18 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Gal Kirn, TU Dresden Spomeniki NOB: ponovna revolucija1 / Monuments to the People’s Liberation Struggle (PLS): Revolution reloaded1 Fig. 1: Memorial to the fallen of the PLS in Lipa (1952); photograph by Nelida Silič-Nemec, Javni spomeniki na Primorskem, 1945–1978 (1982, 137); reproduced with courtesy of Nelida Silič – Nemec. Spomeniki žrtvam narodnoosvobodilnega boja so, tako kot partizanski filmi, pomenili eno izmed po- membnih prioritet nove socialistične države. V obdo- bju med letoma 1945 in 1990 je bilo po vsej Jugosla- viji postavljenih nekaj tisoč spomenikov, posvečenih žrtvam narodnoosvobodilnega boja. Ni skrivnost, da je imela na postavitev partizanskih spomenikov velik vpliv Zveza združenj borcev narodnoosvobodilnega boja Jugoslavije (SUBNOR), ki je bila ustanovljena leta 1947. Kot navaja Sanja Horvatinčić, je ta leta 1947 postala sestavni del jugoslovanske politike spominjanja [...], kar je bilo povezano s širjenjem ideološke propagande, pa tudi s težnjo po tem, da bi upravi- čili novooblikovano družbeno in politično uredi- tev pod okriljem jugoslovanske komunistične par- tije, ki je pomenila ključni in nepogrešljivi politični dejavnik pri osvoboditvi jugoslovanskega ozemlja (2014, 174). Vendar pa je pobuda, da bi se spominu na umrle po- klonili s postavitvijo spomenikov, najprej prišla od spodaj, od običajnih ljudi, ki so želeli obuditi spomin na bližnje in proslaviti zmago nad fašizmom. Veliko spomenikov je bilo postavljenih v obdobju med leto- ma 1940 in 1950 in v tem prvem obdobju je moč zaznati kombinacijo različnih popularnih in realistič- nih skulpturnih oblik. Pri tem je zanimivo to, da veči- na spomenikov, posvečenih partizanskemu boju, v nobenem smislu ni podobna masivnim socialistično- realističnim spomenikom, ki so bili postavljeni v Sov- jetski zvezi in vzhodni Evropi.2 Nelida Silič - Nemec jih je poimenovala »ljudski arhitektonski spomeniki« (1982, 14), saj so imeli »ljudski« izvor in obliko. Ti spomeniki so bili po celotnem jugoslovanskem pro- storu postavljeni povsem spontano, kar lahko poj- mujemo kot pomemben sestavni del žalovanja obi- čajnih ljudi in kot materializacijo popularnega spomina, ki ni bila vodena od zgoraj, s strani vodite- ljev. Postavitev velike večine spomenikov, ki so bili narejeni v prvih desetih letih po vojni, je potekala nenadzorovano in brez smernic, ki bi jih postavljala komunistična partija. Spomenike so, v sodelovanju z lokalnimi umetniki in vaškimi prostovoljci, pogosto oblikovali kar kamnoseki. Te samoiniciativne prakse so botrovale postavitvi širokega spektra različnih spo- menikov: od preprostih spominskih plošč in manjših spominskih skal do skulptur obrazov ter napisov s seznami imen vojnih žrtev. Ti spomeniki in obeležja so bili večinoma posvečeni lokalnim prebivalcem in partizanom, ki so umrli v boju ali pa so bili žrtve faši- stičnega nasilja (za tipični primer gl. sliko 1). Po tem obdobju spontane in neorganizirane gradnje spomenikov so socialistične oblasti ustanovile Komi- sijo za zagotavljanje in nadaljnji razvoj tradicij osvo- bodilne fronte in dosežkov revolucije (v nadaljeva- nju Komisija). To komisijo, ki je bila zadolžena za gradnjo spomenikov, so sestavljali strokovnjaki, ve- terani in politični predstavniki, ki so razpravljali o različnih vprašanjih v zvezi z vsebino in javnimi nate- čaji ter o konceptualnih formalnih vprašanjih glede tega, čemu in pod kakšnimi pogoji je vredno posveti- ti spomin. Pri postavitvi večjih spomenikov so sode- lovali tudi občinski in/ali republiški politični organi, ki so, skupaj z veteranskimi organizacijami, igrali po- membno vlogo pri zagotavljanju materialnih in fi- nančnih sredstev za izdelavo spomenikov (cf. Hor- vantinčić 2014, 2017; Karge 2010). V petdesetih letih se je pojavil bolj realističen žanr voj- nih spomenikov v obliki partizanskih skulptur in veli- kih stenskih poslikav, ki so upodabljale zgodovinske bitke, ter velikih piramidalnih grobnic, posvečenih narodnim herojem. Ta razmah realističnih spomeni- kov so večinoma koordinirale različne organizacije, še posebej SUBNOR (Savez udruženja boraca narodno- oslobodilačkog rata – Zveza združenj borcev narodno- osvobodilnega boja) in Komisija. Te institucije so se zavzemale za bolj sistematično politiko spominjanja, poleg tega pa so skrbele tudi za financiranje velikih 1 Članek je prirejen po delu 3. poglavja knjige The Partisan Coun- ter-Archive (Partizanski kontraarhiv) (v pripravi, De Gruyter). 2 Če želite dobiti dober vpogled v politiko spominjanja v sociali- stični Jugoslaviji, preberite deli Kargejeve (2010) in Horvatin- čićeve (2014). Odmik od socialističnega realizma je bil posledica tako vpliva levice kot tudi partijske politike, ki se je leta 1948 oddaljila od Stalina. Sl. 1: Spomenik padlim v NOB v Lipi (1952); fotografija Nelida Silič - Nemec, Javni spomeniki na Primorskem, 1945–1978 (1982, 137); reprodukcija, prispevala Nelida Silič - Nemec 1 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 19arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Gal Kirn Like Partisan films, monuments to the PLS were a pri- ority for the new socialist state. Between 1945 and 1990, several thousand monuments to the PLS were erected across all Yugoslavia. It is no secret that the production of Partisan monuments or monuments to the revolution (the PLS) was formally influenced by the Alliance of Veterans’ Associations of the People's Liberation War of Yugoslavia (SUBNOR), founded in 1947. As Sanja Horvatinčić argues, this became part of the official Yugoslav politics of memory in 1947 [...] related to the need to disseminate ideo- logical propaganda as well as to legitimate the newly formed social and political order under the auspices of the Yugoslav Communist Party, which was the key and indispensable political factor in the liberation of the Yugoslav territory (2014, 174). However, the need to commemorate and to produce monuments first came from below, from ordinary people wanting to mourn their victims or celebrate the victory over fascism. Many were built from the mid-1940s to early 1950s, and thus in this first phase of memorialisation, we encounter a combination of various popular and realist forms of sculpture. Inter- estingly, the large majority of monuments to the Par- tisan struggle in no way resemble the massive social- ist realist monuments from the Soviet Union and East- ern Europe.2 Nelida Silič-Nemec called them “people’s architectonic monuments” (1982, 14), which had “vernacular” origins and forms. The spontaneous and omnipresent erection of these memorials across the Yugoslav space can be seen as an important part of ordinary people’s mourning, and a reflection and ma- terialisation of popular memory not guided from above. A large majority of the monuments erected in the first ten years after the war were built in a broadly uncontrolled manner and were not directed by the Party apparatus. Often, they were designed and built by stonemasons, sometimes in co-operation with a lo- cal artist and other village volunteers. These self-initi- ated memorial practices resulted in a wide range of monuments: from simple plaques and small memori- al rocks to sculptures of faces and inscriptions listing the names of victims. They were mostly dedicated to local villagers and Partisans who had died in the struggle or were victims of fascist violence (one typi- cal example see Fig. 1) After this more spontaneous and disorganised phase, the socialist authorities established the Commission for Ensuring and Developing Further the Traditions of the People’s Liberation War and the Achievements of the Revolution (hereinafter: the Commission) for the building of monuments, in the context of which experts, veterans, and political representatives for- mally discussed questions of content, public compe- tition for future monuments, as well as the concep- tual formal question of what can be commemorated and under which formal conditions. Furthermore, larger monuments were organised by parts of the municipal and/or the republican political apparatus, which together with veteran organisations played an important role in providing the financial and ma- terial infrastructure for the monument-building (cf. Horvantinčić 2014, 2017; Karge 2010). In the 1950s, a more realist genre of monument emerged, taking the form of Partisan sculptures and large murals depicting historical battles, but also that of larger pyramidal tombs to national heroes. This proliferation of realist monuments was largely co-ordinated by established organisations, especial- ly the Veterans Association of the People’s Libera- tion Struggle and the official Commission. These in- stitutions pursued a more systematic memory poli- tics besides financing larger projects in cities and the countryside. Their principal task was to initiate and publicly discuss new ideas for memorials which would be suitable for the framing and formalising of such abstract notions as revolution, the People’s Lib- eration Struggle, the figure of the Partisan, and brotherhood and unity. In general, however, the Commission failed to provide a clear answer as to how to represent these abstract notions, and did not prescribe a specific typology for memorial sites. Instead, their work yielded a massive proliferation of memorials in the ‘realist’ manner, where peda- gogical and historical inscriptions (content) were more important than aesthetic form. These realist monuments were not that much different from an emerging genre of memorial sites and monuments in the socialist East and the capitalist West, consist- ing of realistic (figurative) representations of victims and heroes on the one hand, and more massive me- morial plaques and tombs on the other. Monument to Revolution, again The term revolution is generally associated with the overthrow of government and violent upheaval that affects the whole of society. And since the vio- lent side of revolution is often highlighted in the