Nikola Dedić1
The Neoliberal Stamp 
on Post-socialist Art2
Abstract: The main objective of this paper is to provide an outline
for a future theorisation of the following question: what is it that
specifically determines the art of our time, that is, how do the con-
ditions in which this art is created differ from the conditions in
which art was created a decade or even twenty years ago? In order
to carry out this analysis, it is necessary to take into account several
factors: (a) the specificity of the social order within which the art of
our time is created, that is, the evolution of a neoliberal “transition”
state and its ideological apparatus; (b) the problem of material work
forms, which has to do with economic production models that both
contemporary neoliberal state and art are based upon; (c) the issue
of value (for want of a better word let us call it “aesthetic”) which is
implied or entailed by the work in the field of art.
Keywords: art, transition, post-socialism, society
UDK: 7:316.323.6
Neoliberalni pečat postsocialistične umetnosti
Izvleček: Glavni cilj tega prispevka je ponuditi osnovo za prihodnje
teoretiziranje o naslednjem vprašanju: kaj je tisto, kar specifično do-
loča umetnost našega časa, torej kako se pogoji, v katerih ta umet-
49
Moni tor  ISH (2017), XIX/2, 49–64
Pregledni znanstveni članek
Review article
1 Nikola Dedić is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Music, Belgrade,
Serbia. E-mail: dedicnikola@yahoo.com.
2 An early version of this paper, titled “Art in Peripheral Capitalism”, is
published  in  the  exhibition  catalogue  of  the  17th Biennale  of  Arts  in
Pančevo, See Art Gates (2016), Kulturni centar, Pančevo, 63–85.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 49
nost nastaja, razlikujejo od pogojev, v katerih je nastajala umetnost
pred desetletjem ali celo dvema? Če želimo izvesti to analizo, je
nujno vračunati več dejavnikov: (a) specifičnost družbenega reda,
znotraj katerega nastaja umetnost našega časa, torej evolucijo neo-
liberalnega stanja “tranzicije” in njenega ideološkega aparata; (b)
problem oblik materialnega dela, ki je povezano z ekonomskimi
proizvodnimi modeli, na katerih sta osnovana tako sodobno neoli-
beralno stanje kot umetnost; (c) vprašanje vrednosti (v iskanju pri-
mernejšega izraza mu za zdaj recimo “estetske”), ki se implicira ali
narekuje z delom na področju umetnosti.
Ključne besede: umetnost, tranzicija, postsocializem, družba
0     0     0
The dominant ideological meta-narrative within which post-social-
ist societies developed after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the col-
lapse  of  the  communist  project  was  one  of  a  “democratic
transition” and a new state of liberal democracy. A constituent of
this narrative is the story of “totalitarianism”: former communist
societies should overcome their totalitarian legacy and enter a so-
ciety of liberal freedom, human rights, democratic distribution of
power and, of course, free market. Thus the EU becomes the ulti-
mate goal of historical development, and the European integration
process becomes the path to be followed by former totalitarian so-
cieties in order to transform, gain an education, and mature, with
a view to turning from non-European dictatorships into European
democracies. However, as the historian János Kornai shows on the
example of his homeland Hungary, the idea of  liberal democracy,
especially in the aftermath of the great economic crisis in 2008,
has reached its definitive debacle, even ceasing to play the role of
Nikola Dedić
50
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 50
an ideological meta-narrative.3 Kornai analyses institutional, leg-
islative and ideological changes brought on by Orban’s regime:
one of the founding principles of liberal democracy, the separation
of executive and legislative powers (a separation that has probably
never been achieved in Eastern European countries but has at least
functioned as an attainable “ideal”), was suspended with a series
of legislative changes. These included changes to the constitution,
electoral laws, media laws, election of state prosecutors, etc., which
culminated in the passing of the so-called 32 “cardinal laws”, whose
further potential change can be  implemented only with a  two-
thirds majority in the parliament. In terms of economy, Orban’s
Hungary abandons the market model and heads for state protec-
tionism; this does not mean turning back to the socialist model but
to a new form of neoliberal economy. The latter replaces a nomi-
nally free market with a clientelist system where economy devel-
ops under the fundamental influence of political elites close to the
Prime Minister.  Finally,  there  is  strict  control  of  the  “cultural
sphere”, which started with a radical  “purge” of  the media and
which leads to the institutionally shaped negation of any ideolog-
ical “pluralism”. Kornai’s thesis is that these changes are structural,
that is to say, they do not constitute a deviation, degeneration, or
dysfunction of a liberal system, but build a new system that cannot
even theoretically be called liberal.
