Art in the former Yugoslavia

arald Szeemann, who prosaically dubbed himself an Austellungsmacher (exhibitionmaker) in the late 1960s, has since come to embody what Bruce Altshuler calls "the rise of the curator as creator." 1 This transformation from maker to creator, from craft to art, has been reinforced by a proliferation of critical discourses in the past two decades, leading to increased professionalization and the development of the field of curatorial studies. The ongoing theorization and historicization of exhibitionary practices, however, generally fails to take into account what has evolved beyond the prominent art world centers in Western Europe and the United States. Despite critical discourses that identify and deconstruct Western hegemony, and despite numerous artistic and research projects that have "restructured" the art historical canon, every new chapter in art history -which includes exhibition history -seems to open in the same way: by establishing a Westernbased canon and only subsequently acknowledging interventions that are in conversation with it. By focusing on select projects in Yugoslavia during the 1960s and 1970s curated by Želimir Koščević, Ida Biard, and Dunja Blažević, this article challenges conventional exhibition histories, not by merely adding new examples to established paradigms, but by presenting case studies as generators of new models for understanding curation today. The projects I explore disrupted the boundaries between artistic and curatorial practice and enable us to conceive of curation as a creative and transformative work of translation,

review of Branislav Jakovljevic, Alienation Effects: Performance and Self-Management in Yugoslavia, 1945–91. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016, and Armin Medosch, New Tendencies: Art at the Threshold of the Information Revolution (1961–1978). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2016.

The book focuses on the breakup of the Yugoslav Federation and wars that followed viewed through the comic art in the local and international press. War propaganda and political discourse are examined and placed in the larger historical context of this conflict. The study reveals that Yugoslav cartoonists anticipated, as early as 1984, the disintegration of the country and were forecasting armed conflict in 1989. Using print media and comic art as a primary source of investigation, the author has presented the mental representation of the war as seen in press cartoons, both chronologically and thematically. A representative sampling of some 400 cartoons (out of a database of almost 7’500) and dozens of interviews undertaken with political cartoonists in the 1990s are quoted in the book as a primary source.

Before the former Yugoslavia was divided by wars, its inhabitants successfully lived side by side in peace. This collection seeks to explain how former neighbors became enemies, with the hope that understanding what drove these peoples apart will help us discover ways for them to coexist in peace again.Contributors analyze political cartoons, psychiatry, the arts, visual media, and law to present a diversity of views on the conflicts in Yugoslavia. While the chapters in this book deal with regional developments, they are not so much focused on politics as they are concerned with how values and attitudes are altered and new identities formed. Thus, this volume goes beyond recent journalistic accounts and should remain relevant for years to come.This book began as a special issue of the journal Anthropology of East Europe Review. Most of the contributors to that issue have revised their chapters for this collection, and new chapters have been added, including one on the recent war in Kosovo. Essays range across all of former Yugoslavia, emphasizing the variability and diversity of ethnic relations throughout its history: Joel M. Halpern & David A. Kideckel (eds.)

During the period of NR/SR Bosnia & Herzegovina (1945-1992) thousands of monuments commemorating the People’s Liberation War, Struggle and Movement (commonly referred to in abbreviated form as NOR, NOB and NOP - henceforth collectively referred to as NOB) were created and unveiled on its territory. In recent decades, these monuments to the NOB have often become forgotten, ignored, or exposed to unquantifiable damage. The reasons for this ‘unquantifiability’ stem, in part, from the lack of a comprehensive recording system among and between stakeholders during the period of SRBiH, and the destruction of archives of stakeholders during the 1992-95 war and its immediate aftermath, but have been inarguably exacerbated by the administrative system in Bosnia & Herzegovina in the present day.
This paper aims to give a brief overview of the current situation of monuments to the People’s Liberation War, Struggle and Movement on the territory of Vogošća municipality, which today lies in Sarajevo Canton of the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina entity.

-O nestvaralačkim istraživanjima Gorana Đorđevića-Najranije javno pojavljivanje umetnika Gorana Đorđevića vezano je za njegovu prvu izložbu crteža/slika u foajeu Doma JNA u Prištini 1971. godine 1 , a tim povodom i za jedan intervju koji je objavljen u prištinskom omladinskom i studentskom nedeljniku Novi Svet septembra 1972. 2 Ovaj intervju je istini na volju krajnje marginalna referenca (dolazi iz «periferije periferije», iz kulturne sredine koja praktično i nije bila uključena u jugoslovensku savremenu umetnost u to vreme), ali je iz potonje perspektive ovaj intervju pokazatelj na koji je način Đorđević mislio i šta je zagovarao i pre nego što je ušao u svoje «formativne» godine provedene uglavnom oko beogradskog SKC od kraja 1972. godine. U intervjuu Đorđević između ostalog objašnjava kako vidi odnos između nauke (kojoj se posvetio kao tadašnji student Elektrotehničkog fakulteta) i umetnosti za koju je bio «amaterski» zainteresovan -kao neko ko je u sebi ne samo otkrio sposobnost (talent?) praktikovanja crtanja i slikanja već i poriv da teorijski promišlja umetnost i njenu istoriju. Već će u tom intervjuu Đorđević zastupati stav koji će karakterisati njegov kasniji rad: napustiti ideju o umetnosti kao procesu stvaranja i shvatiti umetnost kao proces istraživanja, otkrivanja i komuniciranja.

Pred okvirno 70 leti je v drugi oziroma tretji številki Zgodovinskega časopisa potekala vroča diskusija, ki še danes ni razrešena. Gre za eno najbolj perečih vprašanj arheologije v Sloveniji, to je problem staroslovanskega svetišča na Ptuju. Avtor predstavi pester potek odkritja zloglasnega objekta v »podivjanih« povojnih letih v Jugoslaviji med velikimi arheološkimi izkopavanji na zahodnem platoju ptujskega gradu. Izkopavanja postavi v širši okvir povojne gradnje države in nacije (Jugoslovanov), ko so tudi arheologi in zgodovinarji pomagali postavljati novo državo na nove temelje.

The Bosnian Case: Art, History and Memory concerns the representation of historic and traumatogenic events in art through the specific case of the war in Bosnia 1992-1995. The research investigates an aftermath articulated through the Freudian concept of Nachträglichkeit, rebounding on the nature of representation in the art as always in the space of an "afterness". The ability to represent an originary traumatic scenario has been questioned in the theoretics surrounding this concept. Through The Bosnian Case and its art historical precedents, the research challenges this line of thinking, identifying, including through fieldwork in Bosnia in 2016, the continuation of the war in a war of images.