historical textbooks that cover the history of the twentieth century, revolution has been long associat- ed with iconoclastic impulses. Once the former elite is overthrown, the monuments representing the former kings or institutions representing the old order (e.g. palaces and churches) are also torn down. Many art- works, from paintings to films, addressed the crum- bling of the monuments and participated in the crea- tion of the iconoclastic trope. Seen from such a per- spective, whereby revolution is a violent and short event in the past, one can immediately ask: why would there be a need to commemorate something so iconoclastic? Why remember something violent, or merely the overthrowing of power? According to this logic, new monuments can only commemorate new leaders of revolution. However, from the perspective described in this book, revolution is considered to be a transformative pro- cess that continues the dismantling of oppression long after the overthrowing of political power. The memory and monuments to/of revolution become paradoxical precisely at the moment when they are taken only as violence or as serving the new political elite (as monuments to the new leaders). Rather, monuments to revolution commemorate something that does not want to seize political power forever, something that is inscribed in the utopian emancipa- tory horizon of the future. In other words, it can con- tinue maintaining the revolutionary rupture and speaking, narrating, and representing the oppressed. Critical history and memory then demand either a permanent or temporary space that addresses eman- cipatory transformation. This demand could be met by monuments understood as interventions in space that no longer presuppose the simple “passive spec- tator” (Rancière 2011). The monument to revolution “does not commemorate or celebrate something that happened but confides to the ear of the future the persistent sensations that embody the event: the con- stantly renewed suffering of men and women, their recreated protestations, their constantly resumed struggle” (Deleuze and Guattari 1994, 176). 1 This article is a slightly revised section from the chapter 3 of the book The Partisan Counter-Archive (forthcoming, De Gruyter). 2 For a good overview of the politics of memory in socialist Yugo- slavia, see Karge (2010) and Horvatinčić (2014, 2017). The shift away from socialist realism was an outcome both of discus- sions on the left as well as of party politics stemming from the split with Stalin in 1948. 20 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 projektov v mestih in na podeželju. Njihova poglavi- tna naloga je bila spodbujanje novih idej in javnih raz- prav, povezanih z gradnjo spomenikov, ki naj bi utele- šali pojme, kot so revolucija, narodnoosvobodilni boj, partizanstvo ter bratstvo in enotnost. Vendar v splo- šnem Komisiji ni uspelo dati jasnih odgovorov na vprašanje o tem, kako naj bi spomeniki te abstraktne pojme sploh ponazarjali. Poleg tega tudi ni poskrbela za to, da bi tem spominskim obeležjem določili točno določeno tipologijo. Namesto tega je prišlo do mno- žične gradnje in širjenja »realističnih« spomenikov, pri katerih so bile poučne in zgodovinske vsebine po- membnejše od same estetike. Ti realistični spomeniki se niso kaj dosti razlikovali od vedno bolj uveljavljajo- čega se žanra spominskih obeležij in spomenikov, ki so nastajali na socialističnem vzhodu in kapitalistič- nem zahodu in ki so jih na eni strani sestavljale reali- stične upodobitve žrtev in junakov, na drugi strani pa so vključevali tudi bolj masivne spominske plošče in grobnice. Ponovno k spomenikom revolucije Sam pojem revolucije praviloma povezujemo s str- moglavljenjem vlade in nasilnimi preobrati, ki vpliva- jo na celotno družbo. In ker zgodovinski učbeniki, ki obravnavajo zgodovino 20. stoletja, pogosto pou- darjajo ravno nasilno plat revolucije, smo revolucijo dolgo povezovali z ikonoklastičnimi impulzi. Ko zruši- mo nekdanjo elito, tudi uničimo spomenike, ki pred- stavljajo nekdanje kralje, ali institucije, ki pooseblja- jo prejšnji red (npr. palače in cerkve). Mnoga umetniška dela, od slik do filmov, obravnavajo pro- padanje spomenikov in prispevajo k ustvarjanju iko- noklastičnih tropov. Če pogledamo na stvari s per- spektive tega, da revolucija pravzaprav pomeni nasilen in kratek dogodek iz preteklosti, se lahko ta- koj vprašamo, zakaj bi se sploh morali pokloniti spo- minu na nekaj, kar je tako zelo ikonoklastično. Zakaj bi morali gojiti spomin na nekaj, kar je tako nasilno ali kar pomeni zgolj rušenje moči? V skladu s to logi- ko naj bi novi spomeniki upodabljali in slavili le nove voditelje revolucije. Vendar pa je v tej knjigi revolucija opredeljena kot proces preobrazbe, s katerim se nadaljuje osvobodi- tev izpod zatiranja še dolgo po tem, ko je bila politična oblast že strmoglavljena. Spomini na revolucijo ali spomeniki revoluciji postanejo paradoksalni ali proti- slovni prav v tistem trenutku, ko se jih obravnava zgolj kot nekaj, kar predstavlja nasilje, ali kot nekaj, kar slu- ži novi politični eliti (kot spomeniki novim voditeljem). Pravzaprav spomeniki, posvečeni revoluciji, slavijo ti- sto, kar ne želi jamčiti večne politične moči, nekaj, kar je vklesano v utopično emancipacijski horizont priho- dnosti. Kritičen pogled na zgodovino in kritični spo- min torej zahtevata stalen ali začasen prostor, ki obravnava emancipacijsko transformacijo. Tej zahtevi lahko zadostijo spomeniki, ki pomenijo intervencije v prostoru in ki nič več ne predvidevajo prisotnosti pre- prostega »pasivnega opazovalca« (Rancière 2011). Spomenik, posvečen revoluciji, »ne slavi tistega, kar se je zgodilo, pač pa zaupno šepeta ušesu prihodnosti o trdovratnih občutkih, ki so povezani s takratnimi do- godki: o neprestano ponavljajočem se trpljenju mož in žena, njihovih ponavljajočih se protestih in njiho- vem nenehnem boju« (Deleuze, Guattari 1994, 176). Jugoslovanski poznomodernistični spomeniki, ki so bili posvečeni revoluciji, niso bili prvi, ki bi v tej obliki odražali in v prostor umeščali revolucionarno zača- snost in monumentalnost. Eden izmed pomembnej- ših predhodnikov jugoslovanske spomeniške strate- gije je bil nedvomno Vladimir Tatlin, ki je leta 1919 zasnoval Spomenik tretji internacionali. Tatlin je s to skulpturo oziroma stolpom, ki ni bil nikoli postavljen, odkrito kritiziral »romantične« spomenike, denimo glave, ki so ponazarjale zgodovinske osebnosti fran- coske revolucije (npr. Danton, Robespierre) in ruske revolucije (npr. Lenin, Marx in Engels). S tem delom je Tatlin želel preseči upodobitve, ki so zgolj posne- male realnost in niso dale nobenega prispevka niti k spomeniški formi in praksi niti k postrevolucijski družbi (Buck-Morss 2002). Spomenik tretji internaci- onali (gl. sliko 2) je pomenil spomenik politični orga- nizaciji, ki je v tistem času še vedno obstajala in ki je bila v središču svetovne zgodovine. Ta utopični spo- menik ni bil nikoli (popolnoma) realiziran, kar kaže na specifično nezmožnost, da bi revolucionarno ide- jo prenesli v življenje. Idealen spomenik ali spomin, ki bi verodostojno predstavljal ali slavil revolucijo, torej ni obstajal. Kljub pomislekom in zadržkom gle- de tovrstne ideje za spomenik so jugoslovanski arhi- tekti in kiparji nekatere od teh dejavnikov obravna- vali zelo resno ter svoje ideje izpopolnjevali in uresničevali tudi v praksi. Partizanski spomeniki, ki so bili izdelani v duhu mo- dernističnega gibanja, se niso zadovoljili s preprosti- mi konceptualnimi ali prostorskimi rešitvami ali z določenimi pedagoškimi vsebinami in tudi niso zgolj poveličevali junaške podobe partizana. Namesto tega je novo kiparsko gibanje, ki se je pojavilo v ob- dobju med letoma 1960 in 1970 in ki je na novo opredelilo jugoslovanske »spomenike revoluciji« ter prispevalo k njihovemu razvoju, sledilo Marxovi zna- ni 11. tezi o Feuerbachu, ki pravi: bistvo nove spo- meniške oblike ne temelji zgolj na interpretaciji umetnostnozgodovinskih norm in obujanju spomi- nov na preteklost, ampak naj bi se spomeniška obli- ka spreminjala v luči prihodnje komunistične druž- be. Eden izmed najpomembnejših prispevkov jugoslovanskih modernističnih spomenikov je ravno v njihovem raziskovanju in materializaciji revolucio- narne začasnosti in modalnosti v prostorih, kjer so postavljeni. Drugače povedano, ti spomeniki utele- šajo produktivno kombinacijo diskontinuitete (upo- raba tradicionalnih oblik, zatiranje vsebin) in konti- nuitete (nagovarjanje s stališča zatiranih, sklicevanje na nekdanje in prihodnje revolucionarne subjekte in forme), pri čemer se hkrati izogibajo izključno vzgoj- ni, propagandistični vlogi. Poznosocialistični monumentalni modernizem ne te- melji na nobeni skupni tipologiji niti na nobenem mani- festu, ki je denimo združil kiparje in arhitekte. Tu ni to- rej nobene enotnosti, ravno nasprotno, nenavadne tipologije spomenikov sta zaznamovala intenzivna ra- znolikost in eksperimentiranje: zdi se, da so včasih te tipologije monumentalne in simbolične (stisnjene pe- sti, zvezde, dlani, krila, cvetje, skale itd.), včasih pa strukturno drzne, celo nezemeljske. Pobudniki tega monumentalnega »gibanja« so bili umetniki, arhitekti in kiparji, kot so Vojin Bakić, Drago Tršar, Edvard Ravni- kar, Bogdan Bogdanović, Dušan Džamonja, Miodrag Živković, Gradimir Medaković in drugi. Njihova dela so spodbudila imanenten proces, ki je prispeval k nizu estetskih inovacij na področju spomeniške dejavnosti. Tovrstno »navdušenje nad estetiko« je spodbudilo tudi nadaljnje politično občudovanje spomenikov, posveče- nih narodnoosvobodilnemu boju. Kljub nenehnemu uničevanju spomenikov revoluciji v devetdesetih letih, kar je pomenilo del »čiščenja spomenikov«, in kljub za- nemarjanju spomenikov s strani političnih oblasti, ki so jih prepustile naravnemu propadanju, so mnogi spo- meniki še vedno lepo ohranjeni in tvorijo simbolični zemljevid partizanske Jugoslavije (glej sliko 3).3 Jugoslovanski spomeniki revoluciji so bili postavljeni v krajih, kjer so se