been chosen by the collector but which for financial reasons he had not managed to acquire. We have in mind three instances involving the artists Dimitris Foutris, Jonathan Callan, and Sean Landers, but we are certain that there will be some others. When in this way the collection has been conclusively completed, we shall go on to the final programming and planning. In any event, because of the nature of the works, the bulk of the collection will be increased only minimally in objective proportions. We would also insist on the borrowing and parallel joint exhibiting of certain works — a very few — by the international artists Adam Chodzko, Jason Meadows, and Jim Shaw, some of whose works, suitably incorporated into the exhibition of the collection without distorting its character, would dramatically facilitate an understanding of their ‘erotic’ encounter with the works of Vangelis Vlahos and Kostis Velonis.
• A further thought is that of a long-term periodical and touring exhibition, at least in the first phase. If it were possible for such a thing to get off the ground, we would propose that its opening should coincide with that of the forthcoming Art Athina 2007, as an accompaniment to it as a parallel event, and that the exhibition should continue the presentation of the collection throughout the duration of the first Athens Biennale. We would also propose the subsequent transfer of the exhibition to the Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art in Thessaloniki, for at least the first quarter of 2008, and immediately afterwards to certain major cities abroad. It would be very successful promotion of an international range and of tremendous importance for the Greek artists in the collection if the exhibition could be in Beijing for the full duration of the 2008 Olympic Games and then travel to New York, London, Berlin, and Istanbul, before returning to Greece. Something of this kind, correctly planned, would be an authentic, Greek, cultural policy of support for contemporary art and would need the aid of both the Greek State and of major sponsors. It could be a joint production of the Ministry of Culture, the Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art, the DESTE Foundation, and the Costopoulos Foundation.

Throughout the time that the exhibition was on tour, it would be supported by an advertising campaign in all the important international art journals, at international art fairs, and by specially designed promotion in each of the cities abroad. It would be accompanied by a comprehensive catalogue containing photographs of the works and texts by Greek and non-Greek art historians. At parallel events, educational programmes, lectures, and discussions by a group of museologists and art historians would be held. All this may perhaps sound excessive in the case of such a small collection. But the issue is one of quality. The material exists, and is sufficient for a masterpiece of a ‘dish’ to be prepared, which, if correctly served, would produce outstanding results. Furthermore, the size and value of the works are such that the cost of transporting and insuring them would be relatively small.

3. Recent international biennali have also opened up the way for the discovery of exhibition sites other than a museum which often stimulate a wish to visit them more than the overcharged premises of a large museum do. Such resourceful solutions would solve the issue of the usually lengthy schedulings and discussions required for the mounting in them of periodical exhibitions when large museums are involved. Nevertheless, in the case of cities abroad, the exhibition could on each occasion be placed under the auspices of a major local museum of contemporary art, which would be a considerable help in its promotion, but be held on other premises, and not in the museum itself.

4. Having seen the works exhibited in Alexiou’s last studio/home, an apartment measuring a little over 100 m², we can say with certainty that for the exhibition of the collection, together with the space for the parallel events (educational programmes, lectures, discussions) no more than 300 m² are needed. We would propose that the layout of all the premises to be involved in the exhibition should be treated as a single whole and should form a replica of the ‘studio/house’ of Nikos Alexiou in the form of a holistic installation. We mean more of a notional studio/house of the artist/collector, rather than the real one. There will be, that is to say, furniture, sitting rooms, bedrooms, storerooms, a kitchen, corridors, and bathrooms, so as to bring out the feeling of the house/studio, simply on a slightly different scale. The works will be scattered in all these areas, and the visitor will receive repeated surprises as he will see video projections in bathtubs, in washbasins, in plastic bowls filled with water for washing clothes or through the open doors of storerooms, works resting on the warm covers of a bed or hanging from the ceiling, smells coming from the kitchen, a television turned on, and the files/archives of the artists easily accessible for a quick leaf through. The premises of the parallel events will be in the same style, also filled with works, and completely integrated into the ‘studio/house’. The visitor should as far as possible have the feeling everywhere that he is in the completely private rooms of the artist/collector.