Đorđe Andrejević-Kun: Blood-Soaked Gold.
A Framework of Subversion
This paper considers the pre-Second World War artistic
and political career of the Yugoslav and Serbian
artist  Andrejevic-Kun (1904–1964). After 1934,
Andrejevic-Kun was the most prominent leftist artistic
leader and political activist, a member of the Communist
Party of Yugoslavia, and one of the founders and
strongest advocates of socialist realism. Although he
was a gifted painter and designer, he is mostly known
as a graphic artist. Andrejevic-Kun created two well-
known series of woodcuts: Krvavo zlato (Blood-Soaked
Gold, 1936) and Za Slobodu (For Freedom, 1939). The
First is a radical, sharp, and brutal social criticism that
centers on the life of underpaid miserable mine workers
at the prosperous Bor copper mines, and the second
details his revolutionary experience as a combatant
with the Republican International Brigades during the
Spanish Civil War. Both works, particularly Blood-
Soaked Gold, proved seminal after the Second World
War as a political foundation of socialist realism, and
Andrejevic-Kun was among the most important establishers
of the totalitarian model in Yugoslav art
between 1945 and 1951. During the late 1930s, Blood-
Soaked Gold was openly and radically subversive in its
criticism of the royalist, oppressive, capitalist regime of
Aleksandar Karadjorevic and (from 1936 to 1941) his
successors to the throne. Blood-Soaked Gold became a
symbol of Communist resistance to the regime and to
capitalism, and For Freedom became a symbol of the
anti-Fascist movement in the 1930s.

Krvavo zlato ora Andrejevica Kuna in njegov prevratniški kontekst
Povzetek
V življenju in ustvarjanju Đorđa Andrejevica Kuna (1904–1964) je leta 1934 prišlo do nenadnega preobrata. Kot tridesetletnik, ki je imel za seboj že petletno ustvarjalno kariero in tri leta aktivnega razstavljanja, se je pridružil skupini socialnopoliticno usmerjenih umetnikov (Kujacic, Andrejevic-Kun, Dragan Berakovic, Živanovic NOE, Vladeta Piperski in Teodorovic). Odtlej je bil eden najpomembnejših komunisticnih politicno-umetniških vodij zgodnjega obdobja socialnega in borbenega realizma v Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Vodilno vlogo je ohranil tudi pozneje, v drugi fazi revolucije, po letu 1943 oz. 1945, ko je postal power behind the throne novega režima. Enega najpomembnejših momentov v Kunovi prevratniški in bojevito umetniški ideologiji predstavlja priprava (1934) in natis (1936) gracne mape Krvavo zlato. Andrejevic-Kun je leta 1934 ilegalno
bival v borskem rudniku, že prej pa je bil dobro seznanjen z nevzdržnimi razmerami, v katerih so živeli in delali rudarji. Ob tej priložnosti je napravil skice in risbe, ki so mu služile kot predloge za lesoreze. Korupcija in razsipništvo na eni strani, brezpravnost, nizke mezde in revšcina rudarjev na drugi, unicevanje poljedelstva, od katerega je živela vecina prebivalcev, ki so bili zato prisiljeni delati v kopih, in velika onesnaženost zraka v Boru so bili glavni razlogi za Kunovo angažiranje. Narativno osnovo socialno-borbenega realizma v Kraljevini Jugoslaviji, ki jo je Kun uporabil v Krvavem zlatu, tvorijo socialne in ekonomske krivice, zatiranje in zkorišcanje, lakota, revšcina, dninarsko delo na polju, slabo placano delo v rudnikih in tovarnah, korupcija, ki je onemogocala pravicnejše funkcioniranje pravnega sistema, sanje o revoluciji in spremembi družbenega sistema in podobno. Pri vizualizaciji družbene bede, dickensovske ali gorkijevske naracije in engelsovske politicnoekonomske kritike Kun nastopa z ambicijo, da bi izzval razredno (ljudsko) solidarnost in bojevitega duha pa tudi da bi kolikor mogoce vznemiril mešcanski red in ureditev, mir vladajocih elit. Zato predstavlja mapa Krvavo zlato vrhunec njegove umetniške agitpropovske dejavnosti. Morda je zaradi nje neupraviceno
ostal v spominu le kot grak-politik, a takratna in poznejša zgodovina sta dali za to dobre argumente.
Z mapo Krvavo zlato se je na jugoslovanskem ozemlju koncno pojavil surovo kriticni, bojeviti, manipulativni
in agitacijski realizem, ki ne skriva svoje namere, da zruši obstojeci politicni in družbeni sistem. Naslednji korak tega prevratniškega nacrta je bila zmaga „bojevitih palet“ v revoluciji.