odvijali zgodovinsko pomembni do- godki partizanskega boja, torej so bili umeščeni zunaj vasi in mest. Kot takšni torej ne stojijo na izpostavlje- nih javnih krajih, kot so avenije in trgi velikih mest, kjer so postavljena tudi številna druga spominska obeležja, ki zaznamujejo vsakodnevno življenje ljudi v mestih. Ti spomeniki so bili postavljeni v naravo in tako pogosto služijo kot parki in prostori za preživlja- nje prostega časa; tam so tudi prostori, namenjeni piknikom, restavracije in celo hoteli. V teh spominskih parkih lahko obiščete muzeje in amfiteatre, ki so neke vrste učilnice na prostem. Spominski parki so tako po- stali hibridni kompleksi, ki združujejo prosti čas in izo- braževanje, arhitekturo in kiparstvo ter povezujejo objekte in okolico, ki jih obdaja. Spomeniki revoluciji stopajo v dialog z naravo in zaradi svoje drzne monu- mentalnosti vanjo tudi posegajo – lahko bi celo trdili, da naravo preveč določajo in pogosto celo spremenijo njen videz. To je v skladu s starejšim modelom sociali- stičnega modernizma, ki na eni strani naravo uokvirja, na drugi strani pa hkrati poudarja vseobsežnost parti- zanskega boja. Pri tem je pomembno poudariti tudi to, da ti spomeniki ne objokujejo zgolj padlih partiza- nov in žrtev fašističnega boja, ampak tudi proslavljajo zmago zatiranih. Če želimo opevati revolucijo, mora- mo pri občinstvu spodbujati zavedanje o obstoju uni- verzalnih uporniških gest, revolucionarne emancipa- cije in transnacionalizma. Zaradi abstraktnosti spomenikov revoluciji in njihovega sklicevanja na za- puščino sovjetske avantgarde lahko trdimo, da sodijo v pozno modernistično obdobje. Vendar pa lahko za- radi njihove dovršenosti in vsesplošne razširjenosti govorimo o njihovem lastnem, specifičnem moderni- stičnem jeziku, ki vključuje značilnosti, kakršne zasle- dimo pri peščici drugih, predvsem sovjetskih spome- nikov. V tem smislu ni pretirana trditev, da je Vzhod v primerjavi z Zahodom razvil mnogo bolj kompleksne in dovršene spomenike, posvečene revoluciji in zmagi nad fašizmom.4 3 Tragična dimenzija tranzicije v postsocialistični in postjugoslo- vanski prostor se močno začuti v dediščini spomenikov in spo- minskih kompleksov po vsej nekdanji Jugoslaviji in, lahko do- damo, tudi povsod na nekdanjem Vzhodu (Radonić 2009): stare spomenike so uničevali in zapuščali, zgodovino na nacio- nalistični način prirejali, novi spomeniki – estetsko revni – pa so izražali politični obrat v desno. Temo podrobno obravnavam drugod (Kirn 2012). 4 Kljub Chaubinovemu pristopu, ki je povsem estetiziran, njego- ve fotografije ujamejo nekaj impresivnih primerov moderni- stičnih spomenikov poznega socializma v sovjetskem prostoru, ki si z nekaterimi jugoslovanskimi spomeniki delijo abstrak- tnost, drznost in onstranskost. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 21arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 The Yugoslav late modernist monuments to the revo- lution were not the first to reflect and spatialise revo- lutionary temporality and monumentality in this form. One of the central predecessors to the Yugoslav monument policy was undoubtedly Vladimir Tatlin, who in 1919 designed his Monument to the Third In- ternational. Tatlin’s intervention, which was never realised, openly criticised the ‘romantic’ monuments – i.e. heads – that represented historical personalities from the French (e.g., Danton, Robespierre) and Rus- sian revolutions (e.g. Lenin, Marx and Engels). Tatlin’s work attempted to move beyond such representa- tions, which only imitated reality and did not contrib- ute anything new either to monumental form and practice or to (post-)revolutionary society (Buck- Morss 2002). The Third International (see Fig. 2) was a ‘monument’ to a political organisation that still ex- isted at that time and which was very much at the centre of a world history directed from below. This utopian monument was never (fully) realised, but this failure already points to the specific impossibility of directly translating the revolutionary idea into life. There can be no perfect monument or memory that truthfully represents and commemorates revolution. Notwithstanding the reservations about and contra- dictions of such an idea for a monument, Yugoslav architects and sculptors took some of these aspects seriously, and also succeeded in realising and elabo- rating them in practice. The new Partisan monuments of the modernist movement were not content with simple conceptual or spatial solutions – they neither merely professed a specific pedagogical content nor glorified the heroic individual figure of the Partisan. Rather, the new movement of sculptors, which redefined and contrib- uted to Yugoslav ‘monuments to revolution’, emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and paraphrased Marx’s fa- mous 11th Thesis on Feuerbach: the point of the new memorial form is not only to interpret the art history of the canon and to memorialise the past but also to change it in light of the future communist society. One of the major contributions of the Yugoslav mod- ernist monuments lies precisely in their investigation and materialisation of a revolutionary temporality and modality in the spaces they occupy. In other words, they embody a productive juxtaposition be- tween discontinuity (with old traditions in form and oppressions in content) and continuity (speaking from the standpoint of the oppressed, referring to previous and future revolutionary subjects and forms) while also avoiding a purely educational- propagandist function. The late socialist monumental modernism is unified neither by a common typology nor by a manifesto that would bring sculptors and architects together. Rather than unity, there was a strong diversity and experimentation that marked their distinctive typolo- gies: at times monumental and symbolic (represent- ing fists, stars, hands, wings, flowers, rocks, etc.), while at other times bold and structurally daring, even otherworldly. The monument ‘movement’ was initiated by artists, architects, and sculptors such as Vojin Bakić, Drago Tršar, Edvard Ravnikar, Bogdan Bogdanović, Dušan Džamonja, Miodrag Živković, Gradimir Medaković, and others. Their works, to- gether with discussions from above and from below, initiated an immanent process that managed to lo- cate a series of aesthetic innovations in the field of monumental practice. Such an ‘aesthetic rupture’ may be regarded as an extension of the political rup- ture of the PLS. Despite the continual destruction of the monuments to the revolution during the 1990s as part of ‘memorial cleansing’ or negligence by the po- litical authorities, which left them to the processes of natural decay, there are still a fair number of them that remain in good shape and they form a symbolic map of Partisan Yugoslavia (see Fig. 3).3 Yugoslav monuments to the revolution were erected on historic sites of the Partisan struggle, in open landscapes outside villages and towns. As such, they do not occupy the much more classic and visible pub- lic sites of representation such as the avenues and squares of big cities, where they would leave sover- eign imprints on the daily life of citizens. These me- morials are thus sited in nature and often function as parks and leisure destinations with picnic facilities, restaurants, and even hotels. In many of these me- morial parks, one can visit museums or amphithea- tres, which exist as open-air classrooms. Conceived in this way, memorial parks became hybrid complexes, merging leisure with education, architecture with sculpture, and objects with the surrounding land- scape. Monuments to the revolution enter into a dia- logue with nature and intervene in it due to their bold monumentality – one could even argue that they overdetermine and de-nature nature itself. This is in line with an older model of socialist modernisation, which puts a frame around nature while simultane- ously emphasising the spatiality of the Partisan struggle. Importantly, these monuments do not only mourn fallen Partisans and the victims of fascist vio- lence but celebrate the victory of the oppressed. To commemorate revolution means to provide audienc- es with the knowledge and understanding of the uni- versal gestures of resistance, revolutionary emanci- pation, and also transnationalism. It can be claimed that monuments to the revolution are late modernist since they are aesthetically abstract and refer to the Soviet avant-garde legacy. However, due to their elaboration and proliferation, we can speak of their own specific memorial modernist language which combines features that can be traced back to only a few other, mostly Soviet, monuments. In this respect, it is not an exaggeration to claim that the East devel- oped a more complex and elaborate monument to revolution and victory over fascism than the West.4 3 The tragic dimensions of the transition to post-socialist and post-Yugoslav space were felt gravely in the monumental lega- cy and memorial landscapes across former Yugoslavia, and in- deed across the whole former East (Radonić 2009): while the old monuments were being destroyed and abandoned, and history was being revised in a manifestly nationalist manner, the new monuments – poor in their aesthetic qualities – ex- pressed the right-wing political turn. I analyse this in detail else- where (Kirn 2012). 4 Despite the purely aestheticising approach of Chaubin, his photos captured a few impressive examples of late socialist modernist monuments in the Soviet space that share the ab- stract, bold, and otherworldly features of certain Yugoslav monuments. Fig. 2: Monument to the Third International; Vladimir Tatlin (1919). Public domain. Fig. 3: Map of Yugoslav monuments to the revolution from the album Spomeniki revolucije (Monuments to the Revolution), a popular album with stickers of monuments to revolution from the early 1980s, which included 190 of the most famous memorials. Public domain. 