marec / March 2020 • letnik / anno LI ab arhitektov bilten • mednarodna revija za teorijo arhitekturearchitect’s bulletin • international mag. for the theory of architecture 224•225•226•227224 •225 •226 •2 2 7 a b • A r h i t e k t u r a . S k u l p t u r a . S p o m i n . • A r c h i t e c t u r e . S c u l p t u r e . R e m e m b r a n c e . • m a r e c / M a r c h 2 0 2 0 • L I Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991 / The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991 / The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991Miha Dešman ... Še vedno aktualno sporočilo spomenikov je, da moramo, kot umetniki ali kot uporab- niki, gledati na svet v širši časovnosti, da nam umetnost izrazi celoto sveta, ne zgolj umetnika samega. ... The monuments’ still-current message is to view the world - as artists or as users - in a broader temporality in order for art to express to us the totality of the world, not just the artist themselves. Boštjan Bugarič ... [...] umetniška arhitekturna in kiparska dela, ki opominjajo na pozabljena življenja in nas spodbujajo, da namesto ponavljajočih se napak iz preteklosti vzpostavimo drugačen dialog. ... [...] the exhibited artistic architectural and sculpture works act as reminders of forgot- ten lives and encourage us to establish a different kind of dialogue rather than repeat past mistakes. Gojko Zupan ... Razvoj javnih spomenikov in javnega prostora nenehno dodaja nove oblike in pomene; zato ne obstaja ena sama, popolna definicija, ki bi zaobjela vse pomene in podpomene spomenika. ... In the development of public monuments and public space, new forms and meanings are continually added; consequently, there is no single and ultimate definition to encompass all mean- ings and sub-meanings of a monument. Boštjan Bugarič / Vladimir Kulić ... [...] pomembno vprašanje: kaj nam zapuščeni protifašistični spo- meniki pomenijo danes? ... [...] What do these derelict antifascist monuments mean for us today? Martin Reichert / Sanja Horvatinčić ... Spomeniki so predstavljali identiteto, katere meje so presega- le kategorijo nacionalnega, ker je bila Jugoslavija večnacionalna federacija, medtem ko sta protifaši- zem in socialistična revolucija mednarodna politična koncepta. ... They did shape an identity, but its boundaries went beyond the category of the national, because Yugoslavia was a multinational federation, whereas antifascism and the socialist revo lution are international political concepts. Andrej Strehovec / Jelica Jovanović ... Na spomenike po mojem mnenju sploh ne bi smeli gledati kot na izolirano tipologijo modernistične arhitekture. Njihova posebnost je le ta, da je bilo pri njihovem oblikovanju več avtorske svobode. Sicer pa so izhajali iz istega družbenega sistema, ki je ust varjal tudi vse druge arhitekturne in urbanistične tipologije, avtorji pa so pri vseh izkoriščali priložnosti, strokov- ne prijeme in tehnične možnosti, ki so bili v tem sistemu na voljo. ... In my opinion, monuments shouldn’t even be regarded as an isolated typology of modernist architecture. Their only distinction is that there was more artistic free- dom in their design. Other wise, they originate in the same social system which created all other archi- tectural and urban typologies, and with all of them, their authors took advantage of the opportunities, techniques, and technical possibilities available within that system. Sonja Leboš ... [...] brutalni val desemantizacije, desemiotizacije in v končni fazi depolitizacije jugoslo- vanskih spomenikov ter jih zvede na pojem pitoresk nega, slikovitega, živopisnega (gre za sopomenke, pri katerih pa moramo razmisliti o skupni semantični teži oziroma neznosni lahkosti tega pojma). ... [...] brutal wave of desemantisation, desemiotisation, and ultimately depoliticisation of Yugoslav monuments, which he reduces to the notion of picturesque, scenic, colourful (these synonyms compel us to consider the combined semantic weight, or rather the unbearable lightness, of this notion). Andrej Hrausky ... Plečnik je iz komisije sicer izstopil, zato pa je na šoli s pomočjo svojih učencev pričel risati osnutke spomenikov NOB. Iz vse Slovenije so se v Ljubljano stekali predstavniki okrajnih odborov z osnutki in mnoge je komisija zavrnila. Kmalu pa se je razvedelo, da na šoli za arhitekturo profesor Plečnik izdeluje načrte, ki vedno dobijo soglasje sicer stroge komisije. ... Though he resigned from the committee, Plečnik began to prepare drafts of NOB mon- uments at the school together with his students. Representatives of district committees flocked to Ljublja- na from far and wide, presenting their own drafts, and many were rejected by the commission. a b Sl ik a na n as lo vn ic i: Ko m pl ek s v sp om in p ad lim b or ce m re vo lu ci je , Š tip , M ak ed on ija , 1 97 4; a rh ite kt : B og da n Bo gd an ov ić ; f ot o: D am ja n M om iro vs ki Co ve r i m ag e: M em or ia l c om pl ex to th e fig ht er s o f t he R ev ol uti on , Š tip , M ac ed on ia , 1 97 4; a rc hi te ct : B og da n Bo gd an ov ić ; p ho to : D am ja n M om iro vs ki Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. • Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991 The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Vsebina / Content arhitektov bilten • mednarodna revija za teorijo arhitekture ab arhitektov bilten / Architect’s Bulletin mednarodna revija za teorijo arhitekture / International Magazine for the Theory of Architecture UDK 71/72 ISSN 0352-1982 številka / Volume 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 februar 2020 / February 2020 letnik / Anno LI glavni in odgovorni urednik / Editor in Chief Miha Dešman gostujoči uredniki / Guest Editors Boštjan Bugarič, Kristina Dešman, Maja Ivanič, Špela Kuhar, Eva Mavsar, Špela Nardoni Kovač, Damjana Zaviršek Hudnik tehnična urednica / Technical Editor Kristina Dešman slovenski jezikovni pregled / Slovene proof reading Katja Paladin prevod v angleščino / English Translation Sašo Podobnik angleški jezikovni pregled / English Proof Reading Sašo Podobnik grafično oblikovanje in AD / Graphic design and AD Nena Gabrovec uredniški odbor / Editorial Board Andrej Hrausky, Jurij Kobe, Janez Koželj, Uroš Lobnik prelom / Typesetting Nena Gabrovec tisk / Print MatFormat, Ljubljana naklada / Copies 500 izvodov cena / Price 35 EUR letna naročnina / Annual subscription 30 EUR naslov redakcije / Editorial office AB, Židovska steza 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija tel.: +386 1 2516 010, faks: +386 1 4217 975 e-mail: info@ab-magazine.com www.ab-magazine.com Stališča, izražena v člankih posameznih avtorjev, ne izražajo nujno stališč uredništva. klasifikacija / classification mag. Doris Dekleva - Smrekar, CTK UL revija je indeksirana: Cobiss, ICONDA ab arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 06 Miha Dešman Uvodnik / Leader Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 08 Boštjan Bugarič Uvod k razstavi - Dostojanstvo spomina / Introduction to the Exhibition - The Dignity of Memory 10 Mirjana Benjak Čoln na Kolpi, ovit z meglo pozabe (položaj književnosti NOB pri pouku) / Čamac na Kupi obavijen maglom zaborava (položaj književnosti NOB-a u nastavi) 18 Gal Kirn Spomeniki NOB: ponovna revolucija / Monuments to the People’s Liberation Struggle (PLS): Revolution reloaded 28 Gojko Zupan Javni spomeniki: od znamenja do kipa in prostorske ureditve Drugačnost Slovenije v drugi polovici 20. stoletja / Public Monuments: From a Marking to a Statue and a Spatial Layout; Slovenia in the 2nd half of the 20th century: a path less travelled Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 38 Boštjan Bugarič Ni bilo vse tako sivo, kot na fotografijah Intervju z Vladimirjem Kulićem / It wasn't all as gray as in the photos Interview with Vladimir Kulić 224 • 225 • 226 • 227architect's bulletin • international magazine for theory of architecture 43 Martin Reichert »Mama, v kateri državi živimo?« Intervju s Sanjo Horvatinčić / "Mum, in which country do we live?" Interview with Sanja Horvatinčić 49 Andrej Strehovec Kakovost današnje arhitekture ni niti blizu tisti iz prejšnjega obdobja Intervju z Jelico Jovanović / The quality of today's architecture doesn't come close to that of the previous period A talk with Jelica Jovanović 58 Sonja Leboš Neznosna lahkost depolitizacije / The Unbearable Lightness of Depoliticisation Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 63 Andrej Hrausky Plečnikovi spomeniki NOB / Plečnik's Monuments to People's Liberation Struggle 70 Aljoša Kotnjek Seznam spomenikov NOB Edvarda Ravnikarja / List of monuments to People's Liberation Struggle by Edvard Ravnikar 78 Maroje Mrduljaš Stavba kot spomenik / Building as Monument 84 Jerica Ziherl Spomenik Pod Beram / The Monument Pod Beram 108 07 PODGORA, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1962 Rajko Radović 110 08 ŠUMARICE, KRAGUJEVAC, Srbija / Serbia, 1963 Mihajlo Mitrović, Radivoj Tomić, Smiljan Klaić, Miodrag Živković, Ante Gržetić, Nebojša Delja, Jelica Bosnić, Gradimir Bosnić, Nandor Glid, Vojin Bakić, Jovan Soldatović 112 09 BUBANJ, NIŠ, Srbija / Serbia, 1963 Mihajlo Mitrović, Ivan Sabolić 114 10 MOSTAR, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1965 Bogdan Bogdanović 116 11 ILIRSKA BISTRICA, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1965 Janez Lenassi, Živa Baraga 118 12 SLOBODIŠTE, KRUŠEVAC, Srbija / Serbia, 1965, 1978, 1985 Bogdan Bogdanović, Tomislav Milanović, Svetislav Živić 120 13 JASENOVAC, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1965 Bogdan Bogdanović 122 14 MOSLAVINA, PODGARIĆ, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1965 Dušan Džamonja, Vladimir Veličković 124 15 VOGOŠĆA, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1969 Zlatko Ugljen, Petar Krstić arhitektov bilten • mednarodna revija za teorijo arhitekture SPOMENIK KOT SKUPNA POT SPOMINA / MONUMENT AS A SHARED PATH OF REMEMBRANCE 90 Boštjan Bugarič, Kristina Dešman, Maja Ivanič, Špela Kuhar, Špela Nardoni Kovač, Damjana Zaviršek Hudnik Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 92 Seznam spomenikov na razstavi / List of Monuments in the exhibition 94 Kolofon razstave / Exhibition colophon SPOMENIKI / MONUMENTS 96 01 BUKOVŠKO POLJE, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1950 Jože Plečnik 98 02 DRAGA, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1953 Edvard Ravnikar, Boris Kalin 100 03 KAMPOR, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1953 Edvard Ravnikar, Marij Pregelj 102 04 PODLJUBELJ, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1954 Boris Kobe 104 05 OSANKARICA, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1959 Branko Kocmut, Slavko Tihec 106 06 GRADEC, Avstrija / GRAZ, Austria, 1961 Boris Kobe RAZSTAVA / EXHIBITION Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991 / The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991 ab arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 architect's bulletin • international magazine for theory of architecture 126 16 KOSMAJ, Srbija / Serbia, 1971 Gradimir Medaković, Vojan Stojić 128 17 SUTJESKA, TJENTIŠTE, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1971 Miodrag Živković, Ðorđe Zloković 130 18 KOZARA, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1972 Dušan Džamonja 132 19 MITROVICA, Kosovo / Kosovo, 1973 Bogdan Bogdanović 134 20 ŠTIP, Makedonija / Macedonia, 1974 Bogdan Bogdanović 136 21 MAKEDONIUM, KRUŠEVO, Makedonija / Macedonia, 1974 Jordan Grabuloski, Iskra Grabuloska, Petar Mazev, Borko Lazeski 138 22 DRAŽGOŠE, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1976 Boris Kobe, Ive Šubic, Stojan Batič 140 23 KADINJAČA, Srbija / Serbia, 1979 Aleksandar Ðokić, Miodrag Živković 142 24 GRMEČ, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1979 Ljubomir Denković 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 144 25 BARUTANA, Črna gora / Montenegro, 1980 Svetlana Kana Radević 146 26 DUDIK, VUKOVAR, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1980 Bogdan Bogdanović 148 27 POPINA, ŠTULAC, Srbija / Serbia, 1981 Bogdan Bogdanović 150 28 GARAVICE, BIHAĆ, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1981 Bogdan Bogdanović 152 29 DREŽNICA, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1981 Zdenko Kolacio 154 30 PETROVA GORA, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1981 Vojin Bakić, Berislav Šerbetić 156 31 PST, POT, LJUBLJANA, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1957–1962, 1972–1985, 1985, 2016 Vlasto Kopač, Božo Pengov, Mitja Omersa, Franc Kastelic, Jože Štoka, Janez Koželj 158 32 TREBJESA, NIKŠIĆ, Črna gora / Montenegro, 1987 Ljubomir Ljubo Vojvodić 160 33 ŠID, Vojvodina / Vojvodina, 1988 Miroslav Krstonošić, Jovan Soldatović, Milan Sapundžić arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 6 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Uvodnik / Leader Miha Dešman V svetu in tudi pri nas je zadnja leta veliko govora o kontekstualizaciji spomenikov povojne dobe, o njihovi umestitvi v posebni zgodovinski trenutek socialistične Jugoslavije. Ob tem, da predstavimo nabor dobre trideseterice pomembnih spo- menikov, je naš namen z razstavo in številko AB-ja tudi iztrgati ta opus iz ideolo- škega konteksta in ga umestiti v širšo perspektivo, na oder svetovne produkcije, ki ne bi bil kontaminiran z eksotičnostjo »režima za železno zaveso«. Pri tem se odpirajo številne dileme. Pri spomenikih je ponavadi prvo vprašanje, kaj slavijo. Časovna distanca seveda vpliva na položaj spomenikov v družbi, njiho- va vloga in pomen se spreminjata. Vprašanje je, ali se je njihova sporočilnost skozi časovno in historično distanco izpraznila ali pa je v kakršnemkoli smislu še aktualna. Pri tem gre za njihovo pozicijo znotraj širšega časovnega in prostorske- ga okvira. Ali je danes še pomembna simbolna vloga, ki so jo imele ob nastanku zgodovin- ske skulpture, kot na primer poznoantični kip Marka Avrelija na Michelangelo- vem Kapitolu ali zgodnjerenesančni Donatellov konjenik Gattamelata v Padovi? Ti in mnogi drugi so dobili javno, urbano funkcijo, njihov izvorni namen, slavlje- nje vojščaka ali diktatorja, je postal nepomemben. Podobna usoda bo najbrž, v generaciji ali dveh, doletela tudi spomenike povojne Jugoslavije. Brisanje izvornega pomena je najbrž neogibna posledica časovne oddaljenosti. Ali to pomeni, da so njihovi pomeni porozni, da so prilagodljivi in da dopuščajo ponovno interpretacijo, da so, recimo, politično popravljivi? Ob nastanku so bila to dela, ki so se, vsaj navidez, neposredno referirala na oblast. Cilj oblasti je bila reprezentacija ideologije, njeno pojmovno in znakovno ozadje pa naj bi bila iko- nografija »nove, socialistične države«. S časom se je ta zveza rahljala in postala manj pomembna. Takrat je stopila v ospredje umetniška kakovost, ki je odločala, kateri spomeniki bodo preživeli in kateri ne. Žal pa kakovost ni edina, ki določa preživetje spomenikov. Teritoriji in prebivalci bivše Jugoslavije se soočajo s svojimi tragičnimi zgodovina- mi, ki segajo prek obdobja socializma v preteklost, sedanjost in prihodnost. Ne- razrešene travme iz preteklosti se še vedno izražajo tudi z brezmejno voljo po desakralizaciji in nasilju. Tako so nekateri spomeniki uničeni, drugi vandalizirani ali zapuščeni, večina jih je ogroženih. V vseh postjugoslovanskih družbah se srečujemo z močnimi procesi zgodovin- skega revizionizma. Tako v nekaterih okoljih številne spomenike celo sistemsko in sistematično uničujejo. Anestetizirani zahodni svet slabo razume vzvode in procese, ki stojijo za balkan- sko neukročenostjo. Nekateri, zlasti zahodni raziskovalci, bi s krinko ljubezni do eksotičnega in ponovno najdene kontinuitete radi prikrili imperialistična stališča in težnje. V njihovi interpretaciji so spomeniki zreducirani na ostalino, ki je vsem povsem na razpolago: to naj bi bila dela brez identitete, poistovetena z maškara- do in s frivolnim klepetom, ki so lahko tarča avanturističnih potovanj in poljubnih rekompozicij. Gre za neke vrste banket nad spomeniki, tretiranimi kot trupla. Prevladujeta ka- rikatura, posmeh (nehoten?), ne zgolj v odnosu do konteksta, ampak tudi do sa- mih spomenikov. Rojeni pred letom osemdeset smo v mladosti doživeli prežetost družbenega živ- ljenja s socialistično ideologijo in propagando. Heroji so dali imena šolam, tovar- nam, ulicam in Tito je imel status faraona in pop zvezde. Vsaka vas je imela svoje obeležje padlim, bitkam, rituali so bili del vsakdanjega življenja, zlasti v šolah. Seveda so se postavljala vprašanja: kako lahko ubežimo; kako je mogoče proizve- sti ustvarjalna, inovativna dela, kako je mogoče biti revolucionaren, kako se je mogoče spoprijeti s transformativno osebno spremembo itd. Umetniki so bili v dilemi med ujetostjo in možnostjo pobega, ki so jo reševali vsak na svoj način, v iskanju ravnotežja med umetniško reprezentacijo, ideologijo in fantazmo. V socializmu se je razvila celo posebna kultura političnih smešnic, ki je po razpa- du nekdanjega sistema izginila. Šala je eden od načinov, kako poveš laž, da bi povedal resnico. Pri spomenikih gre za obratno: kako poveš resnico, da bi poveli- čal nekaj, v kar morda ne verjameš, pa zato razširiš konstrukcijo pomena na splo- šne vrednote človečnosti in smisla. To je bila pozicija, v kateri so ustvarjali tudi arhitekti in kiparji, avtorji naših spomenikov. Gre za dela in njihove avtorje, ki so z arhitekturno in likovno kakovostjo, nekateri potihem, drugi bolj na glas, iz fragmenta in odsotnosti ustvarjali motive poglo- bljene refleksije o celoti in o polnosti smisla. Umetnost ima potencial, da prebije okvire danega sveta. Zmogla je navidez nemogočo nalogo, namreč simboliziranje kulture in pietete, s svojo likovno, prostorsko, ambientalno in sporočilno kakovo- stjo, ne več z deklarativno vsebino, kot pri socrealizmu. Umetniki, arhitekti in kiparji so izoblikovali samosvoj univerzum arhitekturnih re- ferenc, ki segajo od arhetipov iz antike prek celotne zgodovine arhitekture do »arhitekture brez arhitektov«, zlasti iz balkanskih regij. Njihovi vzori so bili vzeti iz klasične in sodobne umetnosti ter iz narave, iz eksotičnih kultur in sočasnih mo- dernizmov. Pa vendar niso bili nikoli samo epigonski, saj so reference ponotranjili in iz njih izpeljali novo sintezo, prepojeno z osebno poetiko. Njihov formalni svet je eklektičen, z lastnim stilom in umetniško močjo so dosegali sublimni učinek, ki je po eni strani blizu razsvetljenskim teorijam lepote in sublimnega (Kant, Burke) iz 18. stoletja, po drugi pa so bili vešči tudi modernistične abstrakcije. Poetična abstrakcija je postala način izraza, ki je presegel ideološko dimenzijo naročil in stkal univerzalne pripovedi o pomenu in moči kulture pri celjenju vojnih ran. Vsekakor je res, da gre pri spomenikih za stičišče med umetnostjo (arhitekturo, kiparstvom) in državo, kar pa tvori problematično, po definiciji spodletelo zvezo. Kaj izraža umetnost? Danes, ko je čas individualizma, se zdi, da izraža osebnost umetnika, njegove estetske ideale in talent. Cenimo edinstvenost, izvirnost in neponovljivost, skratka kult individualnosti. Še vedno aktualno sporočilo spomenikov je, da moramo, kot umetniki ali kot uporabniki, gledati na svet v širši časovnosti, da nam umetnost izrazi celoto sve- ta, ne zgolj umetnika samega. Umetnik pri svojem delovanju potrebuje pogum za korake v neznano. To je tve- gan proces, a brez tveganja ni presežka, je le rutina. Kot je zapisal Milan Kundera: »Vsi veliki romani so pametnejši od svojih piscev.« To pomeni, da se navezujejo na sijanje večnosti, da razumejo, da je velika umetnost vedno gradnja, ki se ne nanaša le nase, pač pa na celoto. Rečeno drugače: miti, umetnost in tudi znanost so v svojem bistvu povezani, tvorijo celoto gradnje sveta. Torej velja trditev, da se skozi mit, kakor tudi skozi umetnost oz. gradnjo, približamo resnici. Zakaj? Umetnost po Dolarju »pomeni narediti prelom. Narediti rez. Rez v kontinu- iteti biti, v kontinuiteti preživetja.«1 Umetnost je povezana z univerzalnostjo in ne- skončnostjo. V umetnosti ni pomembno vprašanje, ali je umetnost izraz nekega posameznika, neke etnične skupine, naroda ali neke dobe. Pomembno je, da iz partikularnega proizvede univerzalno. In prav način problematičnosti, ki je spre- mljala genezo spomenikov, te spodletelosti ideološke prisvojitve, je tisto, kar jih dela zanimive in posebne. Na delu je nekakšna racionalna iracionalnost, dialektika med tradicijo razsvetljenstva kot podlage znanstvene preobrazbe sveta s pomočjo marksizma, skratka progresistične ideologije, in vrnitvijo k mitom slavljenja herojev in domovine (nekateri bi rekli režima). Ta dvojnost je vedno nerazrešena, tako da spomenike lahko hkrati pojmujemo kot konstitutivne in kot subverzivne za sistem. 7arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Miha Dešman 1 Conny Habel: Intervju z Mladenom Dolarjem. V: Mladen Dolar, Uprizarjanje konceptov, spisi o umetnosti, Maska, Ljubljana, 2019. Both at home and abroad, there has been a lot of talk in recent years about the contextualisation of post-WW2 era monuments, about placing them in the particu- lar historical moment of socialist Yugoslavia. Along with our desire to showcase a line-up of some thirty significant monuments, it is the intention of the exhibition and the present issue of ab to wrest this opus from the ideological context and place it in a wider perspective, on a world-wide stage of production which would not be contaminated with the exoticism of a "regime behind the Iron Curtain". This opens up a number of dilemmas. When it comes to monuments, the first question is usually what they celebrate. Naturally, the temporal distance affects the status of monuments in a society - their role and significance change. The question is whether their message has been hollowed out due to the temporal and historical distance, or whether it is still current in any conceivable sense. The issue concerns the monuments' position within the wider temporal and spatial framework. Is the symbolic role from the time of the creation of historical sculptures such as the late-antiquity statue of Marcus Aurelius on Michelangelo's Capitoline Hill or Dona- tello's early-Renaissance horseman Gattamelata in Padua still significant today? These two and many others have gained a public, urban function; their original purpose of celebrating a warrior or a dictator has become unimportant. A similar fate will probably, within the span of a generation or two, catch up with the monu- ments of post-war Yugoslavia. The fading away of the original significance is likely the inevitable consequence of temporal distance. Does this mean that the monuments' meanings are porous, adaptable, and tolerant of reinterpretation - that they are politically repairable, so to speak? At the time of their creation, these works - at least ostensibly - directly referred to the authority. The authority's objectives were the representation of ide- ology, their notional and semantic background was supposed to be the iconogra- phy of the "new, socialist state". Through time, this relationship starts to unravel and becomes less important. At that point, the main role is assumed by the artistic quality, which determines which monuments get to survive and which don't. Unfortunately, quality isn't the only factor determining the survival of the monu- ments. The territories and inhabitants of ex-Yugoslavia are coming to terms with their tragic histories that extend beyond the socialist period into the past, present, and future. Unresolved traumas from the past still manifest themselves also in the boundless tenacity for desacralisation and violence. In consequence, some mon- uments were destroyed, other vandalised or abandoned, most are threatened. All the post-Yugoslav societies are encountering strong processes of historical re- visionism. In some environments, many monuments are being systemically and systematically destroyed as a result. The anaesthetised Western world has a poor understanding of the triggers and processes bearing upon the untamed Balkan spirit. Some, especially Western re- searchers, would like to conceal their imperialist standpoints and tendencies un- der the guise of love for the exotic and a rediscovered continuity. In their interpre- tations, the monuments are reduced to remains at everyone's complete disposal. According to them, they are works without identities, identified with masquer- ade and idle chatter, and being able to act as objects of adventurous travels and any manner of recomposition. It is a kind of a feast over the monuments which are treated as corpses. There is a preponderance of caricature, derision (unintentional?), not only regarding the context but also the monuments themselves. In our youth, those of us born before 1980 experienced social life permeated with socialist ideology and propaganda. Heroes gave their names to schools, facto- ries, streets, and Tito held the status of a pharaoh and a pop star. Every village had its own memorial to battles and those killed in action, and rituals were a part of everyday life, especially in schools. Naturally, questions arose: how can we get away; how is one to produce creatively innovative works, how to be revolution- ary, how is one to tackle transformative personal change, etc. Artists were caught in a dilemma between being trapped and the possibility of escape, and they were solving it each in their own way, seeking balance between artistic representation, ideology, and phantasm. Socialism gave rise to a specific culture of political jokes, which disappeared after the dissolution of the former system. A joke is one of the ways of telling a lie in order to tell the truth. With monuments, it's the opposite: how to tell the truth in order to glorify something that you may not believe in, leading you to extend the construction of meaning to universal values of humanity and meaning as a result. Such was the position framing the creative endeavours of architects and sculp- tors - the authors of our monuments. These are works and authors who leveraged architectural and artistic excellence to create - some in whispers, others more boldly - motifs of profound reflection on the totality and the plenitude of meaning from the starting point of fragment and absence. Art has the potential to break through the confines of a given world. It accomplished the seemingly impossible task of symbolising culture and reverence with its artistic, spatial, ambiental, and notional quality, rather than with declarative content, like socialist realism used to do. Artists, architects, and sculptors carved out an idiosyncratic universe of architec- tural references ranging from archetypes from the antiquity across the entire history of architecture to "architecture without architects", especially from Bal- kan regions. They modelled themselves on classical and contemporary art and nature, on exotic cultures and contemporary modernisms. And yet they were never just imitators: they internalised their references and derived from them a new synthesis imbued with an individual poetic. Their formal world is eclectic, they used their own style and artistic power to achieve a sublime effect which on the one hand was approaching Enlightenment theories on beauty and the sub- lime (Kant, Burke) from the 18th century, but on the other, they were also profi- cient in modernist abstraction. Poetic abstraction became a manner of expres- sion which transcended the ideological dimension and wove universal narratives on the meaning and power of culture to heal war wounds. It's certainly true that the monuments stand at the junction of art (architecture, sculpture) and the State - which is, however, a definition of a failed relationship, anytime and anywhere. What does art express? Today, in the time of individualism, it seems that art ex- presses the personality of the artist, their aesthetic ideals and talent. We value what is original, one-of-a-kind, first-and-last - in short, the cult of individuality. The monuments' still-current message is to view the world - as artists or as users - in a broader temporality in order for art to express to us the totality of the world, not just the artist themselves. In their work, an artist needs courage to take steps into the unknown. This is a process full of risks, but then without risk, nothing exceptional is created, there is only routine. Milan Kundera said, "Great novels are always a little more intelligent than their authors." This means that they latch on the shining-through of eternity; that they understand that great art is always a construction which doesn't rely only on itself but on the totality. In other words: myths, art, and science, too, are con- nected in their essence, they form the totality of the construction of the world. Therefore, the statement that myth is a pathway to truth, as is art, or rather, con- struction, holds true. Why? Art, according to Mladen Dolar, "means to make a break. Make a cut. A cut in the continuity of being, in the continuity of survival."1 Art is connected with universality and infinity. In art, the question whether art is the expression of an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, or a time period is not important. What is important is its producing the universal out of the particular. And it is the very manner of the problems which accompanied the genesis of monuments, the fail- ure of ideological appropriation, that makes these works interesting and special. There is a kind of irrationality at work here, a dialectics between the tradition of the Enlightenment as the basis for the scientific transformation of the world aid- ed by Marxism, i.e. a progressivist ideology, and the return to the myths of cele- brating heroes and the homeland (or the regime, as some would say). This dual- ity is forever unresolved and thus monuments can be thought of as playing both a constitutive and subversive role within the system. 1 Conny Habel: Interview with Mladen Dolar. In: Mladen Dolar, Uprizarjanje konceptov, spisi o umetnosti (Staging Concepts, writings on art), Maska, Ljubljana, 2019 8 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Dostojanstvo spomina / The Dignity of Memory Boštjan Bugarič Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Vir Mladenović, Ivica: Alain Badiou: Istorijski proces će dovesti do reunifikacije Jugoslavije, 31. 8. 2019, Novi plamen – https://www. noviplamen.net/glavna/alain-badiou-istorijski-proces-ce-dovesti- -do-reunifikacije-jugoslavije/?fbclid=IwAR25ZxZ0X2_GTaQAmlO- h4J8n1NkWD3eieAhWZVFne-bldOvk8zrgDa5N52E. Z globalizacijo kapitalizma progresivno slabi pojem države, osnovne organizacij- ske enote, za katero so se skozi zgodovino bile mnogotere vojne. Sodobnega člo- veka spremljajo nacionalizmi in sovraštva, pred impulzivnimi valovi katerih ga država sama po sebi ne ščiti. Zato so politične meje zabrisane, države umirajo in nastajajo nova območja, zasnovana na moči globalnega kapitala. Zaradi mešanja nacionalnih in identitetnih vprašanj v poznih osemdesetih in devetdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja smo lahko spremljali norosti jugoslovanskega nacionalizma, ki je pospešil proces odmiranja države in njeno identiteto nadomestil s kompleksni- mi kolektivnimi skupnostmi. Kaj pospešuje razvoj novih nacionalizmov? Eden izmed najpomembnejših razlo- gov je vsekakor bitka globalnega kapitala za nova geografska območja, ki spodbu- ja permanentno ekonomsko vojno na območjih interesa globalnih investitorjev. Državne meje ne varujejo pred izkoriščanjem, pustošenjem in uničevanjem ob- močij, ki jih za seboj pustijo ekonomske vojne. Posledice tovrstne »produkcije« soočajo človeštvo z vprašanjem lastnega obstoja, predvsem zaradi za globalni kapital nepomembnih podnebnih sprememb in globalnega segrevanja. Nestabil- nost oziroma destabilizacija političnega reda se kaže tudi v neartikuliranosti levi- ce in desnice, ki se v bistvu strinjata in tako oblikujeta nekakšno patološko stanje. Badiou (2019) govori o nacionalni politični in globalni gospodarski moči; politič- na oblast se težko prilagaja globalni hegemoniji kapitalizma in to pospešuje krize, ki imajo na splošno identitetni značaj. Živimo v dobi umiranja socialnega človeka in s tem je izničeno tudi njegovo dostojanstvo. Pričujoča razstava in katalog predstavljata nabor spomenikov z ozemlja neobsto- ječe države. Zaradi novih vznikajočih sovraštev, nestrpnosti in fašizmov postavlja- ta na ogled umetniška arhitekturna in kiparska dela, ki opominjajo na pozabljena življenja in nas spodbujajo, da namesto ponavljajočih se napak iz preteklosti vzpostavimo drugačen dialog. Kustosi in pisci iz bivših jugoslovanskih republik preizprašujemo pomen in komunikacijo spomenikov NOB danes. Fizična priso- tnost spomenikov v pokrajini je opomin na grozovitost posledic fašizma in naciz- ma, kar pa odpira vprašanje vloge spomenikov nekdanjega jugoslovanskega oze- mlja v današnji skupni Evropi. Razstava in katalog sta nenehno dopolnjujoč se arhiv raznovrstnega fotografskega, filmskega gradiva in zapisov avtorjev ter obli- kujeta nov vidik ohranjanja te arhitekturne zapuščine v današnjem svetu. Projekt presega prekarne sisteme produkcije, ki za seboj puščajo shirana živeča trupla sodobnega kapitalističnega človeka. Odpira nova polja delovanja, ki kljubujejo izkoriščanju ozemelj in malega človeka. Širši kontekst projekta je odgovor na komercializacijo prostorov spomina, saj od- pira problematiko rušenja in skrunjenja spomenikov bivše Jugoslavije, ki se odra- ža v uporabi spomenikov za komercialne namene (snemanje reklam in videospo- tov, hipsterske turistične destinacije). Analiza gradiva različnih sodobnih avtorjev, ki spomenike postavljajo na katero izmed turističnih poti po razoranem ozemlju bivše države, odpira problematiko trženja in izkoriščanja lokacij spominskih obe- ležij in grobnic za nove zaslužke. Kolonizatorski turizem pomeni novo obliko kolo- nializma 21. stoletja, saj ga globalni kapital udejanja kot orodje osvajanja prosto- rov spomina, ki za večanje njihovega obiska in oglaševanje produktov prodaja izmišljene in neresnične zgodbe. Na ta način reinterpretira umetniška obeležja spomina in z lažmi zakriva množična grobišča pokopanih – ljudi, ki so življenje izgubili zaradi idealizma, da jih bo država obvarovala pred zlom. Svet za prihodnost potrebuje solidarnost in spoštovanje obstoječega planeta; kaj drugega je to kot ljubezen? Badiou (2019) pravi, da nam »ljubezen pomaga od- kriti, da smo sposobni razmišljati in čutiti nekaj, kar nam ni bilo znano ali za kar smo mislili, da nismo sposobni. Ljubezen nam pomaga spoznati, da nismo ome- jeni, kar je definicija sreče. Gonilo naše subjektivne identitete je danes koristolju- bje. Zato mislim, da so glavni izzivi, s katerimi se srečujeta dve osebi, ki se ljubita, ravno v konstrukciji skupnega sveta, ki jima bo pomagal premagati dva osebna interesa. Ljubezen ima en skupni svet, ki ni zunanji svet. Znotraj tega skupnega sveta je ljubeč odnos razprava, razrešitev napetosti, protislovje, ki ta skupni svet še bolj razširi.« Se bomo kdaj naučili, kako solidarno sobivati na enem planetu in spoštovati drugačnost? Z ljubeznijo morebiti kdaj v temni prihodnosti. 9arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Boštjan Bugarič The globalisation of capitalism is causing a progressive weakening of the notion of the State, a basic organisational unit for which many wars have been fought throughout history. Multiple manifestations of nationalism and hatred are occur- ring in the present time period, and the State by itself does not offer one protec- tion against their impulse waves. As a result, political boundaries are blurred, states are expiring with new areas being formed, based on the power of global capital. Due to the confluence of national and identity issues in the late 1980s and 1990s, we witnessed the insanity of Yugoslav nationalism, which accelerated the process of withering-away of the State and replaced its identity with complex collective communities. What is accelerating the development of new nationalisms? One of the most im- portant causes is certainly the battle of the global capital for new geographical areas, engendering a permanent economic war in the territories of interest to global investors. State borders do not safeguard against exploitation, devastation, and destruction of geographical areas, which economic wars leave in their wake. The consequences of this kind of production are confronting the humanity with the question of its own existence, particularly due to climate change and global warming, issues in which the global capital takes no interest. The instability or rather destabilisation of the political order is evident also in the unarticulated left and right, which are essentially in agreement and in this way form a sort of path- ological state of affairs. Badiou (2019) talks about national political and global economic power; political authority has a difficult time adapting to the global hegemony of capitalism; this causes the acceleration of crises, which typically have an identity-based character. We live in the era of the withering-away of a social individual with their dignity being eradicated in the process. The exhibition and its catalogue present a line-up of monuments from the terri- tory of a non-existent state. Due to a new crop of hate, intolerance, and fascism outbreaks, the exhibited artistic architectural and sculpture works act as remind- ers of forgotten lives and encourage us to establish a different kind of dialogue rather than repeat past mistakes. As curators and authors from former Yugoslav republics, we are challenging the significance and communication of monuments to the People's Liberation Struggle today. The physical presence of the monu- ments in the landscape is a cautionary tale of the consequences of fascism and Nazism, which in turn raises the question of the role of the monuments of a for- mer territory in today's Europe, common to us all. The exhibition and catalogue act as an archive of all sorts of photographic material, film footage, and authors' writings that is constantly expanding, an archive which forms a new aspect of the preservation of this architectural heritage in today's world. The project tran- scends systems of production based on non-standard labour which are leaving behind a trail of haggard living corpses of the contemporary capitalist individual. It opens new fields of action, which defy the exploitation of territories and the common person. The broader context of the project is a reaction to the commercialisation of the spaces of memory. It raises the issue of the demolition and desecration of the monuments of ex-Yugoslavia as evidenced in the commercial use of monuments for the purposes of shooting ads and music videos, as well as hipster tourist des- tinations. By analysing materials by different contemporary authors who have included the monuments in various tourist routes across the ravaged territory of ex-Yugoslavia, the issue of marketing and exploiting memorial and burial sites for new monetary gain is examined. Colonising tourism represents a new form of 21st century colonisation as the global capital leverages it as a tool for conquer- ing spaces of remembrance, working up invented and spurious narratives for the purposes of increasing visitor figures and marketing products. In doing that, it reinterprets artistic memorial sites and uses lies to cloak the mass graves of those who lost their lives in their idealism, namely that the state would deliver them from evil. The world needs solidarity and respect for the existing planet for the future; what is this but love? Badiou (2019) says that "love helps us discover that we're capable of thinking and feeling something which was unknown to us, or what we thought we were incapable of. Love helps us realise that we're not limited ... which is the definition of happiness. Today the driving force of our subjective identity is one's personal interest. Consequently, I believe that the main challenge facing two peo- ple who love each other is constructing a common world which will help them overcome two personal interests. [...] There is one common world that belongs to love, and this is not an outside world. Within this common world, love is a discus- sion, a resolution of tensions, a contradiction, etc., which further expands this common world." Will we ever learn to coexist on one planet in solidarity, and to respect what is different? With love, perhaps someday in a dark future. Source Mladenovič Ivica: Alain Badiou: "Istorijski proces će dovesti do reunifikacije Jugoslavije" ("The historical process will lead to the reu- nification of Yugoslavia" - Serbian only), 31st August 2019, Novi pla- men / https://www.noviplamen.net/glavna/alain-badiou-istorijski- -proces-ce-dovesti-do-reunifikacije-jugoslavije/?fbclid=IwAR25ZxZ 0X2_GTaQAmlOh4J8n1NkWD3eieAhWZVFne-bldOvk8zrgDa5N52E 10 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Mirjana Benjak Sažetak Narodnooslobodilačka borba na području Jugoslavije, kao dio svjetske antifašističke borbe, zadužila nas je značajnim ostvarenjima i na kulturnom planu: u likovnim umjetnostima, glazbi, književnosti, teatru, filmu, stripu. Ovom se prilikom osvrćemo na književno stvaralaštvo ratne tematike (nastalo u Drugom svjetskom ratu i neposredno nakon njega) u nastavi književnosti - točnije rečeno - analizira se njegova (ne)prisutnost u hrvatskim nastavnim programima/kurikulima namijenjenih srednjoškolskoj/gimnazij- skoj nastavi od 80-ih godina prošlog stoljeća do danas. Posebna se pažnja posvećuje kvantitativnoj i kvalitativnoj analizi literarne produkcije u sklopu školske interpretacije književnog teksta s naglaskom na ratne opuse Vladimira Nazora, Ivana Gorana Kovačića i Jure Kaštelana. Analiza je pokazala da je u aktu- alnom gimnazijskom kurikulu za Hrvatski jezik književnost NOB-a toliko po obujmu smanjena, a po pri- stupu toliko nedorečena da njezin položaj možemo promatrati u sklopu sudbine koju doživljavaju antifa- šistički spomenici diljem Hrvatske. Devastacija, često vrlo vrijednih umjetničkih arhitektonskih i kiparskih ostvarenja, koja je uzela maha u razdoblju Domovinskog rata (1990.–1995.), traje do danas, (pre)često uz indolentno ponašanje vlasti i odgovornih državnih institucija prema tom problemu. Posljedice takva odnosa prema simbolima NOB-a (i pisanim i klesanim) osobito su vidljive u, najblaže rečeno, zbunjuju- ćem odnosu mladih naraštaja prema antifašizmu, civilizacijskom opredjeljenju na kojem počiva suvre- mena Evropa, čiji je sastavni dio i Hrvatska. Ključne riječi književnost NOB-a u hrvatskim srednjoškolskim/gimnazijskim nastavnim programima/kurikulima, Vladimir Nazor, Ivan Goran Kovačić, Jure Kaštelan, zaborav Uvod Djelovanje kulturnih pregalaca u NOB-u na tragu su dokidanja stare latinske izre- ke Inter arma silent Musae. Naime, na oslobođenim teritorijima širom Jugoslavi- je odvijao se bogat i raznolik kulturni život: tiskale su se pjesničke zbirke, izlazile novine (s kraćim dramskim i proznim tekstovima), organizirale se raznolike kul- turne manifestacije (partizansko kazalište).1 Književnost su stvarali pisci uključeni u partizanske brigade. Najraširenija književna vrsta bila je lirska pjesma – iz pera poznatih (npr. Vladimira Nazora, Ivana Gorana Kovačića) i nepoznatih pjesnika (uzlet narodne pjesme). Od dramskih tekstova najpopularnije su bile jednočinke koje su se izvodile na partizanskim priredbama. Tematika tih djela obuhvaćala je revolucionarni zanos, otpor prema neprijatelju, pobunu protiv socijalne neprav- de, ljubav prema domovini, vjeru u pobjedu. Iako je mnogo od tih tvorevina pro- pagandnog karaktera, ne smije se zaboraviti da su u tom razdoblju nastala i neka književna ostvarenja koja nadilaze vrijeme nastanka i koja možemo uvrstiti, zbog njihove estetske, humanističke i etičke vrijednosti, u sam vrh jugoslavenske, od- nosno hrvatske književnosti.2 1 Ovdje treba izdvojiti kulturni događaj, jedinstven u porobljenoj Evropi – Prvi kongres kulturnih radni- ka Hrvatske na oslobođenom teritoriju koji je održan u Topuskom od 25. do 27. lipnja 1944. U Zgradi lječilišne restauracije, koja je bila oslikana freskama Z. Price, Kongresu su prisustvovali znanstvenici, profesori, učitelji, profesionalni i amaterski pisci, kompozitori, glumci, redatelji. 2 Pišući o hrvatskoj književnosti ratnog razdoblja Ivo Frangeš ju izdvaja „kao jedan od vrlo rijetkih primjera organičke književnosti otpora unatoč teškim uvjetima nacifašističke okupacije. Ni u jednoj europskoj književnosti nije, proporcionalno, tolik broj i toliko znamenitih književnika sudjelovao u borbi i ratnim operacijama, prišao pokretu otpora (..)“. Frangeš, Ivo: Povijest hrvatske književnosti, Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske – Cankarjeva založba, Zagreb-Ljubljana, 1987., str. 350. Čoln na Kolpi, ovit z meglo pozabe (položaj književnosti NOB pri pouku) / Čamac na Kupi obavijen maglom zaborava (položaj književnosti NOB-a u nastavi) 1 Tu je treba izpostaviti kulturni dogodek, enkraten v zasužnjeni Evropi – prvi kongres kulturnih de- lavcev Hrvaške na osvobojenem ozemlju, ki je potekal v Topuskem od 25. do 27. junija 1944. Na kongresu v stavbi topliške restavracije, ki je bila poslikana s freskami Z. Price, so sodelovali znan- stveniki, profesorji, učitelji, profesionalni in amaterski pisatelji, skladatelji, igralci in režiserji. 2 Ivo Frangeš hrvaško književnost vojnega obdobja izpostavlja »kot enega zelo redkih primerov or- ganske književnosti odpora, kljub težkim pogojem nacifašistične okupacije. V nobeni drugi evropski književnosti ni, proporcionalno, tolikšno število in toliko znamenitih književnikov sodelovalo v boju in vojnih operacijah, se pridružilo odporniškemu gibanju.« Frangeš, Ivo: Povijest hrvatske književ- nosti (Zgodovina hrvaškega slovstva), Zagreb – Ljubljana: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske – Cankar- jeva založba, 1987, str. 350. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Povzetek Narodnoosvobodilni boj na območju Jugoslavije, del svetovnega protifašističnega boja, je prispeval po- membne dosežke tudi na kulturnem področju: v likovni umetnosti, glasbi in književnosti, gledališču, fil- mu, stripu. Ob tej priložnosti se ukvarjamo z obravnavo literarnih stvaritev z vojno tematiko (nastalih med drugo svetovno vojno in neposredno po njej) pri pouku književnosti, točneje, z (ne)navzočnostjo teh besedil v hrvaških učnih načrtih/kurikulumih, namenjenih srednješolskemu/gimnazijskemu pouku, od osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja do danes. Posebna pozornost je posvečena kvantitativni in kvali- tativni analizi literarne produkcije v sklopu šolske interpretacije literarnega besedila, s poudarkom na vojnih opusih Vladimirja Nazorja, Ivana Gorana Kovačića in Jureta Kaštelana. Analiza je pokazala, da je obravnava NOB v aktualnem gimnazijskem kurikulumu za hrvaški jezik in književnost po obsegu tako zmanjšana, po pristopu pa tako nedorečena, da lahko njen položaj opazujemo v sklopu usode, ki jo do- življajo protifašistični spomeniki po vsej Hrvaški. Uničevanje umetniških arhitekturnih in kiparskih del, pogosto zelo velike vrednosti, ki se je začelo v obdobju domovinske vojne (1990–1995), traja še danes, (pre)pogosto ob ravnodušnosti oblasti in odgovornih državnih institucij do tega problema. Posledice takšnega odnosa do simbolov NOB (tako pisnih kot klesanih) so še posebej vidne v, najblažje rečeno, begajočem odnosu mladih generacij do protifašizma, civilizacijske opredelitve, na kateri temelji sodob- na Evropa – katere sestavni del je tudi Hrvaška. Ključne besede književnost NOB v hrvaških srednješolskih/gimnazijskih učnih načrtih/kurikulumih, Vladimir Nazor, Ivan Goran Kovačić, Jure Kaštelan, pozaba Uvod Delovanje kulturnih ustvarjalcev v NOB je potekalo v znamenju zavračanja stare- ga latinskega izreka Inter arma silent musae. Na osvobojenih ozemljih po vsej Jugoslaviji je namreč potekalo bogato in raznoliko kulturno življenje: tiskali so pesniške zbirke, izhajali so časopisi (s krajšimi dramskimi in proznimi besedili), organizirali so raznolike kulturne prireditve (partizansko gledališče).1 Književnost so ustvarjali avtorji, vključeni v partizanske brigade. Najbolj razširjena literarna vrsta je bila lirska pesem – izpod peresa znanih (npr. Vladimirja Nazorja, Ivana Gorana Kovačića) in neznanih pesnikov (vzpon ljudske pesmi). Med dramskimi besedili so bile najbolj priljubljene enodejanke, ki so jih igrali na partizanskih prireditvah. Tematika teh del je zajemala revolucionarni zanos, odpor proti so- vražniku, upor proti socialni krivičnosti, ljubezen do domovine, vero v zmago. Četudi ima precej teh stvaritev propagandni značaj, ne smemo pozabiti, da so v tem obdobju nastala tudi nekatera literarna dela, ki presegajo čas nastanka in ki jih zaradi njihove estetske, humanistične in etične vrednosti lahko uvrstimo v sam vrh jugoslovanske oziroma hrvaške književnosti.2 11arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Mirjana Benjak Neposredno nakon rata prevladavala je poetika socijalističkog realizma, koja je najviše traga ostavila u kritici i esejistici, ali je zanimljivo da u tom razdoblju izla- ze i književna djela koja odudaraju od socrealističkih normi (npr. P. Šegedin: Djeca božja, V. Parun: Zore i vihori, R. Marinković: Proze, V. Desnica: Zimsko ljetova- nje).3 Što se pak tiče beletristike koja je tematski vezana uz NOB, kao književna vrsta osobito je bila popularna poema (M. Franičević: Govorenje Mikule Trudne- ga, V. Popović: Oči, J. Kaštelan: Tifusari, O. Šolc: Noć). Po popularnosti nisu zao- stajale ni zbirke pripovijedaka o partizanskom ratu (I. Dončević: Bezimeni, J. Hor- vat: Za pobjedu). 1. Književnost NOB-a u hrvatskim srednjoškolskim/gimnazijskim nastavnim programima/kurikulima Uobičajeno je bilo da se u hrvatskim srednjoškolskim/gimnazijskim nastavnim programima/kurikulima predlagalo poučavanje književnosti uvažavajući, prije svega, književnopovijesni kriterij. To znači da su stilske formacije poredane u po- vijesnome slijedu: od antičke književnosti (odnosno početaka pismenosti na naci- onalnoj razini) do suvremenih kretanja u literaturi.4 I dok nema većih problema s klasifikacijom starijih razdoblja književnosti, oni se pojavljuju u prikazu književ- nih kretanja, odnosno pravaca u modernoj i suvremenoj književnosti (20. i 21. stoljeće). Da rješavanje tog problema ne ovisi uvijek samo o kriterijima koje je postavila znanost o književnosti (znamo da je potreban stanovit vremenski od- mak kako bi se, prema prevladavajućim stilskim obilježjima, književna produkcija mogla imenovati), pokazuje odnos autora nastavnih programa/kurikula prema (ne)uvrštavanju književnosti NOB-a u njih. Kako bismo potvrdili ove teze, pristu- pili smo analizi nastavnih programa/kurikula koji su bili u upotrebi neposredno prije osamostaljenja Republike Hrvatske (od 80-ih do 90-ih godina prošlog stolje- ća) te onih osmišljenih nakon njena osamostaljenja (od 90-ih godina do danas). 1.1. Književnost NOB-a u nastavnim programima prije osamostaljenja Republike Hrvatske U programu iz 1984. godine,5 namijenjenog srednjem usmjerenom obrazovanju, nastava materinskog jezika (koji se službeno zove hrvatski ili srpski jezik) didaktič- ki je oblikovana u sustavu jezično-umjetničkog područja koje obuhvaća verbalni, vizualni i auditivni jezik te književnost, likovnu kulturu, scensku i filmsku kulturu. Što se književnih sadržaja tiče, predviđa se interpretacija djela koja, osim svjetske književnosti, pripadaju hrvatskom, srpskom, slovenskom i makedonskom korpusu i književnosti (ukratko – književnosti jugoslavenskih naroda i narodnosti). Poučavanje književnosti NOB-a predviđeno je u sklopu Pristupa književnom (umjet- ničkom) djelu (1. razred) i obrazovne jezgre Književnost NOB i tema revolucije u suvremenoj književnosti jugoslavenskih naroda i narodnosti (3. razred). Za 1. se razred predlaže interpretacija (u sklopu Lirike) pjesma Jure Kaštelana Svijetliš u tmi- ni i narodne pjesme Druže Tito, ljubičice bijela. Za 3. razred predviđeni su ovi auto- ri i djela: Vladimir Nazor: Titov Naprijed!, Ivan Goran Kovačić: Jama, Oton Župančič: Pjesniče, znaš li svoj dug, Jure Kaštelan: Tifusari, Skender Kulenović: Stojanka majka Knežopoljka, Branko Ćopić: Pjesma mrtvih proletera, Matej Bor: Susret, Oskar Da- vičo: Pesma, Aco Šopov: Oči, Mirko Banjević: Sutjeska, Slavko Vukosavljević: Kadi- njača i Fadil Hoxha: Kad proljeće kasni. Za 4. razred srednjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja iste godine izlazi nastavni pro- gram,6 koji se svojom koncepcijom razlikuje od onog namijenjenog prvim trima razredima po tome što je napušten književnopovijesni pristup književnim sadrža- jima. Književna su djela, nastala u 20. stoljeću, u njemu raspoređena prema knji- ževnim rodovima: lirika, epika, drama i esej. Od književnih ostvarenje tematike NOB-a predviđena je, u sklopu obrazovne jezgre Epika, obrada romana crnogor- skog književnika Mihajla Lalića Lelejska gora. 3 Tome su u velike pridonijeli istupi Petra Šegedina (1949.) i Miroslava Krleže (1952.) koji su se suprot- stavili pragmaticizmu i utilitarizmu propagatora tzv. socijalističkog realizma. 4 Taj kriterij nije primijenjen samo na početku 1. razreda srednjih škola/gimnazija gdje poučavanje književnosti počinje s nastavnim temama iz teorije književnosti (tzv. Pristup književnom djelu). 5 Hrvatski ili srpski jezik, književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost, Jezično-umjetničko područje, Zaje- dničke osnove srednjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja, Vjesnik Republičkog komiteta za prosvjetu, kultu- ru, fizičku i tehničku kulturu SR Hrvatske, Zagreb, 24. travnja 1984. 6 Program hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, književnosti, scenske i filmske umjetnosti za IV. razred sre- dnjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja, Vjesnik Republičkog komiteta za prosvjetu, kulturu, fizičku i tehnič- ku kulturu SR Hrvatske, Zagreb, 18. prosinca 1984. 3 K temu so precej pripomogla stališča Petra Šegedina (1949) in Miroslava Krleže (1952), ki sta se zoperstavila pragmaticizmu in utilitarizmu propagatorjev t. i. socialističnega realizma. 4 Ta kriterij ni upoštevan samo na začetku 1. letnika srednjih šol/gimnazij, kjer se poučevanje književ- nosti začne z učnimi temami iz literarne teorije (t. i. pristop k literarnemu besedilu). 5 Hrvatski ili srpski jezik, književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost, Jezično-umjetničko područje, Za- jedničke osnove srednjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja (Hrvaški ali srbski jezik, književnost, scenska in filmska umetnost, Jezikovno-umetniško področje, Skupne osnove srednjega usmerjenega izobraže- vanja), Zagreb: Vjesnik Republičkog komiteta za prosvjetu, kulturu, fizičku i tehničku kulturu SR Hrvatske, 24. april 1984. Neposredno po vojni je prevladovala poetika socialističnega realizma, ki je naj- več sledi pustila v kritiki in esejistiki, zanimivo pa je, da so v tem obdobju izhajala tudi literarna dela, ki odstopajo od socrealističnih norm (npr. P. Šegedin: Djeca božja (Otroci božji), V. Parun: Zore i vihori (Zore in viharji), R. Marinković: Proze, V. Desnica: Zimsko ljetovanje (Zimsko letovanje)).3 Kar pa zadeva beletristiko, te- matsko povezano z NOB, je bila kot literarna vrsta izredno priljubljena pesnitev (M. Franičević: Govorenje Mikule Trudnega (Govorjenje Mikule Trudnega), V. Po- pović: Oči, J. Kaštelan: Tifusari (Tifusarji), O. Šolc: Noć (Noč)). Tudi prozne zbirke o partizanskem boju v priljubljenosti niso zaostajale (I. Dončević: Bezimeni (Brez- imni), J. Horvat: Za pobjedu (Za zmago)). 1. Književnost NOB v hrvaških srednješolskih/gimnazijskih učnih načrtih/ kurikulumih V hrvaških srednješolskih/gimnazijskih učnih načrtih/kurikulumih je bilo pouče- vanje književnosti navadno predlagano ob upoštevanju predvsem literarnozgo- dovinskega kriterija. To pomeni, da so literarna obdobja razvrščena po zgodovin- skem poteku: od antične književnosti (oziroma od začetkov pismenstva na nacio- nalni ravni) do sodobnih literarnih smeri.4 Pri klasifikaciji starejših literarnih ob- dobij ni večjih težav, pojavijo pa se pri prikazu literarnih smeri v moderni in so- dobni književnosti (20. in 21. stoletje). Da reševanje te težave ni vedno odvisno zgolj od kriterijev, ki jih je postavila literarna zgodovina (vemo, da je potreben določen časovni odmik, da – glede na prevladujoče slogovne značilnosti – literar- no produkcijo lahko poimenujemo), kaže odnos avtorjev učnih načrtov/kurikulu- mov do (ne)vključevanja književnosti NOB vanje. Da bi te teze potrdili, smo ana- lizirali učne načrte/kurikulume, ki so bili v rabi neposredno pred osamosvojitvijo Republike Hrvaške (od osemdesetih do devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja), in tiste, ki so nastali po njeni osamosvojitvi (od devetdesetih let do danes). 1.1 Književnost NOB v učnih načrtih pred osamosvojitvijo Republike Hrvaške V načrtu iz leta 1984,5 namenjenem srednjemu usmerjenemu izobraževanju, je bil pouk materinščine (ki se je uradno imenovala hrvaški ali srbski jezik) didaktič- no oblikovan v sistemu jezikovno-umetniškega področja, ki je zajemalo verbalni, vizualni in avditivni jezik in književnost, likovno kulturo ter scensko in filmsko kulturo. Kar zadeva literarne vsebine, je bila predvidena interpretacija del, ki so, razen svetovne književnosti, sodila v hrvaški, srbski, slovenski in makedonski kor- pus in književnost (skratka – književnosti jugoslovanskih narodov in narodnosti). Poučevanje književnosti NOB je bilo predvideno v okviru t. i. pristopa k literarne- mu (umetniškemu) delu (1. letnik) ter tematskega sklopa Književnost NOB in tema revolucije v sodobni književnosti jugoslovanskih narodov in narodnosti (3. letnik). Za 1. letnik je bila predlagana interpretacija (v sklopu Lirika) pesmi Jureta Kaštelana Svijetliš u tmini (Svetiš v temi) in ljudske pesmi Druže Tito, ljubičice bi- jela (Tovariš Tito, vijolica bela). Za 3. letnik so bili predvideni naslednji avtorji in dela: Vladimir Nazor: Titov Naprijed! (Titov Naprej!), Ivan Goran Kovačić: Jama, Oton Župančič: Veš, poet, svoj dolg? (Pjesniče, znaš li svoj dug), Jure Kaštelan: Tifusari (Tifusarji), Skender Kulenović: Stojanka majka Knežopoljka (Stojanka, mati knežpoljska), Branko Ćopić: Pjesma mrtvih proletera (Pesem mrtvih prole- tarcev), Matej Bor: Srečanje (Susret), Oskar Davičo: Pesma (Pesem), Aco Šopov: Oči, Mirko Banjević: Sutjeska, Slavko Vukosavljević: Kadinjača in Fadil Hoxha: Kad proljeće kasni (Ko pomlad zamuja). 12 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 1.2. Književnost NOB-a u nastavnim programima/kurikulima nakon osamostaljenja Republike Hrvatske Nakon osamostaljenja Hrvatske, kad se u srednjoškolski odgojno-obrazovni sustav ponovno uvode gimnazije (1995.), književnost 20. stoljeća doživljava, u smislu kla- sifikacije, značajne preinake. Tako se predstavnici književnosti NOB-a poučavaju u sklopu obrazovne jezgre Avangarda, modernistički pokreti i socijalna književnost (II. razdoblje, 1929.–1952.) i Druge moderne (1952.–1968.).7 U prvu obrazovnu jez- gru smješten je Ivan Goran Kovačić sa svojom poemom Jama i pjesmom Moj grob. Među pisce Druge moderne uvršten je Jure Kaštelan. Predlaže se interpretacija nje- gove poeme Tifusari ili, po izboru, pjesma Konjic bez konjika ili Jadikovka kamena. Od ove je školske godine (2019./2020.) u hrvatskom osnovnoškolskom i srednjoš- kolskom obrazovanju započela primjena reformskih zahvata poznatih pod nazivom Škola za život. Jedna od velikih novina ove reforme predstavlja uvođenje nove pa- radigme u koncepciji kurikula. Tako se u kurikulu za Hrvatski jezik8 napušta koncep- cija prethodnih nastavnih programa: umjesto obrazovnih jezgra, nastavnih tema i jedinica uvode se tzv. odgojno-obrazovni ishodi, a o književnim sadržajima kojima se oni ostvaruju u većoj mjeri odlučuju nastavnici (koji „samostalno odabire ulomke tekstova za ostvarivanje odgojno-obrazovnih ishoda prema svojoj profesionalnoj procjeni“) dok su obvezni književni tekstovi navedeni u manjoj mjeri. Među obave- znim književnim djelima, koja su navedena u sadržajima za ostvarivanje odgojno- obrazovnih ishoda književnopovijesnih razdoblja u 20. stoljeću (4. razred gimnazije) ne nailazimo ni na jedno ostvarenje s tematikom NOB-a. Kurikul donosi (u poglavlju F), dvije vrste popisa književnih djela koja bi učenici tijekom gimnazijskog školova- nja trebali pročitati: a) Popis obveznih književnih tekstova za cjelovito čitanje i b) Popis klasičnih hrvatskih i svjetskih književnih tekstova za cjelovito čitanje uloma- ka.9 Na prvom se popisu našao Vladimir Nazor (izbor iz poezije), a na drugom Jure Kaštelan (izbor iz poezije) i Ivan Goran Kovačić (Jama i izbor iz poezije). Kako je Nazorov, Goranov i Kaštelanov književni opus mnogo širi od djela s ratnom temati- kom, to možemo zaključiti da će gimnazijalci od svih djela vezanih uz NOB s izvje- snom sigurnošću pročitati samo ulomke iz Goranove Jame. Na temelju analiza srednjoškolskih/gimnazijskih nastavnih programa/kurikula prije i nakon osamostaljena Republike Hrvatske možemo donijeti ove zaključke o kvantitativnoj i kvalitativnoj prisutnosti književnosti s tematikom NOB-a u sred- njoškolskoj/gimnazijskoj nastavi književnosti: - u nastavnim programima(za srednje usmjereno obrazovanje) iz razdoblja koje je prethodilo osamostaljenju Hrvatske, književnost NOB-a je izdvojena kao zasebna obrazovna jezgra u sklopu pregleda književnosti 20. stoljeća (za 3. razred); - u tim je programima, koji su obuhvaćali književne sadržaje iz jugoslavenske književnosti bilo predloženo (za 1. razred u Pristupu književnom/umjetničkom djelu, za 3. razred u obrazovnoj jezgri Književnost NOB i tema revolucije u su- vremenoj književnosti jugoslavenskih naroda i narodnosti, za 4. razredu obra- zovnoj jezgri Lirika) ukupno 15 književnika; bez obzira na velik broj pisaca, pri izboru njihovih ostvarenja, vodilo se računa o stilsko-umjetničkom kriteriju; - u metodičkom instrumentariju koji prati te programe nastavnike se upućuje na višeslojnu interpretaciju književnih djela: ona obuhvaća tematsku-motiv- sku, teorijsko-književnu, jezično-stilsku i etičku razinu; - u nastavnim programima/kurikulima nakon osamostaljenja Hrvatske primje- tan je drukčiji pristup književnosti NOB-a, prvenstveno u kvantitativnom smi- slu – književni sadržaji, predviđeni za gimnazijsku nastavu književnosti, usre- dotočeni su na svjetsku i hrvatsku književnost (u potpunosti su izostavljeni slovenski, srpski, bosanski, crnogorski i makedonski pisci); - u periodizaciji književnosti NOB-a ne pripada više zasebno mjesto – njezini su predstavnici uključeni u književne pravce književnosti 20. stoljeća; - u aktualnom kurikulu za Hrvatski jezik za gimnazije književnost s tematikom NOB-a prisutna je samo periferno – za školsku interpretaciju nije predviđen ni jedan cjeloviti tekst, jedino je Goranova Jama predviđena kao cjelovito djelo za učeničko samostalno čitanje; - od pisaca partizana u svim su nastavnim programima/kurikulima (prije i nakon osamostaljenja Hrvatske) prisutni jedino Vladimir Nazor, Ivan Goran Kovačić i Jure Kaštelan, iako ne uvijek nužno s radovima vezanim uz ratno razdoblje. 7 Hrvatski jezik za gimnazije, Glasnik ministarstva prosvjete i športa, Zagreb, 1995. 8 Kurikulum za nastavni predmet Hrvatski jezik za osnovne škole i gimnazije u Republici Hrvatskoj, Narodne novine 10/2019, Zagreb, 29. 1. 2019. 9 Popisi su sastavljeni po abecednom redu književnika i nisu podijeljeni po razredima. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Za 4. letnik srednjega usmerjenega izobraževanja je istega leta izšel učni načrt,6 ki se je od načrta, namenjenega prvim trem letnikom, v zasnovi razlikoval po tem, da je bil v njem opuščen literarnozgodovinski pristop k literarnim vsebinam. Lite- rarna besedila, nastala v 20. stoletju, so bila v tem načrtu razporejena po literar- nih zvrsteh: lirika, epika, dramatika in esejistika. Izmed literarnih del s tematiko NOB je bila (v tematskem sklopu Epika) predvidena obravnava romana Lelejska gora črnogorskega književnika Mihajla Lalića. 1.2 Književnost NOB v učnih načrtih/kurikulumih po osamosvojitvi Republike Hrvaške Po osamosvojitvi Hrvaške, ko so bile v srednješolski vzgojno-izobraževalni sistem znova vpeljane gimnazije (1995), je književnost 20. stoletja v klasifikacijskem smislu doživela pomembne spremembe. Tako so predstavniki književnosti NOB obravnavani v tematskih sklopih Avantgarda, modernistična gibanja in socialna književnost (2. obdobje, 1929–1952) ter Druga moderna (1952–1968).7 V prvi tematski sklop je bil umeščen Ivan Goran Kovačić s pesnitvijo Jama in pesmijo Moj grob. Med avtorje druge moderne je bil uvrščen Jure Kaštelan. Predlagana je bila interpretacija njegove pesmi Tifusari (Tifusarji) ali, po izbiri, pesmi Konjic bez konjika (Konj brez konjenika) ali Jadikovka kamena (Jadikovanje kamna). Z letošnjim šolskim letom (2019/2020) so se v hrvaškem osnovnošolskem in sre- dnješolskem izobraževanju začeli reformni postopki, znani kot Škola za život (Šola za življenje). Ena od velikih novosti te reforme je uvajanje nove paradigme v za- snovi kurikuluma. Tako je v kurikulumu za hrvaški jezik8 opuščena zasnova prej- šnjih učnih načrtov: namesto tematskih sklopov, učnih tem in vsebin se uvajajo t. i. vzgojno-izobraževalni izidi, o literarnih vsebinah, s katerimi se dosegajo, pa v večji meri odločajo učitelji (ki »samostojno izberejo odlomke besedil za dosega- nje vzgojno-izobraževalnih izidov v skladu s svojo profesionalno presojo«), med- tem ko so literarna besedila navedena v manjši meri. Med obveznimi literarnimi deli, ki so navedena v vsebinah za doseganje vzgojno-izobraževanih izidov v zvezi z literarnozgodovinskimi obdobji v 20. stoletju (4. letnik gimnazije), ne najdemo niti enega dela s tematiko NOB. Kurikulum vsebuje (v poglavju F) dve vrsti sezna- mov literarnih del, ki naj bi jih dijaki med gimnazijskim šolanjem prebrali: a) se- znam obveznih literarnih del za celostno branje in b) seznam klasičnih hrvaških in svetovnih literarnih del za branje odlomkov.9 Na prvem seznamu je Vladimir Na- zor (izbor iz poezije), na drugem pa sta Jure Kaštelan (izbor iz poezije) in Ivan Goran Kovačić (Jama in izbor iz poezije). Ker so literarni opusi V. Nazorja, I. G. Kovačića in J. Kaštelana precej širši od del z vojno tematiko, lahko rečemo, da bodo gimnazijci od vseh besedil, povezanih z NOB, z določeno gotovostjo prebra- li samo odlomke iz Jame I. G. Kovačića. Na podlagi analize srednješolskih/gimnazijskih učnih načrtov/kurikulumov iz časa pred osamosvojitvijo Republike Hrvaške in po njej lahko zapišemo naslednje sklepe o kvantitativni in kvalitativni zastopanosti književnosti s tematiko NOB pri srednješolskem/gimnazijskem pouku književnosti: - v učnih načrtih (za srednje usmerjeno izobraževanje) iz obdobja pred osamo- svojitvijo Hrvaške je bila književnost NOB vključena v ločen tematski sklop v okviru pregleda književnosti 20. stoletja (za 3. letnik); - v teh načrtih, ki so zajemali literarne vsebine iz jugoslovanske književnosti, je bilo (za 1. letnik v t. i. pristopu k literarnemu/umetniškemu delu, za 3. letnik v tematskem sklopu Književnost NOB in tema revolucije v sodobni književno- sti jugoslovanskih narodov in narodnosti, za 4. letnik v tematskem sklopu Li- rika) skupno predlaganih 15 književnikov; ne glede na veliko število avtorjev je bil pri izbiri njihovih del upoštevan slogovno-umetniški kriterij; - didaktični instrumentarij, ki spremlja te načrte, učitelje napotuje na večplas- tno interpretacijo literarnih del: ta zajema tematsko-motivno, literarnoteo- retično, jezikovno-slogovno in etično raven; 6 Program hrvatskog ili srpskog jezika, književnosti, scenske i filmske umjetnosti za IV. razred sre- dnjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja (Program hrvaškega ali srbskega jezika, književnosti, scenske in filmske umetnosti za 4. letnik srednjega usmerjenega izobraževanja), Zagreb: Vjesnik Republičkog komiteta za prosvjetu, kulturu, fizičku i tehničku kulturu SR Hrvatske, 18. december 1984. 7 Hrvatski jezik za gimnazije (Hrvaški jezik za gimnazije), Zagreb: Glasnik ministarstva prosvjete i športa, 1995. 8 Kurikulum za nastavni predmet Hrvatski jezik za osnovne škole i gimnazije u Republici Hrvatskoj (Kurikulum za učni predmet hrvaški jezik za osnovne šole in gimnazije v Republiki Hrvaški), Zagreb: Narodne novine 10/2019, 29. 1. 2019. 9 Seznama sta urejena po abecednem redu imen književnikov in nista razdeljena na razrede oz. letnike. 13arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Mirjana Benjak 2. Položaj i pristup književnim djelima s tematikom NOB-a Vladimira Nazora, Ivana Gorana Kovačića i Jure Kaštelana u srednjoškolskoj/gimnazijskoj nastavi književnosti Već je rečeno da su, u tijeku i neposredno nakon NOB-a, nastala književna djela koja svojom kvalitetom nadilaze vrijeme nastanka te su postala značajnim dije- lom hrvatske povijesne baštine. Među stvaraocima koji su u ratnom i prvom po- ratnom razdoblju dali stihove antologijske vrijednosti spadaju Vladimir Nazor, Ivan Goran Kovačić i Jure Kaštelan. Analiza srednjoškolskih/gimnazijskih progra- ma pokazuje da se njihov položaj i pristup njihovom djelu u obrazovnom sustavu mijenjao u razdoblju od 80-ih godina prošlog stoljeća do danas. Na to nisu utje- cale promjene u umjetničko-znanstvenoj ocjeni njihova stvaralaštva, već promje- ne koje su se dogodile na ideološkom planu u hrvatskome društvu nakon osamo- staljenja Hrvatske. 2.1. Vladimir Nazor Vladimir Nazor (1876. – 1949.) pjesnik je, prozaist i prevoditelj koji je stvarao kroz nekoliko literarnih epoha – od moderne do suvremene hrvatske književnosti. Le- gendaran je njegov prijelaz na oslobođeni teritorij (1942. godine „čamcem preko Kupe“ zajedno s Ivanom Goranom Kovačićem), gdje je u toku rata i poslije oslo- bođenja napisao svoje posljednje zbirke stihova i proze: Pjesme partizanke (1944.), dnevnik S partizanima (1945.) i Legende o drugu Titu (1946.). Zahvalju- jući književnom angažmanu i velikoj popularnosti koju je uživao, postao je pred- sjednik Izvršnog odbora ZAVNOH-a10 i prvi predsjednik Hrvatskog sabora. Po nje- mu je nazvana i najznačajnija hrvatska državna nagrada koja se dodjeljuje svake godine za najbolja umjetnička ostvarenja u književnosti, glazbi, filmu, likovnim i primijenjenim umjetnostima, kazališnoj umjetnosti te arhitekturi i urbanizmu. Do 90-ih godina prošlog stoljeća Vladimir Nazor se u srednjoškolskoj nastavi knji- ževnosti obrađivao na monografskoj razini pa su se interpretirala i djela vezana uz tematiku NOB-a (Na Vučevu, Čamac na Kupi, Titov Naprijed! i dr.). U aktual- nom se kurikulu, da ponovimo, našao jedino na Popisu obveznih književnih tek- stova za cjelovito čitanje s izborom iz lirike. Možemo konstatirati da Nazora neki novi čamac ne odvodi „na onu stranu vode/na teške al svete puteve/poštenja i slobode“,11 već u zaborav. Simptomatična je u tom smislu i sudbina Nazorova kipa, kojeg je 1972. izradio Stjepan Gračan. Brončani je to visoki kip, postavljen u zagrebačkom parku Tuška- nac, koji prikazuje koračaj ostarjelog mršavog pjesnika ogrnutog šinjelom s parti- zanskom kapom na glavi. Dogodilo se nekoliko puta da ga netko, nikad uhvaćen, sruši. „Ali on opet stoji i hoda, neodvojiv od zvijezde koja je na njegovoj pjesničkoj glavi častan simbol“12 (Slika 1). Sl. 1: Vladimir Nazor (kip Stjepana Gračana, 1972). Foto: © Rudolf Abraham www.rudolfabraham.co.uk 10 Zemaljsko antifašističko vijeće narodnog oslobođenja Hrvatske. 11 Stihovi iz Nazorove pjesme Čamac na Kupi (1942.) u kojoj je opjevao svoj odlazak u partizane. 12 Pofuk, Branimir: Premda ga svako malo obore, Nazorov kip na Tuškancu stoji i hoda pod časnom zvijezdom, Jutarnji list, 6. lipnja 2018. - v učnih načrtih/kurikulumih iz časa po osamosvojitvi Hrvaške je opazen dru- gačen pristop h književnosti NOB, predvsem v kvantitativnem smislu – lite- rarne vsebine, predvidene za gimnazijski pouk književnosti, so osredotočene na svetovno in hrvaško književnost (v celoti so izpuščeni slovenski, srbski, bosanski, črnogorski in makedonski avtorji); - v periodizaciji književnost NOB nima več posebnega mesta – predstavniki te književnosti so vključeni v literarne smeri književnosti 20. stoletja; - v aktualnem kurikulumu za hrvaški jezik za gimnazije je književnost s temati- ko NOB navzoča samo obrobno – za šolsko interpretacijo ni predvideno no- beno besedilo v celoti, le Jama I. G. Kovačića je predvidena kot celotno bese- dilo za dijakovo samostojno branje; - izmed partizanskih avtorjev so v vseh učnih načrtih/kurikulumih (pred osa- mosvojitvijo Hrvaške in po njej) navzoči samo Vladimir Nazor, Ivan Goran Ko- vačić in Jure Kaštelan, četudi ne vedno nujno z besedili iz vojnega obdobja. 2. Položaj in obravnava literarnih besedil s tematiko NOB Vladimirja Nazorja, Ivana Gorana Kovačića in Jureta Kaštelana pri srednješolskem/gimnazijskem pouku književnosti Omenili smo že, da so med NOB in neposredno po njem nastala literarna besedila, ki s kakovostjo presegajo čas nastanka in so postala pomemben del hrvaške zgo- dovinske dediščine. Med ustvarjalce, ki so v vojnem in prvem povojnem obdobju prispevali verze antologijske vrednosti, sodijo Vladimir Nazor, Ivan Goran Kovačić in Jure Kaštelan. Analiza srednješolskih/gimnazijskih načrtov kaže, da sta se njihov položaj in pristop k njihovemu delu v izobraževalnem sistemu v obdobju od osem- desetih let prejšnjega stoletja do danes spreminjala. Na to niso vplivale spremem- be v umetniško-znanstveni oceni njihovega ustvarjanja, temveč spremembe, ki so se v hrvaški družbi po osamosvojitvi zgodile na ideološkem področju. 2.1 Vladimir Nazor Vladimir Nazor (1876–1949) je bil pesnik, prozaist in prevajalec, ki je ustvarjal v nekaj literarnih obdobjih – od moderne do sodobne hrvaške književnosti. Legen- daren je njegov prehod na osvobojeno ozemlje (»s čolnom čez Kolpo« z Ivanom Goranom Kovačićem), kjer je med vojno in po osvoboditvi napisal zadnje zbirke verzov in proze: Pjesme partizanke (Pesmi partizanke) (1944), dnevnik S partiza- nima (S partizani) (1945) in Legende o drugu Titu (Legende o tovarišu Titu) (1946). Zaradi literarnega angažmaja in velike priljubljenosti, ki jo je užival, je postal predsednik izvršnega odbora ZAVNOH-a10 in prvi predsednik hrvaškega sabora. Po njem se imenuje tudi najpomembnejša hrvaška državna nagrada, ki jo vsako leto podelijo za najboljše umetniške dosežke na področju književnosti, glasbe, filma, likovnih in uporabnih umetnosti, gledališke umetnosti ter arhitek- ture in urbanizma. Do devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja je bil Vladimir Nazor pri srednješolskem pouku književnosti obravnavan na monografski ravni, interpretirali so tudi bese- dila, povezana s tematiko NOB (Na Vučevu, Čamac na Kupi (Čoln na Kolpi), Titov Naprijed! (Titov Naprej!) idr.). V aktualnem kurikulumu, naj ponovimo, ga najde- mo edino na seznamu obveznih literarnih besedil za celostno branje, in sicer z izborom iz lirike. Lahko rečemo, da Nazorja novi čoln ne pelje »na tisto stran vode, / na težka, vendar sveta pota / poštenja in svobode«,11 temveč v pozabo. V tem smislu je simptomatična tudi usoda Nazorjevega kipa, ki ga je leta 1972 izdelal Stjepan Gračan. Gre za visok bronast kip, postavljen v zagrebškem parku Tuškanac, ki prikazuje korakanje postaranega suhljatega pesnika, ogrnjenega z vojaškim plaščem in s partizansko kapo na glavi. Nekajkrat se je že zgodilo, da ga je kdo (nikoli ujet) prevrnil. »Vendar spet stoji in hodi, neločljiv od zvezde, ki je na njegovi pesniški glavi častni simbol«12 (slika 1). 10 Hrvaški protifašistični svet narodne osvoboditve (op. prev.). 11 Verzi iz Nazorjeve pesmi Čoln na Kolpi (1942), v kateri govori o odhodu v partizane. 12 Pofuk, Branimir: Premda ga svako malo obore, Nazorov kip na Tuškancu stoji i hoda pod časnom zvijezdom (Četudi ga vsake toliko prevrnejo, Nazorjev kip na Tuškancu stoji in hodi pod častno zvezdo), Zagreb: Jutarnji list, 6. junij 2018. 14 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 2.2. Ivan Goran Kovačić Osebujna je pojava u cjelokupnoj hrvatskoj književnosti pjesnika, pripovjedača, kritičara, esejiste i prevoditelja Ivana Gorana Kovačića (1913. – 1943.). Književnik je to koji je uveo rodni Gorski kotar kao temu u hrvatsku književnost13 (knjiga proze Dani gnjeva, 1936., knjiga kajkavske poezije Ognji i rože, 1946.), svoju je borbenost i angažiranost pokazivao i prije ratnih strahota (programatska pjesma Pjesniku, 1938., stravični epitaf Moj grob, 1937.), a kaoautor poeme Jama (1944.), za koju s pravom Frangeš kaže da je „najstrašnija osuda strahote u ondašnjoj europskoj poeziji,“14 postaje klasik, ne samo hrvatske književnosti. U Jami, najznačajnijem književnom ostvarenju nastalom u toku NOB-a (1944.), prikazana je sva besmislenost ratnih krvarenja i nadčovječanske muke što su ih proživljavali ljudi zahvaćeni ratnim strahotama. Epopeja je to jedne borbe u kojoj se, nakon muka i smrti naslućuje novi, ljepši život.15 Poema je to od deset mono- loško oblikovanih pjevanja, skladnih sekstina i katrena ispjevanih takvim poet- skim načinom kakav se rijetko sreće u književnosti. Potreseni Goranovom okrutnom smrti16 i inspirirani njegovim prerano i nasilno prekinutom stvaralačkim radom (Kaštelan ga je nazvao „pjevačem prerezana glasa“) , mnogi su, ne samo hrvatski, književnici, glazbenici i likovni umjetnici posvetili svoje radove njegovom talentu. Goran je postao umjetnička tema - o tome svjedoče npr. djela pisaca D. Tadijanovića, V. Nazora, V. Parun, Paula Eluar- da, J. Kaštelana, O. Šolca, A. Šoljana, B. Miljkovića, M. Ristića i D. Cesarića; kom- pozitora K. Baranovića, B. Bjelinskog, N. Hercigonje, S. Horvata, B. Sakača i L. Županovića; likovnih umjetnika (slikara i kipara) P. Picassa, Z. Price, E. Murtića, J. Mišea, F. Vaića, J. Vanište, T. Gerića, I. Lovrenčića i V. Bakića. Među tim radovima valja spomenuti skulpture Vojina Bakića17 koje predstavljaju glavu Ivana Gorana Kovačića. Jedna je od njih (kamena) postavljena u parku Rib- njak u Zagrebu, a druga, metalna varijanta, u Lukovdolu, rodnom mjestu Ivana Gorana Kovačića.18 (Slika 2) 13 Svoju ljubav prema zavičaju iskazao je i dodavanjem si imena Goran, kojedo njega nije postojalo kao osobno ime već kao oznaka stanovnika Gorskog kotara. 14 Frangeš, Ivo: Povijest hrvatske književnosti, Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske - Cankarjeva založba, Zagreb – Ljubljana, 1987., str. 348. 15 Stihovi iz 10. pjevanja Jame ispisani su na bakrenoj ploči na ulazu u Memorijalni muzej Spomen-po- dručja Jasenovac. 16 Krajem 1942. s Vladimirom Nazorom odlazi u partizane, prolazi 4. i 5. neprijateljsku ofenzivu, a u sr- pnju 1943. u blizini Foče dočekala ga je četnička kama. 17 Vojin Bakić (1915. – 1992.), jedan od najvećih hrvatskih kipara 20. stoljeća. Njegovi spomenici po- svećeni NOB-u, visoke umjetničke vrijednosti, 90-ih su godina ili zapušteni ili devastirani. 18 U Lukovdolu se, od 1964. održava pjesnička manifestacija na dan Goranova rođenja, prvog dana proljeća. Na njoj se uručuju nagrade Goranov vijenac (od 1971.) i Goran za mlade pjesnike (od 1977.). Sl. 2: Ivan Goran Kovačić (spomenik Vojina Bakića, 1956). Foto: Antonio Šiber. Sl. 3: Jure Kaštelan (portret / bista Stipeta Sikirice, 1974) Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 2.2 Ivan Goran Kovačić Pojav pesnika, pripovednika, kritika, esejista in prevajalca Ivana Gorana Kovačića (1913–1943) je v hrvaški književnosti poseben. Gre za književnika, ki je rodni Gorski kotar vpeljal kot temo v hrvaško književnost13 (prozna knjiga Dani gnjeva (Dnevi jeze), 1936, knjiga kajkavske poezije Ognji i rože (Ognji in rože), 1946), ki je bojevi- tost in angažiranost izkazoval že pred vojnimi grozotami (programska pesem Pje- sniku (Pesniku), 1938, grozljivi epitaf Moj grob, 1937), kot avtor pesnitve Jama (1944), o kateri Frangeš upravičeno pravi, da je »najstrašnejša obsodba grozot v tedanji evropski poeziji«,14 pa je postal klasik – ne samo hrvaške književnosti. V Jami, najpomembnejši literarni stvaritvi, nastali med NOB (1944), sta prikazana vsa nesmiselnost vojnih krvavenj in nadčloveško trpljenje ljudi, ki so jih zajele vojne grozote. Gre za epopejo boja, v katerem se po trpljenju in smrti sluti novo, lepše življenje.15 Pesnitev je sestavljena iz desetih monološko oblikovanih spevov, skladnih šest- in štirivrstičnic, napisanih na poetični način, kakršnega v književno- sti redko srečamo. Veliko – ne samo hrvaških – književnikov, glasbenikov in likovnih umetnikov je pretresla kruta smrt I. G. Kovačića,16 veliko jih je navdihnilo njegovo prezgodaj in nasilno prekinjeno umetniško ustvarjanje (Kaštelan ga je poimenoval »pevec s prerezanim glasom«) in veliko jih je svoja dela posvetilo njegovemu talentu. I. G. Kovačić je postal umetniška tema – o tem pričajo npr. literarna dela avtorjev D. Tadijanovića, V. Nazorja, V. Parun, Paula Éluarda, J. Kaštelana, O. Šolca, A. Šolja- na, B. Miljkovića, M. Ristića in D. Cesarića; dela skladateljev K. Baranovića, B. Bjelinskega, N. Hercigonje, S. Horvata, B. Sakača in L. Županovića; dela likovnih umetnikov (slikarjev in kiparjev) P. Picassa, Z. Price, E. Murtića, J. Mišeta, F. Vaića, J. Vanište, T. Gerića, I. Lovrenčića in V. Bakića. Med temi deli velja omeniti skulpturi Vojina Bakića,17 ki upodabljata glavo Ivana Gorana Kovačića. Ena je postavljena v parku Ribnjak v Zagrebu, druga, kovinska inačica pa v Lukovdolu, rojstnem kraju Ivana Gorana Kovačića18 (slika 2). 