The Independent Group of Slovenian Artists

At the start of the 1930s, a new generation of artists, educated at the Academy of Fine
Arts in Zagreb, stepped on the Slovenian art scene. The most prominent among them
were assembled in the Independent Group of Slovenian Artists, the Independents for
short, and their art left an indelible mark on that period in history.
In the broadest sense, the Independent Group was comprised of fourteen Slovenian
painters and sculptors, though all fourteen never appeared at the same exhibition
together. The members of the Group were: Zoran Didek, Boris Kalin, Zdenko Kalin,
Stane Kregar, France Mihelič, Zoran Mušič, Nikolaj Omersa, France Pavlovec, Nikolaj
Pirnat, Marij Pregelj, Karel Putrih, Maksim Sedej, Frančišek Smerdu, and Evgen Sajovic.
It must also be said that the activities of each individual artist were distinct and
that each one also exhibited their work outside of the Group, making their own impression on the Slovenian art scene.
In their aspiration for the broadest social recognition, the Independents utilised
various strategies. They were aware of the strength of the media and made good use
of them for the purposes of popularising their art. The name they selected for themselves
is also interesting and raises the question from what or whom the Independents
were or were striving to be independent. They wished to position themselves into
the continuity of Slovenian art and present their work as its organic development. At
the same time, their chosen name walled them off from innumerable matters and asserted their independence. We can learn something about the naming process from
the statements the members themselves made on various occasions about taking the
French as their model. Furthermore, they were not the first in the former Kingdom of
Yugoslavia to adopt such a name.
Sometimes, the Independents were criticised for being too closely connected with
Zagreb professors, namely, for their foreign influences (in addition to the influence
of the Zagreb professors, especially the influence of French art). In response, the artists
themselves consistently emphasised their search for a unique artistic expression,
which was, of course, a Slovenian artistic expression, in their opinion.
In the course of their work and promotion, the Independents used many strategies
to increase their visibility and presence in the media, ensuring a greater connection
with their audience and, in the final analysis, their survival. The Group’s successful
emergence on the art scene was due to their considerable individual artistic talents,
the quality art education they received at the Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb, the
eagerness with which they worked, and their excellent organization. They succeeded
in their endeavour because they had managed, in a short amount of time, to position
themselves within Slovenian art as a group which, while somewhat lacking in homogeneity of artistic expression, nevertheless represented artistic quality. And all of this, placed in the context of the social circumstances at the end of the 1930s, also contributed to their popularity.
During and after the Second World War, different fates befell the Group members.
Today, each and every one of them is counted as a major figure in Slovenian art history,
not only when it comes to Slovenian but also Yugoslavian 20th century painting.
Despite the fact that former members helped shape Slovenian art in significant ways
even after the war, the activities of the Group itself have never been closely examined
in art history before. Hence, along with a number of their exhibitions, my paper attempts
to present the fundamental characteristics of the Group’s activities and the reception they received.
...
Klub neodvisnih likovnih umetnikov, kratko imenovan Neodvisni, je bila verjetno najbolje organizirana skupina umetnikov v tridesetih letih 20. stoletja na Slovenskem. V najširši sestavi jo je sestavljalo štirinajst kiparjev in slikarjev. Kot bolj ali manj enotna skupina so sodelovali na šestnajstih razstavah na Slovenskem in eni v Zagrebu. Uspešnost Neodvisnih je bila povezana z izrazito izstopajočim talentom nekaterih članov, kakovostno likovno izobrazbo, ki so jo člani večinoma dobili na akademiji v Zagrebu, željo po uveljavitvi in dobro organiziranostjo.

Prikupljajući materijal za istraživanje jugoslovenskog i postjugoslovenskog filma naišla sam na gotovo zaboravljenu formulaciju koja aludira na nezanimljivost i neinventivnost jedne faze u jugoslovenskom filmskom stvaralaštvu. Reč je o žargonski i vrednosno opterećenoj formulaciji – „belom talasu“. Jedna decenija jugoslovenskog izraza koja otvoreno govori o tenzijama prisutnim pred raspad Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije, traumatskim iskustvima i prećutkivanim unutrašnjim krizama, nije doživela slavu kakva je obeležila naizgled ideološki suprotstavljene decenije pedesetih i šezdesetih. Ovi filmovi su u javnom diskursu predstavljeni kao niz nezanimljivih ostvarenja među kojima samo nekа, tiho bojkotovanа ili onа kojа bi se moglа svrstati u horore i socijane drame zaslužuju posebnu pažnju i, to zbog metaforičkog načina na koji govore o društvenoj stvarnosti. Autoritativnim tonom koji se obraća iz dnevnih novina i revija, kritičari jugoslovenskog filma uveravali su gledaoce da u deceniji koja počinje sredinom sedamdesetih i okončava se sredinom osamdesetih godina, nema potomaka dostojnih ratnog spektakla ili crnog talasa. Zapravo, filmska decenija 1975-1985. usmerena je na tematizaciju problema koji su malo koga zanimali u svetu vizuelnog jer su reflektovali slike sumorne svakodnevice, kolotečine u kojoj nema straha, ali nema ni nadanja, visokih ideala, rizika, ni dubokih emocija. Zato su filmovi snimljeni tokom ovih desetak godina retko bili predmet istraživanja, dubljih analiza, polemika i rasprava.

Memory in the Balkans has often been described as binding, authoritative, and non-negotiable, functioning as a banner of war. This book challenges such a one-dimensional representation and offers a more nuanced analysis that accommodates frequently ignored instances of transnational solidarity, dialogue, communal mourning and working through a difficult past. Exploring a broad range of memorial practices, the book focuses on the ways in which cultural memory is mediated, performed and critically reworked by literature and the arts in the former Yugoslavia. Against the methodological nationalism of works that study Serbian, Croatian, or Bosniak culture as self-contained, this book examines post-Yugoslav literature, film, visual culture, and politicized art practices from a supranational angle. Not solely focusing on traumatic memories, but also exploring how post-Yugoslav cultural practices mobilize memory for a politics of hope, this volume moves beyond the trauma paradigm that still dominates memory studies. In its scope and approach, the book shows the relevance of the cultural memory of Eastern European citizens and the contribution they can offer to the building of Europe’s shared cultural memory and transnational identity.

Published September 2015: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/nsk-kapital-capital

Edited by Zdenka Badovinac, Eda Čufer and Anthony Gardner

Overview
This book is the generously illustrated, lavishly documented, critically narrated story of one of the most significant art collectives of the late twentieth century.

In 1984, three groups of artists in post-Tito Yugoslavia—the music and multimedia group Laibach, the visual arts group Irwin, and the theater group Scipion Nasice Sisters Theater—came together to form the Neue Slowenische Kunst (NSK) art collective.

Adopting the symbols, codes, appearances, and discourses of fascism, nationalism, state power, socialist-realist, and avant-garde art, and pushing the strategies of overidentification and subversive affirmation to their limits, NSK exposed the common foundations of various regimes, systems, and ideologies, while affirming that “art and totalitarianism are not mutually exclusive.”
Employing music, video, film, exhibitions, writing, graphic design, architecture, theater, and public relations to probe the aesthetic possibilities of declining socialism and proliferating capitalism, NSK introduced an idiosyncratic version of postmodernism (the Retro-Avant-Garde) into the globalizing cultural sphere.

Combining primary documents, period artifacts, critical essays, and contextual notes, NSK from Kapital to Capital documents NSK’s collective practice during the final decade of Yugoslavia—from the first (and banned) Laibach concert (1980) in a small proletarian mining town in Slovenia to the series of projects launched by individual NSK groups entitled Kapital (1991-92). This illuminating chronicle of NSK’s work and its reception is produced in conjunction with the first major museum exhibition devoted to NSK. Designed by Novi Kolektivizem (New Collectivism), the graphic design section of NSK, the cover of each individual copy of the book is printed with a custom detail; no two covers exactly are the same.