2 Slika 2: Spomenik tretji internacionali; Vladimir Tatlin (1919). V javni lasti. Slika 3: Zemljevid jugoslovanskih spomenikov revoluciji iz albuma Spomeniki revoluciji, zelo priljubljenega albuma z nalepkami spomenikov revoluciji iz zgodnjih osemdesetih let, ki je vseboval 190 najbolj znanih spomenikov. V javni lasti. 3 Gal Kirn 22 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Obiskovalci, ki danes obiščejo jugoslovanske spome- nike revoluciji, lahko opazijo, da so mnogi spomeniki poškodovani in zapuščeni, nekateri med njimi pa tudi lepo ohranjeni. Nesporno pa je, da ti spomeniki niko- gar ne pustijo ravnodušnega. Narejeni so zelo domi- selno in lahko se jih obravnava kot ambasadorje z oddaljenih zvezd ali kot priče nerealizirane prihodno- sti. Znotraj postjugoslovanskega konteksta so se pre- oblikovali v neke vrste spekter nerešene in napredne preteklosti, ki vztrajno preganja sedanjost majhnih nacionalističnih skupnosti. Ti modernistični spomeni- ki izvabljajo spomine na dramatične zgodovinske do- godke in poudarjajo jugoslovanski transnacionalni projekt. Izmed vseh objektov, ki so bili izdelani v soci- alistični Jugoslaviji, so ravno spomeniki revoluciji tisti, ki najbolje utelešajo presežno vrednost partizanstva. Tem spomenikom je uspelo uvesti nova »načela este- tike«, ki jih odlikuje kritično videnje oziroma odmik od obstoječih norm realističnih in popularnih spome- nikov, zgrajenih po drugi svetovni vojni. Za ponazori- tev nekaterih od zgoraj navedenih trditev bom na kratko opisal dve študiji primera, ki se nanašata na spomenika na Kozari in Tjentištu. Spomenika na Kozari in Tjentištu: od uporniških in asimetričnih krogov do formalne prekinitve Kozara in Tjentište, ki sodita med najpomembnejše spominske parke nekdanje Jugoslavije, sta bila za- snovana kot hibridna kompleksa, ki združujeta prosti čas in izobraževanje, in pomenita arhitekturna vr- hunca jugoslovanskega monumentalnega »gibanja«. V primeru Kozare lahko ugotovimo, da se muzejstvo in kiparstvo stapljata v eno, pri čemer kiparstvo po- stane del širšega amfiteatra. Ta deluje kot učilnica na prostem in kot prostor diskusij, ki spodbuja ljudi k druženju in skupnim razpravam. Naravno okolje spo- menika na Kozari omogoča različne vrste dejavnosti – od turizma in izletov v naravo do organiziranih šol- skih ekskurzij s kratkimi predavanji, prezentacijami in plesi. V današnjem času pa se tam odvijajo tudi nacionalistično-revizionistična srečanja. Spomenika na Kozari in Tjentištu sta bila postavljena v spreminjajočih se političnih razmerah poznih šest- desetih in zgodnjih sedemdesetih let, ko je – prvič po koncu druge svetovne vojne – Jugoslavija dožive- la ekonomsko in ideološko krizo. Pri tem je pomemb- no poudariti, da so v tem času leve sile (študentska gibanja in kulturna iniciativa ter delavske stavke) pr- vič izzvale socialistično oblast in Tita ter zahtevale več (pristnega) komunizma. Temu je sledil pojav de- sničarskega nacionalizma, kamor še posebej sodijo gibanje MASPOK na Hrvaškem (bolj znano pod ime- nom hrvaška pomlad) in etnični spori na Kosovu.5 Ideologija nacionalističnih gibanj je spodbudila na- stanek protikomunističnih in tradicionalističnih ele- mentov, sklicevanje na nacionalno kulturo in celo ponovno vzpostavitev lokalnega fašizma. Če so bili za zgodnja sedemdeseta leta značilni estetski vrhun- ci modernističnega monumentalnega gibanja, so nekdanje razprave o formalizaciji revolucije in parti- zanskega boja sedaj postale podvržene naraščajoče- mu valu nacionalizma. Politično sfero je začel razje- dati strah pred državljansko vojno, kar je leta 1971 v svojem govoru poudaril tudi sam Tito, ko je dejal: »Se želite vrniti v leto 1941? To bi bila resnično prava katastrofa.« Teh spomenikov torej ni mogoče ločiti od splošnih razprav v tistem času: spomeniki so bili narejeni zato, da bi z njimi nasprotovali ekstremne- mu nacionalizmu ter okrepili transnacionalno soli- darnost in revolucijo med jugoslovanskimi narodi in ostalimi nacijami, ki so se materializirale s pomočjo partizanskega boja (cf. Neutelings 2010). Te politične ideje so zaradi situacije po razpadu Jugoslavije zelo očitno zbledele, kar pa ni zasenčilo pomembnega estetskega prispevka samih spomenikov. Odnos med politiko in estetiko je prepričljivo ponazoril Rancière s trditvijo, da je intenziven »estetski prelom« (2009) povezan tako s kršenjem pravil, ki jih narekujejo že uveljavljeni estetski žanri, kot tudi z lansiranjem de- mokratičnih in odprtih političnih procesov, pa najsi bo to na strani »emancipiranega opazovalca« ali v smislu vključevanja ali izključevanja tistega, kar je ali kar bi moralo biti predstavljeno. V tem smislu spo- menika, ki sta podrobneje opisana spodaj, ponazar- jata prav to »estetsko navdušenje«: to sta spomeni- ka, ki zaradi svoje abstraktne oblike očitno pomenita odmik od tega, kar naj bi poosebljalo dominantni monumentalni žanr partizanskih spomenikov; ven- dar kljub svoji abstraktnosti odkrito nagovarjata svo- je historične reference: če spomenik revoluciji na Kozari obravnava predvsem brazgotine oziroma bo- leče spomine na neuspeli partizanski boj in poraz partizanov med fašističnim obleganjem, je spome- nik na Tjentištu primarno posvečen pomembni zma- gi partizanskega upora in boja. Prvi primer, spomenik revoluciji na Kozari, stoji v se- verni Bosni in Hercegovini, na najvišji točki z gozdom poraščenega pogorja. Dušan Džamonja je bil – poleg 5 Za več podrobnosti glej Dragović-Soso (2002), Kirn (2019). Slika 4: Spomenik revolucije ljudstva Moslavine, Dušan Džamonja in arhitekt Vladimir Veličković (1967), Podgarić (Hrvaška), prispeval Marko Krojač Slika 5: Spomenik revoluciji (Kozara); Dušan Džamonja (1972); fotografija: Robert Burghardt, reproducirano z dovoljenjem 4 Vojina Bakića – eden izmed najplodovitejših jugoslo- vanskih kiparjev in si je v petdesetih in šestdesetih letih s svojimi skulpturami pridobil precejšnjo med- narodno slavo. Džamonja je pri oblikovanju svojih skulptur precej eksperimentiral z bronom in železom, pa tudi z lesom, steklom, betonom in poliestrom. Partizanske spomenike je začel izdelovati že zelo zgo- daj, pri čemer sta še zlasti pomembna spomenik Stje- panu Filipoviću v Valjevu (1953) in njegov prvi spo- menik revoluciji v naselju Podgarić (glej sliko 4). Leta 1969 je Džamonja zmagal na jugoslovanskem natečaju za spomenik, posvečen revoluciji, v kraju Mrakovica. Spominski kompleks na Kozari je njegov najambicioznejši in največji spomenik. Postavljen je bil leta 1972 (glej sliko 5), trideset let po fašističnem obleganju in bitki na Kozari. Spominski kompleks je sestavljen iz dveh glavnih delov. V prvem delu je pla- to, ki nas popelje skozi gozd do osrednjega dela spo- menika, kar za obiskovalce ustvari posebno vzdušje, saj spomenik, medtem ko stopajo proti njemu, po- časi raste pred njihovimi očmi. Spomenik je narejen v obliki valja, ki ga sestavlja dvajset visokih trapezoi- dnih stebrov iz betona. Med stebri so stožčaste od- prtine, izdelane tako, da se človeškemu telesu uspe zriniti skoznje. Tako lahko obiskovalci skozi te stožča- ste odprtine vstopijo v spomenik, pri čemer pa je lažje vstopiti kot izstopiti. Izstopanje iz spomenika je lahko fizično precej neprijetno. Znotraj valja obisko- valci stojijo v temnem, dimniku podobnem prostoru, od koder lahko ujamejo zgolj bežen pogled na zuna- njost, kar jim omogočajo vertikalne razpoke, skozi katere pronica svetloba. Tako se ustvari neprijeten občutek ujetosti, kar nazorno ponazarja grozljive do- godke, ki so se med drugo svetovno vojno zgodili na pogorju Kozare. Nacistične vojaške enote so takrat skupaj s svojimi ustaškimi sodelavci obkolile bližnje gozdove ter tako sklenile obroč okrog partizanov in vaščanov. Pri tem je sodelovalo 40.000 fašističnih vojakov, ki so obkolili 5.500 partizanov in 80.000 civi- listov. Iz obroča je uspelo pobegniti zgolj 1.600 parti- zanom in majhnemu delu civilistov (15.000). Na tiso- če mladih moških je bilo ubitih, v ujetništvu je umrlo tudi veliko otrok. Ostale so premestili v Slavonijo, jih izgnali v koncentracijska taborišča ali pa so jih kot delovno silo deportirali na Norveško in v Nemčijo. Partizani in domačini s Kozare so za svojo vstajo pla- čali zelo visoko ceno in tako je Kozara postala etnič- no očiščeno področje, na katerem strašijo duhovi upora in duhovi umrlih. Poleg domiselne postavitve samega amfiteatra je največja estetska vrednost spomenika revoluciji na Kozari Džamonjeva uporaba koncentričnih krožnih oblik, ki jih lahko opazimo že pri njegovih prejšnjih kiparskih eksperimentiranjih. V zgodovinsko-kultur- nem okolju Kozare te krožne oblike ustvarijo trojni učinek. Prvič, spominjajo na kolo, tradicionalni ples ljudi s Kozare, ki so bili pretežno srbske narodnosti. Nadalje se krog nanaša na klavstrofobično izkušnjo partizanov in vaščanov, ki so jih obkolili fašisti, ljudi, ki so bili tedne ujeti v sovražnem obroču, kar ni bilo zgolj poskus, da bi zlomili partizanski upor, pač pa tudi način etničnega čiščenja ter brisanja ljudske in kulturne dediščine. In tretjič, spomenik aludira na to, Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 23arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Visitors to Yugoslav monuments to the revolution nowadays encounter diverse circumstances regard- ing the degree of their damage and abandonment, or in some cases their good state of repair. It is unlikely, however, that these monuments should leave any- one indifferent. They are highly imaginative and can be seen as ambassadors from far-away stars or, more concretely, witnesses of an unrealised future. Within the post-Yugoslav context, they turn into a sort of spectre of an unresolved and far more pro- gressive past which keeps haunting the present of small nationalist communities. These modernist monuments trigger memories of the historical drama and the wager of the Yugoslav transnational project. Of all the structures produced in socialist Yugoslavia, the monuments to the revolution come closest to capturing and formalising the Partisan surplus. They succeeded in practising a new ‘politics of aesthetics’ that criticised or rather distantly departed from the existing canon of realist and popular memorials built after WWII. To illustrate some of the above points I will briefly turn to two case studies: Kozara and Tjentište monuments. Kozara and Tjentište memorial sites: From resistant and asymmetrical circles to formal rupture Kozara and Tjentište belong to the major memorial parks designed as hybrid complexes merging leisure with education; both monuments represent architec- tural peaks of the Yugoslav monumental ‘movement.’ In the case of Kozara, one finds that the museum and sculpture merge into one, while the sculpture also becomes part of a greater amphitheatre. The amphi- theatre works as an open-air classroom and discus- sion space, inviting people to congregate and enter into conversation with one another. Its natural set- ting fosters different public uses by visitors, from tourism and nature trips to organised school excur- sions featuring short lectures, presentations, dances, and nowadays also nationalist-revisionist meetings. These two memorial sites emerged in the changing political context of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when – for the first time since the end of WW2 – Yu- goslavia entered an economic and ideological crisis. It is noteworthy that the socialist authorities and Tito were first challenged by left-wing forces, from the student movement and cultural initiatives to work- ers’ strikes, which demanded more (genuine) com- munism. This was followed by the emergence of right-wing nationalism, especially the Maspok move- ment in Croatia (more commonly known as the Croa- tian Spring) and ethnic strife in the Kosovo region.5 The ideological composition of the nationalist move- ments included anticommunist and traditionalist components, references to national culture and even the rehabilitation of local fascism. If the arrival of early 1970s saw the aesthetic peak of the modernist monument movement, its earlier discussions on the formalisation of the revolution and Partisan struggle now became exposed to the rising tide of national- ism. The ghost of the civil war (from WW2) was haunting the political sphere and in 1971, Tito him- self underlined this in his speech: “Would you like to return to 1941? This would be a true disaster.” Hence, these monuments cannot be separated from their in- terventions in general discussions of the day: they were designed to counter (extreme) nationalism and strengthen transnational solidarity and revolution among the Yugoslav people and the nations that ma- terialised through the Partisan struggle (cf. Neu- telings 2010). This political inscription, which has so obviously faded away in and due to the post-Yugoslav situation, did not overshadow the aesthetic contribu- tion of these monuments. The relationship between politics and aesthetics was forcefully tackled by Ran- cière, who claims that a strong “aesthetic rupture” (2009) has to do not only with the breaking of estab- lished aesthetic genre(s) but also with the launching of a democratic and open political process, be it on the side of the “emancipated spectator”, or in terms of inclusion or disruption of what is or ought to be represented. In this respect, the monuments I ana- lyse below present precisely such an “aesthetic rup- ture”: monuments that evidently represent a break in terms of their abstract form from what I briefly showed to be the dominant monumental genre of Partisan monuments; however, despite being ab- stract monuments (featuring museums and inscrip- tions), they openly address their historical references: if the monument to the revolution in Kozara primarily deals with the scars of Partisan resistance and its de- feat in the fascist siege, then Tjentište focuses on a major victory of the Partisan resistance. The first example, the monument to the revolution in Kozara, is located in northern Bosnia and Herzegovi- na, on the highest point of a forested mountain range. Beside Vojin Bakić, Dušan Džamonja was one of the most prolific Yugoslav sculptors and became internationally renowned for his sculptures during the 1950s and 1960s. Džamonja experimented with bronze and iron, but also with wood, glass, concrete, and polyester in his geometric ‘plastic’ sculptural in- terventions. Furthermore, from early on in his career, he had designed Partisan monuments (notably the monument to Stjepan Filipović in Valjevo, 1953) and also his first monument to the revolution, in Podgarić (see Fig. 4). In 1969 he won the all-Yugoslav competition for the monument to the revolution in Mrakovica. Kozara memorial complex is the most ambitious and compre- hensive memorial site which he designed. The imple- mentation was completed in 1972 (see Fig. 5), 30 years after the siege and battle on Kozara. The memo- rial complex consists of two major parts; the approach to the first one is by means of a platform leading through a forest to the central area of the monument, creating an atmosphere for the visitors seeing a mon- ument gradually grow in front of their eyes at they walk. The monument is formed as a cylinder consist- ing of twenty tall trapezoid pillars made of concrete, with conical gaps between them. The visitors can en- ter the monument through these gaps, which are spaced precisely so as to allow human bodies to squeeze through them. The conical shape of the gaps enabling access to the monument makes it easier to get in than to get out; squeezing out of the monument 5 For details see Dragović-Soso (2002), Kirn (2019). Fig. 4: Monument to the Revolution of the People of Moslavina, Dušan Džamonja and the architect Vladimir Veličković (1967), Podgarić (Croatia), courtesy of Marko Krojač. Fig. 5: Monument to the Revolution (Kozara); Dušan Džamonja (1972); photograph by Robert Burghardt, reproduced with permission. 5 is a physically unpleasant act. Inside the cylinder, visi- tors stand in a dark, chimney-like space, only able to catch glimpses of the outside world via the vertical slits allowing only glimmers of light to pass through. The physical form thus produces an uneasy feeling of entrapment, which clearly refers to the horrific experi- ences that took place during WW2 in the Kozara mountain range. Nazi troops surrounded the neigh- bouring forests with the help of Ustasha collaborators and closed in on the Partisans and villagers. The mili- tary might of 40,000 fascists encircled 5,500 Partisan fighters and 80,000 civilians. Some 1,600 Partisans and only a small portion of the civilian population (15,000) managed to escape the siege. Thousands of young men were summarily executed, many children died in captivity, while others were displaced in the Slavonia region in concentration camps, or sent as forced labour to Norway and Germany. The Partisans and people of Kozara paid a high price for their anti- fascist uprising and became an ethnically cleansed region haunted by the ghosts of resistance, of the dis- placed and executed Kozara people. Gal Kirn 24 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 da krog, ki upodablja kolo, ne ponazarja zgolj splošne kohezivne vezi večnacionalnega plesa miru, ampak simbolizira tudi kohezivno vez partizanskega upora in protifašistične solidarnosti. Slednja je tudi spodbudi- la ljudi s Kozare, da so »zaplesali« skupaj s partizani in presegli etnično sovraštvo. Tako so bili ustvarjeni trije koncentrični krogi: spodnji, ki ponazarja pred- vojno medetnično ljudsko dediščino (kolo), drugi, ki ponazarja fašistično obleganje Kozare, in tretji, ki simbolizira protifašistični partizanski upor in težnjo po sobivanju v večnacionalni skupnosti. Dejstvo, da zgornja valjasta oblika pri tem ostaja odprta – usmer- jena je v nebo, in ne v tla – ne ponazarja zgolj poti, ki jo je prehodil manjši del partizanov in civilistov, ki se jim je uspelo prebiti skozi obroč na svobodo, ampak označuje tudi misel, da ti krogi ne ponazarjajo zgolj ene nacije (srbski narod in njegov upor proti fašizmu in hrvaškim ustašem) ali zmage fašistov, ki so s svojo silno močjo uničili partizanske sile in srbsko populaci- jo. Fašistični obroč je torej moč prebiti zgolj s solidar- nostjo in napori, ki temeljijo na ljudski in kulturni dediščini tega specifičnega področja in prispevajo k transformaciji njegove domnevno »avtentične« de- diščine ter ga vodijo v novo prihodnost. Drugi primer, ki bi ga želel analizirati, je spominski kompleks na Tjentištu, ki se zgodovinsko nanaša na fašistično obleganje glavnega partizanskega povelj- stva v osrednji Bosni in Hercegovini leta 1943.6 Ta fašistična ofenziva je pomenila enega najbolj nego- tovih trenutkov celotnega jugoslovanskega partizan- skega gibanja v drugi svetovni vojni. V tej bitki je bilo jedro partizanskih sil, skupaj z glavnim štabom in ti- soči ranjencev, ujeto v visokem pogorju na meji med Črno goro in Hercegovino. Nacistov, fašistov in osta- lih kolaboracionističnih vojaških enot je bilo skoraj desetkrat več kot jugoslovanskih partizanov, ki so si v boju na življenje in smrt prizadevali za lastno preži- vetje. V gozdovih blizu vasi Tjentište je bilo ubitih na tisoče civilistov in partizanov, toda preživeli so se, po zaslugi svojega poguma in vztrajnosti ter presenetlji- vih potez komandanta 1. proletarske brigade Koče Popovića, na koncu le prebili skozi sovražni obroč. Ta uspešni preboj ni pomenil le uspešne rešitve in pre- živetja jedra partizanskih sil in glavnega štaba, am- pak je njihova uspešna rešitev iz peklenskega sovra- žnega obroča prispevala tudi k temu, da so bile partizanske vojaške enote poslej deležne podpore mednarodnih zavezniških sil. Po drugi svetovni vojni je bila Sutjeska razglašena za nacionalni park, leta 1985 pa so vanj vključili še spo- minski park s pokopališčem za 3.301 padlega parti- zana. Leta 1971 so spominski prostor razširili z zgra- ditvijo spomenika, ki ga je ustvaril Miodrag Živković, eden najkonsistentnejših jugoslovanskih kiparjev, ki je ustvaril vrsto različnih spomenikov po vsej državi. Zadnji del spominskega kompleksa na Tjentištu je bil zgrajen leta 1975, ko je bila postavljena spominska hiša s fascinantnimi stenskimi poslikavami, ki jih je naslikal slavni jugoslovanski slikar Krsto Hegedušić s svojimi sodelavci. Osrednji del spomeniškega kom- pleksa leži v bližini vasi Tjentište (glej sliki 6 in 7). Živkovićev spomenik sestavljata dve monumentalni be- tonski formi oziroma skali, ki označujeta mesto uspe- šnega preboja in hkrati tvorita umetno sotesko. Obi- skovalci pridejo do spomenika tako, da prehodijo sto stopnic, ki vodijo k njemu. Sama skulptura nagovarja Slika 6: Spomenik na Tjentištu od daleč; oblikovanje: Miodrag Živković (1971); fotografija: Robert Burghardt, reproducirano z dovoljenjem Slika 7: Amfiteater na Tjentištu; oblikovanje: Miodrag Živković (1971); fotografija: Robert Burghardt, reproducirano z dovoljenjem Slika 8: fotografija Hegedušićevega spomenika v času socialistične Jugoslavije. V javni lasti. Slika 9: fotografija Hegedušićevega spomenika (v interakciji s pokrajino) v obdobju po vojni v Bosni in Hercegovini v devetdesetih letih. Z dovoljenjem Goranke Matić. 