13 Ljubezen do rodne grude je izkazal tudi tako, da je k svojemu imenu in priimku dodal ime Goran, ki pred tem ni obstajalo kot osebno lastno ime, temveč kot oznaka za prebivalca Gorskega kotarja. 14 Frangeš, Ivo: Povijest hrvatske književnosti (Zgodovina hrvaškega slovstva), Zagreb – Ljubljana: Na- kladni zavod Matice hrvatske – Cankarjeva založba, 1987, str. 348. 15 Verzi iz 10. speva Jame so zapisani na bakreni plošči na vhodu v Spominski muzej Jasenovac. 16 Proti koncu leta 1942 je z Vladimirjem Nazorjem odšel v partizane, preživel 4. in 5. sovražno ofen- zivo, julija 1943 pa ga je v bližini Foče pričakalo četniško rezilo. 17 Vojin Bakić (1915–1992), eden največjih hrvaških kiparjev 20. stoletja. Njegovi spomeniki, posveče- ni NOB, ki imajo veliko umetniško vrednost, so bili v devetdesetih letih bodisi zanemarjeni bodisi uničeni. 18 V Lukovdolu na dan rojstva I. G. Kovačića, na prvi dan pomladi, od leta 1964 poteka pesniška prireditev. Takrat podelijo nagradi Goranov venec (od leta 1971) in goran za mlade pesnike (od leta 1977). 15arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Brojni su umjetnici likovno interpretirali Jamu. Najpoznatije su ilustracije Ede Mur- tića i Zlatka Price iz 1944.19 Goranova Jama izazvala je i velik interes i izvan zemlje. Tako je već 1948. objavljen njezin francuski prijevod (La fosse comune) u čije je izdanje uvrštena i pjesma Paula Eluarda Tombeau de Goran Kovatchitch (Grob Gorana Kovačića) inspirirana tragičnom sudbinom Ivana Gorana Kovačića. Jedno od dva francuska izdanja popraćeno je ilustracijom, tj. bakrorezom Pabla Picassa. Možemo zaključiti da je uspomena na Gorana sačuvana u svijetu umjetnosti. A u odgojno-obrazovnom sustavu? Sve do aktualnog kurikula u hrvatskom srednjoškolskom/gimnazijskom književ- nom odgoju i obrazovanju Goranova se poema interpretirala kao cjeloviti tekst (koji je kao takav bio i tiskan u čitankama/udžbenicima). Njezinoj se interpretaci- ji pridavala zaslužena pažnja. U udžbeniku je primijenjen širok dijapazon meto- dičkog instrumentarija: od instrumentarija koji omogućuje i uvjetuje recepciju umjetničkog sadržaja (uz tekstne predloške, postojali su likovni materijali), instru- mentarija koji omogućuje razumijevanje, analizu i značenje sadržaja preko in- strumentarija proučavanje znanstvenih sadržaja (odlomci iz književnih osvrta,) novih pojmova do instrumentarija koji potiče, organizira, razvija i vrednuje razli- čite oblike samostalnog, istraživačkog i stvaralačkog rada učenika. Od ove se školske godine ostavlja nastavniku mogućnost hoće li izabrati Jamu kao predložak za interpretaciju, „ovisno o njegovoj profesionalnoj procjeni.“ 2.3. Jure Kaštelan Kako se na motivima NOB-a mogu ostvariti vrhunski umjetnički dosezi, pokazao je svojim stihovima Jure Kaštelan (1919.–1990.). Da se radi o pjesniku original- nog asocijativno-metaforičkog izričaja dalo se naslutiti već pri izlasku njegove prve zbirke pjesama Crveni konj (1940.), koja je, zbog ljevičarske intonacije, za- branjena. Kaštelan se 1942. godine priključuje partizanskom pokretu u kojem djeluje u kulturnim i propagandnim aktivnostima. Iskustvo ratne stvarnosti pre- točit će pjesnik u stihove koji će, svojom ljepotom i angažiranim modernitetom, obogatiti hrvatsku književnost. Tu prije svega mislimo na poemu Tifusari, koja, uz Goranovu Jamu, predstavlja najviši domet hrvatske lirike otemi rata i revolucije. Tifusari su izišli u zbirci pjesama Pijetao na krovu (1950.). O poemi je nadahnuto pisao Frangeš: „Tifusari, ti tragični sanjari revolucije, borci isključeni iz stroja, ali uključeni u veliku kolonu patnje i vizije, našli su u Kaštelana istinskoga pjesnika. Identificiran s njima, pjesnik začinje čudesnu zapijevku u kojoj se grle smrt i slo- boda, zbiljska patnja i izmaštana pobjeda“.20 Tifusari su poema o ljudskoj patnji, lišena revolucionarne retorike (Slika 3). Iako je Jure Kaštelan bio pobornik pjesničke i likovne avangarde,21 njegove će ga „partizanske“ pjesme i pjesme o izgradnji domovine (Jugoslavije) u novije vrijeme stajati određenog prezira i dovesti do izvjesnog nijekanja njegova pjesništva.22 Mirjana Benjak 19 Oni su tu poetsko-grafičku mapu, za koji znalci kažu, da je jedna od najljepših knjiga nastala u Evropi koju su tiskali partizani, napravili u Topuskom, nakon Kongresa kulturnih radnika Hrvatske. S ukupno 16 litografija, mapa je uvezena u padobransko platno, tiskana u 250 primjeraka i dovršena pod improviziranim uvjetima u partizanskoj radionici. 20 Frangeš, Ivo: Povijest hrvatske književnosti, Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske - Cankarjeva založba, Zagreb – Ljubljana, 1987., str. 385. 21 Književna je znanost utvrdila da je Kaštelan jedan od tvoraca modernog hrvatskog izraza, što se oči- tuje u njegovoj metaforici, strukturi pjesme, urbaniziranju folklornog i sl. Uz to, jedan je od osnivača likovne grupe EXAT-a. Poznata je i dugogodišnja suradnja s I. Piceljem i E. Murtićem. 22 O tome što se dogodilo s Kaštelanom u samostalnoj Hrvatskoj M. Jergović piše: „U to novo vrijeme, nisu znali što bi i kako bi s Jurom Kaštelanom. Upisivali su ga u vlastitu povijest ili mu čuvali - makar i podstanarsko - mjesto u hrvatskoj kulturi kao važnoga suradnika na, inače genijalnom, izdanju Biblije, kao legendarnog profesora sa zagrebačke jugoslavistike i blistavoga književnog teoretičara, gromobrana ukletih i uhapšenih hrvatskih pjesnika, disidenata i prokletnika, kao tankoćutnoga lir- skog i pastoralnog pjesnika, poljičkoga zavičajca, s gotovo ognjištarskim sentimentima za svaki kamen, panj i uđericu ove slavne hrvatske pokrajine. Pritom su iz pjesničkog opusa morali amputi- rati sva ona mjesta, pjesme i poeme, na kojima su spomenuti Tito, revolucija, Jugoslavija, Balkan, tako da su od Jure Kaštelana načinili književnoga invalida, po mjeri vlastitoga pogleda na svijet i nacionalnu kulturu. Budakom su razbili i tu lijepu partizansku glavu.“ Jergović, Miljenko: Nošen morem Jure je nosio more ljubavi, Jutarnji list, Zagreb, 23. siječnja 2010. Številni umetniki so likovno interpretirali Jamo. Najbolj znane so ilustracije Eda Murtića in Zlatka Price iz leta 1944.19 Za Jamo I. G. Kovačića je bilo veliko zanima- nja tudi na tujem. Tako je že leta 1948 izšel francoski prevod (La fosse comune), ki mu je bila dodana tudi pesem Paula Éluarda Tombeau de Goran Kovatchitch (Grob Gorana Kovačića). Ena od dveh francoskih izdaj je bila pospremljena z ilu- stracijo, z bakrorezom Pabla Picassa. Sklenemo lahko, da je spomin na I. G. Kovačića v svetu umetnosti ohranjen. Kaj pa v vzgojno-izobraževalnem sistemu? Vse do aktualnega kurikuluma so pesnitev I. G. Kovačića v hrvaški srednješolski/ gimnazijski literarni vzgoji in izobraževanju interpretirali kot besedilo v celoti (in je bilo kot takšno tudi natisnjeno v čitankah/učbenikih). Interpretacija pesnitve je bila deležna zaslužene pozornosti. V učbeniku je bil uporabljen širok spekter didaktičnega instrumentarija: od instrumentarija, ki omogoča in pogojuje recep- cijo umetniške vsebine (ob besedilnih predlogah je bilo tudi likovno gradivo), in- strumentarija, ki omogoča razumevanje, analizo in pomen vsebine, prek instru- mentarija za preučevanje znanstvenih vsebin (odlomki iz literarnih kritik) in no- vih pojmov do instrumentarija, ki spodbuja, organizira, razvija in vrednoti različ- ne oblike samostojnega raziskovalnega in ustvarjalnega dela dijakov. Od letošnjega šolskega leta je učitelju možnost, ali bo Jamo izbral kot predlogo za interpretacijo, prepuščena »glede na njegovo profesionalno presojo«. 2.3 Jure Kaštelan Da je mogoče z motivi NOB uresničiti vrhunske umetniške stvaritve, je s svojimi verzi dokazal Jure Kaštelan (1919–1990). Da gre za pesnika z izvirno asociativno- -metaforično pisavo, je bilo mogoče slutiti že ob izidu njegove prve pesniške zbir- ke Crveni konj (Rdeči konj) (1940), ki je bila zaradi levičarske intonacije prepoveda- na. Kaštelan se je leta 1942 pridružil partizanskemu gibanju, kjer je deloval v kul- turnih in propagandnih dejavnostih. Pesnik je izkušnjo vojne resničnosti pretočil v verze, ki so z lepoto in angažirano modernostjo obogatili hrvaško književnost. Tu mislimo predvsem na pesnitev Tifusari (Tifusarji), ki – ob Jami I. G. Kovačića – po- meni vrh hrvaške lirike na temo vojne in revolucije. Tifusarji so izšli v pesniški zbirki Pijetao na krovu (Petelin na strehi) (1950). O pesnitvi je Frangeš navdihnje- no zapisal: »Tifusarji, ti tragični sanjači revolucije, borci, izključeni iz stroja, vendar vključeni v veliko kolono trpljenja in vizije, so pri Kaštelanu našli resničnega pesni- ka. Pesnik, ki se istoveti z njimi, vodi čarobno narekanje, v katerem se objemata smrt in svoboda, resnično trpljenje in izsanjana zmaga.«20 Tifusarji so pesnitev o človekovem trpljenju, osvobojena revolucionarne retorike (slika 3). Čeprav je bil Jure Kaštelan zagovornik pesniške in likovne avantgarde,21 je bil v novejšem času zaradi »partizanskih« pesmi in pesmi o gradnji domovine (Jugo- slavije) deležen določenega prezira in zanikanja svojega pesništva.22 19 Pesniško-grafično mapo, o kateri poznavalci pravijo, da je ena najlepših v Evropi nastalih knjig, ki so jih natisnili partizani, sta oblikovala v Topuskem, po kongresu kulturnih delavcev Hrvaške. Mapa vsebuje 16 litografij, ovitek je narejen iz padalske svile, naklada je bila 250 primerkov, izdelava pa je bila končana v improviziranih pogojih v partizanski delavnici. 20 Frangeš, Ivo: Povijest hrvatske književnosti (Zgodovina hrvaškega slovstva), Zagreb – Ljubljana: Na- kladni zavod Matice hrvatske – Cankarjeva založba, 1987, str. 385. 21 Literarna zgodovina je ugotovila, da je Kaštelan eden od tvorcev modernega hrvaškega izraza, kar je izkazano v njegovi metaforiki, pesniški strukturi, urbaniziranju folklornega ipd. Poleg tega je bil eden od ustanoviteljev likovne skupine EXAT. Znano je tudi njegovo dolgoletno sodelovanje z I. Pi- cljem in E. Murtićem. 22 O tem, kaj se je zgodilo s Kaštelanom v samostojni Hrvaški, je M. Jergović zapisal: »V tistem novem času niso vedeli, kaj bi z Juretom Kaštelanom. Vpisovali so ga v lastno zgodovino ali mu hranili – četudi podnajemniški – prostor v hrvaški kulturi kot pomembnemu sodelavcu pri, sicer genialni, izdaji Svetega pisma, kot legendarnemu profesorju z zagrebške jugoslavistike in sijajnemu literar- nemu teoretiku, strelovodu zakletih in ujetih hrvaških pesnikov, disidentov in prekletih, kot tenko- čutnemu lirskemu in pastoralnemu pesniku, kot pesniku poljiške rodne grude s skorajda ognjiščni- mi sentimenti za vsak kamen, panj in kočo te slavne hrvaške pokrajine. Pri tem so morali iz pesniškega opusa amputirati vsa tista mesta, pesmi in pesnitve, kjer so omenjeni Tito, revolucija, Jugoslavija, Balkan, tako da so iz Jureta Kaštelana naredili literarnega invalida, po meri lastnega pogleda na svet in nacionalno kulturo. Z rovnico so razbili tudi to lepo partizansko glavo.« Jergović, Miljenko: Nošen morem Jure je nosio more ljubavi (Jureta je nosilo morje in Jure je nosil morje lju- bezni), Zagreb: Jutarnji list, 23. januar 2010. 16 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Ta promjena odnosa prema Kaštelanovu pjesništvu vidljiva je i u njegovu položaju u srednjoškolskoj/gimnazijskoj nastavi književnosti. U srednjoškolskim nastavnim programima do osamostaljenja Hrvatske, Kaštelan je prisutan u 1. i 3. razredu. U 1. se razredu (u sklopu obrazovne jezgre Lirika) predlaže interpretacija njegove pjesme Svijetliš u tmini. Kako piše u metodičkim uputama, naglasak je stavljen na razinu tematike, kompozicije, jezika i stila te književne vrste. U 3. razredu, u sklopu poučavanja književnosti NOB-a, predlaže se cjelovita obrada poeme Tifusari. U središtu interpretacije nalaze se, uz tematsko-motivsku, jezično-stilske i etičke zna- čajke pjesničkog teksta. U nastavnom programu za gimnazije (1995.) mijenja se položaj Jure Kaštelana. Predlaže se interpretacija Tifusara, ali sad u alternaciji s pjesmama Konjic bez konjika ili Jadikovkom kamena. U udžbeniku, sastavljenom prema tom progra- mu,23 nema više Tifusara – zamijenjeni su navedenim pjesmama. O Kaštelanovu ratnom i poratnom pjesništvu ni riječi – samo rečenica: „Nakon povratka iz parti- zana studirao je na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu“.24 Tifusara nema ni u kurikulu Škole za život. Na Popisu klasičnih hrvatskih i svjetskih književnih tekstova za cjelovito čitanje ulomaka nalazi se izbor iz Kaštelanove poezije. 3. Zaključak Analiza nastavnih programa/kurikula za srednjoškolski/gimnazijski književni odgoj i obrazovanje pokazala je ispravnost polazne teze istraživanja – o položaju i pristu- pu književnosti NOB-a nisu uvijek odlučivale kategorije koju je ustanovila znanost o književnosti. Ovisno o prevladavajućoj službenoj ideologiji, partizanska će književ- nost biti više ili manje zastupljena. Iako bismo se mogli složiti da je u razdoblju prije osamostaljenja Hrvatske (razdoblje socijalizma) književnosti NOB-a dan povelik prostor, teško se možemo složiti sa zanemarivanjem te književnosti u razdoblju na- kon osamostaljenja Hrvatske (razdoblje parlamentarne demokracije). To zorno do- kazuju pristupi ratnim opusima Vladimira Nazora, Ivana Gorana Kovačića i Jure Kaštelana. Možemo postaviti pitanje hoće li današnji gimnazijalac razumjeti zašto se najznačajnija nagrada za dostignuća u hrvatskoj kulturi zove prema književniku o kojem da su jedva nešto čuli na satu materinskog jezika – Vladimiru Nazoru. Ne vjerujemo da će mu samo parcijalna interpretacija Goranova najpotresnijeg djela o čovjekovu stradanju u ratu omogućiti spoznaju o veličini njegove pjesničke riječi u sklopu evropske književnosti. Zašto mu ne omogućiti ulaz u svijet Kaštelanova moderniteta prožetog humanim idealom njegovih (i) ratnih stihova? Nepobitna je činjenica da je pisana riječ dio ukupne kulturne povijesti Hrvatske i da kroz stoljeća svjedoči o kulturnom identitetu. Zahvaljujući njoj ne zaboravljaju se događaji, razmišljanja i sudbine ljudi kroz povijest i sadašnjost. Štiti li se kultur- ni identitet prešućivanjem pjesničke riječi? Ili rušenjem i devastiranjem spomeni- ka partizanima i žrtvama fašizma? I to u vremenu u kojem svjedočimo diljem slobodne Evrope revizionističkom prekrajanju povijesti, pojavama sve veće kse- nofobičnosti, antisemitizma, neonacizma i rasizma. A pjesnik Jure Kaštelan davno je rekao: „Ne vode se revolucije da se o njima pišu pjesme. I pjesme i revolucije rađaju se da sačuvaju dostojanstvo čovjeka, njegovo osnovno ljudsko pravo na mir, slobodu i stvaralaštvo“. Vrijeme je da ga se posluša. 23 Pandžić, Vlado – Kekez, Josip: Književnost 4, Udžbenik za IV. razred gimnazije, I. izdanje, Profil, Zagreb, 1996. 24 Idem, str. 266. I ovako štura informacija je netočna. Kaštelan se upisao na Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu 1938. godine. Za vrijeme studija nekoliko je puta hapšen i zatvaran radi sudjelovanja u demonstraci- jama. Studij prekida jer 1942. odlazi u partizane. Nakon rata, 1949., položio je završni diplomski ispit na zagrebačkog Filozofskom fakultetu, gdje kao profesor teorije književnosti radi sve do umirovljenja 1980. godine. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Ta sprememba odnosa do Kaštelanovega pesništva je vidna tudi v njegovem po- ložaju pri srednješolskem/gimnazijskem pouku književnosti. V srednješolskih uč- nih načrtih iz časa do osamosvojitve Hrvaške je bil Kaštelan navzoč v 1. in 3. letni- ku. V 1. letniku (v tematskem sklopu Lirika) je bila predlagana interpretacija nje- gove pesmi Svijetliš u tmini (Svetiš v temi). Kot je pisalo v didaktičnih navodilih, naj bi bil poudarek na tematiki, strukturi, jeziku in slogu te literarne vrste. V 3. letniku, v okviru poučevanja književnosti NOB, je bila predlagana celostna obrav- nava pesnitve Tifusarji. V središču interpretacije so bile, poleg tematsko-motiv- nih, jezikovno-slogovne in etične značilnosti pesniškega besedila. V učnem načrtu za gimnazije (1995) se je položaj Jureta Kaštelana spremenil. Pre- dlagana je bila interpretacija Tifusarjev, vendar zdaj v alternaciji s pesmima Konjic bez konjika (Konj brez konjenika) ali Jadikovka kamena (Jadikovanje kamna). V uč- beniku, sestavljenem po tem načrtu,23 ni več Tifusarjev – zamenjani so bili z nave- denima pesmima. O Kaštelanovem vojnem in povojnem pesništvu niti besede – samo stavek: »Po vrnitvi iz partizanov je študiral na Filozofski fakulteti v Zagrebu.«24 Tudi v kurikulumu Šole za življenje ni Tifusarjev. Na seznamu klasičnih hrvaških in svetovnih literarnih besedil za branje odlomkov je izbor iz Kaštelanove poezije. 3. Sklep Analiza učnih programov/kurikulumov za srednješolsko/gimnazijsko literarno vzgo- jo in izobraževanje je potrdila izhodiščno tezo raziskave – o položaju in pristopu h književnosti NOB niso vedno odločale kategorije, ki jih je vzpostavila literarna zgo- dovina. Partizanska književnost je zastopana v večji ali manjši meri – odvisno od prevladujoče uradne ideologije. Četudi bi se lahko strinjali, da je bilo v obdobju pred osamosvojitvijo Hrvaške (obdobje socializma) književnosti NOB danega precej prostora, se težko strinjamo z zanemarjanjem te književnosti v obdobju po osamo- svojitvi Hrvaške (obdobje parlamentarne demokracije). To nazorno dokazujejo pri- stopi k vojnim opusom Vladimirja Nazorja, Ivana Gorana Kovačića in Jureta Kaštela- na. Zastavimo lahko vprašanje, ali bo današnji gimnazijec razumel, zakaj se najpo- membnejša nagrada za dosežke v hrvaški kulturi imenuje po književniku, o katerem je pri pouku materinščine komaj kaj slišal – Vladimirju Nazorju. Ne verjamemo, da mu bo zgolj delna interpretacija Kovačićevega najpretresljivejšega dela o človeškem trpljenju med vojno omogočila spoznanje o veličini njegove pesniške besede v okvi- ru evropske književnosti. In zakaj mu ne bi omogočili vstopa v svet Kaštelanove modernosti, prežete s humanim idealom njegovih (tudi) vojnih verzov? Neovrgljivo dejstvo je, da je pisana beseda del skupne kulturne zgodovine Hrva- ške in da skozi stoletja priča o kulturni identiteti. Zaradi pisane besede ne poza- bljamo dogodkov, razmišljanj in usod ljudi skozi zgodovino in sedanjost. Se kultur- na identiteta ščiti z zamolčevanjem pesniške besede? Ali z rušenjem in uničeva- njem spomenikov partizanom in žrtvam fašizma? In to v času, ko smo priča, kako se po vsej svobodni Evropi revizionistično prikrojuje zgodovina, ko se pojavlja vse več ksenofobije, antisemitizma, neonacizma in rasizma. Pesnik Jure Kaštelan je že davno tega rekel: »Do revolucij ne pride zato, da bi se o njih pisale pesmi. Tako pesmi kot revolucije se rojevajo, da bi ohranile dostojan- stvo človeka, njegovo osnovno pravico do miru, svobode in ustvarjanja.« Čas je, da ga slišimo. Prevedla Đurđa Strsoglavec 23 Pandžić, Vlado; Kekez, Josip: Književnost 4, Udžbenik za IV. razred gimnazije, I. izdanje (Književnost 4, Učbenik za 4. letnik gimnazije, 1. izdaja), Zagreb: Profil, 1996. 24 Prav tam, str. 266. Tudi tako skopa informacija ne drži. Kaštelan se je na Filozofsko fakulteto v Za- grebu vpisal leta 1938. Med študijem so ga nekajkrat prijeli in zaprli zaradi sodelovanja na demon- stracijah. Študij je prekinil leta 1942, ker je odšel v partizane. Po vojni, leta 1949, je na Filozofski fakulteti v Zagrebu opravil zaključni diplomski izpit in nato do upokojitve leta 1980 tam delal kot profesor literarne teorije. 17arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Literatura 1. Bogdanović, Bogdan: Ukleti neimar, Feral Tribune, Split, 2001. 2. Frangeš, Ivo: Povijest hrvatske književnosti, Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske - Cankarjeva založba, Zagreb – Ljubljana, 1987. 3. Jergović, Miljenko: Nošen morem Jure je nosio more ljubavi, Jutarnji list, Zagreb, 23. siječnja 2010. 4. Kovačić, Ivan Goran: Ognjevi i ruže (ur. V. Pavletić), Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, Zagreb, 1975. 5. Pofuk, Branimir: Premda ga svako malo obore, Nazorov kip na Tuškancu stoji i hoda pod časnom zvijez- dom, Jutarnji list, 6. lipnja 2018. 6. Roksandić, Drago – Filipčić Maligec, Vlatka: Kultura antifašizma, Zagrebačka naklada, Filozofski fakul- tet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 2016. 7. Skok, Joža: Dozivi Gorana, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1973. Izvori a) nastavni programi/kurikuli 1. Hrvatski ili srpski jezik, književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost, Jezično-umjetničko područje, Zajed- ničke osnove srednjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja, Vjesnik Republičkog komiteta za prosvjetu, kulturu, fizičku i tehničku kulturu SR Hrvatske, Zagreb, 24. travnja 1984. 2. Program hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, književnosti, scenske i filmske umjetnosti za IV. razred srednjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja, Vjesnik Republičkog komiteta za prosvjetu, kulturu, fizičku i tehničku kulturu SR Hrvatske, Zagreb, 18. prosinca 1984. 3. Hrvatski jezik za gimnazije, Glasnik ministarstva prosvjete i športa, Zagreb, 1995. 4. Kurikulum za nastavni predmet Hrvatski jezik za osnovne škole i gimnazije u Republici Hrvatskoj, Na- rodne novine 10/2019, Zagreb, 29. 1. 2019. b) udžbenici/čitanke 1. Pandžić, Vlado – Kekez, Josip: Književnost 4, Udžbenik za IV. razred gimnazije, I. izdanje, Profil, Za- greb,1996. 2. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost 4, Čitanka, 2. izmijenjeno izdanje, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1992. 3. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost i scenska umjetnost 4, čitanka, 4. (1. izmijenjeno iz- danje), Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1991. 4. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost 4, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1980. 5. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost i scenska umjetnost 1, Čitanka s pregledom književ- nosti, II izdanje, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1986. 6. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost i scenska umjetnost 1, Čitanka s pregledom književ- nosti, II, izmijenjeno izdanje, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1992. 7. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost i scenska umjetnost 3, 5. (1. izmijenjeno izdanje), Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1991. 8. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav - Kajić, Rasima: Književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost 4, Čitan- ka, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1988. 9. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav - Kajić, Rasima: Književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost 3, Čitan- ka s pregledom književnosti, 2. dopunjeno prerađeno izdanje, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1988. 10. Rosandić, Dragutin – Šicel, Miroslav - Kajić, Rasima: Književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost 3, Čitan- ka s pregledom književnosti, 3. izdanje, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1989. Internetske stranice www.avantgarde-museum.com/kolekcija/ht/autor.php?lang=hr&autor=47 www.antoniosiber.org/lukovdol_bakic_kovacic.html Mirjana Benjak Literatura 1. Bogdanović, Bogdan: Ukleti neimar, Split: Feral Tribune, 2001. 2. Frangeš, Ivo: Povijest hrvatske književnosti, Zagreb – Ljubljana: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske – Cankarjeva založba, 1987. 3. Jergović, Miljenko: Nošen morem Jure je nosio more ljubavi, Zagreb: Jutarnji list, 23. januar 2010. 4. Kovačić, Ivan Goran: Ognjevi i ruže (ur. V. Pavletić), Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, 1975. 5. Pofuk, Branimir: Premda ga svako malo obore, Nazorov kip na Tuškancu stoji i hoda pod časnom zvijezdom, Zagreb: Jutarnji list, 6. junij 2018. 6. Roksandić, Drago; Filipčić Maligec, Vlatka: Kultura antifašizma, Zagreb: Zagrebačka naklada, Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, 2016. 7. Skok, Joža: Dozivi Gorana, Zagreb: Školske novine, 1973. Viri a) Učni načrti/kurikulumi 1. Hrvatski ili srpski jezik, književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost, Jezično-umjetničko područje, Zajedničke osnove srednjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja, Zagreb: Vjesnik Republičkog komiteta za prosvjetu, kulturu, fizičku i tehničku kulturu SR Hrvatske, 24. april 1984. 2. Program hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, književnosti, scenske i filmske umjetnosti za IV. razred srednjeg usmjerenog obrazovanja, Zagreb: Vjesnik Republičkog komiteta za prosvjetu, kulturu, fizičku i tehničku kulturu SR Hrvatske, 18. december 1984. 3. Hrvatski jezik za gimnazije, Zagreb: Glasnik ministarstva prosvjete i športa, 1995. 4. Kurikulum za nastavni predmet Hrvatski jezik za osnovne škole i gimnazije u Republici Hrvatskoj, Zagreb: Narodne novine 10/2019, 29. 1. 2019. b) Učbeniki/čitanke 1. Pandžić, Vlado; Kekez, Josip: Književnost 4, Udžbenik za IV. razred gimnazije, 1. izdaja, Zagreb: Profil, 1996. 2. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost 4, Čitanka, 2., spremenjena izdaja, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1992. 3. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost i scenska umjetnost 4, Čitanka, 4. (1. spremenjena) izdaja, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1991. 4. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost 4, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1980. 5. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost i scenska umjetnost 1, Čitanka s pregledom književnosti, 2. izdaja, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1986. 6. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost i scenska umjetnost 1, Čitanka s pregledom književnosti, 2., spremenjena izdaja, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1992. 7. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav: Književnost i scenska umjetnost 3, 5. (1. spremenjena) izdaja, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1991. 8. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav; Kajić, Rasima: Književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost 4, Čitanka, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1988. 9. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav; Kajić, Rasima: Književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost 3, Čitanka s pregledom književnosti, 2., dopolnjena in predelana izdaja, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1988. 10. Rosandić, Dragutin; Šicel, Miroslav; Kajić, Rasima: Književnost, scenska i filmska umjetnost 3, Čitanka s pregledom književnosti, 3. izdaja, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1989. Spletni strani http://www.avantgarde-museum.com/kolekcija/ht/autor.php?lang=hr&autor=47 www.antoniosiber.org/lukovdol_bakic_kovacic.html 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 28 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Gojko Zupan Javni spomeniki: od znamenja do kipa in prostorske ureditve Drugačnost Slovenije v drugi polovici 20. stoletja / Public Monuments: From a Marking to a Statue and a Spatial Layout Slovenia in the 2nd half of the 20th century: a path less travelled 1 2 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Povzetek Temelj vseh obravnav javnih spomenikov v Sloveniji, posebej njihovega razvoja v prvi polovici 20. stoletja, je doktorska disertacija Špelce Čopič, ki je bila pripravljena leta 1974 in obranjena leta 1977. Malenkostno popravljena je bila objavljena v knjigi, ki jo je ob koncu stoletja izdala Moderna galerija v Ljubljani. V knjigi so navedeni pisci, ki so se ukvarjali z raziskavami in pisanjem o spomenikih, od Viktorja Steske, Ksenije Rozman, Franca Šijanca, Naceta Šumija, Aleksandra Bassina do Sonje Žitko in drugih, ki aktivno pišejo danes. Profesor Šumi je spod- budil tudi nastanek več diplomskih nalog, ki so se ukvarjale s topografijami in analizami javnih spomenikov v posameznih regijah. Po daljšem premoru so javni spomeniki, posebej NOB, v zadnjem desetletju znova predmet raziskav v Sloveniji in drugih krajih nekdanje Jugoslavije. Prva, delno prezrta konferenca, ki je bila posvečena zlasti obravnavi njihovega podiranja, je bila v Berlinu leta 1993. Na njej je bil očiten prepad med problemi političnih ali vojnih podiranj spomenikov v večini republik in Slovenijo, kjer spomenikov mednarodnim ikonam socialističnega obdobja (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin) ni bilo. Intenzivne mednarodne raziskave (pretežno omejene na balkanske države), ki jih spodbujajo Umetnostna galerija v Mariboru, Filozofska fakulteta v Ljubljani in Moderna galerija, so usmerjene v nove načine gledanja. Ti so prodorni, čeprav premalo povezani z izostrenimi analizami razmer v obdobju 1945–1991. Selekcija vrhunskih stvaritev in odnos do najbolj monumentalnih spomenikov sta pozitivno odmevala vse do razstave v Muzeju moderne umetnosti v New Yorku, vendar se včasih preveč zanašata na eseje in fotografije. Manj je nujnih terenskih topografij in analiz gradiva v arhivih, kakršne je s študenti nakazala Beti Žerovc z razstavo Življenje spomenikov v Muzeju sodobne umetnosti Metelkova. Javni spomeniki so politično spodbujeni likovni izdelki, namenjeni spominjanju in krašenju javnega prostora. Termin (kulturni) spomenik sega tudi na področje ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, vse do seznamov UNESCA, kamor so uvrstili spominski območji Auschwitz in Hirošima. Značilen javni spomenik s seznama UNESCA je Kip svobode v New Yorku. Običajno ostanejo javni spomeniki na nivoju politične, redkeje likovne sporočilnosti. Javnost nekatere spomenike »posvoji«, ne glede na njihove primarno politične in celo šibke likovne elemente, kar velja za Prešernov spomenik v Ljubljani. Če avtorji dosežejo sintezo prostorske umestitve in nadgradnje spominjanja z nadčasovno, izjemno likovno sporočilnostjo ali posebno funkcionalno obliko, postane spomenik umetnina. Kadar likovnost prevlada, se izraža večplastno in pogosto celo preglasi začetno namembnost spominjanja. Podobno velja za spomenike, ki daljši čas krasijo prostor in jih ljudje vključijo v svoj vsakdan, v svoje sobivanje. Značilne tovrstne umetnine so npr. Donatello- va Gattamelata v Padovi, Zadkinovo Uničeno mesto v Rotterdamu, Pingussonov spomenik deportirancem v Parizu ali posamezni Plečnikovi spomeniki v Sloveniji, Tihčev in Kocmutov spomenik na Pohorju, v še večji meri pa ljubljanska Pot spominov in tovarištva. Ohranjanje javnih spomenikov preteklih obdobij in držav kaže stopnjo politične zrelosti posamezne države. Likovno izstopajoči slovenski spomeniki druge polovice preteklega stoletja so, v primerjavi s kolosi po svetu, miniaturni in jih ne moremo šablonsko uvrščati v obdobje socialističnega realizma. Edini kip v državi, ki ima večje dimenzije, je Augustinčićev Tito v Velenju iz leta 1977, ki sega šest metrov visoko. Monumentalnost spomenikom v Sloveniji običajno doda vključenost v krajino, kar velja za Pohorje, Ljubelj, Ilirsko Bistrico in druge kraje. 29arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Gojko Zupan Abstract The basis for all the treatments of public monuments in Slovenia, especially regarding their development in the 1st half of the 20th century, is the PhD dissertation by Špelca Čopič, prepared in 1974 and successfully defended in 1977. With minor corrections, it was published in a book issued at the end of the century by the Museum of Modern Art in Ljubljana. The book lists the authors who researched and wrote about monuments, from Viktor Steska, Ksenija Rozman, Franc Šijanc, Nace Šumi and Aleksander Bassin to Sonja Žitko, and other contributors active in the field today. Prof. Šumi also instigated several BA theses which dealt with topographies and analyses of public monuments in regions. After a long break, public monuments, especially those commemorating the People's Liberation Struggle, have again become the subject of research in Slovenia and elsewhere in ex-Yugoslavia. The first, somewhat overlooked conference, dedicated chiefly to their demolition, was held in Berlin in 1993. There was a distinct split regarding the problems of the demolitions - either politically motivated or caused by wars - between most of the ex-Yugoslav republics and Slovenia, where there were no monuments to the international icons of the socialist period (Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin). Intense international research (limited mostly to Balkan states) promoted by Maribor Art Gallery, the Fac- ulty of Arts in Ljubljana, and the Museum of Modern Art in Ljubljana, are concerned with developing new frames of reference, which are compelling but insufficiently connected with the accomplished analyses of the state of affairs in the period between 1945 and 1991. The selection of exceptional creations and attitude to the most monumental monuments has enjoyed positive reactions up to and including the exhibition in the Museum of Modern Art in New York, though it is occasionally over-reliant on essays and photographs. Far less common are the much-needed topographies and analyses of archive materials, such as those presented by Beti Žerovc and her students with exhibition The Lives of Monuments in the Museum of Contemporary Art Metelkova. Public monuments are politically motivated art products intended for remembrance and the decoration of public space. The term "(cultural) monument" is also operative in the realm of cultural heritage preservation, including the UNESCO World Heritage List containing the areas of Auschwitz in Hiroshima. A typical public monument on the UNESCO World Heritage List is the Statue of Liberty in New York. Most often, public monuments remain on the level of a political, rarely artistic message. The public may "adopt" certain monuments regard- less of their primarily political and possibly substandard artistic elements, which is true of France Prešeren's statue in Ljubljana. If the authors achieve a synthesis of the spatial siting and the remembrance enhanced with a timeless, exceptional artistic message or special functional form, the monument becomes a work of art. When the artistic aspect is dominant, its expression is multi-layered and often even eclipses the initial purpose of remembrance. Something similar occurs with monuments which decorate the space for a longer time and which people include in their everyday experience, in their cohabitation. Typical such works of art include Donatello's Gattamelata in Padua, Zadkine's The Destroyed City in Rotterdam, Pingusson's monument to the deportees in Paris, or various Plečnik's monuments in Slovenia, Tihec and Koc- mut's monument at Pohorje, and to an even greater degree the Trail of Remembrance and Comradeship in Ljubljana. The preservation of public monuments from previous historical periods and state forms is indicative of the degree of political maturity in a state. Compared to colossi found all over the world, artistically exceptional Slovene monuments of the 2nd half of the previous century are minia- ture, and they must not be mindlessly bundled in the period of socialist realism. The only statue of greater dimensions in the entire country is Antun Augustinčić's Tito in Velenje from 1977, which measures six metres in height. The monumentality of monuments in Slovenia often comes from their placement in the landscape, which is the case with Pohorje, Ljubelj, Ilirska Bistrica, and other places. Sl. 1: Spomenik zmage, Murska Sobota, avgust 1945. Inženir Arončik, kiparja Boris in Zdenko Kalin. Sl. 2: Spomenik branilcem slovenske samostojnosti leta 1991, Murska Sobota, 2013. Piramidalna oblika protitankovskih ovir. Sl. 3: Spomenik Josipu Brozu, Kumrovec, 1948. Kipar Antun Augustinčić. Sl. 4: Spomenik Josipu Brozu, Brdo, 1948. Kipar Antun Augustinčić. Kip je stal v osi glavnega vhoda v Muzej revolucije (zdaj Muzej novejše zgodovine Slovenije), Celovška 23, Ljubljana. Danes stoji v parku posestva Brdo pri Kranju. Sl. 5: Spomenik padlim v NOB, Pevma, Italija, 1948. Stožci kot simbolični Triglav. Fig. 1: Spomenik Zmage (Monument to the Victory), Murska Sobota, 1945, Engineer Yuri Aronchik, Boris and Zdenko Kalin. Fig. 2: Spomenik branilcem slovenske samostojnosti leta 1991 (Monument to the defenders of Slovene independence in 1991), Murska Sobota, 2013. Fig. 3: Monument to Josip Broz, Kumrovec, 1948. Sculptor: Antun Augustinčić. Fig. 4: Monument to Josip Broz, Brdo, 1948. Sculptor: Antun Augustinčić. The statue stood above the staircase in the axis of the main entrance to the Museum of the Revolution (present-day National Museum of Contemporary History), Celovška Road 23, Ljubljana. It is currently installed in the park of estate Brdo pri Kranju. Fig. 5: Monument to the casualties in the People's Liberation Struggle, Piuma, Italy, 1948. 3 4 5 30 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 1 Vsak spomenik ima vsaj tri prostore: mikroprostor, t. i. »oseb- ni« prostor spomenika, kjer obiskovalec tik ob spomeniku ali v njem vzpostavlja osebni stik; širši urbani ali krajinski prostor, kjer učinkuje celota, in simbolni prostor, v katerem se prepleta- jo likovne, socialne, zgodovinske in druge prvine. Sl. 6: Spomenik Josipu Brozu, Velenje, 1977. Avtorja: Antun Augustinčić in Vladimir Herljević. Sl. 7, 8: Grobnica narodnih herojev, Ljubljana, 1949. Avtorja: arhitekt Edvard Mihevc in kipar Boris Kalin. Verzi: Oton Župančič. Sl. 9: Spomenik padlim partizanom gornikom, dolina Vrata, 1953 Sl. 10: Spomenik svobode, Kočevje, 1953. Avtorji: slikar Zoran Didek ter kiparji Božidar Pengov, Lojze Lavrič, Marjan Keršič in Stane Keržič. Sl. 11, 12: Grobišče talcev, Draga pri Begunjah, 1953. Avtorja: arhitekt Edvard Ravnikar in kipar Boris Kalin. Sl. 13: Spominski kompleks Kampor, Rab, 1955. Avtor: arhitekt Edvard Ravnikar. Spominski relief: slikar Marij Pregelj. Sl. 14: Taborišče Ljubelj, Podljubelj, 1954. Avtorja: arhitekt Boris Kobe in kovač Joža Bertoncelj (železni skelet). 6 7 8 9 10 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Kaj vse so javni spomeniki? Spomenik, ali natančneje, javni spomenik je materia- liziran tridimenzionalni objekt, ki so ga zgradili ali obli- kovali ter postavili na javno dostopno mesto pred- vsem zaradi njegove spominske ali druge simbolične funkcije. Javni spomeniki so navadno posvečeni umr- lim osebam ali zgodovinskim dogodkom, redkeje dr- žavam, živalim, predmetom. Praviloma jih postavljajo vladajoči sloji ali druge najvplivnejše družbene skupi- ne. Častijo pretežno osebe in dogodke, ki neposredno ali posredno povzdignejo pomen postavljavcev, njiho- vih prepričanj, idej, želja. Javne spomenike pogosto postavljajo z vsaj dvema dodatnima namenoma: za potrebe komemoracij, verskih obredov, spominskih srečanj. Pogosto so spomeniki ali čaščeni urejeni gro- bovi prerasli začetno funkcijo in so, z nadgrajeno sa- kralno simboliko, urejeni kot stavbe (egiptovske pira- mide, templji in cerkve ter mavzoleji). Zaradi spreme- njenega pomena jih običajno ne obravnavamo med javnimi spomeniki. Razvoj javnih spomenikov in jav- nega prostora nenehno dodaja nove oblike in pome- ne; zato ne obstaja ena sama, popolna definicija, ki bi zaobjela vse pomene in podpomene spomenika. Kot javni prostor praviloma razumemo vedno dosto- pne prostore, ki so vsaj vizualno, običajno pa tudi fizič- no, dostopni vsakemu posamezniku – vseh 24 ur dne- va in vse leto (izjema so ponekod zime, ko so nekateri spomeniki prekriti). Tu zato ne obravnavamo nagrob- nikov, ki so del pokopališč. Drugače velja za posebne ureditve, kjer so grobnice ali objekti samostojni in niso znotraj pokopaliških ograj ali v stavbah. V javnem prostoru stojijo tudi drugi okrasi, vrtne (parkovne) in dekorativne skulpture, fontane. Včasih so samostojni objekti, drugič del stavb ali ureditev. Izjemoma so ne- kateri javni spomeniki arhitekturni objekti, denimo Slavolok zmage v Parizu, Lincolnov spomenik v Wa- shingtonu ali Vittoriano – Oltar domovine v Rimu. Kot spomenik je bil zasnovan tudi Eifflov stolp, v spomin ob stoletnici francoske revolucije. Javni spomeniki so lahko pomembni zaradi estetske kakovosti, ki prispeva k drugačnemu videzu ali funk- cioniranju objekta, njegovega ožjega in širšega pro- stora ter v idealnem primeru naselja kot celote. Vsaj od renesančnega obdobja naprej je med pomembni- mi elementi javnih spomenikov znano avtorstvo. Sla- va posameznega avtorja lahko vpliva na prepoznav- nost spomenika (Donatello, Michelangelo, Bernini). Pogosto je pomembna tudi prepoznavnost naročni- ka postavitve. Posebnost javnih spomenikov so spre- mljanje njihovega nastajanja, postavitev s slovesnim odprtjem in nadaljnje bivanje v prostoru, vključno z odzivi ljudi in oblasti na spomenike in njihov pro- stor.1 V toku časa in političnih sprememb se njihov pomen pogosto spreminja. Že nastajanje je včasih povezano z daljšim časovnim obdobjem, ki vključuje javne natečaje ali neposredna naročila. V Sloveniji je ljubljanski Spomenik revoluci- je (Drago Tršar, 1964–1975) po natečaju čakal na po- stavitev deset let, Slomškov spomenik v Celju še bi- stveno dlje. Kiparka Karla Bulovec Mrak ga je obliko- vala leta 1936, postavili pa so ga 13. aprila 1996. Spomeniki naj bi javni prostor krasili »večno«. Navi- dezna večnost pa lahko traja le leto dni ali še manj. Spomenik kralja Aleksandra I. v Ljubljani ni stal niti 11 mesecev. Konj in jezdec sta bila žrtev fašističnega či- ščenja. Med spomeniki, ki javni prostor krasijo naj- dlje, pa je denimo Marijin steber ob cerkvi sv. Jakoba v Ljubljani. Tega je J. V. Valvasor sooblikoval že leta 1681. Nekoliko preurejenega in na drugi lokaciji ga je leta 1938 oživil arhitekt Plečnik. Značilnost tega in številnih drugih spomenikov je, da je pri njih prevla- dal sakralni pomen; počastitev zmage nad Turki (Mo- nošter, 1664) je skoraj pozabljena. Ljudje so že v predzgodovinskih obdobjih označevali izbrane simbolne prostore. Ti so bili povezani s spo- minjanjem in/ali verovanjem, s posebnimi pomeni določenih prostorov, njihovimi označbami in simboli- ko. Lahko gre za naravne elemente, od dreves, skal do izvirov, ali za s posegi človeka označene, oblikova- ne in urejene elemente. Pogost spomenik je drevo. Simbolna »slovenska« lipa je označevalec posestva, jedra naselja, razgledne lege ali pa osamosvojitve dr- žave, stare manj kot 30 let. V krščanski tradiciji, ki že 1700 let prevladuje v Sloveniji, ima izjemen pomen mitsko drevo, ki je baje raslo na grobu praočeta Ada- ma. Iz lesa tega drevesa naj bi stesali križ, na katerem so križali Kristusa. Simbolični, skoraj serijski nasledni- ki tega križa so razpela, najpogostejša znamenja v slovenskem prostoru. Ne glede na obliko in poudar- jeni sakralni pomen označujejo kraje dogodkov, do- gajanj ali prostor sam. Zaradi njihove množičnosti in uveljavljene verske simbolike jih pogosto ne razpo- znamo kot spominska znamenja. Večji spomeniki se- gajo do piramid, templjev in cerkva, kar, kot omenje- no, presega obseg tega članka. 31arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Gojko Zupan wider space, and, ideally, the locality as a whole. At least from the Renaissance period onward, recog- nised authorship counts among the important ele- ments of public monuments. The glory of a particu- lar author can affect the profile of the monument (Donatello, Michelangelo, G. L. Bernini). Often, the profile of the edifice's investor is also important. The particularity of public monuments is in the attention paid to the process of their creation, their erection with a grand opening, and their further existence in space, including the reactions of people and the au- thorities to the monuments and their space.1 With the passage of time and in the course of political changes, their meaning often changes. Their creation sometimes involves a longer period of time, which includes public competitions or direct commissions. In Slovenia, it took ten years from the competition for Spomenik revolucije (Monument to the Revolution, Drago Tršar, 1964–1975) to be erect- ed in Ljubljana; the monument to Bishop Anton Mar- tin Slomšek in Celje took significantly longer: sculp- tor Karla Bulovec Mrak designed it in 1936, and it was erected on 13th April 1996. Monuments are intended to decorate the public space "indefinitely". But what is seemingly indefinite can last only a year or less. The monument to King Alexander I in Ljubljana stood for less than 11 months: the horse and the rider were the victims of fascist cleansing. Monuments which have decorated the public space for the longest period, on the other hand, include the Marian column by St James's Par- ish Church in Ljubljana; it was co-designed by J. V. Valvasor as early as 1681. Slightly altered and in a different location, it was revived in 1938 by architect Jože Plečnik. It is characteristic of this and numerous other monuments that its religious significance has become dominant - the celebration of the victory over the Ottomans (Battle of Saint Gotthard, 1664) is all but forgotten. Already in prehistoric periods, people would mark chosen symbolic spaces. These were connected with remembrance and/or a certain belief, with special sig- nificance of certain spaces, their markings, and the symbolism. These may be natural elements, from trees and rocks to water springs, or elements marked, designed, and laid out by human interventions. A tree is a common monument. The symbolic "Slovene" lin- den tree marks estates, settlement cores, or sites with a commanding view - or the independence of a state less than 30 years old. In the Christian tradition, which What is considered to be a public monument? A monument or, more precisely, a public monument is a materialised three-dimensional object which was built or shaped and installed in a publicly acces- sible site chiefly on account of its remembrance function or other symbolic function. Public monu- ments are typically dedicated to deceased persons or historical events, and rarely to states, animals, or objects. As a rule, they are installed by the ruling class or other social groups with the most influence. The monuments mostly celebrate persons or events which directly or indirectly elevate the significance of the erectors, their beliefs, ideas, or desires. Public monuments are often erected with at least two ad- ditional purposes: for the needs of commemora- tions, religious ceremonies or remembrance gather- ings. Often, monuments, or venerated grave layouts, outgrew their initial function and were - featuring enhanced ceremonial symbolism - established as buildings (Egyptian pyramids, temples and churches, mausolea). Due to their modified signification, they are typically not counted among public monuments. In the development of public monuments and public space, new forms and meanings are continually add- ed; consequently, there is no single and ultimate definition to encompass all meanings and sub- meanings of a monument. As a rule, public space is understood as continually accessible spaces which are at least visually, and typically also physically accessible to each individual all 24 hours of the day all year long (with the excep- tion of winters in certain localities as some monu- ments are covered in that period). This treatment consequently does not discuss gravestones as they are a subordinate element of cemeteries. A different rule applies to special layouts with individual tombs or buildings outside buildings or the cemetery perim- eter. Further decorations are present in the public space, such as garden (park) and decorative sculp- tures and fountains. Sometimes, these are individual objects or they are parts of buildings or layouts. As an exception, some public monuments are architec- tures, such as the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, the Lin- coln Memorial in Washington, D.C., or the Vittoriano - Altare della Patria in Rome. The Eiffel Tower, a me- morial to the centennial of the French Revolution, was designed as a monument. Public monuments may be significant due to their aesthetic quality contributing to a different appear- ance or function of a building, its immediate and 11 12 13 14 1 Each monument has at least three spaces: the micro-space, so- called "personal" space of the monument, where the visitor establishes personal contact in the monument or immediately next to it; the wider urban or landscape space where the effect of the whole is exercised; and the symbolic space in which the artistic, social, historical and other elements are intertwined. Fig. 6: Monument to Josip Broz, Velenje, 1977. Authors: Antun Augustinčić and Vladimir Herljević. Figs. 7, 8: Tomb of National Heroes, Ljubljana, 1949. Authors: Edvard Mihevc (architect) and Boris Kalin (sculptor). Fig. 9: Spomenik padlim partizanom gornikom (Monument to partisans from mountain units killed in action), Vrata, 1953. Fig. 10: Spomenik svobode (Monument to Freedom), Kočevje, 1953. Authors: Zoran Didek (architect) and Božidar Pengov, Lojze Lavrič, Marjan Keršič, and Stane Keržič (sculptors). Figs. 11, 12: Grobišče talcev (Burial site of civilian casualties), 1953, Draga pri Begunjah. Authors: Edvard Ravnikar (architect) and Boris Kalin (sculptor). Fig. 13: Spominski kompleks Kampor (Memorial complex Kampor), Rab, 1955. Author: Edvard Ravnikar. Fig. 14: Camp Ljubelj, Podljubelj, 1954. Architecture by Boris Kobe, sculpture by Joža Bertoncelj. 32 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 2 Razlaga je zaradi pogostih zamenjav pomena izrazov javni in kul- turni spomenik nujna. 3 Nesnovna dediščina ima poseben seznam, na katerem je trenu- tno 508 enot iz 122 držav, tudi Škofjeloški pasijon, obhodi ku- rentov, izdelovanje klekljanih čipk in znanje suhozidne gradnje. 4 Zlati miljnik: Milliarium Aureum. Lapis Niger je po legendi grob prvega rimskega vladarja, kralja Romula. Sl. 15: Kraj poslednjega boja Pohorskega bataljona, Osankarica, 1959. Avtor ureditve: arhitekt Branko Kocmut, avtor kipa umirajočih: Slavko Tihec. Sl. 16: Spomenik NOB na Gričku, Črnomelj, 1954–1961. Avtorja: arhitekt Marko Župančič; reliefi z vojnimi prizori: kipar Jakob Savinšek. Sl. 17: Lipa samostojnosti, Velenje, 1991 Sl. 18: Spominski park Teharje, Bukovžlak, 2004. Avtor: arhitekt Marko Mušič s sodelavci. Sl. 19: Spomenik žrtvam vseh vojn, Ljubljana, 2017. Avtorji: Medprostor. Sl. 20, 21, 22: Spominski kompleks Jasenovac, Jasenovac, 1966. Avtor: arhitekt Bogdan Bogdanović. 15 16 17 18 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Kaj je kulturni spomenik? Pogosto se (pre)široka uporaba besede spomenik2 povezuje s pojmom kulturni spomenik. V slovenščini tako poimenujemo vse pomembne ostaline človeko- vega dela, njegove ustvarjalnosti, od funkcionalnih zgradb do arheoloških ostalin, zaradi njihove starosti, likovne, tehnične ali drugačne izjemnosti, velikosti ali zgodovinske pomembnosti; status jim dodelijo obči- ne ali država. Status kulturnega spomenika ima še izbrana premična dediščina, to so evidentirani in ovrednoteni predmeti, ki jih hranijo državni in poo- blaščeni muzeji. Med kulturne spomenike strokov- njaki uvrščajo tudi izbrane javne spomenike, vendar ne kar vsega, kar se spominskega ali dekorativnega postavlja v prostor. Posebej je vrednotena izbrana nematerialna ali živa dediščina (npr. pesmi, običaji, šege in navade, načini priprave jedi in podobno). V register nesnovne dediščine so uvrščeni tudi pohodi ob Poti spominov in tovarištva.3 Status kulturnega spomenika svetovnega pomena poenostavljeno enačimo z nepremičnimi spomeniki, ki so uvrščeni na UNESCOV seznam svetovne dedišči- ne. Leta 2019 je bilo na njem 1121 enot, med njimi 869 kulturnih, 213 naravnih in 39 mešanih, v 167 dr- žavah. Med njimi je nekaj zgodovinskih spominskih območij, kot sta taborišče Auschwitz in jedro Hiroši- me. Med izjemnimi spomeniki je Kip svobode v New Yorku. V Sloveniji imamo štiri območja, ki so na tem seznamu svetovne naravne in kulturne dediščine: Škocjanske jame, prvobitne bukove gozdove, kolišča na Ljubljanskem barju in tehniško dediščino Idrije. Dva memorialna spomenika Slovenije, posebna tipa spominskih krajev, pa nosita znak evropske kulturne dediščine: partizanska bolnišnica Franja in spomin- ska cerkvica v Javorci. Javni spomeniki: od znamenj do prostorskih ureditev Urbanizirani javni prostori v Sloveniji, po Evropi in drugje so pogosto okrašeni z unikatnim mestnim po- hištvom, kamor sodijo javni spomeniki, vodnjaki, vr- tne in dekorativne plastike, redkeje tudi spominska drevesa in ureditve. V 19. in prvi polovici 20. stoletja so med avtorji spominskih objektov prevladovali ki- parji, ob njih arhitekti, včasih brez navajanja avtor- stva, ne glede na pomen njihovega preoblikovanja prostora. Proti koncu 20. stoletja so se začele v večji meri uveljavljati drugačne, pogosto abstraktne oblike in krajinske ureditve, kjer so kiparske rešitve podreje- ne ali pa jih ni. Ozkih oblikovalskih, stilnih in drugače narekovanih pravil ni več. Mogoče so kakršnekoli vi- zualne zasnove. Prostor »dopolnjujejo« še lokalni politiki in drugi vplivni posamezniki s svojimi idejami. Spomeniki so izjemoma celo izhodišča urbanističnih zasnov. Nekatera načrtno zgrajena mesta (Washing- ton, Brasilia) ali večja naselja po svetu so bila zasno- vana okoli spomenikov. V preročišču Delfi je bil »po- pek sveta«. Urbs, Rim, je izhajal iz lokacije Romulove- ga groba4 ali izhodiščnega miljnika. Lokacijo washing- tonskega spomenika so si zamislili tako, da bi jim po- magala organizirati deljenje mestne zemlje, še pre- den so ga povezali z Georgeem Washingtonom. V starejših mestih so javni spomeniki postavljeni na točkah, ki so bile pomembne že pred postavitvijo ali pa so to postale z njo: na trgih, pred javnimi stavba- mi. Eden od namenov spomenikov je narediti vtis na opazovalca in vzbujati občutke moči (naroda, države, politike). Takšen je bil osnovni koncept ljubljanskega Trga revolucije, kjer pa so spomenike kasneje odrinili z jedra trga ob rob ploščadi in trg preimenovali. Širša obravnava spomenikov in njihovega konteksta bi verjetno morala ob vizualni formi in postavitvi za- objeti tudi takšna in drugačna simbolna poimenova- nja: šol, univerz, letališč ali ulic. Posamezni primeri spomeniške simbolike se v javnem prostoru prenaša- jo na obstoječe prostore in stavbe. Podobno spregle- dano je součinkovanje javnega prostora, kjer imajo spomeniki povezave z drugimi javno oglaševanimi simboli ali promocijo. Ta sega od plakatov, zastav do stenskih poslikav; z okolico se lahko staplja ali pa je z njo v konfliktu. Ogrožanje spomenikov Spomeniki po odprtju živijo različno življenje. Najbolj izpostavljeni so redna tarča političnih režimov in ver- skih nestrpnežev vseh religij, včasih tudi posamezni- kov. To ni posebnost 20. stoletja. Edini ohranjeni an- tični konjeniški spomenik, posvečen cesarju Marku 33arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Gojko Zupan Moors, and the technical heritage of Idrija. Europe- an Heritage Label was bestowed on two special me- morial monuments of Slovenia: Ppartisan hospital Franja and memorial church Javorca. Public monuments: from markings to spatial layouts Urbanised public spaces in Slovenia, in Europe, and elsewhere are often decorated with unique street furniture such as public monuments, fountains, gar- den- and decorative statues, and more uncommonly also memorial trees and layouts. In the 19th and the 1st half of the 20th century, the authors of memorial buildings were mostly sculptors along with archi- tects, whose authorship sometimes remained unde- clared regardless of the significance of their reshap- ing of space. From the end of the 20th century, dif- ferent, often abstract forms and landscape layouts in which sculpture solutions play an ancillary role or are not present have begun to gain ground. Con- straining rules of design and style, as well as other restrictions, no longer apply. Any visual design is a possibility. The space is further "augmented" by local politicians and other influential individuals with their ideas. In rare cases, monuments even serve as underpin- nings for urban designs. Some planned cities of the world or larger communities were designed around monuments. In the Delphi oracle, there was the Navel of the World. The only Urbs, Rome, emerged from Romulus's gravesite4 or the original milestone. The site of the Washington Monument was envisioned in order to help organise the partition of the city land even before it began to be associated with George Washington. In older cities, public monuments are erected in spots which were important before the erection, or they become important on account of it: in squares, has been prevalent in Slovenia for 1700 years, the mythical tree believed to have grown on the grave of Adam, father of the human race, carries exceptional significance. The wood from this tree is believed to have been used to make the cross upon which Christ was crucified. The symbolic, almost serial descend- ants of this cross are crucifix wayside shrines, the most common markers in the Slovene space. Regard- less of their form and the emphasised religious signifi- cance, they mark the sites of events, happenings, or the space itself. Due to their ubiquity and the estab- lished religious symbolism, we often don't recognise them as memorial markers. Larger monuments in- clude pyramids, temples, and churches, which are, as already mentioned, beyond the scope of this article. What is a cultural monument? Often, a connection is made between the (overly) loose use of the term "monument"2 and the idea of a cultural monument. In Slovene, the term denotes all important remains of human labour and creativity, from functional buildings to archaeological remains, on account of their age, their artistic or technical or other distinction, size, or historical significance, with such status being conferred on them by the munici- pality or the state. Select movable heritage, i.e. re- corded and evaluated objects preserved by state- and state-sanctioned museums, also possesses the status of a cultural monument. Experts also include select public monuments among cultural monu- ments - "select" meaning that not just any memorial or decorative object in space is considered. Select intangible or living heritage, e.g. songs, traditions, customs and habits, food preparation etc., is evalu- ated separately. The intangible heritage registry also includes the memorial march along the Trail of Re- membrance and Comradeship.3 The status of a cultural monument of global signifi- cance is essentially equal to immovable monuments included in the UNESCO world heritage list. In 2019, there were 1121 entries on the list, including 869 units of cultural heritage, 213 units of natural herit- age and 39 mixed units in 167 states. Also included are a few memorial historical areas such as Aus- chwitz and Hiroshima town core. Outstanding me- morials include the Statue of Liberty in New York. There are four areas in Slovenia included in the list of world natural and cultural heritage: Škocjan caves, primeval beech forests, pile dwellings at Ljubljana 19 20 21 22 Fig. 15: Site of Pohorski battalion's last stand, Osankarica, 1959. Layout by Branko Kocmut, statues of the dying by Slavko Tihec. Fig. 16: Monument to People's Liberation Struggle in Griček, Črnomelj, 1954–1961. Designed by Marko Župančič, war-themed reliefs by Jakob Savinšek. Fig. 17: Lipa samostojnosti (Linden Tree of Independence), Velenje, 1991. Fig. 18: Memorial Park Teharje, Bukovžlak, 2004. Author: Marko Mušič. Fig. 19: Spomenik žrtvam vseh vojn (Monument to the victims of all wars), Ljubljana, 2017. Authors: Medprostor. Figs. 20, 21, 22: Memorial complex Jasenovac, Jasenovac, 1966. Author: Bogdan Bogdanović. 2 The explanation is required due to frequent confusion of the meanings of terms "public monument" and "cultural monu- ment". 3 A special list exists for intangible heritage, currently containing 508 units from 122 states, including the Škofja Loka passion play, the door-to-door rounds of Kurenti, bobbin lacemaking, and the art of dry stone walling. 4 Milliarium Aureum, or the Golden Milestone. According to the legend, the Lapis Niger is the grave of the first ruler of Rome, Romulus. 34 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Sl. 23, 24: Spomenik žrtvam vojne, Kozara, Bosna in Hercegovina, 1972. Avtor: kipar Dušan Džamonja. Sl. 25: Devastacija Partizanskega pokopališča v Mostarju, 1965, avtorja Bogdana Bogdanovića. Fotografirano leta 2015. Sl. 26: Spominska soba kiparja Györgya Zale v Galeriji - Muzeju Lendava 5 https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/.../worlds-ugliest-monu- ments/index.html 6 Zoran KRŽIŠNIK et alii, XXXIX BIENNALE DI VENEZIA – YUGOSLA- VIA – BOGDANOVIĆ – DŽAMONJA – TIHEC – ŽIVKOVIĆ, Ljublja- na, 1980. 7 V Sovjetski zvezi značilnosti socialističnega realizma zasledimo že sredi tridesetih let 20. stoletja. Podobna patetična izhodišča z nekoliko drugačno ikonografijo so razvijali v Nemčiji, Franciji in Italiji. 23 24 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. Avreliju, je preživel, ker so ga imeli za krščanskega vladarja Konstantina Velikega. Podobno uničevalne so bile revolucije. Slikar Gustave Courbet je leta 1871 predlagal prestavitev Napoleonovega spominskega stebra na trgu Vendôme. Spomenik so podrli. Fašisti so podirali spomenike, celo nagrobnike s slovenskimi napisi, enako nacisti in za njimi socialistični režimi. T. i. Bildersturm je bil intenziven ob propadu Sovjetske zveze in osamosvojitvi držav vzhodne Evrope. Podrli so desetine Leninov in večino spomenikov domačim komunističnim idolom. Ponekod so uredili nekakšne rezervate z odstranjenimi kipi. Ti so bili pomensko de- gradirani v nekakšne vrtne skulpture brez prostorskih razsežnosti. Slovenija ima takšen park na Brdu pri Kra- nju. Ponavlja se tok zgodovine, ko avtoritarni režimi najprej rušijo spomenike, zažigajo knjige in zatem po- bijajo ljudi. Slovenija je bila verjetno edina socialistična država, ki ni imela niti enega javnega spomenika Marxu ali Leni- nu. Večina spomenikov je bila posvečena domačim herojem in predvsem žrtvam; pri njih je pieteta pre- vladala nad političnimi izzivalci. Razpad Jugoslavije je drugje, zlasti na Hrvaškem, vplival na uničevanje tiso- čev spomenikov. V Bosni pa so strahote nove vojne preglasile pomen predhodne in spomine nanjo. Ne- gativen odnos do spomenikov razpadle Jugoslavije so spodbujali tudi mediji in pomanjkanje strokovnih vre- dnotenj, vse do napihnjenih sestavljanj lestvic »gr- dih« spomenikov za računalniške lestvice priljubljeno- sti.5 Le nekaj let kasneje so na razstavi v Muzeju mo- derne umetnosti (MoMA) v New Yorku ugotavljali, da so jugoslovanski spomeniki Bogdanovića, Džamonje, Ravnikarja, Tihca, Živkovića ali Bakića izjemne ume- tnine. Celo ime so kot »spomeniks« prevzeli v stro- kovno literaturo. Nič novega, če bi poznali izbor Zora- na Kržišnika za beneški bienale leta 1980.6 Spomeniki v odprtem prostoru, zlasti bronasti, so v zadnjih desetletjih pogosta žrtev preprodajalcev ko- vin – kar v vsej Evropi, ne glede na politične režime. Znamenita je bila kraja Moorove skulpture Reclining Nude leta 2005 v Angliji. Umetnina, vredna vsaj tri milijone funtov, je bila prodana kot odpadni material za 1500 funtov. Slovenska značilnost je še politično podpihovan vandalizem. Odmevna je bila kraja Kidri- čevega spomenika v Kidričevem in nadomestitev portreta z živalsko glavo. V medije so zašli različni pri- meri barvanja kipov ali sten ob njih, vendar le, kadar je bil prepoznaven njihov politični pomen. Krajo in vandaliziranje spomenika zdravniku E. Šlajmerju (delo Z. Kalina in J. Plečnika) so prezrli mediji, politiki in celo stanovski kolegi. Socialistični realizem? Umetniško ustvarjanje Sovjetske zveze in velikega dela vzhodne Evrope v desetletjih po drugi svetovni vojni običajno posplošeno imenujemo socialistični realizem.7 Pri javnih spomenikih večine socialistične Jugoslavije je vsaj za čas do sredine petdesetih let, ponekod do gospodarske krize okoli leta 1965, izraz ustrezen. Večinoma pa so nove politične usmeritve že v sredini petdesetih let dovoljevale, celo podpirale postopen razvoj novih iskanj. Modernistične oblike so korak za korakom prerasle v likovno izjemne po- stavitve iz sredine šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let v Podgariću, Jasenovcu, Kamenski, Kragujevcu, na Tjentištu in Kozari. Ti »spomeniks« so do osemdese- tih let postali zgled premišljene inventivnosti, monu- mentalnosti in velikih krajinskih posegov. Po razpadu Jugoslavije nobena od nastalih samostojnih držav še ni dosegla niti podobne likovne kakovosti. Spomeni- ki, kot so tisti Franju Tuđmanu v Zagrebu, Draži Mi- hailoviću v Bileći ali Aleksandru Velikemu v Skopju, so bolj karikatura stanja kot pa kakovosten prihodnji spomin na nove čase. Za Slovenijo je poimenovanje socialistični realizem za javne spomenike manj primerno, razen za nekaj iz- jem, postavljenih v prvi ali drugi povojni petletki. Po- samezne trende in iz konteksta iztrgane postavitve z esejističnimi razlagami ter usmerjenimi fotografijami sestavljati v stilno obdobje socialističnega realizma ni utemeljeno, posebej če primerjamo javne spomeni- ke, nastale v desetletju pred vojno in po njej, s spo- meniki vzhodnega in zahodnega dela Evrope ter celo ZDA. Kam sodita Meštrovićeva Indijanca v Chicagu (1926–1927) ali Augustinčićev Mir, postavljen leta 1954 v New Yorku? Kipi grobišč v Normandiji so večji in bolj patetični kot karkoli, kar stoji v Sloveniji. Mo- numentalnih spomenikov, če ne upoštevamo izje- mnih krajinskih elementov, v Sloveniji vse do Draž- goš ni bilo. Celo pri spomeniku, ki je neposreden odvod sovjetskih zasnov, Arončikovem spomeniku osvoboditeljem v Murski Soboti (1945), je jedro spo- menika prilagojeno grajskemu drevoredu in dopol- njeno z dvema sorazmerno majhnima kipoma statič- nih vojakov brez izrazitih čustev (avtorja Boris in Zdenko Kalin). Večina drugih spomenikov, od plošč do arhitekture, je bila bolj ali manj uspešno posne- manje Plečnikovih del, njegove arhitekturne šole z iz antike izvirajočimi stebri, vazami, triglavimi zaključki, fontanami (spomenik OF, Ljubljana, 1951; spomenik 35arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 popularity charts.5 Only a few years later, there was all-round agreement in the Museum of Modern Art in New York that Yugoslav monuments by Bogdanović, Džamonja, Ravnikar, Tihec, Živković, or Bakić are ex- ceptional works of art. Even the term, "spomeniks" (from Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Slovene, "spomenik" = "monument"), was adopted in special- ised literature. Hardly groundbreaking, had they been familiar with Zoran Kržišnik's selection for the 1980 Venice Biennale.6 Open-air monuments, especially bronze ones, have fallen victim to scrap metal dealers in recent dec- ades - all over Europe, regardless of the political re- gime. The 2005 theft of Moore's sculpture Reclining Nude in England was notorious: the artwork worth at least £3 million was sold as scrap for £1,500. Characteristic for Slovenia are political incitements to vandalism. When the monument of Boris Kidrič in Kidričevo was stolen with an animal head left in its place, public attention was excited. The media has covered various incidents of paint having been thrown over unsuspecting monuments or walls next to them, but only in cases where political signifi- cance was detectable. The stolen and vandalised monument to physician Edvard Šlajmer (a work by Zdenko Kalin and Jože Plečnik) was ignored by the media, politicians, and even by professional peers. Socialist realism? The artistic output of the Soviet Union and a large portion of Eastern Europe in the decades after World War 2 tends to be bundled into the generalised term "socialist realism".7 For public monuments of the ma- jority of socialist Yugoslavia, the expression fits at least until the mid-1950, and in places until the eco- nomic crisis around 1965. But for the most part, new political directions have allowed, even supported the gradual development of new explorations from the mid-1950s onward. Step by step, modernist forms eclipsed the artistically exceptional installations of the 5 https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/.../worlds-ugliest-monu- ments/index.html 6 Zoran KRŽIŠNIK et alii, XXXIX BIENNALE DI VENEZIA - YUGOSLA- VIA - BOGDANOVIĆ - DŽAMONJA - TIHEC - ŽIVKOVIĆ, Ljubljana, 1980. 7 In the Soviet Union, the characteristics of socialist realism may be traced as far back as the 1930. Similar pathetic standpoints with slightly different iconography were being developed in Germany, France, and Italy. or in front of public buildings. One of the purposes of monuments is making an impression on the observer and evoking a sensation of power (of the nation, the state, or politics). This was the fundamental concept of Ljubljana's Trg revolucije Square, where the mon- uments were later ousted from the square's core to the edge of the platform, while the square itself was renamed. Beside the visual form and siting, a broader treatment of monuments and their context probably ought to consider various instances of symbolic naming: the dedications of schools, universities, airports, or streets. Individual symbolisms of monuments in the public space are transferred to existing spaces and buildings. The combined effect of the public space, where monuments connect with other publicly adver- tised symbols or promotion, is similarly overlooked. The range encompasses posters, flags, as well as mu- rals; it can either blend with them or be in conflict. Threats to monuments After they had their opening, monuments live differ- ent lives. Those most exposed are frequent targets of political regimes and fundamentalists of all religions, and occasionally also individuals. This is not particu- lar to the 20th century. The only preserved equestrian monument from the antiquity, dedicated to emperor Marcus Aurelius, survived because it was believed to depict Christian ruler Constantine the Great. Revolu- tions were similarly destructive. In 1871, painter Gus- tave Courbet proposed the relocation of Napoleon's memorial column at Place Vendôme; the monument was torn down. Fascists tore down monuments, even gravestones with Slovene surnames, as did the Nazis, and socialist regimes after them. There was vigorous so-called Bildersturm during the collapse of the Sovi- et Union and the independence of Eastern European states. Dozens of Lenins were taken down, as well as most monuments to domestic communist idols. In places, reserves of sorts with removed statues were established. In terms of their meaning, these statues were demoted as some sort of garden sculptures without spatial dimensions. In Slovenia, such a park is located in Brdo pri Kranju. The course of history where authoritarian regimes begin by demolishing monuments, go on to burn books, and then kill peo- ple, is repeating itself. Slovenia was probably the only socialist state which didn't have a single public monument to Marx or Lenin. Most monuments were dedicated to domestic heroes and chiefly to victims as reverence prevailed over political challengers. Elsewhere, principally in Croatia, the unravelling of Yugoslavia brought about the destruction of thousands of monuments while in Bosnia, the horrors of the new war drowned out the significance of the previous one and the memories of it. Negative attitudes to the monuments of the dis- solved Yugoslavia were fostered also by the media and the lack of expert assessment, which culminated in overblown "ugly" monument lists made for computer Gojko Zupan Figs. 23, 24: Spomenik revolucije (Monument to the Revolution), Kozara, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1972. Author: Dušan Džamonja. Fig. 25: The defacing of Partisan Cemetery in Mostar, 1965; author: Bogdan Bogdanović. Fig. 26: György Zala memorial room in Gallery-Museum Lendava. 25 26 mid-1960s and 1970s in Podgarić, Jasenovac, Kamen- sko, Kragujevac, Tjentište, and Kozara. By the 1980s, these "spomeniks" have become a model of consid- ered inventiveness, monumentality, and major land- scape interventions. After the dissolution of Yugosla- via, no independent state has reached anywhere near the artistic quality. Monuments such as those to Fran- jo Tuđman in Zagreb, Draža Mihailović in Bileća, or Alexander the Great in Skopje are more akin to carica- tures than to first-rate mementos of a new era. For public monuments in Slovenia, the term "socialist realism" is less appropriate, save for a few exceptions erected during the first and second post-war five-year plans. Assigning individual trends and installations re- moved from their contexts to the stylistic period of so- cialist realism by means of essay elaborations and tendentious photographs is not justified, especially when comparing public monuments created in the decade before the war and after the war with monu- ments of eastern and western parts of Europe and even the United States. Where to place Chicago's The Bowman and the Spearman (1926–27) by Ivan Meštrović, or Augustinčić's Peace, erected in New York in 1954? The monuments of Normandy burial sites are larger and more pathetic than anything standing in Slovenia. Until Dražgoše, there were no monumental monuments in Slovenia, not including the exceptional landscape elements. Even with the monument which is a direct derivation of Soviet designs, namely Yuri Aronchik's monument to the liberators in Murska So- bota (1945), the monument's core is adapted to the castle tree lane and complemented with two relatively small statues of static soldiers exhibiting no intense emotion (by Boris and Zdenko Kalin). Most other mon- uments, from plaques to architectures, were more or less successful imitations of Plečnik's works and his school of architecture with antiquity-derived columns, urns, three-pointed terminations, and fountains (Mon- ument to the Liberation Front, Ljubljana, 1951; Monu- ment to the casualties of both World Wars, Črna, 36 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Sl. 27, 28: Spomenik Imreju Nagyu v Budimpešti. Spomenik so leta 2019 prestavili na novo lokacijo. Sl. 29: Razstava Naši heroji, socialistični realizem revidiran, primer: ex-Jugoslavija. Umetnostna galerija Maribor, 2015. Sl. 30: Intervju z likovnim kritikom Miškom Šuvakovićem ob razstavi Naši heroji. UGM Maribor, 2015. Sl. 31: Model za kip Mir (Spomenik miru) Antuna Augustinčića na razstavi Naši heroji v UGM Maribor, 2015. Kip iz leta 1954 stoji pred stavbo Organizacije združenih narodov v New Yorku. Viri Sinteza, revija za likovno kulturo VII, Ljubljana, 1967. Zoran KRŽIŠNIK et alii, XXXIX BIENNALE DI VENEZIA – YUGO- SLAVIA – BOGDANOVIĆ – DŽAMONJA – TIHEC – ŽIVKOVIĆ, Ljubljana, 1980. Gojko ZUPAN, Razvoj spomenikov NOB v Ljubljani, Sinteza: revi- ja za likovno kulturo, Ljubljana, 1985, št. 69–72, pp. 145–151 (povze- tek diplomskega dela). Špelca ČOPIČ, Damjan PRELOVŠEK, Sonja ŽITKO, Ljubljansko ki- parstvo na prostem, Ljubljana, 1991. ÜBER-LEBENS-MITTEL, Kunst aus Konzentrationslagern und in Gedenkstätten für Opfer des Nationalsozialismus, Marburg: Jonas Verlag, 1992. Bildersturm in Osteuropa, ICOMOS Journals, XIII, ICOMOS Deut- schland, München, 1994. Gojko ZUPAN, Les monuments et l'espace public Slovene de 1945 à 1991, Bildersturm in Osteuropa: die Denkmäler der kommuni- stischen Ära im Umbruch: eine Tagung des Deutschen Nationalkomi- tees von ICOMOS, Berlin, 18.-20. Februar 1993, pp. 54–55. Špelca ČOPIČ, Javni spomeniki v slovenskem kiparstvu prve po- lovice 20. stoletja, Ljubljana, 2000. Pojmovnik slovenske umetnosti po letu 1945, pojmi, gibanja, skupine, težnje, Ljubljana : ALUO, 2009 (urednica Nadja Zgonik). Javni spomenici i spomen obeležja, kolektivno pamćenje i / ili zaborav, V. konferencija, Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture grada Beograda, Beograd, 2014. Življenja spomenikov = The lives of monuments: druga svetovna vojna in javni spomeniki v Sloveniji 1945–1980 = World War II and public monuments in Slovenia 1945–1980: študentska dokumentar- na razstava = student documentary exhibition [17. 6.–31. 12. 2017]. Simona VIDMAR (urednica) et alii, Heroes we love, Ideology, Identity and Socialist Art in the New Europe, Maribor, 2017. Spomeniki prve svetovne vojne v Jugoslaviji, https://www.igor- zabel.org/pdf/30ta-zlozenka-A5_slo-FIN.pdf. 27 28 29 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. padlim obeh svetovnih vojn, Črna, 1952). Nadalje- valci Plečnikove občutljivosti so se uveljavili s krajin- skimi ureditvami (Edvard Ravnikar, Boris Kobe, Vinko Glanz in Marko Župančič). Nadaljevanje akademske- ga, ponekod patetičnega realizma figuralike Meštro- vićeve šole in Augustinčića je v Sloveniji opazno kraj- ši čas, desetletje in pol. Najbližji patetičnemu realiz- mu je bil Lojze Dolinar z okrasitvijo trga v Kranju. Vendar je bil Dolinar enako patetičen pri oblikovanju nagrobnika Janezu Evangelistu Kreku na Žalah (1920), pri spomeniku kralju Petru I. pred Magistra- tom (1931) in pri konjeniku v bronu, Aleksandru I., na Kongresnem trgu v Ljubljani (1940). »Socialistič- ni« so bili pet ali deset let kasneje po Sloveniji bolj simbolni dodatki: zvezde, oblačila, orodje ali orožje, napisi. Nekaj deset bombašev, borcev s puškami (npr. Kočevje, Senožeče, Cerknica) in podobnih kipov so hitro presegle pretehtane postavitve v prostor in zazelenitve ter bolj nežne, pogosto gole, intimistične figure. Prvi svobodni prvi maj je leta 1946 v Sloveniji in Tivoliju označil goli Pastirček Zdenka Kalina. Kipar je na podoben način nadaljeval s Spomenikom pio- nirjem (1962) in Fontano življenja na grobišču talcev na Žalah (1965). Nedaleč je Gramozna jama, kjer najdemo znano simboliko: temno jamo in svetel obelisk (ureditev Vinko Glanz, 1957) ter antikizirajo- čega umirajočega talca (Boris Kalin, 1955). Ikonogra- fije socialističnega realizma tam ni. Niti na nekaj ko- rakov oddaljenih Žalah je ne najdemo (arhitekt Fedja Košir, kipar Janez Boljka, 1965). Celo pri političnih veljakih, kakor je stoječa postava Borisa Kidriča, je oblika ostala na evropsko primerljivi kakovostni rav- ni (1960), če ga postavimo ob bok dve desetletji mlajšemu spomeniku Georgesu Pompidouju (kipar Louis Derbré, 1984). Osrednji slovenski spomenik, postavljen v zgodnjem povojnem času, je Grobnica narodnih herojev. To je na podstavek dvignjena replika antičnega sarkofaga, okrašena z dvema 60 cm visokima reliefoma (Boris Kalin) in prefinjenimi verzi Otona Župančiča. Prvotna postavitev je skušala celo omiliti os dostopne poti z okroglimi kamni tlaka. Arhitekt je sarkofag herojev poudaril s postavitvijo v senco drevesa. Takšna za- snova Eda Mihevca bi bila zunaj Slovenije razumljena kot preskromna, pri nas pa je bila nadgradnja zna- menj s triglavimi zaključki ter posnemanjem predvoj- nih zgledov arhitektov, kiparjev in kamnosekov. Vpra- šljive so razprave, kjer opisovalci trendov najprej po- stavijo tezo in zatem brez terenskih preverjanj na osnovi enega ali dveh izbranih primerov podkrepijo izhodišča berljivih esejev. Generaliziranje izjem na splošno pojavnost postavljanja spominskih znamenj žrtvam vojn bo v bodoče treba premisliti in korigirati. Simbolno in konceptualno nadgradnjo izhodišča, kjer se naravno okolje staplja s kamnom in bronom spo- menika, sta odlično izvedla Branko Kocmut in Slavko Tihec na Pohorju leta 1959. Njuna granitna plošča žrtvenika, na katerem ležita bronasti žrtvi, stoji med označevalnimi kamni in vitkimi smrekami. Tihec je svoj razvoj več kot desetletje zatem nadgradil s spo- menikom žrtvam vojne v Mariboru (1975) in s spo- menikom Ivanu Cankarju v Ljubljani (1982). V tem času pa so se v Sloveniji likovni eksperimenti in nova iskanja že preselili v odprte prostore forme vive (Ko- stanjevica in Seča 1961, zatem Ravne in Maribor), kjer političnih diktatov ni bilo več. Kiparje je manj za- nimalo politično okvirjanje spomenikov. Na njihovo mesto so stopili arhitekti. Nekatere postavitve so z razvojem in funkcijo prerasle osnovno označevanje in z dodanimi ureditvami postale izjemen krajinski spomenik. Pot ob žici s pili arhitekta Vlasta Kopača je arhitekt Mitja Omersa s peščeno sprehajalno potjo in drevoredi dopolnil v Pot spominov in tovarištva. Obli- kovanje kažipotov je z neokonstruktivističnimi oblika- mi dodal Janez Koželj. Primat oblikovanja novih spo- menikov, zlasti največjih, so arhitekti nadaljevali ob osamosvojitvi države. Spomenik žrtvam vojne za Slo- venijo je načrtoval arhitekt Marko Mušič (1991). Na natečaju je isti arhitekt dobil izvedbo za spomenik žrtvam povojnih pobojev na Teharjah (izvedba 2004). Spomenik žrtvam vseh vojn v Ljubljani je načrtovala skupina arhitektov (Rok Žnidaršič, Mojca Gabrič, Samo Mlakar in Žiga Ravnikar s sodelavci, 2016). Ve- čina drugih spominskih označb, zlasti piramidastih znamenj in spominskih dreves, ostaja v državi Slove- niji daleč od novih avtorskih likovnih rešitev. 37arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 1952). The continuators of Plečnik's sensibility all made their mark with landscape layouts (Edvard Ravnikar, Boris Kobe, Vinko Glanz, and Marko Župančič). The continuation of academic, in places also pathetic figural realism of Meštrović's school and Augustinčić was noticeable in Slovenia for a shorter period, about a decade and a half. The closest thing to pathetic realism was the decoration of a square in Kranj by Lojze Dolinar. Yet Dolinar was equally pathetic in designing the tombstone of Janez Evangelist Krek at Žale cemetery (1920), in the monument to King Peter I in front of Ljubljana town hall (1931) and with the bronze, equestrian King Alexander I in Kongresni Square in Ljubljana (1940). What was "socialist" in Slo- venia were the symbolic additions five or ten years later: pentacles, clothes, tools or weapons, inscrip- tions. A few dozens of grenade-lobbers, fighters with rifles (e.g. in Kočevje, Senožeče, and Cerknica), and similar statues were quickly surpassed by considered sitings in space, greenery planting, and more gentle, often naked, intimate figures. In 1946, the first cele- bration of 1st May in Slovenia and in park Tivoli in Ljubljana after the liberation was marked by Zdenko Kalin's naked Pastirček (Shepherd Boy). The sculptor continued in a similar vein with Spomenik pionirjem (Monument to Pioneers; 1962) and Fontan življenja (Fountain of Life) at the burial site of executed civilians at Žale (1965). In the nearby Gramozna jama (Gravel Pit), we find the familiar symbolism: a dark pit and a light obelisk (layout by Vinko Glanz, 1957), and an an- tiquity-inspired dying civilian (Boris Kalin, 1955). There is no socialist realism iconography there, and there is none to be found a short distance away, at Žale (archi- tect Fedja Košir, sculptor Janez Boljka, 1965). Even with political dignitaries, such as the standing figure of Bo- ris Kidrič, the form matched the European level of quality (1960) if placed, for instance, next to the monu- ment to Georges Pompidou (sculptor Louis Derbré, 1984) two decades its junior. The central Slovene monument erected in the early post-war era is the Tomb of National Heroes. It is a replica of an antique sarcophagus raised on a plinth and decorated with two 60-cm tall reliefs (by Boris Kalin) and sublime poetry by Oton Župančič. The ini- tial installation even attempted to tone down the ac- cess path axis by using round paving stones. The ar- chitect emphasised the heroes' sarcophagus by plac- ing it in a tree's shadow. Outside Slovenia, such de- sign by Edo Mihevc would have been seen as too modest, but here, it represented an upgrade to markings with three-pointed terminations and emu- lations of pre-war models by architects, sculptors, and stonecutters. Any treatise in which a trend- chronicler first states a thesis and then goes on to support the premise of a readable essay on the basis of one or two examples without verification on the ground is questionable. In the future, generalisa- tions of exceptions presented as universal manifes- tations of erecting memorial markings to war vic- tims will need to be reconsidered and corrected. The symbolic and conceptual upgrade of the basis where the natural environment blends with the stone and bronze belonging to the monument was brilliant- ly executed by Branko Kocmut and Slavko Tihec at Po- horje in 1959. Their sacrificial stone granite slab with two supine victims is placed among the marking stones and slender spruces. Tihec enhanced his own artistic development more than a decade later with the monument to war victims in Maribor (1975) and with the monument to Ivan Cankar in Ljubljana (1982). However, in this period, artistic experiments and new explorations in Slovenia had already shifted to open-air spaces of in-situ sculpture (in Kostanjevica and Seča in 1961, later in Ravne and Maribor) where there was no longer any political coercion. Sculptors were less interested in the political framing of monu- ments. Their place was instead taken by architects. In their development and function, some installations transcended the role of basic marking and became exceptional landscape monuments on the strength of their additional layouts. By means of the gravel foot- path and tree lanes, the trail along the barbed wire with architect Vlasto Kopač's stone piles was turned into the Trail of Remembrance by architect Mitja Om- ersa. A further augmentation was Janez Koželj's de- sign of the signposts employing neoconstructivist shapes. Architects continued to serve as the primary designers of new monuments, especially those great- est in size, also after Slovenia's independence. The monument to the victims of the War for Slovenia was designed by architect Marko Mušič (1991). The same architect won the competition for the design of the monument to the victims of post-WW2 killings in Te- harje (realised 2004). The monument to the victims of all wars in Ljubljana was designed by a team of archi- tects (Rok Žnidaršič, Mojca Gabrič, Samo Mlakar, Žiga Ravnikar with collaborators, 2016). Most other me- morial markings in Slovenia, especially pyramid mark- ings and memorial trees, remain a far cry from new individually creative visual solutions. Sources Sinteza, Revija za likovno kulturo VII, Ljubljana, 1967. Zoran KRŽIŠNIK et alii, XXXIX BIENNALE DI VENEZIA - YUGOSLA- VIA - BOGDANOVIĆ - DŽAMONJA - TIHEC – ŽIVKOVIĆ, Ljubljana, 1980. Gojko ZUPAN, Razvoj spomenikov NOB v Ljubljani, Sinteza: re- vija za likovno kulturo, Ljubljana, 1985. št. 69–72, p. 145-151. (ab- stract of BA thesis) Špelca ČOPIČ, Damjan PRELOVŠEK, Sonja ŽITKO, Ljubljansko ki- parstvo na prostem, Ljubljana, 1991. ÜBER-LEBENS-MITTEL, Kunst aus Konzentrationslagern und in Gedenkstȃtten für Opfer des Nationalsozialismus, Marburg: Jonas Verlag, 1992. Bildersturm in Osteuropa, ICOMOS Journals, XIII, ICOMOS Deut- schland, München, 1994. Gojko ZUPAN, Les monuments et l'espace public Slovene de 1945 à 1991, Bildersturm in Osteuropa: die Denkmäler der kommu- nistischen Ära im Umbruch: eine Tagung des Deutschen Nation- alkomitees von ICOMOS, Berlin, 18.-20. Februar 1993. pp. 54–55. Špelca ČOPIČ, Javni spomeniki v slovenskem kiparstvu prve polovice 20. stoletja, Ljubljana 2000. Pojmovnik slovenske umetnosti po letu 1945, pojmi, gibanja, skupine, težnje, Ljubljana: ALUO, 2009. (edited by Nadja Zgonik). Javni spomenici i spomen obeležja, kolektivno pamćenje i / ili zaborav, V. konferencija, Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture grada Beograda, Beograd, 2014. Življenja spomenikov = The lives of monuments : druga svetovna vojna in javni spomeniki v Sloveniji 1945–1980 = World War II and public monuments in Slovenia 1945–1980: student documentary ex- hibition : [17. 6.–31. 12. 2017]. Simona VIDMAR (editor) et alii, Heroes we love, Ideology, Iden- tity and Socialist Art in the New Europe, Maribor, 2017. Spomeniki prve svetovne vojne v Jugoslaviji, https://www.igor- zabel.org/pdf/30ta-zlozenka-A5_slo-FIN.pdf 30 31 Figs. 27, 28: Memorial to Imre Nagy in Budapest. Last year, the monument was relocated to a new site. Fig. 29: Exhibition HEROES WE LOVE - Socialist realism revised, example: ex-Yugoslavia in Maribor Art Gallery, 2015. Fig. 30: Interview with Miško Šuvaković as part of exhibition Heroes We Love. Fig. 31: Model for The Peace Monument (A Monument to Peace) by Antun Augustinčić in exhibition Heroes We Love in Maribor Art Gallery. Regularly, the 1954 statue is mounted in front of the United Nations headquarters in New York. Gojko Zupan 38 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Boštjan Bugarič Ni bilo vse tako sivo, kot je na fotografijah1 Intervju z Vladimirjem Kulićem / It wasn't all as gray as in the photos1 Interview with Vladimir Kulić Vladimir Kulić je arhitekturni zgodovinar, kustos in kritik, specializiran za moderno in sodobno arhitekturo. Je izre- dni profesor na Florida Atlantic University, kjer predava arhitekturno zgodovino. Njegova prva knjiga Modernizem vmes: arhitekturne mediacije socialistične Jugoslavije (z Marojem Mrduljašem, fotografije Wolfgang Thaler, 2012) analizira povojno jugoslovansko arhitekturo. Prejel je številne štipendije in nagrade, vključno s tistimi Inštituta za višji študij na Princetonu, Ameriške akademije v Berlinu, Fundacije Graham Foundation, umetnostne galerije Na- tional Gallery of Art Washington, odbora American Council of Learned Societies in fundacije Fondazione Bruno Zevi v Rimu. Pregledna razstava Proti betonski utopiji: Arhitektura v Jugoslaviji 1948–1980 je v Muzeju moderne umetnosti (MoMA) v New Yorku ameriški javnosti prvič pred- stavila jugoslovansko modernistično arhitekturno dediščino. Tema obravnava raznolikost arhitekturnega jezika v Jugoslaviji, ki je bila posledica raznovrstnosti in enotne ureditve države. Vladimir Kulić, eden izmed kustosov razstave, nam je v pogovoru povedal, da je »imela jugoslovanska arhitektura širšo družbeno odgovornost pri oblikovanju in preobrazbi celotne družbe, ne samo peščice najbogatejših«. Razstavo ste razdelili na štiri tematske enote (modernizacija, globalna omrežja, vsakdanje življenje in identitete). Lahko pojasnite, zakaj takšna struktura? S strukturo smo poskušali ujeti nekatere ključne dejavnike, ki so vplivali na razvoj jugoslovanske arhitekture. Najprej velja poudariti projekt obnove in posredno tudi projekt modernizacije porušenih objektov takoj po drugi sve- tovni vojni. Preoblikovanje mest, uporaba novih gradbenih tehnologij in preobrazba družbe so bili odločilni dejavniki, v okviru katerih se je odvijala celotna gradnja jugoslovanske arhitekture. Drugi dejavnik, ki je vplival na razvoj arhitekture, je bil specifični in dokaj nenavadni geopolitični položaj države; ta je bila široko povezana s tujino. Odličen primer je Skopje, ki je po potresu leta 1963 postalo arhitekturno stičišče za arhitekte z vsega sveta. Po vojni pa so domači arhitekti začeli graditi tudi zunaj Jugoslavije. Opomba: Dr. Boštjan Bugarič je intervju z dr. Vladimirjem Kulićem prvič objavil v Tageszeitungu (25. 11. 2018) in Architectuulu (29. 11. 2018). Note: Dr Boštjan Bugarič first published the interview with Dr Vladimir Kulić in Tageszeitung (25th November 2018) and Architectuul (29th November 2018). Vladimir Kulić is an architectural historian, curator, and critic specializing in modern and contemporary architec- ture. He is Associate Professor at Florida Atlantic University, where he teaches courses in architectural history, theory, and design. Kulić has written extensively about architecture in the former Yugoslavia. His first book, Mod- ernism In-Between: The Mediatory Architectures of Socialist Yugoslavia (with Maroje Mrduljaš, photos by Wolf- gang Thaler, 2012), surveyed the remarkable body of architecture produced in that country after World War 2. He has received numerous fellowships, grants, and awards, including those from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the American Academy in Berlin, the Graham Foundation, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, the American Council of Learned Societies, and Fondazione Bruno Zevi in Rome. Exhibition Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948-1980 in- troduces the story of how particularity and unity produced a great diversity of architectural language and expressions. The topic is presented for the very first time in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York. In conversation with one of the curators, Vladimir Kulić, we discover that “Yugo- slavia is a kind of a reminder that architecture had wider social responsibility in transforming society and working for people other than those wealthiest.” Mr. Kulić, you divided the exhibition in four parts, modernization, global networks, everyday life, and identities; Can you explain why such a structure? With this structure, we tried to capture some of the defining conditions under which architecture in Yugoslavia had developed. The first condition was the project of reconstruction and modernization after WW2. The transformation of cities, technologies, and the society was the defining framework within which entire construction of Yugoslav architecture occurred. The second con- dition was the very specific and rather unusual geopolitical situation of the country, which was extensively connected with the rest of the world. Skopje is a great example where a city became an architectural meeting ground for the entire world. In addition, architects from the region had previously never built anywhere outside of the region; that changed after the war as well. 1 Izjava Nade Horvatinčić, mame selektorice spomenikov Sanje Horvatinčić, ob odprtju razstave v Muzeju moderne umetnosti (MoMA) v New Yorku. 1 Statement by Nada Horvatinčić at the opening of the exhibi- tion at the MoMA Museum of Modern Art in New York; Nada is the mother of selector for monuments Sanja Horvatinčić. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 39arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Boštjan Bugarič Pomemben dejavnik arhitekturnega razvoja je bila tudi zelo specifična teks- tura vsakdanjega življenja. Množična stanovanja so bila v Jugoslaviji zaradi nenehnega eksperimentiranja z različnimi stanovanjskimi tipologijami na neki način edinstvena. Pojav sodobnega oblikovanja in s tem povezave s potrošniško kulturo je imel bistveno vlogo pri nastanku osnov jugoslovan- skega oblikovanja. Pomemben razvojni dejavnik je bil tudi jugoslovanski multikulturalizem, ki je v različnih delih države omogočil razvoj raznolikih arhitekturnih kultur. Kljub raznolikosti so medsebojno vplivale druga na drugo in delovale pod enakimi pogoji. Vsekakor pa je dinamika med poseb- nim in enotnim omogočila veliko raznolikost v izrazu arhitekturnega jezika. Zaradi interakcije med različnimi kulturami je Jugoslavija zanimiva študija primera za preučevanje današnjega stanja. Zakaj naj bi ameriško občinstvo zanimala razstava o gradnji v Jugoslaviji? Mislim, da za to obstajata dva razloga. Prvi je ta, da razstava postavlja novo podlago, ki ameriškemu občinstvu in tudi širši zahodni publiki prikazuje, da se je sodobna moderna arhitektura razvijala tudi zunaj običajno sprejetega kanonskega območja. Ob raziskovanju zgodovine moderne arhitekture so v literaturi večinoma zajeta geografska območja zahodne Evrope in Zdru- ženih držav Amerike. Ta razstava je študija primera, ki dokazuje obstoj za- nimive in inovativne arhitekture tudi zunaj teh območij ter prikazuje, da je navdihujoča arhitektura obstajala tudi v nekdanjem socialističnem svetu. Jugoslavija je primer, ki govori, kako zapletena zgodba se je razvijala v so- cialističnih deželah. Kateri pa je drugi? Drugi razlog, da je razstava zanimiva za ameriško občinstvo, je trenutno po- litično stanje. Po štirih desetletjih neoliberalizma se začenja znova ceniti vloga arhitekture pri gradnji javnih urbanih prostorov, ki niso več zasebni. Zlasti v ZDA je bila arhitektura v veliki meri reducirana zgolj na oblikovanje za premožne. S tem je arhitekturno razmišljanje, včasih širše razširjeno in Another defining condition was a very specific texture of everyday life. Mass housing in Yugoslavia was in some ways quite unique due to a great deal of experimentation with housing typologies. The emergence of modern design and the related consumer culture added to this specific texture of everyday life, and architects were fundamentally instrumental in it because it was through them that modern design came into existence in Yugoslavia. Finally, Yugoslavia's multiculturalism was yet another defining feature. Multiple ar- chitectural cultures were developed in different parts of the country, yet they interacted with each other and worked under the same conditions. This kind of dynamic between particularity and unity is something that produced a great deal of diversity in terms of architectural language and expressions. The interaction between different cultures is a big issue of our current mo- ment, so Yugoslavia is an interesting case study in that respect. Why should a US citizen care about an exhibition about building in Yugoslavia? I think there are two reasons. One is that this exhibition breaks a new ground for American audience as well for the audience anywhere in the West in the sense that it shows that modern architecture also flourished outside of the canonical region where we normally assume it was accepted. When you read histories of modern architecture, the geographical areas that are cov- ered are mostly Western Europe and the United States. This exhibition is a case study demonstrating that innovative, interesting architecture was built outside of this canonical area. In particular, it shows that inspired architec- ture existed also in what used to be the former socialist world. Yugoslavia is a great example revealing that the story is much more complicated. And the other reason? The second reason why I think it is interesting to the American audience is the current political moment. After four decades of neoliberalism, we are finally beginning to see a renewed appreciation for architecture’s role in Sl. 1: Spomenik bitke na Sutjeski, Miodrag Živković (1965–1971), Tjentište, Bosna in Hercegovina. Foto: © Roberto Conte, 2017. Sl. 2: Razstavni plakat za retrospektivno razstavo arhitekta Janka Konstantinova (1984). Vir: osebni arhiv Jovana Ivanovskega. Sl. 3: Kolaž za ovitek knjige Arhitektura Bosne in pot do sodobnosti Dušana Grabrijana in Juraja Neidhardta (1957). Vir: zasebni arhiv Juraja Neidhardta. Fig. 1: Monument to the Battle of the Sutjeska by Miodrag Živković (1965–71), Tjentište, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Photo: © Roberto Conte, 2017 Fig. 2: Exhibition poster for the retrospective of architect Janko Konstantinov (1984), Collage diazotype and tracing paper. Source: Personal archive of Jovan Ivanovski Fig. 3: Cover of Architecture of Bosnia and the Way to Modernity by Dušan Grabrijan and Juraj Neidhardt (1957). Source: Private archive of Juraj Neidhardt 1 2 3 40 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razumljeno med prebivalstvom, zdaj koncentrirano znotraj enega odstotka najpremožnejših. Jugoslavija je v tem smislu nekakšen opomin, da je imela arhitektura širšo družbeno odgovornost pri preoblikovanju družbe in naj bi delala tudi za ljudi zunaj tega odstotka najpremožnejših. Zakaj ste izbrali časovni okvir med letoma 1948 in 1980? Letnici sta bili izbrani tako na podlagi arhitekturnih kot tudi zgodovinskih kriterijev. Tako smo temo zožili zaradi lažje obvladljivosti gradiva za razsta- vo, saj sta bili izbira in količina gradiva eden naših največjih izzivov. Letnici se seveda nanašata na dve zgodovinski prelomnici; prva označuje razpad povezave Jugoslavije s Sovjetsko zvezo leta 1948, druga pa Titovo smrt. Obe letnici sta tudi arhitekturni prelomnici. Po letu 1948 ni bilo več prisotno vsiljevanje socialističnega arhitekturnega realizma, po letu 1980 pa se je pojavilo arhitekturno obdobje postmodernizma. Razstava trdi, da je bila Jugoslavija eksperiment? Jugoslavija je bila brez dvoma velik eksperiment. Proces je potekal skozi nenehno evolucijo, zato je v tem kontekstu naslov »H konkretni utopiji« za razstavo zelo primeren. Ne le v smislu, da govorimo o betonski (angl. conc- rete) arhitekturi,2 ampak tudi v kontekstu koncepta konkretne utopije Ern- sta Blocha, ki poudarja idejo družbe v večnem nastajanju, torej utopijo kot proces nenehne preobrazbe. Jugoslavija je bila v tem smislu res utopija, ker je bila v nenehnem iskanju napredka. Na razstavi lahko zaznamo, da je veči- na arhitekture, proizvedene v Jugoslaviji, precej eksperimentalna. Vpraša- nje je samo, ali je poskus uspel. In? V najrazvitejših kapitalističnih državah sta se modernizacija in urbanizacija zgodili z ogromnimi žrtvami delavskega razreda. Za Jugoslavijo bi lahko re- kli, da je bila cena modernizacije bolj pravično razporejena. Neuspeh Jugo- slavije je bil predvsem v reprodukciji lastnega sistema, ki ga kapitalizem kljub stalnim ciklom kriz uspešno reproducira. Poleg modernizma in brutalizma so v Jugoslaviji prevladovali strukturalizem, metabolizem in postmodernizem. Kako razstava prikazuje ta zahtevni arhitekturni besednjak? Eden od načinov, s katerimi smo poskušali prikazati to raznolikost, je bila razdelitev na štiri monografske sobe, posvečene štirim najvidnejšim arhitek- tom tega obdobja. To so bili Vjenceslav Richter, Edvard Ravnikar, Juraj Neid- hardt in Bogdan Bogdanović. Njihovi različni značaji ponazarjajo izjemno the construction of the civic and public realm, for the communal rather than private. In the US in particular, architecture has been largely reduced to a kind of window dressing for the super wealthy. The amount of archi- tectural thinking that used to be distributed among the population much more widely at one point is now concentrated in the hands of the one per- cent. In this regard, Yugoslavia is a kind of a reminder that architecture had wider social responsibility in transforming society and working for people other than those wealthiest, other than the one percent. Why did you choose the time frame between 1948 and 1980? The dates were chosen on the basis of both architectural and historical crite- ria. We had to narrow down the scope, and one of the greatest challenges was selecting and reducing the amount of material to make the exhibition manageable. The two dates refer to two historical turning points. One is Yugoslavia’s break with Soviet Union in 1948, the other is Tito’s death in 1980. However, these are also architectural turning points. After 1948, the attempted imposition of socialist realism died off very quickly, and after 1980, we start to enter the architectural postmodernist period. The exhibition claims: Yugoslavia was an experiment? There is no doubt that Yugoslavia was an experiment. It went through a constant evolution. In that sense, the title “Toward a Concrete Utopia” is ap- propriate. Not just in the most obvious sense, that we are talking about con- crete architecture, but also in reference to Ernest Bloch’s concept of concrete utopia, which emphasizes the idea of a society in perpetual becoming, uto- pia as a process in constant transformation. In that sense, Yugoslavia was indeed a utopia because it was in constant search of improvement. The exhi- bition argues that much of the architecture produced in Yugoslavia was quite experimental. The question is whether the experiment failed. And did it? In the most developed capitalist countries, the modernization and urbani- zation occurred through extreme sacrifices from the working class. We could speculate that the price of modernization in Yugoslavia was more justly distributed. Yugoslavia’s failure was ultimately in the reproduction of its own system, which something that capitalism achieves successfully, de- spite the constant cycles of crises. Alongside modernism and brutalism, structuralism, metabolism, and postmodernism were also dominant in Yugoslavia. How does the exhibition convey this very elaborate architectural vocabulary? One of the ways in which we tried to convey this diversity is through four monographic rooms dedicated to individual architects who were among the most prominent professional figures. They are Vjenceslav Richter, Edvard 2 Dobesedni prevod izraza concrete utopia je »konkretna« oziro- ma »betonska« utopija (concrete = beton). Sl. 4: Trg revolucije (danes Trg republike), Edvard Ravnikar (1960–1974), Ljubljana, Slovenija. Foto: © Valentin Jeck, MoMA, 2016. Sl. 5: Jugoslovanski paviljon za Expo 58, Vjenceslav Richter (1958), Bruselj, Belgija. Vir: Arhiv Jugoslavije. Sl. 6: Poslovna stolpnica S2, Milan Mihelič (1972–1978), Ljubljana, Slovenija. Foto: © Valentin Jeck, MoMA, 2016. Sl. 7: Milica Šterić na srečanju v Energoprojektu. Vir: Žene u arhitekturi, http://www.zua.rs/sr/research/alfa-i-omega-arhitekture-energoprojekta/. Sl. 8: Stanovanjska hiša Laginjina, Ivan Vitić (1957–1962), Zagreb, Hrvaška. Perspektivna risba – tempera, svinčnik in črnilo na papirju (1960). Vir: Arhiv Ivana Vitića, Hrvaška akademija znanosti in umetnosti. 4 5 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 41arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 raznolikost arhitekturnih pristopov, metod, izrazov in jezikov, ki so se razvija- li v Jugoslaviji. Richter je bil v središču neoavantgardističnega gibanja v pet- desetih in šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja. Bogdanović je bil produkt nadrealističnega gibanja iz dvajsetih in tridesetih let. Neidhardt je bil morda najzanimivejša figura kritičnega regionalizma, Ravnikar pa je bil odličen sin- tetizator arhitekturnih idej, od Plečnika in Le Corbusiera do Aalta. Kljub raz- likam so vsi štirje arhitekti prispevali h gradnji najpomembnejših primerov politične arhitekture v državi, od stavb parlamentov in razstavnih paviljo- nov do spomenikov druge svetovne vojne. V drugih državah je bila tovrstna raznolikost arhitekturnih jezikov zelo redka. Vsi štirje so moški ... Eden izmed mojih najljubših eksponatov je fotografija Milice Šterić, ki sedi v pisarni sedeža Energoprojekta v Beogradu s strankami iz Afrike. Okrog nje stojijo beli moški, ki jo pozorno poslušajo. Ta fotografija govori o sub- verziji tradicionalne hierarhije rase in spola, prikazuje namreč resnično utopično razsežnost Jugoslavije, ki je poskušala osvoboditi in opolnomoči- ti vse vrste ogroženih marginalnih skupin, vključno z ženskami. Tako kot je uspelo Milici Šterić? Milica Šterić je bila pomembna arhitektka, še pomembnejša pa je bila kot vodja arhitekturnega biroja, ki se je lahko uspešno pogajala o velikih pro- jektih in pogodbah v Afriki in na Bližnjem vzhodu. Druga ženska v arhitek- turi je bila Svetlana Kana Radević, ki je v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stole- tja prejela državno nagrado Borbe za arhitekturo. Kasneje je študirala pri Louisu Kahnu, sodelovala s Kišem Kurokavo, preživljala čas v Švici in na Ja- ponskem. Realizirala je veliko projektov napredne arhitekture. Vsekakor ne mislim, da je bila Jugoslavija nekakšen feministični raj, saj so bile ženske v arhitekturnem poklicu še vedno v manjšini in so s težavo prebile »stekle- ni strop«, a so si prizadevale za integracijo v poklic. Kakšen razvoj je v primerjavi z drugimi vzhodnoevropskimi državami doživela jugoslovanska stanovanjska gradnja? Razvoj množične stanovanjske gradnje je bil v Jugoslaviji precej raznolik. Po drugi svetovni vojni je zaradi potrebe po novih stanovanjih, saj je ogromno ljudi ostalo brez domov, prišlo do naročil glede standardizacije, tipizacije in industrializacije stanovanj, in to ne le v vzhodni, ampak tudi v zahodni Evro- pi. V nekaterih vzhodnoevropskih državah, kot sta bili na primer NDR in Če- škoslovaška, sta bili standardizacija in tipizacija izjemno uspešni. Sovjetska zveza je izdelala največji projekt modernizacije arhitekture na svetu s 30 mi- lijoni stanovanj; tudi ta je temeljila na standardiziranih modelih. Ravnikar, Juraj Neidhardt and Bogdan Bogdanović. Their wildly divergent personal oeuvres illustrate the extreme diversity of architectural approach- es, methods, expressions and languages cultivated in Yugoslavia. Richter was at the core of the neoavant-garde movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Bogdanović was the product of the surrealist movement dating back to the 1920s and 1930s. Neidhart was perhaps the most interesting figure of criti- cal regionalism, whereas Ravnikar was a great synthesizer of architectural ideas, from Plečnik to Le Corbusier and Aalto. Despite their differences, all four of these architects contributed to the construction of the most politi- cally significant structures in the country, from parliament buildings and ex- hibition pavilions to World War 2 monuments. That kind of diversity of rep- resentational languages was rare elsewhere. All four are men… One of my favorite exhibits in the show is the photo of Milica Šterić sitting in an office in Energoprojekt headquarters in Belgrade with clients from Africa. Surrounded by white men standing up and listening to her. This im- age tells about this subversion of traditional race and gender hierarchies, demonstrating the truly utopian dimension of Yugoslavia, which attempt- ed to liberate and empower all kinds of groups that were disfranchised throughout history, including women. Just like Milica Šterić? Milica Šterić was significant as an architect but even more so as an architec- tural manager who was able to successfully negotiate contracts through- out Africa and the Middle East. Another well-connected woman was Svet- lana Radević, who was awarded the national prize for architecture in the 1960s. After that, she studied with Louis Kahn, worked with Kisho Kurok- awa, spent time in Switzerland and Japan, and was able to produce a great deal of interesting advanced architecture. I don’t want to say that Yugosla- via was some kind of feminist paradise because women were still in the minority in the architectural field and had a hard time breaking the glass ceiling, but deliberate efforts at their inclusion were nevertheless made. How did housing develop in Yugoslavia compared to other Eastern European countries? A short answer would be that mass housing in Yugoslavia was also rather diverse. After WW2 - not just in Eastern Europe but in Western Europe as well - standardization, typification, and industrialization of housing were the or- der of the day because huge numbers of people were left homeless. In some East European countries like the GDR and Czechoslovakia, standardization and typification were extremely successful. The Soviet Union produced what could be described as the largest architectural modernization project in the world with 30 million apartments, again based on standardized designs. Boštjan Bugarič Fig. 4: Trg Revolucije Square (present-day Trg Republike Square) by Edvard Ravnikar (1960–74), Ljubljana, Slovenia. Photo: © Valentin Jeck, commissioned by The Museum of Modern Art, 2016 Fig. 5: Yugoslav Pavilion at Expo 58 by Vjenceslav Richter (1958); Brussels, Belgium. Source: Archive of Yugoslavia Fig. 6: S2 Office Tower by Milan Mihelič (1972–78), Ljubljana, Slovenia. Photo: © Valentin Jeck, commissioned by The Museum of Modern Art, 2016 Fig. 7: Milica Šterić at the meeting in Energoprojekt. Source: Photo ZUA Fig. 8: Apartment Building on Laginjina Street by Ivan Vitić (1957– 62), Zagreb, Croatia, perspective drawing (1960). Source: Ivan Vitić Archive, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts 6 7 8 42 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Sl. 9: Hrib svobode, Janez Lenassi in Živa Baraga (1965), Ilirska Bistrica, Slovenija. Foto: © Roberto Conte, 2017. Sl. 10: Spominski park Dudik, Bogdan Bogdanović (1978–1980), Vukovar, Hrvaška. Foto: © Roberto Conte, 2017. Sl. 11: Spomenik vstajnikom Korduna in Banije, Berislav Šerbetić in Vojin Bakić (1979–1981), Petrova gora, Hrvaška. Foto: © Roberto Conte, 2017. Fig. 9: Freedom Hill Monument by Janez Lenassi and Živa Baraga (1965-65), Ilirska Bistrica, Slovenia. Photo: © Roberto Conte, 2017 Fig. 10: Dudik Memorial Park by Bogdan Bogdanović (1978–80), Vukovar, Croatia. Photo: © Roberto Conte, 2017 Fig. 11: Monument to the Uprising of the People of Kordun and Banija by Berislav Šerbetić and Vojin Bakić (1979–81), Petrova Gora, Croatia. Photo: © Roberto Conte, 2017 Kaj pa Jugoslavija? V Jugoslaviji se to ni zgodilo, deloma zaradi zgodnje decentralizacije. Na neki način se je uresničil neuspeh povojnega ideala množične industrijske gradnje, katerega stranski učinek je bilo izogibanje urbani monotoniji, ka- kršno poznajo v nekaterih drugih delih Evrope. Kakšna je razlika med jugoslovansko stanovanjsko in turistično arhitekturo, ki je imela prav tako velik razvojni uspeh? Vsekakor velja turistična arhitektura za eno od uspešnih zgodb v Jugoslavi- ji. V obdobju zgodnjih šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, ko se je na Jadra- nu začel razvijati množični turizem, je glede razvoja slednjega v Sredoze- mlju že obstajalo nekaj izkušenj, in s tem se je razvilo zavedanje o nevarno- stih neusklajenega in kaotičnega razvoja. To zavedanje je bilo vgrajeno v DNK jugoslovanske turistične arhitekture. Prizadevali so si za namestitev več sto tisoč turistov, ki so prihajali na Jadran – turistov, ki bi na destinacije prihajali z zavedanjem glede ohranjanja kakovosti naravnega okolja in zgo- dovinskih mest. Arhitekti so ohranjanju okolja podredili številne strategije in novo arhitekturo previdno vključili v naravno krajino. Zaradi tega nosi arhitektura, podedovana iz šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let prejšnjega sto- letja, velik kulturni kapital. Kakšno vlogo imajo spomeniki, ki so del te arhitekturne razstave? Spomeniki razstavo zaokrožajo. Govorijo o pomembni arhitekturni tipolo- giji, ki je nastala v povojni Jugoslaviji. Nekateri najpomembnejši spomeniki so hudo poškodovani in njihovo stanje tako služi kot opomin na uničenje Jugoslavije. Ob izhodu iz galerije se je z muralom Davida Maljkovića posta- vilo pomembno vprašanje: kaj nam zapuščeni protifašistični spomeniki pomenijo danes? To je v trenutnem političnem ozračju zelo pomembno vprašanje, zato se razstava konča z vprašanjem in opozorilom obenem. And in Yugoslavia? In Yugoslavia, that never happened, in part due to the early decentraliza- tion. In some ways, this was a failure of the post-war ideal of mass indus- trial construction, but as a side effect, it did stave off the kind of urban monotony known in some other parts of Europe. Is it possible to distinguish housing from tourism architecture, which at the same time had great success? Tourism architecture was one of the success stories in Yugoslavia. By the time mass tourism started exploding in the Adriatic in the early 1960s, there was already some experience with the development of mass tourism else- where in the Mediterranean, which raised awareness of the danger of unco- ordinated, chaotic development. This awareness was built into the DNA of tourism architecture. There were great efforts to accommodate hundreds of thousands of tourists that were coming to the Adriatic and the same time preserve the quality of the natural environment and historical cities. Archi- tects developed numerous strategies for preserving the environment, care- fully incorporating new architecture into the natural landscape. The body of architecture inherited from the 1960s and 1970s is still instructive, carrying with itself a great deal of cultural capital that survives to this day. What role do monuments play as part of this architectural exhibition? The monuments conclude the exhibition. They speak of an important archi- tectural typology produced in post-war Yugoslavia, but in a way, they com- memorate Yugoslavia itself. Some of the most important ones are badly damaged, and their current state serves as a reminder of the destruction of Yugoslavia. At the exit from the gallery, a mural by David Maljković poses an important question: What do these derelict antifascist monuments mean for us today? It is a very important question in this current political climate. The exhibition ends with a question and a warning. 119 10 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 43arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 »Mama, v kateri državi živimo?«1 Intervju s Sanjo Horvatinčić / "Mum, in which country do we live?"1 Interview with Sanja Horvatinčić Martin Reichert Sanja Horvatinčić je umetnostna zgodovinarka, rojena v nekdanji Jugoslaviji; raziskuje povojne protifašistične spomenike, ki jih je postavila generacija njenega starega očeta. Čeprav je bil širši družbeni in zgodovinski kontekst izvora in gradnje spomenikov pred letom dni predstavljen v muzeju MoMA v New Yorku, mnoge izmed teh spomenikov različne korporacije še vedno izkoriščajo za svoje namene. Zadnji tak primer je oglas za nemško pivo, ki so ga posneli na Hrvaškem za tako imenovani korporativni resničnostni šov. Sanja Horvatinčić art historian researching post-war antifascist memorials erected by her grandfathers' generation, was born as Yugoslavia was winding down. Even though a wider social and historical context of the monuments’ origin and construction was exhibited in New York's MoMA a year ago, many of them are still being devastated or exploited by various corporations. The most recent example is an advertisement for German beer made for a corporate reality show filmed in Croatia. Martin Reichert: Ms Horvatinčić, what is your first childhood memory? Sanja Horvatinčić: A summer's day. The summers I spent in Istria in an old stone farmhouse. It belonged to the parents of my mother's friend and was not next to the coast but in the middle of nature, where Istrian peasants used to live. There was no electricity or water supply, and I remember ex- ploring the area. Old ruined houses, wild animals and local legends - an adventure. When was this? I was born in 1986, so it must have been at the end of the eighties or in the early nineties. Precisely during the time of the Yugoslav decline. The war in Croatia began in 1991 ... ... yes, but I have no memory of those news reaching us there. So you could say that Yugoslavia is a happy childhood memory? I remember once asking my mother which country we live in. And she said, "Yugoslavia", even though it may already have disintegrated. Her answer however, revealed the arbitrariness of the very concept of national identity and borders, as well as that of historical periodisation. My own memories of Yugoslavia are mainly second-hand, and they are not so much related to the federal statehood as to socialism, a system that benefited the under- privileged, the working class, such as my grandparents. What did your mother do for a living? My mother, Nada Horvatinčić, worked all her life at the Institute Ruđer Bošković, the main scientific institution in Croatia, founded in 1950 in Za- greb. She is a chemist. A steady scientific career that would hardly be pos- sible today. 1 Z avtorjevo privolitvijo objavljeno v Tageszeitung Berlin. 1 Published in Tageszeitung Berlin; reproduced with the permis- sion of the author. Gospa Horvatinčić, kateri je vaš najzgodnejši spomin iz otroštva? Poletni dan. Poletni dnevi, ki sem jih preživela v stari kamniti istrski hiši, ki je bila v lasti staršev osebe, s katero je prijateljevala moja mama. Hiša ni stala prav na obali, pač pa sredi narave, kjer so nekoč živeli istrski pastirji. V njej ni bilo niti elektrike niti vode. Spominjam se, da sem raziskovala okolico, kjer so bile stare razpadajoče hiše, divje živali in lokalne legende. To je bila zame prava pustolovščina. In kdaj je to bilo? Rojena sem bila leta 1986, torej se je to dogajalo proti koncu osemdesetih, v zgodnjih devetdesetih letih. Ravno v obdobju razpada nekdanje Jugoslavije. Vojna na Hrvaškem se je začela leta 1991 … ... da, vendar se ne spomnim, da bi tam slišali te novice. Torej bi lahko rekli, da vam Jugoslavija pomeni srečne spomine iz otroštva? Spominjam se, da sem nekoč mamo vprašala, v kateri državi živimo. Odgo- vorila je, da v Jugoslaviji. Čeprav je Jugoslavija morda v tistem času že raz- padla. Njen odgovor je pravzaprav razodel relativnost samega koncepta nacionalne identitete in meja, pa tudi relativnost zgodovinske periodizaci- je. Moji spomini na Jugoslavijo niso toliko vezani na federalno državo, pač pa na socializem, sistem, ki je podpiral deprivilegirane sloje in delavski ra- zred, kamor so sodili tudi moji stari starši. Kakšen poklic pa je imela vaša mama? Moja mama, Nada Horvatinčić, je delala na Inštitutu Ruđer Bošković, v najpomembnejši hrvaški znanstveni instituciji, ki je bila ustanovljena leta 1950 v Zagrebu. Po poklicu je kemičarka in je imela stabilno znanstveno kariero, kakršna bi bila danes skorajda nemogoča. Martin Reichert 44 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 In what way? Today, most scientists work in precarious, insecure conditions. It's a system of temporary contracts and stiff competition. She already had a scholar- ship as a student and was hired by the Institute immediately after gradua- tion, and she was able to stay on for the length of her career. As a single mother, she did not have to worry about losing her job, and there was an absence of any highly competitive pressure. She also travelled a lot to con- ferences abroad. With your being a historian, memories are your livelihood; you specialise in a culture of remembrance and you are currently researching the antifascist memorials erected by your grandparents' generation? Yes, my mother's father was a Partisan. First, he was recruited as a boy for the Croatian Home Guard, Domobrani, the regular army of Croatia, which at that time was a puppet state of Nazi Germany. He was then put on a train to Germany, but managed to jump off and escaped into the woods. There he came in contact with Partisans and became a messenger. Later, after the end of the war, he became a lifelong member of the Communist Party. What kind of a person was he? He was a worker, a plumber. He did not talk much about the war, but it was always clear to me that he had been on the right side. It was the same with my grandmother's family in Čabar, near the Slovenian border. My father's family, which I don't know much about, is Serbian. Many members of that side of the family were killed as civilians in the most brutal ways, right at the beginning of the war, because of the fascist ideology, which here was not only anti-Semitic and anti-Communist, but also anti-Serbian. Conflicts about history still persist to this day, and divide families? Not so much within my family, but in general yes, in Croatia families often have conflicted family stories. Who built the memorials of the post-war period, which you are researching? Statistically, it was mostly local initiatives led by former partisans, veter- ans, often together with youth organisations. These monuments, usually smaller in scale, can be seen everywhere, in villages, along country roads. And then there are the larger memorials commemorating battles and great personalities, which were commissioned by veterans' organisations of the appropriate Yugoslav republic or by Communist Party committees. However, even monuments which were commissioned on the federal level, such as the monument to the Battle of Sutjeska or the Victory at the Syr- mian Front, were to a significant degree financed by individual donations, or those of worker collectives. Were this then Tito's memorials? This is something you can read these days in foreign tourist blogs. If you take Tito as the metonym of both Partisan resistance and the 45 years of socialist system that followed, that is if you decide to reduce such a com- plex history to one person, then it may be true. Having more important things to take care of, Josip Broz was hardly concerned with memorials, especially in terms of their design or aesthetics. But of course, they were important as visible agents of memory politics, as mementos of the narra- tives and political concepts forming the foundations of the state: the Peo- ple's Liberation Struggle, the socialist revolution, the symbols of "brother- hood and unity" among the Yugoslav peoples, and of the martyrdom of brave individuals and innocent victims of the fascist ideology. We should also not forget that the antifascist, self-liberation narratives importantly and indisputably legitimised Tito's leadership of Yugoslavia during the Cold War internationally. But monuments belonged to local and political com- munities, which still identify with them. Memorials were part of Yugoslav identity? Yes, just as memorials and monuments around the world are always part of the national of identity, or some other form. They did shape an iden- tity, but its boundaries went beyond the category of the national because Zakaj? Danes večina znanstvenikov dela v negotovih, prekarnih pogojih. Gre za sistem začasnih pogodb in intenzivnega rivalstva. Moja mama je že v času študija od inštituta prejemala štipendijo, in ko je diplomirala, je tam dobila delo – in na inštitutu je lahko ostala vse življenje. Kot materi samohranilki se ji ni bilo treba bati, da bi izgubila delo. Poleg tega pa tudi ni bila pod nobenimi pritiski, kar zadeva tekmovalnost in rivalstvo. Veliko je tudi poto- vala v tujino, kjer se je udeleževala različnih konferenc. Glede na to, da ste zgodovinarka, so spomini pravzaprav vaš kruh; specializirani ste za področje kulture spominjanja in trenutno se ukvarjate z raziskovanjem protifašističnih spomenikov, ki jih je postavila generacija vaših starih staršev. Da, moj dedek po mamini strani je bil partizan. V začetku so ga kot dečka sicer rekrutirali domobranci, predstavniki oboroženih sil Hrvaške, ki je bila v tistem času nacistična marionetna država. Dedku je uspelo skočiti z vlaka, ki je bil namenjen v Nemčijo, in pobegniti v gozdove. Tam je stopil v stik s partizani, za katere je delal kot kurir. Kasneje, po vojni, je postal član komu- nistične partije, katere član je bil nato vse svoje življenje. Kakšen človek pa je bil vaš dedek? Bil je delavec, klepar. O vojni ni kaj dosti govoril, vendar sem se zavedala tega, da je bil na pravi strani. Podobno je bilo z družino moje babice, ki je živela v Čabru, blizu slovenske meje. Družina mojega očeta, o kateri ne vem prav dosti, izvira iz Srbije. Mnoge člane njegove družine so že takoj na začetku vojne pobili kot civiliste, na brutalne načine, in sicer zaradi fašistič- ne ideologije, ki ni bila zgolj protisemitska in protikomunistična, ampak tudi protisrbska. Nesoglasja in trenja glede zgodovine so v mnogih družinah še vedno prisotna. V naši družini teh nesoglasij ni, v splošnem pa drži, da imajo mnoge dru- žine na Hrvaškem v svojih družinskih zgodbah precej tovrstnih sporov in konfliktov. Kdo je zgradil povojne spomenike, ki jih raziskujete? Statistično so bili ti spomeniki zgrajeni pretežno na osnovi lokalnih iniciativ in na pobudo nekdanjih partizanov. To so bili veterani, ki so sodelovali z mladinskimi organizacijami. Te, pogosto nekoliko manjše spomenike lahko vidimo povsod, v vaseh, ob vaških poteh. Obstajajo pa tudi večji spomeni- ki, ki ponazarjajo partizanske boje in velike osebnosti. Te spomenike so naročile posamezne republiške veteranske organizacije ali komiteji komu- nistične partije. Vendar so bili celo takšni spomeniki, ki so jih naročili na zvezni ravni, kot sta na primer spomenik padlim borcem bitke na Sutjeski ali spomenik borcem sremske fronte, v veliki meri financirani s pomočjo donacij, ki so jih prispevali posamezniki ali delavska združenja. Torej so bili to Titovi spomeniki? To lahko danes preberete v tujih turističnih blogih. Če pojmujete Tita kot nekoga, ki pooseblja tako partizansko odporniško gibanje kot tudi 45 let povojnega socialističnega sistema, če se torej odločite tako kompleksno zgodovino zreducirati na eno samo osebo, potem to morda res drži. A glede na to, da se je Josip Broz ukvarjal z mnogo pomembnejšimi stvarmi, se spo- menikom najverjetneje ni kaj dosti posvečal, še posebej kar zadeva njihovo obliko ali videz. Spomeniki pa so bili seveda pomembni kot vidni simboli političnega spomina in kot opomniki glede zgodb in političnih konceptov, na katerih je temeljila država. Predstavljali so osvobodilni boj, socialistično revolucijo, simbole jugoslovanskega bratstva in enotnosti ter trpljenje po- gumnih posameznikov in nedolžnih žrtev fašistične ideologije. Pri tem pa ne smemo pozabiti tudi na to, da so protifašistične, samoosvoboditvene zgod- be v času hladne vojne pomenile pomembno in nesporno mednarodno jamstvo za Titovo vodenje Jugoslavije. Vendar so spomeniki pripadali lokal- nim in političnim skupnostim in s temi skupnostmi se jih še vedno povezuje. Ali so spomeniki predstavljali del jugoslovanske identitete? Da, tako kot ostali spomeniki po svetu, ki vedno predstavljajo del nacional- ne ali kakšne druge identitete. Spomeniki so predstavljali identiteto, katere Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 45arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Martin Reichert Yugoslavia was a multinational federation, whereas antifascism and the socialist revolution are international political concepts. In what way were these monuments unique or specific in their form? They are specific in so far as the official position of culture in Yugoslavia began to change after the break between Tito and Stalin in 1948. From the mid-1950s, artists and architects enjoyed a comparatively greater level of autonomy in the choice of their formal approaches - and so they could also experiment with the memorials. Beyond repressive formalism debates ... ... and yet, there was the internal Communist political repression that was tied to that dramatic political shift. Today, the political prison at Croatian island Goli Otok, which used to be a taboo topic, is well known and written about. It was a repressive gulag-like camp for people accused of Stalinist views in the period between 1949 and 1956. At the time, there were also fervent debates in Yugoslavia about what the split from Stalin should mean for cultural production and what role art and culture should play in Yugoslav society. And? Well, in a way, that always remained an open question. Also, because Yu- goslavia was undergoing a "constant reform", there were constant at- tempts to reconcile the political system with the idea of self-management, introduced in the early 1950s. And the culture, including the memory cul- ture, was part of this discussion. In principle, this was an ideological de- bate that had begun in the inter-war period, and continued during and after the war. The monuments are coming back as an item of interest today. What happened to them after the disintegration of Yugoslavia? It depends on the region. In Croatia, for example, there was a five-year war that mainly took place in areas of mixed ethnicity. The monuments located in war zones were often destroyed, but even in the context where there were no immediate war operations, e.g. in Zagreb or Split, they were re- moved as symbols of the "old rule" despite the fact that they were not as explicit in affirming the Communist ideology as elsewhere in former social- ist countries. Most of the monuments, including the destroyed ones, were dedicated to war casualties, with long lists of names inscribed on them. In many cases, the memory of those people was obliterated and never re- turned to public space. In Slovenia, for example, most monuments are still intact. Yes, because the Slovene statehood in the early nineties was based on the victory of the Partisans over fascism, while in Croatia there were – and still are – serious attempts from the far right to invoke the fascist, so-called “Independent State of Croatia” and to regard this Nazi puppet state as the foundation of the current state. Under such extreme nationalistic views, every form of antifascism became suspect. It can be compared to the de- bate over Franco's grave of and the legacy of fascism in present-day Spain. That is also a mass grave, for the dead on both sides of the Spanish Civil War. Yes, some high-ranking Croatian politicians have openly stated that they feel inspired by Franco - you just dump all your bones together and then there's silence and "reconciliation". This did not happen, fortunately. But what happened instead is that the bones of the partisans have been com- pletely forgotten, some of their remains have even been destroyed. To forget? One has to ask: who are the agents of this forgetting? Who has an interest in it? And who in turn claims this legacy? In direct contact with the locals, one quickly realises that there are strong references present in almost every community and family, memories of the traumatic and ground- breaking events of World War 2. And there's still an appreciation of the monuments, despite the official memory politics. meje so presegale kategorijo nacionalnega, ker je bila Jugoslavija večnacio- nalna federacija, medtem ko sta protifašizem in socialistična revolucija mednarodna politična koncepta. Na kakšen način so bili ti spomeniki v svoji obliki posebni ali edinstveni? Posebni so bili zaradi takratne narave jugoslovanske kulture, ki se je po razkolu med Titom in Stalinom leta 1948 začela spreminjati. Od sredine petdesetih let naprej so bili umetniki in arhitekti deležni večje avtonomi- je pri izbiri svojih formalnih pristopov in so zato lahko s spomeniki več eksperimentirali. In se tudi distancirali od represivnih formalističnih diskusij … ... pa vendarle je obstajala nekakšna notranja komunistična politična re- presija, ki je bila povezana s takratnim dramatičnim političnim preobra- tom. Zloglasni zapor za politične zapornike na hrvaškem Golem otoku je bil nekoč tabu tema, danes pa vsi vedo, da je ta zapor obstajal, in o tej temi se tudi veliko piše. Zapor je bil pravzaprav narejen po vzoru represivnih sov- jetskih delovnih taborišč, tako imenovanih gulagov, in je bil namenjen po- sameznikom, ki so bili v obdobju med letoma 1949 in 1956 obtoženi stali- nističnih nazorov. V tistem času so se v Jugoslaviji razvnele tudi razprave glede tega, kaj naj bi odmik od Stalina pravzaprav sploh pomenil za kultur- no produkcijo in kakšno vlogo naj bi imeli umetnost in kultura v takratni Jugoslaviji. In? Ta tema je na neki način vedno pomenila odprto vprašanje. Tudi zato, ker so se v Jugoslaviji odvijale nenehne »reforme«, nenehni poskusi, da bi po- litični sistem uskladili z idejo o samoupravljanju, ki so jo uvedli v zgodnjih petdesetih letih. In kultura, vključno s kulturo spominjanja, je bila del te diskusije. V osnovi je šlo za ideološko diskusijo, ki se je začela v obdobju med obema vojnama in se nadaljevala med vojno in po njej. V današnjem času vlada za spomenike čedalje večje zanimanje. Kaj se je zgodilo z njimi po razpadu Jugoslavije? Odvisno od tega, o kateri regiji govorimo. Na Hrvaškem, na primer, se je petletna vojna odvijala predvsem na etnično mešanih področjih. Spomeni- ki, ki so stali na vojnih območjih, so bili pogosto uničeni. Celo v mestih, kot sta Zagreb in Split, kjer ni bilo nobenih bojev, so bili spomeniki odstranjeni, saj so pomenili simbole stare ureditve. In to kljub dejstvu, da ti spomeniki, v primerjavi s tistimi v ostalih nekdanjih komunističnih državah, niso tako zelo eksplicitno predstavljali komunistične ideologije. Spomeniki, vključno s tistimi, ki so bili uničeni, so bili posvečeni vojnim žrtvam in nanje so bili vklesani dolgi seznami imen padlih za svobodo. V mnogih primerih je bil spomin na te ljudi za večno izbrisan. V Sloveniji, na primer, je večina spomenikov ostala nedotaknjenih. Drži, to pa zato, ker je slovenska suverenost v zgodnjih devetdesetih letih temeljila na zmagi partizanov nad fašizmom, na Hrvaškem pa so bili in še vedno obstajajo resni poskusi skrajne desnice, da bi obudila fašistično Ne- odvisno državo Hrvaško. Ta nekdanja nacistična marionetna država naj bi, v skladu z desničarsko ideologijo, pomenila temelje sedanje države. V oko- lju, kjer vladajo tako ekstremistične nacionalistične težnje, je protifašistič- na miselnost sumljiva in nezaželena. To lahko primerjamo s polemikami glede Francovega groba in fašistične zapuščine v današnji Španiji. Ta grob pomeni množično grobišče za vse, ki so v španski državljanski vojni umrli na obeh straneh. Da, a vendarle so nekateri visoki politični funkcionarji Hrvaške iskreno de- jali, da jih Franco navdihuje – vse kosti preprosto zmečete skupaj in potem nastopi »sprava«. To se na srečo ni zgodilo, a namesto tega so številni padli partizani utonili v pozabo, njihovi posmrtni ostanki pa so bili celo uničeni. Da bi pozabili? Vprašati se moramo, kdo so tisti, ki zastopajo gonilne sile tega pozabljanja spominov na preteklost. Kdo so tisti, ki imajo pri tem ključne interese? In kdo so posledično tisti, ki si pri tem lastijo zasluge? V neposrednem stiku z 46 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 In that case, you could just rebuild the destroyed monuments. That's not easy to do if something has already been destroyed. Such a re- construction also requires active political commitment. And if there is no state funding or support, people must rely on self-organising and the ini- tiative from below. The efforts to rebuild the monuments in Croatia as well as in some other parts of former Yugoslavia have become grassroots and counter-hegemonic, a complete opposite of when they were first installed in the public space as part of the official narrative of the past. So, does the civil society have to take care of it? I'd rather refer to these agents as self-organised communities, either bound by shared histories and collective memories or by common political ideas. In this regard, the new attention given to Yugoslav memorials online makes me a little more optimistic. Even abroad, there are now people who are in- terested in Yugoslav memorials, and who consider them as part of their heritage: people from Spain or Germany, for example, who react in horror when symbols of the antifascist struggle are destroyed or questioned, or when they are treated as a mere spectacle with no social meaning. In the context of the Petrova Gora memorial, a German production is being filmed at the moment. I came across the film set as it was being prepared in the monument by accident when I went there this summer with a group of American schol- ars. The first thing I saw was that someone had cleared away the rubbish, and my first thought was: that can't be good. In the building, I met workers who wanted to scare us away because the site was "private". And I learned from them that a German production company wanted to shoot a movie here. Shooting a series with the antifascist memorial done by Vojin Bakić in the early eighties as a backdrop. It seems that someone from the local government gave the production company the keys even though the area is protected cultural heritage and any commercial use of the building should adhere to conservation stand- ards and be supervised by heritage experts. The head of local government publicly claimed that such activities can be good for promoting the area in order to boost tourism, so he did not even ask for money for the scenery. The intention may have been good because the region is indeed economi- cally deprived, but I don't think that the people living in that region, who identify with this heritage, agree with this. The heritage authorities re- mained silent, and the commercial shooting continued. In the meantime, we saw a beer commercial shot at the same memorial site - after the sun- glasses fashion campaign shot at Jasenovac concentration camp, which was fortunately discontinued, I thought such situations would not be pos- sible anymore, but I'm afraid we can only expect further such projects. Petrova Gora has been a world-famous backdrop ever since it was shown in the MoMA exhibition of Yugoslav architecture in New York. After the MoMA exhibition, the Monument to the Uprising of the People of Kordun and Banija at Petrova Gora became even more famous, and a hot potato for Croatian heritage authorities. It's clear that there should be some sort of management plan for this ruined building, but it seems that open discussions on this topic are avoided, partially for obvious political reasons. What are those reasons? A renovation, for example, would mean that the state affirms the struggle of the Communist-lead partisans against fascism - to create a heritage management plan for memorial sites such as this one is a political deci- sion. So the easiest way is to leave it to the old invisible hand of the free market. In the meantime, targeted trips are offered to "spomenik" locations. The "spomenik" hype started earlier, long before the exhibition. It started with the photography project of Belgian Jan Kempenaers, with photo book lokalnimi prebivalci lahko hitro ugotovimo, da imata skoraj vsaka skupnost in družina travmatične spomine na dogodke iz druge svetovne vojne. In kljub uradnim političnim stališčem ljudje do teh spomenikov še vedno go- jijo spoštovanje. Morda bi te uničene spomenike lahko obnovili. Nečesa, kar je bilo uničeno, ni tako lahko obnoviti. Takšna prizadevanja zahtevajo tudi politično podporo. In če država finančno ničesar ne prispe- va, se morajo ljudje nekako samoorganizirati. Prizadevanja, da bi obnovili spomenike, tako na Hrvaškem kot tudi v ostalih republikah nekdanje Jugo- slavije, so bila opredeljena kot ljudska in protivladna, kar je v popolnem nasprotju s tistim, kar so ti spomeniki utelešali, ko so bili postavljeni v javni prostor kot del uradne zgodovine. Ali mora za to obnovo torej poskrbeti civilna družba? Za glavne akterje raje uporabim izraz samoorganizirane skupnosti, ne glede na to, ali so zavezani skupni zgodovini in skupnemu spominu ali političnim idejam. Opažam, da so jugoslovanski spomeniki na spletu deležni precej- šnje pozornosti, in to me navdaja z optimizmom. Celo v tujini se pojavljajo posamezniki, ki izkazujejo zanimanje za jugoslovanske spomenike in jih poj- mujejo kot del svoje dediščine: to so ljudje iz Španije ali Nemčije, ki so zgro- ženi nad uničevanjem simbolov protifašističnega boja in nad tem, da se te simbole obravnava kot senzacije, ki nimajo nobenega družbenega pomena. Trenutno v nemški produkciji nastaja film o spomeniku na Petrovi gori. Letos poleti sem povsem po naključju naletela na filmsko scenografijo, ki so jo pripravljali pri spomeniku. Tam sem bila s skupino ameriških akade- mikov. Najprej sem opazila, da je nekdo odstranil smeti, in takoj mi je prišlo na misel, da nekaj ni v redu. V zgradbi so bili delavci, ki so nas želeli odgna- ti, ker naj bi bilo tam zasebno območje. Od njih sem tudi izvedela, da na- merava nemška produkcijska hiša na tistem kraju snemati film. Snemanje filma, v katerem služi kot kulisa protifašistični spomenik, ki ga je v zgodnjih osemdesetih letih ustvaril hrvaški kipar Vojin Bakić. Kot kaže, je filmski produkcijski hiši dovolil snemanje nekdo iz vrst lokalnih oblasti, in to kljub temu, da je to področje kulturno zaščiteno, kar pomeni, da mora biti kakršnakoli njegova uporaba v komercialne namene zakonsko prepovedana, kar narekujejo standardi za ohranjanje kulturne dediščine. Predsednik lokalne skupnosti je javno izjavil, da tovrstne aktivnosti lahko prispevajo k promociji tega področja in spodbujajo turizem ter da iz tega razloga tudi ni zahteval nobenega plačila. Takšni načrti so morda res lahko dobronamerni, saj je to področje ekonomsko zapostavljeno, vendar kljub temu dvomim, da so ljudje, ki živijo na tem področju in se tudi identificira- jo s tovrstno dediščino, nad to potezo res navdušeni. Oblasti so bile tiho in snemanje se je nadaljevalo. Medtem smo lahko videli tudi reklamo za pivo, ki je bila posneta ob tem istem spomeniku. Upala sem, da se po mo- dni kampanji za sončna očala (snemanja so potekala v Jasenovcu), ki je bila na srečo ustavljena, tovrstne situacije ne bodo več ponovile. Žal pa lahko, kot kaže, pričakujemo še več takšnih projektov. Svetovno znano filmsko ozadje je bilo prikazano tudi na razstavi o jugoslovanski arhitekturi v muzeju MoMA v New Yorku. Po razstavi v muzeju MoMA v New Yorku je spomenik vstaje ljudstva Bani- je in Korduna na Petrovi gori postal še bolj znan, postal je »vroč krompir« za hrvaške organe, ki se ukvarjajo s kulturno dediščino. Očitno je, da bi morali izdelati neke vrste načrt upravljanja tega spomenika, a kot kaže, se vsi izogibajo odprtim diskusijam na to temo, delno tudi zaradi očitnih poli- tičnih razlogov. In kakšni so ti razlogi? Obnova spomenikov bi pomenila, da država priznava partizanski boj proti fašizmu pod vodstvom komunistične partije. Načrt upravljanja tovrstnih spomenikov bi temeljil na političnih odločitvah, zato je tovrstne zadeve veliko preprosteje prepustiti »nevidni roki« prostega trga. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 47arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 "Spomenik" featuring 26 photographs of Yugoslav monuments. The imag- es achieved considerable popularity online but the author did not deal with the context very much, he decided to simply assign numbers to them. They were disassociated from their names and commemorative purposes. We could claim it's a typical colonial approach: here's something weird and we do not even have a name for it ... how about "kangaroo"? On the other hand, these alluring images of the "ideological other" have attracted a lot of adventure vacationers to the sites. This is in turn the Indiana Jones approach - there's something weird to discover in the Balkans and I'll be the first to do it. But there is already a website with records of all the monuments called Spomenik Database. It is run by an American biologist who truly appreciates the memorials and has acquired an impressive amount of information about them. But at the same time, such an attitude is somewhat patronising: "You have some- thing special here and do not know how to appreciate and manage it, so I'll come and do that for you." I'm not sure he fully realises or is interested to understand the political and social complexity of this region, which has informed the current situation regarding the treatment of some of these monuments. But he does understand they are attractive enough to offer exclusive tourist tours. Is this not also a kind of remembrance culture? I wish I could give a positive answer to this. I'm afraid that it's just another tourist niche or a trend, not unlike tours that take you to remote islands in the Adriatic, or medieval churches. It's just a more original version, but with one crucial difference: they are memorials reminiscent of tragic and traumatic historical events from not that long ago. Often, they are tombs and ossuaries, and there are survivors who are still alive. It's similar to is- sues surrounding Holocaust selfies and memorabilia. The Eisenman Holocaust Memorial is also an attraction, but people do selfies jumping on it. The Eisenman Memorial is not endangered nor is its message ever brought into question. I would not mind if there was controlled tourism that would allow for revenue to flow into the conservation and public education pro- grammes. Are you in contact with the ministry? It has been very difficult, if not impossible, to connect and apply my re- search to practical heritage work regarding the monuments. However, it is a structural problem that does not only affect this particular type of herit- age. Collaboration often happens on individual level with some of the her- itage experts working in conservation departments. All I know is that there is an ongoing internal revision process aiming to reduce the number of listed World War 2 monuments. Many monuments are not even on the list, which is now to be shortened anyway. Has the MoMA exhibition had no effect? I was part of the Advisory Board of this exhibition, not of the curating team. I wish the exhibition could depict a fuller scope of the monuments' diversity, and deal more with their social meaning as places of memory today, rather than only focus on exceptional architectural pieces. But then it would have to be a different exhibition overall, which I am not sure would be possible to present at the MoMA. The issue of the culture of re- membrance or an open confrontation with the current politics responsible for the dire state of the heritage presented was difficult to address within the framework of this exhibition, which is exceptional and important in many other ways. If nothing else, more people in the world now know that there was Yugoslavian modernist architecture. The exhibition was undoubtedly a great success for the affirmation of the Yugoslav modernist architectural heritage on the global level, and it can Na voljo so tudi vodeni izleti k spomeniku. Ves tale pomp s spomeniki se je začel že pred razstavo v muzeju MoMA. Vse skupaj se je začelo s fotografskim projektom belgijskega fotografa Jana Kempenaersa; ta je ustvaril album z naslovom Spomenik, v katerem je zbranih 26 fotografij jugoslovanskih spomenikov. Podobe teh spomenikov so na spletu pritegnile veliko pozornosti, vendar se avtor s samim konte- kstom ni kaj dosti ukvarjal, pač pa se je odločil, da bo slike preprosto samo oštevilčil. Ob slikah niso bila navedena nobena imena spomenikov, niti ni bil podrobneje opredeljen njihov namen. Lahko bi trdili, da je šlo pri tem za tipično kolonialni pristop: tu imamo nekaj nenavadnega, nekaj, kar nima imena … Kaj pa, če bi to poimenovali »kenguru«? Po drugi strani pa so te privlačne podobe »neke drugačne ideologije« privabile veliko turistov. To je kot Indiana Jones – na Balkanu se skriva nekaj zanimivega in jaz bom prvi, ki bo to odkril. Obstaja pa tudi že spletna stran, poimenovana Podatkovna baza spomenikov, kjer so evidentirani vsi spomeniki. To spletno stran ureja ameriški biolog, ki resnično ceni vrednost spomeni- kov in ki je o njih zbral izjemno veliko informacij. Vendar je takšen odnos hkrati tudi nekako pokroviteljski: »tu imate nekaj posebnega in pravzaprav tega niste sposobni ceniti in upravljati, torej vam bom pri tem pomagal in določene stvari opravil namesto vas«. Nisem pa popolnoma prepričana, ali resnično razume oziroma ali sploh želi razumeti politično in družbeno kom- pleksnost te regije, kar tudi prispeva k temu, da se te spomenike obravnava na takšen način. Zaveda pa se, da so ti spomeniki dovolj privlačni za eksklu- zivna turistična potovanja. Ali ne gre tudi pri tem za neke vrste kulturo spominjanja? Želela bi si, da bi na to vprašanje lahko odgovorila pritrdilno, a žal menim, da gre pri tem zgolj za še eno turistično nišo ali trend, ki se ne razlikuje kaj dosti od turističnih potovanj na osamljene otoke v Jadranskem morju ali obiskov srednjeveških cerkva. Gre le za nekoliko večjo stopnjo originalno- sti, a vendarle tu le obstaja pomembna razlika: ti spomeniki nas spominja- jo in opominjajo na tragične in travmatične dogodke ne tako davne zgodo- vine. Pri tem gre pogosto za grobove in kostnice, in tudi nekateri od preži- velih so še vedno živi. To zelo spominja na teme, povezane s selfiji na temo holokavsta ipd. Spomenik žrtvam holokavsta, ki ga je zasnoval ameriški arhitekt Peter Eisenman, je prav tako atrakcija; ljudje na njem delajo tako imenovane selfi skoke. Eisenmanov spomenik ni v nevarnosti in tudi v njegovi sporočilnosti ni ni- česar spornega. Nič ne bi imela proti nadzorovanemu turizmu, ki bi omo- gočal pretok denarja, in sicer tako, da bi s prihodki od obiska spomenikov financirali njihovo obnovo in javne izobraževalne programe. Ali ste v stiku z ministrstvom? Bilo je zelo težko, skorajda nemogoče, da bi svoje raziskave povezala s praktičnim delom na spomenikih. Gre za strukturni problem, ki se ne na- naša zgolj na to specifično vrsto dediščine. Sodelovanje se pogosto zgodi na individualni ravni, pri čemer gre za sodelovanje s strokovnjaki za kultur- no dediščino, ki delajo v oddelkih za ohranjanje dediščine. Vse, kar vem, je to, da obstaja proces notranje revizije, katerega namen je zmanjšati število spomenikov druge svetovne vojne, ki so na seznamu. Mnogih izmed teh spomenikov pa na seznamu sploh ni, a jih bodo kljub temu odstranili. Ali razstava v Muzeju moderne umetnosti (MoMA) ni imela nobenega učinka? Pri tej razstavi sem sodelovala kot članica svetovalnega odbora, in ne kot kuratorka. Želim si, da bi razstava lahko prikazala širši spekter raznolikosti spomenikov, se bolj osredotočila na njihov družbeni pomen in jih prikazala kot prostore spomina na pretekle dogodke ter da se ne bi toliko osredoto- čala zgolj na izjemne arhitekturne primerke. Vendar bi morala biti potem v celoti drugače zastavljena, in nisem prepričana, da bi bilo v muzeju MoMA tovrstno razstavo sploh mogoče postaviti. V okviru te razstave je bilo zelo Martin Reichert 48 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 have significant implications for its recognition and possibly their preserva- tion as well. However, I am afraid none of this helps the local people to make sense of these sites as important places of social and political memory, or make use of them. A positive outcome of this project is the networking among experts from former Yugoslavia. In November, for example, some of us are meeting again on the occasion of the Piran Days of Architecture in Slovenia. It is also a process of our finding out what these monuments really mean and how we can contribute to their preservation, and how to bring more stakeholders into the process. Ms Horvatinčić, in the beginning, we wanted to know your first memory - what would you like to experience in the future? On the one hand, as an art historian, I wish that the exceptional artistic and architectural quality of these memorials becomes acknowledged. But it is not enough to publish an art history study and close the chapter. It's about pertinent social issues and meanings that reach into the present day, and these meanings are contained in all sorts of material traces and local memories, not just architectural or sculptural interpretations of past events. I have one particular example in mind, a memorial commemorat- ing a Partisan hospital in the forest here in Drežnica, Croatia. For me, it is a symbol of caring and of solidarity, where during the war, a great many refugees had been taken care of. Today, this monument is located in the immediate vicinity of the Balkan migratory route. Under the present cir- cumstances, it can become a vehicle to transfer a significant historical memory in such a way to develop a more humane attitude towards con- temporary refugees. I wish such qualities of monuments should receive more acknowledgement and attention than their formal aspects. težko osvetliti kulturo spominjanja ali izpostaviti problem odprte konfronta- cije s politiko, ki je odgovorna za trenutno stanje predstavljene kulturne dediščine. A vendarle je v mnogih drugih ozirih razstava vsekakor pomemb- na in izjemna. Navsezadnje sedaj veliko več ljudi po vsem svetu ve, da je obstajala tudi jugoslovanska modernistična arhitektura. Ta razstava je na globalni ravni nedvomno veliko prispevala k uveljavitvi ju- goslovanske modernistične arhitekturne dediščine, kar lahko pripomore k njeni prepoznavnosti in – morda – tudi njeni ohranitvi. Pa vendarle to žal nič ne prispeva k temu, da bi lokalno prebivalstvo lahko te kraje izkoristilo kot pomembna mesta družbenega in političnega spomina. Pozitivna plat tega projekta pa je vsekakor mreženje oz. sodelovanje med strokovnjaki iz nekdanje Jugoslavije. V novembru se bomo znova srečali v Sloveniji, na Pi- ranskih dnevih arhitekture. Za nas to pomeni tudi proces, s katerim skuša- mo ugotoviti, kaj ti spomeniki sploh v resnici pomenijo, kako lahko prispe- vamo k njihovi ohranitvi in kako v ta proces vključiti več interesnih skupin. Gospa Horvatinčić, na začetku intervjuja ste opisali svoj najzgodnejši spomin iz otroštva. Kaj pa je tisto, kar bi želeli doživeti v prihodnosti? Kot umetnostna zgodovinarka si želim, da bi tem spomenikom priznali nji- hovo izjemno umetniško in arhitekturno vrednost. Vendar to še ne zado- stuje za to, da bi lahko izdali umetnostnozgodovinsko študijo in to poglavje zaključili. Pomembno vlogo imajo tudi relevantni družbeni problemi in pomeni, ki so aktualni tudi v sedanjosti. Te pomene lahko najdemo v raz- ličnih materialnih sledeh in lokalnih spominih, in ne zgolj v arhitekturni ali skulpturni interpretaciji preteklih dogodkov. V mislih imam poseben pri- mer, spomenik, posvečen spominu na partizansko bolnišnico v gozdu pri Drežnici na Hrvaškem. Zame je ta spomenik simbol solidarnosti, saj so med vojno tam oskrbeli na tisoče beguncev. Danes je spomenik v neposredni bližini balkanske begunske poti. V sedanjih okoliščinah lahko postane sred- stvo za prenos pomembnega zgodovinskega spomina ter tako prispeva k razvoju bolj humanega odnosa do sodobnih migracij in beguncev. Želim si, da bi več pozornosti namenili tovrstnemu pomenu teh spomenikov in da se ne bi toliko posvečali zgolj njihovim formalnim vidikom. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 49arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Kakovost današnje arhitekture ni niti blizu tisti iz prejšnjega obdobja Pogovor z Jelico Jovanović o razstavi K betonski / konkretni utopiji: Arhitektura v Jugoslaviji 1948–1980 in o spomenikih NOB v nekdanji SFRJ / The quality of today's architecture doesn't come close to that of the previous period A talk with Jelica Jovanović about exhibition "Toward a concrete utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948–1980" and about monuments to the People's Liberation Struggle in ex-Yugoslavia Andrej Strehovec Jelica Jovanović (življenjepis) Doktorantka Oddelka za umetnostno zgodovino, arheologijo in restavratorstvo Tehniške univerze na Dunaju. Diplomirala na Fakulteti za arhitekturo Univerze v Beogradu. Ustanoviteljica nevladne skupine arhitektov v Beo- gradu in soustanoviteljica družbe Docomomo Srbija. Dvojna štipendistka slovaške akademske informacijske agencije (Slovak Academic Information Agency – SAIA). Koordinatorica regionalnih projektov Nedokončane mo- dernizacije – med utopijo in pragmatizmom ter (Ne)primerni spomeniki. Pripravnica in prostovoljka v organizaci- ji Kulturna dediščina brez meja (CHwB). Sodelavka Centralnega konservatorskega inštituta (Centralni institut za konzervaciju – CIK), zunanja sodelavka več inštitutov za varstvo kulturnih spomenikov v Srbiji. Štipendistka OEAD in Svetovne univerzitetne službe. Kot kustosinja sodelovala z Muzejem moderne umetnosti (MoMA) v New Yor- ku pri razstavi K betonski/konkretni utopiji: Arhitektura v Jugoslaviji 1948–1980. Jelica Jovanović (curriculum vitae) PhD student at Technical University of Vienna, Department of Art, Archaeology, and Restoration. Graduated from the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Belgrade. Founder of non-governmental group of architects in Belgrade and one of the founders of company Docomomo Serbia. Double scholarship holder at Slovak Aca- demic Information Agency. Co-ordinator of regional projects Unfinished Modernisations – Between Utopia and Pragmatism, and (In)appropriate Monuments. Apprentice and volunteer in organisation Cultural Heritage with- out Borders (CHwB). Collaborator at Central Institute for Conservation (CIK), external collaborator of several in- stitutes for the protection of cultural monuments in Serbia. Scholarship holder at OEAD and World University Service. Curator collaborator at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in exhibition "Toward a concrete utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948-1980". Iz srbščine prevedla Špela Kuhar Andrej Strehovec 50 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Kot doktorandka in strokovnjakinja za prenovo arhitekture sodeluješ z Docomomom in živiš na relaciji Dunaj–Beograd; kako te je to povezalo z razstavo K betonski/konkretni utopiji v newyorški MoMI? Pri segmentu razstave v eni od monografskih sob je pomagalo moje delo na relaciji Dunaj–Beograd, in sicer preučevanje zapuščine Bogdana Bogda- novića v arhivu Avstrijske nacionalne knjižnice in v Centru za arhitekturo na Dunaju ter v zasebnem arhivu njegove žene Ksenije Anastasijević Bog- danović, ki nas je žal zapustila jeseni 2017. Sicer menim, da so pomemb- nejše moje raziskave, ki sem jih delala v Srbiji, za projekte Nedokončane modernizacije, Dvigovanje zavese (Lifting the Curtain), (Ne)primerni spo- meniki ((Ne)primereni spomenici), delo na področju dosjejev, registra in baze dokumentov za Docomomo Srbija ter nazadnje raziskave stanovanj- ske arhitekture za potrebe doktorata. Zaradi tega dolgoletnega dela sem bila že »pri stvari«, poznala sem akterje, in prva potencialna ovira je bila premagana – morala sem le še najti pravo gradivo. Zadolžena si bila za zbiranje dokumentacije in arhitekturnih risb za območje Srbije. Bi lahko kaj povedala o postopku zbiranja v arhivih nekdanje SFRJ? Kakšen je status teh arhivov (če imaš vpogled tudi v druge republike in pokrajine nekdanje SFRJ)? Kakšno je bilo sodelovanje s slovensko ekipo v Muzeju za arhitekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani? Ne glede na slabo stanje pristojnih arhivov in muzejev, ki ga lahko povza- mem z besedami natrpani, siromašni in podhranjeni ter zato tudi brez de- javnega angažmaja pri prevzemanju gradiva, sem presrečna, kadar imajo gradivo in je v njihovi oskrbi. Vem, da je nekdo odgovoren zanj in da ga ščiti zakon. Veliko gradiva je ostalo v podjetjih (npr. Osnova, Projektbiro, Srbijaprojekt itd.), in ob privatizaciji oziroma stečajih se je za dokumenta- cijo izgubila vsaka sled. Imeli smo srečo, da smo lahko dostopali do doku- mentacije Zavoda za izgradnjo Beograda, ki je bil v stečaju, a žal sem lahko pregledala le manjši del gradiva. Nisem na primer našla skic Branislava Jovina in Stojana Maksimovića, saj sta delovno dokumentacijo puščala v zgradbah, v katerih sta delala, upam pa, da nam bo to, kar sem našla, po- magalo v prihodnjih raziskavah. Po drugi strani so Aleksandar Stjepanović, Milenija in Darko Marušić ter družina Uroša Martinovića ohranili delovne skice v osebnih arhivih (sliki 1 in 2); te izjemne skice in risbe so sedaj na ogled na razstavi. Tu moram razjasniti nekatere specifike arhitekturne pro- dukcije in scene v Srbiji, ki so verjetno vplivale na to, kakšen material ima- mo danes, ko gre za arhitekturo. Največ se je ohranilo ozalidov, ki so bili sestavni del t. i. glavnega projekta in so bili narejeni v več izvodih, od kate- rih mora biti vsaj en izvod v pristojnem občinskem arhivu. Skice pa so veči- noma veljale za nekaj naključnega, nekaj, česar ni treba shranjevati, in so zaradi različnih okoliščin – pomanjkanja prostora za shranjevanje, selitev podjetij, stečaja ali preprosto nerazumevanja – sčasoma izginile. Le redki arhitekti so se pravočasno spomnili in svoje skice shranili v lastnih arhivih. Ohranjenih pa je dovolj, da lahko rekonstruiramo ustvarjalni proces, npr. nastanka Bloka 23 (slika 2) ali Bloka 30 (slika 1). As a PhD and expert in architectural renovation, you collaborate with Docomomo and live between Vienna and Belgrade. How did this bring you into the fold of exhibition "Toward a concrete utopia" in MoMA in New York? My work between Vienna and Belgrade contributed to a segment of the exhibition in one of the monographic rooms, namely the study of Bogdan Bogdanović's legacy in the archive of Austrian National Library and the Architekturzentrum Wien, as well as in private archives in possession of his wife, Ksenija Anastasijević Bogdanović, who sadly passed away in autumn 2017. Personally, I place more importance on the research I did in Serbia for projects Unfinished Modernisations, Lifting the Curtain, and (In)appro- priate Monuments, as well as my work on the dossiers, registry, and docu- ment database for Docomomo Serbia, and finally the research into hous- ing architecture for my PhD dissertation. All the years of work meant that I was already involved, I knew the people, and the first potential obstacle was overcome - I only needed to find the right material. You were responsible for collecting documentation and architectural drawings for the territory of Serbia. What can you tell us about the collection process in the archives of ex-Yugoslavia? What is the status of these archives (providing you are familiar with the situation outside Serbia, in other republics and provinces of ex-Yugoslavia)? What was the collaboration like with the Slovene team in the Museum of Architecture and Design in Ljubljana? Notwithstanding the poor condition of the relevant archives and museums - which I can describe as: stuffed to the brim, underfunded and understaffed, and consequently also somewhat unmotivated after material is delivered to them - I am overjoyed when the material is in their possession and care. I know that someone is responsible for it and that it's protected by law. A lot of material had remained in the companies, e.g. Osnova, Projektbiro, Srbijaprojekt, etc., and when they folded or were privatised, the documentation was lost without a trace. We were lucky to have been given access to the records of Zavod za izgradnju Beograda (Institute for the construction of Belgrade), which was in receivership, but unfortunately, I was only able to review a small portion of the material. I was unable to find sketches by Branislav Jovina and Stojan Maksimović, for instance, because they had a habit of leaving the design docu- mentation in the buildings in which they worked, but I hope that whatever I did find will be helpful in our future research. On the other hand, Aleksandar Stjepanović, Milenija and Darko Marušić, and the family of Uroš Martinović preserved working sketches in their personal archives (figs. 1 and 2); these ex- ceptional sketches and drawings are now on display in the exhibition. At this junction, I should explain certain specifics of the architectural production and scene in Serbia, which probably affected the kind of material available to us today when it comes to architecture. Blueprints copies are preserved in the greatest number as they were a mandatory element of the executive design and were made in several copies, one of which must be kept in the relevant municipal archive. Sketches were typically considered as something incidental, Sl. 1: Skice interierja Bloka 30 v Novem Beogradu. Vir: arhiv Uroša Martinovića. Sl. 2: Blok 23, Novi Beograd. Vir: osebni arhiv Aleksandra Stjepanovića. Sl. 3: Maketa naselja Cerak Vinogradi 2. Vir: osebni arhiv Milenije in Darka Marušića. Fig. 1: Interior sketches for Block 30 in New Belgrade. Source: archive of Uroš Martinović Fig. 2: Block 23, New Belgrade. Source: personal archive of Aleksandar Stjepanović Fig. 3: Scale model of community Cerak Vinogradi 2. Source: personal archive of Milenija and Darko Marušić 1 2 3 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 51arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Andrej Strehovec V Ljubljani in Zagrebu so razmere nekoliko drugačne, saj so muzeji in od- delki za arhitekturo nastali veliko prej in gradivo zbirali vzporedno z njego- vim nastankom, česar v Beogradu ni bilo (oddelek za arhitekturo je v Mu- zeju znanosti in tehnologije, ki je bil ustanovljen leta 1989). Muzej za arhi- tekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani je vse gradivo preprosto dostavil, in spet se je pokazala jugoslovanskost arhitekture: Miheličeva veleblagovnica Stoteks v Novem Sadu je bila prikazana z risbami iz zbirke MAO, prav tako Kristlov vrtec Mladi rod (ena od različic tega vrtca, čeprav slabše izvedena, je tudi v Bloku 28 Novega Beograda). Kako se razstava izogne tako imenovani »eksotizaciji«, o kateri govori kustos razstave Vladimir Kulić in s katero v laični, pa tudi strokovni javnosti povezujejo komunistični vzhodni blok in ga reducirajo na »preživelo« ideologijo? Poskušali smo zbrati gradivo, ki pojasnjuje ključne pojave, okoli in iz kate- rih je v omenjenih letih nastajalo grajeno okolje; razstava in katalog sta razdeljena na poglavja: samoupravljanje, izvoz, družbeni standard, neuvr- ščeni ... Če do želenega materiala nismo mogli priti, kar se je tudi dogajalo, smo razmišljali o naslednjih korakih: ali razstaviti »drugi najboljši« objekt ali pa razstaviti bolj tehnično in manj umetniško gradivo. V primeru Srbije so bili prej omenjeni ozalidi ena izmed dilem, saj recimo v primeru Žežljeve Hale 1 Beograjskega sejma (sliki 4 in 5) ali Muzeja sodobne umetnosti (sli- ka 6) objekta nismo mogli razstaviti drugače. Trudili smo se izpostaviti gra- divo, ki predstavlja kontekst nastanka vsakega od teh objektov (urbane enote, pohištvo), kar se mi zdi ključnega pomena za izogibanje eksotizaciji, kjer gre pogosto za dekontekstualizacijo, za izpuščanje dejstev. Čeprav ni bilo veliko prostora za detajle, smo se trudili ustvariti pregled pozitivnih in negativnih vidikov družbe in arhitekture – priporočam besedila v katalogu. Izvoz arhitekture je na primer predstavljen samo z enim projektom, sejmi- ščem v Lagosu v Nigeriji avtorja Zorana Bojovića, ki ga je gradil Energopro- jekt. Je pa ta projekt predstavljen podrobno, z vsemi informacijami, ki od- pirajo smeri za nadaljnje raziskovanje, če to obiskovalca zanima. Arhitekturo, ki je bila predstavljena v MoMI (1948–1980), so zasnovali kakovostno in v kratkem časovnem obdobju. Lahko primerjate količino, kakovost in tipologijo arhitekture Titove Jugoslavije z obdobjem, ki je sledilo? Je bila arhitektura funkcionalističnega modernizma, torej tistega najbolj produktivnega obdobja v SFRJ, kompatibilna s socialistično ideologijo? Socialistični Jugoslaviji je funkcionalistični modernizem služil kot sredstvo, s katerim bo najučinkoviteje obnovila in zgradila povojno družbo. Lahko govorimo o kompatibilnosti, lahko pa o okoliščinah, ugodnih za takratno državno upravo, in ne nazadnje o kompetencah pristojnih ljudi in institucij. Moderna arhitektura (v vseh iteracijah in razmerah) je bila dovolj prepro- sta, da so lahko za gradnjo angažirali tudi nekvalificirano delovno silo, do- volj racionalna in logična za (re)organizacijo gradnje s pomočjo industriali- zirane proizvodnje, pa tudi prilagodljiva in postopna – idealna za potrebe razvijajoče se družbe. Inovacije v tehnologiji gradnje in uporaba novih ma- terialov so bile še ena srečna okoliščina, največji preskok je bila osvojitev something that doesn't have to be saved and eventually, they disappeared due to various circumstances: a lack of storage space, companies relocating or go- ing out of business, or simply a lack of understanding. Few architects acted in time and stored the sketches in their personal archives. There are enough of them preserved, however, that we can reconstruct the creative processes be- hind Block 23 (fig. 2), for instance, or Block 30 (fig. 1). The conditions in Ljubljana and Zagreb are a bit different as museums and architecture departments were established much earlier and they collected the materials concurrently with their creation, which was not the case in Belgrade (the department of architecture is part of the Museum of Science and Technology, which was established in 1989). The Museum of Architec- ture and Design in Ljubljana simply delivered all the material, and it showed once again just how Yugoslav the architecture actually was: Mihelič's de- partment store Stoteks in Novi Sad was presented with drawings from their collection, as was Kristl's kindergarten Mladi rod (a variation of this kinder- garten, though not realised as well, is also part of New Belgrade's Block 28). How does the exhibition avoid the so-called "exoticisation" as discussed by the exhibition's curator, Vladimir Kulić, which the lay public, and also the expert community associates with the communist Eastern Bloc, and reduces it to "obsolete" ideologies? We tried to collect material that sheds light on key phenomena around and from which a built environment had emerged in this period. The exhibition and the catalogue are divided into chapters: self-management, export, the social standard, the Non-aligned, etc. If the desired material was unavail- able, which did happen, we considered our next move: whether to exhibit the "second best" building, or whether to exhibit material that is more technical and less artistic. In the case of Serbia, the aforementioned blue- prints copies posed a dilemma as there was no other possibility to exhibit Žeželj's Hall 1 of Belgrade Fair (figs. 4, 5), or the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade (fig. 6). We endeavoured to showcase materials which rep- resent the context of each of the buildings' creation (urban units, furni- ture), which I see as vital in avoiding exoticisation, which is often about decontextualisation, about facts being omitted. Even though the space for details was limited, we tried to create an overview of positive and negative aspects of the society and architecture - do have a look at the texts in the catalogue. The export of architecture, for instance, is presented with only one project, the fairground in Lagos, Nigeria by Zoran Bojović, built by En- ergoprojekt. Yet this project is presented in detail, with all the information to open up avenues of further research in case the visitor is interested. The architecture which was presented in MoMA (1948-1980) was designed well and in a short time period. Can you compare the amount, the quality, and the typology of the architecture of Tito's Yugoslavia with that of the subsequent period? Was the architecture of functionalist modernism, i.e. the most productive period in socialist Yugoslavia, compatible with socialist ideology? In socialist Yugoslavia, functionalist modernism featured as the most effec- tive means of restoring and constructing the post-war society. We can talk 4 5 6 Sl. 4: Hala 1 Beograjskega sejma v gradnji. Vir: zbirka Miloša Jurišića. Sl. 5: Kompleks Beograjskega sejma. Vir: zbirka Miloša Jurišića. Sl. 6: Muzej sodobne umetnosti v Beogradu. Vir: zbirka Miloša Jurišića. Fig. 4: Hall 1 of Belgrade Fair during construction. Source: collection of Miloš Jurišić Fig. 5: Belgrade Fair complex. Source: collection of Miloš Jurišić Fig. 6: Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade. Source: collection of Miloš Jurišić 52 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 rabe prednapetega betona, za kar je zaslužna generacija inženirjev z Bran- kom Žežljem in Boškom Petrovićem na čelu. Razstava je bila zelo obsežna, izbor pa verjetno zelo selekcioniran. Katere razstavljene stavbe so ti najljubše in zakaj? Navezala se bom na prejšnji odgovor in najprej izpostavila Halo 1 Beograj- skega sejma arhitekta Milorada Pantovića in inženirja Branka Žežlja (slika 4) kot objekt, po katerem nič ni bilo več kot prej: gre za objekt, s katerim je tehnologija prednapetega betona teatralno vstopila v vsakodnevno (civil- no) arhitekturo SFRJ in ni bila več rezervirana za mostove, industrijske dvo- rane in večje inženirske posege. S to tehnologijo se je arhitektom odprlo novo polje ustvarjalnosti in z njo so nekako pridobili novo samozavest: objekti so postali zračni, lahki, izrazni. Snovali so drzne oblike in uporablja- li nove materiale za končno obdelavo, ki je tudi postala del oblikovanja. Izpostavila bi še Trg republike (Trg revolucije) Edvarda Ravnikarja, stadion Poljud Borisa Magaša in Elektroprivredo Ivana Štrausa kot slikovite prime- re tega arhitekturnega preskoka, ki se je odvil v pičlih dvajsetih letih. Muzej sodobne umetnosti v Beogradu – MSU (slika 6), delo Ivana Antića in Ivanke Raspopović, je eden od zanimivih projektov na razstavi, ki je verjetno vplival tudi na vas, saj ste diplomirali na beograjski fakulteti za arhitekturo. Kako bi komentirali Antićev citat iz intervjuja za revijo DaNS, kjer pravi: »Nikoli nisem opazil pritiska na arhitekte in gradbenike, zlasti ne ideološke narave. Čeprav so oblasti te poklice spoštovale, zanje niso bili resni nosilci idej in propagande« (Intervju – Ivan Antič; Vladimir Mitrović, 2009)? Je tak odnos oblasti SFRJ do poklicne avtonomije razviden iz arhivskih dokumentov? Ko sem za razstavo raziskovala Borbine nagrade, sem v Borbi naletela na neki članek o tem, da je v zvezi komunistov še vedno zelo malo arhitektov, govorimo o šestdesetih letih. Torej ni bilo treba biti v partiji, da so lahko delali. Arhitektura ni bila nosilka banalne propagande, bila pa je nosilka idej – kar se odraža v programih in tipologijah, ki so se gradile in financirale ne- posredno ali posredno iz državnega in družbenega proračuna – in tudi sred- stvo reprezentacije SFRJ (o čemer je precej napisanega), ko je šlo za svetov- ne razstave, naložbene in javne objekte za upravo, izobraževanje ali infra- strukturo. V določenem smislu je arhitekturna stroka sebe zelo hitro uvrsti- la med cilje državne administracije in v javno sfero: arhitekti so med prvimi (zelo radi) zavračali socrealizem (posvet (CIAM-a, op. ur.) v Dubrovniku leta 1950) in nadaljevali že utečeno pot modernizma – torej niso potrebovali usmerjanja »od zgoraj«. Po drugi strani pa sta bili struktura in usmeritev sistema v veliki meri ugodni za ustvarjalne težnje arhitektov: lahko so razi- skovali, eksperimentirali, gradili (slika 7). Seveda so morali v okoliščinah samoupravljanja sodelovati z deležniki procesa in projekt uskladiti z njiho- vimi zmožnostmi in željami. Poklicna avtonomija pa je bila na visoki ravni: mnogi znani arhitekti in urbanisti so bili člani partije, vendar vse kaže na njihovo izjemno poklicno integriteto in ugled, ki so ga uživali. Všeč mi je slikovita dokumentacija iz fonda 837, iz kabineta predsednika republike (KPR), v Arhivu Jugoslavije, ki vsebuje stenografske zapiske sre- čanj delegacij urbanistov, arhitektov in strokovnih združenj na eni ter Tita about compatibility, or we can talk about favourable circumstances which the state administration of the time took advantage of, and not least about the competence of responsible individuals and institutions. In all its iterations and circumstances, modern architecture was simple enough that even unskilled labour was deployed for its construction, it was ra- tional and logical for (re)organising the construction by means of industri- alised production, and it was adaptable and gradual - ideal for the needs of a developing society. The innovations in building technology and the use of new materials was another fortunate circumstance; the greatest leap was achieved by mastering prestressed concrete, achieved by the genera- tion of engineers led by Branko Žeželj and Boško Petrović. The exhibition was extensive, and the selection narrowed down considerably I imagine. Which of the exhibited buildings are your favourite, and why? I'm going to refer back to my previous answer and first single out Hall 1 of Belgrade Fair (fig. 4, architect: Milorad Pantović, engineer: Branko Žeželj) as a watershed building: with this building, the prestressed concrete tech- nology makes a grand entrance in the everyday (civilian) architecture of socialist Yugoslavia, no longer confined to bridges, industrial halls, and major engineering interventions. This technology opened up a new field of creativity for architects, and it's as if it bestowed a new confidence on them: buildings become airy, light, full of expression. They designed bold forms and used new materials for exterior finishing, which also becomes part of the design. I would also name Trg republike Square (Trg revolucije Square) by Edvard Ravnikar, stadium Poljud by Boris Magaš, and Elektro- privreda building by Ivan Štraus as picturesque examples of this architec- tural leap, which unfolded in a mere 20 years. The Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade (fig. 6), a work by Ivan Antić and Ivanka Raspopović, is one of the interesting projects in the exhibition, which likely also influenced you personally, having graduated from Belgrade faculty of architecture. What is your take on Antić's quotation from the interview for magazine DaNS where he says: "[...] I never noticed any pressure exerted on architects and civil engineers, especially not pressure of ideological kind. Even though the authorities respected these professions, they were never regarded as serious bearers of ideas and propaganda." (Interview with Ivan Antić; Vladimir Mitrović, 2009)? Is this attitude by Yugoslav authorities towards professional autonomy borne out by archival documents? When I was researching prizes awarded by newspaper Borba for the exhi- bition, I remember coming across an article in Borba, a short piece discuss- ing how membership of the League of Communists still included very few architects - and we're talking 1960s here. Therefore, being a member of the Communist Party wasn't a prerequisite for getting work. Architecture wasn't a bearer of banal propaganda, but it was a bearer of ideas - which is evident from programmes and typologies built and financed directly or indirectly from the state or communal budgets. It was also a means of representing socialist Yugoslavia, and there are plenty of articles to be found about world expositions, investment- and public buildings for ad- ministration, education, or infrastructure. In a sense, the architectural pro- fession very quickly entered itself among the objectives of state adminis- tration and positioned itself in the public sphere: architects were among the first to reject - gladly - socialist realism (the 1950 (CIAM - Ed. Note) congress in Dubrovnik) and chose the well-established path of modernism - not requiring, therefore, guidance "from above". But on the other hand, the structure and bearing of the system were very much in accordance with architects' creative tendencies: they were able to research, experi- ment, build (fig. 7). In the circumstances of self-management, they obvi- ously had to co-ordinate with the stakeholders in the process and adapt projects to their capabilities and desires. There was a high degree of pro- fessional autonomy: many high-profile architects and urban designers were members of the Communist Party, but there is plenty of evidence of their exceptional professional integrity and the reputation they enjoyed. I love the very expressive records from collection 837 in the Cabinet of the President of the Republic in the Archive of Yugoslavia. It contains steno- graph minutes from meetings with delegations of urban designers, archi- tects and professional associations on one side and Tito on the other. The Sl. 7: Eksperimentalno gradbišče tehnologije IMS v Luandi. Vir: osebni arhiv Ivana Petrovića. Fig. 7: Experimental building site of IMS technology in Luanda. Source: personal archive of Ivan Petrović 7 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 53arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 na drugi strani. Zanimiv je bil sprejem delegacije Urbanističnega zavoda Beograda leta 1965. Zelo svobodno izmenjujejo mnenja: Tito govori o tem, kaj mu je všeč (npr. Nova Huta, SIV/Palača federacije (slika 8), sprehajališče na Savi) in kaj ne (npr. Brasilia, Blok 21, Muzej sodobne umetnosti), medtem pa arhitekt Aleksandar Đorđević suvereno predstavlja in zagovarja glavne ideje splošnega načrta za (Novi) Beograd (slika 9) ter razlaga realizirane pro- jekte, Branko Pešić (takratni župan) pa išče finance za selitev železnice, avto- ceste in mostu. Iz te dokumentacije je povsem jasno, da se je Tito – tako kot večina državljanov – bolj nagibal h klasični arhitekturi kot k arhitekturi viso- kega modernizma. To je za nas raziskovalce zelo pomemben podatek, zlasti v današnjem času, ko je vse iz tistega časa pripisano Titovim željam, okusu in muham (seveda odvisno od (skritega) namena trditev). Kot za katerikoli sestanek je bila tudi predhodnica sestankov z urbanisti priprava v obliki »in- formacij«, ki jih je protokol posredoval predsedniku. V njih so pojasnjeni cilji in problemi urbanizacije v Jugoslaviji. Vendar se je Tito zavedal, da izha- ja s položaja (dobro obveščenega, a vseeno) laika, in ideje urbanistov, ki so mu bile predstavljene, so se nato v celoti uresničile – Novi Beograd v obri- sih, ki jih poznamo danes (slike 10, 11 in 12). Znana sta Titovo kljubovanje abstraktni umetnosti in nato njegov odmik od realizma ter njegovo sprejemanje abstraktnega in modernističnega umetniškega izraza. V kakšnih okoliščinah so nastale monumentalne abstraktne skulpture, v nekaterih primerih modernistične arhitekture in krajinske arhitekture? Veliko je napisanega o tem, da Tito ni posegal v delo niti posameznikov niti institucij, ki so gradile državo, čeprav je bil njegov odnos do vprašanj arhi- tekture in urbanizma konservativen, kar je arhitektom in urbanistom tudi pogosto sporočal. Bil pa je dobro obveščen, obiskoval je projektivne organi- zacije, gradbišča, se srečeval z delegacijami strokovnih združenj ali institucij, ki so mu prinašale tako dobre kot slabe novice, v primerih večjih težav in neuspehov pa so nanj apelirali, naj se s svojo avtoriteto zavzame, da se bodo stvari premaknile – na primer v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja za preselitev železnice iz osrednje cone Novega Beograda. Sčasoma se je po- treba po tovrstnih intervencijah zmanjšala oziroma prenehala, saj so imela podjetja boljše kadre, boljšo opremo, več izkušenj in znanja. Mogoče se ponavljam, toda z osvojitvijo tehnologije prednapetega in armiranega beto- na ter s stabilizacijo industrije gradbenih materialov (kar se je po navedbah virov zgodilo šele v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja) so nastali material- ni pogoji za novo, drznejšo ustvarjalnost v arhitekturi. Umetniki, arhitekti, urbanisti, krajinski arhitekti so uporabljali vsa orodja in spoznanja iz tega arzenala, ustvarjenega s kolektivnim delom in kolektivnimi naložbami. Ob- stajajo številna pričevanja, da so na gradbišča nekaterih stavb prihajali usposobljeni delavci, monterji in kamnoseki oziroma podjetja iz različnih reception for the Urban Planning Institute delegation in 1965 was very in- teresting. There is a very frank exchange of opinion: Tito is talking about what he liked - e.g. Nowa Huta, Federal Executive Council building (fig. 8), the promenade along river Sava -, and what he didn't like, e.g. Brasilia, Block 21, Museum of Contemporary Art. All the while, architect Aleksandar Đorđević is very self-assuredly presenting and defending the key ideas of the General Plan for (New) Belgrade (fig. 9) and explaining realised pro- jects, and Branko Pešić, the mayor at the time, is trying to find the budget for relocating the railway, the motorway, and the bridge. These records make it perfectly clear that Tito - just as most of the public - preferred clas- sical architecture to high modernism. For us, researchers, this is a very im- portant piece of information, especially nowadays when everything from that period is ascribed to Tito's wishes, tastes, and whims - depending on the (hidden) agenda of such claims. As with any meeting, meetings with urban designers were preceded by preparations in the shape of "informa- tion" which the protocol submitted to the President. They contain the objec- tives and challenges of urbanisation in Yugoslavia. But Tito was aware that his position was one of a layman - a well-informed one, but still - and the urban designers' ideas which were presented to him went on to be fully re- alised: New Belgrade in the outline familiar to us today (figs. 10, 11, 12). Tito was known to resist abstract art but he subsequently distanced himself from realism and accepted abstract and modern artistic expression. What were the circumstances in which the monumental abstract sculptures - and, in certain cases, modernist architectures and landscape architectures - were created? A lot has been written about the fact that Tito did not interfere with the work of individuals and institutions that were constructing the state, even though his attitude to the questions of architecture and urban design was a conservative one, and he would tell as much to architects and urban planners without reservation. But he was well informed, he visited project offices, building sites, he met delegations from professional associations and institutions. They were bringing him both good and bad news, and in cases of major obstacles or failures, they appealed to him to use his au- thority to get things going again, such as the relocation of the railway from New Belgrade's central zone in the 1960s. As time went by, there was less need for such interventions, or indeed no need at all anymore as com- panies gained more proficient staff, better equipment, and more experi- ence and know-how. At the risk of repeating myself, the mastery of the prestressed and reinforced concrete technologies and the stabilisation of construction materials industry - which, according to sources, only oc- curred in the 1960s - established the material conditions for a new, bolder creativity in architecture. Artists, architects, urban designers, and land- scape architects took advantage of all the tools and know-how from this Sl. 8: Zvezni izvršni svet – SIV (ZIS), interier. Vir: osebni arhiv Mihaila Jankovića. Sl. 9: Splošni urbanistični načrt Beograda (1950). Vir: Urbanistični zavod Beograd. Fig. 8: Federal Executive Council building, interior. Source: personal archive of Mihailo Janković Fig. 9: General Urban Plan of Belgrade, 1950. Source: Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade 8 9 Andrej Strehovec 54 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 delov države, vse zato, da bi izvedba sledila avtorjevi zamisli. Ko se danes pogovarjate z arhitekti v postjugoslovanskih državah, vidite, kako nepred- stavljivo je to in da je bil uničen celoten ekosistem dobre arhitekture: če- prav lahko izdelke naročite iz najbolj oddaljenih delov sveta, kakovost arhi- tekture ni niti blizu tisti prejšnjega obdobja (sliki 13 in 14). Spomeniki NOB v nekdanji SFRJ imajo močno simbolno in zgodovinsko vrednost ter pomenijo tehnološki in umetniški dosežek, ki je lahko sodobni umetniški in arhitekturni produkciji vzor in tudi izziv. Ali v arhivih obstajajo podatki o procesih te gradnje, so bili ti standardizirani in v kolikšni meri so bili načrtovani? Najobsežnejša zbirka dokumentacije o spomenikih, točka, kjer se raziskave običajno začnejo, je arhiv SUBNOR-ja (Savez udruženja boraca narodnoo- slobodilačkog rata – Zveza združenj borcev narodnoosvobodilnega boja). Arhiv Jugoslavije vsebuje dokumentacijo krovne zvezne organizacije, iz ka- tere je jasno razvidno, da je bila edina standardizacija – če ji lahko tako re- čemo – obstoj SUBNOR-ja, ki je imel lokalne podružnice po vsej državi in je za vsak primer posebej usklajeval nekatere dejavnosti za postavitve spo- minskih obeležij. Vendar pa nikjer nisem našla zbirke predpisov o tem, kako je treba graditi spomenike, kot so obstajali na primer za stanovanjske stav- be ali šole, ta odločitev je bila prepuščena naročniku. Na natečajih pač zma- ga najboljša rešitev. Na spomenike po mojem mnenju sploh ne bi smeli gledati kot na izolirano tipologijo modernistične arhitekture. Njihova po- sebnost je le ta, da je bilo pri njihovem oblikovanju več avtorske svobode. Sicer pa so izhajali iz istega družbenega sistema, ki je ustvarjal tudi vse dru- ge arhitekturne in urbanistične tipologije, avtorji pa so pri vseh izkoriščali priložnosti, strokovne prijeme in tehnične možnosti, ki so bili v tem sistemu na voljo. SUBNOR je na zvezni ravni skrbel za spominska obeležja in obmo- čja, ki jih ni veliko; najbolj znani so Tjentište (slika 16), Jasenovac, Šumarice in Sremski front – torej spomeniki oz. spominski kompleksi na krajih ključ- nih bitk ali večjih pobojev, krajih z očitnim simbolnim in zgodovinskim po- menom za socialistično Jugoslavijo (slike 17, 18 in 19). Potem so tu še kraji, arsenal, which was created with collective work and collective investment. There are numerous testimonials that trained workers, installers, and stonecutters or companies from different parts of the country were arriv- ing at job sites of certain buildings to ensure that the execution would fol- low the author's idea. When you talk to architects from post-Yugoslav states today, you see how unimaginable this is and that the entire ecosys- tem of good architecture has been destroyed: even though you can order products from the farthest ends of the world, the quality of architecture doesn't come close to that of the previous period (figs. 13, 14). Monuments to People's Liberation Struggle in ex-Yugoslavia have a strong symbolic and historical value and represent a technological and artistic achievement which can serve as a model and also a challenge to the contemporary artistic and architectural production. Do the archives contain information on the construction processes, were they standardised, and to what extent were they planned? The most extensive records on monuments, which is the usual starting point for research, is the archive belonging to the League of Associations of Veterans of the People's Liberation Struggle (SUBNOR). The Archive of Yugoslavia contains the records of the umbrella federal organisation, which clearly show that the only standardisation - if we can call it that - is the existence of SUBNOR, which had local chapters all over the country and co-ordinated certain activities for the execution of memorial sites individu- ally on a case-by-case basis. However, I was unable to find any sort of rule- book on how to build monuments such as there were e.g. for residential buildings or schools - it was left up to the investor. The best solution wins the competition. In my opinion, monuments shouldn't even be regarded as an isolated typology of modernist architecture. Their only distinction is that there was more artistic freedom in their design. Otherwise, they orig- inate in the same social system which created all other architectural and urban typologies, and with all of them, their authors took advantage of the opportunities, techniques, and technical possibilities available within 10 11 12 13 14 Sl. 10: Novi Beograd – Blok 1 v gradnji. Vir: zbirka Miloša Jurišića. Sl. 11: Tito z ekipo Urbanističnega zavoda Beograda na gradbišču Novega Beograda. Vir: Zgodovinski arhiv Beograda, osebni arhiv Milutina Glavičkega. Sl. 12: Novi Beograd v gradnji, pogled s Kalemegdana. Vir: Urbanistični zavod Beograda. Sl. 13: Naselje Kijevo Kneževac. Vir: osebni arhiv Aleksandra Đokića. Sl. 14: Zahodna vrata Beograda. Vir: arhiv Mihajla Mitrovića. Fig. 10: New Belgrade, Block 1 during construction. Source: collection of Miloš Jurišić Fig. 11: Tito and the team from Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade on a New Belgrade construction site. Source: Historical Archives of Belgrade, personal collection of Milutin Glavički Fig. 12: New Belgrade during construction, view from Kalemegdan. Source: Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade Fig. 13: Community Kijevo Kneževac. Source: personal archive of Aleksandar Đokić Fig. 14: Belgrade Western City Gate. Source: archive of Mihajlo Mitrović Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 55arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 pomembni za nastanek NOB in konstituiranje avnojske Jugoslavije: (Titovo) Užice, Stolice (Krupanj), Bela Crkva, Drvar, Jajce, kjer so postavili nove spo- menike; pri teh je bilo treba ohraniti ali ustrezno obnoviti objekte vrhovne- ga štaba in prostore pomembnih medvojnih dogodkov. Skozi dokumentaci- jo SUBNOR-ja lahko spremljamo še številne druge spomenike po Jugoslaviji, sicer večinoma zgolj informativno, saj so jih večino načrtovali na lokalni ravni, z lokalnimi združenji veteranov ali drugih delovnih, mladinskih, celo študentskih organizacij in združenj. Gradila so jih lokalna gradbena podje- tja, financirali so jih s samoprispevki, najpogosteje so jih z neposrednimi naročili zasnovali lokalni arhitekti in umetniki, na željo skupnosti pa so raz- pisali večji natečaj. Edini organ na zvezni ravni je bila Komisija za zagotavlja- nje in nadaljnji razvoj tradicij osvobodilne fronte in dosežkov revolucije v okviru SUBNOR-ja; v celotnem obdobju socialistične Jugoslavije so v njej delovali vrhunski strokovnjaki, pa tudi birokrati. V začetku so se glede me- morializacije na terenu pojavljali številni problemi (slogovno in tehnično slabo narejeni spomeniki, plošče s pravopisnimi napakami itd.) in komisijo so sestavljale vidne kulturne osebnosti, kasneje pa so bili procesi bolj ute- čeni, uveljavili so se natečaji in postali del pristojnosti združenja umetnikov in arhitektov, zato je komisija izgubljala pomen. Kaj je največji krivec za slab odnos do dediščine jugoslovanske socialistične arhitekture: odnos novih, postsocialističnih oblasti do te dediščine kot nečesa nezaželenega; nastanek postmodernistične arhitekture, ki se je banalno vrnila k bolj klasičnemu izrazu; ali sodobna dirka za energijsko učinkovitejšimi stavbami? Gre mogoče za estetiko, ki preprosto ni blizu povprečnemu uporabniku, saj bi zanjo potreboval določen izobraževalni postopek, ki pa se ne zgodi? Kako jo razumevati, skozi katero misel in skozi kakšno optiko? Kako ljudi ozavestiti, da bodo zgradbe, v katerih živijo, razumeli kot kakovostno arhitekturo, ko pa so dostikrat že degradirane? Velikokrat sem slišala priznanja ljudi zunaj stroke, da so začeli na to arhi- tekturo gledati na drugačen, pozitiven način, ko se je začelo govoriti o tej razstavi. Prav imate glede estetike modernizma, kot vsi novi in pionirski pojavi potrebuje proces prilagajanja in izobraževanja. Vendar naša javna in medijska sfera ne zagotavljata skoraj nobene platforme za takšne procese – niti ko gre za sorazmerno pomembnejše stvari, kot sta zdravje ali ekolo- gija. To nekoliko nadomešča splet, do katerega pa nimajo vsi enakega do- stopa in kjer pogosto ni lahko najti in filtrirati ustreznih vsebin. Danes so politike in ukrepi razdrobljeni, odvisni od posameznikov, ki se odpravijo na okope: konservatorji se borijo za ohranitev, najemniki za izboljšanje stano- vanj in okoljevarstveniki za energijsko sanacijo – kar je še posebej proble- matično in težavno, ker je ta nemogoča brez celostnega pristopa. Drugače rečeno, na tak način smo danes prisiljeni razmišljati, ne le na ravni gradnje, that the system. Federal SUBNOR organisation occupied itself with the few federal-level memorials and memorial areas: Tjentište (fig. 16), Jasenovac, Šumarice, and Syrmian Front, to name the best known ones. These are monuments and memorial complexes in the sites of key battles or major executions, in places with an obvious symbolic and historical significance for socialist Yugoslavia (figs. 17, 18, and 19). Then there are places that are important for the founding of the People's Liberation Struggle and the es- tablishment of Yugoslavia through the AVNOJ resolutions: (Titovo) Užice, Stolice (Krupanj), Bela Crkva, Drvar, and Jajce, where new monuments were erected while the Supreme Partisan Headquarters buildings and the places where important wartime events took place had to be preserved or suitably renovated. SUBNOR's records allow us to trace numerous others monuments in Yugoslavia, mostly only for information purposes as most were planned on local levels with local veterans' associations or other workers', youth, and even students' organisations and associations. They were built by local construction companies, they were financed with self- imposed contributions, and most of them were commissioned directly and designed by local architects and artists, though the community could opt for a larger competition. The only federal-level body was the Committee for the Nurture of Revolutionary Traditions as part of SUBNOR, which fea- tured both top-level experts as well bureaucrats throughout the socialist Yugoslav period. In the beginning, there were numerous problems with memorialisation in the field - stylistically and technically flawed monu- ments, plaques with grammatical errors etc. -, with the Committee being staffed with prominent personalities from the realm of culture. Later, the processes became more regular, competitions were established as the norm and became part of the competence of artists' and architects' asso- ciations, reducing the relevance of the Committee. What is the biggest culprit for the negative attitude toward the architectural heritage of Yugoslav socialist architecture: the attitude of post-socialist authorities toward this heritage as something unwanted; the emergence of postmodernist architecture which made a banal return to a more classical expression; or the contemporary preoccupation with more energy-efficient buildings? Is it perhaps the aesthetic, which is simply inaccessible to the average user, who requires - but doesn't receive - an educational process in order to understand it? How to understand it, by what sort of thinking, and through what sort of optics? How to raise people's awareness in order for them to understand the buildings in which they live as quality architecture, when these same buildings are often already subject to decay? I've often heard people outside the profession admit that they began to re- gard this architecture in a different, positive light when word got round 15 16 17 Sl. 15: Spomenik Kadinjača v gradnji. Vir: Arhiv Jugoslavije – F112 TANJUG. Sl. 16: Tjentište. Vir: Arhiv Jugoslavije – F112 TANJUG. Sl. 17: Spomenik Bogdana Bogdanovića na sefardskem pokopališču v Beogradu. Vir: Urbanistični zavod Beograda. Fig. 15: Memorial Kadinjača during construction. Source: Archive of Yugoslavia F112 TANJUG Fig. 16: Tjentište. Source: Archive of Yugoslavia F112 TANJUG Fig. 17: Memorial by Bogdan Bogdanović at the Sephardic cemetery. Source: Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade Andrej Strehovec 56 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 1 Ameriško sosesko Pruitt Igoe so zgradili konec petdesetih let. Kmalu po nastanku je začela propa- dati, zato so jo leta 1972 porušili. Teoretik Charles Jencks je trenutek rušitve označil za trenutek, »ko je umrl modernizem« (op. ur.). 1 American neighbourhood Pruitt Igoe was built in the late 1950s. Soon afterwards, it began to fall into disrepair and in 1972, it was demolished as a result. Theoretician Charles Jencks called the moment of demolition "the moment when modernism died" (Ed. Note). Sl. 18: Gradbišče spominskega parka v Čačku. Vir: fotodokumentacija klesarja Momirja Džunića. Sl. 19: Spomenik na Grmeču med gradnjo. Vir: Arhiv Jugoslavije – F112 TANJUG. Fig. 18: Construction site for memorial park in Čačak. Source: photographic records of stonemason Momir Džunić Fig. 19: Monument at Grmeč during construction. Source: Archive of Yugoslavia F112 TANJUG ampak tudi na splošno. Razdrobljenost lahko zvedemo na razkroj socialne države, ki sovpada z degradacijo modernistične arhitekture – in tudi s po- rastom postmodernizma v njegovi najbolj banalni in škodljivi obliki. Javno mnenje danes socialno državo vzporeja z brutalističnimi stanovanj- skimi bloki, bolnišnicami in šolami, bančni in podjetniški sektor pa s pisanim postmodernističnim kičem in dragim hi-techom. Prav tako je v diskurzu o modernistični arhitekturi že dolgo prisotno vprašanje degradacije – post- moderni kritiki je državljane uspelo prepričati, da je degradacija moderni arhitekturi lastna. Celo lepo število modernističnih arhitektov je nekritično ponotranjilo ta najbolj strupeni, škodljivi in – izkazalo se bo – povsem po- tvorjeni segment postmoderne kritike (spomnimo se samo na Pruitt Igoe1), nekateri zaradi neobveščenosti, drugi zaradi pritiskov, nekateri pa prepro- sto zaradi boljše kariere in napredovanja. Vendar imamo na razstavi odlične primere objektov, katerih avtorji so se konstruktivno lotili kritike postmo- dernizma in uspešno uporabili njegova načela na ravni urbane in arhitek- turne forme, na ravni programov in funkcije pa so ostali znotraj prakse in dognanj modernizma, iz katerega so izhajali (Cerak Vinogradi, Blok 19a). Za revijo novosadskega društva za arhitekturo DaNS si napisala članek »Toplotni teror«. Katere so najboljše možnosti za prenovo dediščine socialistične arhitekture, ali je resnično pomemben le energijski koeficient stavbe, četudi to pomeni spreminjanje konstruktivistične estetike stavbe? Verjetno je bila perspektiva prenove tudi eden od vidikov razstave v MoMI? Perspektiva prenove je nakazana skozi posamezne segmente, vendar ni ni- kjer izrecno poudarjena, razen morda skozi besedila v katalogu. Sedanjost pa je prisotna skozi Jeckove fotografije in stanje, v katerem so objekti na njih: tu sta s sodobnimi fotografijami predstavljena Avalski stolp in knjižnica v Prištini, ki je prejela donacijo fundacije Getty, tu je tudi Thalerjeva foto- grafija generalštaba v ruševinah pred rušenjem objekta A. Na ogled je tudi izsek iz dokumentarnega filma o Jasenovcu, na katerem je drastično prika- zana skrajnost grožnje tej zapuščini, tu se kaže skozi manipulacijo glede šte- vila žrtev. Težava ni v tem, da so te betonske zgradbe toplotno neučinkovite ali dotrajane, ampak da ne vemo, kaj bi z njimi. Obstajajo tehnologije, po- nekod bi morali ponovno preučiti nastanek teh struktur ali se posvetovati s strokovnjaki, ki v laboratorijih preučujejo nove rešitve, žal pa z njimi slabo sodelujemo. Ne nazadnje niso vse zgradbe brez izolacije – vendar se potre- be spreminjajo, vse je dotrajano, toplotna izolacija po petdesetih letih tudi about this exhibition. You're right about the modernist aesthetic - like all new and pioneering phenomena, it requires a process of adaptation and educa- tion. However, our public and media sphere provide almost no platform for such processes - not even for relatively more important issues such as health and ecology. The Internet fills this gap to an extent, but not everyone has the same access, and suitable content is often difficult to find and filter through. Nowadays, the policies and measures are fragmented, they depend on indi- viduals who make a stand: conservationists fight for preservation, tenants fight for better housing, and ecologists for energy refurbishment - which is especially problematic and difficult, because it is impossible to achieve with- out a comprehensive approach. In other words, this is the way we are forced to think today - not only when it comes to building but also generally. The fragmentation may be linked to the disintegration of the welfare state, which coincides with the decay of modernist architecture and - who would've thought - the rise of postmodernism in its most banal and harmful form. Today, the public opinion associates welfare state with brutalist blocks of flats, hospitals, and schools while the banking and commercial sector is as- sociated with colourful postmodernist kitsch and expensive high tech. The question of decay has also been a part of the discourse on modernist architec- ture for a long time - postmodern criticism was able to convince the public that decay is inherent to modern architecture. Even a fair number of modern- ist architects have uncritically internalised this toxic, harmful and - as it's bound to transpire - completely fraudulent segment of postmodern criticism (let us cast out minds to Pruitt-Igoe1). Some did it because they were unin- formed, some were pressured into it, and some simply did it for career ad- vancement. Yet the exhibition features excellent examples of buildings whose authors engage in constructive criticism of the postmodern and successfully employ its principles on the level of urban and architectural form, while on the level of programmes and function, they remain within the practices and findings of modernism, which is their origin (Cerak Vinogradi, Block 19a). For the magazine issued by DaNS – Association of Novi Sad Architects, you wrote an article entitled "Thermal Terror". What are the best options for the refurbishment of socialist architecture - is a building's energy efficiency index really the only thing that matters, even though it might mean that the structural aesthetic of the building has been altered? I suppose the refurbishment perspective is one of the aspects of the MoMA exhibition? The refurbishment perspective is indicated in various segments, but it doesn't get explicitly pointed out, except perhaps in the texts in the catalogue. The present situation is accounted for through Jeck's photographs and the state of the buildings depicted: the Avala Tower is exhibited with contemporary photographs, the library in Priština, which received a grant from the Getty 18 19 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 57arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razpade. Problem je, da ta arhitektura še vedno vzbuja nelagodje oblasti postjugoslovanskih (in mnogih drugih) držav ter ostaja spolzka tema, če- prav je bila premagana in »pospravljena« skupaj s politiko, ki jo je porajala. Bolj ko jo prikazujemo kot umazano, čistejše je ogledalo zapravljenih dese- tletij in zgrešenih neoliberalističnih politik. Ali lahko po New Yorku pričakujemo razstavo tudi kje bližje evropskemu občinstvu? Je v prihodnjih letih mogoče pričakovati povečan turistični obisk regije nekdanje Jugoslavije za ogled »eksponatov« v živo? Vendarle ima arhitektura kot umetnost srečo, da je vedno na ogled. Še vedno nimamo zanesljivih informacij o gostovanjih razstave, bilo pa bi odlično, če bi se v kakem formatu pojavila v Evropi, da bi jo lahko videli. Turistov, ki obiskujejo spomenike, primere brutalizma, hotele, nova mesta ..., je v regiji že veliko, trend je v porastu že nekaj let. Med drugim je prite- gnil tudi Stierlija,2 da se je začel zanimati za nekdanjo Jugoslavijo in preso- dil, da je pravi čas, da njeno arhitekturo predstavi občinstvu. Z gledišča re- gije je fascinantno – in verjetno dobro – da tovrstni turizem ostaja na robu uradne turistične ponudbe in se z njo prekriža le, ko gre za informacije o nastanitvi, prevozu ali delovnih časih. Naše turistične organizacije so kronič- no nepripravljene na ta pojav, ker nimajo usposobljenega kadra, in če gre za državne agencije, večinoma ne vedo, kako (smejo) predstaviti to arhitektu- ro. Ponudbe so zato pogosto banalne, od »pornografije ruševin« (ruin porn) do bizarnih poskusov, da bi stanovanjsko arhitekturo SFRJ »prodali« kot del itinerarja evropske totalitarne dediščine. Primere pametnejše in bolj premi- šljene turistične ponudbe lahko naštejem na prste ene roke, kar ni nujno slabo. Turizem bo tej arhitekturi prinesel prepoznavnost, glede na izkušnje iz Evrope pa mislim, da je bolje, da ostane na ravni posameznikov, v lastni režiji. Danes je turizem ekspanzivna industrija, ki pretirano izkorišča vire in za sabo pušča opustošenje. Pomembno je, da se za ohranitev in skrb za živo dediščino borijo lokalne skupnosti in njeni uporabniki. Ali meniš, da lahko razstava odločevalce v državah nekdanje SFRJ spodbudi k aktivnemu ukrepanju, da bi ohranili zapuščino kakovostne jugoslovanske socialistične arhitekture? Upam, da bo tako, če ne zaradi drugega, zato, ker so oči mednarodne in domače javnosti zdaj usmerjene vanjo. Nekateri so že začeli, mislim pa, da bo zdaj šlo hitreje. Institucije niso več pred prej nepremostljivim breme- nom dokazovanja vrednosti te arhitekture – to smo v veliki meri storili z razstavo – enako tudi številni drugi raziskovalci, ki se z jugoslovansko arhi- tekturo ukvarjajo v drugih projektih. Zgodovinska oddaljenost ni več teža- va, od razpada Jugoslavije je minilo več kot trideset let, od zgraditve objek- tov pa še mnogo več, zato je skrajni čas, da se pristojne službe lotijo dela. Za nekatere objekte z razstave obstajajo pobude za zaščito že od zgodnjih devetdesetih, vendar iz številnih razlogov niso bile uspešne. Videli bomo, ali se bo kaj spremenilo (in kdaj). Naselje Cerak Vinogradi (slika 3) je deni- mo januarja 2019 postalo del kulturne dediščine, kar pa ne pomeni, da je zaščiteno pred pritiski glede novogradenj. Foundation, and Thaler's photograph of the General Staff before Building A was consolidated. There is also an excerpt from a documentary on Jasenovac giving the most drastic account of the threat facing this heritage, namely the manipulation of the victim count. The issue is not that these concrete build- ings are thermally inefficient or nearing the end of their service life, but that we don't know what to do with them. There are technologies, with some we'd have to go back and study how these structures were created, in some cases we'd have to talk to experts who are researching new solutions in labs, but unfortunately, the co-operation is far from ideal. And it's not as if all the build- ings lack insulation - but needs change, everything is in disrepair and even thermal insulation falls apart after 50 years. The problem is that this architec- ture still raises fear in post-Yugoslav authorities (and many others) and re- mains a slippery issue even though it was defeated for good, together with the politics which generated it. But the dirtier we can paint it, the cleaner the mirror of wasted decades and misguided neoliberal policies gets. After New York, can we expect the exhibition someplace closer to European audiences? Is the number of tourists visiting the region of ex-Yugoslavia expected to rise in the coming years, for viewing the "exhibits" in the flesh? As art, architecture has the good fortune of always being on display, after all. There is no definitive information regarding a possible tour of the exhibition yet, but it would be great if it appeared in Europe in some form or another so people could see it. There are many tourists visiting monuments, brutal- ist buildings, hotels, new towns etc. in the region, the trend has been on the rise for several years. It was this trend that also attracted Mr Stierli2 to de- velop an interest for ex-Yugoslavia, and he felt that this was the right time to present its architecture to the audience. From the region's perspective, it's fascinating - and probably a good thing - that this kind of tourism re- mains on the fringe of the official tourist offering and the two only really cross paths when it comes to information regarding accommodation, trans- port, or opening hours. Our tourist organisations are perennially ill-pre- pared for such hype because they lack suitably trained staff, and in the case of state agencies, they mostly don't know how they should (or may) present this architecture. The programmes are thus often banal, from ruin porn to bizarre attempts at touting housing architecture of socialist Yugoslavia as part of the European totalitarian heritage itinerary. I can count the smarter and more considered offerings on the fingers of one hand, which is not nec- essarily a bad thing. Tourism will raise the profile of this architecture, and judging from the experience elsewhere in Europe, I think it's better if people continue to make their own arrangements. Today, tourism is an expansive industry which overexploits resources and leaves a trail of devastation be- hind. It's more important that those who struggle for living heritage to be preserved and looked after are the local communities and its users. Do you think that the exhibition can induce decision-makers in ex-Yugoslav states to take active measures to preserve the heritage of quality Yugoslav socialist architecture? I hope it does, if for no other reason because the attention of the interna- tional and domestic public is now focused on it. Some have already begun to act, and I expect the pace to pick up from now on. The institutions are no longer facing the impossible burden of arguing the value of this architec- ture, the exhibition largely took care of that, as did numerous other re- searchers who are dealing with Yugoslav architecture in other projects. The historical distance is no longer a problem, it has been more than 30 years since the break-up of Yugoslavia, and much longer since the buildings were built, so it's high time that the competent authorities got to work. For cer- tain buildings featured in the exhibition, there have been initiatives for their protection ever since the early 1990s, but they have been unsuccessful for many reasons. We'll see if (and when) things change. In January 2019, com- munity Cerak vinogradi (fig. 3) was declared cultural heritage, but this doesn't mean that it's safe from pressures of new development. 2 Martin Stierli je kustos razstave K betonski/konkretni utopiji: Arhitektura v Jugoslaviji 1948–1980 v MoMI (op. ur.). 2 Martin Stierli is the curator of exhibition Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948-1980 in MoMA (Ed. Note) Andrej Strehovec 58 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Neznosna lahkost depolitizacije* / The Unbearable Lightness of Depoliticisation* Sonja Leboš Spomeniki narodnoosvobodilnemu boju in žrtvam fa- šističnega in nacističnega terorja, nastali na območju socialistične Jugoslavije, so že celo desetletje tarča sistematične resemantizacije in resemiotizacije. Vide- ti je, da se je vse to začelo s knjigo Spomenik Jana Kempenaersa, ki jo je leta 2010 izdala amsterdamska založba Roma Publications v sodelovanju z Umetniško akademijo v Gentu. Trdo vezana publikacija s 26 foto- grafijami spomenikov iz vseh šestih nekdanjih sociali- stičnih republik Jugoslavije: Bosne in Hercegovine, Črne gore, Hrvaške, Makedonije, Slovenije in Srbije, se ni le odlično prodajala, objavljene fotografije so obkrožile svet tudi v obliki razstav. V recenziji Kempe- naersove razstave o jugoslovanskih spomenikih v mu- zeju Fowler na eni od najprestižnejših univerz na sve- tu, Kalifornijski univerzi v Los Angelesu, avtorica na primer zapiše: »Kempenaers, ki deluje v Gentu, je iz- šolan fotograf z doktoratom iz vizualnih umetnosti, ki ga je pridobil leta 2011. Zanimata ga urbana in krajin- ska fotografija, v zadnjem času pa tudi abstraktni fo- tografski projekti. Kempenaers spomenikov ne obrav- nava le zaradi njihove družbene vrednosti oziroma kot del nacionalne zakladnice spominov, ampak zaradi njihove estetike in izredne vizualnosti. Fotografije, ki izhajajo iz tega procesa, so umetniško vpadljive in, morda nenamerno, tudi dokumentarne.« Tovrstni komentarji1 za angloameriško recepcijo kul- ture socialistične Jugoslavije niso neznačilni. Angloa- meriški znanstveniki jo pogosto prištevajo v varšavski blok, kar kaže oz. dokazuje, da niti najprestižnejše in- stitucije in ugledne univerze Ivy League niso imune na površnost in potvarjanje. Kempenaersa v resnici ni nikoli zanimala komemorativna etika (in s tem esteti- ka) jugoslovanskih spomenikov: čeprav pozna kon- tekst in avtorje, le bežno omenja lokacije spomenikov in jih označuje s številkami. S tem, da naj bi izhajali s sfere umetnosti in neobstoječe kategorije umetniške apolitičnosti (tu se vedno spomnim definicije s prve strani srednješolskega učbenika marksizma, da je člo- vek politično bitje, aristotelovski zoon politikon, filo- zofske dediščine, brez katere ni demokracije), Kempe- naers uspešno zajaha brutalni val desemantizacije, desemiotizacije in v končni fazi depolitizacije jugoslo- vanskih spomenikov ter jih zvede na pojem pitore- sknega, slikovitega, živopisnega (gre za sopomenke, For an entire decade, monuments to the People's Lib- eration Struggle and the victims of fascist and Nazi terror produced in the territory of socialist Yugosla- via have been the target of systematic resemantisa- tion and resemiotisation. It appears that it all began with the book Spomenik by Jan Kempenaers, pub- lished in 2010 by Roma Publication of Amsterdam in collaboration with Academy of Fine Arts in Ghent. The hardback publication featuring 26 photographs of monuments from all six former socialist republics - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Serbia - was not only a best seller: the photographs toured the world also as exhibitions. In a review of Kempenaers's exhibition on Yugoslav monuments in Fowler Museum on the campus of one of the most prestigious universities in the world, University of California in Los Angeles, the author wrote: "Ghent-based Kempenaers was trained in photography and completed a PhD in visual arts in 2011. Interested in urban and landscape photogra- phy, but also more recently in abstract photographic projects, Kempenaers approaches spomeniks not en- tirely for their social value or national cache of memo- ries but rather for their aesthetics and striking visual- ity. The resulting photographs are artistically striking and, although perhaps unintentionally, documentary as well." Such commentary1 is not out of the ordinary for the Anglo-American reception of the culture of socialist Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is often considered by Anglo- American scientists as part of the Warsaw Bloc, which shows that even the most prestigious and rep- utable Ivy League universities are not immune to negligence and falsification. Kempenaers was in real- ity never interested in the commemorative ethics (and thus aesthetics) of Yugoslav monuments: though familiar with the context and the authors, he only refers to the monuments' locations in passing and marks them with numbers. By allegedly hailing from the art realm and the non-existing category of artistic apoliticality (on such occasions, I always think back to the definition found on page 1 of the second- ary-school Marxism textbook saying that people are political beings, the Aristotelian zoon politikon, the philosophical heritage which is the prerequisite for »Preteklost ni več to, kar je nekoč bila. Danes je kulturna, in ne časovna kategorija.« "The past is no longer what it used to be. Today, it is a cultural and not a temporal category." Boris Buden 1 2 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. * Članek je bil prvotno objavljen na portalu Vizkultura.hr. Nastal je v okviru projekta Vizkulturiranje društva, 2019 (Vizkulturiranje družbe, 2019), ki ga sofinancira Fond za poticanje pluralizma i raznovrsnosti elektroničkih medija Agencije za elektroničke medije (Fond za spodbujanje pluralizma in raznolikosti elektron- skih medijev Agencije za elektronske medije). * The article was originally published on portal Vizkultura.hr. It was written as part of project Vizkulturiranje društva, 2019 ("Visual Culturing of the Society, 2019"), which is co-funded by the Fund for the Promotion of Pluralism and Diversity of Elec- tronic Media of the Agency for Electronic Media. 59arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Sonja Leboš Sl. 1: Naslovnica knjige Spomeniks Jonathana Jimeneza Sl. 2: Izsek iz reklamne kampanje za sončna očala Valley Eyewear. Vir: balkaninsight.com. Sl. 3, 4: Jonathan Jimenez: Spomeniks. Vir: amazon.com. Fig. 1: Title page of the book Spomeniks by Jonathan Jimenez. Fig. 2: Excerpt from the Valley Eyewear sunglasses campaign. Source: balkaninsight.com Figs. 3, 4: Jonathan Jimenez: “Spomeniks”. Source: amazon.com pri katerih pa moramo razmisliti o skupni semantični teži oziroma neznosni lahkosti tega pojma). Kot trdi sam Kempenaers, so njegove raziskave, v letih 2006–2009 izpeljane na območju nekdanje Jugoslavi- je, v veliki meri prispevale k njegovemu doktoratu, za katerega trdi, da temelji na »(...) povezovanju drugih del s kriteriji slikovitega. Najprej sem izbral določeno število bistvenih fotografov, ki so se skozi zgodovino ukvarjali z naravo in krajino. Na podlagi knjig pionirjev, na primer Williama Gilpina, sem skušal ugotoviti, kate- ri od kriterijev se na značilen način prenašajo v vizual- no, na primer v slikarstvo. Končno sem isti pristop upo- rabil pri lastnem delu.«2 Res me preseneča avtorjeva naivnost; bolj jasna postane, če se vprašamo, kdo je William Gilpin. William Gilpin3 je bil anglikanski duhov- nik, umetnik in izobraževalec, ki je ustvaril pojem pic- turesque (slikovit, živopisen). Čeprav je bil nedvomno zanimiva osebnost, med drugim tudi zato, ker je zago- varjal ukinitev telesnega kaznovanja v izobraževalnem sistemu (kar je bilo v Veliki Britaniji še do nedavnega nedosegljiv ideal), pa ostaja pomislek, ali je z naslanja- njem na tega enega in edinega avtorja mogoče napisa- ti kakorkoli resen doktorat iz sodobne vizualne ume- tnosti. S tem namreč problem naivnosti ni več naiven in ni več individualen, torej ni problem Kempenaerso- vega diskurza, ampak postane institucionalen, torej problem institucije, na kateri je mogoče doktorirati z izključnim in nekritičnim sklicevanjem na pojem sliko- vitega, kot si ga je zamislil neki anglikanski duhovnik v začetku 19. stoletja. Zgornja, pogosto površna recepcija kulture na splo- šno in kulture prostora socialistične Jugoslavije se je verjetno do neke mere izboljšala z nedavno razstavo v MoMI,4 val, na katerem jaha Kempenaers, pa osta- ja močan. Tako je bila lansko leto objavljena še ena knjiga, ki sledi uspešnemu receptu depolitizacije; ta v naslovu uporabi nenavadno skovanko »spome- niks« (ki je v širšo rabo prešla iz spremne besede z naslovom Spomeniks: The Monuments of Former Yugoslavia. Introduction to the work of Jan Kempe- naers, ki jo je za Kempenaersovo knjigo napisal Wil- lem Jan Neutelings). Gre za delo Jonathana Jimene- za (založnik: Carpet Bombing Culture (!)) z naslovom, jasno, Spomeniks,5 ki povsem sledi komercialni Kem- penaersovi uspešnici, saj gre spet za trdo vezano knjigo fotografij slikovitih spomenikov socialistične Jugoslavije na 200 straneh. Vladimir Kulić v svojem prispevku Orientalizacija so- cializma: arhitektura, mediji in reprezentacije vzho- dne Evrope (Orientalizing Socialism: Architecture, Media, and the Representations of Eastern Europe)6 govori o orientalizmu tovrstnih postopkov, pojmu, s katerim je Edward Said dekonstruiral (post)koloniali- stične prakse, pri čemer pa Kulić izpostavlja veliko democracy), Kempenaers successfully rides the bru- tal wave of desemantisation, desemiotisation, and ultimately depoliticisation of Yugoslav monuments, which he reduces to the notion of picturesque, sce- nic, colourful (these synonyms compel us to consider the combined semantic weight, or rather the unbear- able lightness, of this notion). Kempenaers himself claims that his research, con- ducted between 2006 and 2009 in the territory of ex-Yugoslavia, significantly contributed to his PhD thesis, which he claims is based on "linking other works to certain criteria of the picturesque. First I se- lected a number of crucial photographers through- out history who were concerned with nature and landscape. On the basis of books by pioneer William Gilpin, I then tried to determine which of those crite- ria were typically conveyed in images like paintings. Afterwards I applied this approach to my own work".2 I'm truly puzzled by the author's naive atti- tude, which is made clearer if we ask ourselves who William Gilpin is. William Gilpin3 is an Anglican priest, artist, and educator, who invented the notion of picturesque. Though certainly an interesting fig- ure, not least because he advocated the abolishment of corporal punishment from the school system (an unattainable ideal for Great Britain until recently), there is still the matter of whether it is possible to write a serious PhD thesis on contemporary visual art based on one and only author. In doing that, the problem of naiveté is no longer naive and no longer individual, i.e. the problem of Kempenaers's dis- course, but it instead becomes institutional, i.e. the problem of the institution from which it is possible to earn a PhD by exclusively and uncritically referring to the notion of the picturesque as defined by an Angli- can priest in the early 18th century. The often superficial reception of culture in general and the culture of the space of socialist Yugoslavia, as above, probably saw a degree of improvement with the recent exhibition in MoMA,4 yet the wave being ridden by Kempenaers continues to stay strong. Last year thus saw the publishing of another book which follows the successful recipe of depoliticisation and uses in its title the peculiar coinage "spomeniks" (which entered wider use via the foreword entitled Spomeniks: The Monuments of Former Yugoslavia. Introduction to the work of Jan Kempenaers, written for Kempenaers's book by Willem Jan Neutelings). The work by Jonathan Jimenez published by Carpet Bombing Culture (!) entitled, obviously, Spomeniks,5 follows closely in the footsteps of Kempenaers's best seller as it is another hardback with 200 pages of pho- tographs of picturesque monuments from socialist Yugoslavia. 1 https://www.academia.edu/7609419/Review_Jan_Kempen- aers_Spomeniks_at_UCLA_Fowler 2 Celoten intervju je dostopen na povezavi https://www.urba- nautica.com/interview/jan-kempenaers-modern-ruins/209. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gilpin_(priest) 4 O njej sem več pisala tukaj: https://vizkultura.hr/fokalne-tocke- jugoslavenske-arhitekture/. 5 https://www.amazon.com/Spomeniks-Jonathan-Jimenez/ dp/1908211687 6 https://journal.eahn.org/articles/10.5334/ah.273/ 1 https://www.academia.edu/7609419/Review_Jan_Kempen- aers_Spomeniks_at_UCLA_Fowler 2 The entire interview is available here: https://www.urbanauti- ca.com/interview/jan-kempenaers-modern-ruins/209. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gilpin_(priest) 4 I discussed it here: https://vizkultura.hr/fokalne-tocke-jugo- slavenske-arhitekture/. 5 https://www.amazon.com/Spomeniks-Jonathan-Jimenez/ dp/1908211687 3 4 60 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razliko: »drugost je tokrat bolj ideološke kot kulturo- loške ali rasne narave«. Ravno ta ideološka naravna- nost konstruiranja čudnosti socialističnega Drugega (v tem primeru socialistične Jugoslavije) je ključna značilnost vsake posledične komercializacije jugo- slovanskih spomenikov. Med nedavne spada rekla- mna kampanja avstralske blagovne znamke sončnih očal Valley Eyewear, v kateri se kot ozadje (sic!) poja- vi cvet Bogdana Bogdanovića iz Jasenovca. Sprožila je plaz zgražanja na družbenih omrežjih (o čemer je pisal tudi BBC).7 Marketinški strokovnjaki Valley Eyeweara trdijo, da so jasenovski cvet preprosto po- mešali z »zapuščenim sedežem komunistične partije v Bolgariji, znanim kot 'Buzludža'«.8 Prav tako je kolektiv Secret Mapping Experiment9 vi- zualno mapiral spomenik Dušana Džamonje vstaji ljudstva Moslavine v Podgariću (spomenik je bil leta 2014 celo na CNN-ovem seznamu najgrših spomeni- kov na svetu!), ki je tako doživel svojevrstno »polep- šanje«. Akcijo so na družbenih omrežjih mnogi poz- dravljali, nisem pa prepričana, kakšni bi bili odzivi, če bi na podoben način, s »poskusom skrivnega mapi- ranja«, projicirali peterokrake zvezde na indijanske toteme ali na skulpture z Velikonočnih otokov. Obstaja tudi spletna prodajalna (za zdaj le za kupce iz ZDA) z imenom Yunicorns.10 Takole pravijo: »Yuni- corns je zgodba o ogromnih betonskih oblikah, ki so jih nekoč davno ustvarili v državi, ki ne obstaja, Jugo- slaviji. Te fantazijske stvore najdemo po gozdovih in gorah po vseh nekdanjih jugoslovanskih pokrajinah.« Takšna pravljično-mitološka konstrukcija je primer ul- timativne depolitizacije socialistične Jugoslavije: nek- danje republike postanejo »pokrajine« (provincije), spomeniki pa so fantazijski stvori. Šele v tretjem stav- ku se avtorji približajo resnici: »Pravzaprav govorimo o spomenikih, ki so bili po drugi svetovni vojni po vsej Jugoslaviji zgrajeni v čast tistih, ki so dali svoja življe- nja za svobodo naroda. Avtorji teh spomenikov so ne- kateri najbolj znani jugoslovanski umetniki in arhitekti tistega časa.« V resnici so ljudje padli za lastno svobo- do in za svobodo svojih bližnjih ter za idejo boljše in pravičnejše družbe, ne pa za »svobodo naroda«. Tako – bližje mitu kot resnici – spletna prodajalna Yuni- corns prodaja, kot trdijo, »ekstrakte lepote jugoslo- vanskih spomenikov« v obliki majic, miniaturic spo- menikov in podobnega. Težava ni v merchandizingu, podobno so delali že v času Jugoslavije, tiskali so raz- glednice, izdelovali značke in še kaj, in vse to se je pro- dajalo; najslabše je ime spletne trgovine, ki kakor da pripoveduje, da je Jugoslavija enako neresnična kot samorogi. V svojem članku Posebni primer spomeni- kov – monumentalne komemorativne skulpture v nek- danji Jugoslaviji med nevidnostjo in popularnostjo (The Peculiar Case of Spomeniks – Monumental Com- memorative Sculpture in Former Yugoslavia Between Invisibility and Popularity)11 dr. Sanja Horvatinčić na- vaja seznam najpogosteje uporabljenih izrazov, ki iz- kušnjo spomenikov, s tem pa tudi izkušnjo socialistič- ne Jugoslavije, z označevalci, kot so fascinantno, zapu- ščeno, futuristično, retrofuturistično, srhljivo, čudovi- to, skrivnostno, nadrealno, teatralno, monumental- no, posebno, izrazito, vsiljivo, presunljivo, vesoljsko, kot svetniški sij (»fascinating«, »abandoned«, »futuri- stic«, »retrofuturistic«, »eerie«, »amazing«, »myste- rious«, »surreal«, »theatrical«, »monumental«, »pe- culiar«, »striking«, »imposing«, »haunting«, »space- In his article "Orientalizing Socialism: Architecture, Media, and the Representations of Eastern Europe",6 Vladimir Kulić discusses the orientalism of such pro- cesses. Orientalism is a term used by Edward Said to deconstruct (post)colonial practices; however, Kulić points out a major difference: "otherness is now more ideological than cultural or racial". It is exactly this ideological predisposition of constructing the strangeness of the socialist Other (in this case social- ist Yugoslavia) that is the key characteristic of each resulting commercialisation of Yugoslav monuments. One of the more recent ones is the ad campaign by Australian sunglasses brand Valley Eyewear, which uses Bogdan Bogdanović's blossom from Jasenovac as its backdrop (sic!). This prompted a wave of out- rage on social media (the story was even picked up by the BBC).7 Valley Eyewear's marketing experts claim that they mistook the Jasenovac blossom for the "abandoned Communist Party headquarters in Bul- garia known as "Buzludzha"." 8 Elsewhere, Secret Mapping Experiment9 collective video-mapped Dušan Džamonja's monument to the uprising of the people of Moslavina in Podgarić (the monument even made CNN's 2014 list of the world's ugliest monuments!), which was in this way subject- ed to peculiar "beautification". The undertaking was met with considerable social-media approval, yet one hesitates to predict the reactions if five-pointed stars were projected onto Native American totems or Easter Island sculptures. There is also a webstore (currently only available to US-based buyers) called Yunicorns.10 The pitch reads: "Yunicorns is a story about giant concrete shapes built once upon a time in the non-existing country of Yugoslavia. These phantasmic creatures can be found in forests, hills and along the countryside of former Yugoslav provinces." Such a fairytale-mytho- logical construction is an example of the ultimate depoliticisation of socialist Yugoslavia: the former republics are turned into "provinces", and the monu- ments become phantasmic creatures. Yunicorns be- gin to approach the truth only in the third sentence: "As a matter of fact, we are talking about monu- ments built in the years following World War II alongside Yugoslavia in glory of all who gave their lives for freedom of the nation. Authors of these me- morials are some of the most renown Yugoslavian artists and architects of the time." In reality, people gave their lives for their own freedom and for the freedom of those dear to them, as well as for the idea of a better and more just society, rather than for the "freedom of the nation". Closer, therefore, to a myth than to the truth, webstore Yunicorns sells, as they claim, "extracts of Yugoslav monuments beau- ty" in the form of T-shirts, miniature sculptures, etc. The problem is not the merchandising, this has a Yugoslav-period precedent with postcards being printed and pins being made alongside other things, and all of it sold. It is the name of the webstore that is the greatest offender, as if to say that Yugoslavia is as unreal as unicorns. In her article "The Peculiar Case of Spomeniks - Monumental Commemorative Sculpture in Former Yugoslavia Between Invisibility and Popularity"11 Dr Sanja Horvatinčić includes a list of the most common expressions which place the ex- perience of the monuments, and by extension the 6 https://journal.eahn.org/articles/10.5334/ah.273/ 7 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44696492 8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBHyO76YKYo. 9 https://www.timeout.com/croatia/news/spectacular-pictures- -of-art-intervention-at-croatian-monument-051419?fbclid=Iw AR1YfzhDoW5zmQxpGBd-U3cTgbJ9_nbSR8CHbQfGWt- 851Wvb26j9k8MgZhI 10 https://www.yunicornshop.com. Ime spletne trgovine je sko- vanka iz angleške besede za samoroga (unicorn) in angleške besede za Jugoslavijo (Yugoslavia) (op. prev.). 11 https://www.academia.edu/3362073/The_Peculiar_Case_of_ Spomeniks_-_Monumental_Commemorative_Sculpture_in_ Former_Yugoslavia_Between_Invisibility_and_Popularity Sl. 5, 6: Secret Mapping Experiment. Vir: timeout.com. Sl. 7, 8, 9: Iz ponudbe spletne trgovine Yunicorn. Vir: yunicornshop.com. Figs. 5, 6: Secret Mapping Experiment. Source: timeout.com Figs. 7, 8, 9: A selection of wares from yunicorn webstore. Source: yunicornshop.com 5 6 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 61arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Sonja Leboš -age«, »Halo-esque«), uvrščajo v sfero čudnega, pre- senetljivega, skrivnostnega, nadrealnega, teatralnega itd., ne pa v sfero zgodovinskih dejstev. Kot poudarja Kulić, se trend depolitizacije kulture spo- menikov socialistične Jugoslavije in socializma ni začel s Kempenaersom. Kulić trdi, da je bil »zeitgeist zrel«, in navaja nekaj naslovov, ki so bili objavljeni približno hkrati s Kempenaersovo knjigo: Socialist Modernism (2011, avtor Roman Bezjak, izšlo pri berlinski založbi Hatje Cantz Verlag), Socialist Architecture: The Vanis- hing Act (2012, avtorja Armin Linke in Srdjan Jovano- vic Weiss, izšlo pri züriški založbi JRP-Ringier) ter For- get Your Past, Communist Era Monuments in Bulgaria (2012, avtor Nikola Mihov, izšlo pri plovdivski založbi Janet-45 Print and Publishing). Govoriti o socialistični arhitekturi skozi optiko »izgu- bljenega«, »zapuščenega« oziroma nečesa »v nasta- janju« sicer ni tako daleč od resnice, če pa se želimo približati zgodovinskim dejstvom, moramo vseeno pogosteje in glasneje poudarjati, da gre za sistematič- no uničevanje: številni spomeniki niso »izgubljeni« ali »zapuščeni«, ampak se jih sistemsko in sistematično uničuje. Začnemo lahko z divjaško uničenim spomeni- kom vstaji slavonskega naroda v Kamenski kiparja Voji- na Bakića, nadaljujemo pa z vsemi ostalimi dragocenimi in ogroženimi spomeniki, med drugim s številnimi deli Bogdanovića in drugih (tudi neimenovanih) avtorjev. Njihova dela so na udaru (ne pozabimo) (ne)uradne po- litike ponarejanja in pohabljanja zgodovine, ki se med drugim izvaja tudi skozi izobraževalni sistem; ta zanam- ce dejansko vzgaja tako, da bodo spomeniško dediščino NOB, pa tudi vse ostale dosežke socializma v najslab- šem primeru še naprej uničevali, v boljšem primeru pa zanemarjali ali »izgubljali«. Strokovna literatura, v kateri je socializem pogosto naveden kot fenomen, ki ga je mogoče pojasnjevati izključno skozi predpono »post«, ni toliko vplivala na uradne tranzicijske politike pozabljanja socialistične preteklosti v danes (domnevno) neodvisnih republi- kah, naslednicah socialistične Jugoslavije, kolikor je k temu pripomogla uradna politika EU o dveh totalita- rizmih. Leta 2008 je skupina konservativnih vzhodno- evropskih politikov (ki so bili v svojih matičnih drža- vah tako kot tudi številni člani HDZ-ja še predvčeraj- šnjim vidni člani komunistične partije, če ne sami, pa njihovi očetje) v češkem parlamentu podpisala pra- ško deklaracijo o evropski zavesti in komunizmu. Podpisniki deklaracije so razglasili, da imajo »milijoni žrtev komunizma in njihove družine pravico do soču- tja, razumevanja in priznanja njihovega trpljenja«. Povsem bi se strinjala z njimi, še posebej zato, ker sem kot dijakinja v Pragi spoznala situacijo na Češko- slovaškem v osemdesetih in željo praških študentov, da bi odvrgli svoj del jarma hladne vojne v obliki Var- šavskega pakta. Toda deklaracija se nadaljuje z bese- dami »na enak način, kot so moralno in politično prepoznane žrtve nacizma« ter z izjavo, da je treba vzpostaviti »vseevropski sporazum (...), da je treba številne zločine v imenu komunizma prevprašati kot zločine proti človeštvu (...), na enak način, kot so na- cistične zločine obravnavali na nürnberškem sodi- šču«. Nikomur pri zdravi pameti (in še manj zavedne- mu) zanikanje zločinov seveda ne bi smelo pasti na pamet. Poleg ustvarjanja pogojev za državljansko vojno z drugimi sredstvi v Evropi pa je izenačevanje nacističnih in komunističnih zločinov dobra krinka za experience of socialist Yugoslavia - using signifiers such as “fascinating”, “abandoned”, “futuristic”, “retrofuturistic”, “eerie”, “amazing”, “mysterious”, “surreal”, “theatrical”, “monumental”, “peculiar”, “striking”, “imposing”, “haunting”, “space-age”, “Halo-esque” - in the realm of the weird, the per- plexing, the mysterious, the surreal, the theatrical, etc., but not in the realm of historical fact. As emphasised by Kulić, the trend of depoliticising the culture of the monuments of socialist Yugosla- via and socialism did not begin with Kempenaers. Kulić claims that the "Zeitgeist was certainly ripe" and references several titles published roughly con- currently with Kempenaers's book: Socialist Mod- ernism (2011, author Roman Bezjak, published by Hatje Cantz, Berlin), Socialist Architecture: The Van- ishing Act (2012, authors Armin Linke in Srdjan Jo- vanovic Weiss, published by JRP-Ringier, Zurich), and Forget Your Past, Communist Era Monuments in Bulgaria (2012, author Nikola Mihov, published by Janet-45 Print and Publishing, Plovdiv). The discourse on socialist architecture through the optics of the "lost", the "neglected", or something "in the making" is not dramatically far from the truth if we want to get closer to historical facts, but it needs to be stressed with increasing frequency and assertion that the issue is systematic destruc- tion: numerous monuments are not "lost" or "ne- glected" but systemically and systematically de- stroyed. We can start with the savagely demol- ished monument to the to the uprising of Slavonian people in Kamenska by sculptor Vojin Bakić, and continue with all the other precious and endan- gered monuments, including many works by Bogdanović, as well as those by all the other au- thors, including unnamed ones. Let us not forget that their works are under siege in the name of (un)official policy of falsification and distortion of history, which is being carried out, among others means, through the educational system that is ac- tually teaching the posterity to - in a worst-case scenario - continue to destroy or, more optimisti- cally, to continue to "neglect" and "lose" the monu- ment heritage of the People's Liberation Struggle, as well as all the other achievements of socialism. Specialised literature, in which socialism is often re- ferred to as a phenomenon only explainable through the prefix "post-", did not affect the official transition policies of forgetting the socialist past in the present-day (nominally) independent republics descended from socialist Yugoslavia as much as the official EU policy of two totalitarianisms did. In 2008, a group of conservative Eastern European politicians (who, like so many members of Croatian Democratic Union, only yesterday still figured - or their fathers did - as prominent members of the Communist Party in their respective states) signed the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism in the Czech parliament. Those undersigned proclaimed that "millions of victims of Communism and their families are entitled to enjoy justice, sympathy, understanding and recognition for their sufferings". I'd go along with that com- pletely, especially because as a secondary-school student in Prague, I'm familiar with the situation in Czechoslovakia in the 1980s and the desire of 7 8 9 62 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 nadaljnje ropanje virov nekdanjega vzhoda, vključno z državami nekdanje Jugoslavije, ki so sicer vzhodne- mu (oziroma sovjetskemu) bloku v hladni vojni pripa- dale le zelo kratek čas. Naslednice Jugoslavije bi morale bolje poznati svojo zgodovino, razlike med obdobjema Federativne ljud- ske republike Jugoslavije (1945–1963) in Socialistič- ne federativne republike Jugoslavije (1963–1992), pa tudi razlike med državami, ki so bile hočeš nočeš (kot na primer Češkoslovaška, ki so jo leta 1968 do- besedno okupirali s tanki) članice Varšavskega pakta, in državami, ki so zasnovale gibanje neuvrščenih, kot je bila socialistična Jugoslavija. Dokler se kanadsko podjetje pripravlja na fracking (hidravlično drobljenje) na več kot dveh tretjinah ozemlja domnevno svobodne Hrvaške, nemška pod- jetja pa gradijo hidroelektrarne na skoraj vsaki rečici v Bosni in Hercegovini, je vloga dediščine spomeni- kov socialistične Jugoslavije zvedena na eno od oro- dij trgovskega razreda, eno od mnogih za zatiskanje oči, izigravanje ustavne ureditve, opuščanje vseh oblik pravne države in vse druge vsakodnevne »ma- lenkosti«, s katerimi se soočajo državljani vseh nek- danjih republik socialistične Jugoslavije, z manjšimi in večjimi podobnostmi in razlikami. Ustavitev depo- litizacije protifašističnih spomenikov na območju nekdanje Jugoslavije pomeni tudi ustavljanje poho- da fašizma in s tem tudi trgovskega kapitalizma. Toda to ni v interesu trgovskega razreda. Položitev venca na Sutjeski je gesta umirjanja lastne, pa tudi tuje vesti. Nihče ne more imeti čiste vesti v deželi, katere reke in podtalnica so zastrupljene. Te namreč ne poznajo državnih in nacionalnih meja. Spomeniki, kot so Bogdanovićevi ali Džamonjevi, bi v kakem distopičnem scenariju res lahko postali fan- tazmični totemi, kamnite priče, ki bodo preživele ljudi, ki so verjeli, da kri ni voda, pozabili pa so, da brez vode ni (niti njihovega lastnega) življenja. V vsem tem vloga diskurzov o slikovitem in apolitič- nem ni majhna. Pa vseeno so posamezna imena manj zanimiva od močnih institucij, ki ta imena ustvarjajo in jih razglašajo za globalna. Prague students to throw off their share of the shack- les of the Cold War in the shape of the Warsaw Pact. However, the Declaration continues with "in the same way as the victims of Nazism have been morally and politically recognized" and a call for "an all-European understanding [...] that many crimes committed in the name of Communism should be assessed as crimes against humanity [...] in the same way Nazi crimes were assessed by the Nuremberg Tribunal". No conscious (and much less conscientious) person would dream of denying the crimes. However, along with the conditions for a civil war fought by other means in Eu- rope, equating Nazi and communist crimes acts as a perfect smokescreen for further ruthless exploitation of resources from the erstwhile East, including the ex- Yugoslav states, which only belonged to the Eastern (or rather Soviet) Block during the cold war for a very short period of time. Yugoslav successor states should be more aware of their history, of the difference between the era of Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1963) and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1963– 1992), and the difference between states who had no say in belonging to the Warsaw Pact (such as Czechoslovakia, which was literally occupied by tanks in 1968) and states who founded the Non- aligned Movement, such as socialist Yugoslavia. As long as a Canadian company is getting ready to commence fracking on more than two thirds of the territory of the supposedly free Croatia, and German companies are building hydro plants on almost every rivulet in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the role of the monument heritage of socialist Yugoslavia is reduced to one of the tools in the hands of the dealer class, one of the many schemes for turning a blind eye, per- verting the constitutional order, evacuating all forms of the rule of law, and all other everyday "trifling matters" facing the citizens of all former republics of socialist Yugoslavia, with similarities and differences great and small. Putting a stop to the depoliticisation of antifascist monuments in the territory of ex-Yugo- slavia also means throwing a spanner in the works of the strident fascism and, by corollary, of dealer capi- talism. But this is not in the interest of the dealer class. Laying one wreath on the Sutjeska is a gesture of pacifying one's own, but also others' conscious- ness. No one will have a clear conscience on the land whose rivers and groundwater are poisoned, for they do not recognise state and national borders. In a dystopian scenario, monuments such as those by Bogdanović or Džamonja could really become phantasmic totems, stone witnesses that would out- live people who believed that blood is thicker than water but forgot that without water, there is no life (not even their own). In all of this, the role of discourses and the apolitical is not minor. Still, individual names are less interest- ing than strong institutions which create these names and establish them as global. Sl. 10: Spomenik vstaji ljudstva Banije in Korduna avtorja Vojina Bakića na Petrovi gori. Foto: Valentin Jeck za muzej MoMA. Fig. 10: Monument to the uprising of the people of Banija and Kordun on Petrova gora by Vojin Bakić. Photo: Valentin Jeck for Museum MoMA. 10 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 63arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Plečnikovi spomeniki NOB / Plečnik's Monuments to People's Liberation Struggle Andrej Hrausky Andrej Hrausky Plečnik in nova oblast Danes večkrat naletimo na mnenje, da naš največji arhitekt Jože Plečnik kot veren katolik po drugi sve- tovni vojni ni bil po volji novi socialistični oblasti. Da- mjan Prelovšek v knjigi Jože Plečnik: Arhitektura več- nosti zapiše: »V zadnjem desetletju življenja je arhi- tekt dočakal najtrša leta komunizma s stopnjevano gonjo proti Cerkvi.