Contributors include
Eda Čufer, Goran Đorđević, Slavoj Žižek, Marina Gržinić, Rastko Močnik, Marina Gržinić, Lev Kreft, Tomaž Mastnak, Mladen Dolar, Chrissie Iles, Boris Groys, Inke Arns, Alexei Monroe, Catherine Wood, Daniel Ricardo Quiles, Anthony Gardner, Barbara Borčič, Alexei Yurchak, Dejan Kršić and others

Copublished with Moderna Galerija / Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Živko Stojisavljević (Benkovac, October 1st,
1900 – Belgrade, January 19th, 1978)
Živko Stojisavljević received his first painting
lessons in Zadar high school, and he continued his
education in Italy. He lived in Florence and Rome,
where he graduated from two prestigious art
academies between 1918 and 1924: Royal Institute
of Fine Arts in Florence and Higher Royal Institute of
Fine Arts in Rome. After returning to his homeland,
for a while he lived in Knin; after that, he worked as
a professor of fine arts in several towns along the
Adriatic coast and in Serbia. In 1931 he settled in
Belgrade. He worked as a drawing teacher in many
different Belgrade grammar and high schools.
Even as a student, he was interested in decorative
wall painting, working alongside his professor,
Giulio Bargellini on interiors of public buildings
in Rome. He continued painting and decorating
interiors of churches throughout his entire career.
Nevertheless, Živko Stojisavljević’s s greatest
achievements were paintings which depicted lives
of peasants and fishermen, coastal landscapes,
paintings of Belgrade and its vicinity, as well as
places in which he decorated churches, still nature,
portraits, and paintings of far away cities. Most of
the landscapes were painted in direct contact with
nature, under the open sky. In works which depict
the view from his studio he achieved the authentic
expression – a characteristic combination of still life
and landscape. During his career, which spanned
over more than five decades, he painted several
hundreds of oil paintings and water colors. He
also regularly took part in many group exhibitions:
Belgrade Autumn and Spring Exhibitions, ULUS
exhibitions and many other. After 1952 he took part
in exhibitions organized by Lada artist association,
as well as having eighteen independent exhibitions,
first of which was held in 1920 in Florence, and the
last in 1974 in Zemun. During that period, his work
went through several phases: the strong influence
of the Seccession is noticable during the early,
the «Dalmatian» phase, which lasted until the
middle of the 1920’s, as well as the phase focused
on folklore and historical motifs depicted in
nationalist-romantic manner. Near the end of the
third decade, the seccessionistic decorativeness is
replaced by constuctivistic influence. The «Belgrade
phase» began with his moving to Belgrade in
1931, and lasted until II World War. During that
period, Stojisavljević completely develops himself
as a painter, painting mostly themes related to
the seaside, and embracing the style of Belgrade
of intimistic circle and poetic realism. Like many
other artists, after the war he accepted the dictate
of ideology and themes which depicted the
renovation of the country and creation of the new
society, but the change of themes is not followed
by changes in his artistic expression. Dedicated
to his own creative patterns, the work of Živko
Stojisavljević moved in the direction of thematic
and coloristic renovation, through his «green and
blue», period which began at the beginning of the
fifth decade and lasted for almost twenty years.
The palette of cold colors, dominated by green
shades, concrete form and color modelation of this
phase represents the poetic continuation of artist’s
creative interests during the pre-war period, but
the true innovation occured in the last, «coloristic»
phase, which completed the Stojisavljević’s work.
Spontaneous and highlighted strokes and the
palette of bright, warm colors, as well as constant
repainting of old themes were characteristic for
the final phase of artist’s work. That is exactly the
period in which Pavle Beljanski decided to include
three of Stojisavljević’s paintings in his collection,
with the intention of pointing out the deep roots
and the continuity of coloristic style in the 20th-
Century Serbian painting

"...Trifunović je svoj pedagoški rad na Filozofskom fakultetu u Beogradu započeo 1957. godine kao asistent, da bi u periodu posle odbrane svoje seminalne doktorske disertacije Srpsko slikarstvo prve polovine XX veka (1960) postao docent (1962), a tek dvadeset godina kasnije, godinu dana pred smrt, i redovni profesor. Ova disertacija objavljena kao Istorija srpskog slikarstva 1900-1950 (Nolit, Beograd 1973), do danas je ostala najuticajnije i najviše citirano delo iz oblasti nacionalne istorije moderne umetnosti. Zahvaljujući Lazaru Trifunoviću 1966. godine osamostaljen je i kao poseban izdvojen predmet Istorija moderne umetnosti na Odeljenju za istoriju umetnosti, koja je do 1963. godine predavana u okviru opšte i jugoslovenske umetnosti novog veka, da bi u periodu od 1963. do 1966, pod rukovodstvom Lazara Trifunovića, postojala kroz njegove proseminare umetnosti 20. veka. Lazar Trifunović (1929-1983) je za, do tada zanemarenu, oblast moderne umetnosti izvojevao naučnu i operativnu samostalnost kako unutar organizacione strukture Odeljenja za istoriju umetnosti (osnovanog kao posebnog departmana Filozofskog fakulteta 1963.) i Instituta za istoriju umetnosti, tako i šire, u pogledu naglašenog pedagoškog rada na Odeljenju te afirmacije istorije moderne umetnosti kao nauke u široj javnosti. Takođe, sa ogromnim iskustvom stečenim u Narodnom muzeju u Beogradu (upravnik 1962-1968), Trifunović je bio inicijator i prvi predavač muzeologije u programu osnovnih studija istorije umetnosti, i izraziti zagovornik praktične nastave i prakse na terenu, u muzejima i galerijama.
Hrabro, beskompromisno, neumorno i temeljno delatništvo Trifunovićevo, kako u domenu nastave, tako i u domenu naučno-istraživačkih rezultata i pisanja o umetnosti, učinilo je da oblast istorije moderne umetnosti postane treća tačka kapitalnog trougla pionirskog izučavanja srpske umetnosti, u kojoj su već uveliko prednjačile medievistika sa dugom tradicijom naučnog istraživanja u Srba, kao i novija istorija umetnosti srpskog 18. i 19. veka. U tom trouglu užih naučnih oblasti i izuzetnih naučnika, oblikovala se i svoj naučnički identitet dobila i istorija moderne umetnosti kao naglašeni deo nacionalne nauke.
Nedugo posle odbrane doktorske disertacije, Trifunović objavljuje rad (izvadak iz disertacije) pod nazivom „Srpsko slikarstvo HH veka. Metod, hronologija, klasifikacija“ (Savremenik, 10, 1961, 286-296), tvrdeći da je ta „ovlaš napisana skica“ povod da se otvore problemi razvoja srpskog modernog slikarstva, „kako bi započela diskusija oko najaktuelnijih problema interpretacije, među koje ubrajam probleme metoda, hronologije i klasifikacije“. Šta Trifunović predlaže? Utvrđivanje „sintetičke slike“ nemoguće je bez pažljive klasifikacije i periodizacije umetničkog materijala. Sama hronografska periodizacija, međutim, nedostatna je za potpunije, sveobuhvatnije razumevanje umetnosti. Stoga on predlaže uslovne hronološke okvire unutar kojih se umetnost razmatra određena ne jedino „osetljivim svetom slikareve ličnosti“, već i sveukupnim kontekstom nastanka umetničkog dela. Kontekst shvata kao celishodni i logični zbir elemenata političke, društvene i kulturne istorije, filozofije umetnosti i podataka koje pruža život samog umetnika, kao „spektar mogućosti koje dopuštaju da se delo sagleda u kontekstu u kojem je nastalo i za koji je bilo namenjeno.“ /…./ Trifunovićev pristup, uprkos tome (ili baš zato) što daje široki pogled na umetnost kome je dedukcija osnovni cilj, istraživanje izvora i građe i dalje smatra ipak disciplinarnim sine qua non. Predloženi sintetizam nije ni ad hoc ni proizvoljan, već utemeljen u neizostavnim istraživanjima. Uvažavanje istoriografskog polazišta, u tom smislu, nije ništa novo i, bez obzira na savremene pomodne tvrdnje da je „anahrono“, ostaje neophodni činilac interpretacije. Inovacija koju pruža Trifunović sledi u fazi posle istraživanja umetničkog materijala i ogleda se a) u klasifikaciji koja je odredila i strukturu teksta i b) u interpretaciji. Modernizujući sistem tumačenja kako pojedinačnog dela, tako i umetničkih pojava i pravaca, Trifunović je u srpsku istoriju umetnosti uneo svest o neophodnosti izvornog poznavanja srodnih naučnih disciplina, dragocenih za potpunije razumevanja nastanka i smisla umetnosti i umetničkog dela. /…./"