6 7 obiskovalce k temu, da tudi sami doživijo prebijanje skozi gore in izpostavljenost na obeh straneh soteske. Spomenik s svojo obliko zbuja misel na to, da je moč zdrobiti tudi trdnost sovražnega obroča. Konfiguracija betonskih oblik se glede na gibanje obiskovalca ne- nehno spreminja. Ko se spomeniku približujemo od spodaj, se zdita skali zelo mogočni in monolitni. Ko pa prečkamo prehod med obema skalama, se skulptur- na forma odpre in postane bolj prefinjena ter svojo kvazisimetrično in monolitno podobo spremeni. Ko se pomikamo po poti navzgor, vidimo spomenik od zgoraj, in takrat se nam zdi, da sta se skali spremenili v krili. In če nadaljujemo hojo po poti, ki vodi navzdol do majhnega muzeja, se nam dozdeva, da sta se skali razblinili v prste. Rahla stilizacija iz skal izhajajočih popačenih človeških glav (mrtvi partizani) naredi for- mo še bolj kompleksno. Premikanje telesa in s tem perspektive v odnosu do samega objekta tako ustvar- ja zelo subtilne učinke. Na začetku nam frontalni po- gled na obe skali ustvari vtis simetričnosti, ki se, ko gremo skozi spomenik, pretvori v vtis asimetričnosti. Skali sta si podobni, nista pa identični. Spomenik na Tjentištu kaže na asimetrično in neuravnoteženo na- ravo samega boja, v katerem so bili partizani uspešni, čeprav so bile okupatorske sile številčno močnejše in bolje oborožene. Čeprav spomenik na Tjentištu po- meni poseg v naravno okolje nacionalnega parka Su- tjeska, tamkajšnje naravno okolje hkrati tudi prav lepo dopolnjuje, saj narava v kombinaciji s tem mo- numentalnim dodatkom, postavljenim na območju srhljivih usmrtitev in partizanskega preboja, deluje še mogočneje. V spominski hiši, ki stoji za spomenikom, je trinajst velikih fresk, ki jih je naslikal hrvaški slikar Krsto Hege- dušić s svojimi sodelavci. Freske, ki upodabljajo takra- tne dogodke, obstajajo še danes, čeprav so nekatere med njimi poškodovane (cf. Dimitrijević 2015). Te stenske poslikave so eno najbolj navdušujočih ume- tniških del iz časa nekdanje Jugoslavije, posvečenih spominu na narodnoosvobodilni boj (glej sliki 8 in 9). Kot smo omenili že na začetku, se spomenika na Koza- ri in Tjentištu nanašata na podobna zgodovinska do- godka, tj. vojaški operaciji, povezani s fašističnimi ofenzivami – obleganje partizanov in kasnejši parti- zanski preboj. Pri tem se Kozara obravnava kot poraz, Tjentište pa kot zmaga, kar lahko delno razloži različne rešitve in estetske strategije, uporabljene pri obeh skulpturah. Pri spomeniku na Kozari je poudarjena pomembnost notranjega kroga in partizanske solidar- nosti, ki je bistveno pripomogla k preboju iz fašistič- nega obroča, pri čemer pride tudi do transformacije avtentičnega kroga pri kolu (plesu). Spomenik na Tjentištu pa estetsko prikaže partizanski preboj kot prelom, ki kaže na to, da partizansko gibanje ni bilo uničeno, ter nakazuje razvoj novih možnosti in novih poti. Pri tem je ironično to, da k uspešnemu preboju niso prispevali vojaški ukazi, ki sta jih odredila Tito in njegovo vojaško vodstvo, pač pa je preboj uspel zaradi 6 V 5. sovražni ofenzivi, imenovani Sutjeska, je sodelovalo več kot 120.000 fašističnih vojakov, ki so napadli približno 15.000 partizanov (tisoči med njimi so bili ranjeni), v bitki pa je umrlo skoraj 7.000 partizanov. Režiser Stipe Delić se je leta 1972 tej bitki poklonil s filmsko uspešnico Sutjeska. To je eden redkih partizanskih filmov, v katerih se pojavi tudi Tito; njegov lik igra Richard Burton. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 25arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Apart from the imaginative layout of the amphithea- tre, the strongest aesthetic feature of the monument to revolution (Kozara) is Džamonja’s use of concentric circular forms, which can be traced to his previous ex- periments with sculptures. In this historical-cultural setting, with the Kozara region’s legacy, these circular forms produced a triple echo. First of all, its circular form immediately recalls and highlights the idea of the kolo (circle dance), a traditional dance that has been practised by different people and nationalities living in the Kozara mountain area, predominantly of Serbian ancestry. Secondly, the circle also refers to the claustrophobic experience of the Partisans and villag- ers as they were encircled and besieged by the fascist forces for weeks. This circle was there not only to break the Partisan resistance but also as a policy of ethnic cleansing and the erasure of the folk- and inter- ethnic cultural legacy. And thirdly, the monument hints at a specific synthesis of the circle in that the kolo does not only exemplify the general cohesive bond of a multinational peace time dance but also its activation within the Partisan resistance and antifas- cist solidarity. The latter led the people of Kozara to dance with the Partisans and abandon the ethnic principle of hate. Thus, there are three concentric cir- cles: the lower representing the pre-war inter-ethnic folk legacy of the kolo, the second representing the fascist siege of Kozara, and the third representing the transcendent level of antifascist Partisan resistance that fought for the possibility of living together as a multinational community in a different world. The formal fact that the upper cylindric form remains open – directed at the sky rather than at the ground – does not only hint at the path travelled by the fraction of the Partisan and civilian population from the siege who succeeding in breaking through, but it also exem- plifies the Partisan surplus in preventing these circles from being reduced to either the ethnic referent of one nation (the Serbian nation rising against fascism and the Croat Ustasha), or reduced to an overwhelming fascist victory which obliterated the Partisan forces or Serbian population. The encirclement and siege by the fascists can be broken only through the circle of soli- darity and struggle. That struggle obviously builds on the folk- and cultural legacy of that specific space, but it also transforms its allegedly ‘authentic’ legacy and propels it to the new future. The second example I wish to analyse is Tjentište me- morial complex which also historically relates to the fascist siege of the major Partisan formation in cen- tral Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1943.6 This fascist of- fensive has been described as the most tenuous mo- ment for the whole Yugoslav Partisan movement in WW2. The core of the Yugoslav Partisan resistance and the General Command were trapped in the high mountains on the boundary between Montenegro and Herzegovina, carrying thousands of wounded fighters. Nazi, fascist and other collaborationist troops outnumbered the Partisans by almost ten to one; this was a do-or-die situation for the Yugoslav Partisan resistance that fought for its survival. Thou- sands of civilians and Partisans were killed in the for- ests close to the village of Tjentište but in the end, the Partisans were able to break through the siege thanks to the courage and persistence of the fighters, as well as surprise moves by commander of the First 6 The battle is the Fifth Enemy Offensive, which assembled more than 120,000 fascist soldiers to fight around 15,000 Partisans (with thousands of wounded) and in which almost 7,000 Parti- sans died. It is called Sutjeska, and another blockbuster film made by Stipe Delić in 1972 paid homage to it. It is one of the rare Partisan films where Tito is the protagonist, portrayed in the film by Richard Burton. Fig. 6: Tjentište monument from afar; designed by Miodrag Živković (1971). Photo by Robert Burghardt, reproduced with permission. Fig. 7: Tjentište’s amphitheatre; designed by Miodrag Živković (1971). Photo by Robert Burghardt, reproduced with permission. Fig. 8: (Before) Photos of Hegedušić’s mural during the time of socialist Yugoslavia. Public domain. Fig. 9: (After) Photos of Hegedušić’s mural interacting with the landscape after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s. With kind permission of Goranka Matić. Proletarian Brigade Popović. The breakthrough not only meant that the core Partisan detachments with the General Command survived but also that shortly afterwards, they became the only real political and military force internationally supported by the Allies. Sutjeska was declared a national park after WW2 and the memorial park began to be integrated in 1958, when the cemetery for 3,301 Partisans re- ceived its first memorial form. The memorial space was extended in 1971 with the monument designed by Miodrag Živković, one of the most consistent sculptors, who produced a string of Partisan monu- ments across Yugoslavia. The final part of the memo- rial complex at Tjentište was built in 1975, when a memorial house was completed with fascinating mu- rals painted by Krsto Hegedušić. He was a famous Yugoslav painter, who was aided on this occasion