Nor can this new system be called a “dictatorship” in the tradi-
tional sense of the word. In fact, it is a sort of hybrid between “liberal
democracy” and “dictatorship”, which, for want of a better word, Ko-
rnai refers to as autocracy. This transformation from democracy (at
least in principle) towards autocracy is, owing to a series of legisla-
tive and institutional changes, practically irreversible:
51
The Neoliberal Stamp on Post-socialist Art
3 Kornai, 2015, 2–24.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 51
Fidesz is prepared for the unlikely but not impossible event of
its failing to win a parliamentary majority in the next elections.
The 32 cardinal laws can only be modified by a two thirds par-
liamentary majority, and even in the case of Fidesz’ electoral de-
feat  no  such  majority  would  be  possible  without  their
participation. The mandates of many key positions, most impor-
tantly those of the chief prosecutor, president of the republic,
head of the central bank, of the audit office, and of the judicial
office, extend beyond the current parliamentary cycle; they can
sit tight, even if the opposition wins. The fiscal council, a body
appointed by the present government, but which would remain
in office even in case of an election defeat, has not only an advi-
sory role but also the right of veto over the budget submitted by
a new government. If that veto is used, the president of the re-
public may dissolve the parliament and call for new elections.
In other words, a few hand-picked men loyal to the present gov-
ernment would be able to overturn the next government.
All of this leads to the logical conclusion that it would probably
be extremely difficult to effectively dismiss the government at
parliamentary elections.  In this sense,  the situation that has
emerged is nearly irreversible. Historical experience shows that
an autocracy can only be brought down by an “earthquake” that
rocks the very foundations of the system.4
Although he writes about Hungary, Kornai’s thesis is gaining
confirmation in other countries as well, both in the former socialist
bloc and the countries of the so-called peripheral capitalism. The
paradigmatic place is actually Putin’s Russia, but states such as Er-
dogan’s Turkey, Poland, and former Yugoslav countries are going
Nikola Dedić
52
4 Ibid.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 52
through substantially similar processes. This does not necessarily
mean that “Putinism” is the model, or a role-model for the processes
of a new neoliberal autocracy constitution – all these countries ex-
perience the erosion of liberal democracy meta-narratives in specific
local circumstances and traditions, and within different networks of
international economic and political relations. However, what still
links them to each other  is a strong neoliberal economic policy,
which is necessarily clientelist. On the one hand it implies strong
social and class stratification, and on the other the strengthening of
conservative elements in the ideological sphere domain, which is in
some cases (as is the case with the latest Croatian government or
the process of rehabilitation of the Second World War collaborators
in Serbia and elsewhere) openly neo-fascist. A more detailed re-
search into the extent to which these processes have become irre-
versible in post-Yugoslav countries is beyond the scope of this text:
direct parallels between Serbia and Hungary still cannot be drawn
because Serbia has not yet implemented the structural constitu-
tional and legislative transformations of the political system that
would be reflected in an even more rigid constitution and change
of electoral laws, although there have been sporadic announcements
of the sort. The revision of private property still has not been carried
out, nor its “amendments” through a state centralised economy. On
the other hand, similarities are obvious – the concentration of power
in one political personality, clientelism, suspension of power distri-
bution, elimination of a functional opposition, changes in labour
legislation, and perhaps most notably full control of the media, that
is, “ideological apparatus”. Kornai’s thesis points out precisely the
fact that the process marked as “democratic transition” has finally
been rounded off, which means that former socialist countries have
entered a new “post-transition” phase of their development. The
question that arises is how this gradual formation of an autocratic
53
The Neoliberal Stamp on Post-socialist Art
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 53
neoliberal country of peripheral capitalism is reflected in the field
of art and artistic production.