« Peter Krečič pa zadnje poglavje svoje knjige Plečnik: Živeti za popolnost naslavlja z »Umetnik, tujec v novem času«. Zato se čudimo, da je Plečnik sploh načrtoval spomenike NOB. Vendar določeni dokumenti kažejo, da stvari niso bile tako preproste in enoznačne. Slovenski politiki so bili takoj po zmagi polni elana in ambicij o izgradnji nove države. Načrtovali so nov parlament in poglobitev železnicev Ljubljani, Prešer- nov spomenik v Vrbi in druge smele projekte. V tem obdobju je bil Plečnik še vedno nesporno najugle- dnejši slovenski arhitekt, profesor in akademik. Pod- piral ga je predvsem Ferdo Kozak, tedanji predsednik skupščine, za katerega družino je Plečnik že pred vojno zasnoval nekaj pohištva in nagrobnik na Žalah. Kozak je želel pritegniti Plečnika k državnim projek- tom in ga vzpostaviti kot arhitekta nove države, a leta 1948 je s sporom z informbirojem nastopila streznitev. Sovjeti so preklicali že odobrene kredite in vsi načrti so zastali. Po tej prvi krizi pa se je cen- tralna oblast v Beogradu okrepila in se zavedela, da so največja nevarnost novi državi nacionalizmi posa- meznih jugoslovanskih narodov. Vsi projekti, ki so krepili narodovo zavest, so tako postali nezaželeni. Veliki spomenik Francetu Prešernu, ki so ga po Pleč- nikovih načrtih nameravali postaviti v Vrbi, nenado- ma ni bil več primeren. Prenovljena knjižnica – NUK, ki so jo na Prešernov dan leta 1947 svečano odprli ob prisotnosti najvidnejših slovenskih politikov, je bila iz nacionalne kmalu degradirana v univerzitetno knjižnico. Tudi gradnja novega parlamenta je bila preklicana in prestavljena v boljše čase. Ko so se pro- jekta pozneje ponovno lotili, pa je bil Plečnik že pre- star, saj je leta 1952 dopolnil 80 let. Da je imel Plečnik podporo najvišjih političnih velja- kov, lahko sklepamo tudi po zapisnikih sej Univerzite- tnega komiteja Komunistične partije Slovenije. Za sejo 28. novembra 1946 lahko preberemo: »Plečniko- vi arhitekti so šli preko Ljudske mladine Slovenije in priredili brucovski večer z vsem starim dnevnim re- dom. Komunisti tega niso znali preprečiti.« V zapisni- ku s 4. decembra 1946 piše: »Aktiv komunistov misli, da je najbolje, da bi Plečnika upokojili, da bi s tem iz- ginil na arhitekturi njegov magični vpliv, ki mu študen- tje zapadejo.« Po tem se je nekdo postavil Plečniku v Plečnik in and the new authorities An opinion often encountered these days is that our greatest architect, Jože Plečnik, a practising Catho- lic, was not held in favour by the new socialist au- thorities after World War 2. In his book Jože Plečnik: Arhitektura večnosti (Jože Plečnik: The Architecture of Eternity), Damjan Prelovšek writes: "In the last decade of his life, the architect experienced the pe- riod of the most austere Communism marked with an increasingly aggressive anti-Church attitudes." Peter Krečič titled the final chapter of his book Plečnik: Živeti za popolnost (Plečnik: Living for Per- fection) "The artist, a stranger in a new time". It is puzzling, therefore, that Plečnik designed monu- ments to People's Liberation Struggle (NOB) at all. Certain documents suggest, however, that matters were not so simple and singular. Immediately after the victory, Slovene politicians were full of enthusiasm and ambition regarding the construction of the new state. In Ljubljana, they planned a new parliament building and a cut-and- cover for the railway; in Vrba, a monument to France Prešeren; as well as further audacious projects. In this period, Plečnik was still indisputably the most es- teemed Slovene architect, professor and academic. His chief supporter was Ferdo Kozak, the then-presi- dent of the People's Assembly, for whose family Plečnik had designed some furniture and the tomb- stone at Žale cemetery already before the war. Kozak wanted to have Plečnik on board for various state projects and establish him as the architect to the new state, but the 1948 schism with the Soviet Union put an abrupt stop to these ideas as the Soviets reneged on the already approved loans and all plans were halted. After this first crisis, more power went to the central authorities in Belgrade, which recognised that the nationalisms of the individual Yugoslav peo- ples posed the greatest threat to the new state. Any project affirming ethnic consciousness was undesira- ble. The great monument to poet France Prešeren, which was to be erected in Vrba after Plečnik's de- signs, was suddenly deemed inappropriate. The ren- ovated National University Library, whose grand opening was held on Prešeren Day in 1947 and at- tended by all the top Slovene politicians, was soon demoted to being only University Library. The con- struction of the new parliament building was also cancelled and postponed until a more favourable time. When the project was later revisited, Plečnik was already too old, having turned 80 in 1952. Minutes of the sessions of the University Committee of the Communist Party of Slovenia serve as another Sl. 1: Vabilo na proslavo Plečnikove 80-letnice. Vir: arhiv MGML. Sl. 2: Preoblikovana zvezda na spominski plošči, posvečeni ustanovitvi glavnega poveljstva slovenskih partizanskih čet, v Šiški. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Fig. 1: Invitation to the celebration of Plečnik's 80th birthday. Source: Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana (MGML) archive Fig. 2: Metamorphosed star on the memorial plaque to the establishment of the High Command of Slovene Partisan units in Šiška. Photo: AH 1 2 64 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 bran, saj že v zapisniku seje 19. februarja 1947 bere- mo: »Glavni intrigant med profesorji je prof. Ravnikar, ki razdor neprestano poglablja. Usmeriti je treba mnenje študentske partijske organizacije tako, da bo Mihevc postavljen za profesorja od Centralnega komi- teja in naj ga smatrajo kot takega.« Razumemo lahko, da je bil profesor Edo Mihevc postavljen po nalogu najvišjega partijskega vrha, da bi nevtraliziral Edvarda Ravnikarja in s tem branil Plečnika. To potrjuje tudi anekdota o tem, kako je Rajonski ljudski odbor Trnovo sklenil v Plečnikovo hišo naseliti družino brez stanova- nja, Mihevc pa si je nadel partizansko oficirsko unifor- mo in s pištolo prišel na odbor ter namero preprečil. Že 2. avgusta 1946 je Plečnik dobil pismo Akademije znanosti in umetnosti o stanovanjski zaščiti, ki jo ima kot akademik. O naklonjenosti nove oblasti do Plečnika priča tudi odločba Akademije znanosti in umetnosti, v kateri mu predsednik France Kidrič sporoča, da mu bodo od 1. avgusta 1948 izplačevali stalno nagrado v višini 5000 dinarjev. Dan prej pa je Plečnik dobil potrdilo Predsedstva vlade Ljudske republike Slovenije, da je upravičen do uporabe magazina v Gosposki ulici 7. V času, ko je vsega primanjkovalo in so bile glavne do- brine na karte, so se privilegiranci lahko oskrbovali v posebnih magazinih. Leta 1949 je Plečnik kot prvi slovenski arhitekt1 prejel Prešernovo nagrado, in sicer za projekt monumental- ne palače Ljudske skupščine LRS ter za vrsto spomeni- kov NOB pri nas, v Splitu in Kraljevu. Novembra 1950 je Jože Potrč, minister za znanost in kulturo, podpisal odločbo, da se tovarišu Josipu Plečniku, takrat se je bližal svojemu 79. rojstnemu dnevu, uslužbensko raz- merje podaljša, »ker je ustanovi kot izreden strokov- njak nujno potreben«. Julija 1951 je rektor Tehniške visoke šole Plečniku izdal odločbo, da se mu prizna poseben dodatek 1.020 dinarjev, ker izvaja »prekour- no visoko kvalitetno delo pri poučevanju predmeta Arhitekturno risanje in kompozicija«. 23. januarja 1952 ob pol devetih je bila v filharmoniji proslava 80-letnice Jožeta Plečnika. Slavnostna govornika sta bila predsednik skupščine LRS Ferdo Kozak in profesor Marjan Mušič. Istega dne ob pol dvanajstih so v slav- nostni dvorani Univerze v Ljubljani Plečniku podelili častni doktorat. Ne spomnim se, da bi bil še kateri slo- venski arhitekt za osemdeseti rojstni dan deležen take pozornosti. Februarja 1952 je Plečnik prejel še drugo Prešernovo nagrado, za »dosedanje delo na področju arhitekture«. 1 Drugi arhitekt, ki je prejel Prešernovo nagrado, je bil leta 1959 Branko Simčič; nagrajen je bil za stavbo Gospodarskega razsta- višča v Ljubljani. indication that Plečnik enjoyed the support of the highest political dignitaries. An excerpt from the ses- sion held on 28th November 1946 reads: "Plečnik's architects ignored the People's Youth of Slovenia and organised an evening for freshmen with the old pro- gramme intact. The Communists did not find a way to prevent this." Minutes from 4th December 1946 read thus: "The Communists' work group argues that Plečnik should be pensioned off in order to rid the ar- chitecture course of his magical influence, which the students tend to fall under." After that, someone stood up for Plečnik, considering the minutes from the session held on 19th February 1947: "The main stirrer among the lecturers is Prof. Ravnikar, who keeps exacerbating the rift. The opinion of the Stu- dent's Communist Party Organisation should be di- rected so as to have Mihevc installed as professor by the Central Committee, and him being regarded as such, too." This is to be understood in the sense that Professor Edo Mihevc was made professor by decree from the top Party echelon in order to neutralise Ed- vard Ravnikar and thereby come to Plečnik's defence. This is further confirmed by an anecdote when the District People's Committee of Trnovo decided that Plečnik's house should be used to put up a family without housing. Mihevc came to a session of the Committee wearing his Partisan uniform and carry- ing a pistol, preventing the scheme. Already on 2nd August 1946, Plečnik received a letter from the Acad- emy of Sciences and Arts regarding housing protec- tion pertaining to his being an academic. The good will from the authorities enjoyed by Plečnik is further indicated by a decision adopted by the Academy of Arts and Sciences in which the Acade- my's president France Kidrič communicates to Plečnik that he is to receive a standing consideration of 5,000 Dinars starting on 1st August 1948. The previous day, Plečnik also received a certificate from the Presiden- cy of the Government of the People's Republic of Slo- venia allowing him to use the convenience store in 7 Gosposka Street. In the times of general privation when key commodities were rationed, the privileged could get their supplies in special stores. In 1949, as the first Slovene architect,1 Plečnik re- ceived the Prešeren Prize for the monumental Peo- ple's Assembly palace project and a series of NOB monuments in Slovenia, Split, and Kraljevo. In No- vember 1950, Jože Potrč, Minister of Science and Cul- ture, signed a decision to "extend the employment status of comrade Plečnik Josip", who was then near- ing his 79th birthday, "as the institution is in critical need of his exceptional expert service". In July 1951, the rector of Technical College issued a decision awarding Plečnik a special bonus of 1,020 Dinars for performing "overtime work of great excellence in teaching Architectural Drawing and Composition". On 23rd January 1952 at 8.30 a.m., a celebration of Jože Plečnik's 80th anniversary was held in the Phil- harmonic Building, with formal addresses by presi- dent of the People's Assembly, Ferdo Kozak, and Pro- fessor Marjan Mušič. On the same day at 11.30 a.m., 1 The second architect to receive the Prešeren Prize was Branko Simčič in 1959 in recognition of the Ljubljana Trade Fairground. Sl. 3: Okrašena zvezda na spomeniku na Brezovici. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Sl. 4: Interpretacija zvezde na spomeniku v Štepanji vasi. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Sl. 5: Krogla na natečajnem osnutku za Gutenbergov spomenik na Dunaju iz leta 1897. Vir: arhiv MGML. Fig. 3: Decorated star on the monument in Brezovica. Photo: AH Fig. 4: Interpretation of the star on the monument in Štepanja vas. Photo: AH Fig. 5: Sphere on the competition draft for Gutenberg monument in Vienna, 1897. Source: MGML archive 3 4 5 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 65arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Andrej Hrausky Zdi se mi primerno omeniti tudi to, da so Plečniku po- slali tudi odločbo o upokojitvi s 30. junijem 1957 – ko bi bil star že 85 let. Že naslednjega dne, torej 1. julija 1957, naj bi ga zaposlila Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, »v dosedanjem nazivu in z dosedanjo temeljno ter dopolnitveno plačo«. Takrat je prejemal 23.000 din temeljne plače in 12.000 din dopolnilne plače. To se ni zgodilo, saj je Plečnik umrl že prej, 7. januarja 1957. Vsi ti dokumenti kažejo bolj na to, da si je oblast z naročili, nagradami in privilegiji skušala pri- dobiti Plečnika na svojo stran, kot pa na to, da so ga zaradi politične neprimernosti potiskali vstran. Skrb za kakovost spomenikov Takoj po koncu vojne so krajevni odbori pričeli kar tekmovati med seboj, kje vse bodo postavili spomin- ska obeležja in spomenike NOB. Kmalu se je pokaza- lo, da bi mnogi delo zaupali lokalnim umetnikom in naivcem. Oblast se je tega zavedala in že septembra leta 1945 je narodnoosvobodilni odbor mesta Lju- bljana imenoval komisijo za postavitev spomenikov padlim v narodnoosvobodilnem boju. Ta naj bi potr- jevala osnutke spomenikov in skrbela za njihovo ka- kovost. Vanjo so bili imenovani književnik Fran Al- breht (predsednik), kipar Boris Kalin, arhitekti Edo Mihevc, Boris Kobe, Jože Plečnik in Nikolaj Bežek ter Stane Mikuž, referent za varstvo spomenikov pri mi- nistrstvu za prosveto. Kot običajno se je Plečnik vlju- dno izognil tudi temu imenovanju: »Za to drago mi pozornost blagovoljite sprejeti najlepšo zahvalo, obenem pa tudi prošnjo, da me odvežete dolžnosti ustreči temu imenovanju. Obolela mi je neprijetno leva noga …« Plečnik je iz komisije sicer izstopil, zato pa je na šoli s pomočjo svojih učencev pričel risati osnutke spomenikov NOB. Iz vse Slovenije so se v Ljubljano stekali predstavniki okrajnih odborov z osnutki in mnoge je komisija zavrnila. Kmalu pa se je razvedelo, da na šoli za arhitekturo profesor Plečnik izdeluje načrte, ki vedno dobijo soglasje sicer stroge komisije. In kar je bilo še posebej pomembno, profe- sor je načrte risal zastonj. Če so na šoli sprva risali načrte po naročilu, so sčasoma izdelali cel katalog projektov in krajevni odposlanci so lahko izbirali. V Litiji so med prebivalci izvedli celo anketo za izbor enega izmed treh osnutkov, ki so bili razstavljeni v izložbi v središču mesta. Tudi za Borovnico je Plečnik narisal tri osnutke, da je krajevni odbor lahko izbiral. Po sporu s Stalinom leta 1948 so kulturni vplivi sov- jetskega socialističnega realizma postali nezaželeni. Takrat je vloga komisije za spomenike NOB postala še pomembnejša, saj je slednja pazila tudi na to, da je preprečevala sovjetski vpliv. Plečnik was awarded a honorary doctorate in the ceremonial hall of the University of Ljubljana. I don't recall any other Slovene architect receiving such at- tention for his 80th birthday. In February 1952, Plečnik was awarded his second Prešeren Prize for "the body of work to date in the field of architecture". It seems appropriate to mention that Plečnik was sent a notice of retirement effective on 30th June 1957 - when he would be 85 years old. The very next day, on 1st July 1957, he was to be employed by Slo- vene Academy of Sciences and Arts "in the current title with the current basic salary and bonuses". At the time, he was earning 23,000 Dinars basic salary with a 12,000 Dinar bonus. This never happened as Plečnik died earlier, on 7th January 1957. All these documents suggest that the authorities tried to win Plečnik over with commissions, prizes, and privileges rather than to sideline him due to him being politi- cally unsuitable. Concern for the quality of the monuments Immediately after the end of the war, district com- mittees tried to outdo one another as to where they would erect NOB memorials and monuments. It soon transpired that many were going to seek commis- sions from local or naive artists. The authorities were aware of this and as early as September 1945, the City People's Liberation Council of the City of Ljublja- na appointed a committee for the erection of monu- ments to the casualties of NOB. It was to approve the drafts for the monuments and assure their quality. The appointees were author Franc Albreht as chair, with members: sculptor Boris Kalin, and architects Edo Mihevc, Boris Kobe, Jože Plečnik, Nikolaj Bežek, with Stane Mikuž, officer for the protection of monu- ments at the Ministry of Education. Typically for Plečnik, he respectfully declined the nomination: "You are kindly requested to accept my utmost grati- tude for the much appreciated recognition, however I must ask you to be relieved of the duty to honour this nomination. I have been inopportunely indis- posed due to my bad left leg." Though he resigned from the committee, Plečnik began to prepare drafts of NOB monuments at the school together with his students. Representatives of district committees flocked to Ljubljana from far and wide, presenting their own drafts, and many were rejected by the commission. Soon, word got round that at the school of architecture, Professor Plečnik is creating designs which are invariably approved by the otherwise very strict committee. And what was particularly impor- tant, the professor was making these designs free of charge. At first, the school took commissions for de- signs but eventually, they produced an entire cata- logue of projects and the district emissaries were able to choose among them. In Litija, a survey was made among the population who had a choice be- tween three drafts which were exhibited in a window in the centre of the town. Plečnik also produced three drafts for Borovnica for the district committee to take their pick. After the break with Stalin in 1948, cultural influences from Soviet socialist realism became un- desirable. The role of the committee for NOB monu- ments grew even more important with the responsi- bility for preventing Soviet influence. Sl. 6: Prvi načrt za spomenik padlim v prvi svetovni vojni v Breznici. Vir: NUK. Sl. 7: Nerealizirani načrt za spomenik NOB v Cerknem. Vir: arhiv MGML. Fig. 6: Original draft for the monument to casualties of WW1 in Breznica. Source: National University Library Fig. 7: Unrealised design for a NOB monument in Cerkno. Source: MGML archive 6 7 66 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Po Plečnikovih načrtih je bilo zgrajenih 21 spomeni- kov NOB: v Bizoviku (1950–1952), na Bregu pri Bo- rovnici (1951), Brezovici (1949–1951), v Črni pri Me- žici (1952), na Golem nad Igom (1951), v Zgornjih Gorjah pri Bledu (1951), v Laškem (1951), Litiji (1950–1951), Mežici (1952), Novem mestu (1956), Polhovem Gradcu (1950–1952), Radečah (1952), Ribnem pri Bledu (1946–1947), Selški dolini (1949– 1950), Sevnici (1958),2 Srpenici (1950–1951), Sv. Tro- jici v Slovenskih goricah (1950), Štepanji vasi (1949– 1950), Trnovem (1951–1954), Veliki Bučni vasi (1950–1951) in Vipavi (1950–1952). V ta okvir bi lahko uvrstili tudi spomenik Osvobodilni fronti pred Vidmarjevo vilo v Rožni dolini (1951) in spominsko ploščo, posvečeno ustanovitvi glavnega poveljstva slovenskih partizanskih čet, v Šiški (1949–1953). Spomenik kot preseganje časa Plečnik je arhitekturo pojmoval kot tisto umetnost, ki je, odkar se je človek zavedel svoje minljivosti, simbol- no presegala čas. Zanj je bila architectura perennis (kar je tudi naslov njegove knjige iz leta 1941), simbol- no sporočilo prihodnjim rodovom. Pri Ottu Wagnerju na Dunaju so bile še vedno aktualne misli Gottfrieda Semperja. Njegova teorija o menjavi materialov uči, da so bili nekoč antični templji leseni, pozneje pa so les zaradi trajnosti zamenjali s kamnom. Vendar so oblike lesnih zvez, ki so bile nekoč potrebne, prenesli v kamen, čeprav v novem gradivu niso bile potrebne – ostale so kot simbolni okras. Lesena gradnja ni bila trajna, zato pa je bila bolj prilagodljiva različnim nači- nom uporabe, kamnite stavbe pa so bile trajnejše, a manj fleksibilne. Tako je simbolna vrednost objekta Twenty-one NOB monuments were built based on Plečnik's designs: Bizovik (1950-1952), Breg pri Borovnici (1951), Brezovica (1949-51), Črna near Mežica (1952), Golo above Ig (1951), Zgornje Gorje near Bled (1951), Laško (1951), Litija (1950-51), Mežica (1952), Novo mesto (1956), Polhov Gradec (1950-52), Radeče (1952), Ribno near Bled (1946- 47), Selška Valley (1949-50), Sevnica (1958),2 Srpeni- ca (1950-51), Sv. Trojica v Slovenskih Goricah (1950), Štepanja vas (1949-50), Trnovo (1951-54), Velika Bučna vas (1950-51), and Vipava (1950-52). The monument to the Liberation Front in front of Vidmar House in Rožna dolina (1951) and the memorial plaque to the establishment of the High Command of Slovene Partisan units in Šiška (1949-53) can also be included in this context. A monument as a means of transcending time Plečnik considered architecture as the art which, ever since people became aware of their transience, symbolically transcended time. For him, architectura perennis (the title of his 1941 book) was a symbolic message to future generations. At Otto Wagner's in Vienna, the ideas of Gottfried Semper were still au courant. His theory on material swap states that an- cient temples were once made of timber, which was later replaced with stone for greater permanence. Yet the shapes of wooden joints, which used to be necessary, were carried over to stone even though the new building material did not require them - they remained as symbolic decoration. Timber construc- tion was not permanent, but it was more adaptable to different uses, while stone buildings were more permanent but less flexible. In this way, the symbolic value of a building eventually overshadowed its func- tionality. Yet Plečnik was also concerned whether his architecture would be comprehensible to everyone, not only to experts, both at the time of its creation as well as later. Perennial architecture (architectura perennis) must speak with a perennial language fa- miliar to everyone. He once said to his students: "Concerning architecture, here's how it is: we speak 2 Kot avtor spomenika je naveden Vladimir Braco Mušič, ne gle- de na to, da Plečnikov arhiv hrani skice, načrte in fotografijo modela. V pismu Stanetu Komanu na Zvezo združenj borcev in udeležencev NOB Slovenije z 20. oktobra 1997 Mušič trdi: »Plečniku nekateri pripisujejo tudi spomenik NOB pred železni- ško postajo v Sevnici. To ne drži. Kiparski in dekorativni del spo- menika je izdelal kipar Pengov (menda res po posvetu s Plečni- kom), arhitekturni del in postavitev pa sem naredil jaz po naro- čilu občine …« 2 Vladimir Braco Mušič is stated as the monument's author de- spite the fact that Plečnik's Archive is in possession of the drawings, blueprints, and a photograph of the scale model. In his letter to Stane Koman at the League of Associations of Vet- erans of the National Liberation War of Slovenia of 20th Octo- ber 1997, Mušič claims: "The NOB monument in front of the railway station in Sevnica is also attributed to Plečnik by some. This is not the case. The sculptural and decorative parts of the monument were made by sculptor Pengov (though apparently after having discussed it with Plečnik), while the architecture and the siting were done by myself at the request from the municipality." Sl. 8: Kroglo na spomeniku v Trnovem podpirajo zvezde. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Sl. 9: Motiv stebra na stebru pri spomeniku v Litiji. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Fig. 8: The sphere in the Trnovo monument is supported by stars. Photo: AH Fig. 9: Motif of a column on top of a column in the monument in Litija. Photo: AH 8 9 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 67arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Andrej Hrausky sčasoma prevladala nad njegovo funkcionalnostjo. Vendar je Plečnika skrbelo tudi, ali bo njegova arhi- tektura razumljiva vsem, ne le poznavalcem, tako ob času svojega nastanka kot tudi pozneje. Večna arhi- tektura (architectura perennis) mora govoriti z več- nim, vsem znanim jezikom. Svojim učencem je nekoč rekel: »Kar se tiče arhitekture, je pa tako: mi govorimo in se izražamo kakor kmetje pred tisoč in dva tisoč leti. Uporabljamo iste izraze. Tu ni originalnosti.« Zato je treba pri Plečnikovi arhitekturi razumeti, da ne gre za nekakšen klasični slog, ampak za arhitekturni jezik iz osnovnih arhitekturnih elementov: stebra, loka, pira- mide, obeliska itd., ki so vsem razumljivi. Če še danes razumemo in občudujemo tisočletja staro arhitekturo Egipta, Grčije in Rima, bo tudi naša arhitektura večno razumljiva, če bomo uporabili enake elemente. Po- membno pri Plečniku je, da poleg izraza občudujemo tudi izvirnost, s katero se je loteval posameznih nalog. V zgodovini arhitekture vse prepogosto vidimo enake zasnove, ki so le preoblečene v različne arhitekturne sloge, v skladu s časom, v katerem so nastale. Pri Pleč- niku pa je ravno obratno, govorica je večna, zasnove pa so nove. Plečnik se je imel za umetnika, ki služi svojemu naro- du. Bil je izbran, da gre v svet, in ko se je vrnil, je svo- je znanje razdajal domovini. Po vrnitvi v domovino je živel od plače na šoli, vse svoje projekte pa je izdelo- val zastonj. Njegov edini pogoj je bil, da so morali na- ročniki natančno slediti njegovim zamislim. Za svoje delo je zahteval popolno svobodo in je zelo pazil, da se ni zbližal z nobeno politično opcijo in vero. Le tako mu je uspevalo, da je lahko delal v Avstro-Ogrski, na Češkem, v kraljevini Jugoslaviji, med okupacijo in tudi v socializmu. Bil je celo tako dosleden, da je zavračal tudi strokovni izpit za samostojnega projektanta. Marca 1925 je ministrstvo za gradnje v Beogradu iz- dalo dopis dekanom tehničnih šol, da morajo imeti profesorji strokovni izpit, če želijo projektirati za na- ročnike zunaj šole. Plečnik je dekanu, ki mu je posre- doval dopis, odgovoril: »Ako nočem zakrneti, moram se pečati z arhitekturo tudi mimo šole – kajti to stori- ti sem dolžan kot učitelj … Ako se komu moja arhitek- tura dopade, darujem mu jo – če se mi zdi to vredno. More z njo narediti kar hoče – tudi izvršiti če hoče in po komur hoče. Izjavljam da pod nobenimi pogoji ne jemljem zanjo kakršno koli plačilo. V slučaju, da tudi tako darovanje arhitekture ni pripustno brez poseb- nega dovoljenja, pripravljen sem drage volje opustiti to, ter se nadalje pečati z arhitekturo edinole v prid lastni mapi ali pa tujini.« and express ourselves like peasants did one and two thousand years ago. We use the same expressions. There is no originality here." This is why it is impor- tant to understand that Plečnik's architecture is not about some sort of a classical style but rather an ar- chitectural language composed of basic architectur- al elements, the column, the arch, the pyramid, the obelisk, etc., understandable to everyone. If to this day, the architecture of Egypt, Greece, and Rome is understood and admired, our architecture will also be perennially understandable if the same elements are used. With Plečnik, it is important to admire not only his expression but also the originality with which he tackled various tasks. In the history of architec- ture, it's all too often that the same designs are dressed up in different architectural styles corre- sponding to the time in which they were created. With Plečnik, it's exactly the opposite: the language is perennial while the designs are new. Plečnik saw himself as an artist serving his nation. He was chosen to see the world and when he re- turned, he disseminated his knowledge in his native land. After coming back to his native land, he lived off the salary at the college and he did all his pro- jects free of charge. The only condition was that the investors strictly followed his ideas. He demanded absolute freedom for his work and he was very care- ful not to align with any political side or religion. This was the only way that made it possible for him to work in Austria-Hungary, Bohemia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, during the occupation, and also under socialism. He was principled to the point that he re- fused to take the state exam for independent design- ers. In March 1925, the Ministry of Construction in Belgrade issued a circular to the deans of technical schools that the teachers must pass a state exam to be allowed to make designs for investors outside the school. Plečnik's reply to the dean, who forwarded him the circular, was as follows: "If I am not to go stale, I have to work in architecture also outside the school - because this is my duty as a teacher. If some- one likes my architecture, it is my gift to them - if I care to give it. They can do whatever they choose with it - even build it if they choose, by however they choose. I hereby state that I take no payment for my architecture under any circumstance. In the case such gifting of architecture is not allowed without a special permit, I'm perfectly happy to stop doing it and continue to work in architecture solely for my portfolio, or abroad." Sl. 10: Spomenik NOB v Radečah v obliki obeliska nima zvezde niti seznama žrtev. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Sl. 11: Spomenik NOB v Črni pri Mežici v obliki vaškega vodnjaka. Vir: arhiv MGML. Fig. 10: NOB monument in Radeče shaped as an obelisk features no star and no list of casualties. Photo: AH Fig. 11: NOB monument in Črna near Mežica shaped as a village water well. Source: MGML archive 10 11 68 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Kreativni pristop Plečnik je, kot večina arhitektov, hotel predvsem na- črtovati. Sam je zapisal: »…/K/ temu me sili duševni nagon – prav kakor žene natura cvetlico, da zeleni in cvete dokler ji je usojeno sploh živeti.« Zato ni kazal nobenih predsodkov glede načrtovanja spomenikov padlim za novo oblast. Nasprotno, kot veren človek je čutil globoko pieteto do tistih, ki so dali svoje življe- nje za domovino. In spomeniki, ki naj bi večno priča- li o žrtvovanju za domovino, so bili zanj prvovrstna naloga. Za tedanje spomenike NOB so bile značilne plastike z motivi partizana z bombo, v jurišu in podobno. Ti spomeniki so morda še bolj kot žrtve slavili novo oblast in novi simboli so bili močno poudarjeni. Pri Plečniku je bilo drugače – uporabljal je svoj jezik kla- sičnih elementov, zvezdo kot simbol nove dobe pa je izpuščal ali pa jo je podredil kompoziciji. Polovica njegovih spomenikov NOB zvezde sploh nima, pone- kod so jo dodali naročniki sami. V Litiji so nekoliko nerodno na vrh stebra pritrdili štiri rdeče zvezde iz pločevine, česar Plečnik sam ne bi nikoli naredil. Pri spomeniku za Sv. Trojico v Slovenskih goricah je Pleč- nik na vrhu predvidel goloba kot simbol miru. Ker pa se je pobudnik postavitve spomenika pisal Golob, so ga zamenjali z zvezdo. Večkrat je Plečnik zvezdo pre- oblikoval in ji s tem odvzel del političnega sporočila. Na plošči v spomin ustanovitve glavnega poveljstva slovenskih partizanskih čet v Šiški je Plečnik v zvezdo namestil figure, ki jo skoraj v celoti prekrijejo. Po nje- govi skici je zvezdo oblikovala njegova učenka Vladi- mira Bratuž, ki je študirala tudi kiparstvo. Na spome- niku NOB na Brezovici je kamnito zvezdo obdal z bogatim kovaškim okrasjem, ki v celotni kompoziciji prevladuje. V Štepanji vasi je zvezda, narejena iz bo- gato okrašenega kovanega železa, postavljena na kamnit pentagram. Tudi v Trnovem je zvezda podre- jena osnovnemu motivu, krogli, ki jo podpirajo štiri manjše zvezde. Krogla se kot motiv pojavlja v več Plečnikovih načrtih za različne spomenike. Že leta 1897 sta si s kiparjem Othmarjem Schimkowitzem s Fabianijem delila prvo nagrado na natečaju za Gutenbergov spomenik na Dunaju. Glavni motiv je krogla, ki ponazarja svet. Spomenik ni bil izveden, saj so ga zgradili po Fabiani- jevem načrtu. Motiv krogle je Plečnik ponovno upo- rabil pri načrtu za spomenik padlim v prvi svetovni vojni v Breznici iz leta 1928. Tudi ta ni bil izveden, saj so zaradi nesporazuma kamne napačno narezali, in Plečnik je moral narediti nov načrt, brez krogle; ta je A creative approach Plečnik, like most architects, wanted above all to de- sign. In his own words, "I'm compelled to do it by my psychological instinct - just like nature compels a flow- er to grow leaves and blossom as long as it is given to live." This is why he had no compunction about de- signing monuments to the victims for the new author- ities. On the contrary, as a religious person, he felt deep reverence for those who gave their lives for their country. And he considered the monuments, which were to act as perennial reminders of the sacrifice for one's native land, as a first-rate challenge. NOB monuments of that time were typically sculp- tures featuring a charging Partisan with a bomb and similar motifs. The monuments seemed to pay trib- ute to the new authorities even more than to the victims, and the new symbols featured very promi- nently. With Plečnik, it was different - he used his language of classical elements, as for the five-point star, the symbol of the new era, he either omitted it or subordinated it to the rest of the composition. Half of his NOB monuments don't even feature the star; in places, it was added by the investors them- selves. In Litija, they attached four red stars made of sheet metal to the top of the column in a somewhat clumsy way, something Plečnik would never do him- self. In Sv. Trojica v Slovenskih Goricah, Plečnik envis- aged a dove, the symbol of peace, at the top of the monument, but since the surname of the initiator of the monument's erection was Golob ("Dove"), it was replaced by a star. In several instances, Plečnik met- amorphosed the star and thus diminished its politi- cal message somewhat. On the memorial plaque to the establishment of the High Command of Slovene Partisan units in Šiška, Plečnik placed figures into the star, almost complete- ly obscuring it. The star was designed after his sketch by his student Vladimira Bratuž, who also studied sculpture. On the NOB monument in Brezovica, he garnished the stone star with a rich forged-iron deco- ration, which dominates the composition. In Štepanja vas, the star is made of richly decorated wrought iron and placed on a stone pentacle. In Trnovo, the star is also subordinate to the basic motif, the sphere, which is supported by four smaller stars. The sphere appears as a motive in several Plečnik's designs for various monuments. As early as in 1897, he shared the first prize with sculptor Othmar Schim- kowitz and Maks Fabiani in the competition for Gutenberg monument in Vienna. The main motif is a sphere representing the world. The monument was not realised as it was Fabiani's design which ended up being built. The sphere motif was used by Plečnik again in the design for the monument to caualties of WW1 in Breznica from 1928. This monument was also not realised; due to a misunderstanding, the stone was cut wrong and Plečnik had to make a new design not featuring a sphere, which was ultimately realised in 1931. In 1951, he used a sphere in the design for a NOB monument in Cerkno. Once again, the monument was not realised, and he used the de- sign as a basis for the monument in Trnovo. Sl. 12: Večpomenska simbolika spomenika na Gorjah pri Bledu. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Sl. 13: Spomenik NOB v Laškem lahko razumemo tudi kot oltar z večno lučjo in križem. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Fig. 12: Multi-layered symbolism of the monument in Gorje near Bled. Photo: AH Fig. 13: NOB monument in Laško may also be understood as an altar with a sanctuary lamp and cross. Photo: AH 12 13 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 69arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Andrej Hrausky Plečnik quoted from his past projects also when de- signing other monuments. The obelisk-like monu- ment in Radeče is similar to the monument to Illyrian Provinces in Ljubljana from 1929. The latter features bronze portraits of Napoleon and a Slovene girl, while the one in Radeče features four bronze heads, two female and two male, designed by Vladimir Stoviček. The monument is unusual in that it contains no socialist symbol, no title, and no list of victims. The only clue that this is a NOB monument is provided by Karl Destovnik Kajuh's poetry. The motif of a column atop of another column, seen in the Marian column in Levstikov Square, Ljubljana, from 1938, was reused by Plečnik in the monument in Litija. Plečnik designed some monuments as water fea- tures, such as the monument to Liberation Front in Rožna Dolina, which never actually had water run through it, but was to represent seven streams which flow together to form a single waterfall. The monument in Črna near Mežica is designed as a vil- lage water well in which the water flows from one vessel to another. This design later served Plečnik as a starting point for St Mary of the Rosary church steps in Kranj, made in 1954/55. In his unique way, Plečnik used the star motif in the monument in Gorje near Bled. The star is cut out of a circular stone slab and features a despondent Parti- san mother sitting in it. There are several meanings to the symbolism as the star motif may also be under- stood as a rosette of a Gothic cathedral, and the Par- tisan mother as Mary. By means of the two-fold sym- bolism, Plečnik wished to enhance the engagement of his architecture; anyone who fails to understand it in one way has an alternative choice. The monument in Laško may also be understood in several ways. Here, the composition is again made up of basic architec- tural elements, the cube, the cuboid, the column, the triangle etc. Yet the whole may also be understood as an altar with a sanctuary lamp, while the column with the cuboid and the star is shaped like a cross. Plečnik's designs for NOB monuments represent an important part of his quest for new ways of expres- sion in the field of the architecture of memory. They cannot be discussed on their own since the ideas re- appear and develop also in his other designs. Owing to the universality of their message - Plečnik having given a wide berth to the typical political symbolism of the day - these monuments have had little diffi- culty standing the test of time. bil leta 1931 tudi izveden. Leta 1951 je kroglo upora- bil pri načrtu za spomenik NOB v Cerknem. Ker tudi ta ni bil izveden, mu je načrt služil kot osnova za spo- menik v Trnovem. Tudi pri drugih spomenikih je Plečnik izhajal iz svojih preteklih projektov. Spomenik v obliki obeliska v Ra- dečah je podoben spomeniku Ilirskim provincam v Ljubljani iz leta 1929. Na njem sta bronasta portreta Napoleona in slovenske deklice, spomenik v Rade- čah pa vključuje štiri bronaste glave, dve ženski in dve moški, ki jih je oblikoval Vladimir Stoviček. Spo- menik je nenavaden tudi po tem, da na njem ni no- benega socialističnega simbola, ne naslova, niti se- znama žrtev. Da gre za spomenik NOB, lahko sklepa- mo le po verzih Karla Destovnika - Kajuha. Motiv stebra na stebru, ki ga poznamo z Marijinega zname- nja na Levstikovem trgu v Ljubljani iz leta 1938, je Plečnik uporabil tudi pri spomeniku v Litiji. Plečnik je spomenike oblikoval tudi kot vodnjake. Tak je spomenik Osvobodilni fronti v Rožni dolini, iz katerega voda sicer nikoli ni tekla, ponazarja pa se- dem curkov, ki se zlivajo v enoten vodni slap. Spo- menik v Črni pri Mežici je oblikovan kot vaški vo- dnjak, kjer se voda preliva iz ene posode v drugo. Zasnovo je arhitekt pozneje uporabil tudi za izhodi- šče vodnjaka na Rožnovenskem stopnišču v Kranju, ki je bil postavljen v letih 1954/55. Na svojstven način je Plečnik motiv zvezde uporabil pri spomeniku na Gorjah pri Bledu. Zvezda je izrezana iz okrogle kamnite plošče, v njej pa sedi žalostna par- tizanska mati. Simbolika je tu večpomenska, saj mo- tiv zvezde lahko razumemo tudi kot rozeto gotske katedrale, partizansko mater pa kot Marijo. S podva- janjem simbolike je Plečnik želel še povečati nagovor svoje arhitekture. Tisti, ki je ne razume na en način, si lahko izbere alternativnega. Tudi spomenik v Laškem lahko razumemo na več načinov. Tudi tu je kompozi- cija sestavljena iz osnovnih arhitekturnih elementov, kocke, kvadra, stebra, trikotnika itd. Vendar lahko ce- loto razumemo tudi kot oltar z večno lučjo, steber s kvadrom in zvezdo pa je oblikovan kot križ. Plečnikovi načrti za spomenike NOB so pomemben del njegovega iskanja novih izraznih oblik na podro- čju arhitekture spomina. Ni jih mogoče obravnavati ločeno, saj se zamisli ponavljajo in razvijajo tudi v drugih njegovih načrtih. Zaradi univerzalnosti svojih sporočil – pri čemer se je Plečnik izogibal tedaj obi- čajni politični simboliki – ti spomeniki toliko lažje kljubujejo času. Sl. 14: Plečnikov načrt za spomenik v Sevnici iz aprila 1956. Vir: arhiv MGML. Sl. 15: Spomenik NOB v Sevnici. Foto: Andrej Hrausky. Fig. 14: Plečnik's design for the monument in Sevnica from April 1956. Source: MGML archive Fig. 15: NOB monument in Sevnica. Photo: AH 14 15 70 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Seznam spomenikov NOB Edvarda Ravnikarja / List of Monuments to People's Liberation Struggle by Edvard Ravnikar Aljoša Kotnjek Seznam Ravnikarjevih spomenikov je nastal kot del magistrske naloge Sledi kultur kamna in rože v Ravnikarjevem oblikovanju – Študija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obeležij; mentor: doc. Rok Žnidaršič, zunanja konzultanta: Andrej Hrausky in William J. R. Curtis; Ljubljana, 2017. The list of Ravnikar's monuments was created as part of M.A. thesis Sledi kultur kamna in rože v Ravnikarjevem oblikovanju – Študija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obeležij (Traces of Stone and Flower Cultures in Ravnikar's Design – A study of architect Edvard Ravnikar's reverence space through the comparative dialectics of the spatial concepts in Western and Far Eastern traditions using the example of People's Liberation Struggle memorial sites); mentor: doc. Rok Žnidaršič, external consultants: Andrej Hrausky and William J. R. Curtis; Ljubljana, 2017 1. Kostnica padlim med I. in II. sv. vojno na Žalah Kraj: Ljubljana Leto izdelave načrta: 1937 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1938/39 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: / Najdeno: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana – arhivsko gradivo: LJU 334-25-081-025 Stanje: obnovljeno v letu 2004 1. Ossuary of those killed in action in World Wars 1 and 2 at cemetery Žale location: Ljubljana designed in: 1937 realised in: 1938/39 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: none found in: Historical Archives Ljubljana / archive record no. LJU 334-25-081-025 present state: renovated in 2004 2. Natečajni predlog spomeniške poti NOB na Sv. Urh (4145) Kraj: Ljubljana Leto izdelave načrta: 1946 Leto izvedbe projekta: nerealizirano Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: / Najdeno: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana – arhivsko gradivo: LJU 334-020-007 Stanje: / 2. Competition proposal 4145, People's Liberation Struggle (NOB) memorial trail to Sveti Urh location: Ljubljana designed in: 1946 realised in: not realised author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: none found in: Historical Archives Ljubljana / archive record no. LJU 334 - 020-007 present state: n/a 1 2 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 8 KOSTNICA PADLIM MED I. IN II. SV. VOJNO NA ŽALAH kraj: Ljubljana leto izdelave na črta: 1937 leto izvedbe projekta: 1938/39 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: / najdeno: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana / arhivsko gradivo: LJU 334 -25 -081-025 stanje: obnovljeno v letu 2004 A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tu di ja p ie te tn eg a pr os to ra a rh ite kt a Ed va rd a Ra vn ik ar ja s ko zi p rim er ja ln o di al ek tik o pr os to rs ki h ko nc ep to v tr ad ic ij Za ho da in D al jn eg a vz ho da n a pr im er ih N O B ob el e ži j U L FA , e no vi ti m ag is tr sk i št ud ijs ki p ro gr am A RH IT EK TU RA , L ju bl ja na , M ag is tr sk o de lo , 2 01 7 10 N AT E Č A JN I P RE D LO G 4 14 5 SP O M EN I Š KE P O TI N O B N A S V. U RH kr aj : Lj ub lja na le to iz de la ve n a čr ta : 19 46 le to iz ve db e pr oj ek ta : n i r ea liz ira no av to r: E dv ar d Ra vn ik ar so de la vc i: / na jd en o: Z go do vi ns ki a rh iv L ju bl ja na / ar hi vs ko g ra di vo : L JU 3 34 - 02 0- 00 7 st an je : / 71arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 40 DETAJLNE RISBE ZA PARTIZANSKO GROBI ŠČ E V VOJ ŠČ ICI kraj: Vojsko pri Idriji leto izdelave na črta: 1951 leto izvedbe projekta: 1956 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Savin Sever najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 stanje: Gomila je iz neznanih razlogov odstranjena. Terenska guba ni izdelana, zasaditev z drevesi odstranjena. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 38 PARTIZANSKO GROBI ŠČ E V VOJ ŠČ ICI kraj: Vojsko pri Idriji leto izdelave na črta: 1951 leto izvedbe projekta: 1956 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Savin Sever najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 stanje: Gomila je iz neznanih razlogov odstranjena. Terenska guba ni izdelana, zasaditev z drevesi odstranjena. Aljoša Kotnjek 3. Spomenik NOB v Novi vasi Kraj: Bloke Leto izdelave načrta: 1950 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1951/52 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Marko Šlajmer Najdeno: revija Arhitekt, 1952 (junij), št. 4, str. 26 Stanje: Arhitekt si ga je zamislil postavljenega sredi narave približno 300 m iz vasi, ob križišču poti Rakek–Bloška planota. Kljub nasprotovanju je bil postavljen sredi vasi, od koder so ga ob prenovi prestavili ob krožišče pred OŠ v kraju. 3. Monument to NOB in Nova vas location: Bloke designed in: 1950 realised in: 1951/52 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Marko Šlajmer found in: magazine Arhitekt, 1952 (June), no. 4, p. 26 present state: The architect envisaged the monument as sited in the middle of nature about 300 m from the village by the Rakek-Bloška Plateau road junction. Amid protests, it was erected in the middle of the village, from where it was relocated next to the roundabout in front of the primary school in the village during renovation. 4. Partizansko grobišče v Vojščici Kraj: Vojsko pri Idriji Leto izdelave načrta: 1951 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1956 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Savin Sever Najdeno: Arhiv Republike Slovenije – arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 Stanje: Gomila je bila iz neznanih razlogov odstranjena. Terenska guba ni bila izdelana, zasaditev z drevesi je bila odstranjena. Detajlne risbe za partizansko grobišče v Voj čici Kraj: Vojsko pri Idriji Leto izdelave načrta: 1951 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1956 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Savin Sever Najdeno: Arhiv Republike Slovenije – arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 Stanje: Gomila je bila iz neznanih razlogov odstranjena. Terenska guba ni bila izdelana, zasaditev z drevesi je bila odstranjena. 4. Partisan burial site in Vojščica location: Vojsko near Idrija designed in: 1951 realised in: 1956 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Savin Sever found in: Archives of the Republic of Slovenia / archive record SI AS 1238, box 493 present state: The mound was removed due to unknown reasons. The terrain fold is indistinct, the tree planting was removed. Detailed drawings for the partisan burial site in Vojščica location: Vojsko near Idrija designed in: 1951 realised in: 1956 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Savin Sever found in: Archives of the Republic of Slovenia / archive record SI AS 1238, box 493 present state: The mound was removed due to unknown reasons. The terrain fold is indistinct, the tree planting was removed. 5. Spomenik NOB na Gornjem Igu Kraj: Ig pri Ljubljani Leto izdelave načrta: 1958 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1958 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Janja Lap Najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za arhitekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani Stanje: Tlakovanje se poseda v zemljino. Neprimerna je postavitev komunalnih zbiralnikov smeti neposredno pred obeležjem. 5. Monument to NOB in Gornji Ig location: Ig near Ljubljana designed in: 1958 realised in: 1958 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Janja Lap found in: archive of the Museum of Architecture and Design in Ljubljana present state: The paving is sinking into the soil. The placement of waste bins immediately in front of the memorial is inappropriate. 3 4 5 A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 36 SPOMENIK NOB V NOVI VASI kraj: Bloke leto izdelave na črta: 1950 leto izvedbe projekta: 1951/52 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Marko Š lajmer najdeno: revija Arhitekt, 1952 (junij), š t. 4, str. 26 stanje: Arhitekt si ga je zamislil postavljenega sredi narave pribli žno 300m iz vasi, ob kri žišč u za Rakek-Blo ška planota. Kljub nasprotovanju je bil postavljen sredi vasi, od koder se je ob prenovi prestavil ob kro žišč e pred O Š v kraju. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 42 SPOMENIK NOB V GORNJEM IGU kraj: Ig pri Ljubljani leto izdelave na črta: 1958 leto izvedbe projekta: 1958 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Janja Lap najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za Arhitekturo in Oblikovanje v Ljubljani stanje: Tlakovanje se je poseda v zemljino. Neprimerna je postavitev komunalnih zbiralnikov smeti neposredno pred obele žjem. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 66 DETAJLNE RISBE ZA GROBI ŠČ E TALCEV V DRAGI kraj: Begunje na Gorenjskem leto izdelave na črta: 1952 leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 375, 376 stanje: Nagrobne trikotne prizme se posedajo v razli čnih smereh. Ogro žena je celovita slikovna podoba ureditve. DETAJLNE RISBE ZA PARTIZANSKO GROBI ŠČ E V VOJ ŠČ ICI kraj: Vojsko pri Idriji leto izdelave na črta: 1951 leto izvedbe projekta: 1956 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Savin Sever najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 stanje: Gomila je iz neznanih razlogov odstranjena. Terenska guba ni izdelana, zasaditev z drevesi odstranjena. 72 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 6. Spomenik NOB na Habjanovem griču Kraj: Pivka Leto izdelave načrta: 1957 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1958 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Janja Lap Najdeno: Arhiv Republike Slovenije – arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 491 Stanje: Do spomenika vodi asfaltna površina, nizkega samostoječega vhodnega portala ni. Namesto stopalnega kamna je pri vstopu na ploščad betonska stopnica. Izvedena je nizka ograja, ki je bila najverjetneje dograjena brez strokovne odobritve ali nadzora. 6. Monument to NOB at Habjanov Hill location: Pivka designed in: 1957 realised in: 1958 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Janja Lap found in: Archives of the Republic of Slovenia / archive record SI AS 1238, box 491 present state: The access path to monument has been paved in asphalt, the low free-standing entrance portal is missing. There is a concrete step instead of a stepping stone at the entrance to the platform. A low railing was added, most probably without expert approval or supervision. 7. Spomenik NOB na Vranskem Kraj: Vransko Leto izdelave načrta: 1954 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1955 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Metka Rozman Najdeno: Arhiv Republike Slovenije – arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 Stanje: Obeležje danes vključuje tudi klopi in nove zazelenitve, ki niso del avtentične ureditve. 7. Monument to NOB in Vransko location: Vransko designed in: 1954 realised in: 1955 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Metka Rozman found in: Archives of the Republic of Slovenia / archive record SI AS 1238, box 493 present state: Benches and new plantings are a contemporary part of the memorial, not representative of the authentic layout. 8. Spomenik NOB na Spodnjem Igu Kraj: Ig Leto izdelave načrta: 1955 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1958 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Janja Lap Najdeno: Arhiv Republike Slovenije – arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 Stanje: Obeležje je urejeno. 8. Monument to NOB in Spodnji Ig location: Ig designed in: 1955 realised in: 1958 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Janja Lap found in: Archives of the Republic of Slovenia / archive record SI AS 1238, box 493 present state: The memorial is properly maintained. 9. Grobišče talcev v Dragi Kraj: Begunje na Gorenjskem Leto izdelave načrta: 1952 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin Najdeno: izrisi v knjigi »Ali mora biti ta hiša ravno taka?« – Zbornik dogodkov ob stoletnici rojstva arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja, str. 136 Stanje: Trikotne nagrobne prizme se posedajo v različnih smereh. Celovita slikovna podoba ureditve je ogrožena. Detajlne risbe za grobišče talcev v Dragi Kraj: Begunje na Gorenjskem Leto izdelave načrta: 1952 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin Najdeno: Arhiv Republike Slovenije – arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatli 375, 376 Stanje: Trikotne nagrobne prizme se posedajo v različnih smereh. Celovita slikovna podoba ureditve je ogrožena. 6 7 8 9 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 48 SPOMENIK NOB NA VRANSKEM kraj: Vransko leto izdelave na črta: 1954 leto izvedbe projekta: 1955 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Metka Rozman najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 stanje: Del obele žja so danes tudi klopi in nove zazelenitve, ki ne predstavljajo del avtenti čno ureditev. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 52 SPOMENIK NOB V SPODNJEM IGU kraj: Ig leto izdelave na črta: 1955 leto izvedbe projekta: 1958 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Janja Lap najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 stanje: Obele žje je urejeno. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 58 GROBI ŠČ E TALCEV V DRAGI kraj: Begunje na Gorenjskem leto izdelave na črta: 1952 leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin najdeno: Izrisi v “Ali mora biti ta hi ša ravno taka?”; Zbornik dogodkov ob stoletnici rojstva arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja, str. 136 stanje: Nagrobne trikotne prizme se posedajo v razli čnih smereh. Ogro žena je celovita slikovna podoba ureditve. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 44 SPOMENIK NOB NA HABJANOVEM GRI ČU kraj: Pivka leto izdelave na črta: 1957 leto izvedbe projekta: 1958 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Janja Lap najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 491 stanje: Do spomenika je zapeljana alsfaltna povr š ina, vhodnega samostoje čega nizkega portala ni. Namesto stopalnega kamna pri vstopu na plo šč ad je betonska stopnica. Izvedena je nizka ograja, ki je najverjetneje dograjena brez strokovne odobritve ali nadzora. 73arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 66 DETAJLNE RISBE ZA GROBI ŠČ E TALCEV V DRAGI kraj: Begunje na Gorenjskem leto izdelave na črta: 1952 leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 375, 376 stanje: Nagrobne trikotne prizme se posedajo v razli čnih smereh. Ogro žena je celovita slikovna podoba ureditve. DETAJLNE RISBE ZA PARTIZANSKO GROBI ŠČ E V VOJ ŠČ ICI kraj: Vojsko pri Idriji leto izdelave na črta: 1951 leto izvedbe projekta: 1956 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Savin Sever najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 stanje: Gomila je iz neznanih razlogov odstranjena. Terenska guba ni izdelana, zasaditev z drevesi odstranjena. 9. W r victim burial site in Drag location: Begunje na Gorenjskem designed in: 1952 realised in: 1952/53 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: sculptor Boris Kalin found in: Drawings in Should this house really be like that?; Catalogue of events at birth centenary of the architect Edvard Ravnikar, p. 136 present state: Triangular prism headstones are subsiding in various directions. The comprehensive visual appearance of the layout is at risk. Detailed drawings for war victim burial site in Draga location: Begunje na Gorenjskem designed in: 1952 realised in: 1952/53 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: sculptor Boris Kalin found in: Drawings in Should this house really be like that?; Catalogue of events at birth centenary of the architect Edvard Ravnikar, p. 136 present state: Triangular prism headstones are subsiding in various directions. The comprehensive visual appearance of the layout is at risk. 10. Grobišče talcev v Begunjah Kraj: Begunje na Gorenjskem Leto izdelave načrta: 1952 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin Najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za arhitekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani Stanje: Obeležje je urejeno. 10. War victim burial site in Begunje location: Begunje na Gorenjskem designed in: 1952 realised in: 1952/53 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: sculptor Boris Kalin found in: archive of the Museum of Architecture and Design in Ljubljana present state: The memorial is properly maintained. 11. Spominski kompleks Kampor na otoku Rabu Kraj: otok Rab, Hrvaška Leto izdelave načrta: 1953 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer Najdeno: izrisi v knjigah Arhitekt Edvard Ravnikar, spominski kompleks na otoku Rab, 1953 (William J. R. Curtis, T. Krušec, A. Vodopivec) in Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (L. Semerani), str. 104–107 Stanje: Drevesne korenine izpodrivajo nagrobnike, nagrobne ploščice so poškodovane ali pa so bile dodelane brez strokovnega nadzora, osrednji obelisk in stene v preddverju so na meji kritične razpokanosti. 11. Memorial complex Kampor on island Rab location: Island Rab, Croatia designed in: 1953 realised in: 1953 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer found in: Drawings in Architect Edvard Ravnikar, memorial complex on the island of Rab, 1953 (William J. R. Curtis, T. Krušec, A. Vodopivec) and in Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (L. Semerani), pp. 104-107 present state: Tree roots are pushing up the headstones, grave plaques are damaged or were modified without expert supervision, the central obelisk and entrance-area walls are approaching near-critical levels of cracking. 9 10 10 11 Aljoša Kotnjek A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 72 SPOMINSKI KOMPLEKS KAMPOR NA OTOKU RAB kraj: Otok Rab, Hrva ška leto izdelave na črta: 1953 leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Milo š Bon ča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Š lajmer najdeno: Izrisi v Arhitekt Edvard Ravnikar, spominski kompleks na otoku Rab, 1953 (William J. R. Curtis, T. Kru šec, A. Vodopivec) in v Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (L. Semerani), str. 104-107 stanje: drevesne korenine izpodrivajo nagrobnike, nagrobne plo šč ice so po škodovane ali dodelane brez strokovnega nadzora, osrednji obelisk in stene v preddverju so na meji kriti čne razpokanosti A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 60 GROBI ŠČ E TALCEV V BEGUNJAH kraj: Begunje na Gorenjskem leto izdelave na črta: 1952 leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za Arhitekturo in Oblikovanje v Ljubljani stanje: Obele žje je urejeno. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 62 GROBI ŠČ E TALCEV V BEGUNJAH kraj: Begunje leto izdelave na črta: 1952 leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za Arhitekturo in Oblikovanje v Ljubljani stanje: Obele žje je urejeno. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 68 DETAJLNE RISBE ZA GROBI ŠČ E TALCEV V DRAGI kraj: Begunje na Gorenjskem leto izdelave na črta: 1952 leto izvedbe projekta: 1952/53 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: kipar Boris Kalin najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 375, 376 stanje: Nagrobne trikotne prizme se posedajo v razli čnih smereh. Ogro žena je celovita slikovna podoba ureditve. 74 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Detajlna risba vhodnih vrat spominskega kompleksa Kampor Kraj: otok Rab, Hrvaška Leto izdelave načrta: 1953 Leto izvedbe projekta: nerealizirano Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Miloš Bonča Najdeno: Arhitekt Edvard Ravnikar, spominski kompleks na otoku Rab, 1953; Ljubljana, Zavod Dessa – arhitekturni center, str. 49 Stanje: / Detailed drawing of entrance door to memorial complex Kampor location: Island Rab, Croatia designed in: 1953 realised in: not realised author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Miloš Bonča found in: Architect Edvard Ravnikar, memorial complex on the island of Rab, 1953. Ljubljana, Institute DESSA Architectural Center, p. 49 present state: n/a Študija preddverja spominskega kompleksa Kampor Kraj: otok Rab, Hrvaška Leto izdelave načrta: 1953 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer Študija: izrisi v knjigi Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (L. Semerani), str. 104–107 Stanje: Stene so na meji kritične razpokanosti pred porušitvijo. Study of the entrance area to memorial complex Kampor location: Island Rab, Croatia designed in: 1953 realised in: 1953 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer found in: Drawings in Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (Semerani, L., 2006, pp. 104-107) present state: The walls are approaching near- critical levels of cracking and liable to collapse. Detajlna risba tlakovanja osrednje poti spominskega kompleksa Kampor Kraj: otok Rab, Hrvaška Leto izdelave načrta: 1953 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer Najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za arhitekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani Stanje: Drevesne korenine izpodrivajo tlakovanje, na posameznih mestih je kamen razpokan. Detailed drawing of the central path paving in memorial complex Kampor location: Island Rab, Croatia designed in: 1953 realised in: 1953 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer found in: archive of the Museum of Architecture and Design in Ljubljana present state: Tree roots are pushing up the paving, the stone is cracked in places. Detajlna risba osrednjega obeliska spominskega kompleksa Kampor Kraj: otok Rab, Hrvaška Leto izdelave načrta: 1953 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer Najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za arhitekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani Stanje: Spodnji kamniti blok je razpokan, domnevno popuščajo tudi prednapete jeklene vrvi. Detailed drawing of the central obelisk in memorial complex Kampor location: Island Rab, Croatia designed in: 1953 realised in: 1953 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer found in: archive of the Museum of Architecture and Design in Ljubljana present state: Lower stone block is cracked, prestressed steel stays are reportedly starting to give out. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 11 11 11 11 A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 78 DETAJLNA RISBA VHODNIH VRAT SPOMINSKEGA KOMPLEKSA KAMPOR kraj: Otok Rab, Hrva ška leto izdelave na črta: 1953 leto izvedbe projekta: ni realizirano avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Milo š Bon ča najdeno: Arhitekt Edvard Ravnikar, spominski kompleks na otoku Rab, 1953. Ljubljana, Arhutek - turni center zavod DESSA, str. 49 stanje: / A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 80 ŠTUDIJA PREDDVERJA SPOMINSKEGA KOMPLEKSA KAMPOR kraj: Otok Rab, Hrva ška leto izdelave na črta: 1953 leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 vtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Milo š Bon ča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Š lajmer študija: Izrisi v Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (Semerani, L., 2006, str. 104-107) stanje: Stene so na meji kriti čne razpokanosti pred poru š itvijo. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 84 DETAJLNA RISBA TLAKOVANJA OSREDNJE POTI SPOMINSKEGA KOMPLEKSA KAMPOR kraj: Otok Rab, Hrva ška leto izdelave na črta: 1953 leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Milo š Bon ča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Š lajmer najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za Arhitekturo in Oblikovanje v Ljubljani stanje: drevesne korenike izpodrivajo tlakovanje, na mestih je kamen razpokan A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 86 DETAJLNA RISBA OSREDNJEGA OBELISKA SPOMINSKEGA KOM - PLEKSA KAMPOR kraj: Otok Rab, Hrva ška leto izdelave na črta: 1953 leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Milo š Bon ča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Š lajmer najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za Arhitekturo in Oblikovanje v Ljubljani stanje: Razpokan spodnji kamniti blok, domnevno popu šč ajo tudi prenapete jeklene vrvi. 75arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Študija razmerij paviljona spominskega kompleksa Kampor Kraj: otok Rab, Hrvaška Leto izdelave načrta: 1953 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer Najdeno: izrisi v knjigi Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (Semerani, L., 2006, str. 104–107) Stanje: Poškodovana je svinčena dilatacija, domnevno popuščajo tudi prednapete jeklene vrvi. Ratios study for the pavilion in memorial complex Kampor location: Island Rab, Croatia designed in: 1953 realised in: 1953 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer found in: Drawings in Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (Semerani, L., 2006, pp. 104-107) present state: Lead dilation is damaged, prestressed steel stays are reportedly starting to give out. Detajlna risba paviljona spominskega kompleksa Kampor Kraj: otok Rab, Hrvaška Leto izdelave načrta: 1953 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer Najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za arhitekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani Stanje: Poškodovana je svinčena dilatacija, domnevno popuščajo tudi prednapete jeklene vrvi. Detailed drawing of the pavilion in memorial complex Kampor location: Island Rab, Croatia designed in: 1953 realised in: 1953 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer found in: archive of the Museum of Architecture and Design in Ljubljana present state: Lead dilation is damaged, prestressed steel stays are reportedly starting to give out. Detajlna risba nagrobne ploščice spominskega kompleksa Kampor Kraj: otok Rab, Hrvaška Leto izdelave načrta: 1953 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer Najdeno: izrisi v knjigi Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (Semerani, L., 2006) Stanje: Posamezne ploščice so poškodovane, odstranjene, neustrezno nadomeščene. Detailed drawing of the grave plaque in memorial complex Kampor location: Island Rab, Croatia designed in: 1953 realised in: 1953 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer found in: Drawings in Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (Semerani, L., 2006) present state: Damaged, removed, improperly replaced. Aljoša Kotnjek 11 11 11 A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 90 ŠTUDIJA RAZMERIJ PAVILJONA SPOMINSKEGA KOMPLEKSA KAMPOR kraj: Otok Rab, Hrva ška leto izdelave na črta: 1953 leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Milo š Bon ča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Š lajmer najdeno: Izrisi v Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (Semerani, L., 2006, str. 104-107) stanje: Po škodovana svin čena dilatacija, domnevno popu šč ajo tudi prenapete jeklene vrvi. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 92 DETAJLNA RISBA PAVILJONA SPOMINSKEGA KOMPLEKSA KAMPOR kraj: Otok Rab, Hrva ška leto izdelave na črta: 1953 leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Milo š Bon ča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Š lajmer najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za Arhitekturo in Oblikovanje v Ljubljani stanje: Po škodovana svin čena dilatacija, domnevno popu šč ajo tudi prenapete jeklene vrvi. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 94 DETAJLNA RISBA NAGROBNE PLO ŠČ ICE SPOMINSKEGA KOMPLEKSA KAMPOR kraj: Otok Rab, Hrva ška leto izdelave na črta: 1953 leto izvedbe projekta: 1953 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Milo š Bon ča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Š lajmer najdeno: Izrisi v Memoria Ascesi Rivoluzione (Semerani, L., 2006) stanje: Po škodovane, odstranjene, neustrezno nadome šč ene. 76 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 12. Spomenik padlim sokolom Kraj: Ljubljana Leto izdelave načrta: 1957 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1957 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: / Najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za arhitekturo in oblikovanje v Ljubljani Stanje: Obnovljen in urejen. 12. Monument to members of society Sokol killed in action location: Ljubljana designed in: 1957 realised in: 1957 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: none found in: archive of the Museum of Architecture and Design in Ljubljana present state: Renovated and properly maintained. 13. Spomenik NOB v Rečici ob Savinji Kraj: Rečica ob Savinji Leto izdelave načrta: 1954 Leto izvedbe projekta: 1956 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: / Najdeno: Arhiv Republike Slovenije – arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 Stanje: Spomenik je urejen. 13. Monument to NOB in Rečica ob Savinji location: Rečica ob Savinji designed in: 1954 realised in: 1956 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: none found in: Archives of the Republic of Slovenia / archive record SI AS 1238, box 493 present state: The monument is properly maintained. 12 13 14 14. Grobišče borcev NOB v Grajskem parku Kraj: Radovljica Leto izdelave načrta: / Leto izvedbe projekta: 1960 Avtor: Edvard Ravnikar Sodelavci: Janja Lap Najdeno: Arhiv Republike Slovenije – arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 491 Stanje: Spomenik je urejen. 14. Burial site of NOB fighters in Castle park location: Radovljica designed in: n/a realised in: 1960 author: Edvard Ravnikar collaborators: Janja Lap found in: Archives of the Republic of Slovenia / archive record SI AS 1238, box 491 present state: The monument is properly maintained. Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual.A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 121 SPOMENIK PADLIM SOKOLOM kraj: Ljubljana leto izdelave na črta: 1957 leto izvedbe projekta: 1957 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: najdeno: arhiv Muzeja za Arhitekturo in Oblikovanje v Ljubljani stanje: Obnovljen in urejen. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 122 SPOMENIK NOB V RE ČICI OB SAVINJI kraj: Re čica ob Savinji leto izdelave na črta: 1954 leto izvedbe projekta: 1956 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar s delavci: najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 493 stanje: Spomenik je urejen. A l j o š a K O T N J E K . Š tudija pietetnega prostora arhitekta Edvarda Ravnikarja skozi primerjalno dialektiko prostorskih konceptov tradicij Zahoda in Daljnega vzhoda na primerih NOB obele žij UL FA, enoviti magistrski š tudijski program ARHITEKTURA, Ljubljana, Magistrsko delo, 2017 123 GROBI ŠČ E BORCEV NOB V GRAJSKEM PARKU kraj: Radovljica leto izdelave na črta: / leto izvedbe projekta: 1960 avtor: Edvard Ravnikar sodelavci: Janja Lap najdeno: arhiv Republike Slovenije / arhivsko gradivo: SI AS 1238, škatla 491 stanje: Spomenik je urejen. 77arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 SEZNAM RAVNIKARJEVIH GROBIŠČ IN OBELEŽIJ NOB Aljoša Kotnjek Realizirana obeležja NOB (23): - Žale v Ljubljani – kostnica padlim med I. in II. sv. vojno, n. 1937, i. 1938/39 - Nova vas na Blokah – spomenik NOB, n. 1950, i. 1951/52 (sod. Marko Šlajmer) - Vojsko pri Idriji – partizansko grobišče Vojščica, n. 1951, i. 1956 (sod. Savin Sever, Milko Kožar) - Begunje – grobišče talcev, n. 1952, i. 1952/53 (kip. Boris Kalin, 1953) - Kampor – spominski kompleks na otoku Rabu na Hrvaškem, n. 1953, i. 1953 (sod. Miloš Bonča, Branko Kocmut, Savin Sever, Marko Šlajmer) - Ljubljana – spomenik ženskim demonstracijam pred stolnico, n. 1953, i. 1953 - Ljubljana – spomenik ženskim demonstracijam pred vladno palačo, n. 1953, i. 1953 - Kovor – spomenik NOB, n. / , i. 1953 - Goriče – spomenik NOB, n. 1953, i. 1955 (obnovljen 2009) - Rečica ob Savinji – spomenik NOB, n. 1954, i. 1956 - Spodnji Ig – spomenik NOB, n. 1955, i. 1958 (sod. Janja Lap) - Pokljuka – spomenik padlim, n. 1953/56, i. 1957 (kip. Tone Svetina, 1974) - Pokljuka – grobišče borcev 3. bataljona Prešernove brigade, n. 1956, i. 1956 - Zali Log – spomenik padlim garibaldincem in domačinom, n. 1956, i. 1957 - Merezige – spomenik NOB, n. 1956, i. 1956/57 (sod. Tanja Badjura) - Ljubljana – spomenik padlim sokolom, n. 1957, i. 1957 - Trnovo pri Novi Gorici – grobnica in spomenik padlim, n. 1957, i. 1958 - Gornji Ig – spomenik NOB, n. 1958, i. 1958 (sod. Janja Lap) - Pivka – spomenik NOB na Habjanovem griču, n. 1957, i. 1958 (sod. Janja Lap) - Mošnje pri Radovljici – grobišče padlim med II. sv. vojno, n. / , i. 1958 - Jesenice – spomenik NOB, n. 1958, i. 1960 - Radovljica – grobišče borcev NOB v Grajskem parku, n. / , i. 1960 (sod. Janja Lap) Še nedokumentirani realizirani projekti obeležij NOB (2): - Žale v Ljubljani – kostnica padlim med I. in II. sv. vojno, n. / , i. 1960, vir: Edo Ravnikar mlajši - Vransko – spomenik NOB, n. 1954, i. 1955, (sod. Metka Rozman), vir: Arhiv RS Nerealizirani projekti obeležij NOB (5): - Sv. Urh pri Ljubljani – spomeniška pot, n. 1964 - Kranj – spomenik NOB pred OLO, n. 1959 - Ljubljana – obelisk koncu vojne na Kongresnem trgu, n. 1984 - Barletta – kostnica padlim Jugoslovanom v Italiji, načrti brez datacije - Ilirska Bistrica – spomenik NOB, besedilo brez datacije Nejasno avtorstvo ali izvedba projektov obeležij NOB (5): - Šmarje na Dolenjskem – spomenik NOB, n. 1957, i. 1957 (Nikolaj Pirnat, Janja Lap) - Kamnik – spomenik NOB, n. 1957, i. / (Janja Lap) - Ivančna Gorica – spomenik NOB, n. 1957, i. / (Janja Lap) - Zgornji Logatec – spomenik NOB, n. 1958, i. / - Črni Vrh na Primorskem – grobišče NOB, n. 1958, i. / Pregledano gradivo Arhivsko gradivo: - Muzej za arhitekturo in oblikovanje – MAO - Arhiv Republike Slovenije - Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana - arhiv Ministrstva za delo, družino, socialne zadeve in enake možnosti Splet: - http://rkd.situla.org - http://www.pespoti.si/pkv.php - http://spomeniki.blogspot.si 78 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Stavba kot spomenik / The Building as a Monument Maroje Mrduljaš Medtem ko gradnja spomenikov socialistične Jugoslavije doživlja pozornost sve- tovne javnosti, so posebne arhitekturne tipologije, ki hibridizirajo komemoracijo in specifične oblike družbenega življenja, prezrte. V tem prispevku s študijama prime- rov kulturnih domov v Kolašinu in Nikšiću v Črni gori raziskujemo prenos komemo- rativne vsebine s spomenikov na arhitekturne tipologije. Ta prenos je vplival tako na arhitekturo kot na programe, ki so oblikovali nove pristope h komemoraciji. Ju- goslovanski samoupravni socializem je bil okvir za uskladitev spomeniških in per- formativnih vidikov novih tipologij, pa vendar emancipacijski potenciali koncepta niso bili nikoli v celoti uresničeni. Članek bo obravnaval sodobno usodo teh speci- fičnih tipologij, ki so očiščene svoje prvotne funkcije in ideološke vsebine. Samoupravni socializem je bil uveden leta 1950 po izločitvi Jugoslavije iz sovjet- skega bloka dve leti prej. Sistem je domače izkušnje samoorganiziranja med proti- fašističnim odporom združeval z idejami iz zgodnjih del Karla Marxa ter idejami utopičnega socializma in anarhizma iz devetnajstega stoletja. Teoretično naj bi bil državni aparat nadomeščen z neposredno demokracijo, tako v gospodarskem kot v političnem življenju. Opolnomočenje delavcev in državljanov bi moralo potekati sočasno s sistemsko decentralizacijo vseh družbenih sfer. Sistem samoupravljanja je spodbudil razvoj v regiji, uvedel hitro urbanizacijo in bistveno izboljšal življenj- ski standard. Vendar je ustvaril tudi krize in številna nasprotja: med neposredno demokracijo in dejansko prevlado komunistične partije, med planskim gospodar- stvom in trgom, med instrumentalno racionalnostjo in socialnim idealizmom. Arhitektura je pogosto igrala vlogo posrednika med temi nasprotji. Takšna vloga je bila mogoča zaradi niza pogojev, predvsem koncepta kulturne avtonomije, ki jo je ideologija samoupravnega socializma zagovarjala kot posebno jugoslovansko vre- dnoto. Kulturna avtonomija se v arhitekturi ni nanašala le na estetska vprašanja, ampak tudi na temeljna vprašanja vsebine, saj je bilo prav arhitekturi zaupano artikuliranje novih družbenih oblik in odnosov, vključno s komemoracijo. Eden od ideoloških stebrov jugoslovanskega socialističnega sistema je bil protifa- šistični boj, ki je bil predmet obsežne spomeniške in monumentalizacijske aktiv- nosti. Bil je tudi eden redkih instrumentov konstruiranja vsejugoslovanske identi- tete. Preizkušenih je bilo mnogo pristopov do spomenikov, vendar spominjanje ni bilo omejeno le na artefakte, temveč je močno vplivalo na družbeno življenje z različnimi praznovanji, izobraževanjem in popularno kulturo. Sčasoma se je spre- minjalo tudi razumevanje spomenikov. Po začetni prevladi figuralnih spomenikov v štiridesetih in petdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja je prevladujoča estetika posta- la abstrakcija, zlasti za najprestižnejše spomeniške naloge. Eksperimenti so segali od krajinskoarhitekturnih ureditev do obsežnih abstraktnih skulptur, v katere je mogoče vstopiti. Spomeniška mesta so bila razširjena s programi, ki so vključevali muzeje, izobraževalne prostore in gostinske objekte. V okviru izjemno razširjene- ga polja monumentalizacije protifašističnega boja je bil spominski pomen prene- sen tudi na hitro rastočo tipologijo kulturnih centrov. Teorija samoupravnega socializma je zahtevala aktivno vključevanje in sodelova- nje državljanov v političnem in gospodarskem življenju. Udeležba je zahtevala emancipacijo državljanov, da bi lahko razumeli svoj položaj, vlogo in interese v širšem družbenem kontekstu. Slovenski politik Edvard Kardelj, vodilni ustvarjalec sistema samoupravljanja, je to emancipacijo označil za »globoko kulturno in etič- no revolucijo /.../, transformacijo celotne zavesti delovnega človeka«. Pomemben instrument emancipacije so bili kulturni centri, kjer so se prepletale profesional- na, amaterska in popularna kultura, zabava, izobraževanje in politične dejavnosti. Kot takšni naj bi kulturni centri ustvarjali nove oblike javnih prostorov, kjer bi se While the production of monuments under socialism in Yugoslavia has been re- ceiving international exposure during recent years, specific architectural typolo- gies that hybridised commemoration and specific forms of social life are being overlooked. Using the case studies of the cultural centres in Kolašin and Nikšić in Montenegro, this paper examines the transfer of commemorative meaning from monuments to architectural typologies. This transfer affected both architectural forms and programmes, which potentially opened up new approaches to com- memoration. Yugoslav self-management socialism provided the framework for the reconciliation of commemorative and performative aspects of new typologies, yet the emancipatory potentials of the concept were not fully realised. The paper will tackle the contemporary destinies of these specific typologies, which are stripped of their original functions and ideological support. Self-management socialism was instituted in 1950, in the wake of Yugoslavia’s expulsion from the Soviet bloc two years earlier. The system combined the indig- enous experiences of self-organisation during the anti-fascist resistance with the ideas from Karl Marx’s early works, as well as nineteenth century utopian social- ism and anarchism. Seen as an “alienating political force”, the state apparatus was to be replaced, in theory, with direct democracy in both the economic and political life. The empowerment of workers and citizens was meant to be accom- plished by the systemic decentralisation of all social spheres. The system instigat- ed unprecedented development in the region, introduced rapid urbanisation, and fundamentally improved the living standard. However, it also produced crises and numerous contradictions, e.g. between direct democracy and the de facto domi- nance of the Communist party, between a planned economy and the market, be- tween instrumental rationality and social idealism. Architecture often played the role of an intermediary between these contradic- tions. Such agency was possible because of a set of preconditions, most notably the concept of cultural autonomy, which the ideology of self-management social- ism defended as a specifically Yugoslav value. Cultural autonomy in architecture, however, referred not only to aesthetic questions but also to the essential issues of programming, which entrusted architecture with the agency of articulating new societal forms and relations, including commemoration. One of the ideological pillars of Yugoslav socialist system was the anti-fascist struggle, which was the subject of a vast practice of commemoration and monu- mentalisation. It was also one of the few instruments of constructing a pan-Yugo- slav identity. A plethora of approaches to monuments were tested, yet the com- memoration was not exclusively tied to objects in that it significantly informed social life through various celebrations, education, and popular culture. How monuments were understood also changed through time. After the initial prolif- eration of figurative monuments in the 1940s and 1950s, abstraction became the dominant aesthetic, reserved for the most prestigious commemorative tasks. Ex- periments spanned from the site-specific land-form interventions to the inhabita- ble large-scale abstract sculptures. Memorial sites have been expanded with aux- iliary programmes which included museums, educational spaces, and catering facilities. Within the context of the extremely expanded field of monumentalisa- tion of the anti-fascist struggle, commemorative meaning was also transferred to the fast-growing typology of the cultural centre. The theory of self-management socialism demanded active involvement and par- ticipation of citizens in political and economic life. This participation required the emancipation of citizens who could comprehend their position, role, and interests Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 79arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Maroje Mrduljaš družabne skupine srečevale zunaj delovnega in družinskega okolja. Po ideji decen- tralizacije je morala nova kulturna krajina doseči vse državljane in zajeti celotno ozemlje nerazvite Jugoslavije. Medtem ko je bilo kulturno življenje v velikih urba- nih središčih večinoma organizirano prek mreže že obstoječih institucij, se je ra- zvoj novih kulturnih središč zgodil predvsem v manjših mestih manj razvitih regij. Prav v takih robnih pogojih so kulturni centri sprožili nove oblike družbenega življe- nja. Postali so najbolj izpostavljene javne zgradbe, ki so prevzele položaj cerkva in mošej, kar je poudarilo njihov simbolni in spomeniški potencial. Kulturni centri so bili instrumenti emancipacije, pa tudi prostori ideoloških pred- stav, tako da so nekateri od njih izrecno imeli status spomenika. Toda simbolične vloge spomenika ni bilo preprosto povezati s prvotnimi nameni samoupravnega kulturnega centra, ki naj bi bil dinamična in odprta institucija. Spomeniška vloga arhitekture je morala tekmovati z običajnimi spomeniki. V večini primerov je funk- cija prevladala nad formalno monumentalizacijo. Spomeniški pomen je zastopalo ime institucije, ideološko funkcijo so izpolnjevali dogodki, ki so se odvijali v njej. Kljub temu so preizkušali različne možnosti uskladitve monumentalne oblike in različnih programskih shem. Najvidnejši protagonist takšnega pristopa je bil slo- venski arhitekt Marko Mušič. Mušič je študiral v Ljubljani pri Edvardu Ravnikarju in v začetku šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja sodeloval v biroju Louisa Kahna. Po vrnitvi v Jugoslavijo je bil izjemno uspešen na domačih arhitekturnih natečajih in je postal eden najbolj iz- postavljenih arhitektov svoje generacije. Izkušnja sodelovanja s Kahnom je najbrž bistveno pripomogla k Mušičevi naklonjenosti do sodobne monumentalnosti, kar se je izkazalo za posebej uspešno v nizu natečajev za kulturne centre. V nekaj več kot desetletju je zmagal na šestih natečajih, v Zagrebu (1966), Kolašinu (1970), Bitoli (1970), Prištini (1970), Bosanskem Šamcu (1976) in Nikšiću (1978). Medtem ko se ti projekti med seboj razlikujejo po svojih konceptih in nekateri od njih niso bili realizirani, sta bili kulturni središči na Kolašinu in v Nikšiću v Črni gori vrhunec sinteze spomeniškega pomena in državotvornih funkcij. Ni naključje, da je do te sinteze prišlo ravno v odročnih krajih Črne gore. To je bila ena najmanj razvitih republik federativne Jugoslavije. Bila je eden od epicentrov protifašističnega boja, toda na črnogorskem ozemlju ni bilo pomembnejših bitk ali koncentracijskih tabo- rišč, najpomembnejših prostorov monumentalizacije. Zaradi tega je šla gradnja obsežnih spomenikov v petdesetih in šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja večino- ma mimo Črne gore. V tistem obdobju je imela prednost industrializacija te prete- žno podeželske republike; ta je porabila večino naložb, zato je mreža kulturnih ustanov ostala šibka ali nerazvita. V sedemdesetih letih pa so se zgodili nekateri poskusi odprave te pomanjkljivosti. Mestece Kolašin leži na odročnem gorskem območju in je bilo eden od epicentrov protifašističnega boja v Črni gori in Jugoslaviji. Spominski dom (1970, 1971–1975) je bil zasnovan po formuli »javna stavba je spomenik«. Njegov simbolični namen je bila spomeniška obeležitev prvega zbora Nacionalnega protifašističnega sveta Črne gore, ki je bil v Kolašinu leta 1943. Skupščina je bila ključnega političnega pomena in Kolašin je veljal za glavno mesto Črne gore v času druge svetovne voj- ne. Novo kulturno središče bi moralo spomniti na zgodovinske dogodke, hkrati pa zagotavljati različne javne storitve, tako da je bil dejanski program stavbe mešani- ca spominskega muzeja, kulturno-kongresnega centra in komunalne službe. Mu- šičev projekt, izbran na javnem arhitekturnem natečaju, je izpolnil vse tri zahteve. Stavba je dolga točno 100 m in tvori središče glavnega mestnega trga. Zasnovana je kot impozantna skulptura, geomorfna aglomeracija trianguliranih volumnov, in the broader social context. Slovenian politician Edvard Kardelj, the leading crea- tor of the self-management system, described this emancipation as a “profound cultural and ethical revolution... a transformation of the complete consciousness of the working man.” An important instrument of emancipation were cultural cen- tres, where professional culture, cultural amateurism, popular culture, entertain- ment, education, and political activities were all intertwined. As such, cultural centres were meant to create new forms of public spaces where different social groups would meet outside of the work-family pattern. Following the idea of de- centralisation, a new cultural landscape had to reach all citizens and cover the whole territory of the underdeveloped Yugoslavia. While the cultural life in large urban centres was mainly organised through the network of already existing insti- tutions, the development of new cultural centres occurred mainly in smaller towns of the less developed regions. It was precisely under such peripheral conditions that cultural centres initiated new forms of social life. Cultural centres became the most exposed public buildings, taking over the position of churches and mosques, which emphasised their symbolic and monumental potential. Cultural centres were the instruments of emancipation but also the sites of ideo- logical performances so some of them received the explicit status of a monument. But the symbolic role of a monument was not easily integrated with the original intention of a self-managed cultural centre, i.e. a dynamic and open institution. Also, the commemorative role of the buildings had to compete with the prolifera- tion of more conventional monuments. In most cases, formal monumentalisation was discarded in favour of a functional approach. The memorial meaning was entrusted to the name of the institution and the ideological role was fulfilled through the events that took place in the centres. Still, the possibility of the recon- ciliation of monumental form and the heterogeneous programmatic schemes of cultural centres was investigated. The most prominent advocate of such an ap- proach was Slovenian architect Marko Mušič. Mušič studied in Ljubljana under Edvard Ravnikar and worked with Louis Kahn in the early 1960s. After returning to Yugoslavia, Mušič was extremely successful in Yugoslav architectural competitions and became one of the most exposed archi- tects of his generation. The experience of working with Kahn is believed to have significantly contributed to Mušič’s affection for the modern monumentality which proved to be especially useful in the series of competitions for cultural cen- tres. In the course of scarcely more than a decade, he won 6 competitions in Za- greb (1966), Kolašin (1970), Bitola (1970), Priština (1970), Bosanski Šamac (1976), and Nikšić (1978). While these projects vary in their concepts and some of them were not realised, the cultural centres in Kolašin and Nikšić in Montenegro were the pinnacle of the synthesis of commemorative meaning and civic functions. It was not a coincidence that the breeding ground for this synthesis were two re- mote towns in Montenegro. Montenegro was one of the least developed republics of federal Yugoslavia. Though one of the epicentres of the anti-fascist struggle, the territory of Montenegro featured no key battle sites or concentration camps, the prime sites of monumentalisation. Consequently, the construction of large- scale monuments mostly bypassed Montenegro during the 1950s and 1960s. Dur- ing the same period, the industrialisation of the predominantly rural Montenegro was a priority which used up the majority of investment, and the network of cul- tural facilities and institutions remained weak or underdeveloped. In the 1970s, attempts got underway to resolve these deficiencies. The small town of Kolašin is situated in a remote mountain area and was one of the epicentres of the anti-fascist struggle in Montenegro and Yugoslavia. The 80 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 izvedenih iz gladkega betona. Stavba je v korenitem nasprotju z okolico, tako po obliki kot tudi po materialih, njen simbolni pomen pa je jasno označen. Mušič je trdil, da dinamična strešna podoba ponavlja lokalno arhitekturo, dramatična ge- omorfna oblika kompleksa pa se nanaša na kanjon reke Tare. Vhodi v dve glavni funkcionalni coni, kulturni dom in občinske urade, so skriti in podrejeni formal- nemu konceptu. Notranjost kulturnega središča je organizirana okrog velikega »vestibula obča- nov« z zastekljeno streho. Predprostor, ki je zasnovan kot zbirališče, povezuje veliko večnamensko dvorano in kopico zenitalno osvetljenih kubičnih prostorov – po Mušičevih besedah »celic dogodkov« – v katerih so knjižnica, muzej, kavar- na, galerija in sejni prostori. Po Mušiču je bila osnovna naloga njegove zasnove »omogočiti številne prostorske ureditve in s tem številne alternativne rabe, od katerih nekatere v tem trenutku morda še niso predvidene«. Čeprav je ta vsebina usklajena z idejo o samoupravnem kulturnem centru, je bila vsaka celica zenital- no osvetljena zaprta soba brez povezave z drugimi in z zunanjostjo. Potencial za fleksibilno rabo je bil omejen na odprtje glavne dvorane proti vestibulu, kar je omogočalo prostorsko ureditev, ki je bila najprimernejša za politične shode in spominske dogodke. Mušič je predpostavil radikalen prelom med zunanjostjo in notranjostjo. Zuna- njost je brutalistična, notranjost pa je zasnovana kot barvite postmoderne »hiše v hiši«. Vsaka prireditvena celica je oblikovana kot avtonomna tema. Glavna dvora- na je obdana z valovitim modrim ovojem, ki določa zapleten prostor, in sicer ne- odvisno od konstrukcije stavbe. Dihotomija med igrivo artikulacijo notranjosti in avtoritarno privlačnostjo drzne zunanjosti odraža dvojni simbolni in programski namen zgradbe. Končni rezultat formalne ekspresivnosti je bila introvertirana stavba, ločena od glavnega mestnega trga in okoliškega parka, kar je poudarjalo njeno reprezentativno vlogo, a je zmanjšalo njegove performativne potenciale. Mušiču ne moremo odrekati prostorske domišljije in mojstrskega ravnanja s tridi- menzionalnimi strukturami. Spomeniški pomen je bil uspešno preveden v funkci- onalno arhitekturno tipologijo, monumentalnost pa je izhajala izključno iz arhi- tekturnega koncepta. Kljub temu projektu ni uspelo rešiti temeljnega konflikta med monumentalnostjo in prepotrebno odprtostjo javne institucije. Odtujeni skulpturalni objekt ni vzpostavil neposrednega in čitljivega odnosa med javno ustanovo ter urbanim in družbenim tkivom mesta. Spominski dom je sicer spodbudil lokalno kulturno življenje, vendar ga Kolašinci nikoli niso povsem sprejeli. Tehnične težave (puščanje) niso bile nikoli rešene in zastekljeno streho predprostora so kasneje prekrili. Po razpadu socialistične Jugo- slavije je bila odgovornost za vzdrževanje stavbe s črnogorske države prenesena na občino, katere proračun pa je bil omejen na goli minimum. Velika dvorana propada, kulturni center je prazen ali pa ga uporabljajo lokalne podružnice politič- nih strank; občinski trakt pa še vedno deluje. Občina Kolašin razpravlja o rušenju Spominskega doma in njegova usoda je negotova. Nesoglasja, ki so zaznamovala Spominski dom v Kolašinu, so se še stopnjevala pri Mušičevem delu v bližnjem Nikšiću, drugem največjem črnogorskem mestu. V začetku sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja je bil Nikšić cvetoče industrijsko mesto s 50.000 prebivalci (v primerjavi z 9.000 leta 1948). Leta 1974 se je na dan 30-le- tnice osvoboditve Nikšića začela pobuda za zgraditev Doma revolucije. Kompleks naj bi obeležil tudi prvi zbor Nacionalnega protifašističnega sveta Črne gore, isti dogodek, ki je botroval nastanku Spominskega doma v Kolašinu. Občina Nikšić se je odločila, da bo »kulturni center postavila kot najprimernejši spomenik voja- kom, padlim za svobodo in socialistično revolucijo, iz Nikšića in okolice«. V odbor za razvoj kompleksa je bilo vključenih 90 ljudi, z Veljkom Zlokovićem, junaškim partizanskim vodjem in članom jugoslovanske zvezne vlade, na čelu. Imenovani so bili trije pododbori – za koncept, propagando in zbiranje sredstev. Člani odbo- ra so bili partizanski veterani, ki pa niso bili vešči načrtovanja in razvoja kulturnih Memorial Home (1970, 1971-75) was designed according to the formula "public building equals monument". Its symbolic purpose was to commemorate the first assembly of the National Anti-Fascist Council of Montenegro, which was held in Kolašin in 1943. The assembly was of critical political importance and Kolašin was considered to be the WW2 capital of Montenegro. The new cultural centre was intended to commemorate the historic events but also provide various public services, resulting in the building’s actual programme combining a memorial mu- seum, a culture-congress centre, and municipal services. Mušič’s project, chosen in an open architectural competition, fulfilled both demands. The building is exactly 100 m long. Designed as an imposing sculpture, the geo- morphic agglomeration of triangulated volumes executed in smooth concrete oc- cupies the centre of the main town square. The building forms a radical contrast with the surroundings in terms of both form and materials, and its symbolic im- portance is clearly indicated. Mušič argued that the dynamic roofscape replicates the local vernacular architecture while the dramatic geomorphic form of the com- plex references the canyon of the River Tara. The entrances to the two main func- tional zones, the cultural centre and the municipality offices, are concealed and subordinated to the formal concept. The interior of the cultural centre is organised around a large “vestibule of the citizens” with a glazed roof. Intended as a gathering place, the vestibule connects a large multipurpose hall with a cluster of top-lit cubical spaces - “event cells“ as Mušič called them - that housed a library, a museum, a café, a gallery, and meet- ing spaces. According to Mušič, the basic task of his design was “to allow numer- ous space arrangements and thus many alternative actions, some of them per- haps not foreseen at this moment”. While this intention is in tune with the idea of a self-managed cultural centre, each cell was an enclosed top-lit room with no connection to the exterior or each other. The potential for spatial transformations was limited to the opening of the main hall toward the vestibule, a spatial condi- tion which was most suitable for political rallies and memorial celebrations. Mušič made a radical break between the exterior and the interior. The exterior is brutalist, while the interiors are designed as a colourful post-modern idea of “houses within a house”. Each event cell is designed as an autonomous theme. The main hall is enclosed by an undulating blue inner envelope that defines the perplexing space independent of the building’s structure. The dichotomy between the playful articulation of the interior and the authoritarian allure of the bold ex- terior reflects a double symbolic and programmatic purpose of the building. The final result of the formal expressiveness was an introverted building detached from the town’s main square and surrounding park, which emphasised its repre- sentative role but diminished its performative potentials. Mušič's spatial imagination and masterful handling of three-dimensional struc- tures are undeniable. The commemorative meaning was successfully translated into functional architectural typology and the monumentality derived solely from the architectural concept. However, the project did not manage to resolve the fundamental conflict between the monumentality and the much needed open- ness of a civic institution. The alienated sculptural object didn’t offer a more direct and legible relationship between the public institution and the urban and social fabric of the town. The Memorial Home encouraged local cultural life, but it was not entirely accept- ed by citizens of Kolašin. The technical problems with leaking were never resolved and the vestibule’s glazed roof was covered. After the collapse of socialist Yugosla- via, the responsibility for the maintenance of the building was transferred from the State of Montenegro to the municipality and the building's budget was re- duced to the bare minimum. The large hall is decaying, the cultural centre is either vacant or used by political parties’ local branches; the municipality wing is still in use. The Municipality of Kolašin has considered demolishing the Memorial Home and its destiny is still uncertain. The contradictions which characterised the Memorial Home in Kolašin culminated in Mušič’s work in the nearby Nikšić, Montenegro's second largest city. In the early 1970s, Nikšić was a prosperous industrial city with population of 50,000, compared to 9,000 in 1948. In 1974, on the 30th anniversary of Nikšić's liberation from the Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 81arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Maroje Mrduljaš ustanov. Obsežen program kompleksa je vključeval izobraževalni center, kulturni center, mladinski klub, informacijski center, gostinske objekte, poletni amfitea- ter, studie za glasbo, dramo, vizualno umetnost in oblikovanje, galerijo, knjižnico, interno sprehajališče in spominsko dvorano. V središču stavbe je bil velikanski avditorij za kongrese in kulturne predstave. Organiziran je bil arhitekturni natečaj in znova je zmagal Mušič. Na prvi pogled so se nameni projekta zdeli napredni. Z gradnjo Doma revolucije bi se moralo končati obdobje obsežne modernizacije tega perifernega mesta in Nikšić naj bi se vpisal na zemljevid spoštovanih sodobnih jugoslovanskih mest. Kulturna palača naj bi pri meščanih vzbudila optimizem, celo občutek zaupanja. Kakšen pa je bil v obdobju, ko se je gradil Dom revolucije, družbeni kontekst v Jugoslaviji? V sedemdesetih letih sta bili dokončani povojna obnova in industria- lizacija. Nujen je bil korak naprej, od trde modernizacije v prožnejšo modernost. Ta pritisk se je v gospodarskem življenju že dogajal. Gospodarsko-tržni odnosi so napredovali, socialistične korporacije in banke so pridobivale moč. Številni po- membni arhitekturni projekti v Jugoslaviji iz sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja so bili v bistvu mednarodni: turistični kompleksi na obali, sedeži velikih podjetij, ki so delovala globalno, kot sta bila Energoprojekt v Beogradu in INA v Zagrebu, ter izvoz gradbene industrije v neuvrščene države. Zdi se, da je Dom revolucije s svojo velikostjo tekmoval s temi novimi akterji v jugoslovanski ekonomski in ur- bani krajini. Ustvarjalci zgradbe so morda mislili, da je to zadnja priložnost, ki jo imajo za predstavitev takega tipa, kar je vplivalo na pretirano povečanje velikosti stavbe. Natečajna naloga je zahtevala 9.237 m2, Mušičev idejni projekt je predvi- del 10.900 m2. Pod pritiskom organizacijskih odborov pa je velikost stavbe med gradnjo narasla na spektakularnih 21.738 m2. Samo 250 kvadratnih metrov je bilo izrecno namenjenih spominu, zasnovanih kot kontemplacijski prostor. Pro- jekt je presegel realne potrebe ne le lokalne skupnosti ali Črne gore, ampak ver- jetno celotne Jugoslavije. V Nikšiću ni bilo niti kulturne ustanove niti kulturne produkcije, ki bi lahko napajala obseg načrtovanega objekta. Poleg tega so v se- demdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja v Jugoslaviji raziskovali nove umetniške obli- ke performansa, konceptualno umetnost in eksperimentalno gledališče, zaradi česar so templji kulture postali zastareli. Le kakšni programi in dogodki naj bi se odvijali v tem ogromnem kompleksu? Katere institucije in družbene skupine naj bi ga uporabljale in naseljevale? Namesto kulturne evolucije je kompleks uvedel monumentalizacijo staromodnih utopičnih pogledov. Prvotna ideja o mešanju spomina in emancipatorne kulturne institucije je bila prezrcaljena. Sporočanja spomeniškega pomena ni prevzela arhitekturna oblika, temveč obseg programa. Tak preobrat je bil posledica nezmožnosti uskladitve pogleda na zgodovino s po- gledom na prihodnost. Herojska revolucionarna preteklost se je preoblikovala v mit, ki je postal preveliko breme za razvoj novih oblik javnega življenja. Tudi ime stavbe je bilo kontradiktorno: ali revolucija lahko ima dom? Če bi bil ta aktiven in trajen, kot bi moral biti v samoupravnem socializmu, ali ne bi moral biti brezdo- mec, neudomačen, nenehno v gibanju in delovanju? Brez spomenikov, zakoreni- njenih v vsakdanjem življenju, fizično brez oblike ... Kulturni center samoupravnega socializma je materializiran v zgradbi, ki je bila funkcionalno popolnoma določena, kjer prebivalci niso imeli možnosti participira- ti niti pri arhitekturi niti pri programu. Pomisliti velja, da je zasnova Doma revolu- cije nastala po radikalnih zasnovah družbenih središč Cedrica Pricea in hkrati po načrtu Centra Pompidou v Parizu; projektov, katerih cilj je bilo temeljito preobli- kovanje koncepta kulturne ustanove skozi idejo odprtega sistema. Dom revolucije je v nasprotju s temi novimi vizijami kulturnega življenja združeval stare funkcio- nalne tipologije. Mušič se je moral spopasti s prenapihnjenim merilom in je ustva- ril kolaž, ki je po širitvi programa postal velikanski »Merzbau«.1 Nazis, an initiative was undertaken for the erection of the Home of the Revolution. The complex was also to commemorate the first assembly of the National Anti- Fascist Council of Montenegro, the same event already commemorated by the Me- morial Home in Kolašin. The Municipality of Nikšić decided to build the “cultural centre as the most appropriate memorial to the soldiers from Nikšić and its sur- roundings killed in the struggle for freedom and socialist revolution”. The commit- tee for the development of the complex included 90 people headed by Veljko Zloković, heroic partisan leader and member of Yugoslav federal government. Three sub-committees were appointed and tasked with the concept, propaganda, and fundraising respectively. The committee members holding the most influence were partisan veterans unfamiliar with matters of programming and development of cultural institutions. The complex's expansive programme included an educa- tional centre, a cultural centre, a youth club, an information centre, catering facili- ties, a summer amphitheatre, studios for music, drama, visual arts and design, a gallery, a library, an internal promenade, and a memorial space. The focus of the building was a gigantic auditorium for congresses and cultural performances. The architectural competition was organised, and it was again won by Mušič. At a glance, the intentions of the project seem progressive. The construction of the Home of the Revolution was intended to conclude a period of extensive moderni- sation of the peripheral city of Nikšič and place it on the map of upstanding mod- ern cities in Yugoslavia. A cultural palace ought to have created optimism, even a feeling of confidence for the inhabitants of Nikšić. But what was Yugoslavia's so- cial context in the period when the Home of the Revolution was being built? In the 1970s, the post-war reconstruction and industrialisation were completed. What was needed was a step forward, from hard modernisation toward a more flexible modernity. This push was already taking place in economic life. Economic market relations were advancing and socialist corporations and banks were acquiring more power. Many significant architectural projects in Yugoslavia in the 1970s were essentially international: tourist complexes on the seacoast, headquarters of big companies which operated globally, such as Energoprojekt in Belgrade and INA in Zagreb, and the export of construction industry to Non-Aligned countries. The massiveness of the Home of the Revolution seemed to compete with these new factors in the Yugoslav economic and urban landscape. The creators of the building may have believed that this might be their last chance to show off their importance, which caused a surreal bloat in the building’s size. The competition brief asked for 9,237 sqm, Mušič idea project was 10,900 sqm. Under pressure from the organising committees, the size of the building grew to a spectacular 21,738 sqm as it was being built. Only 250 sqm were explicitly devoted to the memorial, designed as a contemplation space. The project exceeded the real needs of not only the local community or Montenegro but probably of the whole Yugoslavia. There was neither a cultural institution in Nikšić nor such a scope of cultural production that could take full advantage of the scale of the planned facil- ity. Moreover, the new artistic forms of performance, conceptual art, and experi- mental theatre that were researched in Yugoslavia in the 1970s made temples of culture obsolete. What programmes and events were supposed to take place in this huge complex? What institutions and social groups were to use and inhabit it? Instead of a cultural evolution, the complex introduced monumentalisation of old- fashioned utopian visions. The original idea of combining commemoration with an emancipating cultural institution was reversed. The communication of the commemorative meaning was not assigned to the building form but to the scale of the programme. Such a reversal was the consequence of the inability to harmonise the view of the history with the view of the future. The heroic revolutionary past got shaped into a myth which became a burden, indeed one too large for the development of new forms of civic life. The name of the building was contradictory as well: can a revo- lution have a home? If it is active and permanent, as it was supposed to be in self-management socialism, should it not be without a fixed abode, undomesti- cated, constantly moving and operating? With no monuments, rooted in daily life, physically shapeless, etc. The cultural centre for self-management socialism is materialised in a building that has been functionally completely determined, where there was no possibility of participation either on the level of architecture or the programme. It is useful to remember that the design of the Home of the Revolution took place after Cedric 1 Merzbau je bilo dadaistično umetniško delo – prostorska instalacija Kurta Schwittersa (1887–1948) iz let 1923–1937, uničena v bombardiranju ob koncu 2. svetovne vojne. 82 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Že sama velikost objekta in notranjih prostorov je zagotovila monumentalen uči- nek. Da bi razrešil amorfnost dimenzij, je Mušič razvil kompozicijsko strategijo prekrivanja. Pretirane geste je uporabil tako, da bi se medsebojno prekrivale. Spektakularni delavski klub na vrhu kompleksa je omogočil privilegiran pogled in postal nova simbolična krona mesta. Postavljen je bil na ogromen stolp nad od- rom, da bi razgibal sicer umirjen obris kompleksa. Zaradi svoje nenavadne oblike je stavba dobila enega izmed svojih mnogih vzdevkov: Sfinga. Zunanjost je bila zasnovana kot podaljšek urbane krajine, da bi ublažila vizualno masivnost. Vendar zunanje terase in avditoriji niso bili jasno povezani niti z mestnim tkivom niti z notranjostjo stavbe. Zdi se, da je bila stavba načrtovana za prireditve z ikonografi- jo različnih ideoloških ritualov, ne pa kot kraj neformalnih prostorskih praks. Tudi velika vhodna plaza je bila vprašljiva, saj je kompleks povzročil prekinitev urbane strukture, ki je preprečila kontinuiteto javnega mestnega prostora. Številne arhi- tekturne značilnosti Doma revolucije so tako dvoumne. Dom revolucije se je pojavil kot nekakšna avantura, ki je izčrpala materialne in organizacijske vire. Gradnjo so financirali iz različnih skladov, vključno z zveznimi. Celotna mestna skupnost je sodelovala s finančnimi prispevki, h katerim se je za- vezala na javnem referendumu. Leta 1989 je bila gradnja po več kot desetih letih ustavljena. Razpad socialistične Jugoslavije leta 1991 je bil za graditelje Doma re- volucije morda srečna okoliščina, saj so bili odvezani vsakršne odgovornosti. Ni- kšić se je znašel v radikalno drugačnem kontekstu, najprej kot del zveze Srbije in Črne gore, od leta 2006 pa kot del neodvisne države s 600.000 državljani – v pri- merjavi z Jugoslavijo z 21 milijoni prebivalcev. Težka industrija Nikšića se je soočila z resnim upadom. Od Doma revolucije sta ostali veličastna ruševina, spomenik ukinjeni ideologiji, in zapuščena urbana pokrajina, ki jo domačini prezirajo. Tudi rušenje se je izkazalo za predrago. Mušič je ostal fanatično predan projektu in je predlagal preprojektiranje, vendar je projekt zaradi vključitve veleblagovnice še narasel. Obenem je Dom revolucije postal priljubljena tema številnih študentskih del in diplom v regiji in tujini. Nazadnje, spodbujeno z odmevnostjo črnogorskega paviljona na beneškem arhitekturnem bienalu leta 2014, na katerem so bile pred- stavljene štiri modernistične ruševine, vključno s Spominskim domom na Kolašinu in Domom revolucije v Nikšiću, je črnogorsko ministrstvo za turizem in trajnostni razvoj leta 2015 razpisalo mednarodni natečaj za projekt obnove Doma revolucije. Razpis je bil odprt, brez vnaprej določenega programa, in je zahteval strateški pri- stop k pomladitvi strukture. Avtor prispevka je bil član mednarodne žirije. Zgodovina projekta je dokazala, da Doma revolucije ni mogoče dokončati, treba je sprejeti njegovo nedokončano stanje. Materialni ostanki polpretekle zgodovine so postali razpoložljiv prostorski vir. Ali lahko v razmerah atomizacije postsocialističnih družb in zmanjševanja pomena javnega tak projekt spodbudi kolektivno akcijo? Največji izziv obnove Doma revolucije je bila mobilizacija vseh vpletenih deležni- kov, od politične elite na državni in občinski ravni do lokalne skupnosti. Ali lahko arhitektura ne samo spodbuja, ampak tudi usklajuje proces družbene kohezije? Na natečaju je zmagala ekipa arhitektov HHF iz Basla in arhitektov Sadar + Vuga iz Ljubljane; predlagali so realen koncept, ki temelji na delitvi obstoječega pro- stora: na 10 % notranjih celic s konkretnimi funkcijami, 20 % obnovljenih javnih površin in prometnih poti ter 70 % zavarovanih nedostopnih prostorov, katerih uporaba bo določena v prihodnosti. Vsi posegi so predvideni v pritličju stavbe. Projekt se tako spretno izogne pasti pretirane ambicije in ne ponuja nemogočih Price’s radical designs of civic centres and at the same time as the design of Centre Pompidou in Paris, the project that aimed to fundamentally reform the concept of the cultural institution through the idea of an open system. Unlike these new vi- sions of cultural life, the Home of the Revolution was aggregation of old func- tional typologies. Mušič had to deal with an overblown scale and created a col- lage that, following the expansion of the programme, became a giant Merzbau.1 The sheer scale of the building and interior spaces guaranteed a monumental ef- fect. In order to resolve the amorphous massing, Mušič developed a compositional strategy of concealment. Exaggerated pretensions were there to mask one anoth- er. A spectacular workers’ club on the top of the complex provided a privileged view and became the new symbolic crown of the city. It was placed onto the enormous tower above the stage in order to complete the otherwise dull skyline of the com- plex. Thanks to its odd shape, the building got one of many nicknames: the Sphinx. The exteriors were designed as inhabitable extensions of the urban landscape in order to alleviate visual massiveness. Yet the external terraces and auditoriums were not clearly connected with the urban tissue or with the interior of the build- ing. It seems that they were planned to host the iconography of various ideological rituals rather than being designed as places of informal spatial practices. Even the large entrance plaza was contradictory because the complex had created a break in the urban structure that prevented the continuity of public urban space. Many architectural features of the Home of Revolution are thus ambiguous. The Home of the Revolution appeared as a kind of an adventure that exhausted the material and organisational resources. The construction was financed from different funds, including Federal ones. The entire Nikšič community participated through financial contributions made compulsory following a public referendum. In 1989, after more than 10 years, the construction was halted. The break-up of the socialist Yugoslavia in 1991 may have been a fortunate circumstance for the builders of the Home of the Revolution because no one was responsible for the waste of resources. Nikšić then found itself in a radically different context, first as a part of the union of Serbia and Montenegro, and from 2006 in an independent country with 600,000 citizens compared to Yugoslavia's 21 million. The heavy in- dustry of Nikšić faced a serious decline. What remained of the Home of the Revo- lution was a magnificent ruin, a monument to an aborted ideology and an aban- doned urban landscape despised by the locals. Even its demolition proved to be too expensive. Mušič remained frantically de- voted to the project and proposed a redesign, but the building only grew larger owing to the inclusion of a department store. At the same time, the Home of the Revolution became a popular topic of numerous student works and diplomas in the region and abroad. Finally in 2015, encouraged by the success of the Monte- negrin pavilion at the 2014 Venice Architecture Biennale, which featured 4 mod- ernist ruins including the Memorial Home in Kolašin and the Home of the Revolu- tion in Nikišić, the Ministry of Tourism and Sustainable Development of Montene- gro launched an international competition for the Home of the Revolution recon- struction project. The brief was open, without any predefined programme, and asked for a strategic approach to the rejuvenation of the structure. The author of this paper was a member of the international jury. The history of the project proved that it was not possible to finish the Home of the Revolution, it was necessary to embrace its uncompleted state. The material rem- nants of recent history became pending spatial resources. Under the conditions of the atomisation of post-socialist societies and the narrowing of the public domain, can such a project serve as a trigger for collective action? The biggest challenge of the reconstruction of the Home of the Revolution was the mobilisation of all the stakeholders, from the political elite on the State and municipal level to the local community. Can architecture not only encourage but also co-ordinate the process of societal cohesion? 1 Merzbau was a Dadaist work of art - a spatial installation by Kurt Schwitters (b. 1887, d. 1948) made between 1923 and 1937, and destroyed in bombing at the end of WW2 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 83arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Maroje Mrduljaš The competition was won by the team of HHF Architects from Basel and Sadar+Vuga from Ljubljana, who proposed an ultimately realistic concept based on the division of the existing space into 10% of interior containers with concrete functions, 20% of renovated public areas and circulation routes, and 70% of ssecured and inaccessi- ble spaces whose use would be defined in the future. All the interventions are fo- cused only on the ground floor of the building. The project thus cleverly avoids the trap of an overblown ambition and does not create impossible scenarios of use. In such a vision, the complex still remains a monumental ruin activated by an ap- proach which is more similar to flexible urban planning than to architecture. The existing structure was treated as an urban landscape which is gradually colonised in accordance to the actual needs. Architects insisted that the original Mušič pro- ject should formally remain intact, respecting its status of the monument and rec- ognising the scale of the spaces as a unique quality. They resolved the original contradictions by opening up the whole structure, which became porous and better connected with the surrounding urban tissue. Rather than a free-standing and de- tached monumental object, the Home of the Revolution should finally become an organic part of the city, a covered and inhabitable public space. Essential for the success of the project was the management of the allocation of the spaces to new users, or, in other words, open-source politics of space. Only the harmonisation of various demands and the encouragement of programmatic di- versity would guarantee the emergence of urban vitality. The State ensured the initial funds, and the Municipality of Nikšić was responsible for conducting the works on the site. The execution project was designed and the building permit is- sued. The local community applauded the possibility of a breakthrough on the notorious “blue tomb” in the centre of the city. Yet one more historical turn undermined the initiative. The works started in March 2018, but in June, it became obvious that what was being realised was not the HHF and Sadar+Vuga project but something else. Large spaces of the building had been enclosed and others were being chopped off, contrary to the ideas of the porous space and the integrity of the original structure. At the moment, the works are on hold and the status of the project is unclear. Memorial Home in Kolašin was an attempt to reconcile formal monumentality and a civic programme. The predominance of form over programmatic perfor- mance obstructed the evolution of the building in new social and cultural condi- tions. The irrationality of the original project of the Home of the Revolution in Nikšić stemmed from an attempt to construct monumentality out of an over- blown cultural programme. Both the monumental ambitions and the cultural centre's programme were outdated already in the time of their construction, in- dicating the inability of orthodox socialist ideology to embrace the next stage in the development of society. The megalomaniac idealism embedded in the Home of the Revolution created a spectacular ruin hardly comparable to anything else being built worldwide. In its present divvied-up state, the Home of the Revolution is a result of conducting private interests through public works. It is a pitiful testa- ment to parochialism, a lack of idealism, and expiration of public good. If late socialism, as evidenced by buildings-monuments, was suspended between the past and the future, the contemporary post-socialist societies are trapped in the continuous present, denying both the past and the future. When history stops, there’s no space for monuments. scenarijev uporabe. V takšni viziji kompleks še vedno ostaja monumentalna ruše- vina, ki se aktivira s pristopom, bolj podobnim fleksibilnemu urbanističnemu na- črtovanju kot arhitekturi. Obstoječa struktura je bila obravnavana kot urbana po- krajina, ki se postopoma kolonizira v skladu z dejanskimi potrebami. Arhitekti so vztrajali, da mora prvotni Mušičev projekt formalno ostati nedotaknjen, pri čemer je treba upoštevati njegov status spomenika in prepoznati njegove dimenzije kot edinstveno kakovost. Prvotna nasprotja so odpravili tako, da so celotno strukturo odprli; tako je postala porozna in bolje povezana z okoliškim mestnim tkivom. Namesto samostoječega in izoliranega spomeniškega objekta bi moral Dom revo- lucije končno postati organski del mesta, pokrit in naseljen javni prostor. Za uspeh projekta je bil bistven sistem dodeljevanja prostorov novim uporabni- kom, ali z drugimi besedami, odprta politika upravljanja prostorov. Le usklajevanje različnih zahtev in spodbujanje programske raznolikosti bi projektu zagotovilo vi- talnost. Država je prispevala začetna sredstva, za izvedbo del pa je bila zadolžena občina Nikšić. Narejen je bil izvedbeni projekt in izdano gradbeno dovoljenje. Lo- kalna skupnost je pozdravila možnost, da se problem zloglasne »modre grobnice« v središču mesta dokončno razreši. Še en zgodovinski preobrat pa je pobudo spodkopal. Dela so se začela marca 2018, junija pa je postalo očitno, da se ne uresničuje projekt arhitektov HHF in Sadar + Vuga, ampak nekaj drugega. Velike prostore stavbe so zaprli, druge pa odrezali, v nasprotju z idejami o pretočnosti prostorov in celovitosti prvotne struk- ture. Dela so zato ustavili in stanje projekta trenutno ni jasno. Spominski dom v Kolašinu je bil poskus uskladitve oblikovne monumentalnosti in državljanskega programa. Prevlada oblike nad programsko zasnovo je ovirala ra- zvoj stavbe v novih družbenih in kulturnih pogojih. Iracionalnost prvotnega pro- jekta Doma revolucije v Nikšiću je izhajala iz poskusa konstrukcije monumental- nosti s pretiranim kulturnim programom. Tako monumentalne ambicije kot pro- gram kulturnega središča so zastareli že v času gradnje, kar kaže na nezmožnost ortodoksne socialistične ideologije, da bi sprejela naslednjo stopnjo v razvoju družbe. Megalomanski idealizem, vpet v Dom revolucije, je ustvaril spektakular- no razvalino, ki je komaj primerljiva s čimerkoli, kar se gradi po svetu. Trenutna parcelacija Doma revolucije je posledica izvajanja zasebnih interesov z javnimi deli. Je žalosten kazalnik parohializma, pomanjkanja idealizma in propadanja jav- nega dobrega. Če je bil pozni socializem, izražen s stavbami-spomeniki, ujet med preteklostjo in prihodnostjo, so sodobne postsocialistične družbe ujete v nepre- kinjeno sedanjost, ki zanika preteklost in prihodnost. Ko se zgodovina ustavi, ni prostora za spomenike. Prevedel Miha Dešman 84 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Spomenik Pod Beram / The Monument Pod Beram Jerica Ziherl 1 Stećak, slo. steček (sinonimi: bilig, kam, marmor, zlamen, kuća, znani tudi kot marmorji, magi, grško pokopališče, karijsko pokopališče in kiklopski kamni), je vrsta kamnitega srednjeveškega nagrobnika. Njegovo ime izhaja iz oblike glagola »stojati«, tj. »stoječ«. Nagrobniki v obliki stećkov so bili zgrajeni v srednjem veku in predstavljajo življenjsko dobo ter jih večinoma najdemo v Bosni in Hercegovini, obstajajo pa tudi v jugovzhodni Hrvaški, jugozahodni Srbiji in severozahodni Črni gori. 2 Besedilo, vklesano na vzhodno stran vertikale, ki ima obliko obeliska, ima enotno tipografijo. 3 Izražene mere so približne. Avtorica je uporabila mero koraka in zgolj ocenila višino obeliska. Literatura Zdenko Kolacio: Spomenici i obilježja 1953–1982 (predgovor Tonko Maroević), Globus, Zagreb, 1984, str. 25, 26, 27. Ime spomenika: Spomenik s kostnico narodnega heroja Vladimirja Gortana Lokacija: Pod Beram, Istra, Hrvaška Leto izdelave: 1953 Avtorja: arhitekt Zdenko Kolacio, soavtor Zdenko Sila Današnji lastnik oziroma skrbnik spomenika: Spomenik teritorialno sodi v mesto Pazin, za organizacijo različnih komemoracij je zadolženo Protifašistično društvo Pazin. Material: kamen, konstrukcija obeliska je iz betona Stanje: Spominski kompleks je ohranjen, a objekt bi bilo vsekakor dobro restavrirati. Spomenik je bil prvotno sestavljen iz monolitnih belih geometrijskih poudarkov znotraj zelenega prostranstva, kar je zrcalilo tradicionalno gradnjo spomenika in cerkve v bližnjem naselju Beram, kjer se je rodil hrvaški rodoljub Vladimir Gortan. Ta prvotni atribut spomenika pa je bil zaradi delne zgraditve stanovanjskega naselja v neposredni bližini spominskega kompleksa kasneje uničen. Tako je bistveni element spomenika, ki ima sicer precejšnjo urbanistično-arhitektonsko in umetniško vrednost, ohranjen zgolj na izvornih črno-belih fotografijah iz preteklosti. Avtor fotografije: Đanino Božić (januar 2020) Ne glede na svoj komemorativni značaj je to prvi spomenik v Istri, ki je pomenil odmik od dotedanjih figurativnih prikazov, kakršne so v spominskih kompleksih po drugi svetovni vojni ustvarjali v vseh republikah socialistične Jugoslavije. Avtor- ja spomenika, po stroki arhitekta in urbanista, sta uporabila preproste geometrij- ske elemente s poudarkom na tipološko povezanih oblikah obeliska in stećka,1 pri čemer sta vztrajala pri uporabi čistih struktur ter spoštovanju okolja in tradicije samega kraja. Tako sta po našem mnenju ustvarila eno od izjemnih del hrvaške spominske dediščine. Z uporabo geometrijskih oblik, njihovim premišljenim in skladnim medsebojnim odnosom ter povezavo s prostorskim kontekstom sta ustvarila svojevrstno alegorično vez med zgodovinskimi dogodki in takratno aktu- alno sedanjostjo. Spomenik je bil narejen v obdobju zapletenih mednarodnih po- litičnih in družbenih vrenj povojnega časa (vprašanje Istre in njene združitve s Slovenijo in Hrvaško v okviru jugoslovanske federacije). Do sprejetja londonskega sporazuma leta 1954 tudi ni bilo rešeno vprašanje cone B Svobodnega tržaškega ozemlja v Istri, zato je dejstvo, da so »ta spomenik postavili Istrani 14. junija 1953«,2 oznanjalo vzpostavitev duhovnega ozračja, ki ni pripomoglo zgolj k vzpo- stavitvi bolj umirjenega obdobja, ampak tudi k razvoju in prestrukturiranju mno- gih družbenih procesov, kar je prispevalo k nastanku določenega ekonomskega, materialnega in kulturnega razvoja ter k večji mednarodni prepoznavnosti. Na kratko bi lahko rekli, da je bil to čas splošnega napredka, ko je vrsta protislovij ostala skritih, pa tudi čas mnogih aktivnosti in uspešnega sodelovanja, kar je po- menilo zanesljiv dejavnik splošnega napredka in tudi napredka v umetnosti. Do skrajnosti zreducirani, pravzaprav abstraktni elementi spomeniškega komple- ksa vaščanov niso zmotili. O tem priča izjava Zvonimirja Baćca (Beram, 1939), ki je dejal, da je bilo pri postavljanju spomenika leta 1953 prisotnih veliko ljudi, tudi predsednik Tito. Ta spomenik je z usklajenostjo geometrijskih elementov, s premišljenim odno- som do belega kamna, z zelenjem v okolici in z arhitektonsko povezanostjo z bli- žnjim krajem pomenil uvod v gradnjo večjega števila podobnih spomenikov v šestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja. Opis spomenika Spomenik sestavljajo trije elementi: plato, tlakovan s kamnom (180 m²), monoli- ten kamnit blok/sarkofag (višina 170 cm, dolžina 200 cm, širina 100 cm) in verti- kalna oblika, obložena s kamnitimi ploščami (višina 1000 cm, dolžina 150 cm, ši- rina 70 cm).3 Stranice kamnitega bloka/sarkofaga (ožja spodnja baza in širša zgornja ploskev) krasijo reliefni prizori in vklesani besedili enotne tipografije. Južna stran: Tukaj počivajo posmrtni ostanki narodnega heroja Vladimirja Gortana iz vasi Beram, ki je 17. oktobra 1929 žrtvoval svoje življenje za svobodo Istre Severna stran: Istra, ki je bila osvobojena v boju jugoslovanskega naroda ter osvobojena nasilja italijanskega imperializma, je hvaležna vsem borcem, ki so prispevali k njeni neodvisnosti in svobodi. Na vzhodni in zahodni strani so v plitvem reliefu izklesane podobe orodja (motika, nož, škarje, plug, sekira). Prevedla Lidija Jerman Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 85arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Jerica Ziherl Name of monument: Monument with ossuary of People's Hero Vladimir Gortan Location: Pod Beram, Istria, Croatia Produced in: 1953. Authors: architect Zdenko Kolacio, co-author Zdenko Sila Present owner or caretaker: territorially, this monument is under the authority of the town of Pazin; the various commemorations are organised by Anti-fascist Association of Pazin. Material: stone; the obelisk's inner core is made of concrete Present state: the memorial complex is preserved but the structure would definitely benefit from a restoration. The monument was initially composed of white monolithic geometrical accents in a green expanse, which mirrored the traditional monument and church builds in the nearby settlement of Beram, where Croatian patriot Vladimir Gortan was born. Due to a residential community having been partly built in the immediate vicinity, this original attribute of the monument was subsequently ruined. This essential element of the monument, which has significant urban-architectural and artistic value, is thus retained only on original black-and-white photographs from the past. Photographer: Đanino Božić, January 2020. Notwithstanding the commemorative character of the monument itself, this is the first monument in Istria which represents a deviation from figurative depictions of memorial complexes up to that point, which were constructed in all the republics of socialist Yugoslavia after World War 2. The monument's authors - architects and urban planners by profession - used simple geometric elements with the emphasis on typologically related shapes of the obelisk and the stećak,1 and insisted on using clear structures and respecting the environment and tradition of the place itself. In doing this, they created - in our opinion - one of the exceptional works of Croatian memorial heritage. By using geometric shapes, employing a considered and har- monious mutual relationship, and establishing a link to the spatial context, the authors created a distinctive allegorical "connection" between historical events and the present situation of the time. The monument was created in the period of complicated international political and social upheavals of the post-war era: the Istrian question and its unification with Slovenia and Croatia to form the Yugoslav federation. Until the adoption of the London Memorandum in 1954, the question of Zone B of the Free Territory of Trieste in Istria also remained unresolved. The fact that this monument was erected by the people of Istria on 14th June 19532 thus announced the engendering of a certain spiritual climate which contributed not only to the commencement of a more tranquil period but also to the development and restructuring of many social processes, which contributed to the fostering of a certain economic, material and cultural development, and an enhanced interna- tional profile. In short, it could be claimed that this was a period of general pro- gress in which many contradictions remained unperceived. This was also a time of numerous activities and successful co-operation, which represented a definite fac- tor of general progress, as well as progress in art. The radically pared down, indeed abstract elements of the monument complex did not raise eyebrows with the townspeople. A testament to this is a statement by Zvonimir Baćac (Beram; b. 1939), who said that a multitude of people were present at the erection of the monument in 1953, including among them President Tito. With the congruity of its geometric elements, the considered attitude toward the white stone, the greenery in the vicinity, and the architectural whole of the near- by Beram, the monument represented a foray into constructing a large number of similar monuments produced in the 1960s and 1970s. Description of the monument The monument comprises three elements: a stone-paved platform measuring 180 sqm, a monolith stone block/sarcophagus (height: 170 cm; length: 200 cm; width: 100 cm), and a vertical shape clad in stone slabs (height: 1000 cm; length: 150 cm; width: 70 cm). The sides of the stone block/sarcophagus - the narrower lower base and the wider upper surface - are composed of scenes in relief and typographically uni- form carved inscriptions.3 Southern side: Resting here are the earthly remains of People's Hero Vladimir Gortan from the village of Beram, who on 17th October 1929 Sacrificed his life for the freedom of Istria Northern side: Istria, liberated in the struggle of the Yugoslav people from the violence of Italian imperialism, is grateful to all fighters For its independence and freedom. On the eastern and western sides, there are images of tools (a hoe, a knife, scissors, a plough, and an axe) carved in low relief. 1 Stećak (Cyrillic: Стећак, [stetɕak]; plural: Stećci, Стећци, [stetɕtsi]) is the name for monumental medieval tombstones, that lie scattered across Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the border parts of Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia 2 The text carved in the eastern side of the vertical, which has the shape of an obelisk, has uniform typography. 3 Approximate measurements. The author used her steps as measure and the height of the obelisk is only an estimate. Bibliography Zdenko Kolacio: Spomenici i obilježja 1953 – 1982 (predgovor Tonko Maroević) (Monuments and memorials 1953 – 1982 (fore- word by Tonko Maroević) - Croatian only), Globus, Zagreb, 1984., pp. 25, 26, 27. 86 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Skupno. Posebno. Posamično. / Shared. Particular. Individual. 87arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Jerica Ziherl _ Kaj obeležuje spomenik? _ Kakšna je lega spomenika v pokrajini / prostoru? _ Kakšna je njegova umetniška vrednost? _ Poslovilna / obredna pot – ali je bila definirana, kako je potekala komemoracija? _ Ali obstaja kakšna posebna zgodba o spomeniku? _ Spomenik danes – kaj se z njim dogaja, kakšen je odnos prebivalcev, obiskovalcev? _ What does the monument commemorate? _ Siting of the monument in the landscape / space. _ Artistic value of the monument. _ Remembrance path / ritual path - was it defined, how was the commemoration structured? _ A special story relating to the monument (if there is one). _ The monument today - what is its present state, what is the attitude of the population / visitors? Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. • Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991 The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991 90 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Kuratorji / Curators: Boštjan Bugarič, Kristina Dešman, Maja Ivanič, Špela Kuhar, Eva Mavsar, Špela Nardoni Kovač, Damjana Zaviršek Hudnik Po skoraj tridesetih letih od razpada Jugoslavije se lahko z distanco sprehodimo skozi del skupne arhitekturne zgodovine. Dediščine jugoslovanske arhitekture so se pred skoraj desetletjem lotili v Udruženju hrvatskih arhitekata v sodelovanju z Umetnostno galerijo Maribor, in sicer z regionalno zasnovanim projektom Nedokončane modernizacije – Med utopijo in pra- gmatizmom – Arhitektura in urbanizem v nekdanji Jugoslaviji in državah naslednicah, lansko leto pa ji je bila posvečena glo- balna razstava v newyorški MoMI z naslovom H konkretni utopiji: Arhitektura v Jugoslaviji 1948–1980. V arhitekturi in umetnosti nekdanje Jugoslavije izstopajo spomeniki žrtvam narodnoosvobodilne vojne, ki nas skozi izjemno umetniško govorico spominjajo in opominjajo na dostojanstvo človeškega življenja in smrti. Močno so zaznamovali javni od- prti prostor nekdanje skupne države. Njihova unikatna arhitekturno-umetniška zasnova jih je postavila v polje brezčasnosti, ki ni omejeno z geografskimi in kulturnimi mejami, starostjo, raso ali političnimi nazori. Snovali so jih najprepoznavnejši jugo- slovanski arhitekti in kiparji, kot so Bogdan Bogdanović, Edvard Ravnikar, Vojin Bakić, Dušan Džamonja in mnogi drugi. Ti so namesto režimske simbolike v svojih stvaritvah prepletali sodobnost, preteklost, mistiko, elemente antičnih nekropol, etno- grafijo in prostorsko poetiko. Spomeniki so večinoma zasnovani kot kiparsko-arhitekturni objekti, abstraktne arhitekturne skulpture. Mnogi so bili zgrajeni iz betona, ki so ga z oblikovanjem in obdelavami povzdignili v plemenit material. Postavljeni so na avtentičnih prostorskih si- tuacijah in na zgodovinskih prizoriščih, oblikovanih kot komemorativne poti. Vsak od spomenikov pripoveduje zgodbo, pove- zano z dogodki in žrtvami, ki jih obeležuje. V galeriji DESSA ter uredništvih revije AB – Arhitektov bilten in platforme Architectuul smo sredi marca 2019 pričeli pripravlja- ti razstavo in publikacijo z naslovom Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin – Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991. Kustosi smo na podlagi visoke arhitekturno-umetniške vrednosti objektov in izjemne kontemplativnosti prostorskih zasnov izbrali 33 spomenikov oziroma spominskih kompleksov iz vseh republik in avtonomnih pokrajin nekdanje Jugoslavije. Kar je bilo težka naloga, saj je izjemnih spominskih stvaritev na tem območju še mnogo več. Razstavo smo pripravili v sodelovanju s strokov- njaki – pisci, fotografi in institucijami s področja nekdanje Jugoslavije in tudi širše – s katerimi smo položili tudi temelje sode- lovanja v prihodnje. Z razstavo želimo pokazati in ovrednotiti izjemnost arhitekture jugoslovanskih spomenikov, ki jo poleg estetske in konstrukcijske inovativnosti nadgrajuje samosvoj umetniški izraz. Spomeniki so tudi politična umetnost. A pri predstavljenih spomenikih to niti ne zmanjšuje niti ne povečuje njihove umetni- ške vrednosti. V njih se zrcali nekaj drugega: so brezkompromisen poklon človečnosti, pieteti do žrtev, podani skozi individu- alni umetniški izraz avtorjev. A zdi se, da je z razpadom Jugoslavije na posamezne samostojne države leta 1991 začela izzvenevati tudi potreba po spošto- vanju spomina, ki ga izražajo njena spominska obeležja. Zato so spomeniki danes po posameznih območjih različno obravna- vani in v različnem stanju. Ponekod ohranjajo spoštljiv spomin na preteklost in na prizadevanja minulih generacij, drugod so zapuščeni in prepuščeni propadu ali pa celo oskrunjeni. Zaradi njihove abstraktnosti jih danes izkoriščajo v takšne ali drugač- ne namene: od snemanja reklam in glasbenih videospotov do modnih pist. Takšna raba spomenikov s strani posameznikov, ki s preteklostjo ne čutijo oziroma je ne poznajo in je zato tudi ne morejo spoštovati, pomeni zlorabo in omalovaževanje do- stojanstva žrtev ter spomina nanje. Z razstavo načrtujemo gostovanja v vseh nekdanjih jugoslovanskih republikah. Spodbuditi želimo zrelo in spoštljivo presojo umetniško-arhitekturne vrednosti spomenikov nekdanje države, opozoriti na njihov kulturni in kontemplativni pomen ter s tem prispevati k vzdrževanju in ohranjanju spominskih območij. Prav tako želimo predstaviti izjemno, napredno in še vedno sodobno umetniško govorico njihovih ustvarjalcev, ki presega površnost iskanja drugačnega, eksotičnega, slikovitega in nepo- znanega. Spomeniki so vezi s preteklostjo, opominjajo na dostojanstvo človeškega življenja in smrti. In spomina. Zahvala Iskreno se zahvaljujemo vsem, ki so prispevali svoje znanje in čas ter nam s tem poma- gali ustvariti to razstavo: piscem besedil, fotografom, video umetnikom … In tudi vsem, ki so ali bodo kakorkoli prispevali k promociji razstave in ohranjanju spomenikov. Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991 / The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 91arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition After almost 30 years since the break-up of Yugoslavia, we can take a stroll through a part of the shared architectural history with the benefit of distance. The heritage of Yugoslav architecture was taken on almost a decade ago by Croatian Architects Association in collaboration with Maribor Art Gallery with the regionally conceived project Unfinished Modernisations – Be- tween Utopia and Pragmatism – Architecture and Urban Planning in the Former Yugoslavia and the Successor States, and last year with the global exhibition in New York City's MoMA Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948–1980. In the architecture and art of ex-Yugoslavia, the monuments to the victims of the People's Liberation War stand out. Through their extraordinary artistic language, they remind us of the dignity of human life and death. They are powerful markers of the once-common state's public open space. Their unique architectural and artistic design has placed them on a field of timeless- ness which is not constrained by geographic and cultural borders, age, race, or political views. They were built and designed by Yugoslav architects and sculptors of the highest profile, such as Bogdan Bogdanović, Edvard Ravnikar, Vojin Bakić, Dušan Džamonja, and many others. Instead of the regime's symbolism, their creations combined the present, the past, mystique, the elements of antique necropolises, ethnography, and spatial poetics. The monuments are predominantly designed as sculptural-architectural structures, abstract architectural sculptures. Many were constructed in concrete, which was elevated to the status of noble material by virtue of shaping and finishing. They are sited in authentic spatial situations and historical settings, designed as a commemorative path. Every monument tells a story connected with the events and victims which and whom they are a memorial to. In mid-march 2019, Gallery DESSA, ab-Architect's Bulletin magazine and platform Architectuul began the preparations for the exhibition and publication named Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance.; The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991. On the basis of high architectural and artistic value of the structures and the exceptional contemplative qualities of the spatial designs, the curators selected 33 monuments and memorial complexes from all the republics and autonomous provinces of ex-Yugoslavia. This was no easy task as the said territory contains many more exceptional memorial creations. The exhibition was prepared in collaboration with experts: authors, photographers, and institutions from the ex-Yugoslav region and be- yond, which has also laid the foundation for future co-operation. With the exhibition, we wish to present and evaluate the exceptional architecture of the Yugoslav monuments, whose aesthetic and structural innovation is enhanced by their idiosyn- cratic artistic expression. Monuments are also political art. But in regard to the works presented, this neither diminishes nor increases their artistic value. They reflect something else: they are an uncompromising tribute to humanity, to reverence towards the victims, con- veyed by means of the authors' individual artistic expression. With the dissolution of Yugoslavia into individual independent states in 1991, it seems that the need for respecting the re- membrance expressed by its memorials is waning. As a result, the present state of repair of the monuments and their treat- ment varies depending on the region. In some places, the past and the strivings of the previous generations are held in re- spectful memory while elsewhere, the monuments have been abandoned, left to ruin, or even desecrated. Due to their ab- stract nature, they may be used for very different purposes, such as shooting TV advertisements and music videos, or as fashion runways. Such use of monuments by individuals who have no appreciation or knowledge of the past and therefore cannot respect it represents misuse as well as contempt for the dignity of the victims and their memory. The exhibition is planned to be shown in all the former Yugoslav republics. We wish to foster a sober and respectful assess- ment of the value of ex-Yugoslav monuments and draw attention to their cultural and contemplative significance, and thus lend support to the maintenance and preservation of the memorial areas. We also wish to present the exceptional, progres- sive, and still-contemporary creative language of their artists and other creators, which transcends the superficiality of the quest for the different, the exotic, the picturesque, and the unknown. Monuments are ties to the past, they recall of the dig- nity of human life and death. And remembrance. Thank you We sincerely thank everyone who contributed knowledge and time and thus helped us to create this exhibition: authors of the texts, photographers, video artists et al. and to all who have or will in any way contribute to the promotion of the exhibition and to the preservation of the monuments. arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 K O P E R 92 Seznam spomenikov na razstavi / List of monuments at the exhibition 01 BUKOVŠKO POLJE, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1950 Jože Plečnik 02 DRAGA, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1953 Edvard Ravnikar Boris Kalin 03 KAMPOR, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1953 Edvard Ravnikar Marij Pregelj 04 PODLJUBELJ, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1954 Boris Kobe 05 OSANKARICA, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1959 Branko Kocmut Slavko Tihec 06 GRADEC, Avstrija / GRAZ, Austria, 1961 Boris Kobe 07 PODGORA, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1962 Rajko Radović Gradbeno podjetje Lavčević / Construction company Lavčević 08 ŠUMARICE, KRAGUJEVAC, Srbija / Serbia, 1963 Mihajlo Mitrović Radivoj Tomić Smiljan Klaić Miodrag Živković Ante Gržetić Nebojša Delja Jelica Bosnić Gradimir Bosnić Nandor Glid Vojin Bakić Jovan Soldatović 09 BUBANJ, NIŠ, Srbija / Serbia, 1963 Mihajlo Mitrović Ivan Sabolić 10 MOSTAR, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1965 Bogdan Bogdanović 11 ILIRSKA BISTRICA, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1965 Janez Lenassi Živa Baraga 12 SLOBODIŠTE, KRUŠEVAC, Srbija / Serbia, 1965, 1978, 1985 Bogdan Bogdanović Tomislav Milanović Svetislav Živić 13 JASENOVAC, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1965 Bogdan Bogdanović 14 MOSLAVINA, PODGARIĆ, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1965 Dušan Džamonja Vladimir Veličković 15 VOGOŠĆA, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1969 Zlatko Ugljen Petar Krstić 16 KOSMAJ, Srbija / Serbia, 1971 Gradimir Medaković Vojan Stojić 17 SUTJESKA, TJENTIŠTE, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1971 Miodrag Živković Ðorđe Zloković 18 KOZARA, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1972 Dušan Džamonja 19 MITROVICA, Kosovo / Kosovo, 1973 Bogdan Bogdanović 20 ŠTIP, Makedonija / Macedonia, 1974 Bogdan Bogdanović 21 MAKEDONIUM, KRUŠEVO, Makedonija / Macedonia, 1974 Jordan Grabuloski Iskra Grabuloska Petar Mazev Borko Lazeski 22 DRAŽGOŠE, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1976 Boris Kobe Ive Šubic Stojan Batič 23 KADINJAČA, Srbija / Serbia, 1979 Aleksandar Ðokić Miodrag Živković 24 GRMEČ, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1979 Ljubomir Denković 25 BARUTANA, Črna gora / Montenegro, 1980 Svetlana Kana Radević 26 DUDIK, VUKOVAR, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1980 Bogdan Bogdanović 27 POPINA, ŠTULAC, Srbija / Serbia, 1981 Bogdan Bogdanović 28 GARAVICE, BIHAĆ, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1981 Bogdan Bogdanović 29 DREŽNICA, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1981 Zdenko Kolacio 30 PETROVA GORA, Hrvaška / Croatia, 1981 Vojin Bakić Berislav Šerbetić 31 PST, POT, LJUBLJANA, Slovenija / Slovenia, 1957–1962, 1972–1985, 1985, 2016 Vlasto Kopač Božo Pengov Mitja Omersa Franc Kastelic Jože Štoka Janez Koželj 32 TREBJESA, NIKŠIĆ, Črna gora / Montenegro, 1987 Ljubomir Ljubo Vojvodić 33 ŠID, Vojvodina / Vojvodina, 1988 Miroslav Krstonošić Jovan Soldatović Milan Sapundžić Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition 93 Opomba: Uporabljena so imena nekdanjih republik in avtonomnih pokrajin SFRJ. Note: The exhibition uses the names of the former republics and autonomous regions of SFR Yugoslavia. Republike SFRJ Republics of SFRY Kratice / Abbreviations Bosna in Hercegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina BIH Črna gora Montenegro MNE Hrvaška Croatia HRV Kosovo Kosovo KOS Makedonija Macedonia MKD Slovenija Slovenia SLO Srbija Serbia SRB Vojvodina Vojvodina VOJ 94 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Kustosi / Curators Boštjan Bugarič Kristina Dešman Maja Ivanič Špela Kuhar Eva Mavsar Špela Nardoni Kovač Damjana Zaviršek Hudnik Besedila / Texts Boštjan Bugarič, Slovenija / Slovenia Fjollë Caka, Kosovo / Kosovo Miha Dešman, Slovenija / Slovenia Andrej Hrausky, Slovenija / Slovenia Sanja Horvatinčić, Hrvaška / Croatia Ana Ivanovska, S. Makedonija / N. Macedonia Jelica Jovanović, Srbija / Serbia Jurij Kobe, Slovenija / Slovenia Urša Komac, Avstralija / Australia Janez Koželj, Slovenija / Slovenia Ljiljana Miletić Abramović, Srbija / Serbia Aleksander Saša Ostan, Slovenija / Slovenia Robert Potokar, Slovenija / Slovenia Slavica Stamatović Vučković, Črna gora / Montenegro Boris Trapara, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina Aleš Vodopivec, Slovenija / Slovenia Irena Weber, Slovenija / Slovenia Fotografije / Photographs Blaž Budja, Slovenija / Slovenia Roberto Conte, Italija / Italy Vladimir Deskov, S. Makedonija / N. Macedonia Sanja Horvatinčić, Hrvaška / Croatia Andrej Hrausky, Slovenija / Slovenia Besim Ibrahimi, Kosovo / Kosovo Relja Ivanić, Srbija / Serbia Jelica Jovanović, Srbija / Serbia Miran Kambič, Slovenija / Slovenia Jurij Kobe, Slovenija / Slovenia Janez Koželj, Slovenija / Slovenia Matija Kralj, Hrvaška / Croatia Damjan Momirovski, S. Makedonija / N. Macedonia Lazar Pejović, Črna gora / Montenegro Olja Triaška Stefanović, Srbija / Serbia Boris Trapara, Bosna in Hercegovina / Bosnia and Herzegovina Matej Vozlič, Slovenija / Slovenia Virginia Vrecl, Slovenija / Slovenia Miodrag Živković, Srbija / Serbia Zemljevid in grafične ikone spomenikov / Map and graphic icons of monuments Eva Mavsar Video / Video Video spomin Drežnica / Video Memorial Drežnica Matija Kralj, Hrvaška / Croatia Dostojanstvo spomina / Dignity of Memory Ana Jovanović, Predrag Nedović, Aleksandra Djordjević, Srbija / Serbia Arhivsko video gradivo / File video footage 1 Spomeniki Vojvodine: spomenik sremske fronte / Monuments of Vojvodina: Sremski Front Memorial Produkcija: Radiotelevizija Vojvodine / Production Radio Television Vojvodina Urednik / Editor: Borko Hložan Scenarij / Screenplay: Borko Hložan, Vladimir Mitrović, Miroslav Krstonošić Bral / Narrator: Vladimir Mitrović Režija / Director: Dragoljub Bata Vojvodić April / April 2011 2 (Ne)primerni spomeniki – intervju z Miodragom Živkovićem / (In)appropriate Monuments – Interview with Miodrag Živković Dokumentarec / Documentary: Jelica Jovanović Snemalec / Camera: Djordje Arambašić Montaža / Editing: Marko Kažić 3 Arhiv Filmske novosti Beograd, Srbija / News Film archive Belgrade, Serbia - Svečanost ob spomeniku na Kadinjači / Commemoration at Kadinjača Monument (številka / Number: 039, 1979) - Dan borca – 4. julij 1974 / Veterans’ Day, 4th July 1974 (številka / Number: 028, 1974) - Proslava ob obletnici osvoboditve taborišča v Jasenovcu / Celebration of Jasenovac Concentration Camp Liberation (številka / Number: 016, 1975) - Odprtje spomenika v Kragujevcu / Opening of Kragujevac Monument (številka / Number: 043, 1963) - Spomenik Bubanj v Nišu / Bubanj Monument in Niš (številka / Number: 042, 1963) 4 Arhiv RTS, Beograd, Srbija / RTS Archive, Belgrade, Serbia - Sporočila kragujevškega oktobra / Messages from Kragujevac October (referenca / Reference: 104733, 2002) - Kosmaj pred julijskimi prazniki / Kosmaj before July’s Feast Days (referenca / Reference: 189801, 1973) - TV-pismo iz starega kraja / A TV Letter from an Old Place (referenca / Reference: 189909, 1982) - Profesor pomni / The Professor Remembers (referenca / Reference: 272419, 1941) - Pot v sodobnost 2 – Spomeniki / The Path into the Contemporaneity 2 – Monuments (2018) Videospoti / Videos Kukla: Crne oči / Black Eyes Senidah: Crno srce / Black Heart Alan Walker feat. Au / Ra and Tomine Harket: Darkside / Temna stran Nektar OK Fest, Tjentište, Sutjeska Lektoriranje / Proof reading Katja Paladin Prevodi v angleščino / English translation Sašo Podobnik Grafično oblikovanje in AD / Graphic Design and AD Nena Gabrovec Tisk plakatov / Printing of exhibition panels PRIMA IP Producent / Producer Galerija DESSA, Židovska steza 4, Ljubljana, Slovenija / Slovenia Organizatorji / Organizers Galerija DESSA, ab – arhitektov bilten, DAL, Architectuul Sodelujoče institucije / In cooperation with Muzej uporabne umetnosti Beograd, Srbija / Museum of Applied Art Belgrade, Serbia Institut za zgodovino umetnosti, Zagreb, Hrvaška / Institute of Art History, Zagreb, Croatia Univerza v Črni gori, Fakulteta za arhitekturo, Podgorica, Črna gora / University of Montenegro, Faculty of Architecture, Podgorica, Montenegro Expeditio, Kotor, Črna gora / Kotor, Montenegro Muzej za arhitekturo in oblikovanje – MAO, Ljubljana, Slovenija / Museum of Architecture and Design – MAO, Ljubljana, Slovenia Društvo arhitektov Ljubljana – DAL, Ljubljana, Slovenija / Architects’ Association of Ljubljana – DAL, Ljubljana, Slovenia Osebni arhiv Bogdana Bogdanovića, Beograd, Srbija / Personal archive of Bogdan Bogdanović, Belgrade, Serbia Zgodovinski arhiv Kruševac, Srbija / Historical Archive Kruševac, Serbia Docomomo Srbija / Docomomo Serbia (Ne)primerni spomeniki, Beograd, Srbija / (In)appropriate monuments, Belgrade, Serbia Arhiv Filmske novosti, Beograd, Srbija / News Film Archive, Belgrade, Serbia Radiotelevizija Srbija, Beograd, Srbija / Radio and Television Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia Western Sydney University, School of Built Environment, Sydney, Avstralija / Australia Ljubljana, november / November 2019 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. razstava / exhibition 96 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. SLO 01_ BUKOVŠKO POLJE, 1950 Jože Plečnik Spomenik žrtvam na Bukovškem polju • Dolenja vas v Selški dolini, Slovenija • Arhitekt: Jože Plečnik • Sodelavca: Anton Bitenc, Vladimira Bratuž • Material: kamen, les • Status: kulturni spomenik državnega pomena • Vir arhivskega gradiva: Arhiv MGML • Fotografije: Andrej Hrausky, Miran Kambič • Besedilo: Andrej Hrausky Monument to the victims at Bukovško polje • Dolenja vas in Selška Valley, Slovenia • Architect: Jože Plečnik • Collaborators: Anton Bitenc, Vladimira Bratuž • Material: stone, timber • Status: cultural monument of national importance • Material source: MGML Archive • Photographs: Andrej Hrausky, Miran Kambič • Text: Andrej Hrausky 97arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Arhitekt Jože Plečnik je arhitekturo dojemal kot »architecturo perennis«, kot de- javnost, ki presega končnost človekovega življenja in ostane zanamcem. V spome- nikih je videl spomin na preteklost, zato ni čudno, da se jim je posvečal vse življe- nje. Po drugi svetovni vojni je med drugim zasnoval enaindvajset spomenikov vojnim žrtvam. Med njimi je tudi spomenik »mučenikom Selške doline«, posve- čen 338 padlim borcem in žrtvam fašističnega nasilja iz Selške doline ter devetnaj- stim talcem, ustreljenim 14. julija 1943. Spomenik je arhitekt postavil na mesto ustrelitve, v naravno okolje, in ga odmaknil od ceste, do njega pa speljal pot z brezovim drevoredom. Pot se nekoliko vzpenja in nas pripravi na prihod na kraj spomina. Spomenik je oblikovan kot žarna hiša, postavljena na podstavek pod okriljem dvokapne strehe na štirih stebrih. V zgornji tretjini je Plečnik stebre pove- zal s štirimi loki, ki nakazujejo nižji obokan strop, in tako ustvaril motiv »hiše v hiši«. V stebre je vgradil kamne iz reke Sore, pod strop pa obesil ohranjene kole, na katere so bili privezani talci. Pri svoji arhitekturi, posebej pa še pri spomenikih, je Plečnik uporabljal »večni« simbolni nagovor osnovnih arhitekturnih elementov, ki naj bi bil jasen vsakomur – danes in v prihodnosti. Izogibal se je kiparskim upo- dobitvam, kot bi bil na primer partizan z bombo, in uporabi uradnih socialističnih oziroma komunističnih simbolov, saj so ti bolj slavili novo državo kot žrtve. Plečnik je poudarjal predvsem pieteto do pokojnih. Tudi pri spomeniku v Selški dolini bomo zaman iskali socialistično simboliko – celota spominja na vaško kapelico z grobom v obliki žarne hiše. Architect Jože Plečnik understood architecture as “architectura perennis”, as an activity which transcends the finiteness of human life and remains with the de- scendants. In monuments, he saw a memory of the past and it is no surprise that he built them throughout his life. After World War 2, he also designed twenty-one monuments to war victims. Among them is the monument to “the martyrs of Selška Valley”, dedicated to 338 deceased fighters and victims of fascist violence from Selška Valley, and to nineteen civilians shot on 14th July 1943. Plečnik erected the monument at the site of the shooting, in a natural environment, and pulled it away from the road, creating a birch-lined path leading to it. The path slopes up- wards somewhat and prepares one for the arrival at the place of memory. The monument is designed as a cremation monument placed on a plinth sheltered by a gabled roof on four pillars. In the upper third, the pillars are connected by four arches which indicate a low vaulted ceiling, thereby creating the motif of a “house within a house”. Into the pillars, Plečnik placed stones from river Sora, while under the ceiling, he hung the preserved poles to which the victims had been tied. In his architecture, and particularly in his monuments, Plečnik used the symbolic “eter- nal” engagement of basic architectural elements which was intended to be clear to everyone today and in the future. He avoided sculptural depictions, such as a Par- tisan holding a bomb, and the use of official Socialist or Communist symbols as they celebrated not so much the victims but rather the newly-formed state. Plečnik, however, emphasised the reverence towards the deceased and so the monument in Selška Valley displays no Socialist symbolism - as a whole, it is remi- niscent of a village chapel with a grave in the shape of a cremation monument. 