by a team of collaborators. The main part of the monu- mental complex is located near the village of Tjentište (see Fig. 6 and 7). Živković’s monument consists of two monumental concrete forms, rocks marking the site of the break- through and simultaneously forming an artificial gorge. The monument is approached by walking up a hundred stairs. The sculptural form invites the visitor to experience the marching through the mountains while being exposed from both sides. Its form also evokes the idea that even the hard rock of a siege can be broken. The configuration of the concrete forms constantly changes according to the point of view and the visitor's movement. Approached from below, the rocks seem massive and monolithic. Once the pas- sage between the rocks is crossed, however, the form opens up and becomes more sophisticated, changing its initial quasi-symmetrical and monolithic appear- ance. Climbing further up the path and looking down toward the monument, the rocks appear to turn into wings. And if one continues the walk along the path leading downwards to the small museum house, the rocks seem to dissolve into fingers. This is complexi- fied by the subtle stylisation of distorted human heads (the Partisan dead) emerging from the rocks. The shifting of perspectives on the object thus produces very subtle effects; the first impression of symmetry given by the frontal view of the rocks gives way to an impression of fundamental asymmetry once one has passed through the monument. The rocks are similar but are not exact copies of each other. Tjentište points to the asymmetrical nature of the struggle in which the Partisans managed to prevail over forces greatly superior in number and equipment. Finally, as an in- tervention in the natural space of the natural park of Sutjeska, Tjentište monument succeeds in overdeter- mining its picturesque natural surroundings. This means that combined with a spatial monumental in- tervention, the nature looks even more magnificent, having been a site of horrific executions and of the definite breakthrough of the Partisans. The memorial house behind the monument houses thirteen large murals on the subject of the events, completed by Krsto Hegedušić and his associates. De- spite damaged sustained by some of them, the murals have been preserved (cf. Dimitrijević 2015). They are some of the most fascinating mural remainders dedi- cated to the PLS from the time of socialist Yugoslavia (see Fig. 8 and 9). 8 9 Gal Kirn 26 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 junaških ukazov Koče Popovića, komandanta 1. prole- tarske brigade, ki se je v svoji knjigi Vojni dnevniki ta- kole spominjal vzdušja v tistem času: Pri dejavnikih boja je obstajala precejšnja asimetrija: na eni strani smo se ukvarjali z zelo eksaktnimi stvarmi, kot so velikost (število vojakov), organiziranost, vojaška oprema, garnizija, transport in zaloge hra- ne, medtem ko so bili na drugi strani priso- tni elementi, kot so lakota, utrujenost in bose noge, pa tudi zmaga in resnična, ne- premagljiva moč in volja. (Popović, 1944) Pravzaprav lahko trdimo, da delček tiste izkušnje asi- metričnosti in preboja doživijo tudi obiskovalci, ki se sprehajajo okrog spomenika in ki gredo skozenj. Hoja okrog spomenika nam omogoča potovanje sko- zi pokrajino: spomenik in njegove oblike postanejo naši daljnogledi, ki stvari enkrat povečajo, drugič pa pomanjšajo. Spomenika sta si v estetskem smislu precej različna (različne estetike so v splošnem pri- sotne tudi pri ostalih spomenikih revoluciji). To ni presenetljivo, saj pravzaprav ravno ta mnogoterost različnih upodobitev podkrepi najpomembnejšo lek- cijo na temo partizanstva, in sicer: partizanskega boja – ne glede na to, kako resničen in plemenit je bil – se ne da opisati, predstaviti ali se pokloniti spomi- nu nanj zgolj z uporabo enega estetskega sloga ali privilegiranega formata. Vse te različne poti oziroma različni monumentalni slogi preusmerjajo naš po- gled stran od preteklosti in nosijo v sebi obljubo o drugačni – boljši – prihodnosti. In namesto da bi ti spomeniki utelešali pretekle dogodke, ki tvorijo ustaljen in zaprt niz različnih premis, so postali del kulturnega in političnega boja za partizansko zapu- ščino – in to vlogo ohranjajo še danes. Ti spomeniki nagovarjajo obiskovalce k temu, da vojne dogodke iz daljne preteklosti uporabijo kot osnovo za podrob- nejši razmislek o bližnji preteklosti (vojna v devetde- setih letih) in utopični prihodnosti. Čas je torej tisti, ki ostaja pomembna prioriteta, kar Komelj (2008) tematizira kot »še neobstoječe«, ali natančneje, futur antérieur, ki temelji na abstraktni monumentalni obliki, za katero se zdi, kot da bi bila iz onstranstva, in ki je povezana s pravim delova- njem spomina. Spomeniki revoluciji niso tu zato, da bi namesto nas ohranjali spomine (Young 1992), am- pak so predvsem namenjeni kakršnikoli prihodnji politiki emancipacije. In ravno zato mnogim nacio- nalistom in nacionalističnim strankam v postjugoslo- vanskih regijah ti spomeniki pomenijo temne lise. Vidijo jih kot madeže, ki kalijo večni časovni razpon dogodkov znotraj različnih etničnih skupin, ki izklju- čujejo vse, kar je povezano s preteklimi ali prihodnji- mi revolucijami. Če bi se partizanska revolucija lahko izrazila s pomočjo spomenika, bi zagotovo želela uveljaviti svoj vpliv na sedanjost, in v tem smislu jo je treba aktivirati skozi kulturni, spominski in politični boj. Bistveno vprašanje, ki so si ga zastavljali mnogi kritični umetniki v Jugoslaviji, je bilo, kako formalizi- rati revolucijo. Osebno menim, da najbolj pronicljiv in monumentalen odgovor na to vprašanje ponuja kiparsko/monumentalno »gibanje«. Ti umetniki niso bili nobeni protikomunistični disidenti, ampak so iz- kazali svojo pripravljenost, da izrazijo spomin na par- tizanstvo skozi svoj lastni medij in umetniške prakse. Zelo resno so se lotili skorajda nemogoče naloge pri- povedovanja, opisovanja in iskanja oblik za predsta- vitev partizanske revolucije, zato je spominska po- krajina postala eno izmed najvznemirljivejših in najkontroverznejših področij, ki se je soočalo s šte- vilnimi in raznolikimi dojemanji partizanstva. V pr- vem delu sem orisal, kako so v prejšnjem sistemu spominjanja prevladovali realistični spomeniki, popu- larna arhitektonika, figurativni spomeniki in elemen- tarni spomeniški jezik. Poznomodernistična estetika zaradi abstraktnosti svojega jezika morda res ne izzo- ve nobenih takojšnjih političnih asociacij, vendar je ravno iznajdba novih vizualnih strategij in novih mo- numentalnih izkušenj prispevala k preoblikovanju, aktualizaciji in spremenjenemu odnosu do partizan- ske preteklosti. Poleg mogočnega spomina na revolu- cionarno dediščino ti spomeniki predstavljajo tudi njeno vizijo. Abstrakten jezik je omogočal različne in- terpretacije pomena teh spomenikov, ki so lahko izra- žali odobravanje uradnih političnih stališč ter hkrati dopuščali tudi možnosti za nestrinjanje z uradno poli- tiko. Sredi osemdesetih let je to domiselno gibanje doživelo nenaden konec. S stopnjevanjem ekonom- ske krize ter naraščajočega zgodovinskega revizioniz- ma in nacionalizma se je začelo obdobje protiparti- zanskih in nacionalističnih spomenikov. Ti novi »revizionistični spomeniki«,7 ki so bili v skladu z novi- mi uradnimi ideologijami, so se pojavili na novih, etnično natančno opredeljenih in, v nekaterih prime- rih, etnično očiščenih področjih. Estetska vrednost velike večine revizionističnih spomenikov je mnogo manjša od estetske vrednosti njihovih socialističnih predhodnikov. V tem pogledu, še posebej pa v luči grožnje desničarskega populizma vračanje k partizan- skemu projektu, ki ga navdihuje dediščina partizan- skih spomenikov, za nas ostaja naloga in dediščina, h kateri se moramo neprestano vračati. Bibliografija Buck-Morss, Susan. Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The Passing of Mass Utopia in East and West. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2002. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. What is Philosophy? New York, Columbia University Press, 1994. Dimitrijević, Branislav (2015). »Đeneralov i ostali antifašiz- mi.« https://pescanik.net/djeneralov-i-ostali-antifasizmi/, dostop: 12. 12. 2019. Dragović-Sosso, Jasna. Saviours of the Nation? Serbia’s Intellec- tual Opposition and the Revival of Nationalism. Montreal, McGill- -Queen’s University Press, 2002. Horvatinčić, Sanja. »Monuments Dedicated to Labor and the Labor Movement in Socialist Yugoslavia.« Etnološka tribina: godi- šnjak Hrvatskog etnološkog društva, vol. 44, no. 37, 2014, pp. 153– 168. Horvatinčić, Sanja. Memorials from the Socialist Era in Croatia – Typology Model. Doktorska disertacija, Univerza v Zadru, 2017. Karge, Heike. Steinerne Erinnerung—Versteinerte Erinnerung? Kriegsgedenken in Jugoslawien (1947–1970). Wiesbaden, Harras- sowitz, 2010. Kirn, Gal. »Transformation of Memorial Sites in the Post-Yugo- slav Context.« Retracing Images: Visual Cultures after Yugoslavia, uredila Daniel Šuber in Slobodan Karamanić, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 252–281. Kirn, Gal. Partisan Ruptures: Self-Management, Market Reform and the Spectre of Socialist Yugoslavia. London, Pluto Press, 2019b. Kirn, Gal. The Partisan Counter-Archive. Berlin, De Gruyter, v pripravi. Komelj, Miklavž. Kako misliti partizansko umetnost? Ljubljana: Založba cf./*, 2008. Neutelings, Willem Jan. »Spomenik, The Monuments of Former Yugoslavia.« Spomenik. Jan Kempenaers, 2010. Popović, Koča. Beleške uz ratovanje. Beograd, BIGZ, 2008. http:// www.znaci.net/00001/29_6.htm, dostop: 12. 12. 2019. Radonić, Ljiljana. »Post-Communist Invocation of Europe: Me- morial Museums’ Narratives and the Europeanization of Memo- ry.« National Identities, vol. 19, no. 2, 2009, pp. 269–288. Rancière, Jacques. Les Écarts du Cinéma. Paris, La Fabrique, 2011. Silič - Nemec, Nelida. Javni spomeniki na Primorskem, 1945– 1978. Koper, Založba Lipa, 1982. Young, James. »Counter-Monument: Memory Against Itself in Germany Today.