In order to achieve this objective in a way which is museologically correct on the various premises where the collection will necessarily be exhibited in each city, the close collaboration of Nikos Alexiou with the team of museologists, programmers, designers and architects who will be dealing with the matter is required. We believe that if such an undertaking could be funded, the exhibition would provide visitors with an unforgettable and fascinating experience, both at the level of feelings and at that of a better understanding of the world of contemporary art, and, of course, more particularly of the art which is produced in Greece, together with that produced anywhere else.

The cost of the realisation of such a proposal would be reduced dramatically if the exhibition were to be mounted on each occasion in an already existing urban apartment which has by its own nature the reception areas proposed. If the artist/collector is invited each time to set it up as if it were his real studio/house, in collaboration with the exhibition’s museologists, we would perhaps have the best possible result. In other words, in essence we are proposing the exhibition of a method of exhibiting — that very specific one which the artist/collector experiences every day, whether he wishes to or not, on the premises of his studio/home. It is, we believe, only in this way that we can make the beholder a partaker in the experiential, daily relation between the artist/collector and his work and the works, and the other artists with whom he has chosen to cohabit. The central idea of our museological thinking is that in this particular case we are not interested in showing the objects in a collection in the most museologically correct way. What we are seeking after is, together with the objects in the collection, also to exhibit the collector as an artist, because it is precisely his capacity as such which has shaped the style of the collection and which lends it its special value.

It goes without saying that, from a museological point of view, our proposal will perhaps seem, to begin with, unorthodox. This is because in such an exhibition we would not want either very much special lighting, or labels on the walls, and certainly not, in any circumstances, obvious groupings. Nor for a single moment would we want titles of groups and sub-groups, or museological summaries. We are proposing an exhibition which in its entirety will provide a breath of fresh air and constant stopping-point. There will be no introductory text, nor any set order for touring the exhibition. Visitors will be free to wander at will on the premises, enjoying the mystic experience of a visit in an allusive environment.

It would be ideal for the artist/collector always to be present on the site of the exhibition and for him to speak with visitors himself, but this role could also be undertaken by suitably trained guides/animators. The exhibition is to be accompanied by a full, readable, catalogue in which those who are interested will be able to find thoughts and information on what exactly is happening around him, and what these curiously fascinating things he is looking at can mean. We are proposing an exhibition which the visitors are invited to experience physically, with all their senses. They will be provided with water in the kitchen by the charming Lamara, the artist's domestic help, and will make the acquaintance of his playful dog Zozoka. They will be able to talk with the artist/collector himself or a ‘passing’ art historian, who, naturally, will know all about the works which surround them. They will be able to go out on to the balcony to have a cigarette and a think. They will be able at certain times and on certain days to attend scheduled lectures and discussions on issues of contemporary art which are touched upon with this exhibition as their starting point. They will also be able at certain set times and on certain days to meet some of the artists who feature with their works in the collection, to get to know them and to converse with them. By the same reasoning, educational programmes, designed for people of all ages, will also function.

It is our deeply held belief that what is missing more than anything else in the lives of people today is substantive personal contact, and it is this contact which we wish to provide by means of an exhibition which will justly bear the title of Lovers in Athens. We are talking, of course, about an exhibition of contemporary art which will be addressed to every single contemporary person, in a literal sense.

I don’t know whether I am simply deluding myself with dreams of a young museologist/artist which are as deceptive as they are naive. If nothing else, this postgraduate thesis has cultivated with great enthusiasm my favourite habit of dreaming. And I cannot here resist quoting Mrs Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, to the effect that what is above all missing from our society today is dreaming. She herself regards the contemporary artist as the absolute ‘dream-maker’. The artist and collector Nikos Alexiou, as a ‘man of action’, by means of the pre-eminently political gesture of his collection — a collection which has been paid for from the little which he has — sets us a humble example of unique splendour.

This text is an extract from the degree thesis of Nikos Triantaphyllou entitled Museological programming and planning of the collection of works of contemporary art of the artist and collector Nikos Alexiou, which was compiled within the inter-university programme of postgraduate studies of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in 2006. The thesis was supervised by Lia Gyioka, Efthymia Kountoura, and Matoula Skaltsa, professors at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.