The socialist system viewed art in a broader context of mod-
ernism as a universal meta-narrative. In this regard, communist sys-
tems, including the Yugoslav system, saw art as the key place of
political self-legitimation: socialism “with a human face” is only
possible as part of the global emancipatory meta-narrative. Thus a
communist state treats art within a kind of Hegelian teleology: the
totality (the universal) is achieved by the interaction of a multitude
of opposing subtotalities (local modernisms), not annulling but in-
tegrating them into this “higher” form of totality (the universal con-
cept of “great” modernism). Disintegration of the teleological art
narrative happened parallel with the disintegration of the socialist
project: after the fall of the Berlin Wall (if not even earlier) it was
hardly possible to speak of a universal project of modern art. From
the state of modernity, art has come to the state of contemporaneity,
that is to say, it has become a series of synchronic micronarratives,
none of which reaches the level of the Hegelian totality. Yet it would
be wrong to assume that the “transitional” state rejects all forms of
artistic teleology: the logic of liberal transition is basically teleo-
logical. Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić once said: “Our gen-
eration is a generation that has a huge responsibility. Of course,
with responsibility comes great honour. We have been chosen, we
have a mission to complete.” This mission, of course, is the Euro-
pean Union. Within such logic, history is seen as a teleological nar-
rative that leads to the ultimate self-fulfilment: the order of liberal
Europe is a kind of “homecoming”, the end of history, which can be
reached only through rejection and complete erasure of the Yu-
goslav socialist legacy. Art resumes its place within this liberal-cap-
italist  teleology:  the  concept  of  “Eastern  European  art”  is  the
construct included in the project of cultivation, “civilisation”, of
Nikola Dedić
54
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 54
local pre-modern societies into the community of European demo-
cratic nations. As Miklavž Komelj states, “Eastern” art is those post-
conceptual  practices  that  reflect  on  avant-garde  heritage
(perestroika art, soc-art, Yugoslav retro-avant-garde). The constitu-
tive element of this art is a myth of the socialist “totalitarianism”,
underlined by the broader historical process of restoring capitalism,
and therefore the global art market as well. In Komelj’s words:
The rhetoric of “Eastern art” refers to the otherness of the “East”
and the subversion of that otherness in the global art system –
which we could understand exactly as fighting against the ide-
ological disqualification of the “East” performed by the “West”
through the use of the term “totalitarianism” [...]. This thesis,
however, is nothing more than a way to incorporate the “East”
as such in the space of the “West”, that is, a globalised art market
now. Thus, of course, the “East” becomes harmless; something
that until recently represented a real threat to the “West” be-
comes a potential cultural wealth that can fill the globalised art
system with new vitality. It is about how to convert social issues
into issues of art and launch them as such onto the globalised
art market.5
This process of capitalist culturalisation of the “East” meant at
the same time the construction of an entire institutional infrastruc-
ture  of  “Eastern”  art  production:  the  paradigmatic  place  is  the
launching  of  the  Soros Centers  for Contemporary Art  network
(SCCA), and then large biennial exhibitions such as Manifesta. The
real break-up of this artistic teleology occurred only with the com-
pletion of the transition: only a neoliberal “post-transition” state
does not truly need contemporary art as a source of self-legitima-
55
The Neoliberal Stamp on Post-socialist Art
5 Komelj, 2011, 32–33, 185–201.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 55
tion. The dominant narrative of the “post-transition” cultural logic
is no longer that of a more democratic integration but one of pure
market, which is supplemented by the ideological rhetoric of “aus-
terity” and by phasing out a large part of what we once perceived
as the “public sector”. Parallel to this, there occurred a disintegra-
tion of cultural infrastructure, both the infrastructure that was built
in socialism and the one that was made up of “independent” cul-
tural and activist organisations  (NGOs),  such as  the aforemen-
tioned Soros network of Centers for Contemporary Art. That is why
the protagonists on the contemporary art scene in countries like
Serbia feel as para-institutional workers. This feeling is followed by
a disorientation in both conceptual and, even more so, institutional
sense, as well as by the feeling that a post-transition state recog-
nises only “occasional” culture (e.g. popular music festivals and sim-
ilar  commercially  viable  “entertainment”  events)  but  not  the
supposedly “serious” culture, such as contemporary art. In other
words, “post-transition” art is art which does occur within the ne-
oliberal framework, but is devoid of the “transitional” teleology of
reaching liberal democracy. 