Pojava alternativnog umetničkog izraza u kulturi i umetnosti, šezdesetih godina XX stoleća, predstavlja svakako jedan od najznačajnijih, ali i najmanje proučavanih fenomena. Alternativni umetnički izraz nastaje iz nezadovoljstva postojećim dominantnim modelima kulturnog života, te „modernim”, aktuelnim i od kritike i institucionalne kulture prihvaćenim „trendovima”. Značajne rezultate ostvaruje u pojedinim umetničkim granama, pre svega na filmu, u likovnim umetnostima, pozorištu. Tako postaje danas ona pokretačka umetnička snaga kao što je to bila „avangardna umetnost” početkom XX veka.
Alternativni umetnički izraz suprotstavljen je kako dominantnim umetničkim pravcima i shvatanjima, tako i masovnoj kulturi (iako preuzima neke njene elemente da bi se distancirao od elitne kulture). Polazeći od protesta prema vladajućoj „umetničkoj normi”, estetskom kanonu, alternativni umetnički izraz uspostavlja odnos i sa odgovarajućim društvenim pokretima – okrećući se prema stvarnosti, društvenom biću sredine u kojoj deluje. Istovremeno sa umetničkim ostvarenjima zasniva se i odgovarajuća teorijska misao, kao i novi oblici komunikacijske prakse, recepcije i vrednovanja. Iako je nastao na marginama kulturnih i društvenih dešavanja, ovaj pokret napravio je ogroman pomak kroz medije i ustanove, postajući značajan u kolektivnoj svesti današnjice kao pokret osporavanja, otpora i novih vrednosti. Tako samo značenje pojma „alternativno” podrazumeva suprotstavljanje, tj. odricanje etabliranom kulturnom i umetničkom kodu, kao i svim ostalim dominantnim (masovnim, populističkim) kodovima, što bi trebalo da mu onemogući da sam ikada postane deo tog koda. Naravno, istorija umetnosti iako zna za povremene „impasse” estetika koje se nisu dalje razvijale, koje nisu ukazivale na pravac ili put, a predstavljale su u svom vremenu nesumnjivu alternativu (Gaudi, na primer) većim svojim delom pruža dokaze o preuzimanju, inkorporaciji „alternativnog” u glavni kulturni tok, glavnu kulturnu tendenciju (Džojs, sa Uliksom i Fineganovim bdenjem).

Tekst tematizira razvoj i promjene u području stripa i novinske ilustracije u kontekstu kulture i politike 80ih, te se osvrće na reinterpretacije i falsifikate u postsocijalističkim rekonstrukcijama i reinterpretacijama popularne kulture tog perioda. Originalno objavljeno u Jugoslavija: poglavlje 1980-1991, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, Beograd 2021.
ISBN 978-86-7208-221-0
COBISS.SR-ID 54408457

This series of interviews documents the lives of artists and art professionals who worked in Kosovo and were part of the art scene in the 1970s, and steadily gained recognition in the Yugoslav art space over two decades. The political context that gave rise to the visual arts came to represent Kosovo’s golden age in Yugoslavia. This period of great prosperity seemed to be at the core of institutional memory, including that of cultural institutions. It is no wonder that the Gallery of Arts in Pristina, today the National Gallery of Kosovo, was established in 1979, becoming the first arts institution to define how works of art would be displayed and communicated to the public.

The National Gallery Oral History Project was initiated in late 2016 by Oral History Initiative in collaboration with the National Gallery of Kosovo.

The exhibition Socialism and Modernity: Art, Culture and Politics 1950 – 1974, held by the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012 at the Museum of Contemporary Art Zagreb was focused on the relation between the process of modernisation and the culture of modernism, i.e. the way in which the Yugoslav postwar socialist society – by conceiving this relation in terms of general social progress – generated its own vision of modernity.  This text deals with development of graphic design and visual communications in Yugoslav context, between 1950 and 1975.