98 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 02_ DRAGA, 1953 Edvard Ravnikar, Boris Kalin SLO Grobišče talcev v Dragi • Draga pri Begunjah, Slovenija • Arhitekt: Edvard Ravnikar • Kipar: Boris Kalin • Material: kamen • Status: kulturni spomenik državnega pomena • Fotografije: Miran Kambič • Besedilo: Aleš Vodopivec War victim burial site in Draga • Draga near Begunje, Slovenia • Architect: Edvard Ravnikar • Sculptor: Boris Kalin • Material: stone • Status: cultural monument of national importance • Photographs: Miran Kambič • Text: Aleš Vodopivec 99arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition V graščini Katzenstein v Begunjah so bili v času nacistične okupacije gestapovski zapori, v katerih so bili zaprti in mučeni pripadniki odporniškega gibanja. V delu stavbe je urejen muzej talcev, v parku ob graščini in v bližnji Dragi pa sta bili po načrtih Edvarda Ravnikarja urejeni grobišči 667 talcev. Spominski prostor v Dragi je zasnovan z zadržanim in izjemno subtilnim posegom v slikovito naravno okolje ozke doline, ki se vije ob potoku Begunjščica, obdajajo pa jo strma pobočja Kara- vank. Grobišče 161 talcev, ki leži med cesto in gozdom, je od okolice ločeno le s tremi segmenti nizkih kamnitih parapetov. Množice kamnitih monolitov v obliki tristranih prizem so v gručah, kakor skupine žrtev, postavljene na valovit travnat teren. Različne višine in orientacije kamnov, razporejenih v nepravilni geometriji, poudarjajo individualnost posameznika. Na kamne so vklesana imena žrtev z le- tnicama njihovega rojstva in smrti ter krajem njihovega bivanja. Med kamni raste avtohtono zelenje z barvitim cvetjem. Ob spominskem obelisku ob vhodu na ob- močje je manjši zbirni prostor. Izvedba spomenika z uporabo lokalnega kamna je bila tehnično nezahtevna in materialno skromna, vendar ustvarja presenetljivo bogat svet miselnih asociacij, metafor in prispodob. To intimno, a obenem izje- mno poetično delo odlikuje »razložena plastična tvorba, ki se nadaljuje v narav- nem okolju …«, kar je bila Ravnikarjeva temeljna težnja pri vseh spominskih obe- ležjih; ta so vedno del pejsaža. Ravnikarjevemu projektu je bil ob gozdu dodan kip talca, delo akademskega kiparja Borisa Kalina. Grobišče talcev v Dragi vzdržuje Občina Radovljica. Castle Katzenstein in Begunje was used as a Gestapo prison during the time of Nazi occupation with members of the resistance being held and tortured there. Today, part of the castle houses a Museum of the Victims while in the park by the castle and in nearby Draga, two burial sites for 667 victims were laid out by Edvard Ravnikar. The memorial space in Draga is designed as a restrained and exception- ally subtle intervention in the picturesque natural environment of the narrow val- ley rolling along stream Begunjščica, enveloped by the steep Karawanks slopes. The burial site of 161 victims located between the road and the forest is separated from its surroundings only by three segments of low stone parapets. Multitudes of stone monoliths shaped as three-sided prisms are placed in the undulating grassy terrain in clusters, like groups of victims. The different heights and orientations of the stones, arranged in an irregular geometry, emphasise each person’s individual- ity. The victims’ names, birth and death years, and places of residence are chiselled into the stones' sides. Between the stones, there is indigenous vegetation with colourful flowers. There is a small gathering space by the memorial obelisk, by the entrance to the area. The execution of the monument using local stone was techni- cally undemanding and materially modest, but it creates a surprisingly rich world of mind associations, metaphors, and allegories. This intimate but at the same time extraordinarily poetical work is distinguished by a “spread-out plastic forma- tion which projects into a natural environment [...]”, which was Ravnikar’s funda- mental striving in all his memorial monuments, which are always a part of the landscape. By the forest, a statue of a victim, a work by sculptor Boris Kalin, was added to Ravnikar’s project. The war victim burial site in Draga is maintained by the Municipality of Radovljica. 100 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 03_ KAMPOR, 1953 Edvard Ravnikar, Marij Pregelj HRV Spominsko pokopališče žrtev fašizma Kampor • Kampor, otok Rab, Hrvaška • Arhitekt: Edvard Ravnikar • Slikar: Marij Pregelj (mozaik) • Material: kamen, kovina • Status: kulturni spomenik • Fotografije: Miran Kambič • Besedilo: Aleš Vodopivec Memorial cemetery for victims of fascism, Kampor • Kampor, the island of Rab, Croatia • Architect: Edvard Ravnikar • Painter: Marij Pregelj (mosaic) • Material: stone, metal • Status: cultural monument • Photographs: Miran Kambič • Text: Aleš Vodopivec 101arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Edvard Ravnikar je avtor številnih spominskih obeležij NOB, ki so oblikovana kot arhitekturne kompozicije, praviloma brez kiparskih del, in so namenjena pred- vsem poklonu žrtvam, ne slavljenju zmagovalcev. Najobsežnejši je kompleks gro- bišča internirancev na Rabu, ki je bil zgrajen na pobudo zveze borcev Slovenije ob deseti obletnici osvoboditve italijanskega koncentracijskega taborišča Kampor, kjer so bili internirani Slovenci, Hrvati in Judje. Spominski kompleks, urejen na mestu taboriščnega pokopališča, leži na dnu doline, ki se izteka v morje, tako da ga z obeh strani obdajajo polja in zeleni bregovi, v daljavi pa je videti morski hori- zont z obrisi otoka Krka. Zasnovan je kot mesto mrtvih, z obzidjem, ki ga ločuje od okolice, z vhodnim platojem, glavno sprevodno potjo in prečno postavljenimi te- rasami ter linijami grobov, z osrednjo ploščadjo za prireditve, ki jo označuje 12 metrov visok obelisk, in z edino stavbo ob zaključku poti – »muzejem«. Zgolj ka- mnit parabolični lok slednjega, s stenskim mozaikom slikarja Marija Preglja in dve- ma vitrinama, ustvarja simbolno zavetje. Grobišče internirancev je presunljivo meditativno okolje brez simbolnih elementov. Abstraktno zasnovo kompleksa ustvarjajo, kot je dejal Ravnikar, »barvni kontrasti kamna z zelenjem okolice in modrino morja, odnosi vertikal arhitekture in horizontale morja ter komponirani pogledi, ki obstoječe pokrajinske elemente vežejo z novimi«. Skrbno komponira- ne poglede je kasneje prerasla bujna vegetacija. Celotni kompleks je bil zgrajen zgolj z uporabo lokalnega kamna ter s svinčenimi stiki in jeklenicami, ki zagotavlja- jo konstrukcijsko stabilnost obeliska in paraboličnega loka. Kip borca, ki stoji zunaj obzidja, ob vhodu, je bil v devetdesetih letih prestavljen iz mesta Rab. Za vzdrže- vanje spomenika je zadolžena Občina Rab. Edvard Ravnikar is the author of numerous remembrance sites of the People’s Liberation Struggle, which are designed as architectural compositions, typically without sculptures, and are intended chiefly to honour the victims, rather than to glorify the victors. The largest of these is the internee cemetery complex on the island of Rab, which was built on the initiative of Freedom Fighters’ Association of Slovenia to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the liberation of Italian con- centration camp Kampor in which Slovenes, Croats and Jews were interred. The memorial complex, laid out on the site of the camp cemetery, lies at the bottom of the valley ending in the sea and is thus enveloped by fields and green banks on either side, while in the distance, there is the sea horizon with an outline of the island Krk. It is designed as a city of the dead, with walls separating it from its sur- roundings, with an entrance platform, the main procession path and with trans- versally arranged terraces and lines of graves, with a central platform for manifes- tations marked by a 12-metre obelisk, and a sole building at the end of the path called the Museum. Only a stone parabolic arch of the museum creates a sym- bolic shelter featuring a wall mosaic by painter Marij Pregelj and two showcases. The internee cemetery is a poignant meditative environment devoid of symbolic elements. The abstract design of the complex is informed by, as put by Ravnikar, “colour contrasts of the stone with the green of the surroundings and the blue of the sea, the relationship of the architecture’s verticals with the horizontals of the sea, and the composed view connecting the existing landscape elements with new ones.” The carefully composed views have since been overgrown by ample vegetation. The entire complex is built using only local stone, with lead clamps and steel cables ensuring the stability of the obelsk’s and parabolic arch’s con- structions. The statue of the veteran standing outside the walls by the entrance was brought from the town of Rab in the 1990s. Municipality of Rab is responsible for the maintenance of the monument. 102 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 04_ PODLJUBELJ, 1954 Boris Kobe SLO Spomenik mednarodnim taboriščnim žrtvam • Podljubelj, Slovenija • Arhitekt: Boris Kobe • Kovač: Joža Bertoncelj • Material: kamen, kovina • Status: kulturni spomenik državnega pomena • Vir arhivskega gradiva: Arhiv MGML • Fotografije: Miran Kambič • Besedilo: Jurij Kobe Monument to international camp victims • Podljubelj, Slovenia • Architect: Boris Kobe • Blacksmith: Joža Bertoncelj • Material: stone, metal • Status: cultural monument of national importance • Material source: MGML Archive, archive of the text author • Photographs: Miran Kambič • Text: Jurij Kobe 103arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Na novopriključenem ozemlju Slovenije severno od Save so Nemci intenzivno gradili infrastrukturno omrežje, med drugim tudi cestni predor skozi Karavanke. V ta namen so leta 1943 na obeh straneh planine organizirali delovni koncentracijski taborišči z jetniki iz taborišča Mauthausen. Spomladi 1944 se je v taborišču ob podpori partizanskega Koroškega odreda pripravljal množični pobeg, ki pa ga je preprečila domača izdaja (Stane Mrvič, Muzej novejše zgodovine Slovenije). Tabo- rišče je delovalo do 7. maja 1945. Spominski park je kaskadno položen na rahlo padajoče pobočje, ob njegovem robu leži osrednje spominsko obeležje. Park s svojo konfiguracijo sledi terasni ureditvi nekdanjega taborišča, na kar opozarjajo le posamezni ostanki osrednjih barak. Monumentalnejši element je kompozicija petih strmo prirezanih visokih zidanih blokov, zgrajenih iz skal melišča, na katerem je stalo taborišče. Pet zidov z napisi v petih jezikih internirancev simbolizira visoko zaprto dolino, ki obdaja do okostnjaka sestradanega jetnika. Ta z dvignjenimi ro- kami kriči svoj »J’accuse!/Obtožujem!«, izpisan na podstavku. Največ taboriščni- kov je bilo Francozov. Arhitekt Boris Kobe, ki je leta 1977 prejel Prešernovo nagra- do za arhitekturo, slikarstvo, oblikovanje spomenikov, knjižno ilustracijo in peda- goško delo, je za figuro izdelal detajlne risbe v naravni velikosti, po katerih jo je nato skoval kovač Joža Bertoncelj iz Krope. Enovito prostorsko kompozicijo je žal presekala nova cesta na prelaz Ljubelj, ki je osrednji del spomenika odrezala od širše krajinske ureditve. Monumentalnost spominskega parka zmanjšuje tudi ne- nadzorovano razraščanje gozda. In the newly annexed territory of Slovenia, north of the river Sava, the Nazis were strenuously building an infrastructure network, which included the road tunnel through the Karawanks. For this purpose, they organised two labour concentration camps on either side of the mountain in 1943 using prisoners from camp Mau- thausen. In the spring of 1944, a mass escape was being prepared in the camp, aided by the Carinthian Partisan detachment. However, the plot was foiled due to domestic treason (Stane Mrvič, National Museum of Contemporary History). The camp was in operation until 7th May 1945. The memorial park is laid out on the slightly downsloping terrain as if in a cascade with the central memorial monu- ment placed on its edge. The park’s configuration follows the terraced layout of the former camp, nowadays marked only by sundry remains of the central barracks. A more monumental element is the composition of five tall, sharply truncated ma- sonry blocks built from the rocks taken from the scree where the camp had been located. Five walls inscribed in five languages of the internees symbolise the tall trough valley surrounding the skeleton-thin famished prisoner. With his arms up in the air, he cries his “J’accuse!/Obtožujem!” (“I Accuse!”) written on the plinth. The largest number of the prisoners were French. Architect Boris Kobe, who in 1977 received the State-awarded Prešeren Prize for architecture, painting, monument design, book illustration and pedagogical work, made detailed life-size drawings for the figure which was then wrought by blacksmith Joža Bertoncelj from Kropa. The holistic spatial composition was unfortunately cloven in two by the new road to Ljubelj mountain pass, which separated the central part of the monument from the associated wider landscape layout. The monumentality of the memorial park is further compromised by the uncontrolled expansion of the forest. 104 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 05_ OSANKARICA, 1959 Branko Kocmut, Slavko Tihec SL0 Kompleks v spomin padlim borcem Pohorskega bataljona na Osankarici • Osankarica na Pohorju, Slovenija • Arhitekt: Branko Kocmut • Kipar: Slavko Tihec • Material: granit, bron • Status: kulturni spomenik državnega pomena • Fotografije: Virginia Vrecl, Blaž Budja • Besedilo: Aleksander Saša Ostan Memorial complex for the killed fighters of Pohorski battalion, Osankarica • Osankarica on Pohorje, Slovenia • Architect: Branko Kocmut • Sculptor: Slavko Tihec • Material: granite, bronze • Status: cultural monument of national importance • Photographs: Virginia Vrecl, Blaž Budja • Text: Aleksander Saša Ostan 105arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Obisk spominskega obeležja je prvovrstno prostorsko doživetje: postopno pota- pljanje v čarobne pohorske gozdove vključuje obreda prehajanja in romanja. Hoja skozi mehko topografijo bukovega in smrekovega gozda nas umiri in pripravi na srečanje. Na poti prečkamo nekaj potočkov, brvi in granitnih plošč, diskretno ume- ščenih v zemljino. Ko se približamo ožji lokaciji dogodka (ki po svoji strukturi spomi- nja na grške tragedije, na bitko pri Termopilah), naletimo v naravni katedrali med vertikalnim ostenjem visokih smrek na prva znamenja obeležja – manjše granitne kocke z vgraviranimi imeni padlih. Na zgornji ploskvi je reliefno poglobljen kvadrat, v katerem se nabira voda s čarobnim odsevom neba. Iz stranic kubusa štrlita dva kamnita tulca, verjetno prispodobi cevi, saj kamni obeležujejo položaje obrambnih strelnih gnezd; morda pa tudi abstraktni očesi, ki zreta v svet prežeče nevarnosti ... Osrednji prostor obeležja označujejo večje, na ozek podstavek dvignjene granitne plošče, ki optično »zalebdijo« v prostoru. Ti abstraktni kamni simbolizirajo zemljan- ke, ki so jih borci Pohorskega bataljona konec zime 1942 postavili okoli majhne gozdarske koče. Prav tu, v središču kompozicije, kjer je nekoč stala koča štaba, leži največja kamnita plošča. Na njej počivata bronasti figuri/skulpturi – prispodobi moškega in ženske, ki v zadnjem, krčevitem boju legata na »žrtveni oltar svobode«. Za tiste čase pogumno, sodobno kiparstvo (nekje med Moorom in Giacomettijem), med figuraliko in abstrakcijo, organski preplet oblik med zunaj in znotraj, ki balan- sira med telesnim in duhovnim. V osrednji plošči še danes zeva luknja, skozi katero je nekoč rasla smreka. Simbol upanja, preživetja, moči narave? Danes na tem pro- storu ni sledov življenja, niti podrasti, tla so kot »mrtva« zemlja, posuta z iglicami in listjem, »ubito« rjave barve. A le nekaj metrov nižje nas na majhni jasi ob potočku pozdravijo zimzeleni mahovi; tu se lahko »okopamo« v revitalizacijski energiji goz- da, ki nam pomaga povrniti zaupanje v življenje ... Celotno obeležje spominja na svetišče v naravi, poetično in intimno pričevanje, ki nam onkraj socrealizma ali mo- numentalizma, značilnih za spominska obeležja tistih časov, z abstraktnim, simbol- nim in večno sodobnim arhitekturnim jezikom še danes spregovori o univerzalnem človekovem hrepenenju po svobodi. Kompozicija pa je tudi »land art«, natančno vpet v prostor in posvečen spominu na dejanske osebnosti. Iz dokumentov se da razbrati, da sta avtorja v izvorni zasnovi na zunanjem robu obeležja predvidela ovalni jarek z obročem odstranjenih dreves, ki naj bi ponazarjal mejo tabora oz. bitke. Zakaj tega »svetega (za)risa« v obeležju ni, ne vemo, a obiskovalcem bi po- magal ozavestiti realni perimeter tega tragičnega dogodka, ožjemu območju pa bi dodal posvečeni, pietetni značaj. Visiting the memorial site is a first-rate spatial experience: a gradual sinking in the magical Pohorje forests includes the ritual of passage and pilgrimage. The walk through the soft topography of the beech and spruce forest calms us and prepares us for the encounter. On our way, we cross a few streams, footbridges, and granite slabs discreetly placed in the earth. As we approach the ground zero of the tragic event (reminiscent in its structure of the battle of Thermopylae), we notice in the natural cathedral, among the vertical enclosures formed by the tall spruces, the first marks of the memorial - little granite cubes with engraved names of those killed. On the top surface, they feature a sunken shape of a square accumulating water with a magical celestial reflection. Two stone cylin- ders project from the cuboid’s sides, probably an allegory of a gun barrel as the stones denote the positions of defensive foxholes; perhaps they’re abstract eyes peering into the world of impending danger. The central space of the memorial is marked by larger stone slabs elevated on narrow supports causing the optical effect of “levitation” in the space. These abstract stones symbolise the dugouts constructed by Pohorski battalion fighters around a small forester’s lodge - the headquarters - at the end of winter of 1942. In the centre of the composition, once the site of the headquarters cabin, the largest stone slab is installed. Placed on it are two bronze figures/sculptures, allegories of a man and a woman lying down on the “sacrificial altar of freedom” in their desperate final struggle. For the time period, this was brave, contemporary sculpture (somewhere between Moore and Giacometti), figural and abstract to an equal degree, an organic inter- twining of forms between outside and inside, balancing between the corporeal and the spiritual. The stone slab itself features a gaping hole which formerly had a spruce growing through it. A symbol of hope, survival, and nature’s power? Today, there are no signs of life in this central space, no undergrowth, the ground resembles “dead” earth, strewn with conifer needles and leaves, “beat down brown” in colour. But only a couple hundred metres from here, we’re greeted by evergreen moss on a small meadow by a stream where we can “bathe” in the revitalising energy of the forest, which helps us regain faith in life ... The entire memorial is reminiscent of a sanctuary in nature, a poetic and intimate testi- mony, which even today speaks to us about the universal human yearning for freedom in an abstract, symbolic and forever contemporary architectural lan- guage beyond Socialist realism and monumentalism characteristic of commemo- rative memorials of the time. But at the same time, the composition is “land art”, precisely incorporated in the space (“in situ” and “site specific”) and dedicated to the memory of concrete persons. Records reveal that in the original design, the authors envisaged an oval trench with a ring of removed trees at the outer perimeter of the memorial in order to mark the limits of the camp and the battle. Why this “magic circle” does not feature in the memorial is not known, as it would help the visitors gain an understanding of the actual perimeter of the tragic event while augmenting the reverent character of this sacred space. 106 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 06_ GRADEC / GRAZ, 1961 Boris Kobe AUT Spomenik mednarodnim žrtvam nacizma • Centralno pokopališče, Gradec, Avstrija • Arhitekt: Boris Kobe • Statik: Svetko Lapajne • Material: kamen, kovina • Vir arhivskega gradiva: Muzej za arhitekturo in oblikovanje – MAO • Fotografije: Miran Kambič • Besedilo: Jurij Kobe Monument to international victims of Nazism • Central cemetery, Graz, Austria • Architect: Boris Kobe • Static: Svetko Lapajne • Material: stone, metal • Material source: Museum of Architecture and Design – MAO • Photographs: Miran Kambič • Text: Jurij Kobe 107arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition V avstrijskem Gradcu je bil arhitekt postavljen pred nehvaležno nalogo: v ožje območje mestnega pokopališča, ki z vso raznolikostjo intimnih obeležij in njihovih zgodb zelo težko sprejme večji ambient s posvečenim vzdušjem drugačne, obče pietete, umestiti spomenik mednarodnega pomena. Zato je prostor spomenika opredelil z nekoliko vzdignjeno ploščadjo, na kateri stoji osnovno znamenje – gra- nitni lok, ki simbolično povezuje žrtve različnih narodov. Na njegovo spodnjo po- vršino so vklesana njihova imena. Zgornjo površino loka oblikujejo stopnice, ki vodijo do velike brončene žare na njegovem temenu. Širši prostor nagovarja še drugi element spomeniške kompozicije – obelisk z večjezičnimi napisi o namenu spomenika. Sugestivno moč zasnove poudarjajo njena velikost oziroma dimenzije njenih preprostih elementov in material – pohorski tonalit, rezan v velikih plo- ščah. Kot zaslon, ki naj spomenik loči od tematsko drugačnega ozadja individual- nih grobišč in njihovega drobnejšega merila, je arhitekt zasadil izredno gosto po- stavljene stebraste topole. Ti imajo tudi pomembno vlogo v kompoziciji celote: s svojo rahlostjo ustvarjajo aktivni kontrapunkt monumentalni vlogi kamnitih delov spomenika, saj so z barvitim spremljanjem letnega življenjskega cikla svetlejši, bo- drejši sospev k trpkemu nagovoru temnega kamna. Spomenik je zanimiv tudi po tehnični plati: izredno tenak in eleganten lok velikega razpona sestavljajo le preci- zno rezani segmenti granita, ki jih v njihovem položaju varujeta skozi dve paralel- no potekajoči vzdolžni izvrtini nameščena snopa jeklenih vezi v minimalnem be- tonskem ovoju. Spominjam se obiska kamnoloma tonalita v Oplotnici, kamor me je oče še kot šolarja vzel s seboj na sestanek. Iz šablon, izrezanih iz jeklene pločevi- ne (takrat še ni bilo sodobnih CNC-strojev!), je bila na tleh ogromne hale sestavlje- na cela polovica velikega loka v naravni velikosti! In Graz, Austria, the architect was faced with a challenging fact: placing a monu- ment of international significance in the heart of the city cemetery, whose diver- sity of intimate memorials and their stories makes it difficult to accommodate a larger ambient with the solemn atmosphere of a different, communal reverence. Consequently, he defined the space of the monument with a slightly raised plat- form supporting the central device - a granite arch symbolically connecting the victims belonging to the different nations. Their names are engraved on the arch’s bottom surface while the upper surface is formed by steps leading to a large bronzed urn on its crown. There is a secondary element of the monument’s composition engaging the wider space - the obelisk with inscriptions about the purpose of the monument in multiple languages. The suggestive power of the design is emphasised by its size in the sense of the dimension of its simple ele- ments, as well as the material: Pohorje tonalite cut in large dimensions. To serve as a screen separating the monument from the thematically disparate back- ground of individual graves and their small scale, the architect planted columnar poplars very close together. With their ethereal character, they play an impor- tant role in the composition as a whole, representing an active counterpoint to the monumental role of the monument’s stone elements. Their colourful accom- paniment to the annual circle of life acts as a lighter and sprightlier complement to the more embittered engagement of the dark stone. The monument is also technically interesting: the markedly thin and elegant long-span arch is com- posed only of precise-cut segments of granite with two bundles of steel ties in minimal concrete wrapping passed through two parallel longitudinal bores se- curing them in their positions. I remember a visit to the tonalite quarry in Oplot- nica as a school boy when my father took me with him to a business meeting. On the floor of a giant hall, an entire half of the great arch was assembled out of dies cut from steel sheets (this was before contemporary CNC machines) in life size! 108 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 07_ PODGORA, 1962 Rajko Radović HRV Spomenik Jugoslovanske vojne mornarice – Krila galebov • Podgora, Hrvaška • Kipar: Rajko Radović • Arhitektura: Gradbeno podjetje Lavčević • Material: beton, bron, kamen • Fotografije: Roberto Conte, Matija Kralj • Besedilo: Sanja Horvatinčić Monument to Yugoslav navy / Gull’s Wings • Podgora, Croatia • Sculptor: Rajko Radović • Architecture: construction company Lavčević • Material: concrete, bronze, stone • Photographs: Roberto Conte, Matija Kralj • Text: Sanja Horvatinčić 109arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition V Podgori, jadranski vasici južno od Makarske, je bil septembra 1942 ustanovljen prvi oddelek jugoslovanske mornarice. Njeni vlogi v osvobodilni vojni (1941– 1945) je bil dvajset let pozneje posvečen spomenik, ki ga je odkril jugoslovanski predsednik Tito. Spomenik je med letoma 1960 in 1961 zasnoval srbski kipar Raj- ko Radović. To je bilo njegovo največje in najbolj znano javno delo. Skulptura je visoka 32 m, narejena pa je iz belega betona, ki se dviga neposredno iz črnega granitnega platoja dimenzij 12 x 30 m. Poleg zahtevne gradbene tehnike, ki so jo uporabili za izvedbo visoke in tanke betonske skulpture, je najpomembnejša zna- čilnost spomenika njegova lega nad jadransko avtocesto. Postavljen je med mor- sko obalo in strmo gorovje Biokovo in tako ustvarja močan vizualni poudarek v pokrajini, a je umeščen premišljeno, viden le z določenih ovinkov na panoramski obalni cesti. Glavni pogled nanj je seveda z morja – namenjen je predvsem tistim, ki jim je bil posvečen: mornarjem in prebivalcem vasi Podgora. Do njega in do ši- rokega spominskega platoja pred njim vodi ozka cesta, ki se odcepi z jadranske magistrale. Plato je bil prvotno namenjen uradnim spominskim slovesnostim. V začetku osemdesetih let je bil nasproti spomenika zgrajen proti morju orientiran amfiteater, namenjen neformalnim srečanjem in kulturnim prireditvam. V začet- ku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, ob političnih spremembah in skrajnih na- cionalističnih težnjah na Hrvaškem, so spomenik večkrat neuspešno minirali, po- zneje pa je bil pomen dogodkov iz protifašističnega upora namerno marginalizi- ran. Revizionistične težnje so prisotne tudi pri novem opisu spomenika na spo- minski plošči, ki trdi, da je spomenik posvečen vsem »hrvaškim mornarjem«, partizanskega upora pa ne omenja. In Podgora, a small Adriatic village south of Makarska, the first detachment of Yugoslav navy was established in September 1942. Its role in the liberation war (1941-1945) was commemorated twenty years later by a monument, which was unveiled by Yugoslav president Tito. The monument was designed between 1960 and 1961 by Serbian sculptor Rajko Radović. This was his largest and best known public work. The sculpture is 32 m tall, made from white concrete rising directly from the black granite platform measuring 12 m by 30 m. Beside the demanding construction technique used for the execution of the tall and slender concrete sculpture, the most important characteristic of the monument is its location above the Adriatic Highway. Placed between the sea coast and the steep moun- tain Biokovo, it is a powerful visual accent in the landscape, yet carefully sited so as to be visible only from certain curves of the panoramic coastal road. The prin- cipal view of it is, naturally, from the sea - it is intended primarily for those in whose honour it was built: sailors and the inhabitants of village Podgora. The monument and the wide memorial platform may be accessed by a narrow road which branches off the Adriatic Highway. The platform was initially intended for official remembrance commemorations. In the early 1980s, an amphitheatre ori- ented towards the sea was built opposite the monument, intended for informal gatherings and cultural events. In the early 1990s, amid political change and ex- tremist nationalistic tendencies in Croatia, there were several unsuccessful at- tempts to blow up the monument, while the significance of antifascist resistance has subsequently been deliberately downplayed. Revisionist tendencies can also be seen in the new description of the monument on the memorial plaque claim- ing that the monument is dedicated to all “Croatian sailors” while avoiding any mention of the Partisan struggle. 110 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spominski park Kragujevški oktober • Šumarice pri Kragujevcu, Srbija • Arhitekta: Mihajlo Mitrović, Radivoj Tomić • Krajinski arhitekt: Smiljan Klaić • Kiparji: Miodrag Živković, Ante Gržetić, Nebojša Delja, Jelica Bosnić, Gradimir Bosnić, Nandor Glid, Vojin Bakić, Jovan Soldatović • Material: beton, kamen, kovina, opeka • Status: varstvo zavoda za zaščito kulturnih spomenikov • Fotografije: Relja Ivanić • Besedilo: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović Memorial park Kragujevački oktobar • Šumarice near Kragujevac, Serbia • Architects: Mihajlo Mitrović, Radivoj Tomić • Landscape architect: Smiljan Klaić • Sculptors: Miodrag Živković, Ante Gržetić, Nebojša Delja, Jelica Bosnić, Gradimir Bosnić, Nandor Glid, Vojin Bakić, Jovan Soldatović • Material: concrete, stone, metal, brick • Status: The complex is under protection by Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments • Photographs: Relja Ivanić • Text: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović 08_ ŠUMARICE, KRAGUJEVAC, 1963 Mihajlo Mitrović, Radivoj Tomić, Smiljan Klaić, Miodrag Živković, Ante Gržetić, Nebojša Delja, Jelica Bosnić, Gradimir Bosnić, Nandor Glid, Vojin Bakić, Jovan Soldatović SRB 111arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spominski park v Kragujevcu je bil zasnovan leta 1953 v spomin na več tisoč nedolžnih Kragujevčanov, ki so jih med drugo svetovno vojno v enem dnevu, 21. oktobra 1941, ustrelile nemške okupacijske sile. Med talci je bilo tudi tristo dija- kov in njihovih profesorjev. Spominski park leži na mestu ustrelitve talcev, na po- vršini 352 hektarjev. Tu je trideset množičnih grobišč. Spomenike med seboj pove- zuje sedem kilometrov dolga pot. Prostor spominskega parka je zasnovan po ur- banistično-arhitekturnem projektu arhitektov Mihajla Mitrovića in Radivoja To- mića ter krajinskega arhitekta Smiljana Klaića. V kompleksu stoji sedem kiparsko -arhitekturnih del (od tridesetih prvotno načrtovanih), ki so jih zasnovali ugledni jugoslovanski kiparji. Spomenik Prekinjeni let, delo kiparja Miodraga Živkovića, ki je bil postavljen leta 1963 na mestu ustrelitve večje skupine dijakov in profesorjev in jim je posvečen, je postal prepoznavni simbol Šumaric in mesta Kragujevac. V devetdesetih letih so spominski park obogatili še s tremi kiparskimi deli. Ob vhodu v spominski park je muzej »21. oktober«, zgrajen za zbiranje, obdelavo, hrambo in predstavitev dokumentov, povezanih s tem tragičnim zgodovinskim dogodkom. Avtorja muzejske stavbe sta arhitekta Ivan Antić in Ivanka Raspopović. Muzej je bil svečano odprt 15. februarja 1976 v prisotnosti predsednika Jugoslavije Josipa Bro- za - Tita. Stavba je arhitekturni spomenik z vrsto asociacij in simbolnih pomenov. Leta 2003 je bila v muzeju odprta nova stalna postavitev. O omenjenih tragičnih dogodkih so posneli dva filma: V-3 (1962) v režiji Milenka Štrbca in Krvava pravljica (1969) v režiji Branimirja Torija Jankovića. Istoimenska pesem, Krvava pravljica, pesnice Desanke Maksimović je bila v povojni Jugoslaviji obvezno šolsko čtivo. Od leta 1971 poleg spomenika, posvečenega dijakom in profesorjem, vsako leto po- teka velika spominska slovesnost, imenovana Velika šolska ura. Ob tem se zvrstijo tudi številni drugi likovni in umetniški dogodki. Spominski park v Kragujevcu je bil 27. decembra 1979 razglašen za kulturni spomenik izjemnega pomena. Ves čas je skrbno vzdrževan in je danes v dobrem stanju. October memorial park in Kragujevac was designed in 1953 in memory of sev- eral thousand innocent inhabitants of Kragujevac, who were executed in a single day, 21st October 1941, by the Nazi occupying forces during World War 2. Among the victims, there were also three hundred pupils and their teachers. The memo- rial park is laid out on the site of the execution of the victims, in an area of 352 ha. Thirty mass graves are found at the site. The monuments are connected by a 7 km long trail. The space of the memorial park was designed as laid out in the urban- ist-architectural project by architects Mihajlo Mitrović and Radivoj Tomić, and landscape architect Smiljan Klaić. Seven sculptural-architectural works by re- nowned Yugoslav sculptors were installed in the complex, out of the thirty ini- tially planned. Monument “Prekinut let” (“Interrupted Flight”), a work by sculptor Miodrag Živković, is dedicated to the executed pupils and teachers and was in- stalled in 1963 on the site of the execution of a large group of pupils and teachers. It became a recognisable symbol of Šumarice and the city of Kragujevac. In the 1990s, three more sculptural works were added to the memorial park. At the entrance to the memorial park, museum “21st October” was built for gathering, processing, conserving, and displaying documents connected with this tragic his- torical event. The museum building was designed by architects Ivan Antić and Ivanka Raspopović. The grand opening was held on 15th February 1976 and at- tended by Josip Broz Tito, the then-President of Yugoslavia. The building is an ar- chitectural monument with a series of associations and symbolic meanings. In 2003, a new permanent collection was unveiled. Two films were made based on the tragic execution of the pupils, Prozvan je i V-3 (Roll Call for Class V-3, 1962) directed by Milenko Štrbac, and Krvava bajka (A Bloody Fairytale, 1969) directed by Branimir Tori Janković. Poem with the same title, “A Bloody Fairytale” by poet Desanka Maksimović, was mandatory school reading in post-war Yugoslavia. An- nually from 1971, a grand commemoration entitled “Veliki školski čas” (“The Great School Period”) has been held at the monument in remembrance of the pupils and teachers, accompanied by numerous art exhibitions and other artistic events. On 27th December 1979, October memorial park in Kragujevac was de- clared a cultural monument of special importance. Throughout the decades, it was well maintained and today finds itself in a good state of repair. 112 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spominski park Bubanj • Niš, Srbija • Arhitekt: Mihajlo Mitrović • Kipar: Ivan Sabolić • Material: beton, marmor • Fotografije: Roberto Conte, Olja Triaska Stefanović • Besedilo: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović Memorial park Bubanj • Niš, Serbia • Architect: Mihajlo Mitrović • Sculptor: Ivan Sabolić • Material: concrete, marble • Photographs: Roberto Conte, Olja Triaska Stefanović • Text: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović 09_ BUBANJ, NIŠ, 1963 Mihajlo Mitrović, Ivan Sabolić SRB 113arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spominski park Bubanj ima za mesto Niš in Republiko Srbijo veliko zgodovinsko in umetniško vrednost. Postavljen je bil v spomin na številne žrtve – Srbe, Jude in Rome – ki so jih od februarja 1942 do septembra 1944 na območju Bubnja, kjer je bilo taborišče, ustrelili pripadniki nemških okupacijskih sil. Prvotni spomenik v obliki skromne kamnite piramide je bil postavljen leta 1950, leta 1958 pa je bil razpisan natečaj za novega. Zmagovalna rešitev zagrebškega kiparja Ivana Sabo- lića (1921–1986) in beograjskega arhitekta Mihajla Mitrovića (1921–2019) je bila uresničena in slovesno odprta 14. oktobra 1963, na dan osvoboditve Niša izpod nemških okupacijskih sil leta 1944. Kompleks sestavljajo spominska pot dolžine 470 metrov, polkrožna marmorna stena dimenzij 32 x 2,5 metra s plitvim reliefom z upodobitvami usmrtitev in glavni element – tri skulpture v obliki pesti, visoke 13, 14 in 16 metrov, ki izražajo močno in univerzalno simboliko človeškega boja, še posebno partizanskega, katerega znak je bila med drugim tudi stisnjena pest. Od postavitve do devetdesetih let dvajsetega stoletja in razpada Jugoslavije je bil spo- menik množično obiskan kot kraj spoštovanja in spomina na žrtve druge svetovne vojne. Kompleks je bil nato prepuščen pozabi in izpostavljen zobu časa – vse do leta 2018, ko so sprožili akcijo za njegovo obnovo in zaščito. Memorial park Bubanj has great historical and artistic value for the city of Niš and the Republic of Serbia. It was erected in memory of numerous Serbian, Jew- ish, and Romani victims executed between February 1942 and September 1944 by members of Nazi occupying forces in the Bubanj area, where there was a inter- ment camp. The original monument, a modest stone pyramid, was erected in 1950, but 1958, a competition for a new monument was held. The winning solu- tion was submitted by sculptor Ivan Sabolić (b. 1921, d. 1986) from Zagreb and architect Mihajlo Mitrović (b. 1921, d. 2019) from Belgrade. The monument was realised and opened in a ceremony on 14th October 1963, on the day of the lib- eration of Niš from the Nazi occupying forces at the end of World War 2, in 1944. The complex is composed of a 470 m long memorial path, a semicircular marble wall measuring 32 m by 2.5 m with a bas-relief depicting executions, and the main element - three sculptures shaped like fists measuring 13 m, 14 m, and 16 m, ex- pressing a powerful and universal symbolism of the human struggle, particularly Partisan struggle, which adopted the clenched fist as one of its emblems. From its erection until the 1990s and the break-up of Yugoslavia, the monument received countless visitors as a place of respect and remembrance for the victims of World War 2. Subsequently, the complex suffered from neglect and dilapidation until 2018 when an initiative for its renovation and protection was launched. 114 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Partizansko pokopališče Mostar • Mostar, Bosna in Hercegovina • Arhitekt: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: kamen, beton • Status: državni spomenik BiH • Fotografije: Matej Vozlič • Besedilo: Miha Dešman Partisan cemetery Mostar • Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina • Architect: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: stone, concrete • Status: national monument of BIH • Photographs: Matej Vozlič • Text: Miha Dešman 10_ MOSTAR, 1965 Bogdan Bogdanović BIH 115arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Pokopališče je, po antičnih vzorih, oblikovano v terasah, vrezanih v pobočje hri- ba. V masivne oporne stene, obložene s kamnom, so vgravirani ornamentalni sim- boli in imena približno osemsto padlih partizanov. Še nekaj sto neidentificiranih trupel počiva v skupni grobnici. Mesto mrtvih je zasnovano kot podvojitev mesta živih, z ulicami, trgi, mostovi, stolpi in mestnimi vrati. Obredna pot se v simetrič- nih meandrih vzpenja prek štirih širokih teras do vrhnje, kjer sta v zadnjo steno vdelana simboličen vodnjak in reliefni kozmološki motiv, ki spominja na predko- lumbijske rituale v Srednji Ameriki. Voda iz vodnjaka se je nekdaj v osi kompleksa kaskadno zlivala do dna spomenika, danes pa vodnjak ne deluje več. Spomenik je doživel več zaporednih vandalskih uničevanj in zatem obnov. Pred obiskom so nas opozorili, da so obiskovalci že večkrat doživeli grožnje in nasilje nacionalističnih skrajnežev. Mi te izkušnje nismo imeli, nas je pa presunil kontrast med zanemar- jenostjo, tiho lepoto spomenika in nebrzdano turistično okupacijo bližnjega me- sta z mostom, kjer je njegova lepota ponižana v slikovito merkantilno kuliso. Bogdanović: »To je spomenik jugoslovanski solidarnosti. Posvečen je mostarske- mu bataljonu. Ganilo me je, da so bili borci praktično še otroci. Njihova imena: bosanska, srbska, hrvaška. Spominjala so me na otroško križarsko vojno. Večina jih je bila ubitih. Njim so posvečeni kenotafi, simbolični grobovi. Nekaj ostankov je tu pokopanih, ne prav veliko. Spomenik je močno poškodovan, a ne da se ga poruši- ti, saj je vrezan v hrib in tako neuničljiv.« Modelled after examples from the antiquity, the cemetery is designed in ter- races cut into the hill slope. The massive support walls are lined with stone and engraved with ornamental symbols and the names of approximately 800 Parti- sans killed in action. A further couple of hundred unidentified bodies were put to rest in the communal tomb. The city of the dead is designed to duplicate the city of the living with streets, squares, bridges, towers, and city gates. The ritual path rises in symmetrical meanders across four wide terraces towards the upper ter- race featuring a rear wall with a symbolic well and a carved cosmological design reminiscent of Pre-Columbian rituals in Central America. The water from the well used to flow down to the bottom of the monument following the complex’s axis. The well no longer works. The monument was subject to several instances of de- structive vandalism and subsequent renovation. We were warned before our visit of visitors repeatedly being threatened and attacked by nationalist extrem- ists. This was not our experience, but we were appalled by the contrast between the dilapidation, the quiet beauty of the monument, and the unbridled tourist occupation of the nearby city with the bridge, its beauty having been reduced to a picturesque mercantile backdrop. Bogdanović: »This was a monument to Yugoslav solidarity. It was dedicated to the Mostar battalion. What was most touching to me was that the soldiers were practically children. Their names: Muslim, Serbian, Croatian. It reminded me of the Children’s Crusades. A huge percentage were killed. These are cenotaphs, symbolic graves. Some remains were buried here, but not very many. The me- morial is badly defaced, but it couldn’t be demolished - it is carved into the hill, so it’s indestructible.« 116 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spomenik NOB • Ilirska Bistrica, Slovenija • Kipar: Janez Lenassi • Arhitektka: Živa Baraga • Material: beton • Status: kulturni spomenik lokalnega pomena • Fotografije: Blaž Budja • Besedilo: Robert Potokar Monument to the People’s Liberation Struggle • Ilirska Bistrica, Slovenia • Sculptor: Janez Lenassi • Architect: Živa Baraga • Material: concrete • Status: cultural monument of local importance • Photographs: Blaž Budja • Text: Robert Potokar 11_ ILIRSKA BISTRICA, 1965 Janez Lenassi, Živa Baraga SLO 117arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spomenik NOB v Ilirski Bistrici, subtilno umeščen v krajino, je vrhunsko kiparsko -arhitekturno delo. Z likovno in simbolno abstrakcijo osmišlja svoj zgodovinski in prostorski pomen. Posvečen je borcem 3. prekomorske udarne brigade ter 4. ju- goslovanske armade, padlim na Brinškovem griču, simbolično poimenovanem Hrib svobode. Stoji na robu mesta, dvignjen, a ne na najvišji točki. Na eni strani ga obdaja 88 brez, zasajenih šele leta 1981 v spomin na Josipa Broza - Tita, na drugi pa odprta travnata krajina. Hrib svobode je danes park s krožno komemorativno potjo. Njen začetek označujejo simboli vojne zgodovine. Speljana je skozi brezov gaj in okoli spomenika. Abstraktno kiparsko delo – izvotljena betonska kocka di- menzij 8 x 8 x 8 metrov – lahko simbolizira kosti, naložene druga na drugo. Ali pa notranjost betonske strukture v navezavi na genius loci ponazarja kraško jamo s kapniki. Teža kocke lebdi na umaknjenem vkopanem podstavku z napisom. Pod podstavkom je kostnica, v katero se dostopa prek dvojnih, simetrično zasnovanih betonskih zunanjih stopnic. Kipar Janez Lenassi je za spomenik v Ilirski Bistrici leta 1966 prejel nagrado Prešernovega sklada. Leta 2001 je v neposredni bližini zasno- val še spomenik protifašistični organizaciji TIGR. Celotni kompleks je v razmeroma dobrem stanju. V primerjavi z marsikaterim drugim spomenikom NOB odraža po- zitiven odnos lokalnega okolja do lastne vojne zgodovine. The monument to the People's Liberation Struggle in Ilirska Bistrica, subtly sited in the landscape, is a superior work of sculpture and architecture. With its visual and symbolic abstraction, it gives meaning to the historical and spatial signifi- cance. It is dedicated to the fighters killed in action belonging to the Third Over- seas Assault Brigade and the Fourth Yugoslav Army on top of Brinškov hillock, named - how symbolically - Hrib svobode (“Freedom Hill”). It stands on the edge of the town, elevated, but not on the highest spot. It is enclosed by 88 birches, planted only in 1981 in the memory of Josip Broz Tito, on one side, and by an open grassy landscape on the other. Today, Hrib svobode is a park with a circular commemorative path. Its beginning is marked by symbols of military history. It leads through a birch grove and around the monument. The abstract sculpture - a hollowed concrete cube measuring 8 by 8 by 8 metres - may symbolise bones stacked one on top of another. Or the interior of the concrete structure in connec- tion with the genius loci may represent a karst cave with dripstones. The weight of the cube levitates on a recessed dug-in base featuring an inscription. Under the base, there is an ossuary accessible by double symmetrically designed exterior concrete steps. Sculptor Janez Lenassi was awarded the prestigious Prešernovega sklada prize for the monument in Ilirska Bistrica in 1966. In 2001, he designed the monument to antifascist organisation TIGR in the immediate vicinity. The entire complex is in relatively good condition. Compared to many other monuments to the People’s Liberation Struggle, it reflects a positive attitude of the local com- munity to its own war history. 118 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spominski kompleks Slobodište • Kruševac, Srbija • Avtorji: Bogdan Bogdanović, Tomislav Milanović, Svetislav Živić • Material: kamen (belovodski peščenjak), beton, zemeljski nasip, baker • Status: kulturni spomenik velikega pomena občine Kraljevo • Fotografije: Jelica Jovanović, Bogdan Bogdanović, Olja Triaska Stefanović, fotografsko gradivo neznanega avtorja • Besedilo: Jelica Jovanović Memorial complex Slobodište • Kruševac, Serbia • Authors: Bogdan Bogdanović, Tomislav Milanović, Svetislav Živić • Material: Belovode sandstone, concrete, earth bank, copper • Status: cultural monument of significant importance of Municipality of Kraljevo • Photographs: Jelica Jovanović, Bogdan Bogdanović, Olja Triaska Stefanović, unidentified photographic units • Text: Jelica Jovanović 12_ SLOBODIŠTE, KRUŠEVAC, 1965, 1978, 1985 Bogdan Bogdanović, Tomislav Milanović, Svetislav Živić SRB 119arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spominski kompleks Slobodište leži v južnem delu Kruševca, kjer je med drugo svetovno vojno v sedemnajstih skupinskih streljanjih padlo 1643 talcev iz širše okolice mesta. Gradnja spomenika ob vzgojno-popravnem domu se je začela leta 1960 z ureditvijo lokacije, arhitekt Bogdanović pa je naročilo za ureditev dobil leta 1961 od lokalne zveze združenj borcev narodnoosvobodilne vojne. Kompleks je bil dokončan leta 1964, leto zatem pa je dobil ime Slobodište. Od tega leta tu pote- kajo komemorativne slovesnosti pod skupnim naslovom »Svečanosti svobode«, s katerimi od 28. junija do 7. julija obeležujejo Vidov dan, spomin na ustrelitev naj- večje skupine 324 talcev (29. junija 1943) ter dan borca in dan vstaje srbskega naroda. Od devetdesetih let 20. stoletja so te prireditve postale znane kot »Vidov- danske svečanosti«, a v programu pogosto dobijo prostor neprimerne estradne vsebine. Spominski kompleks sestavljajo tri območja. Začne se v Dolini živih (am- fiteater), ki jo Sončna vrata, zgrajena leta 1985, ločujejo od osrednjega prostora, Doline pošte. V tej stoji dvanajst prepoznavnih kamnitih skulptur v obliki razširje- nih kril, na nasipu pa sta vodno kolo in ognjišče. Obe dolini sta krajinska ureditev, oblikovana s težkimi gradbenimi stroji. Tretje območje je avtentična planota Stre- lišče, pod katero so množični grobovi. Neposredno ob kompleksu sta spominski park in Hiša svobode, zgrajena leta 1978. Na širšem zaščitenem območju je bila v smeri naselja Rasadnik predvidena širitev Slobodišta, zasnovana kot spomenik, ki naj bi ga dograjevale prihodnje generacije, a ni bila uresničena. Memorial complex Slobodište is located in the southern part of Kruševac where during World War 2, 1,643 civilian victims from the wider town area were executed in seventeen mass shootings. The construction of the monument next to the juvenile detention centre began in 1960 with the regulation of the site, while architect Bogdanović received the commission for the layout from the local Association of the Union of People’s Liberation War Veterans in 1961. The com- plex was finished in 1964 and given the name Slobodište in 1965. From that year on, commemorative manifestations under the umbrella title “Solemnities of Free- dom” have been held: from 28th June until 7th July, they celebrate Vidovdan (St. Vitus Day), the remembrance of the shooting of the largest group of 324 victims in 1943 on 29th June, as well as Veterans’ Day and Serbian Uprising Day. Begin- ning in the 1990, these events became known as “Solemnities of Vidovdan”; how- ever, the programme often features unsuitable popular music content. The me- morial complex comprises three spatial units. It begins in the Valley of the Living (amphitheatre), which is separated from the central space, the Valley of the Mail, by Solar Gate, built in 1985. There are twelve stone sculptures in the distinct shape of spread wings in the Valley of the Mail, while the earth bank features a water wheel and a fire pit. The landscape regulations of both valleys were done with heavy construction machinery. The third self-contained whole is an authen- tic plateau called the Firing Range with mass graves beneath it. Immediately by the complex, in the primary protected area, there is a memorial park and the House of Freedom, constructed in 1978. In the wider protected area, in the direc- tion of settlement Rasadnik, an expansion was envisaged for Slobodište, designed as a monument to be added to by future generations, but it remains unrealised. 120 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spominski kompleks Jasenovac • Jasenovac, Hrvaška • Arhitekt: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: beton, leseni pragovi, bron • Status: zaščita po Zakonu o Spominskem območju Jasenovac • Fotografije: Roberto Conte • Besedilo: Miha Dešman Memorial complex Jasenovac • Jasenovac, Croatia • Architect: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: concrete, timber sleepers, bronze • Status: protected under Memorial Area Jasenovac Act • Photographs: Roberto Conte • Text: Miha Dešman 13_ JASENOVAC, 1965 Bogdan Bogdanović HRV 121arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Jasenovac je bil največje koncentracijsko taborišče na tleh Jugoslavije. Leta 1941 ga je ustanovila ustaška NDH. V njem je bilo identificiranih več kot osemdeset ti- soč žrtev, predvsem Srbov, pa tudi Judov, Romov in drugih, celo Hrvatov, ki se niso strinjali z režimom; vseh žrtev naj bi bilo več kot sto tisoč. Spominski kompleks je po načelih »land arta« oblikovan park, kjer se vsakdanje življenje obiskovalcev sreča s spominom na žrtve. V krajino ob Savi je arhitekt nežno umestil pot, ki od vhoda vodi po nasipu in se prek zavoja med dvema jezercema povzpne do monu- mentalnega, 24 metrov visokega betonskega cveta. Kompleksi nekdanjih barak so označeni s plitvimi okroglimi zemeljskimi kraterji. Brutalistični betonski cvet, ki zraste iz trave, je v kontrastu s subtilno oblikovano krajino. Simbolični pomen kra- jine je »topografija terorja«, cvet v njej pa ponazarja upanje, celo ponovno roj- stvo. Življenje premaga smrt. Bogdanović: »Pri vseh mojih projektih, še zlasti pri Jasenovcu, ideja ni nastajala linearno. Vedno sem tekal v krogih. Tu sem zasnoval celo vesolje cvetlic. Sprva jih je bilo mnogo, kasneje sem jih združil v eno samo. Analiziral sem različne cvetove, njihovo notranjo strukturo. Danes, z računalniki, bi šlo to mnogo laže, a morda bi s pomočjo računalnika postalo prelahko. Ko obkrožiš cvet, doživiš tri različne fasa- de. Oblika je matematično določena. Kipar bi naredil drugače; kiparji oblikujejo z rokami, tu pa je vse narisano, izračunano, geometrijsko določeno. Ko me ljudje vprašajo, kakšna je razlika med arhitekturnim in kiparskim spomenikom, jim od- govorim, da je arhitekturni spomenik mogoče opisati matematično. Vse, kar vidi- te, je del stožca ali krogle. Ne glede na to gre za zelo kompleksno obliko, tako da je bil opaž velik problem. Star inženir mi je svetoval, naj k delu pritegnem tradicio- nalne graditelje ladij iz Dalmacije. To je bilo ključnega pomena.« Ob obisku s študenti spomladi 2019 smo se priključili mednarodni »invaziji« mla- dih obiskovalcev, ki so se fotografirali ob spomeniku in na njem, pošiljajoč selfije po vsem svetu. Delavci so obnavljali dele poti, parkirišče je bilo polno koles, avto- domov, avtov in avtobusov. Spomnil sem se prvega obiska pred leti, ko je spome- nik sameval, trava je bila nepokošena, »spomen dom« zaprt. Betonska roža in nemirno nebo pa sta takrat enako kot danes odsevala v gladini jezerca ... Jasenovac was the largest concentration camp on Yugoslav soil. It was established in 1941 by the fascist Independent State of Croatia. More than 80,000 of its victims have been identified, chiefly Serbs but also Jews, Roma, and others, even Croats who opposed the regime - the total number of victims is believed to exceed 100,000. The memorial complex is a park designed according to the principles of land art, where the visitors’ everyday lives intersect with the memory of the vic- tims. In the landscape by the river Sava, the architect gently sited a path which leads from the entrance along the embankment and rises between two small lakes to arrive at the monumental, 24m tall concrete blossom. The former barracks com- plexes are marked by shallow round earth craters. The brutalist concrete blossom growing from the grass is contrasted against the subtly designed landscape. The symbolic significance of the landscape is the “topography of terror” while the blos- som within it represents hope, even a rebirth. Live triumphs over death. Bogdanović: » In all my projects, and especially at Jasenovac, the idea never de- veloped in a linear fashion. I always ran in circles. In this case, I designed an entire world of flowers. At first, there were many; later I condensed them all into one. I analysed different flowers, their types, their interior mechanics. Today that would have been easier to do with a computer, but perhaps the computer would make it too easy. As you go around the flower, you experience three alternating eleva- tions. There is a mathematical formula to the shape. A sculptor would have made it differently: sculptors work with their hands, whereas here everything was drawn, calculated, geometrically resolved. When people ask what the difference is between an architectural and a sculptural memorial, my answer is that an archi- tectural memorial can be described mathematically. Everything you see is a part of a cone or a sphere. Nevertheless, it is a very complex shape, so the formwork was a huge problem. An old engineer advised me to invite traditional shipbuilders from Dalmatia for the job. That was crucial.« Visiting with the students in the spring of 2019, we joined the international inva- sion of young visitors who took pictures of themselves next to and on the monu- ment, posting their selfies all over the world. Workers were renovating parts of the path, the parking area was full of bicycles, camper vans, cars, and buses. I re- called my first visit years ago when the monument was deserted, the grass uncut, the visitor centre closed. Yet then, as today, the concrete flower and the restless sky were reflecting in the lake’s surface ... 122 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spomenik revolucije ljudstva Moslavine • Podgarić, Hrvaška • Kipar: Dušan Džamonja • Arhitekt: Vladimir Veličković • Material: beton, aluminij • Fotografije: Roberto Conte • Besedilo: Sanja Horvatinčić Memorial to the Revolution of the people of Moslavina • Podgarić, Croatia • Sculptor: Dušan Džamonja • Architect: Vladimir Veličković • Material: concrete, aluminium • Photographs: Roberto Conte • Text: Sanja Horvatinčić 14_ MOSLAVINA, PODGARIĆ, 1965 Dušan Džamonja, Vladimir Veličković HRV 123arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Leta 1965 je združenje partizanskih veteranov za obeležitev obletnice protifaši- stične vstaje in revolucionarnega boja v Moslavini kiparju Dušanu Džamonji naro- čilo zasnovo spomenika. Vas Podgarić z okolico je bila od leta 1942 osvobojeno ozemlje in pomembna utrdba, v kateri so bile partizanske vojaške baze, bolnišnice in štabi. Naročilo je bilo za že priznanega jugoslovanskega kiparja velik strokovni izziv, saj je bil to njegov prvi projekt, ki ni obeleževal spomina na žrtve, pač pa slavil zmago in revolucijo: »Dobri dve leti sem se ukvarjal s številnimi študijami in skicami, ki so mi kasneje pomagale tudi pri drugih večjih spomenikih. Spomenik sem si zamislil kot arhitekturni projekt, skulpturo s težkimi soodvisnimi betonski- mi volumni, ki bi nakazovali dinamično gibanje množic. Porodila se mi je tudi ideja o v spomenik vgrajenem emblemu, ki naj bi izstopal. Kovina se mi je v kombinaci- ji z grobim betonom zdela najboljša izbira. Emblem je simboličen prikaz enotnosti, zato sem v krog postavil velike kovinske plošče, katerih površina je bila oblikovana s kladivom.« Do spominskega kompleksa, ki stoji na majhnem griču nad slikovito vasjo, vodi ozka cesta. Zaključi jo planota, zasnovana za večje komemoracije. Od tam obiskovalci vstopijo skozi masiven betonski portal na ravno pot do monumen- talne betonske skulpture. Ob ozki poti, ki je bila prvotno obarvana rdeče, stojijo štirje simetrično postavljeni nagrobniki, prekriti z zeleno travo. Označujejo kostni- co 900 padlih partizanov. To je bil Džamonjev prvi obsežnejši realizirani projekt. Kmalu so mu sledili še številni pomembni spominski (Kozara, Barletta ...) in nagra- jeni javni natečajni projekti. Pri pričujočem projektu ima pomembno vlogo tudi krajinska zasnova; nastala je v sodelovanju z arhitektom in mednarodno uveljavlje- nim slikarjem Vladimirjem Veličkovićem iz arhitekturnega biroja Rašica. Načrtova- nje spominskega območja je pripomoglo tudi k zgraditvi okoliške turistične infra- strukture – umetnega jezera, restavracije in asfaltne ceste. In 1965, the Union of Partisan Veterans for the Commemoration of the Anniver- sary of the Antifascist Uprising and the Revolutionary Struggle of Moslavina com- missioned the monument’s design directly from sculptor Dušan Džamonja. From 1942, village Podgarić and its vicinity was liberated territory and an important stronghold with Partisan military bases, hospitals, and headquarters. The com- mission was a major professional challenge for the then already acclaimed Yugo- slav sculptor as it was to be his first project which did not commemorate the memory of the victims but celebrated victory and the Revolution: “I spent a good two years working on a large number of exercises and sketches, which later helped me also with other large-scale monuments. I envisaged the monument as an architectural project, a sculpture with heavy interdependent concrete volumes which were to signify the dynamic movement of the masses. The idea for the emblem, installed in the monument and standing out, also came to me. Metal in combination with rough concrete seemed like the best choice. The emblem is a symbolic depiction of unity, which is why I used large metal plates, whose sur- faces were forged with a hammer, placed in a circle.” A narrow road leads to the memorial complex on a small hill above the picturesque village, terminating in a plateau designed for large commemorative events. From there, the visitors enter through a massive concrete portal and take a straight path to the monumental concrete sculpture. The narrow path, which was originally red in colour, is flanked on both sides by four symmetrically placed mounds covered in green grass mark- ing the ossuary of 900 killed Partisans. This was Džamonja’s first realised major project. It was soon followed by others (Kozara, Barletta, etc.), together with prizes in public competitions. The landscape design, which was created in collabo- ration with architect and internationally renowned painter Vladimir Veličković from architectural office Rašica, plays an important role in the project. The design of the memorial area contributed to the development of tourist infrastructure – an artificial lake, a restaurant, and a paved road. 124 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spomenik in spominska kostnica na Đindinem brdu • Ðindino brdo, Vogošća, Bosna in Hercegovina • Arhitekt: Zlatko Ugljen • Kipar: Petar Krstić • Material: beton, železo, baker, steklo, kamen • Fotografije: Boris Trapara • Besedilo: Boris Trapara Monument and memorial ossuary at Ðindino brdo • Ðindino brdo, Vogošća, Bosnia and Herzegovina • Architect: Zlatko Ugljen • Sculptor: Petar Krstić • Material: concrete, iron, copper, glass, stone • Photographs: Boris Trapara • Text: Boris Trapara 15_ VOGOŠĆA, 1969 Zlatko Ugljen, Petar Krstić BIH 125arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spomenik na hribu Ðindina je posvečen borcem narodnoosvobodilnega boja iz okolice Vogošće. Do pobude za gradnjo je prišlo v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja. Spominski kompleks so slovesno odprli 21. julija 1969. Spomenik in ko- stnica pomenita skladno kiparsko rešitev s številnimi stiliziranimi simboli. Kot ce- lota imata kulturno, zgodovinsko, spominsko in umetniško vrednost. Betonska dostopna pot s stopnicami obiskovalca pripravi na prostorsko doživetje masivne skulpture, visoke približno 5 metrov in široke približno 8 metrov. Spomenik stoji na štirih horizontalno postavljenih betonskih krakih, ki se združijo v steber, na ka- terem stoji poligonalno telo. Na sprednji in zadnji strani so dodani detajli v bakru in steklu, na straneh pa bakrena kroga. Na vzhodni strani spomenika je citat iz Gorskega venca pesnika in vladike Petra II. Petrovića Njegoša: »Stopiti tiraniji z nogo za vrat, pripeljati jo do sodbe, najsvetejša je človeška dolžnost!«, s podpisom »Ljudstvo tega kraja«. V bližini so trije stebri trikotnega prereza, na katerih je zapi- sanih 62 imen padlih partizanskih borcev. Spominski kompleks je že od postavitve prizorišče spominskih srečanj. Med letoma 1992 in 1995 so ob vznožju hriba, na katerem stoji, zgradili mošejo, ki je s svojimi dimenzijami, proporci in oblikova- njem v nasprotju z ambientalnimi vrednostmi kompleksa. Čeprav je danes na osrednjem spomeniku več manjših razpok in so nekateri stekleni elementi poško- dovani, večje konstrukcijske škode ni. Avgusta 2017 so se na pobudo Združenja protifašistov in veteranov narodnoosvobodilnega boja Vogošća pričela prizadeva- nja za njegovo ureditev. Okolica spomenika in kostnice je redno vzdrževana, kom- pleks pa je varen in tudi brez smerokazov lahko dostopen. The monument on hill Ðindina is dedicated to the fighters in the People’s Libera- tion Struggle from the vicinity of Vogošća. The initiative for the construction was put forward in the 1960s. The opening ceremony for the memorial complex was held on 21st July 1969. The monument and the ossuary represent a harmonious sculpture solution with numerous stylised symbols. As a whole, the monument and the ossuary have cultural, historical, memorial, and artistic value. The concrete access path with steps prepares the visitor for a spatial experience of the massive sculpture approximately 5 m tall and approximately 8 m wide. The monument stands on four horizontally laid concrete rays which meet to form a column on which the polygonal spatial body is placed. There are details in copper and glass on the front and the rear while the sides each feature a copper circle. On the east side of the monument, there is a quotation from The Mountain Wreath, a poem by poet and Prince-Bishop Petar II Petrović-Njegoš: “To place foot upon tyranny’s neck, to lead tyrants to knowledge of the right, this is the most sacred of man’s duties!” (translation of verse by Professor Vasa D. Mihailovich), signed: “The peo- ple of this place”. Nearby, there are three columns with a triangular cross-section inscribed with 62 names of Partisan fighters killed in action. Ever since its erection, the memorial complex has been the site of remembrance gatherings as well as a park. Between 1992 and 1995, a mosque was built by the foot of the hill whose dimensions, proportions, and design are at odds with the ambiental values of the complex. Despite a few minor fissures and damage to some glass elements, there is no major structural damage to the central monument. In August 2017, the Union of antifascist and veterans of the People’s Liberation Struggle of Vogošća under- took the initiative for the monument to be refurbished. The area around the mon- ument and the ossuary is regularly maintained, and the complex is safe and easily accessible even without signposts. 126 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spomenik kosmajskemu partizanskemu odredu • Kosmaj, Srbija • Arhitekt: Gradimir Medaković • Kipar: Vojan Stojić • Material: beton • Fotografije: Roberto Conte • Besedilo: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović Monument to Kosmaj Partisan detachment • Kosmaj, Belgrade, Serbia • Architect: Gradimir Medaković • Sculptor: Vojan Stojić • Material: concrete • Photographs: Roberto Conte • Text: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović 16_ KOSMAJ, 1971 Gradimir Medaković, Vojan Stojić SRB 127arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spomenik je bil postavljen leta 1971 v čast tridesetletnice ustanovitve kosmaj- sko-posavskega partizanskega odreda (2. julij 1941), ki se je med drugo svetovno vojno uspešno boril proti nemškim okupatorjem in srbskim izdajalskim enotam. Monumentalna arhitekturno-skulpturalna kompozicija, visoka 30 metrov, stoji na območju Mali vis na planini Kosmaj. Nastala je v sklopu prostorskega programa za ureditev Kosmaja, ki ga je konec šestdesetih let 20. stoletja izdelal Urbanistični zavod Beograda. Zasnova spomenika je bila izbrana kot prvonagrajena rešitev na anonimnem javnem jugoslovanskem natečaju leta 1969. Avtorja spomenika, ki- par Vojan Stojić (1921–2001) in arhitekt Gradimir Medaković, sta ustvarila ab- straktno kiparsko-arhitekturno kompozicijo – privlačen spomenik, ki s svojimi či- stimi linijami simbolizira veličastnost boja za svobodo in junaško zgodovino ko- smajskega partizanskega gibanja. Skulpturo odlikujeta preprosta oblika in močna idejno-likovna zasnova z dinamično razporeditvijo mas. Ta po besedah avtorjev izraža »združevanje, enotnost in takoj nato silovit razmah, stremljenje navzgor in na vse strani, žarčenje in daljnosežno delovanje«. Dramatičnost in dinamiko kom- pozicije ustvarja pet trikrakih betonskih blokov v obliki svetlobne iskre, ki simbo- lično ponazarjajo začetek boja za svobodo. Na granitni plošči so vrezane besede »Kosmajci, Posavci, Beograjčani, Smederevčani, Moravci, Jaseničani, Mladenov- čani«. Spomenik je bilo v jasnih nočeh, ko javna razsvetljava še ni bila tako močna, videti iz posameznih delov Beograda. Žal še vedno ni prepoznan kot kulturna de- diščina in je, kot še mnogi partizanski spomeniki na območju Srbije, zapuščen. The monument was erected in 1971 to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the establishment of Kosmaj-Posavina Partisan detachment (2nd July 1941), which fought successfully against the Nazis and Serbian fifth column units in World War 2. The monumental architectural-sculptural composition, rising 30 m tall, stands in the area of Mali vis on mountain Kosmaj, occupying an area of 10 ha. It was devised as part of the spatial programme for the layout of Kosmaj, which was drafted by Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade in the late 1960s. The monu- ment’s design was chosen as the winning solution in an all-Yugoslav anonymous public competition in 1969. The authors, sculptor Vojan Stojić (b. 1921, d. 2001) and architect Gradimir Medaković, created an abstract sculptural-architectural composition - an attractive monument whose clean lines symbolise the glory of the struggle for freedom and the heroic past of Kosmaj’s Partisan movement. The sculpture is distinguished by the simple form of a thought-out, visually striking design with a dynamic distribution of masses. According to the authors, it ex- presses “coming together, a unity, and suddenly a forceful expansion, striving up- wards and in every direction; radiance and momentous action.” The dramatic and dynamic character of the composition is derived from five three-pointed concrete blocks in the shape of a lighting spark, symbolically representing the beginning of the struggle for freedom. There is a carved granite plaque reading: “Kosmajci, Posavci, Beograđani, Smederevci, Moravci, Jaseničani, Mladenovčani.” (“The peo- ple of Kosmaj, Posavina, Belgrade, Smederevo, Pomoravlje, Jasenica, Mladeno- vac.”) On cloudless nights, when street lighting was not yet as intense, the monu- ment used to be visible from certain parts of Belgrade. Unfortunately, it is still unrecognised as cultural heritage and is, like numerous Partisan monuments in the territory of Serbia, abandoned. 128 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spomenik padlim v bitki na Sutjeski • Tjentište, Dolina herojev, Bosna in Hercegovina • Kipar: Miodrag Živković • Arhitekt: Ðorđe Zloković (konstrukcija) • Material: beton • Fotografije: Roberto Conte • Besedilo: Robert Potokar Memorial to those killed in the battle of the Sutjeska • Tjentište, Dolina herojev (Valley of the Heroes), Bosnia and Herzegovina • Sculptor: Miodrag Živković • Architect: Ðorđe Zloković (structure) • Material: visible concrete • Photographs: Roberto Conte • Text: Robert Potokar 17_ SUTJESKA, TJENTIŠTE, 1971 Miodrag Živković, Ðorđe Zloković BIH 129arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spomenik v narodnem parku Sutjeska je izjemno delo kiparja Miodraga Živkovića in eno najboljših skulpturalnih obeležij v jugoslovanskem prostoru. Postavljen je bil v spomin na borce, padle v bitki na Sutjeski, kjer so se partizani v peti nemški ofen- zivi leta 1943 z velikimi žrtvami prebili iz okupatorjevega obroča. Skupno je umrlo več kot 7500 ljudi, spomenik s kostnico pa je posvečen 3301 padlemu borcu. Poleg oblikovnih, arhitekturnih in simbolnih odlik je prepoznan tudi zaradi filma Sutjeska iz leta 1973, ki je bil skupaj s filmom Neretva (1969) vrhunski produkt jugoslovan- ske kinematografije z narodnoosvobodilno tematiko. Skulptura v dolini reke Sutje- ske pod obronki vršacev Zelengore, postavljena na rahlo dvignjenem mestu, s svo- jo višino – 19 metrov – dominira nad Dolino herojev. Krili iz belega betona, ki sim- bolno ponazarjata dve koloni partizanov v prebijanju skozi nemški obroč, sta s svojo impresivno dinamiko postavljeni osno simetrično na dostopno pot. Vpeti v tla in diagonalno nagnjeni v stranskem pogledu delujeta breztežno, kot bi poleteli. Njuno masivnost optično zmanjšuje geometrija izrazitih ekspresivnih ploskev, med katerimi je zaznati obraze partizanov. Kompozicijo zaključi višje ležeč, centralno postavljen avditorij s polkrožnimi zidci z imeni brigad in čet, ki so se borile na Sutje- ski. Po postavitvi spomenika leta 1971 so v neposredni bližini zgradili še nekaj objektov – spominski dom, hotelski nastanitveni kompleks in dodatna obeležja. Večina jih je bila v času zadnje vojne v Bosni poškodovanih. Od leta 2019 je spome- nik spet v razmeroma dobrem stanju: betonsko površino so očistili, prav tako so sanirali zemeljski plaz, ki je odnesel del terena pod spomenikom. The memorial in national park Sutjeska is an exceptional work by sculptor Mi- odrag Živković and one of the best sculptural memorials in the Yugoslav space. It was erected in memory of the fighters killed in the battle of the Sutjeska when the Partisans suffered a terrible death toll as they broke out of the enemy encircle- ment in the 5th Nazi offensive in 1943. More than 7,500 people were killed in total; the monument with the ossuary is dedicated to 3,301 fighters killed in ac- tion. Beside its visual, architectural, and symbolic qualities, the monument’s pro- file was raised also by the 1973 film Sutjeska, which, together with Neretva (1969) is the pinnacle of Yugoslav cinematography dealing with the theme of people’s liberation. Nineteen metres in height and placed on a slight elevation, the sculp- ture in the valley of the river Sutjeska under the foothills of Zelengora’s peaks dominates over the Valley of the Heroes. Symbolically representing two Partisan columns breaking through the Nazi encirclement, the two white-concrete wings of impressive dynamics are placed on an axis symmetrical to the access path. Anchored in the ground and diagonally slanted, the side view causes the wings to appear weightless, as if they have taken flight. Optically, their massiveness is re- duced by the geometry of pronouncedly expressive surfaces, some of which re- veal the faces of Partisans. The composition is concluded by a raised, centrally positioned auditorium with semicircular parapets containing the names of bri- gades and platoons which fought on the Sutjeska. After the erection of the monu- ment in 1971, several more buildings were constructed in the immediate vicinity - a memorial hall, an accommodation complex, and further memorials. Most of these were damaged during the time of the Bosnian war. Since 2019, the monu- ment is once again in a relatively good state of repair: the concrete surface has been cleaned, and the landslide, which had swept away part of the terrain under the monument, was stabilised. 130 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spomenik revoluciji na Kozari • Kozara, Bosna in Hercegovina • Kipar: Dušan Džamonja • Material: beton • Fotografije: Roberto Conte • Besedilo: Robert Potokar Monument to the revolution at Kozara • Kozara, Bosnia and Herzegovina • Sculptor: Dušan Džamonja • Material: concrete • Photographs: Roberto Conte • Text: Robert Potokar 18_ KOZARA, 1972 Dušan Džamonja BIH 131arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spomenik na Kozari je spomenik trpljenju, ki so ga partizani in prebivalci doživlja- li v času med drugo svetovno vojno, predvsem med kozarsko ofenzivo leta 1942. Je eden od najbolj znanih in sporočilnih spomenikov NOB na področju celotnega jugoslovanskega prostora. Abstraktna kompozicija kiparja Dušana Džamonje, ki je bila leta 1970 izbrana na natečaju, stoji na robu travnate jase, obkrožena z gostim smrekovim in borovim gozdom. Osnovni element zasnove je vertikala, krožni stolp, sestavljen iz valovitih betonskih lamel različnih višin, ki se serpentinasto dvigujejo nad okoliški gozd. Okrog vertikale so krožno razporejeni žarki nizkih be- tonskih zidov, vpetih v zemljo. Parterna ureditev je proti gozdu, v katerega se širijo višji betonski spominski zidovi, intimna, dostopna stran pa je bolj odprta. Na spo- minske zidove so pritrjene bronaste plošče z imeni 9921 padlih in pogrešanih par- tizanov. Likovna posebnost so v betonske lamele vstavljeni trakovi iz inoksa, ki odbijajo svetlobo in s tem še dodatno poudarjajo dinamiko spomenika. Druga posebnost je dostopnost osrednjega stolpa, iz katerega se odpira utesnjen pogled proti nebu, z zaključnim vencem v obliki lamel, ki »pritiskajo« na obiskovalca. V sklopu kompleksa je Džamonja zasnoval tudi muzej, ki pri sami zasnovi spomenika nima odločilne vloge, saj je diskretno umeščen na spodnji nivo. Ob vzpenjanju po stopnicah skozi gozd kompleksa sprva ne zaznamo. Šele na dvignjeni jasi se odpre veličasten pogled na 33 metrov visok objekt, ki s svojo abstraktnostjo, velikostjo in mogočnostjo izraža pomen narodnoosvobodilnega boja in hkrati opominja na te- danje vojne grozote. Ker spomenik stoji v zaščitenem delu narodnega parka Koza- ra, je celotni kompleks vzdrževan in dobro obiskan; v njem je vsako leto komemo- racija v spomin padlim. The monument at Kozara is a monument to the suffering which the Partisans and the population endured in the period of World War 2, especially during the time of the Kozara Offensive in 1942. It is one of the best known and most con- notative monuments to the People’s Liberation Struggle in the entire Yugoslav space. Sculptor Dušan Džamonja's abstract composition, chosen in 1970 by com- petition, stands on the edge of a grassy meadow, enveloped by a thick spruce and pine forest. The basic element of the design is the vertical: a circular tower com- posed of concrete undulating fins of varying heights rising above the surrounding forest in a serpentine manner. Arranged circularly around the vertical, there are rays of low concrete walls embedded into the soil. Towards the forest, in which direction the taller concrete memorial walls extend, the ground-level layout is intimate while the access side is more open. Affixed on the memorial walls are bronze plates inscribed with 9,921 Partisans killed and missing in action. As a vis- ual peculiarity, stainless steel bands are inserted in the concrete fins, reflecting light and further emphasising the dynamics of the monument. Another distinc- tive feature is the accessibility of the central tower with a constrained view to- wards the sky which opens from it, terminating in a fin-shaped cornice “pressing” against the visitor. As part of the complex, Džamonja also designed a museum, which does not have a decisive role in the design as it is discreetly placed on the lower level. Ascending on the steps leading through the forest, the complex is initially out of sight. Only on the elevated meadow does the view open onto the 33 m tall monument whose abstractness, size, and mightiness express the signifi- cance of the People’s Liberation Struggle and at the same time call to mind the horrors of that war. Because the monument is located in the protected area of Kozara national park, the entire complex is maintained and receives many visitors. Every year, it hosts a commemoration in memory of those killed. 