49arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Kakovost današnje arhitekture ni niti blizu tisti iz prejšnjega obdobja Pogovor z Jelico Jovanović o razstavi K betonski / konkretni utopiji: Arhitektura v Jugoslaviji 1948–1980 in o spomenikih NOB v nekdanji SFRJ / The quality of today's architecture doesn't come close to that of the previous period A talk with Jelica Jovanović about exhibition "Toward a concrete utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948–1980" and about monuments to the People's Liberation Struggle in ex-Yugoslavia Andrej Strehovec Jelica Jovanović (življenjepis) Doktorantka Oddelka za umetnostno zgodovino, arheologijo in restavratorstvo Tehniške univerze na Dunaju. Diplomirala na Fakulteti za arhitekturo Univerze v Beogradu. Ustanoviteljica nevladne skupine arhitektov v Beo- gradu in soustanoviteljica družbe Docomomo Srbija. Dvojna štipendistka slovaške akademske informacijske agencije (Slovak Academic Information Agency – SAIA). Koordinatorica regionalnih projektov Nedokončane mo- dernizacije – med utopijo in pragmatizmom ter (Ne)primerni spomeniki. Pripravnica in prostovoljka v organizaci- ji Kulturna dediščina brez meja (CHwB). Sodelavka Centralnega konservatorskega inštituta (Centralni institut za konzervaciju – CIK), zunanja sodelavka več inštitutov za varstvo kulturnih spomenikov v Srbiji. Štipendistka OEAD in Svetovne univerzitetne službe. Kot kustosinja sodelovala z Muzejem moderne umetnosti (MoMA) v New Yor- ku pri razstavi K betonski/konkretni utopiji: Arhitektura v Jugoslaviji 1948–1980. Jelica Jovanović (curriculum vitae) PhD student at Technical University of Vienna, Department of Art, Archaeology, and Restoration. Graduated from the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Belgrade. Founder of non-governmental group of architects in Belgrade and one of the founders of company Docomomo Serbia. Double scholarship holder at Slovak Aca- demic Information Agency. Co-ordinator of regional projects Unfinished Modernisations – Between Utopia and Pragmatism, and (In)appropriate Monuments. Apprentice and volunteer in organisation Cultural Heritage with- out Borders (CHwB). Collaborator at Central Institute for Conservation (CIK), external collaborator of several in- stitutes for the protection of cultural monuments in Serbia. Scholarship holder at OEAD and World University Service. Curator collaborator at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in exhibition "Toward a concrete utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948-1980". Iz srbščine prevedla Špela Kuhar Andrej Strehovec 50 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Kot doktorandka in strokovnjakinja za prenovo arhitekture sodeluješ z Docomomom in živiš na relaciji Dunaj–Beograd; kako te je to povezalo z razstavo K betonski/konkretni utopiji v newyorški MoMI? Pri segmentu razstave v eni od monografskih sob je pomagalo moje delo na relaciji Dunaj–Beograd, in sicer preučevanje zapuščine Bogdana Bogda- novića v arhivu Avstrijske nacionalne knjižnice in v Centru za arhitekturo na Dunaju ter v zasebnem arhivu njegove žene Ksenije Anastasijević Bog- danović, ki nas je žal zapustila jeseni 2017. Sicer menim, da so pomemb- nejše moje raziskave, ki sem jih delala v Srbiji, za projekte Nedokončane modernizacije, Dvigovanje zavese (Lifting the Curtain), (Ne)primerni spo- meniki ((Ne)primereni spomenici), delo na področju dosjejev, registra in baze dokumentov za Docomomo Srbija ter nazadnje raziskave stanovanj- ske arhitekture za potrebe doktorata. Zaradi tega dolgoletnega dela sem bila že »pri stvari«, poznala sem akterje, in prva potencialna ovira je bila premagana – morala sem le še najti pravo gradivo. Zadolžena si bila za zbiranje dokumentacije in arhitekturnih risb za območje Srbije. Bi lahko kaj povedala o postopku zbiranja v arhivih nekdanje SFRJ? Kakšen je status teh arhivov (če imaš vpogled tudi v druge republike in pokrajine nekdanje SFRJ)? Kakšno je bilo sodelovanje s slovensko ekipo v Muzeju za arhitekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani? Ne glede na slabo stanje pristojnih arhivov in muzejev, ki ga lahko povza- mem z besedami natrpani, siromašni in podhranjeni ter zato tudi brez de- javnega angažmaja pri prevzemanju gradiva, sem presrečna, kadar imajo gradivo in je v njihovi oskrbi. Vem, da je nekdo odgovoren zanj in da ga ščiti zakon. Veliko gradiva je ostalo v podjetjih (npr. Osnova, Projektbiro, Srbijaprojekt itd.), in ob privatizaciji oziroma stečajih se je za dokumenta- cijo izgubila vsaka sled. Imeli smo srečo, da smo lahko dostopali do doku- mentacije Zavoda za izgradnjo Beograda, ki je bil v stečaju, a žal sem lahko pregledala le manjši del gradiva. Nisem na primer našla skic Branislava Jovina in Stojana Maksimovića, saj sta delovno dokumentacijo puščala v zgradbah, v katerih sta delala, upam pa, da nam bo to, kar sem našla, po- magalo v prihodnjih raziskavah. Po drugi strani so Aleksandar Stjepanović, Milenija in Darko Marušić ter družina Uroša Martinovića ohranili delovne skice v osebnih arhivih (sliki 1 in 2); te izjemne skice in risbe so sedaj na ogled na razstavi. Tu moram razjasniti nekatere specifike arhitekturne pro- dukcije in scene v Srbiji, ki so verjetno vplivale na to, kakšen material ima- mo danes, ko gre za arhitekturo. Največ se je ohranilo ozalidov, ki so bili sestavni del t. i. glavnega projekta in so bili narejeni v več izvodih, od kate- rih mora biti vsaj en izvod v pristojnem občinskem arhivu. Skice pa so veči- noma veljale za nekaj naključnega, nekaj, česar ni treba shranjevati, in so zaradi različnih okoliščin – pomanjkanja prostora za shranjevanje, selitev podjetij, stečaja ali preprosto nerazumevanja – sčasoma izginile. Le redki arhitekti so se pravočasno spomnili in svoje skice shranili v lastnih arhivih. Ohranjenih pa je dovolj, da lahko rekonstruiramo ustvarjalni proces, npr. nastanka Bloka 23 (slika 2) ali Bloka 30 (slika 1). As a PhD and expert in architectural renovation, you collaborate with Docomomo and live between Vienna and Belgrade. How did this bring you into the fold of exhibition "Toward a concrete utopia" in MoMA in New York? My work between Vienna and Belgrade contributed to a segment of the exhibition in one of the monographic rooms, namely the study of Bogdan Bogdanović's legacy in the archive of Austrian National Library and the Architekturzentrum Wien, as well as in private archives in possession of his wife, Ksenija Anastasijević Bogdanović, who sadly passed away in autumn 2017. Personally, I place more importance on the research I did in Serbia for projects Unfinished Modernisations, Lifting the Curtain, and (In)appro- priate Monuments, as well as my work on the dossiers, registry, and docu- ment database for Docomomo Serbia, and finally the research into hous- ing architecture for my PhD dissertation. All the years of work meant that I was already involved, I knew the people, and the first potential obstacle was overcome - I only needed to find the right material. You were responsible for collecting documentation and architectural drawings for the territory of Serbia. What can you tell us about the collection process in the archives of ex-Yugoslavia? What is the status of these archives (providing you are familiar with the situation outside Serbia, in other republics and provinces of ex-Yugoslavia)? What was the collaboration like with the Slovene team in the Museum of Architecture