One of the prominent ideologists of the Yugoslav national style before the First World War and in the interwar period, the critic, painter, conservator and collector Kosta Strajnić, upon his arrival and permanent residence in Dubrovnik (1928-1977), is an informal mentor to young artists, who is stylistically linked in the Dubrovnik color school of painting. Strajnić's circle or school focused young talents on the sources of the French colorist tradition of Van Gogh, Bonnard, Matisse, with a complete departure from the ideas of nationalism in the arts. In doing so, Strajnić himself made the turn from advocating a monumental style of "Yugoslav character" (K, S.) led by Meštrović, to the fauvism and expressionism of Western European modernism, and to a way of critical writing from a programmatic pamphlet to an artistic essay. What failed as an art of national and racial characteristics was affirmed so as the ecstatic colorism of the Dubrovnik painting circle. In terms of value, the best that Dubrovnik painting in the interwar and the post-war has brought is related to Strajnic's concept of colorism, to the solar image versus that of twilight, coloristic versus tonal, instinctive painting and the fa presto against slow classical processes. Strajnić generally and disproportionately discusses political issues in the pre-Dubrovnik period in relation to cultural and artistic ones, than he will in Dubrovnik, when politicization of culture will give way to purely cultural politically intact initiatives and immanent artistic debates. To understand Strajnic's political habitus, he made one of the clearest determinations of political views in culture at a public lecture at the Zagreb Art Pavilion on June 30, 1913, later published in the Croatian Movement, where he talks about nationalism in the arts. The basic tenet of nationalism in the arts is that it should not be disposed to daily politics but to the enduring values of race and people, as it was then said. Strajnić states: “Nationalism in art does not mean that art must serve the hourly politics of individual peoples and time, but that it captures all that lasting and especially what makes a nation a nation (...) Every nation is called to stand at the forefront of all others. This calls for so-called cultural nationalism. ... "

The paper discusses diplomatic and cultural political conditions for the inauguration of the Pavilion of Yugoslavia at the Venice Biennale in 1938. The first and second official participation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia at this international art event (in 1938 and 1940) is analyzed within the context of the re-established political relations between Italy and Yugoslavia, as well as according to the exhibition concept laid out by Milan Kašanin, the commissioner of both exhibitions. A particular consideration is given to the exhibition as a field of political dialogue and as the space for articulation of the Yugoslav ideology in the international context.

Early in 1940, the periodical Umetnički pregled [Art Review], published by the Museum of Prince Pavle, one of the most respected publications dealing with art in pre-World War Two Yugoslavia, published a text entitled “Today’s Shop Windows”, which contained a detailed analysis of the desirable appearance of modern Belgrade shops. In addition to confirming to what degree the consumer culture had become an integral part of everyday life, this text testifies to the unstoppable entry of consumerism in the well guarded space of the elite. Still, the text from Umetnički pregled provides a rare example of such an encounter. A careful examination of Serbian visual culture between the World wars necessarily leads to the conclusion that art stayed away from popular culture, evidently guided by the idea that it should not be mixed or equated with it. However, in terms of its acceptance and influence, mass culture, although it is "other" form of cultural practice, is one in which the value system of a society can be most clearly perceived, just like its real achievements, which “high art”, limited to the elite, essentially does not offer. Bearing this in mind, the basic idea of the book "Bourgeois Modernism and Popular Culture: Episodes of the Fashionable, Faddish and Modern (1918–1941)" consisted in searching for these inconspicuous, neglected and rare instances of their sporadic intermingling, that is, in providing an answer to the question of why the Serbian art of the era between the World wars was so closed to popular culture.

The folk and popular cultures of former Yugoslav nation-states often present a case of longue durée ideological battles over meaning and belonging: Whose heritage is this? What community exclusively generated this precious (or despicable) cultural phenomenon? Whose national history stretches back to the furthest point in time? The flip side of the coin is the alternate history of exclusions and forbidden enjoy-ments, the detested and yet adored forms of culture that, despite the harsh critique they encountered in official and normative discourses, still served as strong and mobilizing mechanisms for the collectivities, sometimes transcending national borders, generational barriers, and the burden of shared historical legacies. Novokomponovana narodna muzika [Newly composed folk music: NCFM], 1 the musical genre and subculture whose popularity exploded in the 1960s in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY)-and which has continued to live on by actively engendering different, sometimes equally controversial, musical, media, and cultural offshoots in the post-Yugoslav space-might be seen as a prime example of this. Officially and somewhat derogatorily labeled as "newly composed" in the cultural politics of Yugoslav communism, and afterward sometimes called simply narodna muzika [folk music] or narodnjaci [people's music] in Serbia, NCFM relied on a specific mixture of "old" and "new," and it did so by questioning several important dichotomies that were embedded in the official discourses and in the popular imagination of the time: East vs. West, popular vs. elite, rural vs. urban. Its wide popularity arose from the specific convergence of old and new in terms of musical style, visual representation, and the content of the lyrics, turning the immediacy of the everyday life of the socialist worker into an appealing discourse that blended together soft rural nostalgia with the novelty and glitter of modern urban life.

Előszó 7
BEVEZETŐ 11 Hagyomány kitérő(k)ben – kérdésfelvetések, kételyek 13 Alakulások 21

ARCHEOLÓGIAI TÉR-KÉPZÉS 29 A nyugati és a határon túli magyar irodalom köztes tere 31 „tabuszövevény áthasítása” – Arkánum (1981−1996) 40 A hiány plasztikus helye. Kép és szöveg megnyíló terei  az Új Symposionban 44  Kilépés a keretből  54  Ollóval festés, ollóval írás  58  Belépés a tükör terébe  61

NYELVEK ÉS SZEREPJÁTÉKOK KÖZÖTT.  A HETEROGENITÁS MINT STÍLUS  A NEOAVANTGÁRD IRODALOMBAN 79 A közöttiség alakzatai – Magyar neoavantgárd szövegek  poétikájáról 81  Történeti kontextus 85  Történetiség: folytonosság és/vagy eltérés? Posztavantgárd? 90  Fragmentaritás és egészelvűség. Műfajok kollázsa  97
Intertextualitás: létmód vagy bazári jelleg?    (Vitéz György: A fényképésznél)  107  Újraolvasó értelmezések 114  Nyelvjáték és széthangzás. HAZATÉRÉS VAGY HAZA TÉR ÉS? 114  Szövegkompendium és értelmezése mint keletkezésben-lét 123 Nyelvek és kulturális kódok között.  Történetiség és intertextualitás 133 Nyelv-karnevál – Performatív nyelvhasználat magyar  neoavantgárd szövegekben 153  „a drámaírás nem gyerekjáték” 157  „töröd a nyelved” – Jel és zaj között 160  „ez (nem) lenni vers” (Domonkos István: Kormányeltörésben) 172