Working in the arts also reflects well the transformation of work
caused by integration into the neoliberal market, which can be de-
scribed by the standard term of precarisation. The precarisation of
art  is  the  result  of  both  external  factors  (global  transition  from
Fordist to post-Fordist production model) and the development in-
herent in art as such. The art historian and curator Jelena Vesić ad-
vances a thesis according to which the concept of contemporaneity
was introduced in art and aesthetic debates precisely through the
construct of post-socialist transition (and thus “Eastern European”
art as well), which brought with it the “managerial” model in terms
of institutional infrastructure for the production art: the basic prem-
ise was that the culture of Eastern countries was “contaminated”
Nikola Dedić
56
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 56
with “totalitarian” ideology and state control (concern), and that the
main task of today’s historians, curators, or artists was the “opening”
of contemporaneity, which was to be achieved through a “renova-
tion”, “reconstruction” and “new management” of history. Hence,
SCCA offices have become the new meeting places of artists, but
now these places are run by hired managers (usually local art histo-
rians and critics). While in the socialist system the development of
art was decided upon by the state, the development of contemporary
art depends on the decisions of a few expert councils (modelled on
company management in the West). In this regard, “post-socialist
art exhibitions in most cases are not judged, but curated – they are
now curated either by a ‘council’ or, in later stages, by an invited cu-
rator”.6 Moreover, while modernist authors focused on the métier
(artistic skills), creating tangible artefacts/works in their studios, the
author in post-Fordist neoliberal economy conditions spends most
of his time in offices “engaging in post-studio practices, dealing with
communication, documentation, creating projects for his/her future
works, researching, planning and so on”.7 It is about constructing a
new type of artist-entrepreneur who no longer requires art institu-
tions as institutions of social care but works on the curator-manager
model, or as Vesić points out, as a self-governing individual who
solves “his/her existential issues either on the art market (still linked
to objects) or in the context of the project market”.8 This (neoliberal)
paradigm, first established within the SCCA network, remains a
model to this day.
“Post-transition” art is thus created in conditions of the complete
dismantling and disintegration of institutional frameworks that were
57
The Neoliberal Stamp on Post-socialist Art
6 Vesić, 2015, 68.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 57
initially formed in the socialist era, but it is left without even “alter-
native” institutional frameworks, which were once provided by the
ideology of “liberal” integration of post-socialist societies and its in-
herent concept of “Eastern European art”. The precarious market
model is the dominant framework of today’s art. However, at this
point there emerges a paradox which is also characteristic of global
frameworks: although it offers work in precarious conditions, often
unpaid work, social insecurity, etc., the number of art students is not
declining. The last decade saw the introduction of private higher ed-
ucation in Serbia, and one of the trends is an increase (not decrease,
as might have been expected) in the number of art academies, de-
partments of new media, digital art, art theory, curatorial practice,
design and so on. This is one of the paradoxes that point to the fact
that work in the field of art, even in precarious neoliberal conditions,
carries a specific type of symbolic value, a kind of “symbolic capital”.
The question remains how to consider this kind of cultural value
which is implied by the work in the field of art. It seems that in the
local circumstances at least three dominant discourses can be iden-
tified: (a) traditional; (b) market (or entrepreneurial); and (c) the dis-
course of contemporary art in a strict sense (this is, of course, only
an approximate and intuitive typology).
The traditional model refers to mostly common-sense guide-
lines within which a work of art is treated as an autonomous “beau-
tiful”  object  in  an  indifferent  and  non-utilitarian  sense.  An
autonomous work is an “outstanding” object, rarely a situation or
event,  which  essentially means masterfully made,  authentic  or
unique.9 This kind of “common-sense” definition of art occurs in
different contexts, and is often an argument within the institutional
realignment on the local art scene – a good example is the change
Nikola Dedić
58
9 Šuvaković, 2010, 408–411.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 58
of the Management Board and program of the October Salon, where
objections to the current concept, mainly articulated within official
art associations, rested on the argument that the Salon had stopped
dealing with “beautiful” art, authentic aesthetic values  and visual
arts, that “waste” was exhibited instead of genuinely valuable works
(according to one of the critics of the “conceptual” approach to con-
temporary art), and that international artists had been privileged
at the expense of local, national authors. On the other hand, the tra-
ditional approach is also characteristic of a phenomenon typical of
the new millennium since its beginning: the emergence of private
collectors who are mainly governed by the logic rooted deeply in
the “object market”, preferring art based on the idea of “artistic” and
aesthetically valuable art objects. Nevertheless, this “traditional”
value model often spreads beyond the scope of guild artistic circles
into the broader field of political debates and realignments: from
conservative and right-wing advocacy for an “authentic” national
culture  to,  for  example,  debates on  reality  television programs,
where the mass media aesthetics of “kitsch” are supposedly coun-
tered by “authentic” high culture and art. An example is last year’s
protest by a student organisation, “Sistem vrednosti”, which sup-
ported  a  petition  against  reality  programs  by  playing  classical
music concerts in the central city square; as the mainstream media
reported, “they say that they want museums and theatres, rather
than  ‘Farms’,  ‘Couples’ or  ‘Big Brother’, and as they stated,  they
showed that they appreciated real Serbian and European culture,
and were against the promotion of immorality and stupidity, which
abound in TV programs”.