and Design in Ljubljana? Notwithstanding the poor condition of the relevant archives and museums - which I can describe as: stuffed to the brim, underfunded and understaffed, and consequently also somewhat unmotivated after material is delivered to them - I am overjoyed when the material is in their possession and care. I know that someone is responsible for it and that it's protected by law. A lot of material had remained in the companies, e.g. Osnova, Projektbiro, Srbijaprojekt, etc., and when they folded or were privatised, the documentation was lost without a trace. We were lucky to have been given access to the records of Zavod za izgradnju Beograda (Institute for the construction of Belgrade), which was in receivership, but unfortunately, I was only able to review a small portion of the material. I was unable to find sketches by Branislav Jovina and Stojan Maksimović, for instance, because they had a habit of leaving the design docu- mentation in the buildings in which they worked, but I hope that whatever I did find will be helpful in our future research. On the other hand, Aleksandar Stjepanović, Milenija and Darko Marušić, and the family of Uroš Martinović preserved working sketches in their personal archives (figs. 1 and 2); these ex- ceptional sketches and drawings are now on display in the exhibition. At this junction, I should explain certain specifics of the architectural production and scene in Serbia, which probably affected the kind of material available to us today when it comes to architecture. Blueprints copies are preserved in the greatest number as they were a mandatory element of the executive design and were made in several copies, one of which must be kept in the relevant municipal archive. Sketches were typically considered as something incidental, Sl. 1: Skice interierja Bloka 30 v Novem Beogradu. Vir: arhiv Uroša Martinovića. Sl. 2: Blok 23, Novi Beograd. Vir: osebni arhiv Aleksandra Stjepanovića. Sl. 3: Maketa naselja Cerak Vinogradi 2. Vir: osebni arhiv Milenije in Darka Marušića. Fig. 1: Interior sketches for Block 30 in New Belgrade. Source: archive of Uroš Martinović Fig. 2: Block 23, New Belgrade. Source: personal archive of Aleksandar Stjepanović Fig. 3: Scale model of community Cerak Vinogradi 2. Source: personal archive of Milenija and Darko Marušić 1 2 3 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 51arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Andrej Strehovec V Ljubljani in Zagrebu so razmere nekoliko drugačne, saj so muzeji in od- delki za arhitekturo nastali veliko prej in gradivo zbirali vzporedno z njego- vim nastankom, česar v Beogradu ni bilo (oddelek za arhitekturo je v Mu- zeju znanosti in tehnologije, ki je bil ustanovljen leta 1989). Muzej za arhi- tekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani je vse gradivo preprosto dostavil, in spet se je pokazala jugoslovanskost arhitekture: Miheličeva veleblagovnica Stoteks v Novem Sadu je bila prikazana z risbami iz zbirke MAO, prav tako Kristlov vrtec Mladi rod (ena od različic tega vrtca, čeprav slabše izvedena, je tudi v Bloku 28 Novega Beograda). Kako se razstava izogne tako imenovani »eksotizaciji«, o kateri govori kustos razstave Vladimir Kulić in s katero v laični, pa tudi strokovni javnosti povezujejo komunistični vzhodni blok in ga reducirajo na »preživelo« ideologijo? Poskušali smo zbrati gradivo, ki pojasnjuje ključne pojave, okoli in iz kate- rih je v omenjenih letih nastajalo grajeno okolje; razstava in katalog sta razdeljena na poglavja: samoupravljanje, izvoz, družbeni standard, neuvr- ščeni ... Če do želenega materiala nismo mogli priti, kar se je tudi dogajalo, smo razmišljali o naslednjih korakih: ali razstaviti »drugi najboljši« objekt ali pa razstaviti bolj tehnično in manj umetniško gradivo. V primeru Srbije so bili prej omenjeni ozalidi ena izmed dilem, saj recimo v primeru Žežljeve Hale 1 Beograjskega sejma (sliki 4 in 5) ali Muzeja sodobne umetnosti (sli- ka 6) objekta nismo mogli razstaviti drugače. Trudili smo se izpostaviti gra- divo, ki predstavlja kontekst nastanka vsakega od teh objektov (urbane enote, pohištvo), kar se mi zdi ključnega pomena za izogibanje eksotizaciji, kjer gre pogosto za dekontekstualizacijo, za izpuščanje dejstev. Čeprav ni bilo veliko prostora za detajle, smo se trudili ustvariti pregled pozitivnih in negativnih vidikov družbe in arhitekture – priporočam besedila v katalogu. Izvoz arhitekture je na primer predstavljen samo z enim projektom, sejmi- ščem v Lagosu v Nigeriji avtorja Zorana Bojovića, ki ga je gradil Energopro- jekt. Je pa ta projekt predstavljen podrobno, z vsemi informacijami, ki od- pirajo smeri za nadaljnje raziskovanje, če to obiskovalca zanima. Arhitekturo, ki je bila predstavljena v MoMI (1948–1980), so zasnovali kakovostno in v kratkem časovnem obdobju. Lahko primerjate količino, kakovost in tipologijo arhitekture Titove Jugoslavije z obdobjem, ki je sledilo? Je bila arhitektura funkcionalističnega modernizma, torej tistega najbolj produktivnega obdobja v SFRJ, kompatibilna s socialistično ideologijo? Socialistični Jugoslaviji je funkcionalistični modernizem služil kot sredstvo, s katerim bo najučinkoviteje obnovila in zgradila povojno družbo. Lahko govorimo o kompatibilnosti, lahko pa o okoliščinah, ugodnih za takratno državno upravo, in ne nazadnje o kompetencah pristojnih ljudi in institucij. Moderna arhitektura (v vseh iteracijah in razmerah) je bila dovolj prepro- sta, da so lahko za gradnjo angažirali tudi nekvalificirano delovno silo, do- volj racionalna in logična za (re)organizacijo gradnje s pomočjo industriali- zirane proizvodnje, pa tudi prilagodljiva in postopna – idealna za potrebe razvijajoče se družbe. Inovacije v tehnologiji gradnje in uporaba novih ma- terialov so bile še ena srečna okoliščina, največji preskok je bila osvojitev something that doesn't have to be saved and eventually, they disappeared due to various circumstances: a lack of storage space, companies relocating or go- ing out of business, or simply a lack of understanding. Few architects acted in time and stored the sketches in their personal archives. There are enough of them preserved, however, that we can reconstruct the creative processes be- hind Block 23 (fig. 2), for instance, or Block 30 (fig. 1). The conditions in Ljubljana and Zagreb are a bit different as museums and architecture departments were established much earlier and they collected the materials concurrently with their creation, which was not the case in Belgrade (the department of architecture is part of the Museum of Science and Technology, which was established in 1989). The Museum of Architec- ture and Design in Ljubljana simply delivered all the material, and it showed once again just how Yugoslav the architecture actually was: Mihelič's de- partment store Stoteks in Novi Sad was presented with drawings from their collection, as was Kristl's kindergarten Mladi rod (a variation of this kinder- garten, though not realised as well, is also part of New Belgrade's Block 28). How does the exhibition avoid the so-called "exoticisation" as discussed by the exhibition's curator, Vladimir Kulić, which the lay public, and also the expert community associates with the communist Eastern Bloc, and reduces it to "obsolete" ideologies? We tried to collect material that sheds light on key phenomena around and from which a built environment had emerged in this period. The