NEM(EK)-NYELV(E) – IRODALMI ATYASÁG (NEOAVANTGÁRD)  VÁLTOZATAI 177 Az irodalom mint elméleti előfeltevések provokációja. Psyché  – Tizenhét hattyúk – Fehérlófia nyolcasa. 179  „Mi a szerző?”  179  Fiktív női szerzőségű irodalom (?) 182  Hagyomány − identifikációs minta? 189 Az irodalom tér-nyerése. Térbeliség mint olvasási technika  Kemenes Géfin László: Versek Jolantához című könyvében 195

(NŐI) FRAGMENTUMOK 207 Átváltozás és helyettesítés mint arcot adó alakzatok  Ladik és hullám (esszé) 209 Arctól falig, percen az érzékeny vakolat  217 Nő(nemű)-hang(zavar) – Bakucz József: La Femme Intérieure 227 „Devenir femme” Kollázs – érintkezés – a nézés erotikája 231
Felhasznált szakirodalom 235 A szövegek korábbi megjelenései 246

The recording of the phenomenon of modernity when it appeared and became established in Serbian society and culture during the first half of the 20th century was thoroughly systematized historiographically and museologically during the second half of the century. The practice of recording art interpreted the period between 1900 and 1941 in terms of decades, creating a framework within which recognizable peculiarities could be noticed and which encompassed the processes of development and shaping of the artistic scene marked with the notion of a modern painting expression. Although different, these approaches have one strong common denominator: they are based on a rectilinear passage through space, time and formal linguistic characteristics of the painting. In this series, one artistic phenomenon replaces another, thus becoming the main one, and this is followed by a sort of reaction to it. However, the origin of painting is not determined by a change in style exclusively, nor is it enclosed within itself and its own medium/technical regularities, but is conditioned to a great extent, often crucially, by general social conditions. Bearing this in mind, the book "Themes and Ideas of Modernity: Serbian Painting 1900-1941" questions and relativizes these rectilinear structures. Beyond looking for formal similarities, it examines motives, reasons for and processes of the creation of artistic work; it suggests a broader definition of the depiction’s meaning by cross-analyzing social and symbolic, aesthetic and historical contexts; and it asks questions about the degrees and reasons for the artist’s personal, intimate or social stands and limitations. 

The characteristics of modernity in Serbian society are inextricably linked to the development of capitalism and the urbanizations of cities and various social phenomena shaped by the need to fit into the current and suitable European context. The temporal framework from 1900 to 1941 was symbolically marked by two “world” events: The World Exhibition in Paris, where Serbia presented itself with a national pavilion, intending to show its economic and cultural development as a proof of belonging to Europe, and World War II, where the beginning of changes in the socio-political structure of Serbia consequently transformed art, its ideological essence and the meaning of the notions of modern, modernistic, and modernity in general. In spite of significant historical events which marked the epoch – a dynasty change (1903), two Balkan wars (1912-1913 and 1913), World War I (1914-1918), the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1918) and then the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929), Parliament dismissal and dictatorship (1929-1934) – thematic and ideological structures of Serbian painting in this period can be viewed as a whole. The reason behind such an approach is a strong parallel process of continuous, though often slow, modernization of the Serbian state and society, which was primarily associated with the synchronized, unbroken establishment of a civil society and capitalistic economy.

In the period between 1900 and 1941 Serbian painting, with its stylistic aspirations and progressive transformations, consistently respected the formal and linguistic genesis of the main phases of modernism all over the continent, although often after a temporal gap as compared with the quick advancement of European Modernism. A simple typology of scenes and motifs can also lead to the impression that Serbian artists did not deviate significantly from the universal preoccupations of the epoch. However, the careful layering of thematic choices, the shaping of specific narrative and ideological differences by singling out characteristic forms, as well as the inextricable link between art and social circumstances led to noticing, and then interpreting, the peculiarities of Serbian modernism in the first half of the 20th century.

This chapter analyzes the case of architecture during communism in Yugoslavia through three dissimilar case studies. The establishment of the Communist Party after the Second World War affected also the position of architects in Yugoslavia, as the private architectural bureaus that existed in the interwar period were closed and the newly formed " state bureaus " became the only option for work. During the first postwar period, the strong political relationship with the USSR included the import of Socialist Realism. After Yugoslavia's break up with the USSR in 1948, the situation in architecture began to change as well, and the influence of the International Style and the concept of socialist society brought a new term to this architecture, that of Socialist Aestheticism. Some architects managed to become eminent authors and artists for the state's political projects. In the 1970s and 1980s post-modern architecture was also manifested in Yugoslavia, and the design became more personalized and individualized. In this study, through the analysis of three distinctive architects, Mihalo Jankovic, Bogdan Bogdanovic and Mihajlo Mitrovic, we examine the degree to which the position of the state architect was influenced by the political changes over the period 1945-1990, and help bring forward the differences between individual trajectories in Yugoslavia and in other similar cases in Eastern Europe.

U susret pedesetogodišnjici otvaranja zgrade Muzeja savremene umetnosti na Ušću, s nadom da će se tim povodom završiti njena rekonstrukcija koja traje predugih sedam godina, MSUB organizuje i drugu "pripremnu" izložbu za mnogo temeljniju i sveobuhvatniju buduću muzejsku postavku. Nadovezujući se na prethodnu -"100 dela iz zbirki MSUB -Jugoslovenska umetnost od 1900. do 1945." -ovom izložbom se zaokružuje simbolički gest prema publici i kulturnoj javnosti da posle toliko godina ponovo bude u prilici da pogleda reprezentativni izbor dela umetnika zastupljenih u zbirkama Muzeja. Iako izložba nema pretenziju da u svedenom prostoru Kuće legata da novo, a pogotovo ne normativno čitanje jugoslovenske umetnosti druge polovine XX veka, smatram da svaki izbor, makar i revijalnog karaktera, zahteva idejno i kustosko obrazloženje. Zato se izložba može posmatrati i kao skica i uvod u buduća kompleksnija promišljanja razvoja jugoslovenske umetnosti u istorijskom periodu obuhvaćenom hronološkim okvirom od 1951. do 1989, što je i prva premisa postavke. Pitanje hronologije i (post)jugoslovenske orijentacije Osnovni problem određivanja hronološkog okvira delovanja Muzeja savremene umetnosti kao institucije je njegovo potencijalno "konzerviranje" u periodu XX veka. Tu ideju pratila bi i teza da je za novu umetnost XXI veka potrebna nova zgrada ili institucija. Takođe, problem vezivanja isključivo za istorijski okvir postojanja Jugoslavije kao države očitava se u činjenici da bi se buduće postavke jugoslovenske umetnosti nužno završavale s 1991, godinom raspada SFR Jugoslavije i početka formiranja novih nacionalnih država na njenom tlu. Na taj način bi istorijski okvir koji prati i baštini MSUB zapravo predstavljao "kratki XX vek", da upotrebim u lokalnom kontekstu metaforu istoričara Erika Hobsbauma. Drugačiji i primereniji pristup bila bi analiza ideje jugoslovenstva koja je postojala i pre nastanka Jugoslavije kao države. Još tridesetih i četrdesetih godina XIX veka hrvatska Zoran Erić -50 UMETNIKA IZ ZBIRKI MUZEJA SAVREMENE UMETNOSTI -JUGOSLOVENSKA UMETNOST OD 1951. DO 1989.