Another model that we have singled out is the “market” or “en-
trepreneurial” model. It is a context gradually built by creative indus-
tries: in circumstances where the state withdraws from everything
that was once understood as “public goods”, including artistic pro-
59
The Neoliberal Stamp on Post-socialist Art
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 59
duction, a market environment is supposed to emerge that will en-
able economic “self-sustainable” cultural policies. One of the ways
that should allegedly make this possible is through the so-called pub-
lic-private partnerships. The basis of this is the affirmation of private
enterprise, which is based on the combination of art, social activism,
marketing, and collaboration between people working in the field of
art and private companies. One of the implicit arguments of this view
is that there is still no “real” market in our country and that our cul-
tural scene is branded by bad habits from the socialist era, rooted in
the state’s patronising attitude towards culture, as well as by the lack
of a “global trends” knowledge, successful management, and ideas.
The naivety of these views aside, if the market did not solve any of
the transition society problems, why should we expect it to resolve
cultural production issues? It is of much more importance to realise
that the “free market” concept is one of the constituent ideological
constructs  of  transition  countries:  as  indicated by Kornai  in  the
abovementioned text, peripheral capitalism rests on a centralised,
clientelist system in which the state functions as the prime regulator
of the market. The curator Vida Knežević has written most strikingly
on this issue, analysing the work of an event based on the concept of
“public-private partnership”, noting that creative industry work ac-
tually means state controlled and patronised business modelled by
local private companies, “whose business is largely non-transparent,
and rests on privatisation of social property, social infrastructure and
resources built during the period after the Second World War”.10 In
her opinion, it is a complex mechanism of institutional collusion be-
tween private business, political elites in power and the new mana-
gerial class, which actually masks the structural conflict between
work and capital.
Nikola Dedić
60
10 Knežević, 2016.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 60
Finally, the third model is the contemporary art discourse in the
narrow sense of the word. It suggests diverse post-post-avant-garde
and postconceptual practices, which have generally rejected deal-
ing with traditional art objects. What they start from is art as a form
of political practice rather than its aesthetic “content”. The institu-
tional framework of this art is based on the networking of local prac-
tices with international art “worlds”, where the underlying form is
the concept of international biennials and the increasingly frequent
art fairs. These practices are often positioned as critical, even sub-
versive in relation to the local ideological, political, aesthetic and
economic models. With reference to this, as indicated by the French
sociologist Nathalie Heinich, the main axiological determinant, a
kind of pre-condition for the integration of such a work into the
globalised contemporary art system, is transgression.11 In the mod-
ernist model, mediation between the work and the recipient tended
to be direct and unmediated (and where the artist’s main task was
expression, the rendition of his private world). Today, by contrast,
in order to enter the art system, a work of art has to question and
even go beyond the borders of what is rationally considered a work
of  art. Artists  create  ambivalent,  “transgressive” works  and  the
mechanism of their “socialisation” is achieved through a curator
and theory respectively. This is what Heinich calls the “permissive
paradox” of the contemporary art system:
We cannot understand how contemporary art functions unless
we understand that, while artists are trying to push the bound-
aries, mediators (intermediaries) simultaneously keep extend-
ing the borders so that artists can get in – while at the same time
the incompetent keep crying “but it is not art”. This is what I
61
The Neoliberal Stamp on Post-socialist Art
11 Special thanks for the comments on the transgression thesis and referral
to Nathalie Heinich’s text are due to Dr. Rade Pantić.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 61
have called in the conclusion of my book the “permissive para-
dox”, which refers to the fact that by accepting and integrating