132 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spomenik rudarskim herojem narodnoosvobodilnega gibanja • Mitrovica (nekdanja Titova Mitrovica), Kosovo • Arhitekt: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: beton • Fotografije: Roberto Conte, Besim Ibrahimi • Besedilo: Fjollë Caka Monument to heroic miners of the People’s Liberation Movement • Mitrovica (formerly known as Titova Mitrovica), Kosovo • Architect: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: concrete • Photographs: Roberto Conte, Besim Ibrahimi • Text: Fjollë Caka 19_ MITROVICA, 1973 Bogdan Bogdanović KOS 133arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Na hribu nad Mitrovico se visoko vzpenja Tempelj revoluciji, znan tudi kot Spo- menik padlim rudarjem. Točke v pokrajini ni mogoče spregledati, saj na strateški legi sooblikuje silhueto mesta. Na sami lokaciji obiskovalca prevzamejo enor- mnost brutalistične strukture in čudoviti panoramski razgledi na mesto in okoli- co. Spomenik rudarjem sestavljata dva masivna konična betonska slopa, simbola albanskih in srbskih rudarjev, ki podpirata stiliziran betonski transportni vagon iz rudnika. Spomenik je bil postavljen v spomin na upor rudarjev, ki so 30. julija 1941 zminirali stebre žičnice za transport rude od rudnika Stan Tërg do zvečanske livarne, ki jo je uporabljala sovražnikova oz. nemška industrija orožja. Ob spome- niku je nekdanja SFR Jugoslavija v počastitev spomina na junaštvo rudarjev, žr- tvovanje mučenikov in zmago revolucije organizirala letne shode. Po njenem propadu in kosovski vojni (1998–1999) je spomenik izgubil svoj pomen. Zavržen in zapuščen je tako ideološko kot materialno, s strani Albancev, Srbov ter lokalnih in državnih institucij. Spomeniško ni zaščiten, nihče ga ne vzdržuje. Nekdanji sim- bol bratstva in enotnosti, skupnega ideala Albancev in Srbov, je pričal o mirnem soobstoju dveh skupnosti povojne Jugoslavije. Danes ponazarja etnično razdelje- no mesto in je zanemarjen ostanek pozabljene preteklosti. On the hill above Mitrovica, the Shrine to the Revolution, also known as the Miners’ Monument, rises tall. The landmark is impossible to overlook as it forms part of the city’s silhouette from its strategic position. At the site itself, the visitor is astonished by the enormity of the brutalist structure and the beautiful pano- ramic views of the city and its surroundings. The miners’ monument is composed of two massive conical concrete piers, the symbol of Albanian and Serbian min- ers, which support the stylised concrete minecart. The monument was erected in memory of the miners’ revolt, who on 30th July 1941 blew up the supports for the cable car used to transport the ore from Stan Tërg mine to the foundry in Zvečan, which supplied the Nazi armament industry. To commemorate the mem- ory of the miners’ heroism, the sacrifice of the martyrs, and the victory of the revolution, the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia organised an- nual gatherings at the monument. After the fall of Yugoslavia and the war in Ko- sovo (1998-99), the monument was deprived of its meaning. It is dejected and abandoned both ideologically and materially by the Albanians, the Serbs, as well as local and state institutions. It is not a protected monument and no mainte- nance is carried out. The former symbol of fraternity and unity, the shared ideal of the Albanians and the Serbs, used to be a testament to the peaceful co-exist- ence of two communities of post-WW2 Yugoslavia. Today, it represents an ethni- cally divided city and is a derelict vestige of a forgotten past. 134 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Kompleks v spomin padlim borcem revolucije • Štip, Makedonija • Arhitekt: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: beli marmor • Fotografije: Damjan Momirovski • Besedilo: Ana Ivanovska Memorial complex to the fighters of the Revolution • Štip, Macedonia • Architect: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: white marble • Photographs: Damjan Momirovski • Text: Ana Ivanovska 20_ ŠTIP, 1974 Bogdan Bogdanović MKD 135arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Kompleks v spomin padlim borcem revolucije je manj znano delo Bogdana Bog- danovića. Spomenik, ki je bil zmagovalna rešitev natečaja s konca šestdesetih let, so gradili od leta 1969 do 1974. Stoji na vzhodni strani hriba Isar, pod ostanki srednjeveške trdnjave nad mestom Štip. Posvečen je padlim borcem narodnoo- svobodilnega boja (1941–1944) in civilnim žrtvam fašizma iz Štipa in okolice. Gle- de na specifični značaj ozkega in strmega terena je Bogdanović običajno horizon- talno zasnovo nadomestil z vertikalno razporeditvijo. Spodnja ploščad, tlakovana z granitom, je opremljena s svečanim portalom iz treh klesanih monolitov, visokih približno tri metre. Od tu vodi strmo stopnišče proti zgornji granitni ploščadi. Na vsaki strani posamezne stopnice je majhen spominski kamen z imenom enega od padlih borcev. Zgornja ploščad je osrednji element kompleksa. Na mesto gleda dvanajst monolitov iz belega marmorja višine približno 2,3 m in širine 80 cm, ki so v nekakšni prosti kompoziciji razporejeni ob vznožju pobočja. Monoliti enake veli- kosti in geometrije sledijo enotni delitvi volumna: vsi so postavljeni na trapezoidni podstavek in sestavljeni iz spodnjega dela s horizontalnimi žlebovi in zgornjega dela s krožno, kot rozeta oblikovano vdolbino, ki se simbolično zaključi z rogovi. Kljub na prvi pogled enotni podobi se med seboj razlikujejo po vklesanih motivih in vzorcih in kot taki oblikujejo »družino« individualnih elementov: motiv, ki ga v Bogdanovićevem delu pogosto najdemo. Na nasprotni strani ploščadi je enako visok žerjavni steber, pod katerim je kripta z ostanki padlih. Pomen in uporaba spomenika sta, podobno kot pri ostalih spomenikih druge svetovne vojne, po raz- padu Jugoslavije upadla. Vendar se v spominskem kompleksu Štip lokalni spomin- ski dogodki še vedno izvajajo. Čeprav kompleks ni bil nikoli uvrščen na seznam kulturnih spomenikov, je območje v razmeroma dobrem stanju; edini znak zane- marjenosti in vandalizma so grafitni napisi na belih marmornih površinah. Memorial complex to the fighters of the Revolution is a lesser-known work by Bogdan Bogdanović. The monument - the winning solution of the competition held in the late 1960s - was built between 1969 and 1974. It stands on the east- ern side of hill Isar, under the remains of a mediaeval fortress above the town of Štip. It is dedicated to fighters of the People’s Liberation Struggle killed in action (1941–1944) and to civilian victims of fascism from Štip and its vicinity. Owing to the specific character of the narrow and steep terrain, Bogdanović opted for a vertical arrangement instead of a commonplace horizontal design. The lower platform paved with granite features a ceremonial portal with three carved mon- oliths measuring approximately 3 m in height. From here, a steep stairway leads towards the upper granite platform. On either side of each step, there is a small memorial stone inscribed with the name of a fighter. The upper platform is the central element of the complex. Overlooking the town, there are twelve white- marble monoliths approximately 2.3 m tall and 80 cm wide, arranged along the slope in a kind of free composition. The monoliths, equal in their size and geom- etry, follow the same division of volume: placed on a trapezoid plinth, they com- prise a lower portion with horizontal flutes and an upper portion with a circular recess featuring a rosette design which symbolically concludes in two horns. De- spite appearing uniform at a glance, they differ in the chiselled designs and pat- terns and as such form a “family” of individual elements - a motif often found in Bogdanović’s work. On the opposite end of the platform, there is an equally tall urn-like column with a crypt containing the remains of those killed beneath it. The significance and use of the monument diminished after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. However, local remembrance events still take place at the memorial complex Štip. Despite the complex never having been listed as a cultural monu- ment, the area is in relatively good condition; the only sign of neglect and van- dalism is graffiti writing on the white marble surfaces. 136 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Makedonium – Spomenik ilindenske vstaje • Kruševo, Severna Makedonija • Kipar: Jordan Grabuloski • Arhitektka: Iskra Grabuloska • Slikarja: Petar Mazev, avtor amfiteatra in keramike; Borko Lazeski, avtor vitražev • Material: beli beton, steklo • Status: kulturni spomenik • Fotografije: Vladimir Deskov • Besedilo: Ana Ivanovska Makedonium – Ilinden monument • Kruševo, North Macedonia • Sculptor: Jordan Grabuloski • Architect: Iskra Grabuloska • Painters: Petar Mazev, author of amphitheatre and ceramics; Borko Lazeski, author of stained glass • Material: white concrete, glass • Status: cultural monument • Photographs: Vladimir Deskov • Text: Ana Ivanovska 21_ MAKEDONIUM, KRUŠEVO, 1974 Jordan Grabuloski, Iskra Grabuloska, Petar Mazev, Borko Lazeski MKD 137arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Makedonium, znan tudi kot Spomenik ilindenske vstaje, sta zasnovala Jordan in Iskra Grabuloska in pomeni vrhunec njunega dela. Umeščen je na najvišjo točko hriba Gumenje, od koder gleda na mesto Kruševo. Ima dvojni pomen: postavljen je bil ob 30. obletnici srečanja ASNOM (Protifašistično združenje narodne osvobo- ditve Makedonije), v čast narodnoosvobodilnemu boju (1941–1944), z odprtjem na dan 2. avgusta 1974 pa je obenem obeležil ilindensko vstajo (2. avgust 1903) in zato postal univerzalni simbol makedonskega boja za svobodo in neodvisnost. Spomeniku se približamo po urejeni poti skozi pokrajino. Pristop je razdeljen na več sekvenc, globoko prežetih s simboliko. Začetek označujejo bele betonske skulpture, ki simbolizirajo pretrgane verige (delo Jordana Grabuloskega). Prvi del oblikuje krožni prostor »kripte«. Iz sten rastejo valjaste skulpture s kovinskimi plo- ščicami z imeni krajev ali oseb ali z datumi, povezanimi z zgodovinskimi dogodki. Pot vodi naprej do »amfiteatra« s številnimi valjastimi betonskimi »sedeži« in ži- vobarvno keramično steno. Ta je dopolnjena z geometrijskimi oblikami, ki jih je izdelal priznani slikar Petar Mazev. Jedro kompleksa oziroma vrhunec spominske poti je sam spomenik. Sferično skulpturo iz belega betona premera okoli 20 m oblikujejo velika štrleča ovalna okna. Zgornja imajo vgrajene vitraže, delo Borka Lazeskega, iz nižjih pa se odpirajo čudoviti pogledi po pokrajini. Vsaka stran prika- zuje dogodke, povezane z ilindensko vstajo. Simbolika je prisotna po celotnem interierju. Stenske niše spodnjih oken so na vseh štirih straneh pokrite z reliefi; ti v abstraktnem jeziku, značilnem za obdobje, v katerem so nastali, upodabljajo nacionalno prebujenje in boj makedonskega ljudstva za osvoboditev. Spomenik še danes služi v spomin na 2. avgust, ki pomeni enega najpomembnejših datumov v zgodovini makedonskega naroda. Obisk spomenika je vključen v redni šolski kuri- kulum, v zadnjem času pa je vzbudil tudi mednarodno zanimanje in pozornost. Spominski kompleks je bil kmalu po zgraditvi uvrščen na seznam kulturnih spome- nikov in je tako od samega začetka pod zaščito lokalnih institucij. Kljub temu bi bil potreben celovite obnove in vzdrževanja. Makedonium, also known as the Monument to the Ilinden Uprising, was de- signed by Jordan and Iskra Grabuloska and ranks as their finest work. Sited at the highest point of hill Gumenja, it overlooks the town of Kruševo. Its significance is twofold: it was erected on the 30th Anniversary of the meeting of ASNOM (Anti- fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia) honouring the Peo- ple’s Liberation Struggle (1941–1944). With the opening ceremony held on 2nd August 1974, it also celebrated the Ilinden Uprising of 2nd August 1903, thereby becoming a universal symbol of Macedonian struggle for freedom and independ- ence. The monument is approached via a path laid out in the landscape. The ac- cess is divided into several sequences deeply permeated with symbolism. The beginning is marked by white concrete sculptures symbolising broken chains (work of Jordan Grabuloski). The first section is formed by a circular space of the “Crypt”. Cylindrical sculptures with metal plaques containing the names of places, persons, or dates connected with historical events project from the walls. The path continues towards the “Amphitheatre” with numerous cylindrical concrete “seats” and a ceramic wall in vivid colour. The wall is complemented with geomet- ric shapes made by renowned painter Petar Mazev. The heart of the complex and the climax of the memorial path is the monument itself. The spherical white con- crete sculpture measuring approximately 20 m in diameter is characterised by large projecting oval windows. Those on top contain stained glass, the work of Borko Lazeski, while the lower windows open up beautiful views of the landscape. Each of the sides depicts events of significance to Ilinden. There is symbolism present throughout the interior. On all four sides, the wall alcoves of the lower windows are covered on all four sides by two reliefs each depicting - in an abstract language characteristic of the period in which they were created - the national awakening and the struggle of the Macedonian people for liberation. To this day, the monument serves as a memorial of 2nd August, one of the most important dates in the history of the Macedonian nation. It is part of the regular school cur- riculum while also having lately raised international interest and attention. The memorial complex was listed as a cultural monument soon after being built and has thus enjoyed the protection of local institutions from the very beginning. Even so, however, it is in need of comprehensive renovation and maintenance. 138 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Spomenik dražgoški bitki • Dražgoše na Gorenjskem, Slovenija • Arhitekt: Boris Kobe • Slikar: Ive Šubic • Kipar: Stojan Batič • Material: beton • Status: kulturni spomenik državnega pomena • Fotografije: Roberto Conte, Miran Kambič • Besedilo: Jurij Kobe Monument to the battle of Dražgoše • Dražgoše, Upper Carniola, Slovenia • Architect: Boris Kobe • Painter: Ive Šubic • Sculptor: Stojan Batič • Material: concrete • Status: cultural monument of national importance • Photographs: Roberto Conte, Miran Kambič • Text: Jurij Kobe 22_ DRAŽGOŠE, 1976 Boris Kobe, Ive Šubic, Stojan Batič SLO 139arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spomenik obeležuje tragični zaključek bojev partizanskega Cankarjevega bata- ljona v Selški in Poljanski dolini v poznem decembru 1941 in prvih dneh januarja 1942. Nemški okupator je nameraval zadušiti odporniško vstajo na Gorenjskem. V teh dneh se je partizanski bataljon začasno nastanil v Dražgošah. Ob napadu šte- vilčno veliko premočne nemške vojske se je po dolgotrajnem boju večina bataljo- na z delom vaščanov umaknila na planoto Jelovico. Nemci so nato v Dražgošah ustrelili 41 vaščanov, ostale izgnali, vas pa požgali. Spomenik ima izrazito arhitek- turno in ambientalno zasnovo, značilno za delo arhitekta Borisa Kobeta. Sodi med spomenike, ki se bolj kot ponazarjanju ali monumentaliziranju posvečajo uokvir- janju ambienta zgodovinskega dogodka. Kompozicijo tvori apsida na prostem, ki objema širši prostor doline – v hrib vkopana konha z velikim mozaikom slikarja Iveta Šubica. V njen fokus, na sam rob naravnega pomola nad dolino, je postavlje- no svetišče, tholos. Tu je pet stebrov, ki v svojem oblikovanju povzemajo značilno- sti zidanih slopov lokalnih kozolcev. Stebri nosijo dve ploščadi. V središču spodnje je velika žara s posmrtnimi ostanki postreljenih talcev in padlih partizanov. Varu- jeta jo dve skupini figur borcev (kipar Stojan Batič). Zgornja, razgledna ploščad se na eni strani odpira proti dolini, na drugi pa proti bregovom Jelovice. Danes je spomenik zaradi svoje izpostavljene lege priljubljena izletniška točka, ki jo dopol- njuje bližnja okrepčevalnica. Ob obletnici dražgoške bitke, v prvih dneh januarja, se tu z osrednjo slovesnostjo vsako leto sklene sklop prireditev Po stezah partizan- ske Jelovice, kar k spomeniku privabi več tisoč pohodnikov. The monument commemorates the tragic epilogue of the battles fought by Par- tisan Cankar’s battalion in Selška and Poljanska Valleys in late December 1941 and the first days of January 1942. Having occupied the territory of Upper Carniola, the Nazis intended to quell the resistance uprising. At the time, the Partisan bat- talion found temporary accommodation in Dražgoše. Vastly outnumbered in the face of Wehrmacht’s attack, most of the battalion and some villagers retreated to plateau Jelovica after a lengthy struggle. The Nazis subsequently executed 41 vil- lagers, deported the others, and torched the village. The monument has a dis- tinctly architectural and ambiental design, characteristic of architect Boris Kobe’s work. It is one of those monuments which, rather than represent or monumental- ise, frame the ambient of a historical event. The composition consists of an open air apse - a concha - dug into a hill featuring a large mosaic (painter Ive Šubic) and enveloping the wider space of the valley. Placed into its focus, on the very edge of the natural cantilever above the valley, is the sanctuary, the tholos. The design of the five columns references the characteristic masonry supports of local hayracks. The columns bear two platforms. In the centre of the lower platform, there is a large urn with the remains of executed victims and Partisans killed in action. It is guarded by two groups of figures of fighters (sculptor Stojan Batič). The upper panoramic platform opens towards the valley on one side and towards the slopes of Jelovica on the other. Today, the monument is a favourite day-trip destination due to its exposed location and the vicinity of a snack bar. Every year in early January, on the anniversary of the battle of Dražgoše, a main ceremony concludes Po stezah partizanske Jelovice (“On the Trails of the Partisan Jelovica”), a string of events which attract thousands of hikers to the monument. 140 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 23_ KADINJAČA, 1979 Aleksandar Ðokić, Miodrag Živković SRB Spominski kompleks Kadinjača • Kadinjača pri Užicu, Srbija • Arhitekt: Aleksandar Ðokić • Kipar: Miodrag Živković • Material: beton, kamen • Status: nepremična kulturna dobrina posebnega pomena • Fotografije: Roberto Conte, Vladimir Deskov • Besedilo: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović Memorial complex Kadinjača • Kadinjača near Užice, Serbia • Arhitect: Aleksandar Ðokić • Sculptor: Miodrag Živković • Material: concrete, stone • Status: immovable cultural good of special importance • Photographs: Roberto Conte, Vladimir Deskov • Text: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović 141arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spominski kompleks je posvečen partizanskim borcem užiškega Delavskega bata- ljona, ki so 29. novembra 1941 umrli v bitki na Kadinjači. Užiška republika je bila na začetku druge svetovne vojne prvo osvobojeno ozemlje v Evropi, tam se je zadrže- val vrhovni štab partizanskih enot z Josipom Brozom - Titom na čelu. Partizani so jo branili, da bi zaščitili umik vrhovnega štaba iz Užica proti Sandžaku. O tem zname- nitem partizanskem podvigu je bil posnet tudi film (Užiška republika, 1974) v režiji Žike Mitrovića (1921–2005). Zapletena arhitektonsko-skulpturalna zasnova kom- pleksa na 15 hektarjih je nastajala med letoma 1952 in 1979. Prva obeležitev tega znamenitega herojskega dogodka je iz leta 1952, ko sta bila po načrtih kiparja Ste- vana Živanovića postavljena kostnica s posmrtnimi ostanki padlih borcev in spome- nik v obliki štiristrane piramide. Piramida je visoka 11 metrov, nanjo so vklesani verzi iz pesmi Kadinjača užiškega pesnika Slavka Vukosavljevića (1927–2004). Orga- nizacija veteranov NOB iz Titovega Užica je leta 1962 dala pobudo za dodatno ure- ditev spomenika. Projekt nove programske in prostorske zasnove kiparja Miodraga Živkovića (r. 1928) in arhitekta Aleksandra Ðokića (1936–2002) je bil potrjen leta 1977. Spomenik je 23. septembra 1979 ob prisotnosti 100.000 ljudi svečano odprl predsednik Jugoslavije Josip Broz - Tito. Kompleks je že od samega začetka vzbujal veliko pozornost javnosti in bil še istega leta razglašen za nepremično kulturno do- brino posebnega pomena. Spominski kompleks oblikujejo trije deli, poimenovani Amfiteater Užiške republike, Aleja Delavskega bataljona – ta se z nizom skulptur povezuje s prvotnim spomenikom oz. piramido – in Plato svobode. Od najvišjega elementa (14 m) s simbolično odprtino, ki spominja na strelno luknjo, se proti am- fiteatru razrašča dinamična figuralna kompozicija stiliziranih upodobitev borcev, ki simbolizirajo boj za svobodo. Sestavni del kompleksa je tudi stavba sprejemnega centra, ki je vključno s spominskim vodnjakom, postavljenim na mestu nekdanjega bojišča, odlično vključena v konfiguracijo terena. Oblikovalsko močna in dinamična kompozicija arhitektonsko-skulpturalnih elementov se v povezavi s krajino oblikuje v izjemno učinkovito prostorsko celoto. Spominska arhitektura, posvečena revolu- ciji in protifašističnemu boju jugoslovanskih partizanov v drugi svetovni vojni, je bila v času jugoslovanske socialistične družbe specifičen kulturno-umetniški pojav. Mnogi od spomenikov, ki so bili postavljeni med petdesetimi in sedemdesetimi leti 20. stoletja, so, tako kot spominski kompleks na Kadinjači, nastali kot rezultat inter- disciplinarnega pristopa in skupnega angažmaja vrhunskih umetnikov in arhitek- tov. Imajo svojevrstno kulturno in umetniško vrednost ter pomenijo pomemben del kulturne dediščine držav nekdanje Jugoslavije. Po njenem razpadu je bil spo- minski kompleks Kadinjača zapuščen ter izpostavljen vremenu in zobu časa. Njego- va obnova se je začela leta 2005. The memorial complex is dedicated to the Partisan fighters of Workers’ Bat- talion of Užice who were killed on 29th November 1941 in the battles at Kadinjača. At the beginning of World War 2, the Republic of Užice was the first liberated territory in Europe and served as a haven for the Supreme Staff of the Partisan units headed by Josip Broz Tito. The Partisans were defending the Re- public of Užice to secure the retreat of the Supreme Staff from Užice towards Sandžak. This legendary Partisan feat served as the basis for the 1974 film Užička republika directed by Žika Mitrović (b. 1921, d. 2005). The elaborate architectur- al-sculptural design of the monument covering 15 ha was created between 1952 and 1979. The first memorial for this legendary heroic event dates to 1952 when an ossuary with the remains of the fighters killed in action and a monument shaped as a four-sided pyramid were erected, based on the designs by sculptor Stevan Živanović. The pyramid measures 11 m in height and contains engraved stanzas from “Kadinjača”, a poem by Užice poet Slavko Vukosavljević (b. 1927, d. 2004). In 1962, veteran organisation SUBNOR of Titovo Užice suggested an ad- ditional layout to the monument. The new programme- and spatial design pro- ject by sculptor Miodrag Živković (b. 1928) and architect Aleksandar Ðokić (b. 1936, d. 2002) was approved in 1977. The grand opening of the monument was officiated by President of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito on 23rd September 1979 with 100,000 people in attendance. From the onset, memorial complex Kadinjača captured the public attention and was declared immovable cultural good of spe- cial importance the very same year. The memorial complex comprises three seg- ments - the amphitheatre of the Republic of Užice, the Workers’ Battalion prom- enade, which connects to the original pyramid monument by means of a series of sculptures, and the Freedom platform. From the tallest (14 m) element with a symbolic opening reminiscent of a bullet hole, a dynamic figural composition of fighters symbolising the struggle for freedom unfolds in the direction of the am- phitheatre. Another constituent part of the complex is the visitor centre building with the memorial well, installed at the site of the former battlefield, which inte- grates nicely with the configuration of the terrain. In relation with the landscape, the distinctively designed and dynamic composition of the architectural-sculp- tural elements forms an exceptionally effective spatial whole. Memorial archi- tecture dedicated to the Revolution and the antifascist struggle of Yugoslav Par- tisans in World War 2 is a specific cultural and artistic phenomenon in the period of Yugoslav socialist society. Many among the monuments erected between the 1950s and the 1970s - including the memorial complex at Kadinjača - are the result of an interdisciplinary approach and a joint commitment by distinguished artists and architects. They have particular cultural and artistic value and they represent an important part of the total cultural heritage of ex-Yugoslav coun- tries. During the time of the tragic, warmongering dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, memorial complex Kadinjača was neglected and exposed to the ele- ments. Its renovation began in 2005. 142 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 24_ GRMEČ, 1979 Ljubomir Denković BIH Spominski kompleks Korčanica na Grmeču • Korčanica, Sanski Most, Bosna in Hercegovina • Kipar: Ljubomir Denković • Material: beton, beli marmor, steklo, baker • Fotografije: Roberto Conte, Boris Trapara • Besedilo: Boris Trapara (s podatki, prevzetimi s spletne strani Architectuul) Memorial complex Korčanica at Grmeč • Korčanica, Sanski Most, Bosnia and Herzegovina • Kipar: Ljubomir Denković • Material: concrete, white marble, glass, copper • Photographs: Roberto Conte, Boris Trapara • Text: Boris Trapara (with information, taken from website Architectuul) 143arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spominski kompleks Korčanica je posvečen partizanski bolnišnici, ki je med leto- ma 1942 in 1943 delovala na osvobojenem ozemlju na pobočjih Grmeča. Poleg osrednjega spomenika ga sestavlja še več manjših spominskih obeležij. Zasnoval ga je srbski kipar Ljubomir Denković. Pobuda za njegovo zgraditev sega v leto 1975. Denkovićeva rešitev je bila izbrana na natečaju, na katerega je prispelo 13 predlo- gov umetnikov in arhitektov iz vse Jugoslavije. Spominski kompleks Korčanica je bil svečano odprt 27. julija 1979, ob obletnici vstaje ljudstva Bosne in Hercegovine. V osrednjem delu sta dva velika, skoraj 15 m visoka polkrožna marmorna bloka/ membrani, ki obdajata dvonivojski prostor notranjega svetišča (simbolika cvetnega popka). Ostanki v spodnjem delu kažejo, da je bil v središču prostora postavljen bakren model hribovitega okoliškega terena s prikazom partizanske bolnišnice, ki je delovala na tem območju. Osvetljen je bil z zenitalno svetlobo od zgoraj. Ob monumentalni strukturi spomenika je velika krožna vodna površina premera 18 m, v kateri odseva okoliški gozd, s čimer se ustvari povezava med naravnim in grajenim okoljem. Pot obiskovalca najprej vodi po gozdnem pobočju, se nato vzpne do spo- menika in po krožnem stopnišču med membranama zakroži do skritega jedra v njegovi notranjosti, nato pa vodi še globlje v gozd do manjših spominskih elemen- tov, ki obeležujejo lokacije drugih delov takratnega bolnišničnega kompleksa. Do- godki v počastitev spomina na umrle ob spomeniku ne potekajo več. Spominski kompleks Korčanica je v slabem stanju in hitro propada. Uradno ni zaščiten kot del kulturne dediščine. Ker je uničen, zapuščen in zasmeten, je poleg spomenika na Makljenu eden najbolj ogroženih spomenikov NOB v Bosni in Hercegovini. Načrtov za njegovo obnovo in rehabilitacijo ni, obenem pa območje zaradi izoliranosti, za- puščenosti in oddaljenosti od prometnih omrežij ni privlačno (niti priporočljivo) za obiskovalce in turiste. Memorial complex Korčanica is dedicated to the largest Partisan hospital, which was active in the liberated territory of the slopes of Grmeč between 1942 and 1943. Composed of the central monument and several smaller memorials, it was designed by Serbian sculptor Ljubomir Denković. The initiative for its construction dates to 1975 with Denković’s solution having been chosen in a competition out of 13 entries by artists and architects from the entire Yugoslav territory. The grand opening for memorial complex Korčanica was held on 27th July 1979, on the an- niversary of the uprising of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The central segment features two large semicircular marble blocks/membranes almost 15 m tall enveloping the two-level space of the inner sanctum (symbolism of a flower bud). The remains in the lower section suggest that the centre used to feature a copper model of the surrounding hilly terrain with a depiction of the Partisan hos- pital once active in the area. It was lit from the top by a skylight immediately above it. Next to the monumental structure is a large circular water surface (18 m) reflect- ing the nearby forest and thus creating a connection between the natural and built environments. Initially, the path leads the visitor up a forest slope, rises to the monument, and finally circles over the round staircase between the membranes to arrive at the hidden core in its interior. The trail continues further into the forest, towards smaller memorial elements commemorating the sites of other units be- longing to the erstwhile hospital complex. Remembrance commemorations in memory of the dead no longer take place at the monument. Memorial complex Korčanica is in a poor state of repair and deteriorating at a rapid pace. It is not of- ficially protected as cultural heritage. Subject to ruin, neglect, and squalor, it is one of the most threatened monuments to People’s Liberation Struggle in Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with the monument at Makljen. There are no plans for its renovation and rehabilitation, and visiting is neither attractive nor recommended due to the area’s remoteness, abandonment, and a lack of traffic connections. 144 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 25_ BARUTANA, 1980 Svetlana Kana Radević MNE Spomenik padlim borcem Lješanske nahije • Barutana, Črna gora • Arhitektka: Svetlana Kana Radević • Material: beton, kamen • Fotografije: Lazar Pejović • Besedilo: Irena Weber Monument to fighters from Lješanska nahija killed in action • Barutana, Montenegro • Architect: Svetlana Kana Radević • Material: concrete, stone, stone cladding • Photographs: Lazar Pejović • Text: Irena Weber 145arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition »ARHITEKTURA NI AVANTURA …« Dobrih deset kilometrov od Podgorice v smeri proti Cetinju cestni znak označuje odcep za Barutano. Smerokaza za spomenik ni. Znajdemo se na makadamskem razpotju, kjer sredi drobnice sedi star pastir, ki v nas upre miren pogled. Zavijemo na levo. Že čez nekaj minut ugotovimo, da ta pot ne vodi do spomenika. Vrnemo se do razpotja, mimo pastirja, ki ni ne presenečen ne začuden, in izberemo drugo možnost. V nenavadno sivem dnevu maja so odprti pisani dežniki razkropljene sku- pine obiskovalcev videti kot cvetovi, ki jih je veter nenadejano zvrtinčil nad spome- nik v treh nivojih. Tri vojne: balkanska ter prva in druga svetovna. Imena, vklesana v kamne, različna imena, mnogo enakih priimkov. V sredini kroga stožčaste struktu- re različnih višin. Borci za svobodo Lješanske nahije. Okrog in okrog zeleno. Kamen in beton v tkani strukturi valujeta v zelenilu okoliških hribov. Arhitektka Svetlana Kana Radević je verjela, da mora spomenik razpirati prostor pieteti in dostojanstvu, ne krču in trpljenju, saj le tako simbolizira moč življenja nad smrtjo. Zanjo arhitek- tura ni bila avantura prostora in materiala, temveč etično dejanje. Njena estetika tradicije ni razumela kot neposredno prenašanje forme, temveč kot njenega duha, v obliki akcije, komunikacije in pričevanja vrednot nekega časa, neke družbe. Spo- menik ni vzdrževan, ne zaščiten, izvorna belina je dobila lišaje, odkruške, razpoke, šopke rastja, a je vendar tkanina kulturnega spomina, brez ostrih robov, z mogočno vertikalo rok – ali cveta – odprtih proti nebu. Amfiteater čaka na poslušalce in polž riše sled na oboku zidu. Na morski obali je Kana Radević leta 1980 v belem krilu z vejo narisala skico vertikale spomenika v pesek. Skico je prekrilo morje, spomenik, postavljen istega leta, še stoji. Ali bo obstal? »ARCHITECTURE IS NO ADVENTURE …« Some ten kilometres from Podgorica in the direction of Cetinje, a road sign marks the turn-off for Barutana. There is no sign for the monument itself. We find our- selves at a fork in the gravel road where an old shepherd sits among his stock and gives us a serene look. We turn left. After a few minutes, we realise that this is not the way to the monument. We return to the fork past the shepherd, who shows neither surprise nor wonder, and choose the other alternative. On an unusually grey May day, the open umbrellas of a dispersed group of visitors look like blos- soms which the wind unexpectedly swirled over the monument in three different levels. Three wars: the Balkan war and the two World Wars. Names engraved into stones, different names, many of the same surnames. Conical structures of varying heights in the middle of a circle. Freedom fighters of Lješanska nahija region. Green all round. Stone and concrete in a woven structure undulate in the greenery of the surrounding hills. Architect Svetlana Kana Radević believed that a monu- ment must open up the space to reverence and dignity, not to paroxysm and suf- fering, because this is the only way for it to symbolise the power of life over death. For her, architecture was not an adventure in the space and material but an ethical act. Her aesthetic did not regard tradition as a direct transmission of form but rather of spirit done by means of action, communication, and the testimony of the values of a certain time, a certain society. The monument is not maintained or protected, the original whiteness has acquired lichen, chips, fissures, and spurts of weed. And yet it is the fabric of cultural memory without sharp edges and with a majestic vertical of open arms or a blossom towards the sky. The amphitheatre is waiting for listeners and a snail is leaving a slime trail on a wall vault. In 1980, Kana Radević wore a white skirt and drew a sketch of the monument in the sand on the seashore with a tree branch. The sea washed over the sketch; the monument, erected the same year, is still standing. Will it remain? 146 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 26_ DUDIK, VUKOVAR, 1980 Bogdan Bogdanović HRV Spominski park Dudik • Vukovar, Hrvaška • Arhitekt: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: kamen, les, baker • Fotografije: Roberto Conte, Olja Triaška Stefanović • Besedilo: Urša Komac Memorial park Dudik • Vukovar, Croatia • Architect: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: stone, wood, copper • Photographs: Roberto Conte, Olja Triaška Stefanović • Text: Urša Komac 147arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Biseri za svinje 1978–1980 V nasadu murv v Vukovarju na Hrvaškem je zgrajen spomenik žrtvam fašizma. 1989 Bogdanović prejme nagrado piranesi. 1991 Spomenik med bitko pri Vukovarju poškoduje Jugoslovanska ljudska armada, ki jo podpirajo različne paravojaške sile iz Srbije. Med zadnjo vojno na Balkanu je območje minirano. 2009 Vukovarske mestne oblasti območje spomenika namenijo za nogometno igrišče. 2015–2016 Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Hrvaške spomenik prenovi. Nekaj dreves posekajo. Bogdan Bogdanović je svoja arhitekturna dela pogosto risal kot ruševine. Zanj je bila to intelektualna igra, ki se je kasneje izkazala za vizionarsko. Kot predavatelj zgodovine urbanizma je študente učil, da bo vsako mesto sčasoma postalo ruševi- na. Vukovarske stožce je risal kot vrhove pokopanega gotskega mesta. Nekaj let pred vojno na Balkanu je bila na naslovnici slovenske arhitekturne revije Arhitek- tov bilten prikazana fotomontaža z Bogdanovićevo skico v rdečem črnilu, naka- pljano na črno-belo sliko spomenika. Skica je narejena iz madežev in kapljic. Daje vtis, da spomenik krvavi. Vukovarski spomenik so pripadniki paravojaških sil iz Srbije v zadnji balkanski vojni močno poškodovali. Zdi se, da niso vedeli, da je to spomenik žrtvam, ki so jih ubili ustaši. Na petih stožcih, ki so bili prvotno visoki 18 metrov, so poškodovali leseno konstrukcijo in bakreno kritino. Lokalni odbor zara- di strahu pred minami po vojni dolgo ni dovolil dostopa na območje, prav tako tam niso kosili trave. Ko se je Bogdanović spominjal svojih domišljijskih risb, s ka- terimi je zabaval študente, ga je prevzela tesnoba. Vzpon in padec civilizacij je razlagal z bojem med tistimi, ki znajo ceniti mesto, in tistimi, ki ga, polni sovraštva, obredno uničujejo. Misel je lepo opisal v svojem znamenitem eseju Ritualno ubi- janje mesta, ki je izšel v njegovi knjigi Mesto in Smrt. Spomenik je Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Hrvaške nedavno obnovilo. Območje parka danes z vseh strani obdajajo na novo zgrajene prostostoječe hiše. Pearls before swine, or Paths of shared nightmares 1978–80 The memorial for victims of fascism is built in a mulberry grove in Vukovar, Croatia. 1989 Bogdanović receives the Piranesi award. 1991 The monument is damaged during the battle of Vukovar by Yugoslav People’s Army supported by various paramilitary forces from Serbia. After the war, landmines are laid in the area. 2009 Vukovar city authorities are using the monument as a football pitch. 2015–16 The Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia renovates the monument. Some of the trees are cut down. Bogdanović often drew his architectural works as ruins, an intellectual game which later proved visionary. A lecturer in the history of urbanism, he taught his students that every city would in due time become a ruin. He envisioned the cones of Vuko- var as the peaks of a buried Gothic city. A few years before the war in the Balkans, the front page of Slovene architecture magazine Arhitektov bilten (Architect’s Bul- letin) showed a montage of Bogdanović’s sketch in red ink placed on a black and white photograph of the monument. The sketch is made with stains and drops. It gives the impression that the monument is bleeding. The Vukovar monument was actually damaged during the Balkan war by the members of a Serbian militia. They did not know that this is a monument to victims killed by the Ustaše. They destroyed some timber and copper on the five cones which originally measured 18 m in height. For a long time, the local board would not mow the grass there for fear of landmines. When Bogdanović talked about misery, he became somewhat despondent and recalled the idea which he kept repeating to his students. The rise and fall of civilisations is explained by the struggle between those who are able to appreciate the city, and those who, full of hatred, want to bury it in the ritualistic manner. His treatment of this idea is found in his famous essay Ritualno ubijanje mesta (“The Ritual Killing of a City”). The monument was recently reno- vated by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia. Today, a sprawling suburb is advancing across the area. 148 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 27_ POPINA, ŠTULAC, 1981 Bogdan Bogdanović SRB Spominski park Popina • Štulac, med Trstenikom in Vrnjačko Banjo, Srbija • Arhitekt: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: kamen (granit iz Jablanice) • Status: v postopku zaščite • Fotografije: Relja Ivanić • Besedilo: Miha Dešman Memorial park Popina • Štulac, between Trstenik and Vrnjačka Banja, Serbia • Architect: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: stone (granite from Jablanica) • Status: protected status pending • Photographs: Relja Ivanić • Text: Miha Dešman 149arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spominski park Popina je eno zadnjih del priznanega arhitekta Bogdana Bogda- novića. Nastal je v počastitev Užiške republike, leta 1941 prvega večjega osvobo- jenega ozemlja v celotnem rajhu. 12. oktobra je nemška vojska v znameniti popin- ski bitki z nekajkratno premočjo v vojakih in orožju prisilila partizane k umiku. Spomenik je zasnovan kot 100 metrov dolg merek/tarča, sestavljajo pa ga kamnit blok z napisom, dva kamnita monolita z ločnim zaključkom in osrednja piramida z okroglimi okni, urejenimi v linijo, ki meri v neskončnost. Z boulléejevsko arhitek- turo navdihnjene arhetipske oblike govorijo o revoluciji in idealni družbi, orienta- cija glede na sonce pa o večnih temah življenja, smrti in žrtvovanja. Bogdanović: »To je kraj ene prvih bitk proti nemški okupaciji Srbije v drugi svetov- ni vojni. Znajdeš se na muhi, kar je zelo neprijeten občutek. Najbolj sem ponosen, da so moji spomeniki povezani s spomeniki iz preteklosti, s katerimi skupaj obliku- jejo bratovščino.« Spomenik smo obiskali v topli popoldanski svetlobi. Ko smo vprašali za pot, je bil odgovor domačinke: »A, snajperista. Idite tu gore, i čuvajte se pasa.« Študentje so se razigrano razporedili v okrogle odprtine, drugo za drugo; nastala je napetost, ki jo je bilo nemogoče ne občutiti. Memorial park Popina is one of the acclaimed architect’s final works. It was created to honour the Republic of Užice, the first sizeable liberated territory with- in the entire German Reich in 1941. On 12th October, the Nazi forces, outnumber- ing the Partisans several times in men and armament, forced them to retreat in the battle of Popina. The monument is designed as a 100 m long gunsight/target, comprising a stone block with an inscription, two stone monoliths each terminat- ing in an arch, and a central pyramid with round windows arranged in a line aimed into the infinity. Inspired with Boullée-esque architecture, the archetypal forms speak to us about the Revolution and the ideal society, while their orientation relative to the Sun addresses eternal themes of life, death, and sacrifice. Bogdanović: “ This was the site of one of the first battles against the German oc- cupation of Serbia in World War II. Here you find yourself within a gun’s sight. It’s disturbing. What I’m most proud of is that my monuments are linked to the me- morials of all past times. They form a brotherhood among themselves.” We visit- ed the monument in the warm light of the afternoon. When we asked for direc- tions, a local lady said to us: »Ah, the sniper. Go up here, and beware of the dog.« The students playfully occupied the circular openings, one after another. A ten- sion arose which one couldn’t but feel. 150 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 28_ GARAVICE, BIHAĆ, 1981 Bogdan Bogdanović BIH Spominski park žrtev fašističnega nasilja Garavice • Bihać, Bosna in Hercegovina • Arhitekt: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: beton, železo, baker, kamen • Status: državni spomenik BiH • Fotografije: Boris Trapara • Besedilo: Boris Trapara Memorial park for the victims of fascist terror Garavice • Bihać, Bosnia and Herzegovina • Architect: Bogdan Bogdanović • Material: concrete, iron, copper, stone • Status: state monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina • Photographs: Boris Trapara • Text: Boris Trapara 151arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spominski park žrtev fašističnega nasilja Garavice je posvečen civilnim žrtvam narodnoosvobodilne vojne iz Bihaća in okolice. Urejen je na dveh grobiščih, kjer počiva med 7.000 in 12.000 žrtev, ubitih v množičnem poboju leta 1941. Spomin- sko ploščo so na Garavicah postavili že leta 1949. Načrti za zgraditev monumental- nega spominskega kompleksa, za katerega je dala pobudo Občina Bihać, pa so nastali leta 1969. Spominski park, ki ga je zasnoval arhitekt Bogdan Bogdanović, je bil svečano odprt 27. julija 1981. Sestavlja ga 15 kipov, razporejenih na dveh loka- cijah. V prvi skupini je trinajst enakih: vsak obsega 5 m2, visok je 6 m, njegove di- menzije se proti vrhu manjšajo. Kipi so razporejeni po hribu, med njimi se vije steza, ki sledi obliki terena. Pot ima dva slepa konca, ki simbolizirata smrt. Druga skupina z dvema kipoma, od prve oddaljena približno en kilometer, stoji ob magi- stralni cesti. Obiskovalec k njej dostopa z vznožja hriba, na katerem je prva skupi- na. S steze, ki glede na teren upočasnjuje ali pospešuje ritem hoje, se postopno odkrivajo pogledi na okolico. Sestavni del pogleda je vedno eden od kipov – keno- tafov. Kompleks je zapletena kiparska, arhitekturna in krajinska rešitev z univerzal- nimi simboli sonca, planetov in lune. Spominski park žrtev fašističnega nasilja Garavice je državni spomenik Bosne in Hercegovine in ima najvišjo stopnjo prav- nega varstva. Trenutno fizično stanje celote pa je slabo: posamezne kenotafe so poškodovale granate, drugi so porisani z grafiti. Spominski park ni vzdrževan, je zapuščen, dostopno pot je zaraslo zelenje. Posebno ogrožena sta kipa ob magi- stralni cesti, saj je v neposredni bližini spomenika deponija gradbenega materiala. Spominski park obiskujejo tako turisti kot lokalni prebivalci. Kompleks je razmero- ma varen za obisk in lahko dostopen iz centra Bihaća. Memorial park for the victims of fascist terror Garavice is dedicated to civilian victims of People’s Liberation War from Bihać and its vicinity. It is laid out on two burial sites of the mass execution, with between 7,000 and 12,000 victims execut- ed in 1941 having found their final resting place here. A memorial plaque was in- stalled in Garavice as early as 1949 while the plans for the erection of a monu- mental memorial complex, initiated by Municipality of Bihać, were drafted in 1969. The grand opening for the memorial park designed by architect Bogdan Bogdanović was held on 27th July 1981. The memorial park comprises 15 statues arranged on two sites. The first group features thirteen identical ones - each oc- cupies an area of 5 sqm, rises 6 m in height, and contracts somewhat towards the top. They are arranged on the hill and there is a footpath following the terrain relief meandering between them. The trail has two dead ends, which symbolise death. The other group with two statues, located about one kilometre away, is placed next to a major road. Visitors access it from the base of the hill hosting the first group. From the footpath, which slows down or speeds up the pace of walk- ing according to the terrain, the views of the surroundings gradually open with one of the two statues - cenotaphs - being a constituent part of every view. The complex is an intricate sculptural, architectural, and landscape solution with uni- versal symbolism of the Sun, the planets, and the Moon. Memorial park for the victims of fascist terror Garavice is a state monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina and enjoys the highest degree of legal protection. The current physical state of repair is poor on the whole: some of the cenotaphs had been damaged by gre- nade fire, others are covered in graffiti. The memorial park is not maintained, and the access path has been overgrown with greenery. The two statues by the main road are particularly endangered as there is a construction waste disposal in the immediate vicinity of the monument. The memorial park is visited by tourists and the local population. The complex is relatively safe to visit and easily accessible from the centre of Bihać. 152 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 29_ DREŽNICA, 1981 Zdenko Kolacio HRV Spominski kompleks partizanske bolnišnice številka 7 • Javornica blizu Drežnice, Hrvaška • Arhitekt: Zdenko Kolacio • Material: beton, bron • Fotografije: Matija Kralj • Besedilo: Sanja Horvatinčić Memorial complex for Partisan hospital no. 7 • Javornica near Drežnica, Croatia • Architect: Zdenko Kolacio • Material: concrete, bronze • Photographs: Matija Kralj • Text: Sanja Horvatinčić 153arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Prvi poskusi oblikovanja obeležja na območju partizanske bolnišnice št. 7 na Ja- vornici pri Drežnici v Gorskem kotarju so bili narejeni sredi petdesetih let prejšnje- ga stoletja. Na lokaciji je bila postavljena kamnita kostnica s posmrtnimi ostanki tristotih partizanov, ki so med drugo svetovno vojno umrli v bolnišnici. Ta je s pod- poro lokalnih žensk in otrok delovala od leta 1942 do 1944, ko jo je požgala nemška nacistična vojska. Kostnica je bila zaznamovana z reliefom hrvaškega kiparja Koste Angelija Radovanija. V poznih šestdesetih in v začetku sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja je bil izveden interdisciplinarni pionirski pregled dediščine širšega območja znamenitega partizanskega osvobojenega ozemlja, ki je bil podlaga za oblikovanje spominskega območja. V začetku osemdesetih let je zagrebški urbanist in arhitekt Zdenko Kolacio razvil edinstven arhitekturni projekt, s katerim je določil in označil lokacijo partizanske bolnišnice. Namesto rekonstrukcije lesenih barak je arhitekt iz ponavljajočih se betonskih elementov zasnoval trajnejši spominski kompleks. Na pod- lagi bogatega izvirnega dokumentarnega gradiva – fotografij, pričevanj, arhivskih do- kumentov in topografskih zemljevidov – je določil lokacijo vsakega bolnišničnega objekta, jih označil z različicami preprostih betonskih elementov ter tako opredelil obseg in »scenografijo« nekdanjega bolnišničnega naselja. Betonski elementi so postavljeni neposredno na kraški teren in tako obiskovalcem omogočajo senzorič- no izkušnjo in fizično komunikacijo z zgodovinskim območjem. Vhod v kompleks zaznamuje bronasta spominska plošča z zgodovinskimi informacijami, vsak arhi- tekturni element ali sklop elementov pa je opisan s konkretnim znakom, ki označu- je funkcijo strukture (stražarska hiša, ambulanta, kirurgija, oddelek za tifusne bol- nike itd.). Kolacio je z delom presegel zgolj predstavitev zgodovinskih dejstev; ustvaril je zapleteno kognitivno in čustveno zgodbo, ki jo občutijo obiskovalci: pro- stranstvo njegovih betonskih struktur kaže na vzdržljivost in kljubovanje, praznina konstrukcij pa odpira prosto pot domišljiji. The first attempts at designing a memorial on the site of Partisan hospital no. 7 on Javornica near Drežnica in the Gorski Kotar area were made in the 1950s. The site featured a stone ossuary decorated with a relief by Croatian sculptor Kosta Angeli Radovani and containing the remains of 300 Partisans who had died in the hospital during World War 2. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a pioneering in- terdisciplinary survey researching the heritage of the famed Partisan liberated territory’s broader area was carried out, which subsequently served as the basis for the memorial area. In the early 1980s, Zagreb-based urban designer and archi- tect Zdenko Kolacio developed a unique architectural project which defined and demarcated the site of the Partisan hospital. With the assistance of local women and children, the hospital was active between 1942 and 1944, when it was torched by the Wehrmacht. Instead of reconstructing the timber huts, the archi- tect designed a more permanent memorial complex using repeating concrete ele- ments. Relying on a wealth of original records - photographs, testimonials, archi- val documents, and topographical maps - Kolacio determined the sites of each hospital unit and marked them with variations of simple concrete elements, thereby defining the extent and the scenery of the erstwhile hospital community. The concrete elements are placed directly on the karst ground so as to enable the visitors to have a sensory experience and physical communication with the his- torical area. The entrance to the complex is marked by a bronze memorial plaque containing historical information while each architectural element or group of elements are described with a concrete sign which identifies the structure’s func- tion: sentry facility, outpatient clinic, surgery, typhus patient unit, etc. With his work, Kolacio did more than merely present historical facts - he created an intri- cate cognitive and emotional story which impacts the visitors: the expanse of his concrete structures alludes to endurance and defiance, while the emptiness of the constructions allows free rein to imagination. 154 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 30_ PETROVA GORA, 1981 Vojin Bakić, Berislav Šerbetić HRV Spomenik vstaji ljudstva Banije in Korduna • Petrovac, Narodni park Petrova gora, Hrvaška • Kipar: Vojin Bakić • Arhitekt: Berislav Šerbetić • Material: beton, nerjaveče jeklo • Fotografije: Roberto Conte • Besedilo: Boštjan Bugarič Monument to the uprising of the people of Banija and Kordun • Petrovac, National park Petrova gora, Croatia • Sculptor: Vojin Bakić • Architect: Berislav Šerbetić • Material: concrete, stainless steel • Photographs: Roberto Conte • Text: Boštjan Bugarič 155arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spomenik vstajnikom Korduna in Banije, znan kot spomenik Petrova gora, stoji na Velikem Petrovcu, najvišjem vrhu Petrove gore, gorskega območja osrednje Hrvaške. Ohranja spomin na civilne žrtve in borce, padle v boju proti fašizmu. Koncept, ki ga je predložil kipar Vojin Bakić, je bil izbran na natečaju leta 1974. Gradnja se je začela hitro, saj je bilo odprtje predvideno za 4. julij 1981 – 40. oble- tnico začetka narodnoosvobodilnega gibanja. Zunanjost stavbe uradno ni bila do- končana do 4. oktobra 1981. Spomenik iz armiranega betona prekrivajo plošče iz nerjavečega jekla. V notranjosti je muzej s stalnim prikazom narodnoosvobodilne- ga boja v regiji, v njegovi okolici pa je rekreacijski kompleks. S terase na vrhu stav- be se odpira pogled proti Sloveniji, Bosni in Zagrebu. Gradnja je bila zaradi zaple- tene zasnove in odročne lokacije, do katere je bilo treba najprej zgraditi infra- strukturo (urediti cesto, napeljati elektriko in vodo), zelo zahtevna. Projekt je bil financiran z javnimi in zasebnimi donacijami, pa tudi s posojilom, ki ga je Jugosla- vija pridobila pri Mednarodnem denarnem skladu. Načrte za izvedbo Bakićeve kiparske zasnove stavbe je pripravil arhitekt Berislav Šerbetić. Stavba je 37 metrov visoka betonska konstrukcija, obložena s ploščami iz nerjavečega jekla, uvoženega iz Švedske; plošče so razporejene v pet podolgovatih valovitih plasti. Do stavbe s parkirišča in iz centra za obiskovalce vodi dolgo stopnišče. V notranjosti s tlorisno površino več kot 3000 m2 so bili najprej prostori kongresne dvorane za 250 ljudi, knjižnice, čitalnice, kavarne in muzeja. V devetdesetih letih je komemorativna de- javnost ob spomeniku zamrla, v naslednjih desetletjih pa so vandali popolnoma uničili tako stavbne dele kot zgodovinske muzejske in arhivske predmete. Pustoše- nje spomenika še ni končano – lokalno prebivalstvo še naprej odstranjuje plošče iz nerjavečega jekla. Monument to the members of the uprising in Kordun and Banija, also known as the Petrova gora monument, is erected on Veliki Petrovac, the highest peak of Petrova gora in the mountainous region of central Croatia. Preserving the memo- ry of the civilian victims and fighters killed in action against fascism, the concept proposed by sculptor Vojin Bakić was chosen in a competition in 1974. The con- struction was underway soon after as the opening was intended to be held on 4th July for the 40th anniversary of the inception of people’s liberation movement. The building’s exterior was not officially finished until 4th October 1981. The rein- forced-concrete monument is covered by stainless steel panels. The interior hous- es a museum with a permanent exhibition on the People’s Liberation Struggle in the region, while the surroundings were laid out as a recreation complex. A view towards Slovenia, Bosnia, and Zagreb opens from the roof terrace. The construc- tion was very demanding due to the complex design and the remoteness of the site, which first had to be equipped with infrastructure (road, electricity, and wa- ter). The project was funded with public and private donations, as well as with a loan which Yugoslavia raised from the International Monetary Fund. The blue- prints for Bakić’s sculptural design were drafted by architect Berislav Šerbetić. The building is a 37 m tall concrete structure clad in panels made from stainless steel imported from Sweden and arranged in five layers undulating lengthwise. From the car park and the visitor centre, a long flight of steps leads to the building. The interior with a floor area of 3000 sqm initially featured a 250-seat congress hall, a library, a reading room, a café, and a museum. In the 1990s, the monument was forgotten, and in subsequent decades, building parts as well as historical muse- um- and archive objects were completely destroyed by vandals. The destruction of the monument has not yet reached its maximum extent as the local population continues to remove the stainless steel panels. 156 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Pot spominov in tovarištva • Ljubljana, Slovenija • Arhitekt faze 1, 1957–1962: Vlasto Kopač • Kipar: Božo Pengov • Arhitekti faze 2, 1972–1985: Mitja Omersa, Franc Kastelic, Jože Štoka • Arhitekt faze 3, 1985, 2016: Janez Koželj s sodelavci • Material: narava, beton, pesek • Status: kulturni spomenik državnega pomena • Fotografije: Virginia Vrecl, Miran Kambič, Janez Koželj • Besedilo: Janez Koželj Trail of Remembrance and Comradeship • Ljubljana, Slovenia • Architect for Phase 1, 1957–1962: Vlasto Kopač • Sculptor: Božo Pengov • Architects for Phase 2, 1972–1985: Mitja Omersa, Franc Kastelic, Jože Štoka • Architect for Phase 3, 1985, 2016: Janez Koželj with collaborators • Material: nature, concrete, sand • Status: cultural monument of national importance • Photographs: Virginia Vrecl, Miran Kambič, Janez Koželj • Text: Janez Koželj 31_ PST, POT, LJUBLJANA, 1957–1962, 1972–1985, 1985, 2016 Vlasto Kopač, Božo Pengov, Mitja Omersa, Franc Kastelic, Jože Štoka, Janez Koželj SLO 157arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Pot spominov in tovarištva (PST oz. POT) je kulturnozgodovinski spomenik iz oblikovane narave – 32,5 km dolga pešpot okoli Ljubljane po trasi utrjene bodeče žice, ki je v letih 1942–1945 obdajala mesto. Žične ovire je postavila italijanska vojska z namenom, da osami odporniško gibanje v mestu in prepreči njegove stike z okolico. V sestavi obrambnega obroča je bilo 206 bunkerjev, utrjenih stražarnic, postojank in blokov. POT vodi po stanovanjskih soseskah, pod drevoredi, po poljih in travnikih ter skozi gozdove Golovca. Ljubljana ima v zgodovini druge svetovne vojne posebno mesto, saj je bilo le malo okupiranih mest spremenjenih v množič- ni zapor. Prek utrjenega in močno zastraženega obroča so po skrivnih prehodih ilegalno prehajali ranjeni borci, partizani in aktivisti Osvobodilne fronte. Zato je pot ob nekdanji žici spomenik upora prebivalstva proti okupatorju v želji po svo- bodi – spomenik, ki ga lahko primerjamo z berlinskim zidom. Traso poti je po sle- deh nekdanje žičnate ograde leta 1957 zakoličil arhitekt Vlasto Kopač, leta 1959 pa so po njegovih načrtih na nadzorne točke prehodov ob vpadnicah postavili šest kamnitih obeliskov z reliefi kiparja Boža Pengova. Do leta 1962 so na mestih poru- šenih bunkerjev postavili še sto dva spominska kamna z napisi. V letih 1972–1985 sta na trasi žice potekali gradnja pešpoti in saditev drevoredov po načrtih arhitek- tov Mitje Omerse, Franca Kastelica in Jožeta Štoke. Leta 1985 so po načrtih celo- stne ureditve POTI arhitekta Janeza Koželja in njegovih sodelavcev postavili spo- minske jambore, smerokaze in informacijske table, izvedli rekonstrukcije ostalin bunkerjev in postavili obeležje prve postavitve žične ovire. Pot spominov in tova- rištva je skupinski projekt največjega zgodovinskega spomenika v mestu. Je tudi najmočnejša prvina njegove prepoznavnosti, saj so ga Ljubljančani večinoma zgra- dili sami, s prostovoljnim delom. Nekdaj vojni spomenik se je z leti preoblikoval v javno dobrino, v enkraten, vsem dostopen prostor za druženje in rekreacijo v ze- lenju. POT je živ, nedokončan projekt; pešpot, zelenje, opremo in objekte ob njej vzdržujejo in neprestano obnavljajo: nekateri njeni elementi so bolj, drugi manj obstojni, nekateri materiali terjajo več, drugi manj vzdrževanja, tudi različne vrste drevja niso enako občutljive in imajo različno življenjsko dobo. Poleg tega se POT dopolnjuje z novimi ureditvami, počivališči, igrišči in otoki športa, saj je njen po- tencial neizčrpen. Ohranjanje in vzdrževanje sklenjenega zelenega obroča je nuj- no, da lahko spomenik v zelenem sistemu mesta opravlja svojo družbeno in okolj- sko funkcijo, saj obsega četrtino vseh njegovih parkovnih površin. The Trail of Remembrance and Comradeship (Slovene: Pot spominov in tovarištva, POT) is a cultural and historical monument constituted of ordered nature - a 32.5 km hiking trail around Ljubljana following the perimeter of fortified barbed wire which surrounded the city between 1942 and 1945. The wire obstacle was installed by the Fascist armed forces in order to isolate the resistance movement in the city and prevent it from establishing contact with the surroundings. The defence ring comprised 206 bunkers, fortified sentry boxes, stations, and blocks. The POT, in places lined with trees, leads through residential neighbourhoods, fields and meadows, and through a forest across hill Golovec. Ljubljana holds a special place in the history of World War 2 as there were not many cities which were turned into mass prisons. Wounded fighters, Partisans, and Liberation Front agents passed il- legally through the fortified and heavily guarded ring using secret passages. The trail along the former wire fence is thus a monument to the population’s rebellion against the occupiers and its desire for freedom, and as such comparable to the Berlin Wall. The perimeter of the former wire fence was marked out in 1957 by architect Vlasto Kopač. According to his designs, six stone obelisks with relief work by sculptor Božo Pengov were erected at the checkpoints by the arterial roads in 1959. By 1962, 102 inscribed memorial stone columns were installed at the sites of demolished bunkers. Between 1972 and 1985, hiking trail development and tree planting as designed by architects Mitja Omersa, Franc Kastelic, and Jože Štoka took place. In 1985, a comprehensive regulation of the POT by architect Janez Koželj and his collaborators included the erection of memorial masts, installation of signposts and information plaques, the reconstruction of the remains of bunkers, and the installation of a memorial to the first laying of the wire obstacle. The Trail of Remembrance and Comradeship is a group project of the largest historical mon- ument on the city. This is also a major factor in its distinction as the people of Lju- bljana mostly built it themselves by means of voluntary labour. Through the years, the former wartime memorial was transformed into a public good - a unique space for socialising and recreation in greenery, accessible to everyone. The POT is a living project that is forever unfinished, which is why the hiking trail, the greenery, the equipment, and the facilities by the trail are maintained and continuously reno- vated: some elements of the POT are more durable than others, some materials require more maintenance and some less, and not even all species of trees are equally resilient and have different life spans. Furthermore, the POT is augmented by new layouts, rest areas, playgrounds, and sporting areas - its potential is limit- less. Preserving and maintaining the contiguous green ring is vital in order for the monument to be able to perform its social and environmental function in the green system of the city, accounting as it does for a quarter of all of its park surfaces. 158 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 32_ TREBJESA, NIKŠIĆ, 1987 Ljubomir Ljubo Vojvodić MNE Spomenik borcem, padlim v drugi svetovni vojni • Nikšić, Črna gora • Arhitekt: Ljubomir Ljubo Vojvodić • Material: beton, kamen • Status: zaščiteno spominsko obeležje • Fotografije: Lazar Pejović • Besedilo: Slavica Stamatović Memorial to World War 2 fighters killed in action • Nikšić, Montenegro • Architect: Ljubomir Ljubo Vojvodić • Material: concrete, black granite panels • Status: protected memorial site • Photographs: Lazar Pejović • Text: Slavica Stamatović 159arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spomenik pod Trebjeso je bil postavljen v spomin na več kot 1500 padlih parti- zanskih borcev z območja občine Nikšić (od 11.000, kolikor jih je sodelovalo v tamkajšnjih partizanskih enotah). Stoji v neposredni bližini kraja, kjer so 9. maja 1942 italijanski vojaki ubili 32 borcev za svobodo. Izdelan je bil po načrtu arhitek- ta Ljubomirja Ljuba Vojvodića. Odprt je bil leta 1987, ob 44. obletnici osvobodi- tve Nikšića (18. septembra 1943). Je eden najbolj impresivnih in prepoznavnih spomenikov druge svetovne vojne na območju Črne gore. Dominantna ekspre- sivna skulpturalna plastika iz vidnega betona, visoka okoli 12 m, stoji v središču krožnega podstavka iz črnega granita, v katerega so vklesane letnice in imena ubitih. Podstavek je z nekaj stopnicami dvignjen nad nivo terena. Osnovni estet- sko-simbolični oblikovni motiv je »petkotnik v krogu«, ornamentalno stilizirana peterokraka zvezda, ki se pojavi tako v najznačilnejšem detajlu spomenika – be- tonskem disku premera 3 m – kot v podnožju. Poševni elementi, ki nosijo prepo- znavni betonski disk, in vertikalne kanelure v betonu ustvarjajo dinamiko. Celo- tna kompozicija ima večplastno simboliko: asociira na ptico z zvezanimi krili, ki ji ni uspelo poleteti, oziroma na ugasla življenja ubitih. Spomenik je še danes sim- bol protifašističnega boja mesta Nikšić in njegove novejše zgodovine. Umeščen je v športno-rekreacijski park in obiskujejo ga večinoma lokalni prebivalci. Ob pomembnejših zgodovinskih obletnicah mesta in države pa se spominu na do- godke poklonijo uradni obiskovalci, predvsem člani zveze borcev NOB in protifa- šisti Nikšića. Parkovni gozd Trebjesa velikosti 156 hektarjev je od leta 2000 zašči- ten kot posebno naravno območje. The monument under Trebjesa was erected in memory of more than 1,500 Partisan fighters from the Nikšić area killed in action in World War 2, out of 11,000 members of the Partisan units. It stands immediately adjacent to the site where on 9th May 1942, Fascist soldiers executed 32 freedom fighters. The mon- ument was produced after the design by architect Ljubomir Ljubo Vojvodić and was unveiled in 1987, on the 43rd anniversary of the liberation of Nikšič on 18th September 1943. It ranks as one of the most impressive and recognisable World War 2 monuments in the territory of Montenegro. The dominant expressive sculpture made from visible concrete, approximately 12 m in height, stands in the centre of a circular black granite base engraved with the names and dates of those killed. The base is elevated above the terrain level by means of several steps. The principal aesthetic and symbolic visual motif is a “pentangle in a cir- cle”, an ornamentally stylised five-pointed star, which appears both in the monu- ment’s most characteristic detail, the concrete disc with a diameter of 3 m, and in the base. The slanting elements which bear the distinctive concrete disc, and the vertical flutes in the concrete generate the dynamics. The composition as a whole features complex symbolism - it evokes an image of a bird with bound wings which couldn’t take off, or the extinguished lives of those killed. To this day, the monument represents a symbol of antifascist struggle of the city of Nikšić and its latter-day history. Sited in a sports and recreation park, it is visited daily, predominantly by the local population. On the occasions of important city and state anniversaries, it receives official visitors commemorating the events, especially the members of the Union of Veterans of the National Liberation Struggle, and Nikšić’s antifascists. From the year 2000, the park forest Trebjesa, measuring 156 ha, is under protection as a special nature area. 160 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. / Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. 33_ ŠID, 1988 Miroslav Krstonošić, Jovan Soldatović, Milan Sapundžić VOJ Spominsko obeležje sremske fronte • Adaševci, Šid, Vojvodina • Arhitekt: Miroslav Krstonošić • Kipar: Jovan Soldatović • Krajinski arhitekt: Milan Sapundžić • Material: opeka, les, voda, mavec • Status: kulturni spomenik • Fotografije: Relja Ivanić • Besedilo: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović Memorial to the Syrmian Front • Adaševci, Šid, Vojvodina • Architect: Miroslav Krstonošić • Sculptor: Jovan Soldatović • Landscape architect: Milan Sapundžić • Material: brick, timber, water, plaster • Status: cultural monument • Photographs: Relja Ivanić • Text adapted by: Ljiljana Miletić Abramović 161arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 224 • 225 • 226 • 227 razstava / exhibition Spominsko obeležje sremske fronte je nastalo kot eden zadnjih velikih jugoslo- vanskih partizanskih memorialnih kompleksov. Postavljeno je bilo v spomin na borce narodnoosvobodilne vojske Jugoslavije in sovjetske Rdeče armade, ki so ob koncu druge svetovne vojne (boji so potekali od 21. oktobra 1944 do 13. apri- la 1945) prebili sremsko fronto na glavni zgodovinski obrambni črti fašistične Nemčije in Neodvisne države Hrvaške. Kompleks leži blizu vasi Adaševci na levem bregu reke Bosut, na površini 28 hektarjev, na 106. kilometru t. i. avtoceste brat- stva in enotnosti, ki je bila zgrajena leta 1950 in povezuje Beograd in Zagreb. Postavljen je bil ob obnovi avtoceste v osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja. Sestavljajo ga trije deli: Zbirališče, Aleja časti in muzej. Zbirališče oblikuje sedemdeset verti- kalnih opečnih zidov z vgrajenimi ploščami z imeni vseh vojaških enot, ki so sode- lovale v bojih na obrambni črti sremske fronte, in s tremi reliefi na mestu bojnih linij. Aleja časti stoji na črti preboja obrambne linije. Oblikovana je kot 40 metrov širok in 130 metrov dolg koridor, zarezan v tla v smeri vzhod–zahod. Vzdolž nje se vrstijo obeležja brigad in imena več deset tisoč padlih borcev osvobodilnih vojsk – Jugoslavije, Sovjetske zveze in Bolgarije. Spomenik tako prostorsko, simbolno, oblikovno in pomensko kot materialno oblikuje osupljivo vizualno kuliso, ki je v popolni harmoniji z ravninskim območjem lokacije. Kompleksna urbanistično-ar- hitekturna in kiparska rešitev spominskega kompleksa je bila izbrana z nateča- jem, predsednik žirije je bil priznani srbski arhitekt Bogdan Bogdanović (1922– 2010). Avtorji spominskega obeležja so akademski kipar Jovan Soldatović (1920– 2005), arhitekt Miroslav Krstonošić (r. 1932) in krajinski arhitekt Milan Sapundžić (1925–2006). Spominski kompleks je bil v devetdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja med spopadi ob razpadu Jugoslavije zelo poškodovan. V obdobju med letoma 2003 in 2005 je bil delno obnovljen, a z zgraditvijo pravoslavne kapelice, ki se glede na kraj, kjer je bila zgrajena, pa tudi glede na obliko in slog ne ujema s prostorskim kontekstom in prvotno avtorsko vizijo spomenika, tudi bistveno spremenjen. Čeprav je bilo spominsko obeležje sremske fronte razglašeno za kul- turni spomenik, je njegovo vzdrževanje prepuščeno lokalni skupnosti. The memorial to the Syrmian Front is one of the final major Yugoslav Partisan memorial complexes. It was built in memory of the killed fighters of the People’s Liberation Army of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Red Army who broke through the Syrmian Front on the main historical defence line of Nazi Germany and the Inde- pendent State of Croatia at the end of World War 2 (the fighting took place be- tween 21st October 1944 and 13th April 1945). The complex is located near vil- lage Adaševci on the left bank of the river Bosut, at kilometre 106 of the Brother- hood and Unity Highway linking Belgrade and Zagreb, constructed in 1950. It was built concurrent with the highway’s renovation in the 1980s. It comprises three parts: the Gathering Area, the Promenade of Honour, and the Museum. The Gathering Area is formed by seventy vertical brick walls containing plaques with the names of all military units who took part in the fighting on the Syrmian Front defence line, while the actual sites of the battle lines feature three reliefs. The Promenade of Honour is sited at the line of penetration through the Syrmian Front defence line and designed as a 40 m wide and 13 m long corridor cut into the ground with an east-west orientation. Along the alley, there are memorials for the various brigades and the names of several tens of thousands of killed liberation army fighters, i.e. the Yugoslav Army, Red Army, and the Bulgarian Army. Spatially, symbolically, visually, materially, as well as in terms of its mean- ing, the monument forms a breathtaking visual backdrop that is in perfect har- mony with the lowland area of the site. The complex urbanist-architectural and sculptural solution of the memorial complex was chosen in a competition with the jury presided by the acclaimed Yugoslav and Serbian architect Bogdan Bogdanović (b. 1922, d. 2010). Authors of the memorial are sculptor Jovan Soldatović (b. 1920, d. 2005), architect Miroslav Krstonosić (b. 1932), and land- scape architect Milan Sapundžić (b. 1925, d. 2006). In the 1990s, the memorial complex suffered extensive damage during armed clashes which caused the break-up of Yugoslavia. Between 2003 and 2005, the complex was partially reno- vated, but also significantly altered with the construction of an Orthodox chapel which is in terms of the site where it was erected, as well as visually and stylisti- cally at odds with the spatial context and original creative vision of the monu- ment. Despite the memorial to the Syrmian Front having been declared a cul- tural monument, the maintenance was relegated to the local community. a b Sl ik a na n as lo vn ic i: Ko m pl ek s v sp om in p ad lim b or ce m re vo lu ci je , Š tip , M ak ed on ija , 1 97 4; a rh ite kt : B og da n Bo gd an ov ić ; f ot o: D am ja n M om iro vs ki Co ve r i m ag e: M em or ia l c om pl ex to th e fig ht er s o f t he R ev ol uti on , Š tip , M ac ed on ia , 1 97 4; a rc hi te ct : B og da n Bo gd an ov ić ; p ho to : D am ja n M om iro vs ki marec / March 2020 • letnik / anno LI ab arhitektov bilten • mednarodna revija za teorijo arhitekturearchitect’s bulletin • international mag. for the theory of architecture 224•225•226•227224 •225 •226 •2 2 7 a b • A r h i t e k t u r a . S k u l p t u r a . S p o m i n . • A r c h i t e c t u r e . S c u l p t u r e . R e m e m b r a n c e . • m a r e c / M a r c h 2 0 2 0 • L I Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991 / The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991 Arhitektura. Skulptura. Spomin. Architecture. Sculpture. Remembrance. Umetnost spomenikov Jugoslavije 1945–1991 / The Art of Monuments of Yugoslavia 1945–1991Miha Dešman ... Še vedno aktualno sporočilo spomenikov je, da moramo, kot umetniki ali kot uporab- niki, gledati na svet v širši časovnosti, da nam umetnost izrazi celoto sveta, ne zgolj umetnika samega. ... The monuments’ still-current message is to view the world - as artists or as users - in a broader temporality in order for art to express to us the totality of the world, not just the artist themselves. Boštjan Bugarič ... [...] umetniška arhitekturna in kiparska dela, ki opominjajo na pozabljena življenja in nas spodbujajo, da namesto ponavljajočih se napak iz preteklosti vzpostavimo drugačen dialog. ... [...] the exhibited artistic architectural and sculpture works act as reminders of forgot- ten lives and encourage us to establish a different kind of dialogue rather than repeat past mistakes. Gojko Zupan ... Razvoj javnih spomenikov in javnega prostora nenehno dodaja nove oblike in pomene; zato ne obstaja ena sama, popolna definicija, ki bi zaobjela vse pomene in podpomene spomenika. ... In the development of public monuments and public space, new forms and meanings are continually added; consequently, there is no single and ultimate definition to encompass all mean- ings and sub-meanings of a monument. Boštjan Bugarič / Vladimir Kulić ... [...] pomembno vprašanje: kaj nam zapuščeni protifašistični spo- meniki pomenijo danes? ... [...] What do these derelict antifascist monuments mean for us today? Martin Reichert / Sanja Horvatinčić ... Spomeniki so predstavljali identiteto, katere meje so presega- le kategorijo nacionalnega, ker je bila Jugoslavija večnacionalna federacija, medtem ko sta protifaši- zem in socialistična revolucija mednarodna politična koncepta. ... They did shape an identity, but its boundaries went beyond the category of the national, because Yugoslavia was a multinational federation, whereas antifascism and the socialist revo lution are international political concepts. Andrej Strehovec / Jelica Jovanović ... Na spomenike po mojem mnenju sploh ne bi smeli gledati kot na izolirano tipologijo modernistične arhitekture. Njihova posebnost je le ta, da je bilo pri njihovem oblikovanju več avtorske svobode. Sicer pa so izhajali iz istega družbenega sistema, ki je ust varjal tudi vse druge arhitekturne in urbanistične tipologije, avtorji pa so pri vseh izkoriščali priložnosti, strokov- ne prijeme in tehnične možnosti, ki so bili v tem sistemu na voljo. ... In my opinion, monuments shouldn’t even be regarded as an isolated typology of modernist architecture. Their only distinction is that there was more artistic free- dom in their design. Other wise, they originate in the same social system which created all other archi- tectural and urban typologies, and with all of them, their authors took advantage of the opportunities, techniques, and technical possibilities available within that system. Sonja Leboš ... [...] brutalni val desemantizacije, desemiotizacije in v končni fazi depolitizacije jugoslo- vanskih spomenikov ter jih zvede na pojem pitoresk nega, slikovitega, živopisnega (gre za sopomenke, pri katerih pa moramo razmisliti o skupni semantični teži oziroma neznosni lahkosti tega pojma). ... [...] brutal wave of desemantisation, desemiotisation, and ultimately depoliticisation of Yugoslav monuments, which he reduces to the notion of picturesque, scenic, colourful (these synonyms compel us to consider the combined semantic weight, or rather the unbearable lightness, of this notion). Andrej Hrausky ... Plečnik je iz komisije sicer izstopil, zato pa je na šoli s pomočjo svojih učencev pričel risati osnutke spomenikov NOB. Iz vse Slovenije so se v Ljubljano stekali predstavniki okrajnih odborov z osnutki in mnoge je komisija zavrnila. Kmalu pa se je razvedelo, da na šoli za arhitekturo profesor Plečnik izdeluje načrte, ki vedno dobijo soglasje sicer stroge komisije. ... Though he resigned from the committee, Plečnik began to prepare drafts of NOB mon- uments at the school together with his students. Representatives of district committees flocked to Ljublja- na from far and wide, presenting their own drafts, and many were rejected by the commission.