« Critical Inquiry, vol. 18, no. 2, 1992, pp. 267–296. 7 V sodelovanju s Fokus grupo (Hrvaška) ustvarjamo zbirko raz- ličnih spomenikov, ki so razvrščeni v različne skupine (npr. »re- vizionistični«, »nacionalistični«, »odkrito fašistični« ali »tisti, ki se osredotočajo na ‘totalitaristična’ hudodelstva socializma«). Glej spletno stran http://fokusgrupa.net/. Protifašističnim spomenikom – hrbtenici povojne Evrope – od leta 1990 naprej niso več posvečali tolikšne pozornosti. V razvoj novih protifaši- stičnih ali partizanskih spomenikov je bilo, razen redkih izjem, vloženega le malo truda, zemljevid in vsebina revizionističnih spomenikov pa sta bila dobro raziskana in podprta, tako fi- nančno in institucionalno kot tudi v umetniškem smislu. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 27arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 As mentioned at the beginning, Kozara and Tjentište monuments refer to similar historical events, i.e. op- erations relating to fascist offensives, besieging the Partisans and the subsequent Partisan breakthrough. If Kozara is seen as a defeat, Tjentište is seen as a vic- tory. This might partially explain the very different solutions and aesthetic strategies employed in the sculptures. Kozara stresses the importance of the in- ner circle and of Partisan solidarity in order to break away from the fascist circle while also transforming the authentic circle of the kolo, while Tjentište monu- ment aesthetically portrays the breakthrough as a rupture with form and content. The rupture means that the Partisan movement escaped annihilation and opened a path toward something new, as well as the possibility that monuments to the revolution were later possible (in Yugoslavia). Ironically, the break- through did not follow an order by Tito and his mili- tary leadership, but was enabled by the courageous decision of Koča Popović, the commander of the First Proletarian Brigade. In his War Diaries he recollects the pervading spirit in the following way: From the outside, the clashing elements are dis- proportionate: on one side, there is headcount, organisation, armament, garrisons, transport, and guaranteed food provisions - on the other, there is hunger, fatigue, bare feet, and victory, a real, indestructible force. (Popović, 1944) Can one not say that something of that experience of disproportionality and breakthrough is inscribed in the experience of the visitors moving around and through the monument? Once we move around the monument, we can travel through the landscape: the monument and its forms become our binoculars zooming in and out of nature. There are many aes- thetic differences between the two monuments (and differences generally among the monuments to the revolution). This should not come as a surprise, on the contrary, it is precisely such a multiplicity of represen- tations that testifies to the central lesson of the Parti- san counter-archive: that Partisan rupture – however truthful and noble – cannot be narrated, represented, or commemorated in one aesthetic style, or in one privileged format. Instead, all these different paths orient our gaze away from commemorating the past. These memorial forms encapsulate a promise of a dif- ferent – better – future and instead of sticking with the past event as a fixed and closed set of premises, these monuments became involved in an expanded field of cultural and political struggles over the Parti- san legacy, and they continue to be today. These mon- uments have been inviting visitors to use events long past to reflect on the more recent past (the wars in the 1990s) and on a utopian future. There is therefore a central preoccupation with “time” what Komelj (2008) termed as ‘not-yet-existing’ or, more concisely, the futur antérieur that is stimulated by its abstract and otherworldly form, and connected to the real work of memory. Monuments to revolution do not remember instead of us (Young 1992) but are essentially meant for any future politics of emancipa- tion. This is why for many nationalist agents and par- ties in the post-Yugoslav regions, these monuments figured as dark spots, as stains disturbing the eternal time scale of ethnic communities, which exclude any- thing related to the past and future revolution. If the Partisan revolution could speak through a monu- ment, it would want to exert its force on the present and as such, it needs to be retrieved and activated through cultural, memorial, and political struggle. The major question posed by critical artists in Yugo- slavia was how to formalise revolution, and I would conclude that it received its most subtle and monu- mental answer in the sculptural/monumental ‘move- ment’. These artists were far from being anticommu- nist dissidents, but they expressed a commitment to continuing the Partisan rupture through their own media and art practices. They took the impossible task of narrating, representing, and finding a form for the (Partisan) revolution seriously, and therefore the memorial landscape became one of the most exciting and contested fields, where multiple instances of the production and reception of Partisan memory were enacted and confronted. In the first few sections, I sketched out how in the pre- existing memorial regime of visibility, i.e. realist mon- uments and popular architectonics, figurative monu- ments and elementary memorial language was per- vasive. If the late modernist aesthetic gesture from the outside – due to its abstract language – may not immediately trigger political associations, it was pre- cisely through the invention of new visual strategies and new experiences of monumentality that the re- shaping, actualising and re-orienting of social atti- tudes and practices towards the Partisan past was achieved. These monuments are both powerful ech- oes and a vision of the revolutionary legacy. Their ab- stract vocabulary allowed for the appropriation of their meaning that could at the same time agree with official narratives and allow room for disagreement with the official political line. By the mid-1980s, this inventive movement aligned with what I named the Partisan counter-archive came to an abrupt halt. With the intensification of the economic crisis and ris- ing historical revisionism and nationalism, an era of anti-Partisan and nationalist monuments has begun. Emerging on new ethnically defined, and in some lo- calities ethnically cleansed grounds, new ‘revisionist monuments’7 conformed closely to the new official ideologies. Last but not least, most of the revisionist monuments were much poorer aesthetically than their socialist predecessors. In this respect, and espe- cially in the light of the right-wing populist threats, the return to the Partisan project further inspired by the Partisan memorial legacy remains the task and legacy which we need constantly to return to. 7 Together with Fokus Grupa (Croatia), we are assembling an ar- ray of different monuments that we categorise under the adjec- tive ‘revisionist’: either nationalist, openly fascist, or those that focus on the ‘totalitarian’ crimes of socialism. See the web page: http://fokusgrupa.net/. The antifascist monuments – a backbone of post-war Europe – have come to assume a minor role from the 1990s onward. There has been, with a few excep- tions, very little investment in developing new antifascist or Partisan monuments, while the map and substance of revision- ist monuments has been explored financially, institutionally, and artistically. Bibliography Buck-Morss, Susan. Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The Passing of Mass Utopia in East and West. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2002. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. What is Philosophy? New York, Columbia University Press, 1994. Dimitrijević, Branislav (2015). “Đeneralov i ostali antifašizmi.” [The General's and Other Antifascisms] https://pescanik.net/djener- alov-i-ostali-antifasizmi/, Accessed 12 December 2019. Dragović-Sosso, Jasna. Saviours of the Nation? Serbia’s Intellec- tual Opposition and the Revival of Nationalism. Montreal, McGill- Queen’s University Press, 2002. Horvatinčić, Sanja. "Monuments Dedicated to Labor and the Labor Movement in Socialist Yugoslavia". Etnološka tribina: godišnjak Hrvatskog etnološkog društva, vol. 44 no. 37, 2014, pp. 153–168. Horvatinčić, Sanja. Memorials from the Socialist Era in Croatia – Typology Model. Dissertation thesis, Zadar University, 2017. Karge, Heike. Steinerne Erinnerung—Versteinerte Erinnerung? Kriegsgedenken in Jugoslawien (1947–1970). Wiesbaden, Harras- sowitz, 2010. Kirn, Gal. “Transformation of Memorial Sites in the Post-Yugo- slav Context.” Retracing Images: Visual Cultures after Yugoslavia, ed- ited by Daniel Šuber and Slobodan Karamanić, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 252–281. Kirn, Gal. Partisan Ruptures: Self-Management, Market Reform and the Spectre of Socialist Yugoslavia. London, Pluto Press, 2019b Kirn, Gal. The Partisan Counter-Archive. Berlin, De Gruyter, forthcoming. Komelj, Miklavž. Kako misliti partizansko umetnost? [How to Think Partisan Art?] Ljubljana: založba cf./*, 2008. Neutelings, Willem Jan. “Spomenik, The Monuments of Former Yugoslavia.” Spomenik. Jan Kempenaers, 2010. Popović, Koča. Beleške uz Ratovanje. [Notes from War]. Bel- grade, BIGZ, 2008. http://www.znaci.net/00001/29_6.htm, Accessed 12 December 2019. Radonić, Ljiljana. “Post-Communist Invocation of Europe: Me- morial Museums’ Narratives and the Europeanization of Memory.” National Identities, vol. 19, no. 2, 2009, pp. 269–88. Rancière, Jacques. Les Écarts du Cinéma. Paris, La Fabrique, 2011. Silič-Nemec, Nelida. Javni spomeniki na Primorskem, 1945– 1978. [Public Monuments in the Slovene Littoral, 1945–1978]. Kop- er, Založba Lipa, 1982. Young, James. “Counter-Monument: Memory Against Itself in Germany Today.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 18, no. 2, 1992, pp. 267–96. Gal Kirn