exhibition and the catalogue are divided into chapters: self-management, export, the social standard, the Non-aligned, etc. If the desired material was unavail- able, which did happen, we considered our next move: whether to exhibit the "second best" building, or whether to exhibit material that is more technical and less artistic. In the case of Serbia, the aforementioned blue- prints copies posed a dilemma as there was no other possibility to exhibit Žeželj's Hall 1 of Belgrade Fair (figs. 4, 5), or the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade (fig. 6). We endeavoured to showcase materials which rep- resent the context of each of the buildings' creation (urban units, furni- ture), which I see as vital in avoiding exoticisation, which is often about decontextualisation, about facts being omitted. Even though the space for details was limited, we tried to create an overview of positive and negative aspects of the society and architecture - do have a look at the texts in the catalogue. The export of architecture, for instance, is presented with only one project, the fairground in Lagos, Nigeria by Zoran Bojović, built by En- ergoprojekt. Yet this project is presented in detail, with all the information to open up avenues of further research in case the visitor is interested. The architecture which was presented in MoMA (1948-1980) was designed well and in a short time period. Can you compare the amount, the quality, and the typology of the architecture of Tito's Yugoslavia with that of the subsequent period? Was the architecture of functionalist modernism, i.e. the most productive period in socialist Yugoslavia, compatible with socialist ideology? In socialist Yugoslavia, functionalist modernism featured as the most effec- tive means of restoring and constructing the post-war society. We can talk 4 5 6 Sl. 4: Hala 1 Beograjskega sejma v gradnji. Vir: zbirka Miloša Jurišića. Sl. 5: Kompleks Beograjskega sejma. Vir: zbirka Miloša Jurišića. Sl. 6: Muzej sodobne umetnosti v Beogradu. Vir: zbirka Miloša Jurišića. Fig. 4: Hall 1 of Belgrade Fair during construction. Source: collection of Miloš Jurišić Fig. 5: Belgrade Fair complex. Source: collection of Miloš Jurišić Fig. 6: Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade. Source: collection of Miloš Jurišić 52 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 rabe prednapetega betona, za kar je zaslužna generacija inženirjev z Bran- kom Žežljem in Boškom Petrovićem na čelu. Razstava je bila zelo obsežna, izbor pa verjetno zelo selekcioniran. Katere razstavljene stavbe so ti najljubše in zakaj? Navezala se bom na prejšnji odgovor in najprej izpostavila Halo 1 Beograj- skega sejma arhitekta Milorada Pantovića in inženirja Branka Žežlja (slika 4) kot objekt, po katerem nič ni bilo več kot prej: gre za objekt, s katerim je tehnologija prednapetega betona teatralno vstopila v vsakodnevno (civil- no) arhitekturo SFRJ in ni bila več rezervirana za mostove, industrijske dvo- rane in večje inženirske posege. S to tehnologijo se je arhitektom odprlo novo polje ustvarjalnosti in z njo so nekako pridobili novo samozavest: objekti so postali zračni, lahki, izrazni. Snovali so drzne oblike in uporablja- li nove materiale za končno obdelavo, ki je tudi postala del oblikovanja. Izpostavila bi še Trg republike (Trg revolucije) Edvarda Ravnikarja, stadion Poljud Borisa Magaša in Elektroprivredo Ivana Štrausa kot slikovite prime- re tega arhitekturnega preskoka, ki se je odvil v pičlih dvajsetih letih. Muzej sodobne umetnosti v Beogradu – MSU (slika 6), delo Ivana Antića in Ivanke Raspopović, je eden od zanimivih projektov na razstavi, ki je verjetno vplival tudi na vas, saj ste diplomirali na beograjski fakulteti za arhitekturo. Kako bi komentirali Antićev citat iz intervjuja za revijo DaNS, kjer pravi: »Nikoli nisem opazil pritiska na arhitekte in gradbenike, zlasti ne ideološke narave. Čeprav so oblasti te poklice spoštovale, zanje niso bili resni nosilci idej in propagande« (Intervju – Ivan Antič; Vladimir Mitrović, 2009)? Je tak odnos oblasti SFRJ do poklicne avtonomije razviden iz arhivskih dokumentov? Ko sem za razstavo raziskovala Borbine nagrade, sem v Borbi naletela na neki članek o tem, da je v zvezi komunistov še vedno zelo malo arhitektov, govorimo o šestdesetih letih. Torej ni bilo treba biti v partiji, da so lahko delali. Arhitektura ni bila nosilka banalne propagande, bila pa je nosilka idej – kar se odraža v programih in tipologijah, ki so se gradile in financirale ne- posredno ali posredno iz državnega in družbenega proračuna – in tudi sred- stvo reprezentacije SFRJ (o čemer je precej napisanega), ko je šlo za svetov- ne razstave, naložbene in javne objekte za upravo, izobraževanje ali infra- strukturo. V določenem smislu je arhitekturna stroka sebe zelo hitro uvrsti- la med cilje državne administracije in v javno sfero: arhitekti so med prvimi (zelo radi) zavračali socrealizem (posvet (CIAM-a, op. ur.) v Dubrovniku leta 1950) in nadaljevali že utečeno pot modernizma – torej niso potrebovali usmerjanja »od zgoraj«. Po drugi strani pa sta bili struktura in usmeritev sistema v veliki meri ugodni za ustvarjalne težnje arhitektov: lahko so razi- skovali, eksperimentirali, gradili (slika 7). Seveda so morali v okoliščinah samoupravljanja sodelovati z deležniki procesa in projekt uskladiti z njiho- vimi zmožnostmi in željami. Poklicna avtonomija pa je bila na visoki ravni: mnogi znani arhitekti in urbanisti so bili člani partije, vendar vse kaže na njihovo izjemno poklicno integriteto in ugled, ki so ga uživali. Všeč mi je slikovita dokumentacija iz fonda 837, iz kabineta predsednika republike (KPR), v Arhivu Jugoslavije, ki vsebuje stenografske zapiske sre- čanj delegacij urbanistov, arhitektov in strokovnih združenj na eni ter Tita about compatibility, or we can talk about favourable circumstances which the state administration of the time took advantage of, and not least about the competence of responsible individuals and institutions. In all its iterations and circumstances, modern architecture was simple enough that even unskilled labour was deployed for its construction, it was ra- tional and logical for (re)organising the construction by means of industri- alised production, and it was adaptable and gradual - ideal for the needs of a developing society. The innovations in building technology and the use of new materials was another fortunate circumstance; the greatest leap was achieved by mastering prestressed concrete, achieved by the genera- tion of engineers led by Branko Žeželj and Boško Petrović. The exhibition was extensive, and the selection narrowed down considerably I imagine. Which of the exhibited buildings are your favourite, and why? I'm going to refer back to my previous answer and first single out Hall 1 of Belgrade Fair (fig. 4, architect: Milorad Pantović, engineer: Branko Žeželj) as a watershed building: with this building, the prestressed concrete tech- nology makes a grand entrance in the everyday (civilian) architecture of socialist Yugoslavia, no longer confined to bridges, industrial halls, and major engineering interventions. This technology opened up a new field of creativity for architects, and it's as if it bestowed a new confidence on them: buildings become airy, light, full of expression. They designed bold forms and used new materials for exterior finishing, which also becomes part of the design. I