In the final decade of Yugoslavia, characterized by social change, economic and political crisis, new spaces of art helped shape the art discourse of the period. Due to the economic situation and social changes, artists sought alternative ways of working under new conditions and making contact with their audience as well as with potential buyers. They gathered around various spaces that became catalysts of new artistic and social phenomena and nodes of cultural and political activities.

Artists and curators collaborated on the local, republican level as well as on the federal level. International connections intensified and study trips abroad became more frequent. At the same time, relations between the center and the periphery grew looser. In addition to established institutions, new art spaces and institutions influenced the art discourse. New themes and approaches in artistic production,
previously considered marginal, took center stage. The article "New Spaces, New Images. The Eighties through the Prism of Events, Exhibitions and Discourses" gives an insight into the vivacious 1980s art scene in Slovenia, through the crosssection of the major exhibitions, events, and art spaces of the time.

Słowo redaktora serii Pierwsza naukowa pozycja wydana w serii Biblioteka Przekładów Literatur Słowiańskich pt. Od mobilności do interakcji. Dramat i teatr w Bośni i Hercegowinie, Czarnogórze, Chorwacji, Kosowie, Macedonii, Słowenii i Serbii nawiązuje do ubiegłorocznej dwutomowej publikacji polskich przekładów współczesnego dramatu chorwackiego zatytułowanej (Nie)tylko fragmenty. Jest owocem naukowo-artystycznej konferencji zorganizowanej w Uniwersytecie Śląskim w Katowicach w listopadzie 2018 roku. Uczestnicy konferencji z Bośni i Hercegowiny, Chorwacji, Czarnogóry, Macedonii i Serbii podkreślali, że była to pierwsza tego typu inicjatywa od rozpadu Jugosławii i pierwsze wspólne spotkanie na neutralnym gruncie. W poszczególnych rozdziałach składających się na monografię ich autorzy poruszają problematykę związaną albo z wąsko rozumianym przekładem jako tłumaczeniem międzyjęzykowym, albo szeroko rozumianym przekładem; tłumaczą i interpretują twórczość dramatyczną i teatralną z kilku k...

Kritički pregled umetničkih praksi u Srbiji devedesetih godina objavljen povodom istoimene izložbe u Muzeju savremene umetnosti u Beogradu 2005. Sadrži tekstove Branislave Anđelković, Branislava Dimitrijevića, Dejana Sretenovića, Vladimira Tupanjca, Kristiana Lukića, hronologiju koju je priredila Aleksandra Mirčić, kao i razgovore sa umetnicima sa Kosova Mehmetom Behlulijem, Sokolom Beqirijem, Albertom Hetom i Erzenom Shkolollijem.

Bringing together newly commissioned essays predominantly from an emerging generation of researchers and writers, this reader focuses on conceptual and experimental artistic, curatorial and institutional practices that have rarely or never been brought into relation with parallel developments outside their respective context, in this case Latvia, It does not strive for the formulation of a structured narrative of theses and conclusions, nor is it imagined as a review of practices determined by their 'peripheral geographies'. Rather, while seeking to avoid already established analogies and references it becomes a call for a microanalysis. The result is an experiment in which comparative readings can be formed through potentially unexpected and revealing 'encounters'. The aim is not to merely 'fill in' the existing art historical narratives with what has been left out (i.e. illustrate the canonical production of the center by its corresponding 'echo' in the periphery), but to make an intervention into the very order of discourses that shape the dominant histories of contemporary art. What is discussed in Removed The exhibition, curated by Jelena Vesić and gathering independent contributions by a number of researchers and artists, was the first comprehensive presentation of the long-term research project Political Practices of (Post-) Yugoslav Art, initiated in 2006 by Prelom kolektiv (Belgrade), WHW kolektiv (Zagreb), kuda.org (Novi Sad) and SCCA/pro.ba (Sarajevo). See Jelena Vesić and Zorana Dojić (eds.), Political Practices of (Post-)Yugoslav Art: Retrospective 01, Belgrade: Prelom Kolektiv, 2010 Retrospective 01, Belgrade 2009 1 , the exhibition and 'walking lecture' Removed from the Crowd / The Fate of Outer Planets at Škuc Gallery (2009), Ljubljana, and an 'open research' Removed from the Crowd: Dionysian Socialism, (Non)Action, Delayed Audience at tranzitdisplay, Prague (2011).

The aim of this paper is to show the cultural phenomena created by the construction of two buildings in a socialist, industrial city
that have influenced its urban transformation.
In the case of the second largest Montenegrin city, Nikšić, two buildings marked the cultural and economic development, the Union
house built in 1962 by architect Đorđije Minjević (1924-2013) and the Home of revolution unfinished building which construction
began in 1977, designed by architect Marko Mušič (1946).
The Union house was among the first in Montenegro built in an international style and among the first in ex-Yugoslavia with vertical
brise-solei. The building contains several functions: a large cinema hall with 800 seats as well the library, classrooms and offices for
the Worker’s University. For industrial city that was rapidly developing, the existence of the Union house as a place where film
projections, concerts, theatre performances, and education took place was of great importance. In the context of architecture, this
building brought new trends and contents that soon became focus of everyday urban life.
In the former Yugoslavia during the seventies, it was common to build monuments and memorial buildings dedicated to victims of
the liberation struggles in the Second World War. The biggest memorial buildings with more the 22,000 square meters of different
functions and contents, called the Home of Revolution is located in the city of Nikšić. The building should present the economic
strength of the city at that time but also the unity of all Yugoslav nations, since a large number of donation from all over the country
were used for the construction. When Yugoslavia broke up in 1991, there was a suspension of construction of all federal projects
including Home of Revolution. Today the building is completely abandoned.