transgressive proposals, contemporary art institutions are act-
ing in a way contrary to what artists they supposedly support
are doing because they pre-accept everything that is created as
opposed to their power.12
This is precisely the mechanism by which “Eastern art” was cre-
ated: authors create an ideologically and politically ambivalent, that
is, provocative and subversive work, and the mediation process is
carried out by specialised experts – critics, theorists, curators. A typ-
ical example of this is the famous Irwin group and the NSK (Neue
Slowenische Kunst) movement intervention, remembered in the his-
tory of art as the “poster scandal”, which rested on an ambivalent at-
titude to the thesis of “totalitarianism”; Irwin’s international success
lies in the impossibility of any “straight-line” reading of their work
either as a glorification of totalitarian ideology or as its criticism and
deconstruction. Local contemporary art scenes in former socialist
countries are marked by the influence of such a “mediation” mech-
anism, which is the basis of the global art system: local art is often
marked by internal tensions – “short circuits”. These mainly revolve
around the question which artistic gesture is “authentically” political
and which reflects “backward”, “bourgeois”, “nationalist”, “conserv-
ative” ideologies, etc. It is indirectly expected that “progressiveness”
will ensure a work’s integration into the globalised art system. An-
other typical example of this kind was a major debate about the work
Gipsies and Dogs by the artist Zoran Todorović in 2009–2010. Due
to its ambivalent character, that is, its resistance to being straight-
forwardly read either as a critical documentation of racial exploita-
Nikola Dedić
62
12 Heinich, 2007.
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 62
tion or as its racist reproduction, the work caused a stir and an insti-
tutional and ideological realignment of the scene.
We have already pointed out that a common argument in the
local art circles is the lack of a “real” market. It is argued that the for-
mation of a functional art market would solve some of the structural
problems of contemporary art production and reception. However,
we hope that it is clear from the above why this faith in the market
is at least ideologically naive: the point is exactly that the art created
in post-socialist countries is already part of the capitalist market,
that  it has already been co-opted by neoliberal  logic, no matter
whether it is circulating within traditional or contemporary models;
the point is that this market is of a peripheral type. This does not
mean that it is structurally not integrated into the mechanisms of
the global capitalist system, be it the “object market”, where private
collectors are replacing former public institutions, the market of pre-
carious work, which is taken up by increasingly clientelist-oriented
creative industries, or the “project market”, where survival in the
world of art means integration into a global network of art biennials,
residences, etc. Until concrete political answers are articulated, an-
swers which will use a new mass political movement to question the
very foundations of the current capitalist system, we can hardly ex-
pect art to escape co-optation into the neoliberal order.
Bibliography
HEINICH, N. (2007): “Soumission – Transgression” (“Submission
– Transgression”), Presentation from the Conference at the Centre
du Graphisme, December 19, 2006, Institute de la Communication
et de Médias d’Échirolles, Université Stendhal Grenoble.
KNEŽEVIĆ, V. (2016): “Kvart kulture i njegove kulise” (“Culture
Quarter and its Scenery”), http://www.masina.rs/?p=1599.
63
The Neoliberal Stamp on Post-socialist Art
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 63
KOMELJ, M. (2011): “Uloga oznake ‘totalitarizam’ u konstituisanju
polja ‘istočne umetnosti’” (The Function of the Signifier ‘Totalitar-
ianism’  in  the Constitution  of  the  ‘East Art  Field’”), Sarajevske
sveske, 32–33, 185–201.
KORNAI, J. (2015): “Hungary’s U-turn”, Capitalism and Society Vol.
10, Issue 2, Art. 1, 2–24.
ŠUVAKOVIĆ, M. (2010): “Kao zdravorazumska definicija umetni -
čkog dela” (“As a Common-Sense Definition of a Work of Art”),
Diskurzivna analiza, Belgrade, Orion Art and the Department of
Musicology of the Faculty of Music, 408–411.
VESIĆ, J. (2015): Kustoski gest u svetu savremene umetnosti (“The
Curatorial Gesture in the Contemporary Art World”), the doctoral
dissertation manuscript, Belgrade, University of Arts, 68.
Nikola Dedić
64
03 - NikolaDedic  23. 11. 2017  13:49  Page 64