would also name Trg republike Square (Trg revolucije Square) by Edvard Ravnikar, stadium Poljud by Boris Magaš, and Elektro- privreda building by Ivan Štraus as picturesque examples of this architec- tural leap, which unfolded in a mere 20 years. The Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade (fig. 6), a work by Ivan Antić and Ivanka Raspopović, is one of the interesting projects in the exhibition, which likely also influenced you personally, having graduated from Belgrade faculty of architecture. What is your take on Antić's quotation from the interview for magazine DaNS where he says: "[...] I never noticed any pressure exerted on architects and civil engineers, especially not pressure of ideological kind. Even though the authorities respected these professions, they were never regarded as serious bearers of ideas and propaganda." (Interview with Ivan Antić; Vladimir Mitrović, 2009)? Is this attitude by Yugoslav authorities towards professional autonomy borne out by archival documents? When I was researching prizes awarded by newspaper Borba for the exhi- bition, I remember coming across an article in Borba, a short piece discuss- ing how membership of the League of Communists still included very few architects - and we're talking 1960s here. Therefore, being a member of the Communist Party wasn't a prerequisite for getting work. Architecture wasn't a bearer of banal propaganda, but it was a bearer of ideas - which is evident from programmes and typologies built and financed directly or indirectly from the state or communal budgets. It was also a means of representing socialist Yugoslavia, and there are plenty of articles to be found about world expositions, investment- and public buildings for ad- ministration, education, or infrastructure. In a sense, the architectural pro- fession very quickly entered itself among the objectives of state adminis- tration and positioned itself in the public sphere: architects were among the first to reject - gladly - socialist realism (the 1950 (CIAM - Ed. Note) congress in Dubrovnik) and chose the well-established path of modernism - not requiring, therefore, guidance "from above". But on the other hand, the structure and bearing of the system were very much in accordance with architects' creative tendencies: they were able to research, experi- ment, build (fig. 7). In the circumstances of self-management, they obvi- ously had to co-ordinate with the stakeholders in the process and adapt projects to their capabilities and desires. There was a high degree of pro- fessional autonomy: many high-profile architects and urban designers were members of the Communist Party, but there is plenty of evidence of their exceptional professional integrity and the reputation they enjoyed. I love the very expressive records from collection 837 in the Cabinet of the President of the Republic in the Archive of Yugoslavia. It contains steno- graph minutes from meetings with delegations of urban designers, archi- tects and professional associations on one side and Tito on the other. The Sl. 7: Eksperimentalno gradbišče tehnologije IMS v Luandi. Vir: osebni arhiv Ivana Petrovića. Fig. 7: Experimental building site of IMS technology in Luanda. Source: personal archive of Ivan Petrović 7 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 53arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 na drugi strani. Zanimiv je bil sprejem delegacije Urbanističnega zavoda Beograda leta 1965. Zelo svobodno izmenjujejo mnenja: Tito govori o tem, kaj mu je všeč (npr. Nova Huta, SIV/Palača federacije (slika 8), sprehajališče na Savi) in kaj ne (npr. Brasilia, Blok 21, Muzej sodobne umetnosti), medtem pa arhitekt Aleksandar Đorđević suvereno predstavlja in zagovarja glavne ideje splošnega načrta za (Novi) Beograd (slika 9) ter razlaga realizirane pro- jekte, Branko Pešić (takratni župan) pa išče finance za selitev železnice, avto- ceste in mostu. Iz te dokumentacije je povsem jasno, da se je Tito – tako kot večina državljanov – bolj nagibal h klasični arhitekturi kot k arhitekturi viso- kega modernizma. To je za nas raziskovalce zelo pomemben podatek, zlasti v današnjem času, ko je vse iz tistega časa pripisano Titovim željam, okusu in muham (seveda odvisno od (skritega) namena trditev). Kot za katerikoli sestanek je bila tudi predhodnica sestankov z urbanisti priprava v obliki »in- formacij«, ki jih je protokol posredoval predsedniku. V njih so pojasnjeni cilji in problemi urbanizacije v Jugoslaviji. Vendar se je Tito zavedal, da izha- ja s položaja (dobro obveščenega, a vseeno) laika, in ideje urbanistov, ki so mu bile predstavljene, so se nato v celoti uresničile – Novi Beograd v obri- sih, ki jih poznamo danes (slike 10, 11 in 12). Znana sta Titovo kljubovanje abstraktni umetnosti in nato njegov odmik od realizma ter njegovo sprejemanje abstraktnega in modernističnega umetniškega izraza. V kakšnih okoliščinah so nastale monumentalne abstraktne skulpture, v nekaterih primerih modernistične arhitekture in krajinske arhitekture? Veliko je napisanega o tem, da Tito ni posegal v delo niti posameznikov niti institucij, ki so gradile državo, čeprav je bil njegov odnos do vprašanj arhi- tekture in urbanizma konservativen, kar je arhitektom in urbanistom tudi pogosto sporočal. Bil pa je dobro obveščen, obiskoval je projektivne organi- zacije, gradbišča, se srečeval z delegacijami strokovnih združenj ali institucij, ki so mu prinašale tako dobre kot slabe novice, v primerih večjih težav in neuspehov pa so nanj apelirali, naj se s svojo avtoriteto zavzame, da se bodo stvari premaknile – na primer v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja za preselitev železnice iz osrednje cone Novega Beograda. Sčasoma se je po- treba po tovrstnih intervencijah zmanjšala oziroma prenehala, saj so imela podjetja boljše kadre, boljšo opremo, več izkušenj in znanja. Mogoče se ponavljam, toda z osvojitvijo tehnologije prednapetega in armiranega beto- na ter s stabilizacijo industrije gradbenih materialov (kar se je po navedbah virov zgodilo šele v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja) so nastali material- ni pogoji za novo, drznejšo ustvarjalnost v arhitekturi. Umetniki, arhitekti, urbanisti, krajinski arhitekti so uporabljali vsa orodja in spoznanja iz tega arzenala, ustvarjenega s kolektivnim delom in kolektivnimi naložbami. Ob- stajajo številna pričevanja, da so na gradbišča nekaterih stavb prihajali usposobljeni delavci, monterji in kamnoseki oziroma podjetja iz različnih reception for the Urban Planning Institute delegation in 1965 was very in- teresting. There is a very frank exchange of opinion: Tito is talking about what he liked - e.g. Nowa Huta, Federal Executive Council building (fig. 8), the promenade along river Sava -, and what he didn't like, e.g. Brasilia, Block 21, Museum of Contemporary Art. All the while, architect Aleksandar Đorđević is very self-assuredly presenting and defending the key ideas of the General Plan for (New) Belgrade (fig. 9) and explaining realised pro- jects, and Branko Pešić, the mayor at the time, is trying to find the budget for relocating the railway, the motorway, and the bridge. These records make it perfectly clear that Tito - just as most of the public - preferred clas- sical architecture to high modernism. For us, researchers, this is a very im- portant piece of information, especially nowadays when everything from that period is ascribed to Tito's wishes, tastes, and whims - depending on the (hidden) agenda of such claims. As with any meeting, meetings with urban designers were preceded by preparations in the shape of "informa- tion" which the protocol submitted to the President. They contain the objec- tives and challenges of urbanisation in Yugoslavia. But Tito was aware that his position was one of a layman - a well-informed one, but still - and the urban designers' ideas which were presented to him went on to be fully re- alised: New Belgrade in the outline familiar to us today (figs. 10, 11, 12). Tito was known to resist abstract art but he subsequently distanced himself from realism and accepted abstract and modern artistic expression. What were the circumstances in which the monumental abstract sculptures - and, in certain cases, modernist architectures and landscape architectures - were created? A lot has been written about the fact that Tito did not interfere with the work of individuals and institutions that were constructing the state, even though his attitude to the questions of architecture and urban design was a conservative one, and he would tell as much to architects and urban planners without reservation. But he was well informed, he visited project offices, building sites, he met delegations from professional associations and institutions. They were bringing him both good and bad news, and in cases of major obstacles or failures, they appealed to him to use his au- thority to get things going again, such as the relocation of the railway from New Belgrade's central zone in the 1960s. As time went by, there was less need for such interventions, or indeed no need at all anymore as com- panies gained more proficient staff, better equipment, and more experi- ence and know-how. At the risk of repeating myself, the mastery of the prestressed and reinforced concrete technologies and the stabilisation of construction materials industry - which, according to sources, only oc- curred in the 1960s - established the material conditions for a new, bolder creativity in architecture. Artists, architects, urban designers, and land- scape architects took advantage of all the tools and know-how from this Sl. 8: Zvezni izvršni svet – SIV (ZIS), interier. Vir: osebni arhiv Mihaila Jankovića. Sl. 9: Splošni urbanistični načrt Beograda (1950). Vir: Urbanistični zavod Beograd. Fig. 8: Federal Executive Council building, interior. Source: personal archive of Mihailo Janković Fig. 9: General Urban Plan of Belgrade, 1950. Source: Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade 8 9 Andrej Strehovec 54 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 delov države, vse zato, da bi izvedba sledila avtorjevi zamisli. Ko se danes pogovarjate z arhitekti v postjugoslovanskih državah, vidite, kako nepred- stavljivo je to in da je bil uničen celoten ekosistem dobre arhitekture: če- prav lahko izdelke naročite iz najbolj oddaljenih delov sveta, kakovost arhi- tekture ni niti blizu tisti prejšnjega obdobja (sliki 13 in 14). Spomeniki NOB v nekdanji SFRJ imajo močno simbolno in zgodovinsko vrednost ter pomenijo tehnološki in umetniški dosežek, ki je lahko sodobni umetniški in arhitekturni produkciji vzor in tudi izziv. Ali v arhivih obstajajo podatki o procesih te gradnje, so bili ti standardizirani in v kolikšni meri so bili načrtovani? Najobsežnejša zbirka dokumentacije o spomenikih, točka, kjer se raziskave običajno začnejo, je arhiv SUBNOR-ja (Savez udruženja boraca narodnoo- slobodilačkog rata – Zveza združenj borcev narodnoosvobodilnega boja). Arhiv Jugoslavije vsebuje dokumentacijo krovne zvezne organizacije, iz ka- tere je jasno razvidno, da je bila edina standardizacija – če ji lahko tako re- čemo – obstoj SUBNOR-ja, ki je imel lokalne podružnice po vsej državi in je za vsak primer posebej usklajeval nekatere dejavnosti za postavitve spo- minskih obeležij. Vendar pa nikjer nisem našla zbirke predpisov o tem, kako je treba graditi spomenike, kot so obstajali na primer za stanovanjske stav- be ali šole, ta odločitev je bila prepuščena naročniku. Na natečajih pač zma- ga najboljša rešitev. Na spomenike po mojem mnenju sploh ne bi smeli gledati kot na izolirano tipologijo modernistične arhitekture. Njihova po- sebnost je le ta, da je bilo pri njihovem oblikovanju več avtorske svobode. Sicer pa so izhajali iz istega družbenega sistema, ki je ustvarjal tudi vse dru- ge arhitekturne in urbanistične tipologije, avtorji pa so pri vseh izkoriščali priložnosti, strokovne prijeme in tehnične možnosti, ki so bili v tem sistemu na voljo. SUBNOR je na zvezni ravni skrbel za spominska obeležja in obmo- čja, ki jih ni veliko; najbolj znani so Tjentište (slika 16), Jasenovac, Šumarice in Sremski front – torej spomeniki oz. spominski kompleksi na krajih ključ- nih bitk ali večjih pobojev, krajih z očitnim simbolnim in zgodovinskim po- menom za socialistično Jugoslavijo (slike 17, 18 in 19). Potem so tu še kraji, arsenal, which was created with collective work and collective investment. There are numerous testimonials that trained workers, installers, and stonecutters or companies from different parts of the country were arriv- ing at job sites of certain buildings to ensure that the execution would fol- low the author's idea. When you talk to architects from post-Yugoslav states today, you see how unimaginable this is and that the entire ecosys- tem of good architecture has been destroyed: even though you can order products from the farthest ends of the world, the quality of architecture doesn't come close to that of the previous period (figs. 13, 14). Monuments to People's Liberation Struggle in ex-Yugoslavia have a strong symbolic and historical value and represent a technological and artistic achievement which can serve as a model and also a challenge to the contemporary artistic and architectural production. Do the archives contain information on the construction processes, were they standardised, and to what extent were they planned? The most extensive records on monuments, which is the usual starting point for research, is the archive belonging to the League of Associations of Veterans of the People's Liberation Struggle (SUBNOR). The Archive of Yugoslavia contains the records of the umbrella federal organisation, which clearly show that the only standardisation - if we can call it that - is the existence of SUBNOR, which had local chapters all over the country and co-ordinated certain activities for the execution of memorial sites individu- ally on a case-by-case basis. However, I was unable to find any sort of rule- book on how to build monuments such as there were e.g. for residential buildings or schools - it was left up to the investor. The best solution wins the competition. In my opinion, monuments shouldn't even be regarded as an isolated typology of modernist architecture. Their only distinction is that there was more artistic freedom in their design. Otherwise, they orig- inate in the same social system which created all other architectural and urban typologies, and with all of them, their authors took advantage of the opportunities, techniques, and technical possibilities available within 10 11 12 13 14 Sl. 10: Novi Beograd – Blok 1 v gradnji. Vir: zbirka Miloša Jurišića. Sl. 11: Tito z ekipo Urbanističnega zavoda Beograda na gradbišču Novega Beograda. Vir: Zgodovinski arhiv Beograda, osebni arhiv Milutina Glavičkega. Sl. 12: Novi Beograd v gradnji, pogled s Kalemegdana. Vir: Urbanistični zavod Beograda. Sl. 13: Naselje Kijevo Kneževac. Vir: osebni arhiv Aleksandra Đokića. Sl. 14: Zahodna vrata Beograda. Vir: arhiv Mihajla Mitrovića. Fig. 10: New Belgrade, Block 1 during construction. Source: collection of Miloš Jurišić Fig. 11: Tito and the team from Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade on a New Belgrade construction site. Source: Historical Archives of Belgrade, personal collection of Milutin Glavički Fig. 12: New Belgrade during construction, view from Kalemegdan. Source: Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade Fig. 13: Community Kijevo Kneževac. Source: personal archive of Aleksandar Đokić Fig. 14: Belgrade Western City Gate. Source: archive of Mihajlo Mitrović Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 55arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 pomembni za nastanek NOB in konstituiranje avnojske Jugoslavije: (Titovo) Užice, Stolice (Krupanj), Bela Crkva, Drvar, Jajce, kjer so postavili nove spo- menike; pri teh je bilo treba ohraniti ali ustrezno obnoviti objekte vrhovne- ga štaba in prostore pomembnih medvojnih dogodkov. Skozi dokumentaci- jo SUBNOR-ja lahko spremljamo še številne druge spomenike po Jugoslaviji, sicer večinoma zgolj informativno, saj so jih večino načrtovali na lokalni ravni, z lokalnimi združenji veteranov ali drugih delovnih, mladinskih, celo študentskih organizacij in združenj. Gradila so jih lokalna gradbena podje- tja, financirali so jih s samoprispevki, najpogosteje so jih z neposrednimi naročili zasnovali lokalni arhitekti in umetniki, na željo skupnosti pa so raz- pisali večji natečaj. Edini organ na zvezni ravni je bila Komisija za zagotavlja- nje in nadaljnji razvoj tradicij osvobodilne fronte in dosežkov revolucije v okviru SUBNOR-ja; v celotnem obdobju socialistične Jugoslavije so v njej delovali vrhunski strokovnjaki, pa tudi birokrati. V začetku so se glede me- morializacije na terenu pojavljali številni problemi (slogovno in tehnično slabo narejeni spomeniki, plošče s pravopisnimi napakami itd.) in komisijo so sestavljale vidne kulturne osebnosti, kasneje pa so bili procesi bolj ute- čeni, uveljavili so se natečaji in postali del pristojnosti združenja umetnikov in arhitektov, zato je komisija izgubljala pomen. Kaj je največji krivec za slab odnos do dediščine jugoslovanske socialistične arhitekture: odnos novih, postsocialističnih oblasti do te dediščine kot nečesa nezaželenega; nastanek postmodernistične arhitekture, ki se je banalno vrnila k bolj klasičnemu izrazu; ali sodobna dirka za energijsko učinkovitejšimi stavbami? Gre mogoče za estetiko, ki preprosto ni blizu povprečnemu uporabniku, saj bi zanjo potreboval določen izobraževalni postopek, ki pa se ne zgodi? Kako jo razumevati, skozi katero misel in skozi kakšno optiko? Kako ljudi ozavestiti, da bodo zgradbe, v katerih živijo, razumeli kot kakovostno arhitekturo, ko pa so dostikrat že degradirane? Velikokrat sem slišala priznanja ljudi zunaj stroke, da so začeli na to arhi- tekturo gledati na drugačen, pozitiven način, ko se je začelo govoriti o tej razstavi. Prav imate glede estetike modernizma, kot vsi novi in pionirski pojavi potrebuje proces prilagajanja in izobraževanja. Vendar naša javna in medijska sfera ne zagotavljata skoraj nobene platforme za takšne procese – niti ko gre za sorazmerno pomembnejše stvari, kot sta zdravje ali ekolo- gija. To nekoliko nadomešča splet, do katerega pa nimajo vsi enakega do- stopa in kjer pogosto ni lahko najti in filtrirati ustreznih vsebin. Danes so politike in ukrepi razdrobljeni, odvisni od posameznikov, ki se odpravijo na okope: konservatorji se borijo za ohranitev, najemniki za izboljšanje stano- vanj in okoljevarstveniki za energijsko sanacijo – kar je še posebej proble- matično in težavno, ker je ta nemogoča brez celostnega pristopa. Drugače rečeno, na tak način smo danes prisiljeni razmišljati, ne le na ravni gradnje, that the system. Federal SUBNOR organisation occupied itself with the few federal-level memorials and memorial areas: Tjentište (fig. 16), Jasenovac, Šumarice, and Syrmian Front, to name the best known ones. These are monuments and memorial complexes in the sites of key battles or major executions, in places with an obvious symbolic and historical significance for socialist Yugoslavia (figs. 17, 18, and 19). Then there are places that are important for the founding of the People's Liberation Struggle and the es- tablishment of Yugoslavia through the AVNOJ resolutions: (Titovo) Užice, Stolice (Krupanj), Bela Crkva, Drvar, and Jajce, where new monuments were erected while the Supreme Partisan Headquarters buildings and the places where important wartime events took place had to be preserved or suitably renovated. SUBNOR's records allow us to trace numerous others monuments in Yugoslavia, mostly only for information purposes as most were planned on local levels with local veterans' associations or other workers', youth, and even students' organisations and associations. They were built by local construction companies, they were financed with self- imposed contributions, and most of them were commissioned directly and designed by local architects and artists, though the community could opt for a larger competition. The only federal-level body was the Committee for the Nurture of Revolutionary Traditions as part of SUBNOR, which fea- tured both top-level experts as well bureaucrats throughout the socialist Yugoslav period. In the beginning, there were numerous problems with memorialisation in the field - stylistically and technically flawed monu- ments, plaques with grammatical errors etc. -, with the Committee being staffed with prominent personalities from the realm of culture. Later, the processes became more regular, competitions were established as the norm and became part of the competence of artists' and architects' asso- ciations, reducing the relevance of the Committee. What is the biggest culprit for the negative attitude toward the architectural heritage of Yugoslav socialist architecture: the attitude of post-socialist authorities toward this heritage as something unwanted; the emergence of postmodernist architecture which made a banal return to a more classical expression; or the contemporary preoccupation with more energy-efficient buildings? Is it perhaps the aesthetic, which is simply inaccessible to the average user, who requires - but doesn't receive - an educational process in order to understand it? How to understand it, by what sort of thinking, and through what sort of optics? How to raise people's awareness in order for them to understand the buildings in which they live as quality architecture, when these same buildings are often already subject to decay? I've often heard people outside the profession admit that they began to re- gard this architecture in a different, positive light when word got round 15 16 17 Sl. 15: Spomenik Kadinjača v gradnji. Vir: Arhiv Jugoslavije – F112 TANJUG. Sl. 16: Tjentište. Vir: Arhiv Jugoslavije – F112 TANJUG. Sl. 17: Spomenik Bogdana Bogdanovića na sefardskem pokopališču v Beogradu. Vir: Urbanistični zavod Beograda. Fig. 15: Memorial Kadinjača during construction. Source: Archive of Yugoslavia F112 TANJUG Fig. 16: Tjentište. Source: Archive of Yugoslavia F112 TANJUG Fig. 17: Memorial by Bogdan Bogdanović at the Sephardic cemetery. Source: Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade Andrej Strehovec 56 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 1 Ameriško sosesko Pruitt Igoe so zgradili konec petdesetih let. Kmalu po nastanku je začela propa- dati, zato so jo leta 1972 porušili. Teoretik Charles Jencks je trenutek rušitve označil za trenutek, »ko je umrl modernizem« (op. ur.). 1 American neighbourhood Pruitt Igoe was built in the late 1950s. Soon afterwards, it began to fall into disrepair and in 1972, it was demolished as a result. Theoretician Charles Jencks called the moment of demolition "the moment when modernism died" (Ed. Note). Sl. 18: Gradbišče spominskega parka v Čačku. Vir: fotodokumentacija klesarja Momirja Džunića. Sl. 19: Spomenik na Grmeču med gradnjo. Vir: Arhiv Jugoslavije – F112 TANJUG. Fig. 18: Construction site for memorial park in Čačak. Source: photographic records of stonemason Momir Džunić Fig. 19: Monument at Grmeč during construction. Source: Archive of Yugoslavia F112 TANJUG ampak tudi na splošno. Razdrobljenost lahko zvedemo na razkroj socialne države, ki sovpada z degradacijo modernistične arhitekture – in tudi s po- rastom postmodernizma v njegovi najbolj banalni in škodljivi obliki. Javno mnenje danes socialno državo vzporeja z brutalističnimi stanovanj- skimi bloki, bolnišnicami in šolami, bančni in podjetniški sektor pa s pisanim postmodernističnim kičem in dragim hi-techom. Prav tako je v diskurzu o modernistični arhitekturi že dolgo prisotno vprašanje degradacije – post- moderni kritiki je državljane uspelo prepričati, da je degradacija moderni arhitekturi lastna. Celo lepo število modernističnih arhitektov je nekritično ponotranjilo ta najbolj strupeni, škodljivi in – izkazalo se bo – povsem po- tvorjeni segment postmoderne kritike (spomnimo se samo na Pruitt Igoe1), nekateri zaradi neobveščenosti, drugi zaradi pritiskov, nekateri pa prepro- sto zaradi boljše kariere in napredovanja. Vendar imamo na razstavi odlične primere objektov, katerih avtorji so se konstruktivno lotili kritike postmo- dernizma in uspešno uporabili njegova načela na ravni urbane in arhitek- turne forme, na ravni programov in funkcije pa so ostali znotraj prakse in dognanj modernizma, iz katerega so izhajali (Cerak Vinogradi, Blok 19a). Za revijo novosadskega društva za arhitekturo DaNS si napisala članek »Toplotni teror«. Katere so najboljše možnosti za prenovo dediščine socialistične arhitekture, ali je resnično pomemben le energijski koeficient stavbe, četudi to pomeni spreminjanje konstruktivistične estetike stavbe? Verjetno je bila perspektiva prenove tudi eden od vidikov razstave v MoMI? Perspektiva prenove je nakazana skozi posamezne segmente, vendar ni ni- kjer izrecno poudarjena, razen morda skozi besedila v katalogu. Sedanjost pa je prisotna skozi Jeckove fotografije in stanje, v katerem so objekti na njih: tu sta s sodobnimi fotografijami predstavljena Avalski stolp in knjižnica v Prištini, ki je prejela donacijo fundacije Getty, tu je tudi Thalerjeva foto- grafija generalštaba v ruševinah pred rušenjem objekta A. Na ogled je tudi izsek iz dokumentarnega filma o Jasenovcu, na katerem je drastično prika- zana skrajnost grožnje tej zapuščini, tu se kaže skozi manipulacijo glede šte- vila žrtev. Težava ni v tem, da so te betonske zgradbe toplotno neučinkovite ali dotrajane, ampak da ne vemo, kaj bi z njimi. Obstajajo tehnologije, po- nekod bi morali ponovno preučiti nastanek teh struktur ali se posvetovati s strokovnjaki, ki v laboratorijih preučujejo nove rešitve, žal pa z njimi slabo sodelujemo. Ne nazadnje niso vse zgradbe brez izolacije – vendar se potre- be spreminjajo, vse je dotrajano, toplotna izolacija po petdesetih letih tudi about this exhibition. You're right about the modernist aesthetic - like all new and pioneering phenomena, it requires a process of adaptation and educa- tion. However, our public and media sphere provide almost no platform for such processes - not even for relatively more important issues such as health and ecology. The Internet fills this gap to an extent, but not everyone has the same access, and suitable content is often difficult to find and filter through. Nowadays, the policies and measures are fragmented, they depend on indi- viduals who make a stand: conservationists fight for preservation, tenants fight for better housing, and ecologists for energy refurbishment - which is especially problematic and difficult, because it is impossible to achieve with- out a comprehensive approach. In other words, this is the way we are forced to think today - not only when it comes to building but also generally. The fragmentation may be linked to the disintegration of the welfare state, which coincides with the decay of modernist architecture and - who would've thought - the rise of postmodernism in its most banal and harmful form. Today, the public opinion associates welfare state with brutalist blocks of flats, hospitals, and schools while the banking and commercial sector is as- sociated with colourful postmodernist kitsch and expensive high tech. The question of decay has also been a part of the discourse on modernist architec- ture for a long time - postmodern criticism was able to convince the public that decay is inherent to modern architecture. Even a fair number of modern- ist architects have uncritically internalised this toxic, harmful and - as it's bound to transpire - completely fraudulent segment of postmodern criticism (let us cast out minds to Pruitt-Igoe1). Some did it because they were unin- formed, some were pressured into it, and some simply did it for career ad- vancement. Yet the exhibition features excellent examples of buildings whose authors engage in constructive criticism of the postmodern and successfully employ its principles on the level of urban and architectural form, while on the level of programmes and function, they remain within the practices and findings of modernism, which is their origin (Cerak Vinogradi, Block 19a). For the magazine issued by DaNS – Association of Novi Sad Architects, you wrote an article entitled "Thermal Terror". What are the best options for the refurbishment of socialist architecture - is a building's energy efficiency index really the only thing that matters, even though it might mean that the structural aesthetic of the building has been altered? I suppose the refurbishment perspective is one of the aspects of the MoMA exhibition? The refurbishment perspective is indicated in various segments, but it doesn't get explicitly pointed out, except perhaps in the texts in the catalogue. The present situation is accounted for through Jeck's photographs and the state of the buildings depicted: the Avala Tower is exhibited with contemporary photographs, the library in Priština, which received a grant from the Getty 18 19 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 57arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razpade. Problem je, da ta arhitektura še vedno vzbuja nelagodje oblasti postjugoslovanskih (in mnogih drugih) držav ter ostaja spolzka tema, če- prav je bila premagana in »pospravljena« skupaj s politiko, ki jo je porajala. Bolj ko jo prikazujemo kot umazano, čistejše je ogledalo zapravljenih dese- tletij in zgrešenih neoliberalističnih politik. Ali lahko po New Yorku pričakujemo razstavo tudi kje bližje evropskemu občinstvu? Je v prihodnjih letih mogoče pričakovati povečan turistični obisk regije nekdanje Jugoslavije za ogled »eksponatov« v živo? Vendarle ima arhitektura kot umetnost srečo, da je vedno na ogled. Še vedno nimamo zanesljivih informacij o gostovanjih razstave, bilo pa bi odlično, če bi se v kakem formatu pojavila v Evropi, da bi jo lahko videli. Turistov, ki obiskujejo spomenike, primere brutalizma, hotele, nova mesta ..., je v regiji že veliko, trend je v porastu že nekaj let. Med drugim je prite- gnil tudi Stierlija,2 da se je začel zanimati za nekdanjo Jugoslavijo in preso- dil, da je pravi čas, da njeno arhitekturo predstavi občinstvu. Z gledišča re- gije je fascinantno – in verjetno dobro – da tovrstni turizem ostaja na robu uradne turistične ponudbe in se z njo prekriža le, ko gre za informacije o nastanitvi, prevozu ali delovnih časih. Naše turistične organizacije so kronič- no nepripravljene na ta pojav, ker nimajo usposobljenega kadra, in če gre za državne agencije, večinoma ne vedo, kako (smejo) predstaviti to arhitektu- ro. Ponudbe so zato pogosto banalne, od »pornografije ruševin« (ruin porn) do bizarnih poskusov, da bi stanovanjsko arhitekturo SFRJ »prodali« kot del itinerarja evropske totalitarne dediščine. Primere pametnejše in bolj premi- šljene turistične ponudbe lahko naštejem na prste ene roke, kar ni nujno slabo. Turizem bo tej arhitekturi prinesel prepoznavnost, glede na izkušnje iz Evrope pa mislim, da je bolje, da ostane na ravni posameznikov, v lastni režiji. Danes je turizem ekspanzivna industrija, ki pretirano izkorišča vire in za sabo pušča opustošenje. Pomembno je, da se za ohranitev in skrb za živo dediščino borijo lokalne skupnosti in njeni uporabniki. Ali meniš, da lahko razstava odločevalce v državah nekdanje SFRJ spodbudi k aktivnemu ukrepanju, da bi ohranili zapuščino kakovostne jugoslovanske socialistične arhitekture? Upam, da bo tako, če ne zaradi drugega, zato, ker so oči mednarodne in domače javnosti zdaj usmerjene vanjo. Nekateri so že začeli, mislim pa, da bo zdaj šlo hitreje. Institucije niso več pred prej nepremostljivim breme- nom dokazovanja vrednosti te arhitekture – to smo v veliki meri storili z razstavo – enako tudi številni drugi raziskovalci, ki se z jugoslovansko arhi- tekturo ukvarjajo v drugih projektih. Zgodovinska oddaljenost ni več teža- va, od razpada Jugoslavije je minilo več kot trideset let, od zgraditve objek- tov pa še mnogo več, zato je skrajni čas, da se pristojne službe lotijo dela. Za nekatere objekte z razstave obstajajo pobude za zaščito že od zgodnjih devetdesetih, vendar iz številnih razlogov niso bile uspešne. Videli bomo, ali se bo kaj spremenilo (in kdaj). Naselje Cerak Vinogradi (slika 3) je deni- mo januarja 2019 postalo del kulturne dediščine, kar pa ne pomeni, da je zaščiteno pred pritiski glede novogradenj. Foundation, and Thaler's photograph of the General Staff before Building A was consolidated. There is also an excerpt from a documentary on Jasenovac giving the most drastic account of the threat facing this heritage, namely the manipulation of the victim count. The issue is not that these concrete build- ings are thermally inefficient or nearing the end of their service life, but that we don't know what to do with them. There are technologies, with some we'd have to go back and study how these structures were created, in some cases we'd have to talk to experts who are researching new solutions in labs, but unfortunately, the co-operation is far from ideal. And it's not as if all the build- ings lack insulation - but needs change, everything is in disrepair and even thermal insulation falls apart after 50 years. The problem is that this architec- ture still raises fear in post-Yugoslav authorities (and many others) and re- mains a slippery issue even though it was defeated for good, together with the politics which generated it. But the dirtier we can paint it, the cleaner the mirror of wasted decades and misguided neoliberal policies gets. After New York, can we expect the exhibition someplace closer to European audiences? Is the number of tourists visiting the region of ex-Yugoslavia expected to rise in the coming years, for viewing the "exhibits" in the flesh? As art, architecture has the good fortune of always being on display, after all. There is no definitive information regarding a possible tour of the exhibition yet, but it would be great if it appeared in Europe in some form or another so people could see it. There are many tourists visiting monuments, brutal- ist buildings, hotels, new towns etc. in the region, the trend has been on the rise for several years. It was this trend that also attracted Mr Stierli2 to de- velop an interest for ex-Yugoslavia, and he felt that this was the right time to present its architecture to the audience. From the region's perspective, it's fascinating - and probably a good thing - that this kind of tourism re- mains on the fringe of the official tourist offering and the two only really cross paths when it comes to information regarding accommodation, trans- port, or opening hours. Our tourist organisations are perennially ill-pre- pared for such hype because they lack suitably trained staff, and in the case of state agencies, they mostly don't know how they should (or may) present this architecture. The programmes are thus often banal, from ruin porn to bizarre attempts at touting housing architecture of socialist Yugoslavia as part of the European totalitarian heritage itinerary. I can count the smarter and more considered offerings on the fingers of one hand, which is not nec- essarily a bad thing. Tourism will raise the profile of this architecture, and judging from the experience elsewhere in Europe, I think it's better if people continue to make their own arrangements. Today, tourism is an expansive industry which overexploits resources and leaves a trail of devastation be- hind. It's more important that those who struggle for living heritage to be preserved and looked after are the local communities and its users. Do you think that the exhibition can induce decision-makers in ex-Yugoslav states to take active measures to preserve the heritage of quality Yugoslav socialist architecture? I hope it does, if for no other reason because the attention of the interna- tional and domestic public is now focused on it. Some have already begun to act, and I expect the pace to pick up from now on. The institutions are no longer facing the impossible burden of arguing the value of this architec- ture, the exhibition largely took care of that, as did numerous other re- searchers who are dealing with Yugoslav architecture in other projects. The historical distance is no longer a problem, it has been more than 30 years since the break-up of Yugoslavia, and much longer since the buildings were built, so it's high time that the competent authorities got to work. For cer- tain buildings featured in the exhibition, there have been initiatives for their protection ever since the early 1990s, but they have been unsuccessful for many reasons. We'll see if (and when) things change. In January 2019, com- munity Cerak vinogradi (fig. 3) was declared cultural heritage, but this doesn't mean that it's safe from pressures of new development. 2 Martin Stierli je kustos razstave K betonski/konkretni utopiji: Arhitektura v Jugoslaviji 1948–1980 v MoMI (op. ur.). 2 Martin Stierli is the curator of exhibition Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948-1980 in MoMA (Ed. Note) Andrej Strehovec